text
stringlengths 4
2.78M
| meta
dict |
|---|---|
---
abstract: 'Recently the AGILE $\gamma$-ray telescope has reported the enhanced $\gamma$-ray emission above 100 MeV from the direction of the Crab Nebula during a period of a few days. This intriguing observation has been confirmed by the Fermi-LAT telescope. This emission does not show evidences of pulsations with the Crab pulsar. It seems that it originates at the shock region created as a result of the interaction of the pulsar wind with the nebula. We propose that such variable $\gamma$-ray emission originate in the region behind the shock when the electrons can be accelerated as a result of the reconnection of the magnetic field compressed by the decelerating pulsar wind. The natural consequence of such interpretation is the prediction that the Crab Nebula $\gamma$-ray spectrum produced by electrons as a result of the inverse Compton scattering of soft radiation to multi-TeV energies should also show synchronous variability on the time scales as observed at GeV energies by the AGILE and Fermi-LAT telescopes. We calculate how the end of the IC component of the Crab Nebula $\gamma$-ray spectrum should look like during the quiescent and the flare GeV $\gamma$-ray emission. We conclude that the variability of the multi-TeV $\gamma$-ray spectrum from the Crab Nebula might in principle be responsible for the differences between the spectral features reported by the HEGRA and HESS Collaborations at the multi-TeV energies.'
author:
- |
W. Bednarek & W. Idec\
Department of Astrophysics, University of Łódź, ul. Pomorska 149/153, 90-236 Łódź, Poland\
[email protected]; [email protected]
date: 'Accepted . Received ; in original form '
title: 'On the variability of the GeV and multi-TeV gamma-ray emission from the Crab Nebula'
---
\[firstpage\]
neutron stars: nebulae — individual: Crab Nebula — radiation mechanisms: non-thermal — gamma-rays: theory
Introduction
============
The Crab Nebula $\gamma$-ray emission has been established as a standard candle for the $\gamma$-ray astronomy (e.g. Meyer et al. 2010). This conclusion based mainly on the observations at energy ranges between $\sim 100$ MeV and a few GeV (satellite telescopes) and between $\sim 100$ GeV and $\sim 10$ TeV (Cherenkov telescopes). The theoretical interpretation of the emission from the Crab Nebula suggests that this may not be exactly the case. The $\gamma$-ray spectrum is widely interpreted in the two component radiation model in which the lower energy emission is due to the synchrotron process and the higher energy emission results as a consequence of the Inverse Compton (IC) process. It has been argued that the ends of the synchrotron and IC components can flicker due to the non-stationary acceleration of leptons at the pulsar wind shock. First evidences of the variability of the end of synchrotron component has been reported based on the analysis of the EGRET data (de Jager et al. 1996, Ramanamurthy et al. 1995). Also situation has not been clear at the highest observer energies (above $\sim 10$ TeV), where some measurements seemed to be contradictory (Aharonian et al. 2004, Aharonian et al. 2006).
The spectrum from the Crab Nebula at energies 100-400 MeV is very steep, with the differential spectral index close to 4 (Abdo et al. 2010). It cuts off at about $\sim 100$ MeV, i.e. at clearly larger energies than previously reported $\sim 25$ MeV cut-off derived from the EGRET measurements (Kuiper et al. 2001). On the other hand, the $\gamma$-ray spectrum at GeV energies is very flat linking correctly with the TeV spectrum measured by the Cherenkov telescopes (e.g. Albert et al. 2008). Unexpectedly, the AGILE telescope has recently reported an enhanced $\gamma$-ray emission above $100$ MeV from the Crab Nebula by a factor of 2-3 during September 19-21, 2010 in respect to steady emission (Tavani et al. 2010, 2011). This observation has been confirmed by the Fermi-LAT telescope which observed enhanced $\gamma$-ray emission during the interval September 18-22, 2010 (Buehler et al. 2010, Abdo et al. 2011). The $\gamma$-ray flux reached the value of $(606\pm 43)\times 10^{-8}$ ph. cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ above 100 MeV. The flaring component has a differential spectral index $2.49\pm 0.14$ and is coincident with the Crab Nebula. The flare consists from three separated enhancements lasting 6-12 hours (Balbo et al. 2010). The lack of pulsed emission suggests that the flare is probably related to the Crab Nebula rather than the pulsar (Hays et al. 2010).
The enhanced $\gamma$-ray emission at about 1 TeV has been also reported by the ARGO-YBJ air shower array (Aielli et al. 2010). This flaring component extends up to September 27th 2010, i.e. it lasts a few days longer than the 100 MeV emission reported by the satellite telescopes. The flux measured during the time interval September 17-22nd, 2010 was about 3-4 time higher than usual. Unfortunately, this enhanced emission has not been confirmed by the observations of the MAGIC (Mariotti et al. 2010) and VERITAS Collaborations (Ong et al. 2010).
The increased optical emission about 3 arcsec east of the Crab pulsar and from the wisp north-west of the pulsar has been reported by the Hubble Space Telescope (Caraveo et al. 2010). This corresponds to the brightening of this same region in the X-rays as reported by the Chandra observations (Tennant et al. 2010). However, other X-ray telescopes have not reported any significant change in the Crab Nebula spectrum and morphology (Sakamoto et al. 2010, Shaposhnikov et al. 2010). Moreover, no any glitch of the Crab pulsar has been noted during the last 60 days before the $\gamma$-ray flare (Espinoza et al. 2010).
In this paper we investigate the hypothesis that the variable $\gamma$-ray emission above $100$ MeV is due to the synchrotron radiation from electrons which are accelerated near the pulsar wind shock region to different maximum energies. We expect that variable GeV $\gamma$-ray emission should be accompanied by the variable $\gamma$-ray emission above a few TeV from the Inverse Compton process. Discovery of such variable emission by the present Cherenkov telescopes (HESS, MAGIC, VERITAS) and the future Cherenkov Telescope Array (CTA) will allow to constrain the physical processes at the acceleration site and investigate the connections between the pulsar and the nebula. Note that recently Komissarov & Lyutikov (2010) proposed the localization of the $\gamma$-ray flare emission region with the compact inner knot, based on their recent results on relativistic MHD simulations of the Crab nebula.
A scenario for variable emission from the Crab Nebula
=====================================================
The variability time scale of the $\gamma$-ray emission on the level of days can be understood assuming that the emission comes only from a part of the pulsar wind shock. Therefore, either only a small region of the axially symmetric pulsar wind shock is excited or the emission region is moving relativistically towards the observer. The axial symmetry of the pulsar wind (with the axis parallel to the rotational axis of the pulsar) is consistent with the observations of the jet-torus morphology of the Crab Nebula (e.g. Hester 2008) and with the MHD simulations of the pulsar wind structure (Komissarov & Lyubarsky 2003). The first hypothesis seems unlikely since the wisp regions have already extensions which are larger than the light travel distance scale corresponding to 3-4 day time scale variability. Here we consider the second hypothesis in which the $\gamma$-ray emission region is related to the shock region which still moves with substantial Lorentz factor, $\gamma_{\rm sh}$, in the outward direction from the pulsar. This might be the region in the pulsar wind which is in the process of being decelerated at the pulsar wind shock region. It is expected that in this region efficient reconnection process of the pulsar wind magnetic field can occur. As a result, good conditions are produced for acceleration of particles to the highest possible energies. The first wisps in the Crab Nebula appear at the distance of $R_{\rm sh}\sim 7\times 10^{16}$ cm from the pulsar (Caraveo et al. 2010). In fact, recent optical observations of the wisp confirm its variability which may be related to the observed $\gamma$-ray variability by the AGILE and Fermi.
The observed day time scale $\gamma$-ray variability allows to constrain $\gamma_{\rm sh}$. We assume that emission extends along the axially symmetric shock structure as observed in the Crab Nebula and expected from the MHD simulations (Komissarov & Lyubarsky 2003). The turbulence which arrive to the shock is relatively thin, i.e. it is thinner than the light crossing time scale multiplied by the Lorentz factor of the emission region. The distant observer is able to detect emission only from a part of the shock with the opening angle $\alpha$ (see Fig. 1). Based on such scenario we can estimate $\sin\alpha$ on, $$\begin{aligned}
\sin\alpha\approx
\sqrt{(c\tau_{\rm v}/R_{\rm sh})^2 + 2(c\tau_{\rm v}/R_{\rm sh})}.
\label{eq1}\end{aligned}$$ Produced radiation is collimated within the angle $\alpha$ for the Lorentz factor of the shock of the order of, $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma_{\rm sh}\sim 1/\alpha\approx \sqrt{R_{\rm sh}/(2c\tau_{\rm v})},
\label{eq2}\end{aligned}$$ provided that the variability time scale of the $\gamma$-ray emission is $\tau_{\rm v} << R_{\rm sh}/c$. In the case of the Crab Nebula shock with dimension $R_{\rm sh} = 7\times 10^{16}$ cm, the minimum Lorentz factor of the emission region should be of the order of $\gamma_{\rm sh}\approx 3.7\tau_{\rm d}^{-1/2}$ where $\tau_{\rm v} = 1\tau_{\rm d}$ days. We conclude that for the sub-day time scale variability (as observed in $\gamma$-rays by the Fermi-LAT telescope, Balbo et al. 2010), the Lorentz factor of the emission region in the shock has to be at least mildly relativistic. We suggest that the variable $\gamma$-ray emission observed from the Crab Nebula comes from a part of the pulsar wind which is just behind the shock and still moves with relativistic velocities.
5.2truecm
We constrain the physical parameters of the emission region in the fluid frame (in which the electric field vanishes) based on the observations. This reference frame moves towards the observer with the Lorentz factor $\gamma_{\rm f}$. We consider relativistic electrons with characteristic Lorentz factors $\gamma_{\rm br}^{\rm f}$ in the fluid reference frame which are immersed in the perpendicular magnetic field with the strength in the fluid frame $B_{\rm f}$. The synchrotron spectrum from the Crab Nebula extends up to a hundred MeV, showing a break at, $\varepsilon_{\rm obs}\sim$100 MeV, during the quiescent stage (Abdo et al. 2010). This break can be related to a break in the electron spectrum according to, $$\begin{aligned}
\varepsilon^{\rm syn}_{\rm br}\approx m_{\rm e}(B_{\rm f}/B_{\rm cr})(\gamma_{\rm br}^{\rm f})^2\approx \varepsilon_{\rm obs}/\gamma_{\rm f},
\label{eq3}\end{aligned}$$ where the critical magnetic field is $B_{\rm cr}\approx 4.4\times 10^{13}$ G, and $m_{\rm e}$ is the electron rest mass. Applying the above value for the break in the synchrotron spectrum, $\varepsilon_{\rm obs}$, we get the constraint on the product of the magnetic field strength within the emission region and the Lorentz factor of radiating electrons, $$\begin{aligned}
B_{\rm f}(\gamma_{\rm br}^{\rm f})^2\approx 8.8\times 10^{15}/\gamma_{\rm f}~~~{\rm G}.
\label{eq4}\end{aligned}$$ On the other hand, the $\gamma$-ray flare observed by the AGILE and the Fermi telescopes lasted for a few days and show a clear variability on a sub-day time scale, $\tau_{\rm obs}$ (Balbo et al. 2010). The duration of the flare has to be comparable (or longer) to the cooling time scale of electrons on the synchrotron process in the fluid frame, $\tau_{\rm syn}^{\rm cool}\approx \tau_{\rm obs}\gamma_{\rm f}$. By comparing these two time scales, we get the lower limit on, $$\begin{aligned}
B_{\rm f}^2\gamma_{\rm br}^{\rm f}\approx 6.5\times 10^3/(\tau_{\rm d}\gamma_{\rm f})~~~{\rm G^2}.
\label{eq5}\end{aligned}$$ These two conditions allows us to estimate the magnetic field strength at the acceleration region in the fluid frame on, $$\begin{aligned}
B_{\rm f} > 1.7\times 10^{-3}\tau_{\rm d}^{-2/3}\gamma_{\rm f}^{-1/3}~~~{\rm G}.
\label{eq6}\end{aligned}$$ The magnetic field strength in the observer’s frame is, $B_{\rm obs} = B_{\rm f}\gamma_{\rm f}$. For the variability time scale observed by the Fermi (of the order of 0.5 day, Balbo et al. 2010), we obtain the lower limit on $B_{\rm f}\approx 2.7\times 10^{-3}\gamma_{\rm f}^{-1/3}\approx 1.6\times 10^{-3}$ G, assuming that $\gamma_{\rm f} = \gamma_{\rm sh}$. The magnetic field as seen from the observer reference frame is estimated on $B_{\rm obs}\approx 8.4\times 10^{-3}$ G. On the other hand, a simple extrapolation of the magnetic field from the Crab pulsar surface up to the location of the first optical wisps in the Crab Nebula allows to estimate their magnetic field strength. We assume a dipole magnetic field structure in the pulsar inner magnetosphere below the light cylinder radius, $B(R_{\rm LC}) = B_{\rm NS}(R_{\rm NS}/R_{\rm LC})^3$, and a toroidal structure in the pulsar wind, $B(R) = B(R_{\rm LC})(R_{\rm LC}/R)$, where the surface magnetic field of the Crab pulsar $B_{\rm NS} = 6\times 10^{12}$ G, the light cylinder radius $R_{\rm LC} = cP_{\rm NS}/(2\pi)\approx 1.6\times 10^8$ cm, $B(R_{\rm LC})\approx 1.5\times 10^6$ G is the magnetic field strength at the light cylinder, the Crab pulsar rotational period is $P_{\rm NS} = 33$ ms, and $c$ is the velocity of light. The distance of the optical wisp from the pulsar is $R_{\rm wisp}\approx 7\times 10^{16}$ cm, estimated from the angular distance of 3 arcsec (Caraveo et al. 2010), and for the distance to the Crab Nebula of 1650 pc. This wisp has been recently reported as showing optical variability. Then, the magnetic field strength at the distance of the wisp is $B_{\rm wisp} = B(R_{\rm LC})(R_{\rm LC}/R_{\rm wisp})\sim 3.5\times 10^{-3}$ G. This estimate of the magnetic field fits well to the above estimate based on the variability time scale of the $\gamma$-ray emission.
In any way, this lower limit is significantly larger than the magnetic field strength within the whole volume of the Crab Nebula estimated on $\sim 10^{-4}$ G. Such low values of the magnetic field has been already predicted based on the spherically symmetric MHD model developed by Kennel & Coroniti (1984). They have been successfully applied in modelling of the multiwavelength non-thermal emission from the Crab Nebula in terms of the popular Synchrotron self-Compton model (see e.g., de Jager & Harding 1992, Atoyan & Aharonian 1995, or recently Meyer, Horns & Zechlin 2010). The discrepancy between the magnetic field values estimated for the inner wisp and the whole Crab Nebula can be naturally understood in terms of the recent axially symmetric MHD model discussed by Komissarov & Lyutikov (2010). In this model the observed features in the inner part of the Crab Nebula (i.e. the inner knot and possibly also the wisp regions) are created by parts of the pulsar wind shock which lays significantly closer to the pulsar than the equatorial part of the pulsar wind shock. Therefore, the magnetic field strength at the considered by us the wisp region can be much stronger in respect to the whole nebula. The wisp region is quite extended but for the $\gamma$-ray flaring might be responsible only a part of this region which is more directed towards the observer (see Fig 1). The possible variability of the pulsar wind termination shock (discovered in MHD simulations by Camus et al. 2009) can be responsible for the change of conditions in the acceleration region directed towards the observer at the Earth.
Acceleration of electrons
=========================
In general, the variable emission at the GeV energies observed from the Crab Nebula might be due to the change in the magnetic field strength at the acceleration site or the change of the plasma conditions which determines the acceleration process. Its influence on the acceleration of particles is usually described by the so called acceleration parameter. We limit our considerations only to the second case since it is difficult to imagine situation in which the magnetic field, which source lays in the pulsar, can change significantly on a time scale of a few days in the pulsar wind.
The problem is how electrons can be accelerated to considered energies in the classical acceleration processes in such a relatively strong magnetic field. In the case of the shock acceleration scenario or acceleration in a turbulent region, the maximum Lorentz factors of electrons are limited by the synchrotron energy losses to $\gamma_{\rm max}\approx 10^9(\chi_{-1}/B_{-3})^{1/2}$, where $\chi = 0.1\chi_{-1}$ is the acceleration coefficient, and the magnetic field strength at the acceleration site is defined in the shock reference frame. It is scaled with $B = 10^{-3}B_{-3}$ G. This limit has been obtained from the comparison of the energy gains of electrons from the shock acceleration mechanism, ${\dot P_{\rm acc}} = \chi E_{\rm e}/R_{\rm L}$, with their synchrotron energy losses, ${\dot P_{\rm syn}} = (4/3)\sigma_{\rm T}(B^2/8\pi)\gamma^2$, where $E_{\rm e} = m_{\rm e}\gamma_{\rm e}$ is the energy of electrons, $R_{\rm L}$ is the Larmor radius of electrons, and $\sigma_{\rm T}$ is the Thomson cross section.
The maximum energies of synchrotron photons produced by electrons with the Lorentz factors, $\gamma_{\rm e}$, are independent on the magnetic field strength. They can be estimated from $\varepsilon_{\rm max}\approx 11\chi_{-1}$ MeV (see Eq. 3). Note that the maximum energies of synchrotron photons produced by electrons accelerated in the shock scenario can not exceed $\sim 100$ MeV since $\chi\le 1$. This is also true in the case of relativistic shocks if considered in the shock reference frame (Kirk & Reville 2010). However, in the case of relativistic shocks these maximum energies observed in the rest frame can be enlarged by the Doppler factor of the shock as shown in the analytical calculations by Achterberg et al. (2001). Therefore, detection of synchrotron GeV emission from the Crab Nebula requires that the emission region moves towards the observer with the Doppler factor of the order of $\sim$10, consistent with the lower limit estimated in Sect. 2. On the other hand, Monte Carlo simulations of the acceleration of particles by the first order Fermi shocks propagating in a realistically modelled turbulent magnetic fields show that the process may not be efficient and the maximum energies of accelerated particles can be lower than expected in previous modellings (Niemiec & Ostrowski 2004, Niemiec, Ostrowski & Pohl 2006).
Another possibility, originally considered by Coroniti (1990) and Michel (1994), is the acceleration of electrons in the reconnection regions of the magnetic field in the pulsar wind before it reaches the shock region (e.g. Lyubarsky 1996, Lyubarsky & Kirk 2001, Kirk & Skjaeraasen 2003). In the case of acceleration in the reconnection regions (along the magnetic field lines), electron energy does not need to be limited by the synchrotron energy losses (Kirk 2004). Electrons are injected into the magnetic field of the pulsar wind zone producing synchrotron $\gamma$-rays with energies overcoming the synchrotron energy loss limit on the shock acceleration process mentioned above.
Due to the observed shape of the spectrum from the Crab Nebula, we assume that electrons reach the equilibrium spectrum which can be described by a differential power law spectrum with the characteristic cut-off at $\gamma_{\rm br}$, $dN/d\gamma_{\rm e} = \gamma^{-\beta}\exp(-\gamma/\gamma_{\rm br})$, where $\beta$ is the spectral index considered in the range 3.0-3.6 in order to be consistent with the observed synchrotron spectrum at energies below the break. Electrons with such equilibrium spectrum produce synchrotron photons up to GeV energies and also TeV $\gamma$-rays by scattering variety of soft radiation fields inside or close to their acceleration site. Between them the best defined is the Microwave Background Radiation (MBR). The level of the soft synchrotron emission produced by low energy electrons fulfilling the whole Crab Nebula can not be so well defined in the region of the acceleration of electrons close to the pulsar wind shock.
Gamma-rays from the Crab Nebula
===============================
The reported variability of a hundred MeV - GeV $\gamma$-ray emission from the Crab Nebula seems to be naturally interpreted as a result of the non-stationary acceleration of the end of the electron spectrum in the region when the pulsar wind interacts with the nebula. We propose that such emission variable on a short time scale likely comes from the region just behind the pulsar wind shock which still moves mildly relativistically. These electrons should produce synchrotron emission which sometimes can extend up to GeV energies. On the other hand, these same electrons can produce also variable multi-TeV $\gamma$-rays as a result of the inverse Compton scattering of the MBR and very low energy (in radio range) synchrotron radiation.
12.5truecm
We calculate the example spectra from the synchrotron process for different parameters of the electron spectra which potentially could be responsible for the observed variability of $\gamma$-ray emission reported by the AGILE and the Fermi telescopes. For these same parameters we also calculate the IC $\gamma$-ray spectra in order to show how the end of IC spectrum should vary at energies above 1 TeV. In the calculations we apply the full formulae from Blumenthal & Gould (1970). Only the well defined soft photon target have been taken into account when calculating the IC spectra, i.e. the MBR and synchrotron radiation from the nebula. In the case of the synchrotron radio emission, we applied the observations of the Crab Nebula in the GHz energies (Baars & Hartsuijker 1972). The differential photon spectrum of this emission is well described by a single power law with spectral index 1.26. This synchrotron differential photon density has been obtained by simple averaging over the whole volume of the nebula with the radius of 2 pc. We do not consider other possible low energy radiation fields such as the infrared radiation or the microwave radiation (see. e.g. Atoyan & Aharonian 1996). The photon densities of these other radiation fields is much more difficult to define preciously in the region of the pulsar wind shock. Moreover their contribution to the total IC $\gamma$-ray spectrum at multi TeV region seems to be less important in respect to the comptonization of the MBR and the radio synchrotron photons (e.g. Atoyan & Aharonian 1996).
At first, we model the steady synchrotron spectrum and the flare synchrotron spectrum by changing the maximum energies of accelerated electrons and keeping constant the magnetic field strength at the acceleration region which is fixed on $2\times 10^{-3}$ G. For this magnetic field strength electrons have to have Lorentz factors $\gamma_{\rm e} = 7\times 10^8$, in order to be consistent with the observations of the cut-off in the synchrotron spectrum during the quiescent state (see Fig. 2a). We also calculate the $\gamma$-ray spectra expected from electrons accelerated to maximum energies which might correspond to the emission during the recently observed flare, applying $\gamma_{\rm br} = 3\times 10^9$, and the supposed super-quiescent stage for which $\gamma_{\rm br} = 2.3\times 10^8$ (Fig. 2a). Electrons with the Lorentz factors corresponding to the quiescent stage scatter the MBR almost in the Klein-Nishina (KN) regime since the energy of the MBR from the peak of the Planck spectrum is equal to $\varepsilon^{\rm MBR}_{\rm EF} = 3kT\gamma_{\rm e}\approx m_{\rm e}$. On the other hand, scattering of synchrotron radio emission is regulated to the border between T-KN regimes, due to the power law spectrum of the synchrotron photons with the spectral index $1.26$. The synchrotron and IC spectra are calculated for the two spectral indexes of electron spectrum, 3.0 and 3.6 (see Fig. 2a,b, respectively). As expected the $\gamma$-ray emission produced by these electrons in the GeV and TeV energy ranges show clear correlations. However, the end of the TeV $\gamma$-ray spectrum from scattering of MBR and synchrotron radio emission vary on a lower level than the end of the synchrotron spectrum due to the IC scattering in (or close to) the Klein-Nishina regime. The change in the TeV $\gamma$-ray spectrum between the quiescent and flare states is substantial at energies above $\sim 10$ TeV. Moreover, the IC component, due to the scattering of the radio emission, is steeper and start to dominate at lower energies than the IC component from scattering of the MBR. The calculation of the level of the IC component from scattering of radio emission is less reliable due to the uncertain determination of the photon density of the radio synchrotron photons (produced in the outer nebula) in the region close to the pulsar shock.
In Fig. 2c, we also show the $\gamma$-ray spectra in the case of a very strong magnetic field at the emission region, equal to $B_{\rm sh} = 4\times 10^{-2}$ G, and a few values of the Lorentz factor of electrons at the break of their spectrum. Such strong magnetic field might appear as a result of the compression due to the decelerating pulsar wind. The Lorentz factors of electrons, producing radiation in the quiescent stage, should be of the order of $\gamma_{\rm br} = 2\times 10^8$. Then, the energies of the MBR photons at the peak of the spectrum are $\varepsilon^{\rm MBR}_{\rm EF}\approx 0.3m_{\rm e}$, i.e. the ICS of the MBR occurs still in the T regime. Therefore, the cut-offs in the IC spectrum calculated for the electron Lorentz factors corresponding to the quiescent and flaring stages clearly show stronger variability.
Discussion and Conclusion
=========================
We propose that the variable emission from the Crab nebula on a time scale of a few days, recently observed by the AGILE and the Fermi telescopes above 100 MeV, can be understood assuming that the emission region is moving mildly relativistically to the observer. We suggest that this $\gamma$-ray emission comes from the region just behind the shock in the pulsar wind. It could be produced by electrons accelerated to different maximum energies in the electric fields induced during the reconnection process of the magnetic field under the pressure exerted by the shocked wind. These highest energy electrons produce synchrotron radiation in the MeV-GeV energy range and also the IC $\gamma$-rays above $\sim 1$ TeV by scattering of the MBR and the low energy synchrotron radiation. The relative role of these two soft radiation fields in the ICS process is difficult to estimate due to the lack of precise knowledge on the density of the GHz radio photons at the acceleration site in the pulsar wind.
We consider different parameters describing the spectrum of injected electrons and compare them with the observations in the MeV-GeV and above 1 TeV energy ranges. The flaring stage might result either due to the change of the maximum energies of accelerated electrons (described by their Lorentz factors at the break of the power law spectrum) or the the change of the spectral index of electrons at the highest energies, or by both effects. The change of only the break energy in the electron spectrum results in the TeV $\gamma$-ray IC spectra which show rather low level of variability at energies above $\sim 10$ TeV. Therefore, in such a case it will be difficult to observe synchronous variations at the GeV and TeV energies even with the future Cherenkov Telescope Array (see Fig. 2). The situation is more promising in the case of the instantaneous change of the break energy in the electron spectrum with the flattening of the electron spectrum. In such a case, the clear variability of the IC spectrum through the broad range of the TeV energies could be detected. The possible discovery of flaring emission in the TeV energies will be easier in the case of significantly stronger magnetic field at the acceleration region. Then, the maximum energies of accelerated electrons can be lower and the IC scattering of the MBR could still occur in the Thomson regime. As a result, the end of IC spectrum should change quadratically with the change of energy of electrons.
The TeV $\gamma$-ray spectra calculated for the range of discussed parameters are compared with the best measurements of the Crab Nebula spectrum provided by the HEGRA (Aharonian et al. 2004) and the HESS (Aharonian et al. 2006). The HEGRA spectrum extends up to $\sim 80$ TeV showing no evidences of the cut-off. On the other hand, the HESS spectrum is steeper and shows a cut-off at clearly lower energies. Calculated by us TeV spectra from IC scattering of the MBR and synchrotron radio photons in the quiescent and flaring stages shows better consistency with the spectrum measured by the HEGRA Collaboration (Aharonian et al. 2004). The relatively steep TeV $\gamma$-ray spectrum reported by the HESS Collaboration (Aharonian et al. 2006) might be consistent with our calculations provided that it has been obtained during the stage of a relatively non-efficient acceleration of electrons and relatively strong magnetic field strength in the emission region. The sub-GeV synchrotron $\gamma$-ray emission during such stage should be on the level below the $\gamma$-ray flux reported by the recent measurements by the Fermi-LAT telescope (Abdo et al. 2010). Note however, that the $\gamma$-ray emission reported by the EGRET telescope a decade ago (e.g. Kuiper et al. 2001) seems to be on the lower level than the present Fermi-LAT measurements. This suggest that the sub-GeV emission from the Crab Nebula can vary not only up but also down in respect to the so called quiescent level observed by the Fermi.
The possible variability of the end of the TeV $\gamma$-ray emission from the Crab Nebula produced in the ICS process by electrons may be partially hidden in the case of efficient acceleration of hadrons within the nebula. These hadrons, coming from the surface of the Crab pulsar, could be also accelerated in the scenario discussed here. They interact with the matter within the Crab Nebula producing steady emission which is expected above $\sim 10$ TeV, see e.g. Amato et al. (2003), Bednarek & Bartosik (2003), Horns et al. (2005).
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We would like to thank Maria Giller for discussion. This work is supported by the Polish MNiSzW grant N N203 390834 and NCBiR grant ERA-NET-ASPERA/01/10.
[99]{}
Abdo, A.A. et al. 2010 ApJ 708, 1254 Abdo, A.A. et al. 2011 Science, DOI:10.1126/ science.1199705 (arXiv:1011.3855) Achterberg, A., Gallant, Y.A., Kirk, J.G., Guthmann, A.W. 2001 MNRAS 328, 393 Aharonian, F.A., Atoyan, A.M. 1995 APh 3, 275 Aharonian, F.A. et al. 2004 ApJ 614, 897 Aharonian, F.A. et al. 2006 A&A 457, 899 Aielli, G. et al. 2010 ATEL 2921 Albert, J. et al. 2008 ApJ 674, 1037 Amato, E., Guetta, D., Blasi, P. 2003 A&A 402, 827 Atoyan, A.M., Aharonian, F.A. 1996 MNRAS 278, 525 Baars, J.W..M., Hartsuijker, A.P. 1972 A&A 17, 172 Balbo, M., Walter, R., Ferrigno, C., Bordas, P. 2010, A&A in press (arXiv:1012.3397) Bednarek, W., Bartosik, M. 2003 A&A 405, 689 Blumenthal, G.R., Gould, R.J. 1970 Rev.Mod.Phys. 42, 237 Buehler, R. et al. 2010 ATEL 2861 Camus, N.F., Komissarov, S.S., Bucciantini, N., Hughes, P.A. 2009 MNRAS 400 1241 Caraveo, P. et al. 2010 ATEL 2903 de Jager, O.C., Harding, A.K. 1992 ApJ 396, 161 de Jager, O.C. et al. 1996 ApJ 457, 253 Espinoza, C.M. et al. 2010 ATEL 2889 Hays, E. et al. 2010 ATEL 2879 Hester, J.J. 2008 ARAA 46, 127 Horns, D., Aharonian, A.F., Santangelo, A., Hoffman, A.I.D., Masterson, C. 2006 A&A 451, 51 Kennel, C.F., Coroniti F.V. 1984 ApJ 283, 694 Kirk, J.G., Skjaeraasen, O. 2003 ApJ 591, 366 Kirk, J.G. 2004 PRL 92, 181101 Kirk, J.G., Reville, B. 2010 ApJ 710, L16 Komissarov, S.S., Lyubarsky, Y.E. 2003 MNRAS 344, L93 Komissarov, S.S., Lyutikov, M. 2010 MNRAS, submitted (ArXiv:1011.1800) Kuiper, L. et al. 2001 A&A 378, 918 Lyubarsky, Y. 1996 A&A 311, 172 Mariotti, M. for the MAGIC Collab. 2010 ATEL 2967 Meyer, M., Horns, D., Zechlin, H.-S. 2010 A&A 523, 2 Niemiec, J., Ostrowski, M. 2004 ApJ 610, 851 Niemiec, J., Ostrowski, M., Pohl, M. 2006 ApJ 650, 1020 Ong, R.A. for the VERITAS Collab. 2010 ATEL 2968 Ramanamurthy, P.V. et al. 1995 ApJ 450, 791 Sakamoto, T. et al. 2010 ATEL 2893 Shaposhnikov, N. et al. 2010 ATEL 2872 Tanimori, T. et al. 1998 ApJ 492, L33 Tavani, M. et al. 2010 ATEL 2855 Tavani, M. et al. 2011 Science, DOI:10.1126/ science.1200083 (arXiv:1101.2311) The CTA Consortium, 2010 ArXiv:1008.3703 Tennant, A. et al. 2010 ATEL 2882
\[lastpage\]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'Kaustubh Kulkarni\*, Ciprian Adrian Corneanu\*, Ikechukwu Ofodile\*, Sergio Escalera, Xavier Baró, Sylwia Hyniewska, Jüri Allik, and Gholamreza Anbarjafari, [^1]'
bibliography:
- 'ms.bib'
title: Automatic Recognition of Facial Displays of Unfelt Emotions
---
[Ofodile : Fake Emotions]{}
Introduction {#sec:introduction}
============
n *“Lie to me”*, an American crime television drama, Dr. Cal Lightman, a genius scientist, is assisting investigators in the police departments to solve cases through his knowledge of applied psychology. This is mainly done through interpreting subtle facial expressions of emotion (FEE) and body language of alleged offenders in order to evaluate their authentic motivation or emotional experience.\
![People may have difficulties in expressing emotions that look genuine when these do not correspond to the emotional state they are experiencing. In the case of smiling, differences can be observed in the contraction of the *orbicularis oculi* muscle around the eyes. *Left*: The lack of orbicularis oculi contraction has often been considered a marker of unfelt or even deceitful expressions. *Right*: A strong orbicularis oculi contraction, with very visible “crows feet” around the corners of the eyes, has often been considered a marker of genuine expressions.[]{data-label="fig:duchenne_smile"}](images/julia_roberts){width="0.7\linewidth"}
However in real life, humans are very skilled in concealing their true affective states from others and displaying emotional expressions that are appropriate for a given social situation. Untrained observers tend to perform barely above chance level when asked to detect whether observed behaviours genuinely reflect underlying emotions [@hartwig2011lie; @ten2015physically]. This is a particularly difficult judgement when relying on visual cues only [@bond2006accuracy]. Even for professional psychologists it is difficult to recognise deceit in emotional displays as there are numerous factors that need to be considered [@porter2008reading; @ochs2005intelligent].\
Many potential applications would benefit from the ability of automatically discriminating between subtle facial expressions such as displays of genuine and unfelt emotional states. Improved human-computer interaction, improved human-robot interaction for assistive robotics [@bruce2002role; @shibata1997artificial; @lee2006can; @anderson06], treatment of chronic disorders [@littlewort2007faces] and assisting investigation conducted by police forces [@aremu2009path; @vrij2001killed; @o2009police] would be just a few.\
An emotional display is considered unfelt (or masked) when it does not match a corresponding emotional state. There are three major ways in which emotional facial expressions are intentionally manipulated [@ekman1975unmasking]: an expression is *simulated* when it is not accompanied by any genuine emotion, *masked* when the expression corresponding to the felt emotion is replaced by a falsified expression that corresponds to a different emotion, or *neutralized* when the expression of a true emotion is inhibited while the face remains neutral. All along this work, the term genuine FEE is used to denote FEEs congruent with the affective state, while the term unfelt FEE is used for denoting FEEs incongruent with the emotional state (aka masked) .\
It has been argued that liers, deceivers and displayers of unfelt emotions would be betrayed by the leakage of their genuine emotional states through their nonverbal behaviour [@frank1997ability; @abe2009neurobiology; @porter2008reading]. This is supposed to happen through subtle facial expressions of short duration, as well as changes in pitch, posture and body movement.\
Studies on the unfelt display of emotion mostly originated based on Duchenne de Boulogne’s work, a nineteenth century French scientist. He is considered the first to have differentiated facial actions observed in displays of felt and unfelt emotions [@duchenne1862mechanism; @spence2001behavioural]. Part of his legacy concerns what is considered the typical genuine smile – often called a Duchenne smile. Duchenne smiles involve the contraction of the orbicularis oculi muscle (causing lifting of the cheeks and crow’s feet around the eyes) together with the zygomaticus major muscle (pulling of lip corners upwards) [@bernstein2008adaptive; @ekman1990duchenne; @brown2002smile; @frank1993not; @ekman1988smiles; @gunnery2013deliberate; @krumhuber2009can; @mehu2012reliable] (see Fig. \[fig:duchenne\_smile\]). In contrast, a masking smile (aka a non-Duchenne smile) can be used to conceal the experience of negative emotions [@frank2002smiles; @ekman1988smiles; @darwin1872expression; @gosselin2010voluntary; @mehu2012reliable].\
Although it has been argued that the orbicularis oculi activation is absent from masked facial expressions of enjoyment, empirical evidence is not conclusive. For example, in a database presenting 105 posed smiles 67% of them were accompanied by the orbicularis oculi activation [@kanade2000comprehensive]. Another study showed that over 70% of untrained participants were able to activate the majority of eye region action units, although not one action at a time, as they managed to perform them through the reliance and co-activation of other action units. The poorest performance was for the deliberate activation of the *nasolabial furrow deepener*, which is often observed in sadness and which was performed successfully only by 20% while the orbiculari oculi by 60% of participants.\
Although a variety of studies have focused on the evaluation of how genuine some FEEs might be while relying on the analysis of still, i.e. static, images, not much attention has been paid to dynamics as evaluated in a sequence of frames [@boraston2008brief; @manera2011individual; @uusberg2013unintentionality; @perron2013analysis; @chartrand2005judgement; @vrij2010pitfalls; @qu2017cas]. In a naturalistic setting, FEEs are always perceived as dynamic facial displays, and it is easier for humans to recognize facial behaviour in video sequences rather than in still images [@sato2004enhanced; @krumhuber2013effects; @jack2015human].\
It has been asserted that while trying to simulate the expression of an unfelt emotion, cues of the actual felt emotion appeared along cues related to the masked expression, which made the overall pattern difficult to analyse [@iwasaki2016hiding]. Leakages of a genuine emotion have been observed more frequently in the upper part of the face, while cues the lower half of the face was more often manipulated in order to express an unfelt emotion [@ross2013decoding; @porter2012secrets; @lusi2017joint; @loob2017dominant].\
In this work, we propose a new data corpus containing genuine and unfelt FEE. While numerous studies involving the analysis of genuine or truthful behaviours rely on video recordings of directed interviews, such as the work in [@ten2015physically], studies that analysed nonverbal behaviour while controlling for the emotional state of subjects are rare [@porter2012secrets].\
When designing experiments that require facial emotion displays as independent variables, posed facial expressions of subjects being instructed to act out a particular emotion are often used. This is thought to provide greater control over the stimuli than a spontaneous emotion display might, in the sense that other variables such as context and the physical appearance of subjects (even hair style or make-up) are much less variable and will not bias the observers in an uncontrolled way.\
To record FEEs, participants are usually asked to practice the display of specific emotions. In order to achieve a display close to a genuine emotional expression, the process can be facilitated through the presentation of FEEs [@ekman2002facs; @ekman1993facial], or other pictures [@porter2012secrets] or videos inducing emotions in line with the ones to be expressed [@zhang2013high], or mental imagery and related theatre techniques [@banziger2012introducing]. Such paradigms have been frequently used for recording and creating emotional expression databases [@gaebel1992facial; @de2009rapid; @calder2000configural; @ekman1993facial; @sandbach2012static; @mavadati2013disfa; @banziger2012introducing].\
In addition to the published dataset, we propose a complete methodology that has the capacity to recognise unfelt FEEs and generalises to standard public emotion recognition datasets. We first train a Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) to learn a static representation from still images and then pull features from this representation space along facial landmark trajectories. From these landmark trajectories we build final features from sequences of varying length using a Fisher Vector encoding which we use to train a SVM for final classification. State-of-the-art results are presented on CK+ and Oulu-Casia, two datasets containing posed FEEs. Moreover, close to state-of-the-art results are shown on a more difficult problem of recognising spontaneous facial Action Units on BP4D-Spontaneous. We finally provide benchmarking and outperform the methods from the recent ChaLearn Challenge [@wan2017results] on the proposed SASE-FE dataset.\
The rest of the paper is organised as follows: in Section \[sec:related\_work\] we describe related work in FEEs recognition, in Section \[sec:dataset\] we introduce the new SASE-FE dataset, in Section \[sec:method\] we detail the proposed methodology, and Section \[sec:results\] concludes the paper.
Related Work {#sec:related_work}
============
This section first reviews main works on recognition of FEE, and then recognition of genuine and unleft FEE.
Recognizing Facial Expressions of Emotion
-----------------------------------------
Automatic facial expression recognition (AFER) has been an active field of research for a long time. In general, a facial expression recognition system consists of four main steps. First the face is localised and extracted from the background. Then, facial geometry is estimated. Based on it, alignment methods can be used to reduce variance of local and global descriptors to rigid and non-rigid variations. Finally, representations of the face are computed either globally, where global features extract information from the whole facial region, or locally, and models are trained for classification or regression problems.\
Features can be split into static and dynamic, with static features describing a single frame or image and dynamic ones including temporal information. Predesigned features can also be divided into appearance and geometrical. Appearance features use the intensity information of the image, while geometrical ones measure distances, deformations, curvatures and other geometric properties. This is not the case for learned features, for which the nature of the extracted information is usually unknown.\
Geometric features describe faces through distances and shapes. These can be distances between fiducial points [@pantic2006dynamics] or deformation parameters of a mesh model [@sebe07; @kotsia07]. In the dynamic case the goal is to describe how the face geometry changes over time. Facial motions are estimated from color or intensity information, usually through Optical flow [@wollmer2013lstm]. Other descriptors such as Motion History Images (MHI) and Free-Form Deformations (FFDs) are also used [@koelstra10]. Although geometrical features are effective for describing facial expressions, they fail to detect subtler characteristics like wrinkles, furrows or skin texture changes. Appearance features are more stable to noise, allowing for the detection of a more complete set of facial expressions, being particularly important for detecting micro-expressions.\
Global appearance features are based on standard feature descriptors extracted on the whole facial region. Usually these descriptors are applied either over the whole facial patch or at each cell of a grid. Some examples include Gabor filters [@littlewort2011computer], Local Binary Pattern (LBP) [@savran2014temporal; @anbarjafari2013face], Pyramids of Histograms of Gradients (PHOG) [@dhall2011emotion] and Multi-Scale Dense SIFT (MSDF) [@sun2014combining]. Learned features are usually trained through a joint feature learning and classification pipeline. The resulting features usually cannot be classified as local or global. For instance, in the case of Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN), multiple convolution and pooling layers may lead to higher-level features comprising the whole face, or to a pool of local features. This may happen implicitly, due to the complexity of the problem, or by design, due to the topology of the network. In other cases, this locality may be hand-crafted by restricting the input data.\
Expression recognition methods can also be grouped into static and dynamic. Static models evaluate each frame independently, using classification techniques such as Bayesian Network Classifiers (BNC) [@sebe07; @cohen03learning], Neural Networks (NN) [@tian01], Support Vector Machines (SVM) [@kotsia07] and Random Forests (RF) [@dapogny2015dynamic]. More recently, deep learning architectures have been used to jointly perform feature extraction and recognition. These approaches often use pre-training [@hinton06], an unsupervised layer-wise training step that allows for much larger, unlabelled datasets to be used. CNNs are by far the dominant approach [@rifai12; @liu2014learning; @song2014deep]. It is a common approach to make use of domain knowledge for building specific CNN architectures for facial expression recognition. For example, in AU-aware Deep Networks [@LiuAURF], a common convolutional plus pooling step extracts an over-complete representation of expression features, from which receptive fields map the relevant features for each expression. Each receptive field is fed to a DBN to obtain a non-linear feature representation, using an SVM to detect each expression independently. In [@LiuDBN] a two-step iterative process is used to train Boosted DBN (BDBN) where each DBN learns a non-linear feature from a face patch, jointly performing feature learning, selection and classifier training.\
Dynamic models take into account features extracted independently from each frame to model the evolution of the expression over time. Probabilistic Graphical Models, such as Hidden Markov Models (HMM) [@koelstra10; @le11; @wu2015multi], are common. Other techniques use Recurrent Neural Network (RNN) architectures, such as Long Short Term Memory (LSTM) networks [@wollmer2013lstm]. Some approaches classify each frame independently (e.g. with SVM classifiers [@geetha2009facial]), using the prediction averages to determine the final facial expression. Intermediate approaches are also proposed where motion features between contiguous frames are extracted from interest regions, afterwards using static classification techniques [@sebe07]. For example, statistical information can be encoded at the frame-level into Riemannian manifolds [@liu2014combining].\
Recognizing Genuine and Unfelt Facial Expressions of Emotion
------------------------------------------------------------
Emotion perception by humans or machines stands for the interpretation of particular representations of personal feelings and affects expressed by individuals, which may take different forms based on the circumstances governing their behaviour at the time-stamp at which they are evaluated [@diener2003personality; @lucey2011automatically].\
Amongst audiovisual sources of information bearing clues to the emotions being expressed, the ones extracted from single or multiple samples of facial configurations, i.e. facial expressions, provide the most reliable basis for devising the set of criteria to be incorporated into the foregoing analysis [@iwasaki2016hiding; @zhang2007real] and are, therefore, the most popular alternatives utilised in numerous contexts, such as forensic investigation and security. These settings often rely on the assessment of the correspondence of the displayed expression to the actual one.
SASE-FE Dataset {#sec:dataset}
===============
A number of affective portrayal databases exist; however, none meets the required criteria for our analysis of controlled genuine and unfelt emotional displays presented in high resolution at an increased frame rate. To answer those needs, the SASE-FE database was created.\
The SASE-FE database consists of 643 different videos which had been recorded with a high resolution GoPro-Hero camera. From the inital 648 recordings, 5 were eliminated post-hoc as the participants did not completely meet the defined protocol criteria. As indicated in Table \[SASE-FE\], 54 participants of ages 19-36 were recorded. The reasoning behind the choice of such a young sample is that older adults have different, more positive responses than young adults about feelings and they are quicker to regulate negative emotional states than younger adults [@ready2016judgment; @isaacowitz2012mood].\
Participants signed a written informed consent form after the experimental and recording procedures were explained. All participants agreed for their data to be released for research purposes and all data can be accessed by contacting the authors. The data collection and its use are based by the ethical rules stated by University of Tartu, Estonia.\
For each recording, participants were asked to act two FEEs in a sequence, a genuine and an unfelt one. The participants displayed six universal expressions: Happiness, Sadness, Anger, Disgust, Contempt and Surprise. The subjects were asked if they felt the emotion and the large majority confirmed, but no recording of their answer was made. To increase the chances of distinguishing between the two FEEs presented in a sequence, two emotions were chosen based on their visual and conceptual differences as observed on the two dimensions of valence and arousal [@plutchik1970emotions; @jaimes2007multimodal; @noroozi2017audio; @larsen2011further]. Thus a visual contrast was created by asking participants to act Happy after being Sad, Surprised after being Sad, Disgusted after being Happy, Sad after being Happy, Angry after being Happy, and Contemptuous after being Happy [@whitesell1989children; @mathieu2005annotation]. For eliciting emotion, subjects were shown videos in line with the target emotion. Emotion elicitation through videos is a well established process in emotion science research [@gross1995emotion]. Videos were short scenes from YouTube selected by psychologists . Fig. \[vidEm\] shows captures from videos that have been used for inducing specific emotions in the participants.\
Throughout the entire setup, participants were asked to start their portrayals from the neutral face. The length of facial expression was about 3-4 seconds. After each genuine FEE, participants were asked to display a neutral state again and then the expression of a second emotion, which was the opposite of the former.\
None of the participants were aware of the fact that they would be asked to display a second facial expression. The participant’s first two seconds of behavior when performing a facial expression, and more exactly the opposite to the felt emotion, were recorded with the same device and the same configuration. As a result, for each participant we have collected 12 different videos of which 6 are genuine FEE and other 6 are unfelt FEE. The length of captured FEE is not fixed. The process has been closely supervised by experimental psychologists so that the setup would result in realistic recordings of genuine and unfelt FEE. The summary of the SASE-FE dataset is provided in Table \[SASE-FE\].\
It is important to note that while preparing the SASE-FE database, introduced and used in this work, external factors such as personality or mood of the participants have been ignored, due to the fact that in order to eliminate such external factors several repetitions of the experiment would be necessary, but as a result the participant could start to learn to simulate the facial expressions better. Hence we have decided to ignore such external factors.
-- ------------------------- ----------------------
\# of persons 54
gender distribution female 41%, male 59%
age distribution 19 - 36 years
race distribution
\# of videos 643
video length 3-4 sec
resolution 1280 $\times$ 960
\#frames (acted/unfelt) 120,216/118,712
-- ------------------------- ----------------------
: Summary of SASE-FE database.
\[SASE-FE\]
The Proposed Method {#sec:method}
===================
In this section, we present the methodology used for recognising unfelt FEEs from video sequences. As showed in the literature (see Sec. \[sec:introduction\] and Sec. \[sec:related\_work\]) most discriminative information is to be found in the dynamics of such FEEs. Following this assumption, we consider learning a discriminative spatio-temporal representation to be central for this problem. We first train a Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) to learn a static representation from still images and then pull features from this representation space along facial landmark trajectories. From these landmark trajectories and inspired by previous work in action recognition [@wang2015action], a well studied sequence modelling problem, we build final features from sequences of varying length using a Fisher Vector encoding which we use to train a SVM for final classification.\
Additionally, the amount of video data available is limited, which requires usage of advanced techniques when training high capacity models with millions of parameters such as CNNs. Fine-tuning existing deep architectures can alleviate this problem to a certain extent but these models might carry redundant information from the pre-trained application domain. In this paper, we use a recently proposed method [@ding2017facenet2expnet] which proposes a regularisation function which helps using the face information to train the expression classification net.\
We follow this section by first discussing the technique we have used to train a CNN on still images with a limited amount of data in Sec. \[sec:knowledge\_transfer\]. Then we show how we build a spatio-temporal representation from static features computed by the CNN in Sec. \[sec:spatio\_temporal\]. The reader can refer to Fig. \[fig:method\] for an overview of the proposed method. Specific implementation details will be presented in Sec. \[sec:implementation\].
{width="0.8\linewidth" height="47.00000%"}
Using efficient knowledge transfer for training a CNN for facial expression recognition {#sec:knowledge_transfer}
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our proposed training procedure of the CNN for learning static spatial representation: first, we fine tune the VGG-Face network for the facial expression recognition task [@Parkhi15]. We then use this fine tuned network to guide the learning of a so called emotion network (EMNet) [@ding2017facenet2expnet]. Following [@ding2017facenet2expnet] the EMNet is denoted as:
$$O = h_{\theta_2}(g_{\theta_1}(I))\:,$$
where $h$ represents the fully connected layers and $g$ represents the convolution layers, $\theta_2$ and $\theta_1$ are the corresponding parameters of the to be estimated of the fully connected layers and the convolution layers respectively, $I$ is the input image and $O$ is the output before the softmax.\
We follow the two step training proposed in [@ding2017facenet2expnet]. The basic motivation behind this training procedure is that the fine tuned VGG-Face network already gives a competitive performance on the emotion recognition task. We use the ouyput of the VGG-Face to guide the training of the EMNet. In the first step, we estimate the parameters of the only of the convolution layers of the EMNet. In this step, the output of the VGG-Face acts as a regularisation for the emotion net. This step is achieved by maximising the following loss function:
$$L_1 = \max_{\theta_1} {\lVert g_{\theta_1(I)} - G(I) \rVert}^2_2\:,$$
where, $G(I)$ is the output of the *pool5* layer of the fine tuned VGG-Face network. In the second step we learn the parameters of the fully connected layer, $\theta_2$ of the EMNet by training together the convolution layers, estimated in the previous step, and the fully connected layers. This step is achieved by minimizing the cross entropy loss: $$L_2 = -\sum_{i=1}^{N} \sum_{j=1}^{M} l_{i,j} log \hat{l}_{i,j}\:,$$ where, $l_{i,j}$ is the ground truth label and $\hat{l}_{i,j}$ is the predicted label.
Learning a spatio-temporal representation {#sec:spatio_temporal}
-----------------------------------------
For learning a spatio-temporal representation of the facial video sequences we aggregate features computed by the EMNet along trajectories generated by facial geometries (we will name it TPF-FGT from Trajectory Pooled Features from Facial Geometry Trajectories). First we detect facial geometries in a form of a fixed set of fiducial points in the whole video sequence in a per-frame fashion. To compute the fiducial points we first frontalize all the cropped face with [@hassner2015effective]. Then on this cropped frontalized faces we estimate the facial geometry with the with the facial alignment method [@kazemi2014one]. This will output $68$ fiducial landmark points on each image. The detected fiducial points are tracked across the sequence to form trajectories corresponding to specific locations on the face (e.g corners of the eyes, mouth, see Fig. \[fig:method\] for an example). We pool features along these trajectories from the EMNet feature space. Such a pooling is advantageous because it captures the temporal relations between the frames. After reducing the dimensionality of the pooled features we learn a set of clusters over the distribution of the features using Gaussian Mixture Models (GMMs). Once the clusters are learned we use Fisher Vector (FV) [@sanchez2013image] encoding to produce a compact feature vector for each sequence. The final vectors are used to train a linear classifier. In the rest of section we detail the main steps of the proposed method.
### Trajectory pooled features
Given a sequence of images we can compute all corresponding facial geometries with the method previously presented. As each geometry is described by a fixed set of ordered points we can track these points along all the sequence to form trajectories. Along these trajectories we pool features from a feature space of choice. In our case, we use features computed at different layers of an EMNet.
### Fisher Vectors
The next step is to get a single vector representation of each emotion video. On this vector an SVM classifier is trained. We choose the Fisher Vector representation for this encoding [@FisherJaakkola]. Each TPF is an observation vector corresponding to each landmark trajectories. We denote all the observed TPFs in the training set as $\textbf{X}$. We assume the trajectory pooled features (TPF) are drawn from a Gaussian Mixture Model (GMM). A $K$ component GMM is computed over the training set of TPF . Assuming that the observations in $\textbf{X}$ are statistically independent the log-likelihood of $\textbf{X}$ given $\vv{\theta}$ is: $$\log P(\textbf{X}\vert\vv{\theta})=\sum_{m=1}^{M} \log \sum_{k=1}^{K} w_{k} \mathcal{N}(\vv{x}_m;\vv{\mu}_{k},(\vv{\sigma}_{k})^{2})\:,$$ where $\sum_{k=1}^{K} w_{k}=1$ and $\vv{\theta}=\{ w_{k},\vv{\mu}_{k},(\vv{\sigma}_{k})^{2}\}$. We assume diagonal covariance matrices. The parameters of the per-class GMMs are estimated with the Expectation maximization (EM) algorithm to optimize the maximum likelihood (ML) criterion. To keep the magnitude of the Fisher vector independent of the number of observations in $\textbf{X}$ we normalize it by $M$. Now we can write the closed form formulas for the gradients of the log-likelihood $P(\textbf{X} \vert \vv{\theta})$ w.r.t to the individual parameters of the GMM as: $$\vv{\mathcal{J}}^{\textbf{X}}_{w_{k}}=\frac{1}{M\sqrt{w_{k}}}\sum_{m=1}^{M}\gamma_{k}(m)-w_{k}$$ $$\vv{\mathcal{J}}^{\textbf{X}}_{\vv{\mu}_{k}}=\frac{1}{M \sqrt{w_{k}}}\sum_{m=1}^{M}\gamma_{k}(m)\Bigg(\frac{\vv{x}_m-\vv{\mu}_{k}}{(\vv{\sigma}_{k})^{2}}\Bigg)$$ $$\vv{\mathcal{J}}^\textbf{{X}}_{(\vv{\sigma}_{k})^{2}}=\frac{1}{M\sqrt{2w_{k}}}\sum_{m=1}^{M}\gamma_{k}(m)\Bigg[\frac{(\vv{x}_m-\vv{\mu}_{k})^{2}}{(\vv{\sigma}_{k})^{2}} -1\Bigg]\:,$$ where $\gamma_{k}(m)$ is the posterior probability or the responsibility of assigning the observation $\vv{x}_m$ to component $k$.\
Now the FV for each video is constructed by stacking together the derivatives computed w.r.t to the components of the GMM in a single vector. The details of all the close formed formulas can be found in the following paper [@JakobFisher].
Experimental Results and Discussions {#sec:results}
====================================
The experimental results have been conducted on the introduced *SASE-FE* dataset. For comparison, we have replicated experiments on the *Extended Cohn Kanade* (CK+) [@lucey2010extended] dataset and the Oulu-CASIA dataset [@zhao2011facial] and for spontaneous expression recognition we provide results of the BP4D-Spontaneous dataset [@ZHANGBP4D].\
Due to its relatively small size and simplicity, the CK+ is one of the most popular benchmarking datasets in the field of facial expression analysis. It contains 327 sequences capturing frontal poses of 118 different subjects while performing facial expressions in a controlled environment. The facial expressions are acted. Subjects’ ages range between 18 and 50 years old, consisting of 69% females and having relative ethnic diversity. Labels of presence of universal facial expressions and the Facial Action Units are provided.\
The Oulu-CASIA dataset provides facial expressions of primary emotions in three different illumination scenarios. It includes 80 subjects between 23 to 58 years old from whom 73.8% are males. Following other works [@ding2017facenet2expnet], we only use the strong illumination partition of the data which consists of 480 video sequences (6 videos per subject). It has higher variation and constitutes a good complement to the CK+ for cross validating our method. We also test our method on the $12$ action unit recognition problem of in the BP4D-Spontaneous dataset. In this dataset, there are $41$ adults with $8$ videos each giving a total of $328$ videos. Each frame is annotated with $12$ facial AUs. In contrast with all previous set-ups, recognizing AUs is a multi-label classification problem.
In the following sections we first discuss the implementation details of each step of the proposed methodology followed by discussion of the experimental results.
Implementation Details {#sec:implementation}
----------------------
The proposed methodology consists of the following steps: first, given a video sequence we extract faces from background, frontalize them and localize facial landmarks (see Fig. \[fig:alignment\]). Second, we fine-tune a pretrained VGG-Face deep network [@Parkhi15] for recognising facial expressions. Third, we use this network for guiding the training of a so called EMNet following work proposed in [@ding2017facenet2expnet] (see also Sec. \[sec:knowledge\_transfer\]). This second network is used to compute static representations from still images. Fourth, we pool features from the previously computed static representation space along trajectories determined by the facial landmarks. Fifth, we compute fixed length descriptors for each video sequence using the Fisher Vector encoding. These final descriptors are then classified with a linear SVM. We use a leave-one-actor-out validation framework for all our experiments. For the theoretical framework of the spatio-temporal representation and the knowledge transfer training approach of the EMNet, please refer to Sec. \[sec:method\]. For a visual overview of the method see Fig. \[fig:method\].
**Preprocessing**. We first extract faces from the video sequences. After faces are extracted we perform a frontalization which registers faces to a reference frontal face by using the method of Hassner et al. [@hassner2015effective]. This removes variance in the data caused by rotations and scaling. This frontalization method estimates a projection matrix between a set of detected points on the input face and a reference face. This is then used to back-project input intensities to the reference coordinate system. Self-occluded regions are completed in an aesthetically pleasant way by using color information of the neighbouring visible regions and symmetry. Finally in all synthesised frontal faces we estimated the facial geometry, using a classical, robust facial alignment method [@kazemi2014one] trained to find 68 points on the image (an example of the frontalization process is showed in Fig. \[fig:alignment\]).
![Illustration of the pre-processing we perform on the data. Detected faces are first extracted and frontalized and facial landmarks localised for each image in the input sequences.[]{data-label="fig:alignment"}](images/alignment.jpg){width="0.9\linewidth" height="20.00000%"}
**Fine-Tuning the VGG-Face**. For all experiments, including fine tuning of the VGG-FACE are done in a 10-fold cross validation for the CK+ and Oulu-CASIA datasets to keep the experiments consistent with [@ding2017facenet2expnet]. We define a train set of $40$ actors, validation set of $5$ actors and a test set of $5$ actors for the SASE-FE dataset. This set is exactly similar to the partitions defined in [@wan2017results]. Here we estimate the parameters of our proposed method on the validation set and final results are reported on the unseen test set. Here we also perform an additional experiment, since the training data is limited, we augment the training set of the SASE-FE dataset with additional training data from the Oulu-CASIA [@zhao2011facial] and CK+ datasets. These experiments are denoted as *Data Augmentation*. The training is done for 200 epochs with a learning rate of $0.001$. It is decreased every 50 epochs. The fully connected layers are randomly initialised with the Gaussian distribution. The min-batch size is $32$ and the momentum is $0.9$. The dropout is set to $0.5$. From each frame the face is cropped and scaled to $224\times224$. The bottom two convolution layers are left unchanged. In the testing phase, if the CNN is able to recognise more than $50\%$ of the frames in the video correctly then the video is deemed to be correctly classified. For the $6$ genuine class and the $6$ unfelt class experiment the network is trained for the $12$ class problem, and the final fully connected layer is retrained with the appropriate number of classes.
**Training the EMNet**. The architecture of EMNet is the same as the one proposed in [@ding2017facenet2expnet]. It consists of $5$ convolutional layers each followed by a ReLU activation and a max pooling layer. The filter size of the convolutions layers is $3\times3$ and that of the pooling layer is $3\times3$ with a stride of $2$. The output of each layer is $64,128,256,512,512$. Furthermore, we need to add another $1\times1$ convolutional layer to match the dimensionality of the output of the EMNet to the $pool5$ layer of the fine tuned VGG-Face net for the regularisation in the first step. We append a single fully connected layer of size $256$. We just use one layer to prevent overfitting. We use this size of $256$ for distinguishing between all multi-class experiments of classifying all emotions in the dataset. The size of the fully connected layer is further reduced to $128$ for the binary classification experiment of distinguishing between genuine and unfelt FEEs. This is because the training data available for binary classification is much less than the training data for classifying all emotion.
**Trajectory pooled features (TPF)**. The TPFs from the facial geometry trajectories (TPF-FGT) are aggregated in a rectangular region of pixel size $64\times64$ which we have experimentally set. This size is scaled by a ratio of the size of the input image and the feature map from the corresponding layer of the neural network. For our experiments we use the TPF descriptors extracted from the conv5 of the EMNet. In order to train the Fisher vector for encoding we perform PCA to decorrelate the dimensions. We experimentally set the number of first principal components to $32$. **Fisher Vectors encoding and classification**. For encoding the TPFs into lower dimensional representations we used the Fisher Vector encoding. Its efficacy for video analysis has been proven for action recognition [@OneataFisher]. In order to train GMMs, we first decorrelate the dimensions of the TPFs with PCA and reduce its dimension to $d$. Then, we train a GMM with $k=16$ mixtures. We can use a low value for $k$ as compared to other papers in the literature because the trajectory computed on the landmarks is already discriminative as compared to the dense trajectory features. This enables us to construct a compact feature representation with FV which is also discriminative. Moreover, we square-root normalise followed by the $L2$ norm of each vector. The video is represented with a $2kd$ dimensional vector. We use the Fisher Vectors to train a linear SVM for classification. The value of the regularisation parameter is set to $C=100$. The parameters $K$ and $C$ were set using the validation set and then tested on the unknown test set of the SASE-FE dataset.
---------------------------------------- -----------------
**Method** **Accuracy(%)**
\[0.5ex\] AURF [@LiuAURF] 92.22
AUDN[@LiuAUDN] 93.70
STM-Explet[@STM-Expletliu2014learning] 94.2
LOmo [@Lomosikka] 95.1
IDT+FV [@idtEmotionsAfshar] 95.80
Deep Belief Network [@LiuDBN] 96.70
Zero-Bias-CNN [@Zero-bias-CNN] 98.4
Ours-Final **98.7**
---------------------------------------- -----------------
: Our method shows state-of-the-art results when compared with best performing setups on the CK+ dataset. This proves generalisation capacity of this approach.
\[tab:perf\_ck\]
--------------------------------- ------------------
**Method** **Accuracy (%)**
\[0.5ex\] DTAGN [@DTAGN] 81.46
LOmo [@Lomosikka] 82.10
PPDN [@zhao2016peak] 84.59
FN2EN [@ding2017facenet2expnet] 87.71
Ours-Final **89.60**
--------------------------------- ------------------
: Our method shows state-of-the-art results when compared with best performing setups on the Oulu-CASIA dataset. This proves the generalization capacity of such an approach.
\[tab:sota\_Oulu\]
Discussion
----------
In this section, we discuss the experimental results obtained by our proposed method. For brevity, we have denoted both in the text and figures the genuine FEE labels by adding a *G* in front of the labels (e.g GSad) and the corresponding unfelt FEE by adding an *U* in the same fashion (e.g UAnger). We start by discussing results on the *Cohn-Kanade*, the Oulu-CASIA and BP4D-Spontaneous datasets and then we discuss the results on the proposed SASE-FE dataset.
### CK+
The performance of several state-of-the-art methods and the performance of our final method is given in Table \[tab:perf\_ck\]. We are able to come very close to the state of the art performance on this dataset.\
In terms of methodology, [@idtEmotionsAfshar] is the closest method to our proposed method. The authors of this paper implement the improved dense trajectories framework proposed for action recognition [@wang2013dense] for emotion recognition. We are able to improve their results by aggregating the feature maps along the fiducial points and computing the TPF-FGT features.\
We observe that our method is better than methods which use a per frame feature representation rather than per-video as in our case [@Lomosikka; @STM-Expletliu2014learning]. In [@Lomosikka], this per-frame feature is the concatenation of SIFT features computed around landmark points, head pose and local binary patterns (LBP). They propose a weakly supervised classifier which learns the events which define the emotion as hidden variables. The classifier is a support vector machine which was estimated using the multiple-kernel learning method. From the table we can observe that when landmarks are used along with the CNN feature maps we are able to top their performance. The rest of the methods listed in the table use deep learning techniques to classify emotions [@LiuDBN; @LiuAURF; @Zero-bias-CNN]. They design networks able to specifically learn facial AUs. We can observe that we out perform the best performing method [@Zero-bias-CNN] on the CK+ dataset.
### Oulu-CASIA
We also , show the efficacy of our method on a more difficult dataset like the Oulu-CASIA dataset. In Table \[tab:sota\_Oulu\] we can observe that our method outperforms the previous best performance of [@ding2017facenet2expnet] by $1.9\%$. In Table \[tab:emotionwise\] we show the emotion-wise comparison between our proposed method and [@ding2017facenet2expnet]. The two main differences between [@ding2017facenet2expnet] and our method are that we align the faces and then add the TPFs for classification. In our experiments we observed that aligning the faces on the Oulu-CASIA dataset gave only very marginal improvement while once we add the TPFs for classification then we can get significant improvements. The improvements are especially observed in three emotions Anger, Disgust and Sadness. These emotions are typically confused between each other. This experiment shows that the temporal information is important for emotion recognition.
----------------- -------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------
**Emotion** **Accuracy** [@ding2017facenet2expnet] (%) **Accuracy** **\[Ours-Final\]** (%)
\[0.5ex\] Anger 75.2 80.1
Disgust 87.3 88.0
Fear 94.9 95.1
Happiness 90.8 89.7
Sadness 88.4 91.3
Surprise 92.0 92.7
Average 87.7 89.6
----------------- -------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------
: Emotion-wise comparison between our proposed method and [@ding2017facenet2expnet] on the Oulu-CASIA dataset.
\[tab:emotionwise\]
### BP4D-Spontaneous
Considerably more challenging is the recognition of spontaneous expression of emotion. For this purpose we show results on the BP4D dataset. The evaluation is done in the 3-fold cross validation framework. The evaluation metrics is F1-segment score which is the harmonic mean of the precision and recall. We do the following steps to achieve the final results. First, we finetune the VGG-FACE network on the 12 action units. We sample 100 frames as positive and 200 frames as negative examples per sequence as done in [@DRML]. Then we train the EMnet from VGG-FACE network to do AU recognition. From the EMnet we compute the TPF and then finally the SVM for classification of AUs. We compute a F1-segment score as opposed to F1-frame score as done in [@DRML] because the trajectories on the landmark-points are computed over a $16$ frame symmetric window around each frame. For each video in the dataset the first and the last $8$ frames were discarded. We found that this window size was a good choice. If a large window was used then the Fisher vectors which are constructed for the segments are not discriminative.
The results of comparison of our framework with the state of the art are presented in Table \[BP4D\]. As we can see the method trained to recognise a single emotion label does not perform competitively as compared to the state-of-the-art. This is because the methods which are designed to do AU recognition are trained via local patches as opposed to the trajectories from all the face landmarks. Since we know the location of the action units we automatically selected the trajectories to train the final SVM. For example if the AU is a lip corner depressor we choose the trajectories from the patch where the action unit is most likely to occur. We know this location because of the landmark points. This result is represented as $Ours-Final+SF$ in table \[BP4D\]. Additionally AUs can co-occur. Therefore, we weight the final recognition scores of the SVM with the co-occurrence probability of the AU. We estimate this probability matrix from the training data. This result is shown as *Proposed+ SF+ CO* in table \[BP4D\]. This way we can show that our method is competitive for dynamic spontaneous AU recognition. If one explicitly estimates the spatial representation temporal modelling and AU correlation then this method can achieve a higher accuracy. This is done with a CNN and LSTM in [@CNNLSTMAU].
**Method**
------------------------- ----------
LSVM-HOG [@DRML] 32.5
JPML [@JPML] 45.9
AlexNet [@DRML] 38.4
Ours-Final 43.6
Ours-Final + SF 46.8
Ours-Final + SF + CO 48.1
DRML [@DRML] 48.3
CNN + LSTM [@CNNLSTMAU] **53.9**
: This table presents the comparison of our method with the state-of-the-art on the BP4D dataset.[]{data-label="BP4D"}
### SASE-FE
The set of experiments we present in this section has been designed with the purpose of exploring spatial and temporal representation for the proposed problem. We will show how results improve by increased use of domain knowledge for encoding temporal information and by using specially learned representations. Furthermore, we can see more improvement in the recognition results from learning a EMNet from a finetuned VGG-Facenet. For example, in the first conducted experiment we globally extract a handcrafted descriptor (SIFT) and we disregard any temporal information. On the proposed dataset, this produces results slightly above chance. By computing local descriptors around Improved Dense Trajectories (IDT), a proven technique in the action recognition literature, we obtain a small improvement. While the tracked trajectories follow salient points, there is no guarantee that these points are fiducial points on the face. Because fiducial points are semantically representative on the facial geometry, they are usually best for capturing local variations due to changes of expression. This assumption is confirmed by extracting local descriptors around landmark trajectories produced by the facial geometry detector. In the final setup, the best performance is obtained by extracting the representation from a feature space produced by the EMNet CNN. In Table \[tab:perf\_sasefe\] we compare the performance between the TPF-FGT obtained from the last convolution layer of both the VGG-Face and EMNet. Since the EMNet is trained only for the emotion recognition domain the performance of the EMNet is higher than that of the VGG-Face.\
In terms of the use of temporal information several comments can be made. In line with the literature, temporal information is essential in improving recognition of subtle facial expressions. What we are presenting is by no chance an exhaustive study. While a state-of-the-art method in producing compact representations of videos, Fisher Vectors encoding disregards some of the temporal information for compactness. Other, more powerful sequential learning methods, like Recurrent Neural Networks, might be employed with better results.\
In Fig. \[fig:confmat\_6\] we present confusion matrices for a six class classification problem on the proposed dataset. We split the classification problem in two, training on the 6 genuine and the 6 unfelt emotions respectively. On the SASE-FE, several observations can be made. Both in the case of genuine and unfelt FEE classifications, the expressions that are easier to discriminate are Happiness and Surprise. This due to their particularly distinctive morphological patterns. The most difficult expression to distinguish is contempt, which is in alignment with the literature and with the result on the CK+, the benchmark dataset as previously explained. On average, the proposed method gets better results when trying to discriminate between the genuine emotions than when discriminating between the unfelt ones. This is to be expected, taking into account that when faking the expressions, the subjects are trying to hide a different emotional state. This will introduce particular morphological and dynamical changes that makes the problem more difficult. Particularly interesting is the difficulty the classifier has in recognizing unfelt sadness. The high level of confusion with unfelt anger should be noticed along with the fact that this is not the case for genuine emotions.\
\
![Confusion matrix for 12 class classification on the SASE-FE dataset. Genuine FEE are labelled with an initial ’G’ and unfelt FEE with an ’U’ .[]{data-label="fig:confmat_12"}](images/confusion12class_finalresub_up){width="0.8\linewidth"}
In Fig. \[fig:confmat\_12\] we present the confusion matrix for the problem of classifying between all 12 classes (genuine and unfelt jointly). This can be interpreted together with results in Table \[tab:perf\_sasefe\] where we present classification accuracies for each pair (genuine/unfelt). When trained with all classes, the best results are obtained for genuine sadness and the worst for genuine contempt and genuine contempt. In Table \[t4\], overall accuracies of especially the unfelt ones remain low, which underlines again the difficulty of the problem and suggests more powerful sequential learning tools should be employed. Interestingly, it is easiest to discriminate between genuine and unfelt expressions of anger which is due to the fact that anger is recognised a lot by the activation of muscles in the eye region. Also the results show that the recognition rate of the unfelt expressed contempt is by chance, i.e. contempt is easier to unfelt, hence more difficult to detect, and this is due to the fact that the main facial features expressing this emotion are mainly around the mouth region which can be quickly and easily moved, whereas muscles around the eyes (which are important in expressing other emotions) are not instantly deformable by signals from brain.\
Table \[iccv\_tab\] shows the comparison of the average recognition rate for a 12-class classification between recently proposed techniques reported in [@wan2017results] and the proposed method. These results correspond to the winning methods from the ChaLearn international competition we organize at ICCV 2017. We outperform these winning methods. In this table, we can also observe that our proposed method outperforms the LSTM based approaches [@tani2004self]. This is because in the temporal stage we used a hand tuned approach which requires fewer parameters to be tuned as compared to a LSTM. This advantage would be negated on a very large datasets but nevertheless it demonstrates the efficiency of our method.
**Emotion Pair** **Accuracy Genuine (%)** **Accuracy Unfelt (%)**
------------------ -------------------------- -------------------------
Anger 72.5 66.3
Happiness 76.7 65.4
Sadness 71.5 61.3
Disgust 66.4 59.7
Contempt 63.4 58.3
Surprise 71.3 63.4
: Genuine vs unfelt FEE classification performance on the SASE-FE dataset.
\[t4\]
**Method**
------------------------------------ ----------
Rank-SVM [@joachims2002optimizing] 66.67
LSTM-PB [@tani2004self] 66.67
CBP-SVM [@gao2016compact] 65.00
HOG-LSTM [@pei2017temporal] 61.70
CNN [@mallya2016learning] 51.70
Ours-Final 68.7
Ours-Final + DA **70.2**
: The average recognition rate for 12 class classification between several state-of-the-art methods [@wan2017results] and the proposed method; DA=Data augmentation.[]{data-label="iccv_tab"}
\[tab:perf\_sasefe\]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
{width=".23\textwidth" height=".23\textwidth"} {width=".23\textwidth" height=".23\textwidth"} {width=".23\textwidth" height=".23\textwidth"} {width=".23\textwidth" height=".23\textwidth"}
{width=".23\textwidth" height=".23\textwidth"} {width=".23\textwidth" height=".23\textwidth"} {width=".23\textwidth" height=".23\textwidth"} {width=".23\textwidth" height=".23\textwidth"}
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
{width=".23\textwidth" height=".23\textwidth"} {width=".23\textwidth" height=".23\textwidth"} {width=".23\textwidth" height=".23\textwidth"} {width=".23\textwidth" height=".23\textwidth"}
{width=".23\textwidth" height=".23\textwidth"} {width=".23\textwidth" height=".23\textwidth"} {width=".23\textwidth" height=".23\textwidth"} {width=".23\textwidth" height=".23\textwidth"}
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion {#sec:conclusion}
==========
Previous research from psychology suggests that discriminating the genuineness of feelings or intentions hidden behind facial expressions is not a well mastered skill. For this reason, we provide for the first time a dataset capturing humans while expressing genuine and unfelt facial expressions of emotion at high resolution and a high frame rate.\
In this paper, we also propose a method inspired from action recognition and extend it to perform facial expression of emotion recognition. We combine the feature maps computed from the EMNet CNN with a facial landmark detector to compute spatio-temporal TPF descriptors. We encode these descriptors with Fisher vectors to get a single vector representation per video. The feature vector per video is used to train a linear SVM classifier. We outperform the state of the art performance on the the publicly available CK+ and Oulu-CASIA both containing posed FEEs, and show competitive results on the BP4D dataset for facial action unit recognition. Furthermore, we provide several baselines on our SASE-FE dataset. We also improve the results of the winning solutions of the recent ChaLearn competition about our dataset. We show that even though we obtain good results on the $6$ class genuine and unfelt problem, the $12$ class and the binary emotion pair classification problem still remains a challenge. This is because the distinguishing factors between the unfelt and genuine expressions occur in a very short part of the whole emotion and are a challenge to model.\
This preliminary analysis opens several future lines of research. Our experiments showed two most important problems of current state of the art methods. Firstly, current state of the art CNNs, such as VGG-Face, do not work at the required spatial resolution to detect minute changes in facial muscle movements, which are required to differentiate and distinguish between unfelt FEEs. Secondly, alternative temporal analysis strategies could be considered to analyse SASE-FE at high fps, which may include variants of Recurrent Neural Nets or 3D-CNNs approaches.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
Acknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered}
==============
This work is supported Estonian Research Council Grant (PUT638), the Estonian Centre of Excellence in IT (EXCITE) funded by the European Regional Development Fund, the Spanish Project TIN2016-74946-P (MINECO/FEDER, UE) and CERCA Programme / Generalitat de Catalunya. This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie grant agreement Nº 665919. We gratefully acknowledge the support of NVIDIA Corporation with the donation of the Titan Xp GPU used for this research.
[Ikechukwu Ofodile]{} obtained his BSc in Electrical and Electronics Engineering from Eastern Mediterranean University, North Cyprus. He is currently a MSc Student and a member of the intelligent computer vision (iCV) research group at the University of Tartu, Estonia. He is also a member of Philosopher, the Estonian Robocup team of the University of Tartu and a member of the Estonian student satellite project working on attitude determination and control of ESTCube-2. His research interests include machine learning, pattern recognition and HCI as well as control engineering and attitude control system design for nanosatellites and microsatellites.
-2plus -1fil
[Kaustubh Kulkarni]{} obtained in Bachelors in engineering from Mumbai university. He completed his MSc. from Auburn University, USA. Following which he worked at Siemens research labs in India and USA. He is in the process of getting his PhD from INRIA, Grenoble, France. Currently, he is working at the Computer Vision Center at Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. He has experience working in medical image analysis, action recognition, speech recognition and emotion recognition.
-2plus -1fil
\[[{width="1in" height="1.25in"}]{}\][Ciprian Adrian Corneanu]{} got his MSc in Computer Vision from Universitat Autónoma de Barcelona in 2015. Currently he is a PhD student at the Universitat de Barcelona and a fellow of the Computer Vision Center from Universitat Autónoma de Barcelona. His main research interests include face and behavior analysis, affective computing, social signal processing and human computer interaction.
-2plus -1fil
[Sergio Escalera]{} is an associate professor at the Department of Mathematics and Informatics, Universitat de Barcelona. He is an adjunct professor at Universitat Oberta de Catalunya, Aalborg University, and Dalhousie University. He obtained the PhD degree on Multi-class visual categorization systems at the Computer Vision Center, UAB. He obtained the 2008 best Thesis award on Computer Science at Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. He leads the Human Pose Recovery and Behavior Analysis Group at UB and CVC. He is also a member of the Computer Vision Center at Campus UAB. He is an expert in human behavior analysis in temporal series, statistical pattern recognition, visual object recognition, and HCI systems, with special interest in human pose recovery and behavior analysis from multi-modal data. He is vice-president of ChaLearn Challenges in Machine Learning, leading ChaLearn Looking at People events. He is Chair of IAPR TC-12: Multimedia and visual information systems.
-2plus -1fil
[Xavier Baró]{} received his B.S. degree in Computer Science at the UAB in 2003. In 2005 he obtained his M.S. degree in Computer Science at UAB, and in 2009 the PhD degree in Computer Engineering. At the present he is associate professor and researcher at the Computer Science, Multimedia and Telecommunications department at Universitat Oberta de Catalunya (UOC).
-2plus -1fil
[Sylwia Hyniewska]{} received a double PhD degree from the Telecom ParisTech Institute of Science and Technology and the University of Geneva. She finished her doctoral school at the “Swiss National Center for Affective Sciences” (CISA). Afterward, she worked as an independent research Fellow of the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) at Kyoto University, where she collaborated with world-renowned specialists in social and emotion perception. Since 2014 she has worked at the University of Bath on topics related to emotion perception, virtual reality and pervasive devices and is a member of the Centre for Applied Autism Research (CAAR). In 2017, she joined the Institute of Physiology and Pathology of Hearing, Poland. At the institute’s Bioimaging Research Center, she studies neurofeedback applied to brain fingerprinting (EEG and fMRI methods) in attentional and affective tasks.
-2plus -1fil
[Jüri Allik]{} was Candidate of Science (PhD), University of Moscow (1976) and obtained PhD in psychology from the University of Tampere, Finland (1991). He has been Chairman of Estonian Science Foundation (2003-2009), Professor of Psychophysics (1992-2002) and Professor of Experimental Psychology (2002- ) at the University of Tartu. He was also Dean of Faculty of Social Sciences (1996-2001), President (1988-1994) and Vice-President (1994-2001) of the Estonian Psychological Association. He served as a Foreign Member of the Finnish Academy of Science and Letters (1997). He has has received many awards including Estonian National Science Award in Social Sciences category (1998, 2005). He was a member of the Estonian Academy of Sciences. His research interests are psychology, perception, personality and neuroscience and his research works have received over 14,000 citations.
-2plus -1fil
[Gholamreza Anbarjafari]{} is heading the intelligent computer vision (iCV) research group in the Institute of Technology at the University of Tartu. He is also Deputy Scientific Coordinator of the European Network on Integrating Vision and Language (iV&L Net) ICT COST Action IC1307. He is Associate Editor and Guest Lead Editor of several journals, Special Issues and Book projects. He is an IEEE Senior member and the Vice Chair of Signal Processing/Circuits and Systems/Solid-State Circuits Joint Societies Chapter of IEEE Estonian section. He has got Estonian Research Council Grant (PUT638) and the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TÜBİTAK) (Proje 1001 - 116E097) in 2015 and 2016, respectively. He has been involved in many national and international industrial projects mainly related to affective computing. He is expert in computer vision, human-robot interaction, graphical models and artificial intelligence. He has been in the organizing committee and technical committee of SIU, ICOSST, ICGIP, SampTA and FG. He has been organizing challenges and workshops in FG17, CVPR17, and ICCV17. He is Associate Editor of SIVP and have organized several SI on human behaviour analysis in JIVP and MVAP.
[^1]: Manuscript received July 13, 2017; revised Xxxxx XX, 2017.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
**Methods of Modern Differential Geometry**
**in Quantum Chemistry: TD Theories**
**on Grassmann and Hartree-Fock Manifolds**
A. I. Panin
*Chemistry Department, St.-Petersburg State University,*
University prospect 26, St.-Petersburg 198504, Russia
e-mail: [email protected]
[**ABSTRACT:** ]{}[Hamiltonian and Schr$\rm \ddot{o}$dinger evolution equations on finite-dimensional projective space are analyzed in detail. Hartree-Fock (HF) manifold is introduced as a submanifold of many electron projective space of states. Evolution equations, exact and linearized, on this manifold are studied. Comparison of matrices of linearized Schr$\rm \ddot{o}$dinger equations on many electron projective space and on the corresponding HF manifold reveals the appearance in the HF case a constraining matrix that includes matrix elements of many-electron Hamiltonian between HF state and double excited determinants. Character of dependence of transition energies on the matrix elements of constraining matrix is established by means of perturbation analysis. It is demonstrated that success of time-dependent HF theory in calculation of transition energies is mainly due to the wrong behavior of these energies as functions of matrix elements of constraining matrix in comparison with the exact energies. ]{}
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[**Introduction**]{}
There exist two widely used by quantum chemists simple approaches for calculation of excitation energies of many electron systems having at their heart the Hartree-Fock (HF) theory. In both of these approaches it is presupposed that optimal HF molecular spin orbitals (MSOs) are already calculated and that the excited many electron wave functions are linear combinations of determinants obtained from the HF one by all possible single excitations. The first, most simple, approach is based on the so-called single-excitation configuration interaction (CIS) method and can be technically described as a diagonalization of projection of many electron Hamiltonian on the subspace of single excited determinants. In the second approach, where the so-called time-dependent (TD) method is used, the same subspace of single excited determinants appears as a tangent space to the HF manifold. However, arising on this subspace operator does not coincide with the Hamiltonian projection but involves parameters, accounting indirectly for the double excitations from the HF state.
TDHF equations were derived by Dirac from his time-dependent variational principle by constraining trial wave function to remain a single determinant at all times [@Dirac]. Interpretation of linearized TDHF equations in terms of harmonic oscillations of a certain fictitious many particle system in a neighborhood of the HF minimum was described by Thouless [@Thouless]. More rigorous analysis of TD theories based on methods of modern geometry was undertaken by Rowe and his co-authors [@Rowe-1]-[@Rowe-4]. He suggested to treat constrained time-dependent many-body quantum mechanics as a Hamiltonian system on a symplectic manifold. This system can be obtained from Dirac’s extremal condition of an action integral.
Our approach, presented here, is closed in its concept to that of Rowe. We, however, simplify analysis of TD theories by fixing from the very beginning a concrete altlas covering symplectic manifold $\mathscr M$ and work within one selected chart of this atlas centered at the HF optimal determinant. This strategy allows us to use, after realification, the symplectic structure of the parameter space instead of usually more complicated symplectic structure of a manifold itself. Then we write down the first order differential equation on a symplectic parameter space. The right-hand side of this equation is supposed to be a symplectic gradient vector field corresponding to a local representative of a smooth real-valued function on $\mathscr M$. Any such function is called Hamiltonian function in commonly accepted in theory of symplectic manifolds terminology. The corresponding differential equation is also called Hamiltonian. Subsequent complexification of the realified parameter space leads to the Schr$\rm \ddot{o}$dinger-type evolution equations.
To make our reasoning as independent as possible from numerous textbooks on modern geometry, in Section II necessary definition from manifold theory together with few simple examples are given. Section III is dedicated to TD theory on finite-dimensional projective spaces. The corresponding linearized Hamiltonian and Schr$\rm \ddot{o}$dinger equations should be considered as finite-dimensional versions of the exact evolution equations. In Section IV HF manifold is introduced and its several atlases are described. Linearized and exact evolution equations on HF manifold for arbitrary quadratic Hamiltonian function are derived. Then the analogous theory is developed for arbitrary (not necessarily quadratic) energy functions depending on matrix elements of 1-density idempotent operators (Hamiltonian functions on Grassmann manifolds).
Transition energies obtained with the aid of TD theories are usually more close to the exact ones than, say, the CIS energies. In Appendix A it is demonstrated that this is an effect (somewhat paradoxical) of a wrong behavior of TD transitions energies as functions of certain complex parameters in comparison with the behavior of the exact energies. In Appendix B expressions for derivatives of the Gram-Schmidt parametrization function are collected. To the best of our knowledge, this parametrization was introduced in quantum chemistry by Garton [@Garton].
[**Basic Definitions**]{}
Many methods of quantum chemistry are based on a simple idea of parametrization of a certain subset ${\mathscr M}$ of state vectors from the $p-$electron sector of the Fock space or from the corresponding projective space by elements of some parameter space of a relatively small dimension with subsequent optimization of chosen parameters using one or other optimality criterion. A set ${\mathscr M}$ may be a surface or, more generally, a manifold or a variety. We will give all definitions and discuss most important properties of some typical set ${\mathscr M}$ supposing that it is either locally Euclidean or locally Hermitian space, which means that each its point has a neighborhood homeomorphic to an open subset of the number space $\mathbb K^n$ where $\mathbb K$ is either the field $\mathbb R$ of real numbers or the field $\mathbb C$ of complex numbers.
Let us start with general definitions not presupposing at first, that the set ${\mathscr M}$ is embedded in some space of states. All this definitions may be found in many excellent books dedicated to the manifold theory (see, e.g., [@Bourbaki-1]-[@Arnold]) including books written by mathematicians especially for physicists [@Bruhat; @Arnold].
Triple $c=(U,\varphi,\mathbb K^m)$ is called a chart on ${\mathscr M}$ of dimension $m$ if (1) $U$ is a subset of ${\mathscr M}$; (2) $\varphi$ is a bijection of $U$ on an open set in $\mathbb K^m$.
Subset $U$ is called the domain of the chart $c$ and mapping $\varphi$ is a (local) coordinate system on ${\mathscr M}$. The inverse of $\varphi$ is called a local parametrization of ${\mathscr M}$. If $x\in U$ then $c$ is said to be a chart on $\mathscr M$ at point $x$. If $\varphi(x)=0$ then $c$ is called a chart centered at $x$.
Let $c=(U,\varphi,\mathbb K^m)$ and $c'=(U',\varphi',\mathbb K^{m})$ be two charts on ${\mathscr M}$. These charts are called compatible if (1) both $\varphi(U\cap U')$ and $\varphi'(U\cap U')$ are open in ${\mathbb K}^{m}$; (2) the mappings (that are called transition functions) $\varphi'\circ \varphi^{-1} :\varphi(U\cap U')\to \varphi'(U\cap U')$ and $\varphi\circ {\varphi'}^{-1} :\varphi'(U\cap U')\to \varphi(U\cap U')$ are $\mathbb K$-analytic.
Family $\cal A$ of charts $\{(U_i,\varphi_i,\mathbb K^{m})\}_i$ is called an analytic atlas of ${\mathscr M}$ if (1) ${\mathscr M}=\bigcup\limits_i U_i$; (2) Any two charts from $\cal A$ are compatible.
The set $\mathscr M$ with an analytic atlas on it is called $\mathbb K$-analytic manifold. \[atlas\]
Definition \[atlas\] characterizes manifold with the aid of some its concrete atlas. More elegant definition may be given on the base on the notion of compatible atlases.
Two atlases $\cal A$ and $\cal A'$ of ${\mathscr M}$ are called compatible if ${\cal A}\cup {\cal A'}$ is an atlas of ${\mathscr M}$. It is easy to show that compatibility of atlases is the equivalence relation on the set of all atlases of ${\mathscr M}$ (see, e.g.[@Serre]).
Class of equivalent atlases defines $\mathbb K$-analytic manifold structure on ${\mathscr M}$.
If the ground field is $\mathbb R$ then the requirement of analyticity of transition functions is too restrictive. Instead the notion of differentiable manifolds of class $C^k (k=0,1,\ldots,\infty)$ may be introduced. Transition functions of such manifolds are supposed to be continuously differentiable up to order k. It is clear that transition functions of class $C^k$ are actually $C^k$-diffeomorhisms. Remind as well that $\mathbb R$-analytic manifolds are $C^{\infty}$ ones but not [*vice versa*]{}.
On the same set different manifold structures may exist. The simplest standard example is the set $\mathbb R$ of real numbers: two charts $(\mathbb R, id,\mathbb R)$ and $(\mathbb R, \varphi,\mathbb R)$ where $id:x\mapsto x$ and $\varphi:x\mapsto x^3$ determine two different manifold structures on $\mathbb R$. Indeed, each chart endows $\mathbb R$ with structure of $C^{\infty}$-manifold. But these two charts are not compatible: the transition function $\varphi\circ id^{-1}:x\mapsto x^3$ is smooth and bijective but the inverse mapping $id\circ \varphi^{-1}:x\mapsto x^{\frac{1}{3}}$ is not differentiable at the origin.
The notion of manifold is a very abstract generalization of the classic notions of opened smooth curves and surfaces in Euclidean spaces. If $\sigma:(a,b)\to \mathbb R^m$ is a smooth curve, then it can be interpreted as a smooth 1-dimensional manifold with the chart $c=(\sigma(a,b),\sigma^{-1},\mathbb R)$. Another example is a graphic of smooth function $f:{\mathbb R}^m\to \mathbb R$ (the set of pairs $(x,f(x))$). It is $m$-dimensional manifold ${\mathscr M}_f$ in $\mathbb R^{m+1}$ with atlas consisting of a single chart $(\mathscr M_f, (x,x_{m+1})\mapsto x, \mathbb R^m)$. The corresponding parametrization mapping is $x\mapsto (x,f(x))$.
Classic ${\mathbb R}$-analytic manifold that can not be covered by a single chart is the unit sphere $\mathscr S^{m-1}$. Among its atlases probably the most simple is constituted by the charts $c_{\alpha\varepsilon}=(U_{\alpha\varepsilon},\varphi_{\alpha\varepsilon},\mathbb R^{m-1})$ where $\varepsilon=\pm 1$, $$U_{\alpha \varepsilon}=\{x\in \mathscr S^{m-1}:\varepsilon x_{\alpha}>0\}\\$$ and $\varphi_{\alpha\varepsilon}:x\mapsto (x_1,\ldots,{\hat x}_{\alpha},\ldots,x_m)$. Here the hat over variable means that this variable is omitted. The inverse mapping (parametrization) is $${\gamma}_{\alpha \varepsilon}(x^{(\alpha)})=
\begin{cases}
x_j &\text{if\,} j\ne\alpha \cr
\varepsilon \sqrt{1-\|x^{(\alpha)}\|^2} & \text{if\,} j=\alpha \cr
\end{cases}
\label{sphpar}$$ where $\|x^{(\alpha)}\|<1$. The minimal number of charts covering $\mathscr S^{m-1}$ is equal to 2. These charts may be constructed with the aid of, say, stereographic projection.
Till now all manifolds we considered were actually subsets of Euclidean spaces. There arises a natural question: Do there exist manifolds that can not be realized as subsets of appropriate number spaces $\mathbb K^m$ ? In the case of differentiable manifolds the answer is negative. In 1936 Whitney proved that any differentiable manifold of dimension $m$ admits embedding into Euclidean space $\mathbb R^{2m+1}$ [@Whitney]. For $\mathbb C$-analytic manifolds, however, the situation is completely different. It is easy to show that compact $\mathbb C$-analytic manifold of positive dimension can not be embedded into Hermitian space $\mathbb C^m$. Instead there exists a broad class of compact $\mathbb C$-analytic manifolds that can be embedded into appropriate projective spaces. Some of such manifolds that occur in quantum chemistry, will be considered in detail in the next sections.
Let $\mathscr M$ and $\mathscr N$ be two manifolds of dimension $m$ and $n$, respectively, and $f$ be a mapping $f:\mathscr M\to \mathscr N$. If $(U,\varphi,\mathbb K^m)$ is a chart on $\mathscr M$ and $(V,\psi,\mathbb K^n)$ is a chart on $\mathscr N$ such that $f(U)\subset V$ then the mapping $\psi\circ f\circ \varphi^{-1}$ is a classic vector function of $m$ variables defined on a certain open subset of $\mathbb K^m$ and having subset of $\mathbb K^n$ as its range. This mapping [*represents*]{} $f$ in the charts under consideration. Mapping $\mathscr M\to\mathscr N$ is called differentiable at point $x\in \mathscr M$ if its representative in selected charts $(U,\varphi,\mathbb K^m)$ and $(V,\psi,\mathbb K^n)$ is differentiable at point $\varphi (x)$. It is easy to show that this notion of differentiability does not depend on the choice of charts. Differentiable on $\mathscr M$ functions can therefore be defined as functions differentiable at each point of $\mathscr M$. Mapping $f:\mathscr M\to \mathscr N$ is called morphism of manifolds if any its representative belongs to the class $C^k$ for $C^k$ manifolds and is analytic for analytic manifolds.
Local linearization of a manifold in a neighborhood of some its point leads to very important notion of tangent space. Tangent spaces can be introduced in a number of equivalent ways of which we describe probably the simplest one (see, e.g., [@Sternberg]). Let us consider the set of pairs $(x,\sigma)$ where $x\in \mathscr M$, $\sigma:(-\varepsilon,\varepsilon)\to \mathscr M$ is differentiable mapping (curve) such that $\sigma(0)=x$ (curves passing through a point $x\in \mathscr M$). Two pairs $(x_1,\sigma_1), (x_2, \sigma_2)$ are called equivalent if $x_1=x_2$ and within some chart $c=(U,\varphi,\mathbb K^n)$ on $\mathscr M$ at $x$ the derivatives $D_0[\varphi\circ\sigma_1]$ and $D_0[\varphi\circ\sigma_2]$ coincide. Class $[(x, \sigma)]$ of equivalent pairs is called tangent vector to $\mathscr M$ at point $x$ and the set of all classes is called the tangent bundle of manifold $\mathscr M$ and is denoted ${\sf T}\mathscr M$. To put it more precisely, ${\sf T}\mathscr M$ is a total space of the tangent bundle which is a triple $(\sf T\mathscr M,\pi,\mathscr M)$ where $\mathscr M$ is a base and $\pi:[(x,\sigma)]\to x$ is a projection of this bundle. Fiber $\pi^{-1}(x)$ over point $x\in\mathscr M$ is called tangent space to $\mathscr M$ at point $x$ and denoted ${\sf T}_x\mathscr M$. It contains classes $[(x,\sigma)]$ with fixed $x$. Since each derivative $D_0[\varphi\circ\sigma]$ is, by definition, a linear mapping $\mathbb R\to \mathbb K^m$, we can introduce a mapping $\theta_c:[(x,\sigma)]\to D_0[\varphi\circ\sigma](1)\in \mathbb K^m$ that is obviously injective. Existence of differentiable curve $\sigma(t)=\varphi^{-1}(\varphi(x)+tv)$ for any vector $v\in \mathbb K^m$ shows that $\theta_c$ is actually a bijection. With the aid of $\theta_c^{-1}$ vector structure from $\mathbb K^m$ is transferred to the tangent space ${\sf T}_x\mathscr M$ which becomes therefore $m$-dimensional vector space. Mapping $\theta_c$ depends, of course, on the chart chosen. Indeed, if at point $x$ another chart $c'=(U',\varphi',\mathbb K^m)$ is taken then $\theta_{c'}=D_{\varphi(x)}[\varphi'\circ\varphi^{-1}]\circ \theta_c$ where, by definition, $D_{\varphi(x)}[\varphi'\circ\varphi^{-1}]$ is an isomorphism of the vector space $\mathbb K^m$. This shows that the transferred vector structure on ${\sf T}_x\mathscr M$ does not depend on the choice of concrete chart. In particular, vector space $\mathbb K^m$ is a manifold that can be covered by a single (’natural‘) chart $(\mathbb K^m, id, \mathbb K^m)$. As a representative of class $[(x,\sigma)]$ one can always choose a pair $(x,x+tv)$ where $v=D_0[\varphi\circ\sigma](1)$. We have $\theta_c^{-1}:v\to [(x,x+tv)]$. It is a common practice to identify ${\sf T}\mathbb K^m$ with the direct product $\mathbb K^m\times\mathbb K^m$ and consider the tangent space ${\sf T}_x\mathbb K^m$ as the set of pairs $(x,v)$ where $v$ is a vector outgoing from point $x$ (see, e.g., [@Spivak]).
Let $f:\mathscr M\to \mathscr N$ be a morphism of manifolds, $x\in \mathscr M$ and $y=f(x)\in \mathscr N$. Let us suppose that $c=(U,\varphi,\mathbb K^m)$ and $c'=(V,\psi,\mathbb K^n)$ are charts on $\mathscr M$ at $x$ and on $\mathscr N$ at $y$, respectively, and $f(U)\subset V$. The derivative of the mapping $F=\psi\circ f\circ \varphi^{-1}$ at the point $\varphi(x)$ is a linear mapping $\mathbb K^m\to \mathbb K^n$. Using the aforementioned bijections $\theta_c:{\sf T}_x\mathscr M\to\mathbb K^m$ and $\theta_{c'}:{\sf T}_{f(a)}\mathscr N\to\mathbb K^n$ we can define linear transformation $\theta_{c'}\circ D_{\varphi(x)}F\circ\theta_c^{-1}$ from ${\sf T}_x\mathscr M$ to ${\sf T}_{f(x)}\mathscr N$ which is called the tangent mapping to $f$ at point $x$ and is denoted as ${\sf T}_x(f)$. This mapping does not depend on the choice of charts $c$ and $c'$. In particular, any local parametrization $\gamma:\mathbb K^m\to \mathscr M$ of a certain open subsets of $\mathscr M$ induces tangent mapping ${\sf T}_x(\gamma):{\sf T}_x\mathbb K^m\to{\sf T}_{\gamma(x)}\mathscr M$ at each point of the parameter space.
In the case of morphism $f:\mathscr M\to \mathbb K^n$ instead of the tangent mapping ${\sf T}_x(f)$ the differential of $f$ is used. Differential is a linear transformation $d_x f:{\sf T}_x\mathscr M\to \mathbb K^n$ that is defined in the following way. If $c$ is a natural chart on $\mathbb K^n$ then $d_x f=\theta_{c}\circ {\sf T}_x(f)$. It is pertinent to note, however, that the delicate difference between notions of tangent mapping to $f$ and differential of $f$ is usually ignored in mathematical literature and tangent mappings are also called differentials. We will also keep to this tradition.
If $f$ is a morphism $\mathscr M\to \mathbb K$ then differential $d_x f$ is an element of the vector space ${\sf T}_x\mathscr M^*$ dual to the tangent space to $\mathscr M$ at point $x$. This dual is called the cotangent space and its elements are the so-called co-vectors.
It is well-known from linear algebra that there is no basis-independent (canonical) isomorphism between a vector space and its dual. An additional algebraic structure on vector space is required to perform canonical transformation of vectors to co-vectors and back. Need in such transformation arises in almost all physical and many mathematical theories. Since transformation co-vector$\to$vector will be used in subsequent sections, we found it reasonable to remind here the necessary definitions.
Let $g:E\times E\to \mathbb R$ be a non-degenerate bilinear form on a real vector space $E$. It defines a canonical isomorphism of this space and its dual $E^*$. Indeed, for any fixed $v\in E$ the partial mapping $$g(\cdot ,v):u\to g(u,v)$$ is a linear functional on $E$ and the mapping $$\Theta_g :v\to g(\cdot ,v)$$ is the aforementioned isomorphism. If $\{e_{\mu}\}_{1\le \mu\le n}$ is a basis of $E$ then the inverse mapping $\Theta_g^{-1}:E^*\to E$ may be written as $$\Theta_g^{-1} :l\to \sum\limits_{\mu=1}^n e_{\mu} \left [\sum\limits_{\nu=1}^n
g^{\mu\nu}l(e_{\nu})\right ]
\label{v*v}$$ where $g^{\mu\nu}=g^{-1}_{\mu\nu}$ is the matrix inverse to the matrix $$g_{\mu\nu}=g(e_{\mu},e_{\nu})$$ of bilinear form $g$ relative to the basis $\{e_{\mu}\}$.
When the ground number field is $\mathbb R$, there are two most important particular cases: bilinear form is non-degenerate symmetric or non-degenerate skew-symmetric. In the first case pair $(E,g)$ is called Euclidean space, in the second case it is a symplectic space. Symplectic forms are usually denoted by the symbol $\omega$.
When the ground number field is $\mathbb C$, functionals $l:E\to \mathbb C$ such that $$l(u+v)=l(u)+l(v) \ \mbox{and }\ l(cu)=\bar {c}l(u),\quad u,v\in E, c\in \mathbb C$$ are usually considered. The are called $\frac{1}{2}$-linear functional and the vector space (over $\mathbb C$) of such functionals is also denoted $E^*$. Instead of non-degenerate bilinear forms the so-called $1\frac{1}{2}$-linear (or Hermitian) forms are used. We consider Hermitian forms $\frac{1}{2}$-linear with respect to the first argument: $$g(u,v) =\sum\limits_{\mu,\nu =1}^q \bar {u}_{\mu}g_{\mu
\nu}v_{\nu}$$ This is consistent with widely used in physics Dirac’s notations: $\langle u|v\rangle$ is $1\frac{1}{2}$-linear form $\frac{1}{2}$-linear with respect to $u$ and $\langle u|$ is just $\frac{1}{2}$-linear functional. Mathematicians usually prefer $1\frac{1}{2}$-linear forms that are $\frac{1}{2}$-linear with respect to the second argument.
Let $\mathscr M$ be a differentiable manifold of dimension $m$ embedded in the Euclidean space $\mathbb R^n$, $f$ be a smooth mapping $\mathbb R^n\to \mathbb R$, and $\gamma :\mathbb R^m\to \mathscr M$ be a parametrization of $\mathscr M$, global if $\mathscr M$ is a surface and local if it is a manifold (without loss of generality one can always take $\mathbb R^m$ as a domain of parametrization mapping). Stationary condition for the function $f\circ\gamma$ at a point $x$ is $$d_x\left [f\circ\gamma\right ]=d_{\gamma(x)}f\circ d_x\gamma=0
\label{stcond}$$ Linear isomorphism $d_x \gamma$ maps $\mathbb R^m$ (parameter space) on the tangent space $T_{\gamma(x)}\mathscr M$ which can be considered as a subspace of $\mathbb R^n$. Image $d_x\gamma(e_i)$ of the canonical basis vectors of the parameters space is a basis of the tangent space $T_{\gamma(x)}\mathscr M$. Differential $d_{a}f$ is a co-vector $$d_a f=\sum\limits_{j=1}^n \frac{\partial f}{\partial y_j}(a)dy_j$$ where $\{d y_j\}$ is a basis of $(\mathbb R^n)^*$ dual to the canonical basis $\{e_j\}$ of $\mathbb R^n$. In more habitual for physicists Dirac’s notations $$d_a f=\sum\limits_{j=1}^n \frac{\partial f}{\partial y_j}(a)\langle e_j|$$ For manifolds embedded in Euclidean spaces the differential of the mapping $\gamma$ may also be conveniently written in Dirac’s notation as $$d_x\gamma=\sum\limits_{i=1}^m |\frac{\partial \gamma}{\partial x_i}(x)\rangle\langle e_i|$$ where $\{e_i\}$ is the canonical basis of the parameter space.
Standard Euclidean scalar product $g(e_j,e_{j'})=\langle e_j|e_{j'}\rangle =\delta_{jj'}$ on $\mathbb R^n$ may be used to identify this space and its dual. From Eq.(\[v\*v\]) it readily follows that $\Theta_g^{-1}(\langle e_j|)=|e_j\rangle$ and stationary condition (\[stcond\]) takes the form $$\langle \Theta_g^{-1}(d_{\gamma(x)} f)|d_x\gamma(e_i)\rangle =0 \,\,(i=1,\ldots,m)
\label{stcond1}$$ Geometrically this means that gradient of $f$ (vector $\Theta_g^{-1}(d_{\gamma(x)} f)$) at a stationary point $\gamma(x)$ should be perpendicular to the tangent space ${\sf T}_x\mathscr M$. In quantum chemistry conditions of the type of Eq.(\[stcond1\]) are called Brillouin conditions.
As has already been mentioned, tangent spaces to manifolds embedded in Euclidean spaces may be considered as a subspaces of the enveloping space and, consequently, they inherit its Euclidean structure (scalar product). In particular, the Gram matrix $G_{ii'}(x)=\langle d_x\gamma(e_i)|d_x\gamma(e_{i'})\rangle$ (overlap matrix in the terminology accepted by quantum chemists) is defined on each tangent space, and, if smooth in $x$, endows $\mathscr M$ with the structure of Riemannian space. Riemannian metric is used to study the internal geometry of surfaces and manifolds.
Let us return to our simple examples. Differential of the mapping $\gamma:x\to (x,f(x))$ that parametrizes the graphic $\mathscr M_f\subset \mathbb R^{m+1}$ of a smooth function $f:\mathbb R^m\to \mathbb R$ is $$d_x\gamma=\sum\limits_{i=1}^m |e_i+\frac{\partial f}{\partial x_i}(x)e_{m+1}\rangle\langle e_i|$$ Tangent space to $\mathscr M_f$ at point $(x,f(x))$ is spanned by the vectors $d_x\gamma(e_i)=e_i+\frac {\partial f}{\partial x_i}(x)e_{m+1}$ and Gram matrix is $G_{ii'}(x,f(x))=\delta_{ii'}+ \frac {\partial f}{\partial x_i}(x)\frac {\partial f}{\partial x_{i'}}(x)$. Function $f$ may be written as $pr_{m+1}\circ \gamma$ where $pr_{m+1}(x,x_{m+1})=x_{m+1}$. Brillouin conditions for this function $\langle e_{m+1}|d_x\gamma(e_i)\rangle=\frac{\partial f}{\partial x_i}(x)=0$ are just the classic stationary conditions for function $f$ at point $x$.
Differential of the parametrization mapping (\[sphpar\]) is $$d{\gamma}_{\alpha \varepsilon}(x^{(\alpha)})=\sum\limits_{j\ne
\alpha}|e_j-\varepsilon \frac{x_j}{\sqrt{1-\|x^{(\alpha)}\|^2}}e_{\alpha}\rangle \langle e_j|$$ If $f$ is a smooth mapping $\mathbb R^m\to \mathbb R$ then the stationary conditions for its restriction on the unit sphere $\mathscr S^{m-1}$ are $$\frac{df}{dx}(x)=\lambda x, \, x\in \mathscr S^{m-1}$$ where $\frac{df}{dx}(x)=\sum\limits_{j=1}^m \frac{\partial f}{\partial x_j}(x)e_j$ is the gradient of $f$. In the case under consideration Brillouin conditions may be written in the form independent on the chart index.
Let $I$ be an open interval of $\mathbb R$. It is a trivial manifold covered by a single chart $(I,id,\mathbb R)$. Morphism $\sigma:I\to \mathscr M$ is called a smooth curve on $\mathscr M$. Its differential $d_t\sigma$ is a linear mapping $\mathbb R\to {\sf T}_{\sigma(t)}\mathscr M$. Such linear mapping is uniquely determined by the vector $d_t\sigma (1)$ which is called a tangent vector to curve $\sigma$ at point $t\in I$.
Vector field on $\mathscr M$ is defined as a mapping that to each point $x\in \mathscr M$ puts into correspondence a vector from the tangent space ${\sf T}_x\mathscr M$. For example, for any smooth function $f$ on $\mathscr M$ the mapping $x\to \Theta_{g(x)}^{-1}(d_x f)$ is a vector field on $\mathscr M$ where $g(x)$ is smooth in $x$ non-degenerate bilinear form on ${\sf T}_x\mathscr M$. If $\xi$ is a smooth vector field on $\mathscr M$ then the solution of the first order differential equation $$\overset{.}\sigma (t)=\xi(\sigma(t))$$ is called an integral curve of this vector field.
In conclusion of this section it must be admitted that in applications the abstract manifold theory recedes in the background and the information given here is therefore somewhat excessive. The role of abstract theory reduces to recognition of geometric object as a manifold and to selection of convenient local coordinates on this manifold. After the concrete atlas of the manifold under consideration is chosen and parametrization mappings are constructed, within a given chart instead of frequently complicated Riemannian or symplectic metrics on the tangent spaces one can successively use, as a rule much more simple, Euclidean or symplectic structures of the parameter space. Examples of such a strategy are given in the next sections of the present work.
[**Projective Spaces**]{}
Projective spaces supply us with the simplest example of compact $\mathbb K$-analytic manifolds ($\mathbb K=\mathbb R$ or $ \mathbb C$). From physical viewpoint state of quantum system is a vector of the relevant Hilbert space determined up to an arbitrary phase prefactor being therefore a point of the corresponding projective space.
The set of 1-dimensional subspaces (’lines passing through the origin‘) of the vector space $\mathbb K^{n+1}$ is denoted as $\mathbb P_n(\mathbb K)$ or as $\mathbb P(\mathbb K^{n+1})$ and is called the standard $n$-dimensional projective space over the ground field $\mathbb K$.
For any nonzero $z\in \mathbb K^{n+1}$ symbol $[z]$ stands for 1-dimensional subspace generated by vector $z$. Coordinates $z_0,z_1,\ldots ,z_n$ of vector $z$ are called homogeneous coordinates of line $[z]$ (due to the property $[z]=[\lambda z]$ for any $\lambda \in \mathbb K\backslash \{0\}$).
For each $\alpha =0,1,\ldots,n$ let us define $$U_{\alpha}=\{[z]\in \mathbb P_n(\mathbb K):z_{\alpha}\ne 0\}$$ The mapping $$\varphi_{\alpha}:[z_0,\ldots,z_{\alpha -1},z_{\alpha},z_{\alpha +1},\ldots, z_n]\mapsto (\frac{z_0}{z_{\alpha}},\ldots,\frac{z_{\alpha -1}}{z_{\alpha}},\frac{z_{\alpha +1}}{z_{\alpha}},\ldots, \frac{z_n}{z_{\alpha}})\in \mathbb K^n
\label{h_a}$$ is a local coordinate system on $U_{\alpha}$ and the family of charts $c_{\alpha}=(U_{\alpha},\varphi_{\alpha},\mathbb K^n)$ is an atlas of $\mathbb K$-analytic structure on $\mathbb P_n(\mathbb K)$. The inverse mapping $$\varphi^{-1}_{\alpha}:(\zeta_0,\ldots,{\hat \zeta}_{\alpha},\ldots,\zeta_n)\mapsto [\zeta_0,\ldots,1,\ldots,\zeta_n]
\label{projpar1}$$ is a local parametrization of $U_{\alpha}$ by elements of $\mathbb K^n$. The hat over variable means that this variable should be omitted.
There exists surjective mapping $\pi:\mathbb K^{n+1}\backslash \{0\} \to \mathbb P_n(\mathbb K)$ defined by the relation $\pi(z)=[z]$. Its restriction to the unit sphere $S^n$ for $\mathbb K=\mathbb R$ and to the unit sphere $$S^{2n+1}=\{z\in \mathbb C^{n+1}:\langle z|z\rangle =\sum\limits_{j=0}^n \bar {z}_jz_j=1\}$$ for $\mathbb K=\mathbb C$ is also surjective. Since for any nonzero $z\in \mathbb K^{n+1}$ $$[z]\cap S^n=\{+\frac{z}{\|z\|},-\frac{z}{\|z\|}\}\quad \text{if}\quad \mathbb K=\mathbb R$$ and $$[z]\cap S^{2n+1}=\{e^{{\rm i}\varphi}\frac{z}{\|z\|}:\varphi\in [0,2\pi)\}\quad \text{if}\quad \mathbb K=\mathbb C$$ it is possible to realize the projective space $\mathbb P_n(\mathbb K)$ either as a quotient of the unit sphere $S^n$ modulo the equivalence relation $$z\sim z'\Leftrightarrow z'=\pm z$$ ($\mathbb K=\mathbb R$), or as a quotient of the unit sphere $S^{2n+1}$ modulo the equivalence relation $$z\sim z'\Leftrightarrow z'=e^{{\rm i}\varphi}z
\label{eqrel}$$ ($\mathbb K=\mathbb C$). In further discussion we confine ourselves to the most interesting for us case $\mathbb K=\mathbb C$. It is easy to see that the mapping $$\begin{aligned}
\zeta=(\zeta_0,\ldots,{\hat \zeta}_{\alpha},\ldots,\zeta_n)\mapsto (\zeta_0,\ldots,1,\ldots,\zeta_n)\qquad\qquad\qquad\nonumber\\
\mapsto\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+\langle \zeta|\zeta\rangle}}(\zeta_0,\ldots,1,\ldots,\zeta_n)
\mapsto \bigcup_{\varphi}\left \{
\frac{e^{{\rm i}\varphi}}{\sqrt{1+\langle \zeta|\zeta\rangle}}(\zeta_0,\ldots,1,\ldots,\zeta_n)\right \}\end{aligned}$$ is a local parametrization of $\mathbb P_n(\mathbb C)$ realized as a quotient of $S^{2n+1}$ modulo the equivalence relation (\[eqrel\]). Vector $\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+\langle \zeta|\zeta\rangle}}(\zeta_0,\ldots,1,\ldots,\zeta_n)$ is a representative of the corresponding equivalence class. In fact, we have $\mathbb R$-analytic local parametrization $$\gamma_{\alpha}:(\zeta_0,\ldots,{\hat \zeta}_{\alpha},\ldots,\zeta_n)\mapsto \frac{1}{\sqrt{1+\langle \zeta|\zeta\rangle}}(\zeta_0,\ldots,1,\ldots,\zeta_n)
\label{reppar}$$ of the representatives of the equivalence classes (\[eqrel\]) and $\gamma_{\alpha}(\mathbb C^n)$ is a $2n$-dimensional surface situated on $S^{2n+1}$.
For geometric characterization of tangent spaces to the projective manifold $\mathbb P_n(\mathbb C)$ it seems reasonable to start with the realification of the complex vector space $\mathbb C^{n+1}$ (see [@Arnold]) that gives the real vector space $\mathbb C_{\mathbb R}^{n+1}\sim \mathbb R^{2n+2}$ with the standard basis $$e_0,e_1,e_2,\ldots,e_n,{\rm i}e_0,{\rm i}e_1,{\rm i}e_2,\ldots,{\rm i}e_n
\label{canbas}$$ Hermitian scalar product on $\mathbb C^{n+1}$ (which is supposed to be $\frac{1}{2}$-linear with respect to the first argument) may be written as $$\langle z|z'\rangle = (z,z')+{\rm i}[z,z']$$ where $$(z,z')={\rm Re}\ \langle z|z'\rangle
\label{Euclid}$$ is the Euclidean scalar product and $$[z,z']={\rm Im}\ \langle z|z'\rangle
\label{symplectic}$$ is the symplectic one, both of them are non-degenerate. Basis (\[canbas\]) is orthonormal with respect to the Euclidean scalar product (\[Euclid\]) and is also standard symplectic basis: $[e_i,e_j]=[{\rm i}e_i,{\rm i}e_j]=0$, and $[e_i,{\rm i}e_j]=\delta_{ij}$. Euclidean and symplectic scalar products are connected by the relation $[z,z']=({\rm i}z,z')$.
Tangent vector space to $S^{2n+1}$ at some point $z$ is the orthogonal complement to vector $z$ in $\mathbb R^{2n+2}$ with respect to the Euclidean scalar product (\[Euclid\]): $${\sf T}_z S^{2n+1}=\{\zeta\in \mathbb C_{\mathbb R}^{n+1}:(z,\zeta)=0 \}$$ Point $z\in S^{2n+1}$ is a representative of the circle $\{e^{{\rm i}\varphi}z:\varphi\in[0,2\pi)\}$. Tangent vector to this circle at point $z$ is $\frac{d}{d{\varphi}}e^{{\rm i}\varphi}z|_{\varphi=0}={\rm i }z$. It is easy to ascertain that $$\langle z|\zeta\rangle =0 \Leftrightarrow (z,\zeta)=0\ \text{and}\ ({\rm i}z,\zeta)=0$$ As a result, the tangent space ${\sf T}_{[z]}\mathbb P_n(\mathbb C)$ at point $[z]$ is isomorphic to $(\mathbb C z)^{\perp}$ (the orthogonal complement to the line $\mathbb C z$ with respect to the Hermitian scalar product on $\mathbb C^{n+1}$). Orthogonal projection of arbitrary vector $\xi\in \mathbb C^{n+1}$ on the orthogonal complement to $z$ is of the form $$\xi - \frac{\langle z|\xi \rangle }{\langle z|z\rangle}z$$ If $d_z \pi:{\sf T}_z\mathbb C^{n+1} \to {\sf T}_{[z]}\mathbb P_n(\mathbb C)$ is the differential of $\pi$ at $z$, and $\eta_1=d_z \pi (\xi_1)$, $\eta_2=d_z \pi (\xi_2)$ are two tangent vectors from ${\sf T}_{[z]}\mathbb P_n(\mathbb C)$ (their concrete nature is irrelevant) then it is possible to introduce on ${\sf T}_{[z]}\mathbb P_n(\mathbb C)$ the following Hermitian scalar product $$\langle \eta_1|\eta_2 \rangle _{[z]}=\frac{\langle \xi_1|\xi_2\rangle\langle z|z\rangle-\langle \xi_1|z\rangle\langle z|\xi_2\rangle}{\langle z|z\rangle ^2}
\label{hermit1}$$
Now let us consider parametrization (\[reppar\]) assuming that for each $\alpha$ the parameter space $\mathbb C^n$ is embedded in $\mathbb C^{n+1}$: $\mathbb C^n\subset \mathbb C^n\oplus\mathbb Ce_{\alpha}$. Differential $d_{\zeta}\gamma_{\alpha}$ is an isomorphism ${\sf T}_{\zeta}\mathbb R^{2n} \to {\sf T}_{\gamma_{\alpha}(\zeta)}\gamma_{\alpha}(\mathbb R^{2n})$. Simple calculations give $$d_{\zeta}\gamma_{\alpha}(\xi)=\frac{1}{[1+\langle \zeta |\zeta \rangle]^{\frac{1}{2}}}\left [\xi - (\xi, \gamma_{\alpha}(\zeta))\gamma_{\alpha}(\zeta)\right ]
\label{imksi}$$ where $\xi$ belongs to ${\sf T}_{\zeta}\mathbb R^{2n}\sim\mathbb R^{2n}$ and $(\gamma_{\alpha}(\zeta),\xi)$ is the Euclidean scalar product (\[Euclid\]). It is easy to see that with respect to this scalar product vectors (\[imksi\]) are orthogonal to $\gamma_{\alpha}(\zeta)$ and to ${\rm i}e_{\alpha}$. Thus, with such an approach, $${\mathbb R}^{2n+2}={\sf T}_{\gamma_{\alpha}(\zeta)}S^{2n+1}\oplus{\mathbb R}\gamma_{\alpha}(\zeta)$$ and $${\sf T}_{\gamma_{\alpha}(\zeta)}S^{2n+1}={\sf T}_{\gamma_{\alpha}(\zeta)}\gamma_{\alpha}(\mathbb R^{2n})\oplus\mathbb R {\rm i}e_{\alpha}$$ The expressions for the Euclidean and symplectic scalar products on the tangent space ${\sf T}_{\gamma_{\alpha}(\zeta)}\gamma_{\alpha}(\mathbb R^{2n})$ are $$g^{(\alpha)}_{\zeta}(\eta_1,\eta_2)= \frac{(\xi_1,\xi_2)(1+\|\zeta\|^2)-(\xi_1,\zeta)(\zeta,\xi_2)}{(1+\|\zeta\|^2)^2}
\label{gform}$$ and $$\omega^{(\alpha)}_{\zeta}(\eta_1,\eta_2)=\frac{[\xi_1,\xi_2](1+\|\zeta\|^2)-(\xi_1,\zeta)[\zeta,\xi_2]-[\xi_1,\zeta](\zeta,\xi_2)}{(1+\|\zeta\|^2)^2}
\label{omegaform}$$ where $\eta_1=d_{\zeta}\gamma_{\alpha}(\xi_1)$ and $\eta_2=d_{\zeta}\gamma_{\alpha}(\xi_2)$. Basis vectors of the tangent space ${\sf T}_{\gamma_{\alpha}(\zeta)}\gamma_{\alpha}(\mathbb R^{2n})$ are just the images of basis vectors from the parameter space. We see that these scalar products are rather complicated in comparison with the analogous scalar products on the parameter space.
Now let us consider a quadratic ’energy‘ function on the projective space $\mathbb P_n(\mathbb C)$ $$E([z])=\frac{1}{2}\frac{\langle z|H|z\rangle}{\|z\|^2}
\label{efunc1}$$ that can be locally presented as $$E(\zeta)=\frac{1}{2}\langle \gamma_{\alpha}(\zeta)|H|\gamma_{\alpha}(\zeta)\rangle
\label{efunc2}$$ where $H$ is some Hermitian operator on $\mathbb C^{n+1}$, and suppose that $H$ has $e_{\alpha}$ as its non-degenerate eigenvector. $E(\zeta)$ is a representation of the function (\[efunc1\]) within the chart $c_{\alpha}=(U_{\alpha}, \varphi_{\alpha},\mathbb R^{2n})$. Standard Euclidean and symplectic inner products defined by Eqs.(\[Euclid\])-(\[symplectic\]) exist on the parameter space $\mathbb R^{2n}$. Since basis $\{e_j,{\rm i}e_j\},j\ne \alpha$ is symplectic, matrix of the symplectic form (\[symplectic\]) is $$\Omega^{(\alpha)}=\begin{pmatrix}
0&{\rm I}_n\\
-{\rm I}_n&0
\end{pmatrix}$$ Without loss of generality in the remainder of this section we assume that $\alpha =0$ and suppress index $\alpha$ in all forthcoming expressions.
After realification the energy function $E(x,y)$ becomes $$E(x,y)=\frac{E_0+\sum\limits_{i,j=1}^nx_ix_jA_{ij}+\sum\limits_{i,j=1}^ny_iy_j{\rm A}_{ij}-2\sum\limits_{i,j=1}^nx_iy_j{\rm B}_{ij}}{2(1+\|x\|^2+\|y\|^2)}
\label{efunc3}$$ where $E_0$ is the eigenvalue of $H$ corresponding to the eigenvector $e_0$, and $\rm A=Re\ H$, $\rm B= Im\ H$ are real and imaginary components of the operator $H$ matrix with respect to the basis (\[canbas\]), $\rm A$ is symmetric and $\rm B$ is skew-symmetric. Partial first derivatives of $E(x,y)$ are
$$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial}{\partial x_j}E(x,y)=-\frac{2x_jE(x,y)-\sum\limits_{i=1}^nA_{ji}x_i+\sum\limits_{i=1}^nB_{ji}y_i}{1+\|x\|^2+\|y\|^2}\\
\frac{\partial }{\partial y_j}E(x,y)=-\frac{2y_jE(x,y)-\sum\limits_{i=1}^nA_{ji}y_i-\sum\limits_{i=1}^nB_{ji}x_i}{1+\|x\|^2+\|y\|^2}\end{aligned}$$
Realified matrix of the second derivatives at the origin $(x,y)=(0,0)$ is $${\mathscr H}=\begin{pmatrix}
\ {\rm A}-E_0{\rm I}_n&-{\rm B}\\
{\rm B}&\ {\rm A}-E_0{\rm I}_n
\end{pmatrix}$$ Spectra of operator $H-E_0I_n$ in the Hermitian space $\mathbb C^{n}$ and the Hessian $d^2_{(0,0)}E$ in the Euclidean space $\mathbb R^{2n}$ are identical. Indeed, it is easy to show that $$\det\left [{\mathscr H}-\omega {\rm I}_{2n}\right ]=|\det\left [{\rm H}-(E_0+\omega){\rm I}_n\right ]|^2$$ Eigenvalues are just the ’transition energies‘ $\omega_{i0}=E_i-E_0$. Positive definiteness of Hessian implies that the function (\[efunc1\]) has its minimum at the point $e_0$.
Now let us try to exploit the symplectic structure of the parameter space. In theory of symplectic manifolds any smooth real-valued function on a symplectic manifold is called a Hamiltonian function. In particular, both function (\[efunc1\]) and its local representative (\[efunc2\]) are the Hamiltonian ones.
In general case, a symplectic manifold is a pair $({\mathscr M},\omega)$ where ${\mathscr M}$ is an even-dimensional differentiable manifold and $\omega$ is closed skew-symmetric 2-form on ${\mathscr M}$ that is, for each $x \in {\mathscr M}$ the mapping $\omega_x:{\sf T}_x{\mathscr M}\times{\sf T}_x{\mathscr M}\to \mathbb R$ is non-degenerate bilinear skew-symmetric, $\omega_x$ varies smoothly in $x$, and $d\omega=0$ ($d$ is the exterior derivative of $\omega$). For example, the mapping $\zeta\to \omega^{(\alpha)}_{\zeta}$ (see Eq.(\[omegaform\])) endows the surface $\gamma_{\alpha}(\mathbb R^{2n})$ with the symplectic structure.
For any smooth function $f:{\mathscr M}\to \mathbb R$ its differential at point $x\in {\mathscr M}$ is a covector $d_xf:{\sf T}_x{\mathscr M}\to \mathbb R$. The image of $d_xf$ with respect to the isomorphism $\Theta_{\omega}^{-1}$ (see Eq.(\[v\*v\])) is a vector of the tangent space ${\sf T}_x{\mathscr M}$ and the first order differential equation $$\frac{d}{dt}\gamma (t)= \Theta_{\omega}^{-1}\left (d_{\gamma(t)}f\right )
\label{Heq}$$ is called a Hamiltonian one. Critical points of $f$ are just the singular points of the vector field $x\to \Theta_{\omega}^{-1}\left (d_xf\right )$ and [*vice versa*]{}.
In certain situations to study the stability of solution of Eq.(\[Heq\]) in a neighborhood of some its singular point it is sufficient to analyze the linearization of this differential equation (see, e.g. [@Arnold]).
For the energy function (\[efunc3\]) its differential is a covector $$d_{(x,y)}E=\sum\limits_{j=1}^n \frac{\partial}{\partial x_j}E(x,y)dx_j+\sum\limits_{j=1}^n \frac{\partial}{\partial y_j}E(x,y)dy_j$$ that can be transformed to the the symplectic gradient to give $$\Theta_{\omega}^{-1}(d_{(x,y)}E)=-\sum\limits_{j=1}^ne_j\frac{\partial}{\partial y_j}E(x,y)+\sum\limits_{j=1}^n
{\rm i}e_j\frac{\partial}{\partial x_j}E(x,y)
\label{v*tovd}$$ (here the standard symplectic structure of the parameter space is used).
The Hamiltonian equations in coordinate form are
$$\begin{aligned}
\overset{.}x_j=&-\frac{\partial}{\partial y_j}E(x,y)\\
\overset{.}y_j=&\frac{\partial}{\partial x_j}E(x,y)
\label{Hequ}\end{aligned}$$
where $j=1,2,\ldots,n$.
Linearization of Hamiltonian equations in a neighborhood of its critical point means that Hamiltonian function is replaced by its quadratic approximation. For $E(x,y)$ in a neighborhood of the origin we have $$\begin{aligned}
E^{(2)}(x,y)=\nonumber\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\\
E_0+\frac{1}{2}\left [\sum\limits_{i,j=1}^nx_ix_j({\rm A}-E_0{\rm I}_n)_{ij} + \sum\limits_{i,j=1}^ny_iy_j({\rm A}-E_0{\rm I}_n)_{ij}-2\sum\limits_{i,j=1}^nx_iy_j{\rm B}_{ij}\right ]\end{aligned}$$ The corresponding linearized Hamiltonian equations are
$$\begin{aligned}
\overset{.}x_j=&-\sum\limits_{j=1}^n({\rm A}-E_0{\rm I}_n)_{ij}y_j-\sum\limits_{j=1}^n{\rm B}_{ij}x_j\nonumber\\
\overset{.}y_j=&\sum\limits_{j=1}^n({\rm A}-E_0{\rm I}_n)_{ij}x_j-\sum\limits_{j=1}^n{\rm B}_{ij}y_j\end{aligned}$$
or, in a matrix form $$\left (\begin{array}{c}
\overset{.}x\\
\overset{.}y
\end{array}\right )
=-\Omega{\mathscr H}
\left (\begin{array}{c}
x\\
y
\end{array}\right )
\label{matHequ}$$
Characteristic roots of real matrix $-\Omega {\mathscr H}$ are purely imaginary. Indeed, $$\det\left [\Omega{\mathscr H}+\lambda {\rm I}_{2n}\right ]=|\det\left [{\rm H}-(E_0+{\rm i}\lambda ){\rm I}_n\right ]|^2$$ and, consequently, the aforementioned roots are $\pm {\rm i}\omega_{i0}$.
Realified parameter space $(\mathbb C^n)_{\mathbb R}\sim \mathbb R^{2n}$ can be again complexified to give complex vector space $\mathbb C\otimes_{\mathbb R} \mathbb R^{2n}$ of complex dimension $2n$ with basis vectors $\{1\otimes e_j,1\otimes {\rm i}e_j\}$ where $1$ is the unit of $\mathbb C$. Hermitian structure on this space is introduced in the following way: for any $\alpha, \alpha' \in \mathbb C$ and any $v,v'\in \mathbb R^{2n}$ $$\langle \alpha\otimes v|\alpha'\otimes v'\rangle={\bar \alpha}\alpha'(v,v')
\label{hermit2}$$ where $(\cdot,\cdot)$ is standard Euclidean scalar product on $\mathbb R^{2n}$. Basis $\{1\otimes e_j,1\otimes {\rm i}e_j\}$ is orthonormal with respect to this scalar product.
Let us select in $\mathbb C\otimes_{\mathbb R} \mathbb R^{2n}$ a new orthogonal basis $$f_j=\frac{1}{2}\left [(1\otimes e_j)-{\rm i}(1\otimes {\rm i}e_j)\right ],\quad \bar{f_j}=\frac{1}{2}\left [(1\otimes e_j)+{\rm i}(1\otimes {\rm i}e_j)\right ]
\label{fbas}$$ The corresponding transformation matrix is $${\rm C}=\begin{pmatrix}
\ \ \ {\rm I}_n&{\rm I}_n\\
-{\rm i}{\rm I}_n&{\rm i}{\rm I}_n
\end{pmatrix}$$ In this basis the Hamiltonian equations (\[Hequ\]) take the Schr$\rm \ddot{o}$dinger-type form
$$\begin{aligned}
\overset{.}\zeta_j=&2{\rm i}\frac{\partial}{\partial {\bar \zeta}_j}E(\zeta,\bar \zeta)\nonumber\\
\overset{.}{\bar \zeta}_j=&-2{\rm i}\frac{\partial}{\partial \zeta_j}E(\zeta,\bar \zeta)\end{aligned}$$
\[Schrod1\]
where ${\zeta}_j=x_j+{\rm i}y_j$ and where, by definition,
$$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial}{\partial \zeta_j}=\frac{1}{2}\left (\frac{\partial}{\partial x_j}-{\rm i}\frac{\partial}{\partial y_j}\right )\\
\frac{\partial}{\partial {\bar\zeta}_j}=\frac{1}{2}\left (\frac{\partial}{\partial x_j}+{\rm i}\frac{\partial}{\partial y_j}\right )\end{aligned}$$
\[derz\]
On the complexified parameter space $\mathbb C\otimes_{\mathbb R} \mathbb R^{2n}$ energy can be considered as a function of [*independent*]{} variables $\zeta,\bar \zeta$.
Linearized matrix Hamiltonian equation (\[matHequ\]) in variables $\zeta,\bar\zeta$ becomes $$\left (\begin{array}{c}
\overset{.}\zeta\\
\overset{.}{\bar\zeta}
\end{array}\right )
=-{\rm C}^{-1}\Omega{\mathscr H}{\rm C}
\left (\begin{array}{c}
\zeta\\
\bar\zeta
\end{array}\right )
\label{Schrod2}$$ where $${\rm C}^{-1}\Omega{\mathscr H}{\rm C}=-{\rm i}\begin{pmatrix}
{\rm H}-E_0{\rm I}_n&0\\
0&-\left ({\rm \bar H}-E_0{\rm I}_n\right )
\end{pmatrix}$$ Spectra of real Hamiltonian matrix $-\Omega{\mathscr H}$ and complex Schr$\rm \ddot{o}$dinger-type matrix $-{\rm C}^{-1}\Omega{\mathscr H}{\rm C}$ are obviously identical. It is clear as well that the last matrix is diagonalizable over $\mathbb C$. This means, in particular, that real non-symmetric matrix $-\Omega {\mathscr H}$ is also diagonalizable over ${\mathbb C}$. Over the field $\mathbb R$ of real numbers this matrix can be transformed into block-diagonal form with $n$ skew-symmetric $2\times 2$ blocks. Indeed, if $u_i$ is an eigenvector of matrix $-\Omega {\mathscr H}$ belonging to the eigenvalue ${\rm i}\omega_{i0}$ then $\bar {u}_i$ is also the eigenvector of this matrix belonging to the eigenvalue $-{\rm i}\omega_{i0}$. It is easy to show that vectors ${\rm Re}\,u_i$ and ${\rm Im}\,u_i$ constitute a basis of two-dimensional invariant subspace of matrix $-\Omega {\mathscr H}$ in real parameter space $\mathbb R^{2n}$. In this basis matrix $-\Omega {\mathscr H}$ becomes a direct sum of $2\times 2$ real matrices and differential equation (\[matHequ\]) becomes a direct product of $n$ equations $$\begin{pmatrix}
\overset{.}p_i\\
\overset{.}q_i
\end{pmatrix}=\begin{pmatrix}
0&\omega_{i0}\\
-\omega_{i0}&0
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
p_i\\
q_i
\end{pmatrix}$$ where $p_i, q_i$ are coordinates of real vector from the aforementioned two-dimensional subspace relative to the basis $\{{\rm Re}\,u_i, {\rm Im}\,u_i\}$. Thus, matrix $-\Omega {\mathscr H}$ can not be diagonalized over $\mathbb R$ but can be transformed to the following simple (’canonical‘) form $$\begin{pmatrix}
\boxed{\begin{matrix}
0&\omega_{10}\\
-\omega_{10}&0
\end{matrix}}&&&0\\
&\boxed{\begin{matrix}
0&\omega_{20}\\
-\omega_{20}&0
\end{matrix}}&&\\
&&\ddots&\\
0&&&\boxed{\begin{matrix}
0&\omega_{n0}\\
-\omega_{n0}&0
\end{matrix}}
\end{pmatrix}$$
Note that spectrum of matrix $-\Omega {\mathscr H}$ is purely imaginary without dependence on character of critical point of the energy function. Identification of the index of the critical point under consideration can be performed by means of analysis of inequalities $|\lambda_i| +E_0>E_0$. Phase curves of Hamiltonian systems behave differently for critical points of different index. In particular, the solution of linearized Hamiltonian system reasonably approximates the solution of the initial non-linear system if the Hessian of the Hamiltonian function is sign-definite (see, e.g., [@Arnold]).
It is pertinent to mention that by a certain abuse of notation we did not distinguish operator $H$ defined on the space $\mathbb C^{n+1}$ and its restriction on the subspace $\mathbb C^n$ complementary to $\mathbb Ce_0$.
Concluding this section we can state that for the projective spaces it is of no consequence what structure, Euclidean or symplectic, is used (if, of course, we are interested only in stability of energy critical points and excitation spectra but not in actual evolution). In the next sections it will be demonstrated that for submanifolds of projective spaces the situation is different: use of symplectic structure may give results essentially different from that obtained with the Euclidean structure.
We start with relevant assertions from the multilinear algebra. Their proof may be found, e.g., in [@Sternberg; @Greub; @Kost]. Our presentation is close to that in [@Kost]. The notion of the wedge product is supposed to be known.
Symbol ${\cal F}_N^1$ will stand for 1-electron sector of the Fock space spanned by $n=|N|$ molecular spin orbitals (MSOs) $\{\psi_i\}$ with indices from the MSO index set $N=\{1,\ldots,n\}$. Vectors from $ {\cal F}_N^p=\bigwedge^p{\cal F}_N^1$ are called $p-$vectors by mathematicians and $p-$electron states by physicists. $p$-vector $z$ is called decomposable if there exist vectors $z_1,\ldots,z_p\in {\cal F}_N^1$ such that $z=z_1\wedge \ldots \wedge z_p$. In quantum chemistry decomposable $p-$vectors are called ’$p-$electron Slater determinants‘. Interpretation of quantum chemical notions in terms of modern multilinear algebra may be found in [@Cassam].
Vectors $z_1,z_2,\ldots,z_p$ from ${\cal
F}_N^1$ are linearly independent if and only if $$z_1\wedge \ldots \wedge z_p\ne 0.$$
For arbitrary $p-$vector $z$ its annihilator is $${\rm Ann}(z)=\{y\in {\cal F}_N^1|z\wedge y=0\}
\label{Ann}$$
It is clear that for any $p-$vector $z$ its annihilator is a subspace of the one-electron vector space ${\cal F}_N^1$.
Let $z$ be $p-$vector with annihilator spanned by free vectors $z_1,z_2,\ldots,z_q$. Then there exists $(p-q)-$ vector $y$ such that $$z=z_1\wedge z_2\wedge\ldots\wedge z_q\wedge y$$
In quantum chemistry annihilator of some $p-$electron state is called ’subspace of inactive MSOs associated with this state‘.
Let $z_1,z_2,\ldots,z_p$ and $y_1,y_2,\ldots,y_p$ be two free families of vectors from ${\cal
F}_N^1$. Then $$z_1\wedge \ldots \wedge z_p=\lambda y_1\wedge \ldots \wedge
y_p\ \ (\lambda \ne 0)$$ if and only if $p-$planes (subspaces) generated by vectors $z_1,z_2,\ldots,z_p$ and $y_1,y_2,\ldots,y_p$ are identical.
Since ${\rm Ann}(z)={\rm Ann}(\lambda z)$ for any $p-$vector $z$ and any $\lambda\ne 0$, it is possible to consider $\rm Ann$ as a mapping $${\rm Ann}:(\mathbb K \backslash \{0\})z_1\wedge z_2 \wedge \ldots \wedge z_p\to [z_1,z_2,\ldots,z_p]
\label{annmap}$$ where $$[z_1,z_2,\ldots,z_p]=\sum\limits_{i=1}^p\mathbb Kz_i$$ is a $\mathbb K -$linear hull of vectors $z_1,z_2,\ldots,z_p$.
The set of all $p-$dimensional subspaces ($p-$planes) of one-electron Fock space ${\cal F}_N^1$ is called its Grassmann manifold and is denoted by the symbol ${\sf G}_p({\cal F}_N^1)$.
It is easy to see that the mapping defined by Eq.(\[annmap\]) is actually a bijection and its inverse is an embedding of the Grassmann manifold ${\sf G}_p({\cal F}_N^1)$ into the the projective space $\mathbb P({\cal F}_N^p)$ of $p-$electron states.
The set ${\rm Ann}^{-1}({\sf G}_p({\cal F}_N^1))$ is called the Hartree-Fock (HF) manifold of $p-$electron states.
HF manifold can be characterized implicitly as the set of solutions of a system of homogeneous polynomial equations, that is as a projective algebraic variety (see, e.g., [@Cox]). This characterization is based on the following simple statement (see, e.g., [@Kost]).
For any non-zero $p-$vector the dimension of its annihilator is less or equal $p$. Non-zero $p-$vector is decomposable if and only if its annihilator is of dimension $p$.
Recasting the vector equation $$z\wedge y=0,\ z\in {\cal F}_N^p,\ y\in {\cal F}_N^1$$ in a coordinate form (with respect to some fixed one-electron basis), we arrive at a homogeneous linear system of $\binom{n}{p+1}$ scalar equations with respect to $n$ unknowns $y_1,y_2,\ldots,y_n$, and it is easy to see that $p-$vector $z$ is decomposable if and only if all minors of order $n-p+1$ of the matrix of this system are equal to zero. These conditions give us the required system of polynomial equations.
Explicit characterization of HF manifolds in terms of local coordinates seems to be much more useful for applications.
Let us fix some one-electron basis set $\{\psi_1,\psi_2,\ldots,\psi_n\}$ and consider $\mathbb K$-linear hull of vectors $$z_i=\sum\limits_{j=1}^n \psi_j Z_{ji}, \ i=1,2,\ldots,p$$ To this linear hull the mapping ${\rm Ann}^{-1}$ puts into correspondence the line generated by decomposable $p-$vector $$z=z_1\wedge\ldots\wedge z_p=\sum\limits_{1\le i_1<\ldots <i_p \le n}
\psi_{i_1}\wedge\ldots\wedge\psi_{i_p} Z_{i_1\ldots i_p}$$ where $Z_{i_1\ldots i_p}$ is the determinant of $p\times p -$submatrix of $n\times p -$matrix $\rm Z$ with row indices $i_1,\ldots,i_p$.
Coordinate charts on Grassmann manifold may be introduced as follows. Let us suppose that $Z_{i_1\ldots i_p}\ne 0$. Then we can write $$(z_1\ldots ,z_p)=
(\psi_{i_1},\ldots,\psi_{i_p},\psi_{j_1},\ldots,\psi_{j_{n-p}})\left
(\begin{array}{c}
{\rm Z}_1\\
{\rm Z}_2 \end{array}\right )$$ where ${\rm Z}_1$ is non-degenerate $p\times p-$submatrix of matrix ${\rm Z}$ with row indices $i_1,\ldots,i_p$ and ${\rm Z}_2$ is its $(n-p)\times p-$submatrix with complementary row indices $j_1,\ldots,j_{n-p}$. It is clear that vectors $(z_1\ldots ,z_p){\rm Z}_1^{-1}$ generate the same $p-$plane $[z_1,\ldots ,z_p]$. If another set $$(y_1\ldots ,y_p)=
(\psi_{i_1},\ldots,\psi_{i_p},\psi_{j_1},\ldots,\psi_{j_{n-p}})\left
(\begin{array}{c}
{\rm Y}_1\\
{\rm Y}_2 \end{array}\right )$$ of free vector generating this plane is chosen then necessarily ${\rm Y}_2{\rm Y}_1^{-1}={\rm Z}_2{\rm Z}_1^{-1}$. Thus, as a local parametrization it is possible to take the mapping $${\gamma}_{i_1i_2\ldots i_p}:{\rm Z}\to (\psi_{i_1},\ldots,\psi_{i_p},\psi_{j_1},\ldots,\psi_{j_{n-p}})\left
(\begin{array}{c}
{\rm I}_p\\
{\rm Z} \end{array}\right )\to [z_1\wedge z_2\wedge\ldots\wedge z_p]
\label{grpar1}$$ where ${\rm Z}\in {\mathbb K}^{p(n-p)}$ and $$z_k=\psi_{i_k}+\sum\limits_{l=1}^{n-p}\psi_{j_l}Z_{j_l k},\ (k=1,2,\ldots,p)
\label{zk}$$ The domain of the corresponding chart is $U_{i_1i_2 \ldots i_p}={\gamma}_{i_1i_2\ldots i_p}\left ({\mathbb K}^{p(n-p)}\right )$. It is easy to see that the family of charts $$c_{i_1i_2\ldots i_p}=\left ( U_{i_1i_2 \ldots i_p},\varphi_{i_1i_2 \ldots i_p},{\mathbb K}^{p(n-p)} \right )$$ where $\varphi_{i_1i_2 \ldots i_p}={\gamma}_{i_1i_2 \ldots i_p}^{-1}$, forms an atlas of Grassmann manifold and that this manifold is $\mathbb K -$analytic. Note as well that the chart with indices $i_1,\ldots,i_p$ is centered at the point ($p-$plane) $[\psi_{i_1},\ldots,\psi_{i_p}]$. It is pertinent to mention that the described atlas of the Grassmann manifold depends on the choice of the MSO basis set and by a properly selected non-degenerate transformation of MSOs any point of this manifold can be placed at the center of the ’standard‘ chart $c_{12\ldots p}=(U_{12\ldots p},\varphi_{12\ldots p},{\mathbb K}^{p(n-p)})$. For $p=1$ Eq.(\[grpar1\]) is identical to Eq.(\[projpar1\]).
In addition to the aforementioned ’canonical‘ realization of the Grassmann manifolds, there exist another realizations, of which we mention three most commonly used ones.
\(1) The set of all Hermitian idempotents (density operators) $\rho$ over ${\cal F}_N^1$ such that $Tr\ \rho=p$;
\(2) Quotient of the general linear group ${\rm GL}({\cal F}_N^1)$ modulo its certain closed subgroup.
\(3) Quotient of the unitary group ${\rm U}({\cal F}_N^1)$ modulo its certain closed subgroup.
Two last realization require additional explanations. There is a natural transitive action of the general linear group ${\rm GL}({\cal F}_N^1)$ on the set of all $p-$planes from ${\cal F}_N^1$. If $\pi \in {\sf G}_p({\cal F}_N^1)$ then its isotropy group $G_{\pi}=\{g\in {\rm GL}({\cal F}_N^1)|g\pi=\pi\}$ is a closed subgroup of ${\rm GL}({\cal F}_N^1)$. If $p$ first vectors of a chosen one-electron basis generate $p-$plane $\pi$ then matrix representation of transformation $g\in G_{\pi}$ is of the form $$\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\rm A&\rm B\\
0&\rm C \end{array}\right )
\label{Gomega}$$ The quotient space ${\rm GL}({\cal F}_N^1)/G_{\pi}$ can be endowed with $\mathbb K-$analytic structure consistent with the quotient topology [@Goto]. For any $p-$plane $\pi$ the set ${\rm GL}({\cal F}_N^1)/G_{\pi}$ of left cosets of the general linear group ${\rm GL}({\cal F}_N^1)$ relative to $G_{\pi}$ is a homogeneous space isomorphic to the homogeneous space ${\sf G}_p({\cal F}_N^1)$. Indeed, let us put $$\theta_{\pi}:g{\rm G}_{\pi}\to g\pi$$ We have
\(i) $\theta_{\pi}(g'g{\rm G}_{\pi})=g'g\pi=g'(g\pi)=g'\theta_{\pi}(g{\rm G}_{\pi})$ for any non-degenerate transformation $g'$ from ${\rm GL}({\cal F}_N^1)$;
\(ii) $\theta_{\pi}(g{\rm G}_{\pi})=\theta_{\pi}(g'{\rm G}_{\pi})\Rightarrow g\pi=g'\pi\Rightarrow g{\rm G}_{\pi}=g'{\rm G}_{\pi}$;
\(iii) For any $\pi '\in {\sf G}_p({\cal F}_N^1)$ there exists $g\in {\rm GL}({\cal F}_N^1)$ such that $\pi '=g\pi\Rightarrow \pi '=\theta_{\pi}(g{\rm G}_{\pi})$.
Property (i) means that the mapping $\theta_{\pi}$ is a morphism of homogeneous spaces. Properties (ii) and (iii) imply that this mapping is a bijection.
Thus, for any fixed $p-$plane $\pi$ the Grassmann manifold ${\sf G}_p({\cal F}_N^1)$ can be identified with the space $${\rm GL}({\cal F}_N^1)/{\rm G}_{\pi}=\bigcup\limits_{g\in {\rm GL}({\cal F}_N^1)\backslash {\rm G}_{\pi}}gG_{\pi}$$ of left cosets of the general linear group of one-electron Fock space relative to subgroup $G_{\pi}$.
The general linear group ${\rm GL}({\cal F}_N^1)$ is a Lie group (that is a group and $\mathbb K-$analytic manifold) and its tangent space $\mathfrak g({\cal F}_N^1)={\sf T}_{I_n}({\rm GL}({\cal F}_N^1))$ at the identity $I_n$ is a Lie algebra of all one-electron linear transformations that is $$\mathfrak g({\cal F}_N^1)={\cal F}_N^1\otimes \left ({\cal F}_N^1\right )^*$$ Subgroup $G_{\pi}$ is also a Lie group and its Lie algebra $\mathfrak g(\pi)$ is a subspace of the vector space $\mathfrak g({\cal F}_N^1)$. And again, if $p$ first vectors of a chosen one-electron basis generate $p-$plane $\pi$ then Lie algebra $\mathfrak g(\pi)$ can be identified with the algebra of matrices of the form of Eq.(\[Gomega\]) with elements from the number field under consideration.
Let us consider a decomposition $$\mathfrak g({\cal F}_N^1)=\mathfrak g(\pi)\oplus \mathfrak p$$ where subspace $\mathfrak p$ is constituted by matrices of the form $$\left(\begin{array}{cc}
0&0\\
\rm Z&0 \end{array}\right )$$ It can be proved (see, e.g., [@Goto]) that there exists a neighborhood of zero in the parameter space where the mapping $${\gamma}_{\pi}:{\rm Z}\to \exp\left ( {\rm Z} \right)G_{\pi}
\label{expg}$$ with $${\rm Z}=\sum\limits_{\mu=1}^p\sum\limits_{\nu=p+1}^nZ_{\nu\mu}e_{\nu\mu}
\label{GLZ}$$ and $$e_{\nu\mu}=|\psi_{\nu}\rangle\langle\psi_{\mu}|$$ is a $\mathbb K-$analytic parametrization of a neighborhood of $G_{\pi}$ in ${\rm GL}({\cal F}_N^1)/{\rm G}_{\pi}$. The family of mappings $\{{\gamma}_{\pi}\}_{\pi}$ involves infinite number of members. Due to compactness of ${\rm G}_p({\cal F}_N^1)$ there exists a finite subfamily of this family that parametrizes this manifold. If $\pi$ is some $p-$plane spanned by MSOs $\psi_1,\ldots,\psi_p$ then the mapping $$\gamma_{12\ldots p}^{\rm GL}:{\rm Z}\to \left [\exp({\rm Z})\psi_1\right ]\wedge\ldots\wedge\left [\exp({\rm Z})\psi_p\right ]
\label{Gexp}$$ may be used to parametrize representatives of HF lines in the projective space of $p-$electron states belonging to a neighborhood of $p-$plane $\pi$.
Both mappings (\[grpar1\]) and (\[Gexp\]) are $\mathbb K-$analytic. But they have a certain drawback. Namely, even if the set of MSO corresponding to the origin is orthonormal (with respect to the standard Euclidean or Hermitian scalar product on one-electron Fock space), the parametrized $p-$frames corresponding to non-zero values of parameters are not. This may be inconvenient both for evaluation of matrix elements and in the course of solution of optimization problem. It is easy to modify the definition of the mapping (\[grpar1\]) to eliminate the aforementioned drawback: $$\gamma_{12\ldots p}^{\rm GS}:{\rm Z}\to (\psi_{1},\ldots,\psi_{n}){\rm g(Z)} \to \left [{\rm g(Z)}\psi_{1}\right ]\wedge\ldots \wedge \left [{\rm g(Z)}\psi_{p}\right ]
\label{GS}$$ where $${\rm g(Z)}=\left(\begin{array}{c}
{\rm I}_p\\
{\rm Z} \end{array}\right ){\rm W(Z)}
\label{gZ}$$ and ${\rm W(Z)}$ is $p\times p$ upper triangle matrix performing Gram-Schmidt orthogonalization of vectors representing $p-$plane from ${U_{12 \ldots p}}$, and where the initial one-electron basis is supposed to be orthonormal ( as has been already mentioned, without loss of generality it is possible to consider $p-$planes from ${U_{12 \ldots p}}$). For $p=1$ the mapping (\[GS\]) coincides with the mapping (\[reppar\]). For the case of the complex parameter space of dimension $p(n-p)$ its realification leads to the real parameter space of dimension $2p(n-p)$ with basis $\{e_{\nu\mu},{\rm i}e_{\nu\mu}\}$. This basis is orthonormal with respect to the Euclidean scalar product $\rm (\rm Z,Z')={\rm Re}\ [{\rm Tr}\ Z^{\dagger}Z']$ and symplectic with respect to skew-symmetric scalar product $\rm [Z,Z']={\rm Im}\ [{\rm Tr}\ Z^{\dagger}Z']$.
To modify properly the definition of the parametrization (\[Gexp\]), it is necessary to consider the unitary subgroup ${\rm U}({\cal F}_N^1)$ of the general linear group. Unitary transformations possess the following important properties: (1) unitary group acts on the set of all $p-$planes transitively, and (2) if $p-$plane $\pi$ is invariant with respect to $u\in {\rm U}({\cal F}_N^1)$ then orthogonal complement $\pi^{\perp}$ is also invariant with respect to $u$. As a result, the isotropy group of arbitrary $p-$plane $\pi$ is a direct product $G_{\pi}={\rm U}(\pi)\times {\rm U}(\pi^{\perp})$. Lie algebra $\mathfrak u({\cal F}_N^1)$ of the unitary group consists of skew-Hermitian matrices with, in general, complex elements but it is a vector space over the field $\mathbb R$ of real numbers (after multiplication by, say, the imaginary unit skew-Hermitian matrix becomes Hermitian). The parameter space for the exponential parametrization should be taken as the space of all matrices of the form $${\rm Z}=\sum\limits_{\nu=p+1}^n\sum\limits_{\mu=1}^p\left [Z_{\nu\mu}e_{\nu\mu}-{\bar Z}_{\nu\mu}e_{\mu\nu}\right ]
\label{UZ}$$ and parametrization mapping $\gamma_{12\ldots p}^{\rm U}$ is given by Eq.(\[Gexp\]) but with parameter matrix (\[UZ\]) instead of the matrix (\[GLZ\]).
Orthogonal with respect to the trace inner product basis in this real parameter space can be chosen as
$$\begin{aligned}
a_{\nu\mu}=&e_{\nu\mu}-e_{\mu\nu}\\
s_{\nu\mu}=&{\rm i}\left (e_{\nu\mu}+e_{\mu\nu}\right )\end{aligned}$$
\[bas\]
In this basis the parameter matrix (\[UZ\]) takes the form $${\rm Z}=\sum\limits_{\nu=p+1}^n\sum\limits_{\mu=1}^p\left [X_{\nu\mu}a_{\nu\mu}+Y_{\nu\mu}s_{\nu\mu}\right ]$$ where $\rm X,Y$ are real and imaginary components of $(n-p)\times p$ parameter matrix $\rm Z$.
Symplectic form on real even-dimensional parameter space with basis $\{a_{\nu\mu},s_{\nu\mu}\}$ is defined with the aid of coordinate functionals $dX_{\nu\mu}:{\rm Z}\to X_{\nu\mu}$ and $dY_{\nu\mu}:{\rm Z}\to Y_{\nu\mu}$ as $$\omega=\sum\limits_{\nu=p+1}^n\sum\limits_{\mu=1}^p dX_{\nu\mu}\wedge dY_{\nu\mu}
\label{sform}$$
If $\gamma_{12\ldots p}(\rm Z) $ is a local parametrization of representatives of HF states (built with orthonormal MSOs) then $2p(n-p)$ vectors
$$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial {\gamma}_{12\ldots p}}{\partial X_{\nu \mu}}(\rm Z)=\sum\limits_{j=1}^p z_1\wedge \ldots \wedge
\frac{\partial z_j}{\partial X_{\nu \mu}}\wedge \ldots
\wedge z_p\\
\frac{\partial {\gamma}_{12\ldots p}}{\partial Y_{\nu \mu}}(\rm Z)=\sum\limits_{j=1}^p z_1\wedge \ldots \wedge
\frac{\partial z_j}{\partial Y_{\nu \mu}}\wedge \ldots
\wedge z_p\end{aligned}$$
form a basis of the tangent space to the HF manifold at the point $\gamma_{12\ldots p}(\rm Z)$.
We start with the energy functional parametrized by $\gamma^{\rm U}_{12\ldots p}(\rm Z)$: $$E({\rm Z})=\frac{1}{2}\langle \gamma^{\rm U}_{12\ldots p}({\rm Z})|H|\gamma^{\rm U}_{12\ldots p}({\rm Z}) \rangle
\label{EHF}$$ where $H$ is a Hermitian operator acting on the $p-$electron sector ${\cal F}_N^p$ of the Fock space. We suppose that this functional reaches its minimum at the origin $\rm X=Y=0$ of the parameter space and the corresponding single-determinant wave function is $\Phi_0=\psi_1\wedge\ldots\wedge\psi_p$.
When using exponential parametrization $\gamma^{\rm U}_{12\ldots p}(Z)$, we confine ourselves to the quadratic approximation of energy functional and, consequently, to the linearized version of the Hamiltonian equations.
Local expansion of $\gamma^{\rm U}_{12\ldots p}({\rm Z})$ in a neighborhood of the origin is $$\gamma^{\rm U}_{12\ldots p}({\rm Z})=\left [1-\frac{1}{2}{\rm Tr}\ ({\rm Z}^{\dagger}{\rm Z})\right ]\Phi_0+\sum\limits_{\lambda,i}\Phi_i^{\lambda}Z_{\lambda i}+\sum\limits_{\lambda,\lambda '}\sum\limits_{i<i'}
\Phi_{ii'}^{\lambda \lambda'}Z_{\lambda i}Z_{\lambda' i'}+\cdots$$ From this expansion it readily follows that basis of the tangent space to the HF manifold at the origin is constituted by $2p(n-p)$ ’single excited determinants’: $$\frac{\partial \gamma^{\rm U}_{12\ldots p}}{\partial X_{\nu \mu}}(0)=\Phi_{\mu}^{\nu},\quad
\frac{\partial \gamma^{\rm U}_{12\ldots p}}{\partial Y_{\nu\mu}}(0)={\rm i}\Phi_{\mu}^{\nu}
\label{sebas}$$ Energy differential at the origin is $$\begin{aligned}
d_{(0,0)}E=\frac{1}{2}\sum\limits_{\nu=p+1}^n\sum\limits_{\mu=1}^p\left [\langle \Phi_{\mu}^{\nu}|H|\Phi_0\rangle +\langle \Phi_0|H|\Phi_{\mu}^{\nu}\rangle \right ]dX_{\nu\mu}\nonumber \\
+\frac{1}{2}\sum\limits_{\nu=p+1}^n\sum\limits_{\mu=1}^p\left [\langle {\rm i}\Phi_{\mu}^{\nu}|H|\Phi_0\rangle +\langle \Phi_0|H|{\rm i}\Phi_{\mu}^{\nu}\rangle \right ]dY_{\nu\mu}\end{aligned}$$ and it is easy to see that stationary conditions $d_{(0,0)}E(a_{\nu\mu})=d_{(0,0)}E(s_{\nu\mu})=0$ are equivalent to the well-known in quantum chemistry Brillouin conditions $\langle \Phi_{\mu}^{\nu}|H|\Phi_0\rangle =0$. Note that we have not specified yet the concrete Hermitian operator involved in Eq.(\[EHF\]) and, consequently, even the classic form of the Brillouin theorem is of a rather general nature.
At this stage it is convenient to introduce the following matrices:
$$\begin{aligned}
{\rm H}^{\rm CIS}_{\nu\mu,\nu'\mu'}&=&\langle \Phi_{\mu}^{\nu}|H|\Phi_{\mu'}^{\nu'}\rangle\\
\Delta_{\nu\mu,\nu'\mu'}&=&(1-\delta_{\nu\nu'})(1-\delta_{\mu\mu'})\langle \Phi_0|H|\Phi_{\mu\mu'}^{\nu\nu'}\rangle\end{aligned}$$
Note that ${\rm H}^{\rm CIS}$ is Hermitian whereas $\Delta$ is symmetric.
Differential of the quadratic part of energy function (\[EHF\]) at a point $\rm (X,Y)$ of the parameter space is $$d_{{\rm (X,Y)}}E^{(2)}=\begin{pmatrix} d{\rm X}\ d{\rm Y}\end{pmatrix}\mathscr H\begin{pmatrix} {\rm X}\\{\rm Y}\end{pmatrix}$$ where $$\mathscr H=\begin{pmatrix} {\rm Re}\left (\rm H^{\rm CIS}+ \Delta\right)-E_0{\rm I}_{p(n-p)}&-{\rm Im}\left (\rm H^{\rm CIS}+ \Delta\right )\\
{\rm Im}\left (\rm H^{\rm CIS}- \Delta\right )&{\rm Re}\left (\rm H^{\rm CIS}- \Delta\right)-E_0{\rm I}_{p(n-p)}
\end{pmatrix}
\label{hessmatrix}$$ is the matrix of the energy function Hessian calculated at the origin of the parameter space with respect to the basis (\[bas\]). Here $E_0=\langle \Phi_0|H|\Phi_0\rangle=2E(0)$.
The next step is to use the symplectic form (\[sform\]) to get the linearized Hamiltonian equations analogous to Eqs.(\[matHequ\]) for the case of the projective manifolds. We have $$\left (\begin{array}{c}
\overset{.}{\rm X}\\
\overset{.}{\rm Y}
\end{array}\right )=
-\Omega \mathscr H \left (\begin{array}{c}
{\rm X}\\
{\rm Y}
\end{array}\right )
\label{matHequ1}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\Omega=\left (\begin{array}{cc}
0&{\rm I}_{p(n-p)}\\
-{\rm I}_{p(n-p)}&0
\end{array}\right )\end{aligned}$$ is the matrix of the symplectic form (\[sform\]).
Complexification of the parameter space gives $2p(n-p)$-dimensional complex space where the matrix Hamiltonian equation (\[matHequ1\]) takes the form $$\begin{aligned}
\left (\begin{array}{c}
\overset{.}{\rm Z}\\
\overset{.}{\bar {\rm Z}}
\end{array}\right )=
{\rm i}\left (\begin{array}{cc}
\ {\rm H}^{\rm CIS}-E_0{\rm I}_{p(n-p)}&\bar\Delta\\
-\Delta&\ -(\bar{{\rm H}}^{\rm CIS}-E_0{\rm I}_{p(n-p)})
\end{array}\right )
\left (\begin{array}{c}
{\rm Z}\\
\bar {\rm Z}
\end{array}\right )
\label{Shrod3}\end{aligned}$$
At this stage we have three matrices: real symmetric matrix of the second order derivatives $\mathscr H$, real Hamiltonian matrix $-\Omega\mathscr H$, and complex Schr$\rm \ddot {o}$dinger matrix $-{\rm C}^{-1}\Omega\mathscr H\rm C$ where $${\rm C}=\frac{1}{2}\begin{pmatrix}
{\rm I}_{p(n-p)}&{\rm I}_{p(n-p)}\\
-{\rm i}{\rm I}_{p(n-p)}&{\rm i}{\rm I}_{p(n-p)}
\end{pmatrix}$$ First two matrices are relative to the basis (\[bas\]) of real parameter space and the third matrix is relative to $\rm C-$transformed basis $\{1\otimes a_{\nu\mu},1\otimes s_{\nu\mu}\}$ of the complexified parameter space. Using isomorphism $d_{(0,0)}\gamma^U_{12\ldots p}$, we can identify the parameter space with the tangent space to the HF manifold at the point $\gamma^U_{12\ldots p}(0,0)$. With such an identification matrices $\mathscr H$ and $-\Omega\mathscr H$ can be considered relative to the basis of single excited determinants (\[sebas\]) whereas Schr$\rm \ddot {o}$dinger matrix becomes relative to the orthogonal basis
$$\begin{aligned}
\Upsilon_{\mu}^{\nu}=\frac{1}{2}\left [(1\otimes \Phi_{\mu}^{\nu})-{\rm i}(1\otimes {\rm i}\Phi_{\mu}^{\nu})\right ]\\
\bar{\Upsilon}_{\mu}^{\nu}=\frac{1}{2}\left [(1\otimes \Phi_{\mu}^{\nu})+{\rm i}(1\otimes {\rm i}\Phi_{\mu}^{\nu})\right ]\end{aligned}$$
\[csebas\]
of the complexified tangent space.
Matrix $\mathscr H$ of the second order derivatives is orthogonally diagonalized over $\mathbb R$ and has real spectrum consisting of $2p(n-p)$, in general case different, eigenvalues. Hamiltonian matrix $\Omega\mathscr H$ obviously satisfies the equality $(\Omega\mathscr H)^t\Omega+\Omega(\Omega\mathscr H)=0$ which means that it is an infinitesimal-symplectic matrix (element of Lie algebra of the symplectic group $\rm Sp(\mathbb R^{2n})$). It is easy to show that spectrum of such (non-degenerate) matrix satisfies the following restrictions: (i) if $\lambda$ is its eigenvalue then necessarily $-\lambda$ is also its eigenvalue; (ii) each complex eigenvalue appears in pair with its conjugate. And of course, Hamiltonian and Schr$\rm \ddot {o}$dinger matrices have identical spectra. These matrices, however, are neither Hermitian nor skew-Hermitian. They are not, in general, orthogonally diagonalized. In contrast to the case of the projective space, spectrum of these matrices is not necessarily purely imaginary.
Till now $p-$electron Hermitian operator $H$ was not specified and all equations obtained are valid for arbitrary choice of this operator. For electronic Hamiltonian all matrix elements involved, say, in Eq.(\[Shrod3\]), may be easily calculated with the aid of the standard technique to give
$$\begin{aligned}
{\rm H}^{\rm CIS}_{\nu\mu,\nu'\mu'}&=& \left [E_0+\varepsilon_{\nu}-\varepsilon_{\mu}\right ]\delta_{\mu\mu'}\delta_{\nu\nu'}+\langle \nu\mu'\|\mu\nu'\rangle\\
\Delta_{\nu\mu,\nu'\mu'} &=&\langle \mu\mu'\|\nu\nu'\rangle\end{aligned}$$
where $\langle ij\|kl\rangle=\langle ij|kl\rangle -\langle ij|lk\rangle$. Substitution of these expressions in Eq.(\[Shrod3\]) immediately gives the standard TDHF equations (see, e.g., [@Thouless]).
In analogy with classical mechanics, matrix $\Delta$ in Eqs.(\[matHequ1\])-(\[Shrod3\]) may be interpreted as a constraining matrix and its appearance is of the same nature as appearance of constraining force in Newton equations. The case $\Delta =0$ corresponds to CIS method which reduces to diagonalization of operator $H$ projection on the subspace of $p-$electron states spanned by vectors $\{\Phi_{\mu}^{\nu}\}$.
As we have already seen, choice of Euclidean or symplectic metric on the projective space leads, in essence, to equivalent theories. For HF manifold, however, it is not the case. And in our opinion there is no [*a priroi*]{} criterion, what metric is preferable. Strictly speaking, it is necessary to compare behavior of exact excitations energies, TD excitation energies, and Hessian eigenvalues as functions of (complex) parameters $\Delta _{\nu\mu,\nu'\mu'}$ to make reliable conclusion. In Appendix A analysis of behavior of excitation energies is performed for a simple model case.
Now let us turn to Gram-Schmidt parametrization (\[GS\]). Using Eqs. (B.15)-(B.16) from Appendix B, it is easy to get the following general expressions for partial derivatives:
$$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial }{\partial X_{\nu\mu}}\gamma_{12\ldots p}^{\rm GS}({\rm Z})=\sum\limits_{j=1}^p [{\rm W(Z)}]_{\mu j}\Phi_{j}^{\nu}({\rm Z})
-{\rm Re}\left [{\rm g(Z)W}^{\dagger}({\rm Z})\right ]_{\nu\mu}\Phi({\rm Z})\\
\frac{\partial }{\partial Y_{\nu\mu}}\gamma_{12\ldots p}^{\rm GS}({\rm Z})=\sum\limits_{j=1}^p [{\rm W(Z)}]_{\mu j}{\rm i}\Phi_{j}^{\nu}({\rm Z})
+{\rm i}\,{\rm Im}\left [{\rm g(Z)W}^{\dagger}({\rm Z})\right ]_{\nu\mu}{\rm i}\Phi({\rm Z})\end{aligned}$$
where $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi ({\rm Z})=z_1\wedge z_2\wedge \ldots \wedge z_p=\gamma_{12\ldots p}^{\rm GS}({\rm Z})\qquad\ \\
\Phi_{j}^{\nu}({\rm Z})=z_1\wedge\ldots\wedge z_{j-1}\wedge \psi_{\nu}\wedge z_{j+1}\ldots\wedge z_p\end{aligned}$$ Energy derivatives are easily calculated at arbitrary point $\rm Z=X+i Y$. In realified parameter space $\mathbb R^{2p(n-p)}$ symplectic scalar product may be introduced as the imaginary part of the Hermitian trace product. After transformation of energy differential to symplectic gradient it is possible to write down [*the exact*]{} Hamiltonian equations:
$$\begin{aligned}
\overset{.}X_{\nu\mu}=2{\rm Im}\left [\sum\limits_{j=1}^pW_{\mu j}({\rm Z})\langle \Phi({\rm Z})|H|\Phi_{j}^{\nu}({\rm Z})\rangle +\left ({\rm g(Z)W}^{\dagger}({\rm Z})\right )_{\nu\mu}E({\rm Z})\right ]\\
\overset{.}Y_{\nu\mu}=2{\rm Re}\left [\sum\limits_{j=1}^pW_{\mu j}({\rm Z})\langle \Phi({\rm Z})|H|\Phi_{j}^{\nu}({\rm Z})\rangle -\left ({\rm g(Z)W}^{\dagger}({\rm Z})\right )_{\nu\mu}E({\rm Z})\right ]\end{aligned}$$
where $E({\rm Z})=\frac{1}{2}\langle \Phi ({\rm Z})|H|\Phi ({\rm Z})\rangle $.
The corresponding Schr$\rm \ddot{o}$dinger-type equations are
$$\begin{aligned}
\overset{.}Z_{\nu\mu}= 2{\rm i}\left [\sum\limits_{j=1}^p {\overline W}_{\mu j}({\rm Z})\overline {\langle \Phi({\rm Z})|H|\Phi_{j}^{\nu}({\rm Z})\rangle} - \left ({\rm g(Z)W}^{\dagger}({\rm Z})\right )_{\nu\mu}E({\rm Z})\right ]\\
\overset{.}{\bar Z}_{\nu\mu}=-2{\rm i}\left [\sum\limits_{j=1}^p W_{\mu j}({\rm Z})\langle \Phi({\rm Z})|H|\Phi_{j}^{\nu}({\rm Z})\rangle - \overline{\left ({\rm g(Z)W}^{\dagger}({\rm Z})\right )}_{\nu\mu}E({\rm Z})\right ]\end{aligned}$$
Remind once again that these equations are exact (not linearized) ones. Their linearization will not lead to new equations, because it does not depend on the choice of local parametrization (see, e.g., [@Arnold]).
The most common in quantum theory approach uses Grassmann manifold without its prior embedding into $p$-electron projective space. This approach is applicable to general energy functionals that can be defined in terms of 1-density idempotent operators. Since exponential parametrization of Grassmann manifolds can be found (in explicit or implicit form) in almost all publications concerning TD theories (see, e.g.,[@Thouless; @Rowe-1]), we confine ourselves to analysis of Gram-Schmidt parametrization. Instead of the mapping (\[GS\]) we have $$\pi_{12\ldots p}^{\rm GS}:{\rm Z}\to \sum\limits_{k=1}^p |z_k\rangle\langle z_k|
\label{GS1}$$ where $z_k={\rm g(Z)}\psi_{k}$ and $\rm g(Z)$ is given by Eq.(\[gZ\]). To simplify notations, the explicit indication on dependence of matrices $\rm g$ and $\rm W$ on parameters $\rm X,Y$ will be omitted. For the same reason we suppress subscript $12\ldots p$ (chart multiindex) and superscript GS of the parametrization mapping (\[GS1\]).
Expressions for partial derivatives of the mapping $\pi({\rm X,Y})$ are easily derived from Eqs.(B.6)-(B.9) of Appendix B:
$$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial}{\partial X_{\nu\mu}}\pi({\rm X,Y})=\sum\limits_{k=1}^p\left[W_{\mu k}|\psi_{\nu}\rangle\langle z_k|+
\overline{W}_{\mu k}|z_k\rangle\langle\psi_{\nu}|\right ]-\nonumber\\
\sum\limits_{k,l=1}^p\left [W_{\mu l}{\bar g}_{\nu k}+\overline {W}_{\mu k}g_{\nu l}\right ]|z_k\rangle\langle z_l|\qquad\\
\frac{\partial}{\partial Y_{\nu\mu}}\pi({\rm X,Y})={\rm i}\sum\limits_{k=1}^p\left[W_{\mu k}|\psi_{\nu}\rangle\langle z_k|-
\overline{W}_{\mu k}|z_k\rangle\langle\psi_{\nu}|\right ]-\nonumber\\
{\rm i}\sum\limits_{k,l=1}^p\left [W_{\mu l}{\bar g}_{\nu k}-\overline {W}_{\mu k}g_{\nu l}\right ]|z_k\rangle\langle z_l|\qquad\end{aligned}$$
\[denpar\]
In particular, real tangent space to the Grassmann manifold at the origin is spanned by the vectors
$$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial}{\partial X_{\nu\mu}}\pi(0,0)=& e_{\nu\mu}+e_{\mu\nu}\\
\frac{\partial}{\partial Y_{\nu\mu}}\pi(0,0)=&{\rm i}(e_{\nu\mu}-e_{\mu\nu})\end{aligned}$$
\[1stder\]
where $e_{\nu\mu}=|\psi_{\nu}\rangle\langle\psi_{\mu}|$, $\mu=1,\ldots ,p$, and $\nu=p+1,\ldots,n$.
The second order derivatives of the parametrization mapping at the origin are also easily calculated to give
$$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial ^2}{\partial X_{\nu\mu}\partial X_{\nu'\mu'}}\pi(0,0)=
\delta_{\mu\mu'}(e_{\nu\nu'}+e_{\nu'\nu})-\delta_{\nu\nu'}(e_{\mu\mu'}+e_{\mu'\mu})\quad\\
\frac{\partial ^2}{\partial X_{\nu\mu}\partial Y_{\nu'\mu'}}\pi(0,0)=-{\rm i}\delta_{\mu\mu'}(e_{\nu\nu'}-e_{\nu'\nu})-{\rm i}\delta_{\nu\nu'}(e_{\mu\mu'}-e_{\mu'\mu})\\
\frac{\partial ^2}{\partial Y_{\nu\mu}\partial Y_{\nu'\mu'}}\pi(0,0)=\frac{\partial ^2}{\partial X_{\nu\mu}\partial X_{\nu'\mu'}}\pi(0,0)\qquad\qquad\end{aligned}$$
\[2ndder\]
Let us suppose that orthonormal MSO basis is fixed and each 1-electron operator is identified with its matrix. In particular, Grassmann manifold ${\sf G}_p({\cal F}_N^1)$ can be identified with $n\times n-$matrices $\rho$ satisfying the following restrictions: $$\rho^{\dagger}=\rho,\, {\rm Tr}\,\rho =p,\, \rho^2=\rho$$
A function $E(\rho)$, smooth with respect to real variables $\alpha_{ij}={\rm Re}\,\rho_{ij},\beta_{ij}={\rm Im}\,\rho_{ij}$ and, in general, complex-valued, will be referred to as ’the energy function‘, or just ’the energy’. Within the chart under consideration (with multiindex $12\ldots p$) local representative of the energy function restriction to the Grassmann manifold is $\mathscr E({\rm X,Y})=E\circ\pi({\rm X,Y})$. It is reasonable to suppose that for physically relevant energy functions the imaginary component of $\mathscr E({\rm X,Y})$ vanishes (note that, even if this condition is fulfilled, the imaginary part of $E(\rho)$ should not necessarily be equal to zero for arbitrary complex matrix $\rho$). To avoid cumbersome expressions, we suppose that the energy is a holomorphic function of complex variables $\rho_{ij}$. In this case realification of the energy domain is not required.
Using Eqs.(\[denpar\]), it is easy to calculate partial derivatives of $\mathscr E({\rm X,Y})$ at arbitrary point $({\rm X,Y})$ of the parameter space:
$$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial \mathscr E}{\partial X_{\nu\mu}}({\rm X,Y})=\left [\left (\rm {I}_n-{\rm gg}^{\dagger}\right ){\frac{d{\bar E}}{d\rho}}^{\dagger}\rm gW^{\dagger}\right ]_{\nu\mu}+\left [{\rm Wg}^{\dagger}{\frac{d{\bar E}}{d\rho}}^{\dagger}\left (\rm {I}_n-{\rm gg}^{\dagger}\right )\right ]_{\mu\nu}\\
\frac{\partial \mathscr E}{\partial Y_{\nu\mu}}({\rm X,Y})={\rm i}\left [\left (\rm {I}_n-{\rm gg}^{\dagger}\right ){\frac{d{\bar E}}{d\rho}}^{\dagger}\rm gW^{\dagger}\right ]_{\nu\mu}-{\rm i}\left [{\rm Wg}^{\dagger}{\frac{d{\bar E}}{d\rho}}^{\dagger}\left (\rm {I}_n-{\rm gg}^{\dagger}\right )\right ]_{\mu\nu}\end{aligned}$$
where $\frac{dE}{d\rho}$ is, in general complex, matrix of partial derivatives $\frac{\partial E}{\partial \rho_{ij}}$ calculated at the point $\pi({\rm X,Y})$.
The Schr$\rm \ddot{o}$dinger-type evolution equations on the complexified parameter space are
$$\begin{aligned}
\overset{.}Z_{\nu\mu} &= \ \ 2\rm i\, \left [{\rm Wg}^{\dagger}{\frac{d{\bar E}}{d\rho}}^{\dagger}\left (\rm {I}_n-{\rm gg}^{\dagger}\right )\right ]_{\mu\nu} \\
\overset{.}{\bar Z}_{\nu\mu} &= -2\rm i\, \left [\left (\rm {I}_n-{\rm gg}^{\dagger}\right ){\frac{d{\bar E}}{d\rho}}^{\dagger}\rm gW^{\dagger}\right ]_{\nu\mu} \end{aligned}$$
\[schrgras\]
To linearize these equations in a neighborhood of the origin it is necessary to calculate the first and the second derivatives of $\mathscr E({\rm X,Y})$ at the point $(0,0)$. It can be easily done with the aid of Eqs.(\[1stder\])-(\[2ndder\]). The linearized Schr$\rm \ddot{o}$dinger-type equations are
$$\begin{aligned}
\overset{.}Z_{\nu\mu} ={\rm i}\sum\limits_{\nu'\mu'}\left [\frac{\partial^2 E}{\partial \rho_{\mu\nu}\partial \rho_{\nu'\mu'}}+\delta_{\mu\mu'}\frac{\partial E}{\partial \rho_{\nu'\nu}}-\delta_{\nu\nu'}\frac{\partial E}{\partial \rho_{\mu\mu'}}\right ]Z_{\nu'\mu'}\nonumber\\
+{\rm i}\sum\limits_{\nu'\mu'}\frac{\partial^2 E}{\partial \rho_{\mu\nu}\partial \rho_{\mu'\nu'}}{\bar Z}_{\nu'\mu'}\qquad\qquad\qquad\\
\overset{.}{\bar Z}_{\nu\mu} =-{\rm i}\sum\limits_{\nu'\mu'}\left [\frac{\partial^2 E}{\partial \rho_{\nu\mu}\partial \rho_{\mu'\nu'}}+\delta_{\mu\mu'}\frac{\partial E}{\partial \rho_{\nu\nu'}}-\delta_{\nu\nu'}\frac{\partial E}{\partial \rho_{\mu'\mu}}\right ]{\bar Z}_{\nu'\mu'}\nonumber\\
-{\rm i}\sum\limits_{\nu'\mu'}\frac{\partial^2 E}{\partial \rho_{\nu\mu}\partial \rho_{\nu'\mu'}}Z_{\nu'\mu'}\qquad\qquad\qquad\end{aligned}$$
\[schrgrasl\]
Derivatives on the right-hand side of these equations are taken at the point $\rho_0=\left (\begin{smallmatrix}{\rm I}_p&0\\0&0\end{smallmatrix}\right )$.
Classic HF theory supplies us with an example of simple energy function that can be defined in two ways: $$E^{(1)}_{\rm HF}(\rho)=\frac{1}{2}{\rm Tr}\, \rho\left [{\rm h}+ {\rm F}(\rho)\right ]$$ or $$E^{(2)}_{\rm HF}(\rho)=\frac{1}{2}{\rm Tr}\, \rho^{\dagger}\left [{\rm h}+ {\rm F}(\rho)\right ]$$ where $$F_{ij}(\rho)=h_{ij}+\sum\limits_{k,l}\rho_{lk}\langle ik\|jl\rangle$$ These functions coincide on the subspace of Hermitian matrices $\rho$ but different as functions on the space of all complex matrices. In particular, $E^{(1)}_{\rm HF}(\rho)$ is holomorphic as a function of complex variables $\rho_{ij}$ whereas $E^{(2)}_{\rm HF}(\rho)$ is not.
It is easy to show that Fock matrix ${\rm F}(\rho)$ is Hermitian for any Hermitian $\rho$ and that the energy $E^{(1)}_{\rm HF}$ (and, consequently, $E^{(2)}_{\rm HF}$) restriction to the Grassmann manifold is a real-valued function.
We confine ourselves to the holomorphic case. Simple calculation give
$$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial E^{(1)}_{\rm HF}}{\partial \rho_{ij}}(\rho)=F_{ji}(\rho)\\
\frac{\partial^2 E^{(1)}_{\rm HF} }{\partial \rho_{ij}\partial \rho_{kl}}(\rho)=\langle jl\|ik \rangle\end{aligned}$$
where, within the chosen chart, $\rho({\rm X,Y})\equiv\pi({\rm X,Y})$.
The Schr$\rm \ddot{o}$dinger-type evolution equations on the complexified parameter space, corresponding to the energy function $E^{(1)}_{\rm HF}(\rho)$, are is readily obtained from Eq.(\[schrgras\])
$$\begin{aligned}
\overset{.}Z_{\nu\mu} &= \ \ 2\rm i\, \left [Wg^{\dagger}F(\rho)\left ( I_{\it n}-gg^{\dagger}\right )\right ]_{\mu\nu}\ \\
\overset{.}{\bar Z}_{\nu\mu} &= -2\rm i\,\left [Wg^{\dagger}F(\rho)\left ( I_{\it n}-gg^{\dagger}\right )\right ]_{\nu\mu}\end{aligned}$$
Using formulas (\[schrgrasl\]a)-(\[schrgrasl\]b), it is easy to derive the linearized version of these equations:
$$\begin{aligned}
\overset{.}Z_{\nu\mu}={\rm i}\sum\limits_{\nu'\mu'}\left [\langle \nu\mu'\|\mu\nu' \rangle+\delta_{\nu\nu'}\delta_{\mu\mu'}(\varepsilon_{\nu}-\varepsilon_{\mu})\right ]Z_{\nu'\mu'}\nonumber\\
+{\rm i}\sum\limits_{\nu'\mu'}\langle \nu\nu'\|\mu\mu' \rangle {\bar Z}_{\nu'\mu'}\qquad\qquad\\
\overset{.}{\bar Z}_{\nu\mu}=-{\rm i}\sum\limits_{\nu'\mu'}\left [\langle \mu\nu'\|\nu\mu' \rangle+\delta_{\nu\nu'}\delta_{\mu\mu'}(\varepsilon_{\nu}-\varepsilon_{\mu})\right ]{\bar Z}_{\nu'\mu'}\nonumber\\
-{\rm i}\sum\limits_{\nu'\mu'}\langle \mu\mu'\|\nu\nu' \rangle Z_{\nu'\mu'}\qquad\qquad\end{aligned}$$
where it is assumed that the origin of the parameter space is placed at a stationary point of $\mathscr E^{(1)}_{\rm HF}({\rm X,Y})$ and the canonical HF MSOs corresponding to this point are selected.
The energy $E^{(2)}_{\rm HF}$ (non-holomorphic case) should be treated either as a function of real variables $\alpha_{ij}$ and $\beta_{ij}$ or complex variables $\rho_{ij}$ and ${\bar \rho}_{ij}$.
[**Conclusion** ]{}
Physical TD theories, put properly in the framework of modern differential geometry, may become a general and powerful tool for investigation of many electron systems. As soon as general scheme of derivation of evolution equations in the case of, say, relatively simple complex projective spaces is elaborated, the same scheme with minor technical modifications can be applied for any projective algebraic manifold. Of course, existence of additional mathematical structures on the manifold under consideration may result in plenty of different equivalent realization of the same geometrical object and each realization may carry its own unique feature. Selection of relevant realization depends, of course, on the concrete task. In present paper we considered complex Grassmann manifold and its realizations as (1) a submanifold of many electron projective space which we called HF manifold, and (2) the set of idempotent 1-density operators. In our opinion, both realizations supplement each other. Study of another realizations exploiting the fact that Grassmann manifolds are also homogeneous spaces of certain Lie groups may be found in [@Rowe-1]-[@Rowe-3].
Comparison of linearized Schr$\rm \ddot{o}$dinger evolution equations on many electron projective space and on its HF submanifold readily reveals the appearance of a constraining matrix $\Delta$ in the HF case. This matrix includes explicitly double excitations from the HF state and characterizes in a certain sense the curvature of the HF manifold. Perturbation analysis of eigenvalues (TD transition energies) of the matrix of linearized Schr$\rm \ddot{o}$dinger evolution equation on HF manifold leads to the conclusion that these eigenvalues are concave functions of matrix elements of the constraining matrix whereas the exact transition energies are usually convex functions of the same parameters. This means that, if a given CIS transition energy is greater than the exact one then, at least in a neighborhood of $\Delta =0$, TD transition energy should be more close to the exact value than the CIS one. This feature of TD transition energies is not so clearly seen if realization of Grassmann manifold as the set of 1-density idempotents is used.
The author gratefully acknowledges the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (Grant 06-03-33060) for financial support of the present work.
[**Excitation Energies Behavior**]{}
Let us consider simple case corresponding to the projection of $p-$electron operator $H$ on the subspace spanned by determinants $$\Phi_0, \Phi_{\mu}^{\nu}, \Phi_{\mu\mu'}^{\nu\nu'}\, \nonumber$$ where $\Phi_0=\psi_1\wedge\psi_2\wedge\ldots\wedge\psi_p$. General form of relevant operator $H$ matrix in this case is $${\rm H}(\Delta)=
\left (\begin{array}{ccc}
E_0&0&\Delta \\
0&{\rm H}^{\rm CIS}&{\rm A}\\
\Delta^{\dagger}&{\rm A}^{\dagger}&{\rm B}
\end{array}\right )
\eqno(A.1)$$ where $\Delta_{\nu\mu,\nu'\mu'}$ is a matrix of free complex parameters, $\rm A$ and $\rm B$ are arbitrary fixed complex and Hermitian matrices, respectively.
Writing matrix $\rm H(\Delta)$ in the form $${\rm H}_{\varepsilon}(\Delta)={\rm H}(0)+\varepsilon{\rm W}(\Delta)
\eqno(A.2)$$ where $${\rm W}(\Delta)=\sum\limits_{\nu\nu'}\sum\limits_{\mu\mu'}\left [{\Delta}_{\nu\mu,\nu'\mu'}|\Phi_0\rangle\langle\Phi_{\mu\mu'}^{\nu\nu'}|+\bar{\Delta}_{\nu\mu,\nu'\mu'}|\Phi_{\mu\mu'}^{\nu\nu'}\rangle\langle \Phi_0|\right ]
\eqno(A.3)$$ and treating ${\rm W}(\Delta)$ as perturbation, we come to the following second order expression for the exact transition energies: $$\omega_{i0}(\Delta)=\omega_{i0}(0)+\sum\limits_{j\ne 0}\frac{|\sum\limits_{\nu\nu'}\sum\limits_{\mu\mu'}\bar{\Delta}_{\nu\mu,\nu'\mu'}\langle\Psi_j|\Phi_{\mu\mu'}^{\nu\nu'}\rangle|^2}{\omega_{j0}(0)}(1+\delta_{ji})
\eqno(A.4)$$ where $\Psi_j$ are the eigenvectors of matrix ${\rm H}(0) (\Psi_0=\Phi_0)$. It is clear that $\omega_{i0}(\Delta)$ are convex quadratic functions.
Matrix of the Schr$\rm \ddot{o}$dinger-type equation (\[Shrod3\]) (the imaginary unit prefactor is omitted) with respect to the basis (\[csebas\]) of the complexified tangent space may be written in the form (A.2) with $${\rm H}(0)=
\left (\begin{array}{cc}
{\rm H^{CIS}}-E_0{{\rm I}_{p(n-p)}}&0\\
0&-({\rm {\bar H}^{CIS}}-E_0{{\rm I}_{p(n-p)}}
\end{array}\right )
\eqno(A.5)$$ and (non-Hermitian) perturbation $$W(\Delta)=2Q({\bar \Delta})-2Q({\bar \Delta})^{\dagger}
\eqno(A.6)$$ where $$Q({\bar \Delta})=\sum\limits_{\nu\nu'}\sum\limits_{\mu\mu'}{\bar \Delta}_{\nu\mu,\nu'\mu'}|\Upsilon_{\mu}^{\nu}\rangle\langle\bar{\Upsilon}_{\mu'}^{\nu'}|\eqno(A.7)$$ Prefactor 2 in Eq.(A.6) appears due to somewhat non-standard normalization of basis functions (\[csebas\]): $\langle\Upsilon_{\mu}^{\nu}|\Upsilon_{\mu}^{\nu}\rangle=\langle\bar{\Upsilon}_{\mu}^{\nu}|\bar{\Upsilon}_{\mu}^{\nu}\rangle=\frac{1}{2}$.
Zero-order matrix $\rm H(0)$ has real spectrum $\pm \omega^{\rm TD}_{i0}(0)$ symmetric with respect to zero. If $\Psi_i$ is eigenvector of block (1,1) of $\rm H(0)$ corresponding to the eigenvalue $\omega^{\rm TD}_{i0}(0)$ (CIS transition energy) then ${\bar \Psi}_i$ is the eigenvector of block (2,2) of this matrix with the eigenvalue $-\omega^{\rm TD}_{i0}(0)$. We confine ourselves to the perturbation analysis of non-negative part of matrix $\rm H(\Delta)$ spectrum. The second order expression for transition energies in this case is $$\omega^{\rm TD}_{i0}(\kappa)=\omega^{\rm TD}_{i0}(0)-4\sum\limits_{j\ne i}\frac{|\langle \Psi_i|Q{\bar \Delta}|{\bar \Psi}_{j}\rangle |^2}{\omega^{\rm TD}_{i0}+\omega^{\rm TD}_{j0}}
\eqno(A.8)$$ From (A.8) it readily follows that, at least in some neighborhood of $\Delta =0$, TD transition energies are concave functions of parameters $\Delta_{\nu\mu,\nu'\mu'}$. As a result, if for a fixed index $i$ graphics of functions $\omega_{i0}(\Delta)$ and $\omega^{\rm TD}_{i0}(\Delta)$ have crossing points, then at this points TD excitation energy takes on the exact value. If $\omega_{i0}^{\rm TD}(0)>\omega_{i0}(0)$ then there exists a certain neighborhood of the point $\Delta =0$ where TD transition energy $\omega_{i0}^{\rm TD}(\Delta)$ more close to the exact values than the CIS energy. Probably in this sense one should interpret frequently occurring in literature statement that TDHF approach is superior in many aspects than the CIS one (see, e.g. [@Rowe-1]).
To visualize the exact dependence of transition energies on single parameter $\kappa$, let us take the concrete complex Hermitian $6\times 6$ matrix relative to the basis $\{\Phi_0, \Phi_1^3, \Phi_1^4, \Phi_2^3, \Phi_2^4, \Phi_{12}^{34}\}$ $${\rm H}(\kappa)=
\left (
\begin{smallmatrix}
15&0&0&0&0&\kappa\\
0&-11.8433&-0.31349 - 0.47024{\rm i}&0& 0.04167+ 0.1528{\rm i}&0.2+{\rm i}\\
0& -0.3135+ 0.47024{\rm i}&-9.9623&0& -0.54167 - 0.1806{\rm i}&0.3\\
0& 0&0&-7&0&0.1-{\rm i}\\
0&0.04167 - 0.1528{\rm i}&-0.5417+ 0.1806{\rm i}&0& -8.1944&0.2-{\rm i}\\
{\bar\kappa}&0.2-{\rm i}&0.3&0.1+{\rm i}&0.2+{\rm i}&-6
\end{smallmatrix}
\right )\eqno(A.9)$$ and use graphical tools of the Mathematica package [@Wolfram]. In Fig.\[fig1\] dependence of the exact transition energies, TD transition energies and Hessian eigenvalues on real parameter $\kappa$ is displayed.
![Transition energies as functions of parameter $\kappa$[]{data-label="fig1"}](fig1.eps "fig:") ![Transition energies as functions of parameter $\kappa$[]{data-label="fig1"}](fig2.eps "fig:")
![Transition energies as functions of parameter $\kappa$[]{data-label="fig1"}](fig3.eps "fig:") ![Transition energies as functions of parameter $\kappa$[]{data-label="fig1"}](fig4.eps "fig:")
Exact transition energies are convex and TD transition energies are concave functions of $\kappa$ in certain neighborhoods of the origin for all four excited states. The aforementioned intersection points are essentially different for different excited states. For example, $\omega^{\rm TD}_{10}(\kappa)\xrightarrow[\kappa\to 0.92]{} \omega^{\rm exact}_{10}$ and $\omega^{\rm TD}_{30}(\kappa)\xrightarrow[\kappa\to 1.33]{} \omega^{\rm exact}_{30}$. In Fig.\[fig2\] the second order approximations of TD transition energies are shown together with the exact and TD transition energies.
![Exact transition energies $\omega_{i0}^{\rm exact}$, TD transition energies $\omega_{i0}^{\rm TD}$, and second order TD transition energies $\omega_{i0}^{\rm pert}$ as functions of parameter $\kappa$[]{data-label="fig2"}](fig5.eps)
It is seen that at least in the concrete case under consideration the second order perturbation correction (A.8) gives excellent approximation of TD transition energies for all states.
In some cases use of perturbation theory to evaluate excitation energies may be computationally more efficient than the direct diagonalization of either non-symmetric Hamiltonian real matrix or non-Hermitian Schr$\rm \ddot{o}$dinger-type complex matrix. However, to make reliable conclusion about applicability of perturbation approach, heavy numerical testing is required.
[**Derivatives of Gram-Schmidt**]{}
[**Parametrization Mapping** ]{}
Matrix $${\rm g(Z)}=\left (\begin{array}{c} {\rm I}_p\\
{\rm Z} \end{array}\right ){\rm W(Z)}
\eqno{(B.1)}$$ involved in Eq.(\[GS\]) satisfies the orthogonality condition $$\left [{\rm g(Z)}\right ]^{\dagger}{\rm g(Z)}={\rm I}_p
\eqno{(B.2)}$$ To simplify the notations, we agree to omit, when possible, explicit indication on dependence of matrices $\rm W$ and $\rm g$ on $\rm Z=X+iY$. Differentiation of Eq.(B.2) gives $$\frac {\partial {\rm W}^{\dagger}}{\partial X_{\nu\mu}}
\left [{\rm W}^{\dagger}\right ]^{-1}+{\rm W}^{-1}\frac {\partial {\rm W}}{\partial
X_{\nu\mu}}=-{\rm W}^{\dagger}{\rm J}^{\dagger}_{\nu\mu}{\rm g}-{\rm g}^{\dagger}{\rm J}_{\nu\mu}{\rm W}\eqno{(B.3a)}$$ $$\frac {\partial {\rm W}^{\dagger}}{\partial Y_{\nu\mu}}
\left [{\rm W}^{\dagger}\right ]^{-1}+{\rm W}^{-1}\frac {\partial {\rm W}}{\partial
Y_{\nu\mu}}={\rm i}{\rm W}^{\dagger}{\rm J}^{\dagger}_{\nu\mu}{\rm g}-{\rm i}{\rm g}^{\dagger}{\rm J}_{\nu\mu}{\rm W}\quad
\eqno{(B.3b)}$$ where basis matrices ${\rm J}_{\nu\mu}$ and ${\rm i}{\rm J}_{\nu\mu}$ are defined by $$\frac {\partial}{\partial X_{\nu\mu}}\left (\begin{array}{c} {\rm I}_p\\
{\rm Z} \end{array}\right )={\rm J}_{\nu\mu}\eqno(B.4a)$$ $$\frac {\partial}{\partial Y_{\nu\mu}}\left (\begin{array}{c} {\rm I}_p\\
{\rm Z} \end{array}\right )={\rm i}{\rm J}_{\nu\mu}\eqno(B.4b)$$
Following Garton [@Garton], let us introduce the matrices $${\rm P}_{\nu\mu}={\rm W}^{-1}\frac {\partial {\rm W}}{\partial X_{\nu\mu}}\eqno(B.5a)$$ $${\rm Q}_{\nu\mu}={\rm W}^{-1}\frac {\partial {\rm W}}{\partial Y_{\nu\mu}}
\eqno{(B.5b)}$$ where $\nu=p+1,\ldots,n$ and $\mu =1,\ldots,p$. Since $\rm W$ is upper triangle, matrices ${\rm P}_{\nu\mu}$ and ${\rm Q}_{\nu\mu}$ are also upper triangle and their matrix elements are $$\left [{\rm P}_{\nu\mu}\right ]_{ij}=\begin{cases}
\ \ \ 0 &\text{if\ } i>j \cr
-\frac{1}{2}\left [{\rm W}^{\dagger}{\rm J}^{\dagger}_{\nu\mu}{\rm g}\right ]_{ii}-\frac{1}{2}\left [{\rm g}^{\dagger}{\rm J}_{\nu\mu}{\rm W}\right ]_{ii} &\text{if\ } i=j \cr
-\left[{\rm W}^{\dagger}{\rm J}^{\dagger}_{\nu\mu}{\rm g}\right ]_{ij}-\left[{\rm g}^{\dagger}{\rm J}_{\nu\mu}{\rm W}\right
]_{ij} &\text{if\ } i<j\cr
\end{cases}\eqno(B.6a)$$ $$\left [{\rm Q}_{\nu\mu}\right ]_{ij}=\begin{cases}
\ \ \ 0 &\text{if\ } i>j \cr
\frac{\rm i}{2}\left [{\rm W}^{\dagger}{\rm J}^{\dagger}_{\nu\mu}{\rm g}\right ]_{ii}-\frac{\rm i}{2}\left [{\rm g}^{\dagger}{\rm J}_{\nu\mu}{\rm W}\right ]_{ii} &\text{if\ } i=j \cr
{\rm i}\left[{\rm W}^{\dagger}{\rm J}^{\dagger}_{\nu\mu}{\rm g}\right ]_{ij}-{\rm i}\left[{\rm g}^{\dagger}{\rm J}_{\nu\mu}{\rm W}\right
]_{ij} &\text{if\ } i<j\cr
\end{cases}\quad
\eqno{(B.6b)}$$ At the origin ${\rm P}_{\nu\mu}(0)={\rm Q}_{\nu\mu}(0)=0$.
From Eqs.(B.5)-(B.6) it follows that $$\frac {\partial {\rm W}}{\partial X_{\nu\mu}}={\rm WP}_{\nu\mu}\eqno(B.7a)$$ $$\frac {\partial {\rm W}}{\partial Y_{\nu\mu}}={\rm WQ}_{\nu\mu}
\eqno{(B.7b)}$$ and $$\frac {\partial {\rm g}}{\partial
X_{\nu\mu}}={\rm J}_{\nu\mu}{\rm W}+{\rm gP}_{\nu\mu}\eqno(B.8a)$$ $$\frac {\partial {\rm g}}{\partial
Y_{\nu\mu}}={\rm i}{\rm J}_{\nu\mu}{\rm W}+{\rm gQ}_{\nu\mu}
\eqno{(B.8b)}$$
Now it is easy to calculate the derivatives of vectors $z_j={\rm g(Z)}\psi_j$ with respect to parameters $X_{\nu\mu}$ and $Y_{\nu\mu}$: $$\frac {\partial z_j}{\partial
X_{\nu\mu}}={\psi}_{\nu}W_{\mu j}+\sum\limits_{k=1}^{j} z_k\left
[{\rm P}_{\nu\mu}\right ]_{kj}\eqno{(B.9a)}$$ $$\frac{\partial z_j}{\partial
Y_{\nu\mu}}={\rm i}{\psi}_{\nu}W_{\mu j}+\sum\limits_{k=1}^{j} z_k\left
[{\rm Q}_{\nu\mu}\right ]_{kj}
\eqno{(B.9b)}$$ At the origin we have $$\frac {\partial {\rm W}}{\partial X_{\nu\mu}}(0)= \frac {\partial {\rm W}}{\partial Y_{\nu\mu}}(0)=0\eqno(B.10a)$$ $$\frac {\partial {\rm g}}{\partial X_{\nu\mu}}(0)={\rm J}_{\nu\mu},\quad \frac {\partial {\rm g}}{\partial
Y_{\nu\mu}}(0)={\rm i}{\rm J}_{\nu\mu}\eqno(B.10b)$$ $$\frac {\partial z_j}{\partial X_{\nu\mu}}(0)={\psi}_{\nu}\delta_{\mu j},\quad
\frac {\partial z_j}{\partial Y_{\nu\mu}}(0)={\rm i}{\psi}_{\nu}\delta_{\mu j}\eqno(B.10c)$$
[999]{}
Dirac, P. A. M. Proc Cambridge Philos Soc 1930,26,376.
Thouless, D. J. The Quantum Mechanics of Many-Body Systems, Academic Press, New York and London, 1972.
Rowe, D. J. and Ryman, A. Phys Rev A 1980,22,2362.
Rosensteel, G. and Rowe, D. J. Phys Rev A 1981,24,673.
Rowe, D. J., Vassanji, M. and Rosensteel, G. Phys Rev A 1983,28,1951.
Bartlett, S. D. and Rowe D. J. J Phys A: Math Gen 2003,36,1.
Garton, D. Int J Quantum Chem 1974,8,619.
Bourbaki, N. Variétés Différentielles et Analytiques. Fascicule de résultats, Hermann, Paris, 1967.
Serre, J.-P. Lie Algebras and Lie Groups, New York - Amsterdam, Benjamin, 1965.
Cartan, H. Formes Diff[é]{}rentielles, Hermann, Paris, 1967.
Sternberg, S. Lectures on Differential Geometry, Prentice Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1964.
Loomis,L.H. and Sternberg, S. Advanced Calculus; Jones and Bartlett Publishers, Inc., Boston-London, 1990.
Spivak, M. Calculus on Manifolds, W. A. Benjamin, Inc., New York Amsterdam, 1965.
Warner, F.W. Foundations of Differentiable Manifolds and Lie Groups, Springer-Verlag, New York Heidelberg Tokyo, 1983.
Choquet-Bruhat, Y. and DeWitt-Morelle, C. with Dillard-Bleick, M. Analysis, Manifolds and Physics. Part I: Basics, Elsever, Amsterdam Lausanne New York Oxford Shannon Tokyo,1982
Arnold, V. I. Mathematical Methods of Classical Mechanics, Springer, New York,1978.
Whitney, H. Ann of Math 1936,37,645.
Greub, W. H. Multilinear Algebra, Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg New York, 1967.
Kostrikin, A. I. and Manin, A. V. Linear Algebra and Geometry (in Russian), Nauka, Moskow,1986.
Cassam-Chena$\rm \ddot{\text{\i}}$, P. J Math Chem 1994,15,303.
Cox, D., Little, J. and O’Shea, D. Ideals, Varieties and Algorithms, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1992.
Goto, M. and Grosshans F. D. Semisimple Lie Algebras, Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York and Basel, 1978.
Wolfram, St. The Mathematica book, 5th ed.; Wolfram Media: 2003.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The paper examines the prominent algorithm D-MORPH to search for the optimal control of a quantum system in order to implement desired unitary evolution of the quantum system at the final time, and reveals new mathematical expressions for various orders’ corrections to the algorithm, that include information about the commutators of the system’s Hamiltonian. Inclusion of such corrections results in faster optimal quantum control’s search with high precision, i.e. allows saving of computational resources.'
author:
- 'Konstantin Zhdanov[^1]'
date: 'June, 2016'
title: 'An improvement of D-MORPH method for finding quantum optimal control[^2]'
---
[**Keywords:** quantum systems, optimal control, evolution operator]{}
Introduction
============
Many papers of distinguished specialists in the area of quantum control [@Moore1; @Moore2; @Moore3; @Riviello1; @Riviello2] use the D-MORPH method to construct optimal quantum control. The method is based on introducing a new variable $s$ which represents the optimization algorithm’s progress towards the minimum of an objective function. Variable $s$ has an interesting property: while increasing $s$, the optimization algorithm is constructing new controls that drive the system closer and closer to the desired state associated with the minimum of the objective function.
This optimization algorithm is approximate since it’s based on solving a system of ordinary differential equations numerically with the help of the popular MATLAB’s ode45 method, i. e. a variable-step Runge–Kutta’s method of order four. As it’s been demonstrated many times [@Moore1; @Moore2; @Moore3; @Riviello1; @Riviello2], this optimization algorithm allows construction of controls resulting in close-to-the-optimal values of the objective function. One weakness of the algorithm is the requirement to solve the system on a large interval of integration $[0,S]$ in order to achieve a high accuracy, which can be very computationally demanding.
This paper introduces a way to improve the aforementioned algorithm — new formulas for corrections of different orders to the original method are derived so that they allow high-accuracy reaching of the minimum of an objective function, which represents the distance between the actual evolution of a quantum system and the desired evolution, with fewer integration steps than the original method requires and so spending less time. These corrections allow searching for optimal quantum controls to be effectively carried out on common computers with moderate performance.
The original method and corrections to it
=========================================
Let’s consider an $N$-level quantum system subjected to $n$ control fields and formulate a task: find such control fields $\epsilon_k(t)$, $k=\overline{1,n}$, that the quantum system at a moment $T$ implements the desired evolution operator $U_D$ as accurately as possible. The accuracy is expressed in terms of an objective function $J$, which represents the distance between the actual evolution $U(T,0)$ of the system and the desired evolution $U_D$.
The original algorithm is formulated as follows. A new variable $s$ is introduced such that objective $J(s)$ and controls $\epsilon_k(s, t)$ both depend on it. Then we find the derivative $$\frac{\mathrm{d} J}{\mathrm{d} s} = \sum_{k=1}^n \int_0^T \frac{\partial J(s)}{\partial \epsilon_k(s,t)} \frac{\mathrm{d}\epsilon_k(s,t)}{\mathrm{d} s} \mathrm{d} t.$$ To find the minimum of the objective function $J$, it’s sufficient to require that $\sfrac{\mathrm{d}J}{\mathrm{d}s} \leq 0$ holds. In that case, if we increase $s$, $J$ at least won’t increase.
Let’s divide the interval $[0,T]$ into $L$ subintervals of the same length $\Delta t$ and treat controls as piecewise constant with respect to $t$ functions $$\epsilon_k(s,t) = \sum_{l=1}^L \epsilon_k^l(s) \chi_{[t_{l-1}, t_l]}(t),$$ where $\chi_{[t_{l-1}, t_l]}(t)$ — the indicator function of interval $[t_{l-1}, t_l]$, $$\chi_{[t_{l-1}, t_l]}(t) =
\begin{cases}
1, & t\in [t_{l-1}, t_l] \\
0, & t \notin [t_{l-1}, t_l]
\end{cases}.$$ Then inequality $\sfrac{\mathrm{d}J}{\mathrm{d}s} \leq 0$ can be written as $$\frac{\mathrm{d} J}{\mathrm{d} s} = \sum_{k=1}^n \sum_{l=1}^L \int_{t_{l-1}}^{t_l} \frac{\partial J(s)}{\partial \epsilon_k(s,t)} \frac{\mathrm{d}\epsilon_k^l(s)}{\mathrm{d} s} \mathrm{d} t \leq 0.$$ The inequality is satisfied if we let $$\label{DMORPH_cond}
\frac{\mathrm{d}\epsilon_k^l(s)}{\mathrm{d} s} = -\frac{\partial J(s)}{\partial \epsilon_k(s,t)}, \quad t\in [t_{l-1}, t_l], \quad l=\overline{1,L},\quad k=\overline{1,n}.$$
Therefore the original method solves the system of differential equations , where $\epsilon_k^l(s)$ are unknown functions to be found. As it’s assumed that a functional form of $J$ with respect to $\epsilon_k(s, t)$ is known in advance, the right-hand side of the expression above is assumed to be known as well. It’s worth noting that the right-hand side depends on all $\epsilon_k^l(s)$.
In papers [@Moore1; @Moore2; @Moore3; @Riviello1; @Riviello2] such systems of differential equations are solved with a variable-step Runge–Kutta’s method of order four (MATLAB’s ode45) on $[0,S]$, where $S$ — a large number. Then an approximately optimal control is retrieved at $s=S$ owing to the method guarantees that the objective function at least doesn’t increase while increasing $s$. In this paper the aforementioned original method is modified so as to get approximate optimal control with given accuracy by solving the system on smaller interval $[0,S]$ than used in the original method. A decrease in the length of the interval of integration should diminish the time spent by ode45 method, which should be beneficial when using computers with moderate performance.
Since the right-hand side of system depends on time while the left-hand side doesn’t, we integrate each equation of the system with respect to $t$ from $t_{l-1}$ to $t_l$. $$\int_{t_{l-1}}^{t_l}\frac{\mathrm{d}\epsilon_k^l(s)}{\mathrm{d} s} \mathrm{d} t = -\int_{t_{l-1}}^{t_l}\frac{\partial J(s)}{\partial \epsilon_k(s,t)} \mathrm{d} t, \quad l=\overline{1,L},\quad k=\overline{1,n},$$ $$\frac{\mathrm{d}\epsilon_k^l(s)}{\mathrm{d} s} = -\frac{1}{\Delta t}\int_{t_{l-1}}^{t_l}\frac{\partial J(s)}{\partial \epsilon_k(s,t)} \mathrm{d} t, \quad l=\overline{1,L},\quad k=\overline{1,n}.$$
In what follows, we are going to expand the integral on the right-hand side of the expression above. For a task of implementing the desired evolution operator, the objective function in the original method is taken as [@Moore1; @Moore3] $$J = \frac{1}{2} - \frac{1}{2N}\operatorname{Re}\operatorname{Tr}\left[U_D^* U(T,0) \right].$$
This objective function represents the distance between the desired evolution operator $U_D$ and the actual evolution operator $U(T,0)$ at time $T$. The derivative of $J$ with respect to controls is written as [@Moore3] $$\frac{\partial J(s)}{\partial \epsilon_k(s,t)} = -\frac{1}{2N} \operatorname{Im}\operatorname{Tr}\left[U_D^* U(T,t)H_k U(t,0) \right],$$ while the integral of this expression is equal to $$\begin{gathered}
\int_{t_{l-1}}^{t_l}\frac{\partial J(s)}{\partial \epsilon_k(s,t)} \mathrm{d} t = -\frac{1}{2N} \operatorname{Im}\operatorname{Tr}\left[U_D^* \int_{t_{l-1}}^{t_l}U(T,t)H_k U(t,0)\mathrm{d} t \right] =\\
= -\frac{1}{2N} \operatorname{Im}\operatorname{Tr}\left[U_D^* U(T,0)\int_{t_{l-1}}^{t_l}U^*(t,0)H_k U(t,0)\mathrm{d} t \right].\end{gathered}$$
In general, the evolution operator of a quantum system with Hamiltonian $H(s,t)=H_0 + \sum_{k=1}^n \epsilon_k(s,t)H_k$ is expressed as ($\hbar = 1$) [@Moore1]
$$U(T,0) = \operatorname{T}\exp\left\{-\imath \int_{0}^{T} H(s, \tau) \mathrm{d} \tau\right\},$$ where $\operatorname{T}$ — time-ordering operator. Since the controls are piecewise constant, the evolution operator turns into a composition of matrix exponentials $$\begin{gathered}
U(T,0) = \exp\left\{-\imath \int_{t_{L-1}}^{T} H(s, \tau) \mathrm{d} \tau\right\} \exp\left\{-\imath \int_{t_{L-2}}^{t_{L-1}} H(s, \tau) \mathrm{d} \tau\right\} \cdots \\
\cdots\exp\left\{-\imath \int_{0}^{t_1} H(s, \tau) \mathrm{d} \tau\right\}.\end{gathered}$$ Using the following properties of the evolution operator $$U(t,0) = U(t,t_{l-1}) \cdots U(t_{1},0) = U(t,t_{l-1})U(t_{l-1},0),\quad t \in [t_{l-1}, t_l],$$ $$U^*(t,0) = U^*(t_{1},0)\cdots U^*(t,t_{l-1}) = U^*(t_{l-1},0)U^*(t,t_{l-1}),\quad t \in [t_{l-1}, t_l]$$ we get $$\int_{t_{l-1}}^{t_l}U^*(t,0)H_k U(t,0)\mathrm{d} t = U^*(t_{l-1}, 0) \int_{t_{l-1}}^{t_l}U^*(t,t_{l-1})H_k U(t,t_{l-1})\mathrm{d} t U(t_{l-1}, 0).$$ Let’s express the evolution operator as the matrix exponential. $$\begin{gathered}
\int_{t_{l-1}}^{t_l}U^*(t,t_{l-1})H_k U(t,t_{l-1})\mathrm{d} t =\\
= \int_{t_{l-1}}^{t_l} \exp\left[(t-t_{l-1}) X\right] H_k \exp\left[-(t-t_{l-1}) X\right] \mathrm{d} t
=\int_{t_{l-1}}^{t_l} \operatorname{Ad}_{\exp[(t-t_{l-1})X]}H_k\mathrm{d} t,\end{gathered}$$ where $X=\imath\left(H_0 + \sum_{k=1}^n \epsilon_k^l H_k \right)$, $\operatorname{Ad}_{A}B = A B A^{-1}$. It’s well known in the general theory of Lie algebras that $$\operatorname{Ad}_{\exp(A)}B = \exp(\operatorname{ad}_A) \circ B,$$ where $\operatorname{ad}_A = A B - B A$. Using this expression we get $$\int_{t_{l-1}}^{t_l} \operatorname{Ad}_{\exp[(t-t_{l-1})X]}H_k\mathrm{d} t = \int_{t_{l-1}}^{t_l} \exp\left(\operatorname{ad}_{(t-t_{l-1})X}\right)\circ H_k\mathrm{d} t$$ Let’s expand operator $\exp\left(\operatorname{ad}_{(t-t_{l-1})X}\right)$ in a Taylor series and use identity $\operatorname{ad}_{(t-t_{l-1})X} = (t-t_{l-1}) \operatorname{ad}_{X}$ $$\exp\left(\operatorname{ad}_{(t-t_{l-1})X}\right) = \sum_{j=0}^{\infty} \frac{(t-t_{l-1})^j}{j!} \operatorname{ad}_{X}^j.$$ Then we integrate it $$\int_{t_{l-1}}^{t_l} \exp\left(\operatorname{ad}_{(t-t_{l-1})X}\right)\circ H_k\mathrm{d} t = \Delta t \left(H_k + \frac{\Delta t}{2} [X, H_k] + \frac{(\Delta t)^2}{3!} [X, [X, H_k]] + \cdots \right).$$ Finally we get $$\begin{gathered}
\int_{t_{l-1}}^{t_l}\frac{\partial J(s)}{\partial \epsilon_k(s,t)} \mathrm{d} t = -\frac{\Delta t}{2N} \operatorname{Im}\operatorname{Tr}\left[U_D^* U(T,t_{l-1})\left(H_k + \frac{\Delta t}{2} [\imath H(t_l), H_k] + \right.\right.\\
\left.\left.+ \frac{(\Delta t)^2}{3!} [\imath H(t_l), [\imath H(t_l), H_k]] + \cdots \right) U(t_{l-1},0) \right].\end{gathered}$$
Then, system can be written in its final form as $$\begin{gathered}
\frac{\mathrm{d} \epsilon_k^l}{\mathrm{d} s} = \frac{1}{2N} \operatorname{Im}\operatorname{Tr}\left[U_D^* U(T,t_{l-1})\left(H_k + \frac{\Delta t}{2} [\imath H(t_l), H_k] + \right.\right.\\
\left.\left.+ \frac{(\Delta t)^2}{3!} [\imath H(t_l), [\imath H(t_l), H_k]] + \cdots \right) U(t_{l-1},0) \right], \quad k=\overline{1,n},\quad l=\overline{1,L}.\end{gathered}$$
Numerically solving this system on interval $[0,S]$ with the MATLAB’s ode45 should give controls that implement the desired evolution operator more accurately than the original method. This improvement could be accounted for by the use of information about the Hamiltonian’s commutators.
It’s expected that the more terms of the series on the right-hand side of the expression above we use during computations, the more accurate we get approximately optimal control. Of course, when using terms of order $(\Delta t)^j$, we have to compute repeated commutators of order $j$ and this can be very computationally demanding in general. For this reason, a maximum order of terms to use on the right-hand side should be chosen such that the speed-up of the new algorithm beats a slow-down induced by the commutators’ computation.
Numerical experiment
====================
To confirm the expected speed-up provided by the new formula, a quantum system composed of two spin-$\sfrac{1}{2}$ particles and described by the following dimensionless Hamiltonian ($\hbar = 1$) was taken. $$H = \sum_{i=1}^2 S_z^i \omega_i + \sum_{k=1}^2 \epsilon_k S_x^k + C_x^{(12)} S_x^1 S_x^2 + C_y^{(12)} S_y^1 S_y^2 + C_z^{(12)} S_z^1 S_z^2,$$ where $\omega_1=20$, $\omega_2=30$, $C_x^{(12)}=110$, $C_y^{(12)}=120$, $C_z^{(12)}=130$, $S_i^1 = S_i \otimes I$, $S_i^2 = I\otimes S_i$, $i=x,y,z$, $$S_x = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\begin{pmatrix}
0 & 1\\
1 & 0
\end{pmatrix},
S_y = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\begin{pmatrix}
0 & -\imath \\
\imath & 0
\end{pmatrix},
S_z = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0\\
0 & -1
\end{pmatrix},
I = \begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0\\
0 & 1
\end{pmatrix}.$$ The task was to implement the following operators as accurate as possible $$U_D^1 = \mathrm{e}^{\frac{\imath \pi}{4}}\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 1 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 1\\
0 & 0 & 1 & 0
\end{pmatrix},\quad
U_D^2 = \mathrm{e}^{\frac{\imath \pi}{4}}\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 1 & 0\\
0 & 1 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 1
\end{pmatrix},$$ which are respectively the CNOT quantum gate (controlled NOT) and the SWAP quantum gate (a swap of qubits’ values).
Two models were compared to each other: $$\label{DMORPH}
\frac{\mathrm{d}\epsilon_k^l}{\mathrm{d} s} = \frac{1}{2N}\operatorname*{Im} \operatorname*{Tr}\left(U_D^* U(T, t_{l-1})H_k U(t_{l-1}, 0)\right),$$ $$\label{Corrections_1st}
\frac{\mathrm{d}\epsilon_k^l}{\mathrm{d} s} = \frac{1}{2N}\operatorname*{Im} \operatorname*{Tr}\left(U_D^* U(T, t_{l-1}) \left\{H_k + \frac{\imath \Delta t}{2} \left[H(t_l),H_k\right] \right\} U(t_{l-1}, 0)\right).$$
To numerically solve these systems, the MATLAB’s ode45 method was employed with the absolute error tolerance set to $10^{-4}$. For the CNOT gate, the initial controls were set to zero, whereas for the SWAP gate the initial controls were taken by sampling the function $10^{-5}\sin(\sfrac{t}{T})$ owing to the fact that zero initial controls didn’t allow the optimization to converge.
The special structure of the given Hamiltonian allows a simplification: $$[H(t), H_k] = [H_0 + \sum_{i=1}^2 \epsilon_i(t) H_i, H_k] = [H_0, H_k].$$
The final time $T$ was set to several values: $0.5$, $1$, $5$, $10$. The number of subintervals $L$ was taken as $150$, $300$. The length of the interval of integration $S$ was taken as the multiples of $100$: $100$, $200$, $300$, $400$, ... The times required to numerically solve the aforementioned models on $[0,S]$ with the error in the gates’ implementation not greater than $10^{-7}$ were compared to each other. Computations were performed on a laptop with a quad-core Intel Core i7-4702MQ 2.20 GHz processor and 8 Gb RAM. Results of the comparison for the CNOT gate are in tables 1 and 2, for the SWAP gate — in tables 3 and 4. The time spent to solve the systems was measured with the MATLAB’s functions tic() and toc().
Table 1 — Results for the CNOT gate.
[ \*[9]{}[|c]{} |]{} & & & &\
& & & &\
Method & & & & & & & &\
S & 400 & 100 & x\* & 600 & 900 & 200 & 1200 & 400\
Time, sec. & 73.76 & 35.76 & x & 46.98 & 97.53 & 39.17 & 29.92 & 20.27\
Error ($\times 10^{-8}$) & $0.409$ & $3.94$ & x & $0.412$ & $1.007$ & $1.85$ & $3.54$ & $3.19$\
\*Method didn’t converge.
Table 2 — Results for the CNOT gate (contrinued)
[ \*[9]{}[|c]{} |]{} & & & &\
& & & &\
Method & & & & & & & &\
S & 1000 & 800 & 1000 & 700 & 3900 & 3600 & 4000 & 3600\
Time, sec. & 36.68 & 37.66 & 11.66 & 10.39 & 66.22 & 63.21 & 19.52 & 18.6\
Error ($\times 10^{-8}$) & $2.2$ & $1.4$ & $3.36$ & $5.1$ & $9.36$ & $9.41$ & $7.80$ & $6.93$\
Table 3 — Results for the SWAP gate.
[ \*[9]{}[|c]{} |]{} & & & &\
& & & &\
Method & & & & & & & &\
S & 900 & 300 & x\* & 300 & 3200 & 400 & 1900 & 800\
Time, sec. & 143.96 & 85.99 & x & 21.52 & 245.22 & 46.68 & 35.13 & 19.31\
Error ($\times 10^{-8}$) & $1.08$ & $0.0001$ & x & $0.0026$ & $4.79$ & $8.14$ & $8.43$ & $0.237$\
\*Method didn’t converge.
Table 4 — Results for the SWAP gate (continued)
[ \*[9]{}[|c]{} |]{} & & & &\
& & & &\
Method & & & & & & & &\
S & 2700 & 2600 & 2900 & 2500 & 3100 & 3200 & 3400 & 3200\
Time, sec. & 67.25 & 65.67 & 22.22 & 22.77 & 52.05 & 48.67 & 17.69 & 16.01\
Error ($\times 10^{-8}$) & $9.005$ & $7.57$ & $9.57$ & $6.9$ & $9.42$ & $4.24$ & $9.42$ & $4.94$\
For $T=0.01$ and $T=0.001$, the both methods didn’t give accurate results, which perfectly agrees with the fact that in similar tasks there is a lower bound on time to construct control fields [@Riviello2].
These results show that the improved method proposed in this paper almost always achieves the desired accuracy in less time and on a smaller interval $[0, S]$ than the original method. This improvement is noticeable only for large $T$ and large $\Delta t$, which agrees with the corrections being proportional to $\Delta t$ and hence they being small given small $\Delta t$. Moreover, for some large $\Delta t$ the original method doesn’t converge at all whereas the improved method achieves the desired accuracy.
Conclusion
==========
New formulas for constructing optimal controls in a quantum system were obtained in the form of corrections to the original D-MORPH method [@Moore1; @Moore2; @Moore3; @Riviello1; @Riviello2]. By numerically solving a problem in the area of quantum computations, it was shown that the new formulas do speed up computations compared to the original method, i. e. they allow implementation of the desired evolution operator with high accuracy with fewer ode45’s steps and in less time, even if only one correcting term proportional to $\Delta t$ is used. Thus, inclusion of additional information about the system’s Hamiltonian (commutators) had a positive impact on accuracy achieved and on time spent, which is an advantage for finding optimal controls on computers with moderate performance.
[9]{} Moore, K. W. Search complexity and resource scaling for the quantum optimal control of unitary transformations / R. Chakrabarti, G. Riviello, H. Rabitz // Phys. Rev. A. 2011. Vol. 83(1). Moore, K. W. Exploring constrained quantum control landscapes / H. Rabitz // The Journal of Chemical Physics. 2012. Vol. 137(13). Moore Tibbetts, K. Exploring the trade-off between fidelity and time optimal control of quantum unitary transformations / C. Brif, M. D. Grace, A. Donovan, et. al. // Phys. Rev. A. 2012. Vol. 86(6). Riviello, G. Searching for quantum optimal controls in the presence of singular critical points / C. Brif, R. Long, R. Wu, K. Moore Tibbetts, T. Ho, H. Rabitz // Phys. Rev. A. 2014. Vol. 90(1). Riviello, G. Searching for quantum optimal controls under sever constraints / K. Moore Tibbetts, C. Brif, R. Long, et. al. // Phys. Rev. A. 2015. Vol. 91(4).
[^1]: Department of applied mathematics and control processes, Saint-Petersburg state university, Russia. ORCID: 0000-0003-2290-6324
[^2]: Punlished in “Mezdunarodnyj naucno-issledovatel’skij zurnal” \[“International Research Journal”\], 2016, Vol. 6(48), p. 94–99. DOI: 10.18454/IRJ.2016.48.057 \[in Russian\]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'A theorem of Donsker asserts that the empirical process converges in distribution to the Brownian bridge. The aim of this paper is to provide a new and simple proof of this fact.'
address: |
CNRS, LaBRI, Université Bordeaux 1\
351 cours de la Libération\
33405 Talence cedex, France
author:
-
title: One more approach to the convergence of the empirical process to the Brownian bridge
---
Let $(U_i)$ be a sequence of i.i.d. random variables uniformly distributed on $[0,1]$, and let $F_n$ be the so-called cumulative empirical function, associated with the $n$ first $U_i$’s: $$F_n(t):=n^{-1}\#\l\{U_i\leq t, i\in\{1,\dots,n\}\r\},~~~~t\in[0,1].$$ The sequence of processes $(F_n)$ converges pointwise a.s. on \[0,1\] to $F$ defined by $F(t)=t$; this is a consequence of the strong law of large numbers. The Glivenko-Cantelli theorem asserts that this a.s. convergence stands also for the uniform convergence: a.s. $\sup_{x\in[0,1]}|F_n(x)-F(x)|\sous{\to}{n} 0$. To see this, take $0=x_1<\dots<x_k=1$ and check that by monotonicity of $F_n$ and $F$, $\sup_{x\in[0,1]}|F_n(x)-F(x)|\leq \max_j \max(|F_n(x_{j+1})-F(x_j)|,|F_n(x_{j})-F(x_{j+1})|)\as \max x_{j+1}-x_{j}$, which may be chosen as small as wanted.
In some sense, Donsker’s Theorem [@D54] provides the second term in this convergence. Consider $$\b_n(t):=\sqrt{n}\l(F_n(t)-F(t)\r),~~~ t\in[0,1].$$
\[donsk\] (Donsker [@D54]) The sequence $(\b_n)$ converges in distribution to the Brownian bridge $\b$ on $D[0,1]$ the space of càdlàg functions on \[0,1\] equipped with the Skorohod topology.
When the variables $U_i$’s are not uniform, the study of the empirical process reduces to the uniform case thanks to a classical “time change” involving the inverse of the cumulative function of the $U_i$’s. Some problems of continuity arise due to the atoms of the $U_i$’s but roughly speaking one may say that all the difficulties are present in the case of the uniform distribution.
We recall that the Brownian bridge is the continuous centered Gaussian process such that $\cov(\b(s),\b(t))=s(1-t)$ when $0\leq s \leq t\leq 1$. It owns the following trajectorial representation : $$(\b(t))_{t\in[0,1]}\sur{=}{(d)}(\B_t-t\,\B_1)_{t\in[0,1]},$$ where $\B$ is the standard Brownian motion. This may immediately be checked using that $\B$ is a centered Gaussian process such that $\cov(\B_s,\B_t)=\min(s,t)$.
In fact, Donsker proves only in details $\max \b_n\dd \max \b$ justifying the Doob’s heuristic [@Doob]. One may find in the literature numerous more or less direct proofs of Theorem \[donsk\]. See e.g. Billingsley [@B68] (and references therein), Kallenberg [@KAL], and also more advanced proofs and constructions (and stronger results) as that of Komlós, Major and Tusnády [@KMT]. Some books are devoted to the convergence of empirical measures and processes : we send the interested reader to Shorack & Wellner [@SW], van der Vaart & Wellner [@VW]. As a matter of fact, usual proofs of Theorem \[donsk\] use often some advanced constructions or are treated in probability books when a lot of materials have been introduced, leading to some intricate and complex proofs, quite difficult to be taught entirely to beginners. The aim of this paper is to present a new proof of Theorem \[donsk\] using only “simple” arguments: only immediate considerations about the weak convergence in $C[0,1]$ and $D[0,1]$, and the other very famous Donsker’s Theorem which says that a rescaled random walk converges to the Brownian motion are used. The Appendix recalls this material.
We begin the proof of Theorem \[donsk\] following the steps of Donsker [@D54]. We say that a random vector $(M_i)_{i=1,\dots, n}$ has the multinomial distribution with parameters $(k,p_1,\dots,p_n)$, we write $(M_i)_{i=1,\dots, n}\sim \operatorname{mult}(k,p_1,\dots,p_n)$, when $\mathbb{P}(M_i=m_i,i=1,\dots,n)=\frac{k!}{\prod_{i=1}^n m_i!}\prod_{i=1}^k p_i^{m_i}$ for any prescribed non negative integers $m_1,\dots,m_k$ summing to $k$, and 0 otherwise.
The vector $(N_j)_{j=1,\dots,n}$ defined by $$N_j:=\#\l\{i \in\{1,\dots,n\}, U_i\in \l[(j-1)/n, j/n\r]\r\},$$ has the $\operatorname{mult}(n,1/n,\dots,1/n)$ distribution. The empirical process taken at time $k/n$ for $k\in\{0,\dots,n\}$ is a simple function of this vector : $$\label{kow}
\b_n(k/n)=\sqrt{n}\l(F_n(k/n)-F(k/n)\r)=n^{-1/2}\sum_{j=1}^k (N_j-1).$$ Let $\bar{\b_n}$ be the process obtained by interpolating $\b_n$ between the points $\{k/n, k\in\{0,\dots,n\}\}$.
Let $(P_k)$ be a sequence of i.d.d. Poisson random variables with parameter 1. The distribution of $(P_k)_{k=1,\dots,n}$ under the condition $\sum_{k=1}^n P_k=n$ (or $\sum_{k=1}^n (P_k-1)=0$) is also $\operatorname{mult}(n,1/n,\dots,1/n)$ as can be straightforwardly checked. For any $k\in\{0,\dots,n\}$, set $$\label{poissonrw}
{\bf S}_k=\sum_{j=1}^k (P_j-1)$$ and let ${\bf S}=({\bf S}_k)_{k=0,\dots,n}$ be the “centered” Poisson random walk, interpolated between integer points. Hence, we have $$\label{ette}
(\bar{\b_n}(t))_{t\in[0,1]}\sur{=}{(d)}\l(n^{-1/2}{\bf S}_{nt}\r)_{t\in[0,1]} \textrm{ conditioned by }{\bf S}_n=0,$$ and $$\label{et}
\sup_{t\in[0,1]} \l|\bar{\b_n}(t)-\b_n(t)\r|\leq n^{-1/2}\max_{k=1,\dots,n} {N_k}.$$ This is controlled as follow: the $N_i$’s are $\textrm{Binomial}(n,1/n)$. By the Markov inequality write $\mathbb{P}(\max_k N_k\geq \varepsilon\sqrt{n})\leq n\mathbb{P}(N_1\geq \varepsilon\sqrt{n})\leq n \mathbb{E}(e^{N_1})e^{-\varepsilon \sqrt{n}}
=n(1+\frac{e-1}{n})^ne^{-\varepsilon\sqrt{n}}\sim ne^{e-1} e^{-\varepsilon\sqrt{n}}\sous{\to}{n}0$, and then $$\label{rert}
n^{-1/2}\max_{k=1,\dots,n} {N_k}\proba 0.$$ Hence, by , and , (see also Lemma \[zou\] in Appendix) Theorem \[donsk\] stating the convergence of $(\b_n)$ to $\b$ in $D[0,1]$ is easily implied by the following proposition.
\[nwp\] The sequence $\l(n^{-1/2}{\bf S}_{nt}\r)_{t\in[0,1]}$ conditioned by ${\bf S}_n=0$ converges in distribution to $\b$ in $C[0,1]$ equipped with the topology of the uniform convergence.
The proof we propose for this classical proposition is the real novelty of this paper.
The “correction” of a Poisson random walk {#the-correction-of-a-poisson-random-walk .unnumbered}
-----------------------------------------
The main line in our approach is the comparison between ${\bf S}$ and ${\bf S}$ conditioned by ${\bf S}_n=0$. We introduce a correcting process ${\bf C}=({\bf C}_k)_{k=0,\dots,n}$, such that the pair $({\bf S},{\bf C})$ have the following feature :\
$\bullet$ ${\bf S}$ is the centered Poisson random walk (defined in ),\
$\bullet$ ${\bf S}+{\bf C}$ is distributed as ${\bf S}$ conditioned by ${\bf S}_n=0$.
Transforming a problem involving $n$ random variables into a problem involving $I_n\sim$ Poisson($n$) random variables is called Poissonization. Taking $U_1,\dots, U_{I_n}$ instead of $U_1,\dots,U_n$ in the construction presented at the beginning of the paper amounts to replacing ${\bf S}$ conditioned by ${\bf S}_n=0$ by the centered Poisson random walk ${\bf S}$. This is a Poissonization. The correction of the Poisson random walk we propose, which allows to pass from ${\bf S}$ to ${\bf S}$ conditioned by ${\bf S}_n=0$ is from our point of view different in nature from the usual depoissonization techniques. Here, everything relies on an exact combinatoral correction, when usually, most rely on the convergence in distribution of $(I_n-n)/\sqrt{n}$, ensuring the problem with $n$ variables and with $I_n$ variables being asymptotically equivalent, which is not the case here.
Let us come back to our correction procedure. To fix the details, we will use a classical interpretation of Poisson random walk in term of urns/balls.\
Conditionally on ${\bf S}_n=s$, the vector $(P_i)_{i=1,\dots,n}$ has the $\operatorname{mult}(s+n,1/n,\dots,1/n)$ law. When $m$ balls labeled $1,\dots,m$ are sent independently in $n$ urns according to the uniform distribution, the vector $(N'_i)_{i=1,\dots,n}$ giving the number of balls in the urns follows also the $\operatorname{mult}(m,1/n,\dots,1/n)$ distribution.
Let us throw $P_i$ balls in urn $i$ where $(P_i)_{i=1,\dots,n}$ are i.i.d. Poisson random variables with parameter 1. Then three cases arise: $\sum_{i=1}^n P_i=n$ or $\sum_{i=1}^n P_i<n$, or $\sum_{i=1}^n P_i>n$ (recall that ${\bf S}_n=\sum_{i=1}^n P_i-n$).\
In the first case ${\bf S}_n=0$, no correction are necessary, then set ${\bf C}_i=0$ for any $i$. The two last cases are treated below. Notice that we focus on the uni-dimensional distributions of the process ${\bf C}$ since this will appear to be sufficient.
[**Case ${\bf S}_n<0$.** ]{} We work conditionally on ${\bf S}_n=s$. Since $-s$ balls are lacking: throw $-s$ new balls and denote by ${\bf C}_k$ the number of new balls fallen in the $k$ first urns; for any $k$, $$\label{eza}
{\bf C}_k \sim \textrm{Binomial}(-s,k/n).$$ More precisely, $(\Delta {\bf C}_k)_{k=1,\dots,n}\sim \operatorname{mult}(-s,1/n,\dots,1/n)$ where $\Delta{\bf C}_k:={\bf C}_k-{\bf C}_{k-1}$ is the $k$th increment of the correcting process ${\bf C}$ (with ${\bf C}_0=0$).
\[tp\]For any $s<0$ and any $n\geq 1$, conditionally on ${\bf S}_n=s$ the process ${\bf S}+{\bf C}$ is distributed as ${\bf S}$ conditioned by ${\bf S}_n=0$ and ${\bf C}_k \sim \textrm{Binomial}(-s,k/n)$.
If $X\sim \operatorname{mult}(n+s,1/n,\dots,1/n), Y\sim(-s,1/n,\dots,1/n)$ and $X$ and $Y$ are independent then $X+Y\sim \operatorname{mult}(n,1/n,\dots,1/n)$. $\Box$
[**Case ${\bf S}_n>0$.** ]{} We work conditionally on ${\bf S}_n=s$. In this case $n+s$ balls have been thrown instead of $n$ and then $s$ balls must be taken out. The vector $(V_k)_{k=1,\dots,n}$ giving the exceeding number of balls in the different urns (those with labels in $n+1,\dots,n+s$) follows the law $\operatorname{mult}(s,1/n,\cdots,1/n)$. Then given ${\bf S}_n=s$, we search a correcting process $({\Delta {\bf C_k}})_{k=1,\dots,n}\sur{=}{(d)}(-V_k)_{k=1,\dots,n}$. Of course there is a problem to define the correcting process in terms of balls/urns, the balls/urns problem living a priori on a larger probability space than the $(P_i)$’s. But this gives us the intuition for a right correcting process: we define ${\bf C}$ conditionally on the $P_i$’s as follows. Let $(p_i)_{i=1,\dots,n}$ be non negative integers summing to $n+s$. Set $$\label{corre}
\mathbb{P}\l( \Delta{\bf C}_k=-c_k, k\in\{1,\dots,n\} | P_i=p_i, i\in\{1,\dots,n\} \r)=\frac{\prod_{i=1}^n \binom{p_i}{c_i}\ind_{c_i\leq p_i}}{\binom{\sum p_i}{s}}$$ for any given non negative integers $c_1,\dots,c_n$ summing to $s$, and 0 otherwise.
\[tg\]For any $s>0$ and any $n\geq 1$, conditionally on ${\bf S}_n=s$ the process ${\bf S}+{\bf C}$ is distributed as ${\bf S}$ conditioned by ${\bf S}_n=0$ and ${\bf C}_k\sim -\textrm{Binomial}(s,k/n)$.
*Proof. We have to check that ${\bf C}+{\bf S}$ is distributed as ${\bf S}$ conditioned by ${\bf S}_n=0$:\
$\mathbb{P}(P_i+\Delta {\bf C}_i=j_i, \forall i\,|\,{\bf S}_n=s)$ &=& \_[(p\_i) : p\_i=n+s,p\_ij\_i]{}\
&=&\_[(p\_i-j\_i) : p\_i-j\_i0, p\_i-j\_i=s]{}\
&=&=(P\_i=j\_i, i|[**S**]{}\_n=0) where we have used , the fact that $n+{\bf S}_n$ is Poisson$(n)$ distributed, and $$\label{mutlsum}
\sum_{(\alpha_i)~:~\alpha_i\geq 0, \sum \alpha_i=s}\prod_{i=1}^n\frac{s!}{\alpha_i!}=(1+\dots+1)^s=n^s.$$ We now show that knowing ${\bf S}_n=s$, $(-\Delta {\bf C}_k)_{k=1,\dots,n}\sim \operatorname{mult}(s,1/n,\dots,1/n)$. This implies the second point. Let $c_1,\dots,c_n$ be non negative integers summing to $s$. Write $\mathbb{P}(\Delta {\bf C}_k=-c_k,\forall k |{\bf S}_n=s)$ &=&\_[(p\_i), p\_ic\_i, p\_i=n+s]{} . By , ${\bf S}_n+n\sim$Poisson$(n)$ and , this is easily shown to be equal to $\frac{s!}{\prod_{i=1}^n {c_i!}}\frac{1}{n^s}$. $\Box$*
From now on, consider the process ${\bf C}$ as being interpolated between integer points.
\[compar\] For any $t\in[0,1]$, $$\label{rezze}
n^{-1/2} |{\bf C}_{nt}+t{\bf S}_n|\proba 0.$$
We work with $C_{\floor{nt}}$ instead of $C_{nt}$. For $t=0$, holds clearly. Let $t\in (0,1]$, and $\varepsilon>0$ be fixed. Write $$\mathbb{P}(|{\bf C}_{\floor{nt}}+t{\bf S}_n|\geq \varepsilon \sqrt{n})\leq V_n^M+W_n^M$$ where V\_n\^M&=& ( |[**C**]{}\_+t[**S**]{}\_n|,|[**S**]{}\_n|\[M\^[-1]{},M\]),\
W\_n\^M&=&(|[**S**]{}\_n|\[M\^[-1]{},M\]). Let $\alpha>0$ be a fixed (small) positive real number. The central limit theorem applied to ${\bf S}_n$ ensures that there exists $M$ such that $W_n^M \leq \alpha,$ for $n$ large enough. Fix this $M$. To bound $V_n^M$, use $\mathbb{P}(A| \cup_i B_i)=\sum \mathbb{P}(A |B_i)\mathbb{P}(B_i)/P( \cup B_i)\leq \max_i \mathbb{P}(A|B_i)$ for disjoint sets $B_i$. Hence V\_n\^M && \_[k, |k|\[M\^[-1]{},M\]]{}(|[**C**]{}\_+t[**S**]{}\_n| | |[**S**]{}\_[n]{}|=k).By Lemmas \[tp\] and \[tg\], $\mathbb{P}(|{\bf C}_{\floor{nt}}+t{\bf S}_n|\geq \varepsilon\sqrt{n}~|~ |{\bf S}_{n}|=k)=\mathbb{P}(|B(k,\floor{nt}/n)-tk|\geq \varepsilon\sqrt{n})$ where $B(k,\floor{nt}/n)$ is a binomial random variable with parameters $k$ and $\floor{nt}/n$. Further, by the Bienaymé-Tchebichev inequality $$\max_{k, |k|\in \sqrt{n}[M^{-1},M]} \mathbb{P}(|B(k,\floor{nt}/n)-tk|\geq \varepsilon\sqrt{n})\to 0.~\Box$$
$(i)$ The following convergence holds in $C([0,1],\mathbb{R}^2)$: $$n^{-1/2}({\bf S}_{nt},{\bf C}_{nt})_{t\in[0,1]}\dd (\B_t,-t\B_1)_{t\in[0,1]}.$$ $(ii)$ The following convergence holds in $C[0,1]$: $$n^{-1/2}({\bf S}_{nt}+{\bf C}_{nt})_{t\in[0,1]}\dd (\B_t-t\B_1)_{t\in[0,1]}.$$
Proposition \[nwp\] is a consequence of $(ii)$ thanks to Lemmas \[tp\] and \[tg\].
Assertion $(ii)$ is a consequence of $(i)$. Proof of $(i)$ : the convergence of $n^{-1/2}{\bf S}_{n.}$ to $\B$ in $C[0,1]$ is given by the other famous Donsker’s theorem stating the convergence of rescaled random walks to the Brownian motion (see [@B68] or [@KAL]). In particular $$\label{terpos}
n^{-1/2}{\bf S}_{n}\to \B_1.$$ The finite dimensional distribution of $n^{-1/2}{\bf C}_{n.}$ converges to those of the process $(t\B_1)_{t\in[0,1]}$. Indeed by Lemma \[compar\] and , $$n^{-1/2}({\bf S}_n,{\bf C}_{nt_1},\dots,{\bf C}_{nt_k})\dd (\B_1,-t_1 \B_1,\dots,-t_k \B_1)$$ for any $0\leq t_1\leq \dots \leq t_k\leq 1$. Then the family $(n^{-1/2}{\bf C}_{n.})$ is tight since it is a sequence of monotone processes whose finite dimensional distribution converge to those of the a.s. continuous process $(t\B_1)_{t\in[0,1]}$ (this is Lemma \[tret\]$(ii)$). Hence the family $n^{-1/2}({\bf S}_{n\cdot},{\bf C}_{n\cdot})$ is tight. The limit is identified again thanks to Lemma \[compar\]. $\Box$
Conclusion {#aze .unnumbered}
----------
The idea of this proof appeared after a discussion with Philippe Duchon, where he explained me his algorithm to generate uniformly a Bernoulli bridge with $2n$ steps, that is a random walk ${\bf S}=({\bf S}_k)_{k=0,\dots,2n}$ with increments $\pm1$, conditioned by ${\bf S}_{2n}=0$ : build first a simple random walk with $2n$ steps, choosing i.i.d. increments +1,or $-1$ with probability $1/2$. If ${\bf S}_{2n}=0$ then it’s done. If not, assume that ${\bf
S}_{2n}=2k>0$. Then pick up at random indices $I_{1},I_{2}, \dots$ in $\cro{1,2n}$. If $I_i$ is the index of a positive increment, change it into a negative one; if it is negative then do nothing. Stop when you have changed $k$ increments. By a simple symmetry argument the path obtained is uniform in the set of Bernoulli bridges of size $2n$. I found that this was a nice way to prove that rescaled Bernoulli bridge converges to the Brownian bridge; this can be proved using the same argument than the ones exposed above: the correction procedure will asymptotically and “eventually removes a straight line of the Brownian motion”. Therefore, I tried to find other increment distributions for which a similar correction procedure would have been possible. It appears to be not so general, or at least, not so agreeable. The problem is the following one: in general there does not exist any simple correction procedure that conserves at each step of the correction the property of the trajectory to have conditionally on its terminal position $k$, the law of a simple random walk conditioned by ${\bf S}_n=k$.
Appendix {#appendix .unnumbered}
========
A simple link between the convergence in $C[0,1]$ and in $D[0,1]$ {#a-simple-link-between-the-convergence-in-c01-and-in-d01 .unnumbered}
-----------------------------------------------------------------
\[zou\] Let $(X_n)$ be a sequence of processes taking their values in $D[0,1]$. Assume that for any $n$, $X_n=Y_n+Z_n$ where $Y_n$ is a continuous process, and $Z_n$ is a càdlag process. If $(Y_n)$ converges in distribution to $Y$ in $C[0,1]$, and if $\sup|Z_n|\dd 0$ then $(X_n)$ converges in distribution to $Y$ in $D[0,1]$.
As a matter of fact, this statement is easy if one knows:\
$(a)$ $(Y_n)\dd Y$ in $C[0,1]$ implies $(Y_n)\dd Y$ in $D[0,1]$,\
$(b)$ $(Z_n)$ càdlag, $\sup|Z_n|\dd 0$ implies $Z_n\dd 0$ (the null process) on $D[0,1]$.\
Indeed, knowing this, Lemma \[zou\] is a consequence of the following classical result: let $A_n,B_n,C_n$ be random variables in a metric space $(S,\rho)$. If $A_n=B_n+C_n$, $A_n\dd A$, $\rho(B_n)\dd0$ then $A_n+B_n\dd A$ (see e.g. Billinglsey [@B68 Theorem 3.1]).
In order to understand why $(a)$ and $(b)$ hold true, recall that the Skhorohod topology on $D[0,1]$ is defined by a metric: let $\Lambda$ be the set of strictly increasing continuous functions $\lambda$, satisfying $\lambda(0)=0, \lambda(1)=1$. The metric is $$d_s(f,g)=\inf_{\lambda \in \Lambda}\Big\{\sup\{|\lambda(t)-t|,t\in[0,1]\} \vee \sup\{|f(\lambda(t))-g(t)|,{t\in[0,1]}\}\Big\}.$$ Hence $d_s(f,g)\leq \sup\{|f(t)-g(t)|,t\in[0,1]\}$; this yields immediately to $(a)$ and $(b)$. $\Box$
Convergence in $C[0,1]$ and in $C[0,1]^2$ {#convergence-in-c01-and-in-c012 .unnumbered}
-----------------------------------------
We recall some classical facts concerning the weak convergence in $C[0,1]$ and $(C[0,1])^2$. First tightness and relative compactness are equivalent in these sets by Prohorov’s theorem, since they are both Polish spaces.
\[tret\] $(i)$Let $(X_n,Y_n)$ be a sequence of pairs of processes in $(C[0,1])^2$. The tightnesses of both families $(X_n)$ and $(Y_n)$ imply that of $(X_n,Y_n)$.\
$(ii)$ Let $(X_n)$ be a sequence of monotone processes in $C[0,1]$. If the finite dimensional distributions of $(X_n)$ converge to those of an a.s. continuous process $X$, then $(X_n)$ is tight and then $X_n\dd X$ in $C[0,1]$.
$(i)$ Take two compacts $K_1$ and $K_2$ of $C[0,1]$ such that $\mathbb{P}(X_n\in K_1)\geq 1-\varepsilon$ and $\mathbb{P}(Y_n\in K_2)\geq 1-\varepsilon$, then $\mathbb{P}((X_n,Y_n)\in K_1\times K_2)\geq 1-2\varepsilon$ and $K_1\times K_2$ is compact in $(C[0,1])^2$.\
$(ii)$ Only the tightness of $(X_n)$ in $C[0,1]$ has to be checked. For any function $f:[0,1]\to \mathbb{R}$, and $\delta>0$, the global modulus of continuity of $f$ is $$\omega_\delta(f)=\sup\{|f(x)-f(y)|,x,y\in [0,1],|x-y|\leq \delta\}.$$ Since $X_n$ is increasing, for any positive integer $m$, $$\omega_{1/m}(X_n)\leq A_{m,n}:=2\max\l\{\l|X_n(\frac{k}m)-X_n(\frac{k-1}{m})\r|, k=1,\dots,m\r\}.$$ Since the finite dimensional distributions of $(X_n)$ converge to those of $X$, $$A_{m,n}\build{\tend}{n}{(d)} A_m:=2\max\l\{\l|X(\frac{k}m)-X(\frac{k-1}{m})\r|, k=1,\dots,m\r\}$$ and by the uniform continuity of $X$, $A_m\build{\tend}{m}{proba.} 0$. Hence $\dis\lim_{m} \limsup_n \mathbb{P}(\omega_{1/m}(X_n)\geq
\varepsilon)=0$ for any $\varepsilon>0$. $\Box$
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
---------------
I thanks Philippe Duchon who gives me the inspiration of this approach. I thank also Bernard Bercu for his comments on a preliminary version of this text.
[99]{}
M.D. Donsker, (1952) [*Justification and extension of Doob’s heuristic approach to the Kolmogorov-Smirnov theorems,*]{} Annals of Mathematical Statistics., 23:277–281, 1952.
P. Billingsley, (1968) [*Convergence of Probability measure,*]{} John Wiley and Sons, New York, third edition.
J. L. Doob, (1949) [*Heuristic approach to the Kolmogorov-Smirnov theorems*]{}, Ann. Math. Statistics 20, 393–403.
O. Kallenberg (1997), [*Foundations of Modern Probability.*]{} Probability and Its Applications. Springer, New York, NY.
J. Komlós, P. Major, G. Tusnády, (1975) [*An approximation of partial sums of independent ${\rm RV}$’s and the sample ${\rm DF}$*]{}, I. Z. Wahrscheinlichkeitstheorie und Verw. Gebiete 32, 111–131.
G.R. Shorack, J.A. Wellner, (1986) [*Empirical processes with applications to statistics*]{}, Wiley Series in Probab. and Math. Stat.: Probab. and Math. Stat. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.
A.W. van der Vaart, J.A. Wellner, Jon A. (1996) [*Weak convergence and empirical processes. With applications to statistics.*]{} Springer Series in Stat. Springer-Verlag, New York.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- '[^1]'
- '[^2]'
title: 'On the four-loop strong coupling beta-function in the SM'
---
The Standard Model (SM) of fundamental interactions being renormalizable can, in principle, by used to make predictions at scales far above the Z-boson mass $Q^2\gg M_Z$. At such scales it is convenient to use “running”, or scale-dependent, couplings $a(Q)$, which are obtained from a set of measurable quantities $\{O\}$ by means of the following two-step procedure:
(PDG) ; (thresholds) ; (PDG.east) edge\[pil\] (thresholds.west); (RGE) ; (thresholds.east) edge\[pil\] (RGE.west);
The first step is called *matching* and boils down to the extraction/fitting of the model parameters $a(\mu_0\simeq M_Z)$ at the electroweak scale (in what follows, we employ $\MSbar$-scheme). The second step — “running” — allows one to utilize renormalization-group equations (RGEs) to re-summ potentially large logarithms $\log \mu^2/\mu_0^2$ contributing to finite-order relations between $a(\mu_0)$ and $a(\mu)$.
One of the most important applications of such a procedure is the vacuum stability analysis of the SM (see, e.g., [@Degrassi:2012ry; @Bednyakov:2015sca] and references therein). It turns out that for large values of Higgs field $\phi$ the effective potential can be approximated as $$\begin{aligned}
V_\mathrm{eff}(\phi\gg v) \simeq \frac{\textcolor{black}{\lambda}(\mu=\phi)}{4} \phi^4 \label{eq:veff},\end{aligned}$$ where the scale dependence of self-coupling $\lambda(\mu)$ is governed by the following (one-loop) RGEs $$\begin{aligned}
(4 \pi)^2 \frac{d \lambda}{d \ln \mu^2} = 12 \lambda + 6 y_t^2 \lambda - 3 \textcolor{colA}{y_t^4} + \ldots, \qquad
(4 \pi)^2 \frac{d y_t}{d \ln \mu^2} = \frac{9}{4} y_t^3 - 4 \textcolor{black}{g_s}^2 y_t + \ldots, \label{eq:lamdep} \end{aligned}$$ in which the “de-stabilizing” contribution due to top-quark Yukawa coupling $y_t$ is emphasized. The importance of the strong coupling $g_s$ can be deduced from RGE for $y_t$ - strong interactions tend to decrease the latter with $\mu$.
At present, the state-of-the-art analysis utilizes full two-loop matching [@Kniehl:2015nwa] together with three-loop evolution via RGEs [@Mihaila:2012fm; @Bednyakov:2012en; @Chetyrkin:2013wya]. In this talk, we discuss one little step towards the full four-loop analysis — calculation of leading N${}^3$LO corrections to $\beta_{\ag}$. The latter is defined here as ($h$ counts powers of couplings) $$\label{eq:betadef}
\frac{d\;\ag}{d\;\log{\mu^2}}=\beta_{\ag} = - \sum\limits_{i=0}^3\beta_ih^{i+2}.$$ For convenience, we introduce a set of SM parameters (with $\xi$ being a gauge-fixing parameter) $$(16 \pi^2) a = \left\{ g_s^2, y_t^2, \lambda, (16 \pi^2) \xi \right\}.
\label{eq:coupldef}$$ Since we are interested in the leading corrections to $\beta_3$ , the electroweak gauge interactions are neglected together with Yukawa interactions of all SM fermions but the top-quark.
For completeness, let us mention here that the *matching* procedure for the strong coupling constant is different than that mentioned earlier. One usually considers five-flavor ($n_f=5$) QCD as an effective theory obtained from a more fundamental one (e.g., QCD with “active” top quark) and find the relations of the form: $$a^{(5)}_s (\mu) = a_s(\mu) \zeta_{a_s}(\mu, M),$$ where $M$ corresponds to the mass of a heavy field. The (“threshold”) corrections to the so-called decoupling constant $\zeta_{a_s}$ are known in pure QCD up to four loops [@Chetyrkin:2005ia; @Schroder:2005hy; @Kniehl:2006bg], while two-loop electroweak contribution is considered in Ref. [@Bednyakov:2014fua].
Before going to the result, let us discuss some technicalities and important issues encountered in our calculation. To simplify our life we made use of the background-field gauge (BFG) [@Abbott:1980hw; @Denner:1994xt]. The advantage of BFG lies in the QED-like relation between the gauge coupling renormalization constant $Z_{a_{s}}$ and that of the background gluon field $Z_{\bgG}$: $$\label{eq:bgf}
Z_{a_{s}} = 1/Z_{\bgG},\qquad Z_{\xi} = Z_{\qG}.$$ Obviously, this allows one to obtain the final result solely from massless propagator-type integrals. In , we also indicate the relation between the renormalization constants of quantum gluon field $\qG$ and gauge-fixing parameter. It is worth mentioning that, since in $\MSbar$-scheme beta-functions do not depend on masses, one can avoid any special infra-red rearrangement (IRR) [@Vladimirov:1979zm] tricks.
For diagram generation we employ the package `DIANA` [@Tentyukov:1999is], which internally uses `QGRAF` [@Nogueira:1991ex]. The color [@vanRitbergen:1998pn] and Dirac algebra are carried out by means of `FORM`. All the generated two-point functions are mapped onto three auxiliary topologies, each containing 11 propagators and 3 irreducible numerators. The corresponding diagrams are evaluated by means of the `C++` version of the `FIRE` package [@Smirnov:2014hma], which performs integration-by-parts (IBP) [@Chetyrkin:1981qh] reduction based on the reduction rules prepared by the `LiteRed`[@Lee:2012cn] package. The IBP reduction leads to a small set of master integrals. The expressions for the latter are known in analytical form up to the finite parts [@Baikov:2010hf].
Let us also note that as an independent cross-check of our setup, we prepared a simple QCD-like model with additional fermions in the adjoint representation of SU(3) color group (“gluino”). We calculated four-loop correction $\Delta \beta_3 \equiv \beta_3({\ensuremath {n_f}},{\ensuremath {n_g}}) - \beta_3({\ensuremath {n_f}})$ to the beta-function of the strong coupling $$\begin{aligned}
{2}
\Delta \beta_3/\ag^5 &&= {\ensuremath {n_g}}& \biggl[ \frac{{\ensuremath {d^{abcd}_Ad^{abcd}_A}}}{{\ensuremath {N_A}}}\left(\frac{256}{9} - \frac{832}{3} \zeta_3\right) -
{\ensuremath {C_A}}^4 \left(\frac{68507}{243} - \frac{52}{9} \zeta_3\right)\biggr] \nonumber\\
&& + {\ensuremath {n_f}}{\ensuremath {n_g}}&\biggl[{\ensuremath {C_A}}^2 {\ensuremath {C_F}}{\ensuremath {T_F}}\left(\frac{23480}{243} - \frac{352}{9} \zeta_3\right) +
{\ensuremath {C_A}}{\ensuremath {C_F}}^2 {\ensuremath {T_F}}\left(-\frac{152}{27} - \frac{64}{9} \zeta_3\right) + \nonumber\\
&& & {\ensuremath {C_A}}^3 {\ensuremath {T_F}}\left(\frac{30998}{243} + \frac{128}{3} \zeta_3\right) +
\frac{{\ensuremath {d^{abcd}_Fd^{abcd}_A}}}{{\ensuremath {N_A}}} \left(-\frac{704}{9} + \frac{512}{3} \zeta_3\right)\biggr]\nonumber\\
&&+ {\ensuremath {n_g}}^2 &\biggl[{\ensuremath {C_A}}^4 \left(\frac{26555}{486} - \frac{8}{9}
\zeta_3\right) + \frac{{\ensuremath {d^{abcd}_Ad^{abcd}_A}}}{{\ensuremath {N_A}}} \left(-\frac{176}{9} +
\frac{128}{3} \zeta_3\right)\biggr] \nonumber\\
&&
+ {\ensuremath {n_g}}^2{\ensuremath {n_f}}& \biggl[ {\ensuremath {C_A}}^3 {\ensuremath {T_F}}\frac{934}{243} + {\ensuremath {C_A}}^2 {\ensuremath {C_F}}{\ensuremath {T_F}}\frac{308}{243}\biggr]
+ {\ensuremath {C_A}}^4 {\ensuremath {n_g}}^3\frac{23}{27} \nonumber\\
&& + {\ensuremath {n_f}}^2 {\ensuremath {n_g}}& \biggl[ {\ensuremath {C_A}}^2 {\ensuremath {T_F}}^2\frac{1252}{243} + {\ensuremath {C_A}}{\ensuremath {C_F}}{\ensuremath {T_F}}^2 \frac{1232}{243}\biggr]
\label{eq:beta_gluino}
\end{aligned}$$ in terms of the SU(3) casimirs and ${\ensuremath {n_f}}({\ensuremath {n_g}})$ corresponding to the number of quarks(gluino). The beta-function for such a model at four loops was predicted by A.F. Pikelner [@Pikelner:2015] along the lines of Ref. [@Clavelli:1996pz] and can be used, e.g, in the derivation of $\{\beta\}$-expansions [@Kataev:2014jba]. We found perfect agreement and, thus, both confirmed the prediction and verified our computer setup[^3] .
Let us now discuss an important obstacle – the ambiguities in the dimensionally regularized expressions due to $\gamma_5$. It is known that there is a clash between anticommutativity $\{\gamma_\mu, \gamma_5\}=0$ and strictly four-dimensional relation $$\operatorname{tr}\left( \gamma^\mu \gamma^\nu \gamma^\rho \gamma^\sigma \gamma_5 \right) = -4 i \epsilon^{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}
\label{eq:trace_g5}$$ in $D\neq4$ (see, e.g.,[@Jegerlehner:2000dz]). A self-consistent BMHV-algebra [@'tHooft:1972fi; @Breitenlohner:1977hr] breaks $D$-dimensional Lorentz invariance and requires too much effort when applied to multi-loop problems involving chiral fermions. External axial currents in QCD can be conveniently treated within the prescription due to Larin [@Larin:1993tq]. Another approach [@Korner:1991sx] is based on anticommuting $\gamma_5$ but promote every fermionic trace “$\operatorname{tr}$” to a non-cyclic linear functional, which depends on the choice of utilized *reading point/prescription*, i.e., the position, at which we start(end) reading the trace.
[ccc]{}
(bb) at (0,1.3) ; (c1) at (-0.75,0); (c2) at (0.75,0); (-1,1) – (c1); (c1) – (-1,-1); (-1,-1) – (-2,0); (-2,0) – (-1,1); (1,-1)–(c2); (2,0) – (1,-1); (1,1) – (2,0); (c2) – (1,1) node\[inner sep=0pt,minimum size=4pt\] ; (-3,0) – (-2,0); (2,0) – (3,0); (0,1) node\[anchor=north\] [$\chi/\phi^+$]{}; (-1,1) – (1,1); ($(c1)!0.5!(c2)$) node\[anchor=north\] [$h_0/\phi^-$]{}; (c1) – (c2); (-1,-1) – (1,-1); at (-2,0) ; at (2,0) ;
&
(bb) at (0,1.3) ; (c1) at (-0.75,0); (c2) at (0.75,0); (-1,1) – (c1); (c1) – (-1,-1); (-1,-1) – (-2,0); (-2,0) – (-1,1); (1,-1)–(c2); (2,0) – (1,-1); (1,1) – (2,0); (c2) – (1,1) node\[inner sep=0pt,minimum size=4pt\] ; (-3,0) – (-2,0); (2,0) – (3,0); (0,1) node\[anchor=north\] [$\chi/\phi^+$]{}; (-1,1) – (1,1); ($(c1)!0.5!(c2)$) node\[anchor=north\] [$h_0/\phi^-$]{}; (c1) – (c2); (-1,-1) – (1,-1); at (-1,1) ; at (2,0) ;
&
(bb) at (0,1.3) ; (c1) at (-0.75,0); (c2) at (0.75,0); (-1,1) – (c1); (c1) – (-1,-1); (-1,-1) – (-2,0); (-2,0) – (-1,1); (1,-1)–(c2); (2,0) – (1,-1); (1,1) – (2,0); (c2) – (1,1) node\[inner sep=0pt,minimum size=4pt\] ; (-3,0) – (-2,0); (2,0) – (3,0); (0,1) node\[anchor=north\] [$\chi/\phi^+$]{}; (-1,1) – (1,1); ($(c1)!0.5!(c2)$) node\[anchor=north\] [$h_0/\phi^-$]{}; (c1) – (c2); (-1,-1) – (1,-1); at (-1,1) ; at (1,1) ;
\
$R=1$ & $R=2$ & $R=3$
Since the relevant diagrams (48 non-planar and 24 planar graphs, see, e.g., Fig. \[fig:readpoints\]) involve only single poles in the regularization parameter $\epsilon \equiv (4-D)/2$, we expected that there should be no ambiguity in $\beta_3$. We made a (incorrect) assumption that it is safe to read a trace from any position and use anticommuting $\gamma_5$, Eq. and the contraction[^4] $$\epsilon^{\mu\nu\rho\sigma} \epsilon_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}
= - {\mathcal T}{}^{[\mu\nu\rho\sigma]}_{[\alpha\beta\gamma\delta]},
\qquad
{\mathcal T}{}^{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}=
\delta^\mu_\alpha
\delta^\nu_\beta
\delta^\rho_\gamma
\delta^\sigma_\delta$$ to get a unique result. However, similar calculation was carried out by M. Zoller [@Zoller:2015tha] and an agreement was found only in the “naive” part, in which contributions due to traces with odd number of $\gamma_5$ are neglected. The discrepancy triggered further investigation of the issue and it was found that, indeed, the results for the diagrams giving rise to non-trivial $\gamma_5$ contribution do depend on the choice of “cut” points, at which one breaks a closed Dirac trace.
The result for the $1/\epsilon$ part of the diagrams can be casted into $$\frac{\ag^2 \at^2 T_F^2}{\epsilon} \left( X_1 + X_2 \zeta_3 \right) \cdot R
$$ and for non-planar ones we have $X_1 = -1/18$, $X_2 = 1/6$, while in the planar case $X_1 = 1/6$, $X_2 = 0$.
The coefficient $R$ depends on the “cut” points and it turns out that there are three non-equivalent cases, indicated by dots in Fig.\[fig:readpoints\]. If both traces are cut at external gluon vertices, one has $R=1$. If only one external vertex is chosen as a “cut” point, $R=2$. Finally, for both traces terminated at internal vertices we have $R=3$.
A natural question arises whether it is possible to single out a unique prescription. In our original paper [@Bednyakov:2015ooa] we advocate the choice $R=3$. The main argument comes from the calculation of finite, $\mathcal{O}(\epsilon^0)$, parts of the diagrams. It is known that IRR procedure (e.g.,of Ref. [@Zoller:2015tha]), usually utilized to find RGEs in , is only aimed to calculate the pole part of a diagram and does not guarantee that the $\mathcal{O}(\epsilon^0)$ terms remain the same after its application. Since we effectively do not do any IRR tricks, we can safely calculate the finite parts and check, whether it is transverse in $D$-dimensions or not[^5].
It turns out that the case with $R=3$ leads to transverse gluon self-energy, while the case $R=2$ gives rise to a correction to the longitudinal part, thus, explicitly breaking gauge invariance. In spite of the fact that the prescription $R=2$ also produce zero upon multiplication by the product of external momenta $q_\mu q_\nu$, we exclude it by simple symmetry argument (we do not want to give preference to either external vertex).
At the end of the day we obtain the following gauge-parameter independent expression [@Bednyakov:2015ooa]: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:beta4sm}
\beta_3 & = & \beta_3^{\rm QCD}(n_f = 2 \NGen)
+ \ag^4\at \left[
{\ensuremath {T_F}}{\ensuremath {C_F}}^2\left( 6 - 144 \zeta_3\right ) +
{\ensuremath {T_F}}{\ensuremath {C_A}}{\ensuremath {C_F}}\left( \frac{ 523}{9} - 72\zeta_3\right) +
\frac{1970}{9}{\ensuremath {T_F}}{\ensuremath {C_A}}^2 \right. \nonumber \\
& - &
\left.\frac{1288}{9}{\ensuremath {T_F}}^2{\ensuremath {C_F}}\NGen -
\frac{872}{9}{\ensuremath {T_F}}^2{\ensuremath {C_A}}\NGen \right]
+ \ag^2 \at^3 {\ensuremath {T_F}}\left (
\frac{423}{2}
+ 12 \zeta_3
\right)
+ 60 \ag^2 \at^2\al {\ensuremath {T_F}}- 72 \ag^2 \at\al^2 {\ensuremath {T_F}}\nonumber\\
& - & \ag^3\at^2 \left[
{\ensuremath {T_F}}^2\left( 48 - 96 \zeta_3 +
\textcolor{colA}{\underbrace{R}_{3}}\cdot \left[
\textcolor{colA}{\frac{16}{3}+ 32\zeta_3}
\right]
\right)+
{\ensuremath {T_F}}{\ensuremath {C_F}}\left( 117 - 144\zeta_3\right)+
222 {\ensuremath {T_F}}{\ensuremath {C_A}}\right], \end{aligned}$$ where $\NGen$ corresponds to the number of SM families.
It is interesting to compare the relative sizes of different four-loop terms and recent five-loop pure QCD contribution to $\beta_4$ [@Baikov:2016tgj]. From Fig. \[fig:rel\_c\] one can see that $\ag^5$ amounts for about 94% of $\beta_3 + \beta_4$ both at the top-mass and Planck scales. The mixed $\ag^4 \at$ and $\ag^3 \at^2$ terms have opposite signs and partially compensate each other. The contributions due to five loops [@Baikov:2016tgj] and that from $\gamma_5$ are also of different signs and are both less than a percent.
![Relative size of the calculated four-loop contributions and the pure QCD five-loop $\mathcal{O}(\ag^6)$ term with respect to the sum $\beta_3 + \beta_4$. Non-trivial part due to $\gamma_5$ is indicated. Both the top-mass, $M_t$ [@Agashe:2014kda], and Planck, $M_{Pl}$, scales are considered. []{data-label="fig:rel_c"}](rel_contrib.pdf){width="60.00000%"}
To summarize, we calculated different four-loop corrections to beta-functions for $\alpha_s$ both in the SM and in hypothetical QCD with “gluino”. The $\gamma_5$ ambiguities were studied and a reading prescription for “odd” fermion traces, consistent with gauge symmetry, was singled out. In our future studies, we plan to extend the result for $\beta_3$ to the full SM case and compute leading electroweak threshold corrections at three loops.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
The authors thank the Organizing committee of the QUARKS-2016 seminar for warm hospitality. This work is supported in part by RFBR grant 14-02-00494-a and the Heisenberg-Landau programme.
[33]{}
K. Olive et al. (Particle Data Group), Chin.Phys. **C38**, 090001 (2014)
G. Degrassi, S. Di Vita, J. Elias-Miro, J.R. Espinosa, G.F. Giudice et al., JHEP **1208**, 098 (2012), `1205.6497`
A.V. Bednyakov, B.A. Kniehl, A.F. Pikelner, O.L. Veretin, Phys. Rev. Lett. **115**, 201802 (2015), `1507.08833`
B.A. Kniehl, A.F. Pikelner, O.L. Veretin, Nucl.Phys. **B896**, 19 (2015), `1503.02138`
L.N. Mihaila, J. Salomon, M. Steinhauser, Phys.Rev.Lett. **108**, 151602 (2012), `1201.5868`
A. Bednyakov, A. Pikelner, V. Velizhanin, Phys.Lett. **B722**, 336 (2013), `1212.6829`
K. Chetyrkin, M. Zoller, JHEP **1304**, 091 (2013), `1303.2890`
K.G. Chetyrkin, J.H. Kuhn, C. Sturm, Nucl. Phys. **B744**, 121 (2006), `hep-ph/0512060`
Y. Schroder, M. Steinhauser, JHEP **0601**, 051 (2006), `hep-ph/0512058`
B.A. Kniehl, A.V. Kotikov, A.I. Onishchenko, O.L. Veretin, Phys. Rev. Lett. **97**, 042001 (2006), `hep-ph/0607202`
A.V. Bednyakov, Phys. Lett. **B741**, 262 (2015), `1410.7603`
L. Abbott, Nucl.Phys. **B185**, 189 (1981)
A. Denner, G. Weiglein, S. Dittmaier, Nucl.Phys. **B440**, 95 (1995), `hep-ph/9410338`
A. Vladimirov, Theor.Math.Phys. **43**, 417 (1980)
M. Tentyukov, J. Fleischer, Comput.Phys.Commun. **132**, 124 (2000), `hep-ph/9904258`
P. Nogueira, J.Comput.Phys. **105**, 279 (1993)
T. van Ritbergen, A. Schellekens, J. Vermaseren, Int.J.Mod.Phys. **A14**, 41 (1999), `hep-ph/9802376`
A.V. Smirnov, Comput. Phys. Commun. **189**, 182 (2014), `1408.2372`
K. Chetyrkin, F. Tkachov, Nucl.Phys. **B192**, 159 (1981)
R. Lee (2012), `1212.2685`
P.A. Baikov, K.G. Chetyrkin, Nucl. Phys. **B837**, 186 (2010), `1004.1153`
A. Pikelner, paper in preparation.
L. Clavelli, P.W. Coulter, L.R. Surguladze, Phys. Rev. **D55**, 4268 (1997), `hep-ph/9611355`
A.L. Kataev, S.V. Mikhailov, Phys. Rev. **D91**, 014007 (2015), `1408.0122`
M.F. Zoller (2016), `1608.08982`
F. Jegerlehner, Eur.Phys.J. **C18**, 673 (2001), `hep-th/0005255`
G. ’t Hooft, M. Veltman, Nucl.Phys. **B44**, 189 (1972)
P. Breitenlohner, D. Maison, Commun. Math. Phys. **52**, 11 (1977)
S. Larin, Phys.Lett. **B303**, 113 (1993), `hep-ph/9302240`
J.G. Korner, D. Kreimer, K. Schilcher, Z. Phys. **C54**, 503 (1992)
M.F. Zoller, JHEP **02**, 095 (2016), `1508.03624`
A.V. Bednyakov, A.F. Pikelner (2015), `1508.02680`
P.A. Baikov, K.G. Chetyrkin, J.H. Kühn (2016), `1606.08659`
[^1]:
[^2]: , on leave from BLTP, JINR
[^3]: Recently, the result given in Eq. was also confirmed by an independent calculation [@Zoller:2016sgq].
[^4]: Non-trivial contributions due to $\gamma_5$ can only appear when even number of such traces are present.
[^5]: There seems to be no problem with gauge-invariance in the pole part.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The antiferromagnetic structure of Sr$_{3}$Ir$_{2}$O$_{7}$, the bilayer analogue of a spin-orbital Mott insulator Sr$_{2}$IrO$_{4}$, was revealed by resonant magnetic x-ray diffraction. Contrasting intensities of the magnetic diffraction at the Ir $L_\mathrm{III}$ and $L_\mathrm{II}$ edges show a $J_\mathrm{eff}=1/2$ character of the magnetic moment as is argued in Sr$_{2}$IrO$_{4}$. The magnitude of moment, however, was found to be smaller than that of Sr$_{2}$IrO$_{4}$ by a factor of 5-6, implying that Sr$_{3}$Ir$_{2}$O$_{7}$ is no longer a Mott insulator but a weak antiferromagnet. An evident change of the temperature dependence of the resistivity at $T_\mathrm{N}$, from almost temperature-independent resistivity to insulating, strongly suggests that the emergent weak magnetism controls the charge gap. The magnetic structure was found to be an out-of-plane collinear antiferromagnetic ordering in contrast to the inplane canted antiferromagnetism in Sr$_{2}$IrO$_{4}$, originating from the strong bilayer antiferromagnetic coupling.'
author:
- 'S. Fujiyama'
- 'K. Ohashi'
- 'H. Ohsumi'
- 'K. Sugimoto'
- 'T. Takayama'
- 'T. Komesu'
- 'M. Takata'
- 'T. Arima'
- 'H. Takagi'
title: 'Weak antiferromagnetism of $J_\mathrm{eff}=1/2$ band in bilayer iridate Sr$_{3}$Ir$_{2}$O$_{7}$'
---
Recently, novel interplay of spin-orbit coupling and electron correlations in heavy $5d$ transition metal oxides has been attracting considerable interest as a new paradigm of oxide physics. In Sr$_{2}$IrO$_{4}$, a layered Ir$^{4+}$ perovskite with five $d$-electrons in its $t_{2g}$ orbitals, such interplay is particularly pronounced. Sr$_{2}$IrO$_{4}$ is an insulator with a charge gap of the order of $\lesssim$ 0.5 eV and shows a canted antiferromagnetism below $T_\mathrm{N}\sim230$ K. [@Crawford1994; @Cao1998; @Kim2008] The insulating behavior even well above $T_\mathrm{N}$ and the presence of a large localized magnetic moment of $\sim 0.5 \mu_{B}$, estimated from the large canted moment 0.075 $\mu_{B}$/Ir, indicate that Sr$_{2}$IrO$_{4}$ can be viewed as a Mott insulator. The Mottness of Sr$_{2}$IrO$_{4}$ is believed to be associated with a formation of a half-filled $J_\mathrm{eff}=1/2$ band, created by a very strong spin-orbit splitting as large as $\sim 0.7$ eV comparable to the width of the $t_{2g}$ band $\sim 1.5$ eV. The polarization dependence of x-ray absorption spectra and the contrasting resonances at $L_\mathrm{II}$ and $L_\mathrm{III}$ edges in the magnetic x-ray diffraction firmly evidence $J_\mathrm{eff}=1/2$ character of the magnetic moment. [@Kim2008; @Kim2009; @Fujiyama2012]
The Mottness of Sr$_{2}$IrO$_{4}$ characterized by the charge gap as small as $\lesssim 0.5$ eV is marginal. Like some other tetravalent transition metal ions such as Ti$^{4+}$, Mn$^{4+}$ and Ru$^{4+}$, Ir$^{4+}$ forms a series of perovskite-based structures called Ruddlesden-Popper series, Sr$_{n+1}$Ir$_{n}$O$_{3n+1}$, with stacking of $n$-IrO$_{{2}}$ layers as structural units. Reflecting the marginal Mottness in Sr$_{2}$IrO$_{4}$ ($n=1$), the system becomes more and more itinerant with increasing $n$. The three dimensional analogue of the series, SrIrO$_{3}$ ($n=\infty$) is known to show a metallic transport. [@Cao2007] Recent study revealed that the ground state of SrIrO$_{3}$ is a semimetal close to a band insulator, [@TakayamaUnp] where the lifting of band degeneracy by spin-orbit coupling plays a key role in producing the incomplete charge gap. [@Carter2012] Very likely due to the presence of strong spin orbit coupling, the semimetal state is located almost right next to the Mott insulator. A question arises how the Mott insulator evolves into the semimetal in Sr$_{n+1}$Ir$_{n}$O$_{3n+1}$.
Sr$_{3}$Ir$_{2}$O$_{7}$, the $n=2$ member of Sr$_{n+1}$Ir$_{n}$O$_{3n+1}$, could be a key compound to pursue the electronic evolution from the spin-orbital Mott insulator to the semimetal. As shown in Fig. \[fig:structure\] (a), the crystal structure consists of stacking of bilayers of corner-shared IrO$_{6}$ octahedra along the $c$-axis. The octahedra are rotated around the $c$-axis and the inplane Ir-O-Ir bonds are hence bent. The directions of the rotations are opposite for the neighboring IrO$_{6}$ octahedra not only within each layer but also between the two layers. Sr$_{3}$Ir$_{2}$O$_{7}$ is reported to show a semiconducting temperature dependence of the resistivity but much more conducting than Sr$_{2}$IrO$_{4}$, implying close proximity to the critical border to the semimetal. [@Cao2002; @Subramanian1994; @Nagai2007] A very weak ferromagnetic moment was observed in the temperature dependent magnetization below 280 K, suggesting the presence of magnetic ordering, but the magnetic structure has not been fully explored yet. By determining the magnetic structure of Sr$_{3}$Ir$_{2}$O$_{7}$, we should be able to address the following issues closely linked to the evolution of the electronic state from the Mott insulator to the semimetal.
![(a) The crystal and magnetic structures of Sr$_{3}$Ir$_{2}$O$_{7}$. The dashed line denotes the unit cell. Note that the volume of the magnetic unit cell agrees to that of the lattice. We label eight iridium sites (grey circles, Ir${j}$, $j=0 \ldots 7$) for the following analysis of the magnetic structure. (b) Inplane resistivities of Sr$_{3}$Ir$_{2}$O$_{7}$ and Sr$_{2}$IrO$_{4}$. (c) and (d) Magnetizations of Sr$_{3}$Ir$_{2}$O$_{7}$ at 260 K and Sr$_{2}$IrO$_{4}$ at 5 K [@MagCom].[]{data-label="fig:structure"}](Fig1bCM.eps){width="8.5cm"}
Is the $J_\mathrm{eff}=1/2$ state robust against the change of the crystal structure and the itinerancy of the electrons? The ratios of the inplane and out-of-plane Ir-O bond lengths are 1.04 for Sr$_{2}$IrO$_{4}$ and 1.02 for Sr$_{3}$Ir$_{2}$O$_{7}$, implying less distorted IrO$_{6}$ octahedra. [@Cao2002] Assuming a comparable spin-orbit coupling to Sr$_{2}$IrO$_{4}$, we may anticipate a formation of almost ideal $J_\mathrm{eff}=1/2$ state. However, it is highly nontrivial whether the increased itinerancy could destabilize the $J_\mathrm{eff}=1/2$ state, which should be examined experimentally. Even if the $J_\mathrm{eff}=1/2$ character holds for Sr$_{3}$Ir$_{2}$O$_{7}$, the estimate of the magnitude of the ordered moment will provide a key to examine the Mottness of this material.
The magnetic structure of this material should be pinned down. The rotational distortion of the IrO$_{6}$ octahedra, alternating in each plane and opposite between the upper and the lower layers, could give rise to a net ferromagnetic canting moment when antiferromagnetically coupled moments are lying in the plane through Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya (DM) interaction as is argued in Sr$_{2}$IrO$_{4}$. On the other hand, the intrabilayer coupling, $J_{\perp}$, that is absent in Sr$_{2}$IrO$_{4}$ and perhaps antiferromagnetic that is comparable or even larger than that within the plane could conflict with the inplane canted moments. The reported weak ferromagnetic moment of Sr$_{3}$Ir$_{2}$O$_{7}$ was in fact only 1% of that of Sr$_{2}$IrO$_{4}$ ($<10^{-3}\mu_{B}$/Ir) and showed very peculiar temperature dependence. [@Cao2002] We suspect that this could be originating from an extrinsic moment produced by defects.
In this communication, we report the magnetic structure of the bilayer perovskite, Sr$_{3}$Ir$_{2}$O$_{7}$, determined by resonant magnetic x-ray diffraction. The magnetic structure was found to be collinear along the $c$-axis with antiferromagnetic intrabilayer coupling, in marked contrast to the inplane canted antiferromagnetism in Sr$_{2}$IrO$_{4}$. We found that the ordered moment below $T_\mathrm{N}=280$ K has a $J_\mathrm{eff}=1/2$ character but that the magnitude is substantially reduced to 1/5-1/6 of that of Sr$_{2}$IrO$_{4}$, which points out that Sr$_{3}$Ir$_{2}$O$_{7}$ is a $J_\mathrm{eff}=1/2$ band magnetic semiconductor rather than a $J_\mathrm{eff}=1/2$ Mott insulator.
A single crystal of Sr$_{3}$Ir$_{2}$O$_{7}$ with a dimension of 2 mm$\times $2 mm $\times$0.5 mm was synthesized by a flux method. The resistivity measurement was conducted by a conventional four probe technique. The magnetization measurement was performed using a commercial SQUID magnetometer. A single crystal x-ray diffraction measurement for the determination of the lattice structure was performed using a cylindrical IP (imaging plate) on BL02B1 at SPring-8. [@Sugimoto2010] The wavelength of the incident x-ray was set to 0.354 Å. Resonant magnetic diffraction measurement using a multi-circle diffractometer was performed on BL19LXU of SPring-8. [@Yabashi2001] The wavelength was set to 1.106 Å corresponding to the $L_\mathrm{III}$ edge ($2p_{3/2}\rightarrow 5d$) of iridium for the magnetic structure analysis. The $b$-axis of the crystal was nearly kept parallel to the scattering plane.
The analysis of the crystal structure indicates an orthorhombic structure with the space group $Bbeb$ and the lattice constants of 5.5108, 5.512, 20.8832 Å, that has lower symmetry than $I\bar{4}/mmm$ that is reported at very early stage,[@Subramanian1994] but agrees to more recent analysis. [@Cao2002] The result of structural refinement is shown in Table \[tab:atom\]. We found that the presence of the two domains associated with orthorhombic distortion and that the ratio of the volumes of the two domains was roughly 0.7:0.3. In the magnetization of the crystal measured, a very weak ferromagnetism was observed below 280K only when the inplane magnetic field was applied. The magnitude of moment, however, is almost 1% of that of Sr$_{2}$IrO$_{4}$ as shown in Fig. \[fig:structure\](c) and (d), in agreement with the previous report. On the other hand, the reported peculiar reduction of the susceptibility below 50 K was not reproduced. [@Cao2002] Additional weak ferromagnetic signal was observed below 230K, which we attribute to the intergrowth of Sr$_{2}$IrO$_{4}$ layer. [@Boseggia2012] From the magnetization measurement, we estimate that the intergrowth is 1 % of the total volume. The resistivity of the crystal in Fig. \[fig:structure\](b) showed a semiconducting temperature dependence. An evident anomaly at the magnetic transition temperature is observed suggestive of a close interrelation between the magnetism and the motion of electrons. Above the magnetic transition temperature, $T_\mathrm{N}\sim 280$ K, the magnitude of the resistivity is as low as $\rho\sim 10$ m$\Omega$cm and weakly temperature dependent. This suggests that the system is a poor metal or a very narrow gap semiconductor at high temperatures.
atom $x$ $y$ $z$
------ -------- -------- --------
Ir 0.2500 0.7500 0.0974
Sr1 0.2500 0.2500 0.0000
Sr2 0.2500 0.2500 0.2500
O1 0.2500 0.7500 0.0000
O2 0.2500 0.7500 0.1943
O3 0.5487 0.5485 0.0962
: \[tab:BL2\]Atomic positions of Sr$_{3}$Ir$_{2}$O$_{7}$ determined by synchrotron radiation x-ray diffraction at 295 K.
\[tab:atom\]
How about magnetism? We found the (0 1 13) reflection in the IP at 30 K when the incident wavelength of x-ray was tuned at the $L_\mathrm{III}$ edge of iridium, that is prohibited in a $B$-base centered lattice and apparently shows an inplane antiferromagnetism. To elucidate the magnetic correlation along the $c$-axis, particularly the unknown intrabilayer coupling, we performed a resonant magnetic x-ray diffraction experiment by a four-circle diffractometer for (0 1 $l$) reflections. The magnetic diffraction evolves below 280 K as shown in Fig. \[fig:Jonehalf\] (b), which evidences that the anomaly in the magnetization originates from the antiferromagnetic long range ordering. Upon cooling, the magnetic diffraction evolves monotonously, excluding a possibility of the second magnetic transition at $\sim 230$ K. The magnetic diffraction that is normalized by the intensity of the charge diffraction ($I_{m}(0\, 1\, 13)/I_{c}(0\, 0 \, 20)$) is reduced to nearly 1/150 to that of a spin-orbital Mott insulator Sr$_2$IrO$_4$ ($I_{m}(1 \, 0 \, 22)/I_{c}(0 \, 0 \, 24)$) as shown in Fig. \[fig:Jonehalf\] (a) plausibly originating from the itinerant character of electrons. It is to be noted that the structure factors of the charge diffractions, $F_{0 \, 0 \, 20}$ of Sr$_{3}$Ir$_{2}$O$_{7}$ and $F_{0 \, 0 \, 24}$ of Sr$_{2}$IrO$_{4}$, have nearly the same magnitudes. Despite the contrasting difference in the diffraction intensities, the ordered moment keeps a $J_\mathrm{eff}=1/2$ character like Sr$_2$IrO$_4$ evidenced by the strong enhancement at the $L_\mathrm{III}$ edge as shown in Fig. \[fig:Jonehalf\] (c).
![(a) The resonant magnetic diffraction normalized by the charge scattering of Sr$_{2}$IrO$_{4}$ ($I_{m}$(1 0 22)/$I_{c}$(0 0 24)) and Sr$_{3}$Ir$_{2}$O$_{7}$ ($I_{m}$(0 1 13)/$I_{c}$(0 0 20)). (b) Temperature evolution of the magnetic diffraction (0 1 13). (c) Strong enhancement of the diffraction at the $L_\mathrm{III}$ edge ($c\hbar/\lambda=11.2 $ keV) is observed while only small diffraction is observed at the $L_\mathrm{II}$ edge ($c\hbar/\lambda=12.8$ keV).[]{data-label="fig:Jonehalf"}](Fig35bCM.eps){width="8cm"}
We show in Fig. \[fig:Factor\] (a) the $l$ dependence of the magnetic diffraction. Under the resonance condition at the $L$ edge, the diffraction intensity is described as, $$I (hkl)\propto |(\bm{\epsilon'}\times \bm{\epsilon})\cdot \bm{m}|^{2}|F_{hkl}|^{2}= |(\bm{\epsilon_{\pi'}}\times \bm{\epsilon_{\sigma}})\cdot \bm{m}|^{2}|F_{hkl}|^{2},$$ where $\bm{\epsilon (\epsilon')} $ is the polarization vector of the incident (scattered) x-ray, $\bm{m}=m_{a}\bm{\hat{e}}_{a}+m_{b}\bm{\hat{e}}_{b}+m_{c}\bm{\hat{e}}_{c}$ is the ordered moment and $F_{hkl}$ denotes the structure factor.
![(a) Intensities of the resonant magnetic x-ray diffraction at (0 1 $l$) (blue circle). We encountered a technical difficulty in measuring (0 1 8) reflection by the geometry of the diffractometer, and this is missing. Orange dashed line is the calculated intensity for the antiferromagnetic intrabilayer coupling with moment parallel to the $c$-axis assuming a mixture of 90 $^{\circ}$ rotated domains by a factor of 0.7 to 0.3. See the detail in the text. (b) Calculated $|F_{01l}|^{2}$ of four possible magnetic structures with intrabilayer magnetic couplings ($f_{4}=\pm f_{2}$) and interbilayer antiparallel (AP) and parallel (P) relations ($f_{0}=\mp f_{2}$). (c) The $|(\bm{\epsilon_{\pi'}\times \bm{\epsilon_{\sigma}}})\cdot \bm{\hat{e}_{\alpha}}|^{2}$ for $\bm{\hat{e}_{\alpha}}\parallel a,b $ and $c$.[]{data-label="fig:Factor"}](Fig3dCM.eps){width="8cm"}
A continuous $l$ scan along (0 1 $l$) detects no magnetic superspot, which shows that the magnetic periodicity along the $c$-direction agrees to the $c$ of the unit cell containing four IrO$_{6}$ layers. When we denote the direction (sign) of the moment at Ir${j}$ site as $f_{j} (j=0\ldots7)$ (Fig. \[fig:structure\] (a)) under a condition of inplane antiferromagnetism for each IrO$_{2}$ plane evidenced by the IP measurement as, $f_{1 \, (3,5,7)}=-f_{0 \, (2,4,6)}$, the squared structure factor at (0 1 $l$) is calculated as, $$\begin{aligned}
|F_{01l}|^{2}&=&4[\sin^{2}\theta( f_{0} - f_{6}+(-1)^{l}f_{2}-(-1)^{l}f_{4})^{2}\\&+&\cos^{2}\theta(- f_{0} - f_{6}+(-1)^{l}f_{2}+(-1)^{l}f_{4})^{2}],\end{aligned}$$ using $\theta=2\pi\cdot 0.0974\cdot l$.
The possible magnetic structures are limited to 4 cases depending on the intrabilayer magnetic couplings ($J_{\perp}$, $f_{4}=\pm f_{2}$ for ferromagnetic (antiferromagnetic)) and the interbilayer relations ($f_{0}=\mp f_{2}$ for antiparallel (parallel)), of which $|F_{01l}|^{2}$ are plotted in Fig. \[fig:Factor\] (b). The sign of $J_{\perp}$ determines the phase of the overall $l$ dependence with a periodicity of $1/(2\cdot 0.0974)=5.13$, and the plot in Fig. \[fig:Factor\] (b) apparently shows an antiferromagnetic intrabilayer coupling.
The smearing-out of the even-odd alternating $l$-dependence of the observed diffraction is originating from the presence of two structural domains in the crystal. Using the ratio of the domains of 0.7 to 0.3 deduced by the crystal structure analysis, the observed intensity is expected as $I(01l)\propto0.7|(\bm{\epsilon_{\pi'}}\times\bm{\epsilon_{\sigma}})\cdot \bm{\hat{e}}_{\alpha}|^{2}|F_{01l}|^{2}+0.3|(\bm{\epsilon_{\pi'}}\times\bm{\epsilon_{\sigma}})\cdot \bm{\hat{e}}_{\beta}|^{2}|F_{10l}|^{2}$, where $\bm{\hat{e}}_{\beta}$ should be 90$^{\circ}$ rotated to $\bm{\hat{e}}_{\alpha}$ around the $c$-axis. [@interCom] The calculated $|(\bm{\epsilon_{\pi'}}\times\bm{\epsilon_{\sigma}})\cdot \bm{\hat{e}}_{\alpha}|^{2}$ for $\alpha=a,b$ and $c$ show contrasting $l$ dependences as well as the magnitudes as shown in Fig. \[fig:Factor\] (c). Under the condition of the sample orientation with $b$-axis parallel to the scattering plane, the $m_{a}\bm{\hat{e}}_{a}$ gives negligible contribution to the diffraction because of $\bm{\epsilon_{\sigma}} \parallel \bm{\hat{e}}_{a}$. The only choice of the unit vectors to smear out the even-odd alternation is $\bm{\hat{e}}_{\alpha}=\bm{\hat{e}}_{\beta}=\bm{\hat{e}}_{c}$, therefore, we conclude that the ordered moments are directed along the $c$-axis. [@MomentCom] We plot in Fig. \[fig:Factor\] (a) the calculated $l$ dependence of the diffraction considering the structural domains and $c$-directed moments with antiferromagnetic $J_{\perp}$, which shows a good agreement with the observed magnetic diffraction. The determined magnetic structure as shown in Fig. \[fig:structure\] (a) well resolves the absence of weak ferromagnetic moment and the negligible magnetization below $T_\mathrm{N}$ ($<$ 0.001 $\mu_{B}$ at 260 K), because the moments lie parallel to the DM vectors.
The most plausible source to realize the collinear magnetic structure along the $c$-axis is the antiferromagnetic $J_{\perp}$. In contrast to the inplane Ir-O-Ir bond that is bent with 11$^{\circ}$, the straight bond along the out-of-plane direction connecting two layers with nearly the same distance expects a considerable $J_{\perp}$ with nearly the same or even larger than the inplane antiferromagnetic exchange. We consider that this large $J_{\perp}$ can conflict with the DM interaction favoring inplane canting of the moments, and as a consequence to avoid the competition, the moments are directed parallel to the DM vectors.
The observed magnetic diffraction normalized by the charge diffraction is nearly 150 times smaller than that of Sr$_{2}$IrO$_{4}$. Even considering the reduction of the diffraction intensity originating from the difference of the directions of the moments by a factor of $[|(\bm{\epsilon_{\pi'}}\times\bm{\epsilon_{\sigma}})\cdot \bm{\hat{e}}_{a}|^{2}$ at (1 0 22)\]/\[$|(\bm{\epsilon_{\pi'}}\times\bm{\epsilon_{\sigma}})\cdot \bm{\hat{e}}_{c}|^{2}$ at (0 1 13)\] $\sim 5$, a strong reduction of the squared moment $|m_{c}$ (Sr$_{3}$Ir$_{2}$O$_{7}$) /$m_{a}$ (Sr$_{2}$IrO$_{4}$)$|^{2}\sim 1/30$ is suggested. While the magnitudes of the ordered moments of different samples cannot precisely be determined solely by resonant x-ray diffraction, the moment of Sr$_{3}$Ir$_{2}$O$_{7}$ is considerably reduced to 1/5 - 1/6 of that of Sr$_{2}$IrO$_{4}$, i.e. $\sim 0.1$ $\mu_{B}$/Ir. The reduced magnetic moment clearly shows that the magnetism of Sr$_{3}$Ir$_{2}$O$_{7}$ should be better described by a band magnetism of $J_\mathrm{eff}=1/2$ electrons rather than a Mott insulator. The anomaly in the resistivity is very clearly observed at $T_\mathrm{N}$, implying the band magnetism is controlling the poor-metal insulator transition. One may argue the possibility of the formation of a Slator insulator or an SDW state below $T_\mathrm{N}$. [@Arita2012] We, however, note that the magnetic structure revealed has the same unit cell as the unit cell of the lattice and a band folding associated with the antiferromagnetic ordering would not be anticipated. In this respect, neither Slator nor SDW scenario in their most naive form can be applied here and much more elaborated picture should be invoked. It is interesting to note here again the contrast between Sr$_{2}$IrO$_{4}$ and Sr$_{3}$Ir$_{2}$O$_{7}$. Only a minute change in the crystal structure alters the system from a strongly localized magnet to a weakly localized band magnet, which we believe represents a extremely delicate interplay of Coulomb $U$, kinetic energy $t$, spin-orbit coupling and lattice.
In conclusion, we disclosed the antiferromagnetic structure of the bilayer perovskite iridium oxide, Sr$_{3}$Ir$_{2}$O$_{7}$, by resonant magnetic x-ray diffraction. Despite much more itinerant character of electrons than the spin-orbital Mott insulator, Sr$_{2}$IrO$_{4}$, $J_\mathrm{eff}=1/2$ electronic state holds for this material. The ordered magnetic moment is directed along the $c$-axis, which explains the absence of the remnant ferromagnetic moment, plausibly originating from the competition of the intrabilayer antiferromagnetic exchange and the Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya interaction. Apart from the resemblance of the antiferromagnetism and $T_\mathrm{N}$ to Sr$_{2}$IrO$_{4}$, the ordered moment is strongly reduced down to nearly 1/5 to that of Sr$_{2}$IrO$_{4}$, showing that the electronic state is no longer a Mott insulator but a band magnet. A considerable interplay between the magnetism and the transport is demonstrated, where the emergent moment appears to control the transition from a poor metal (narrow gap semiconductor) to an insulator. In the course of this study, we noticed a result of magnetic x-ray diffraction of this sample. [@Kim2012] The magnetic structure proposed is consistent with the current study.
We are grateful to W. Koshibae, D. Hashizume, H.Y. Kee, G. Khaliullin, and G. Jackeli for fruitful discussions. The synchrotron radiation experiments were performed at BL19LXU in SPring-8 with the approval of RIKEN (20080047). This work was supported by Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research on Priority Areas (19052007, 17071001) from MEXT.
M.K. Crawford, M.A. Subramanian, R.L. Harlow, J.A. Fernandez-Baca, Z.R. Wang, and D.C. Johnston, Phys. Rev. B **49**, 9198 (1994). G. Cao, J. Bolivar, S. McCall, and J.E. Crow, and R. P. Guertin, Phys. Rev. B **57**, R11039 (1998). B.J. Kim, Hosub Jin, S.J. Moon, J.-Y. Kim, B.-G. Park, C.S. Leem. Jaejun Yu, T.W. Noh, C. Kim, S.-J. Oh, J.-H. Park, V. Durairaj, G. Cao, and E. Rotenberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. **101**, 076402 (2008). B.J. Kim, H. Ohsumi, T. Komesu, S. Sakai, T. Morita, H. Takagi, and T. Arima, Science **323** 1329 (2009). S. Fujiyama, H. Ohsumi, T. Komesu, J. Matsuno, B.J. Kim, M. Takata, T. Arima, and H. Takagi, Phys. Rev. Lett. **108**, 247212 (2012). G. Cao, V. Durairaj, S. Chikara, L.E. DeLOng, S. Parkin, and P. Scholttmann, Phys. Rev. B, **76**, 100402 (2007). T. Takayama *et al.* in preparation. Jean-Michel Carter, V. Vijay Shankar, M. Ahsan Zeb, and Hae-Young Kee, Phys. Rev. B, **85**, 115105 (2012). G. Cao, Y. Xin, C.S. Alexander, J.E. Crow, P. Schlottmann, M.K. Crawford, R.L. Harlow, and W. Marshall, Phys. Rev. B **66**, 214412 (2002). M.A. Subramanian, M.K. Crawford, and R.L. Harlow, Mater. Res. Bull. **29**, 645 (1994). I. Nagai, Y. Yoshida, S.I. Ikeda, H. Matsuhata, H. Kito, and M. Kosaka, J. Phys: Cond. Mat. **19**, 136214 (2007). K. Sugimoto, H. Ohsumi, S. Aoyagi, E. Nishibori, C. Moriyoshi, Y. Kuroiwa, H.i Sawa, and M. Takata, AIP Conf. Proc. **1234**, 887 (2010). M. Yabashi *et al.* Nuc. Inst. Meth. Phys. Res. A **467-468**, 678 (2001). The following paper reports an antiferromagnetic structure of Sr$_{3}$Ir$_{2}$O$_{7}$, but the magnetic diffraction appears below 230 K, showing a contradiction to our results. S. Boseggia, R. Springell, H.C. Walker, A.T. Boothroyd, D. Prabhakaran, D. Wermeille, L. Bouchenoire, S.P. Collins, and D.F. McMorrow, Phys. Rev. B **85**, 184432 (2012). Since our single crystal of Sr$_{3}$Ir$_{2}$O$_{7}$ contains the intergrowth of Sr$_{2}$IrO$_{4}$, we show the magnetization data at 260 K, 20 K below $T_\mathrm{N}$. We consider nearly half of the saturated magnetization develops at 260 K. The $|F_{01l}|^{2}$ for $f_{0}=-f_{2}$ agrees to $|F_{10l}|^{2}$ for $f_{0}=f_{2}$. Mathematically, there remains a possibility of $m_{a}=m_{b}$ corresponding to the direction of moments to $\bm{\hat{e}}_{a}+\bm{\hat{e}}_{b}$, however, this magnetic structure could not be realized in an orthorhombic lattice. In addition, inplane moments meet a significant conflict to the magnetization as discussed below. R. Arita, J. Kunes, A.V. Kozhevnikov, A.G. Eguiluz, and M. Imada, Phys. Rev. Lett. **108**, 086403 (2012). J.W. Kim, Y. Choi, Jungho Kim, J.F. Mitchell, G. Jackeli, M. Daghofer, J. van den Brink, G. Khaliullin, and B.J. Kim, Phys. Rev. Lett. **109**, 037204 (2012).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- |
Yufan Li, Xiaoying Xu, C. L. Chien\
\
\
title: 'Observation of Half-Quantum Flux in Unconventional Superconductor $\beta$-Bi$_2$Pd'
---
We report the observation of half-integer magnetic flux quantization in mesoscopic rings of superconducting $\beta$-Bi$_2$Pd thin films. The half-quantum fluxoid manifests itself as a $\pi$ phase shift in the quantum oscillation of the critical temperature. This result verifies unconventional superconductivity of $\beta$-Bi$_2$Pd, in accord with the expectation of a topological superconductor. We also discuss the strong indication that $\beta$-Bi$_2$Pd is a spin-triplet superconductor.
The condensation of Cooper pairs gives rise to superconductivity [@Tinkham_book]. A key signature of the electron pairing is the quantization of the magnetic flux through a multiply-connected superconducting body, in discrete units of $\Phi_0 = hc / 2e$. Indeed, the observations of the fluxoid quantization served as the first experimental verifications of the BCS theory [@Deaver1961; @Doll1961; @Byers1961]. Shortly after the initial magnetometry measurements, Little and Parks further demonstrated the oscillatory feature of the superconducting transition temperature $T_c$, as a result of the periodic free energy of the superconducting state as a function of the applied magnetic flux [@Little1962]. The minimum of the free energy, or the maximum of the $T_c$, is always achieved when the applied magnetic flux takes $\Phi = n\Phi_0$, where $n$ is an integer number. In the following decades, the Little-Parks effect, as a stringent test for the electron pairing, has been observed in numerous superconducting materials [@Parks1964; @Gammel1990; @Sochnikov2010; @cai_unconventional_2013]. On the other hand, Geshkenbein, Larkin and Barone (GLB) predicted that half magnetic flux quanta may exist in spin-triplet superconductors (SCs) [@geshkenbein_vortices_1987]. The idea was later extended into the spin-singlet high-$T_c$ SCs [@sigrist_paramagnetic_1992], and realized in YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{7-\delta}$ tricrystals with delicately designed crystalline boundaries [@tsuei_pairing_1994; @Kirtley1995], which, in conjuncture with the corner SQUID experiments [@wollman_experimental_1993; @Wollman1995], pinpointed the $d$-wave pairing symmetry. However, the effect of half-quantum fluxoid (HQF) for polycrystalline spin-triplet SC loops, as in the original proposal, has never been experimentally demonstrated. More recently, experimental indications of a different HQF effect has been reported in the spin-triplet SC candidate Sr$_2$RuO$_4$ [@jang_observation_2011; @yasui_little-parks_2017]. This phenomenon is believed to manifest itself as a splitting of the integer-quantization steps, which is energetically unfavorable unless certain special conditions are met [@chung_stability_2007]. It is not to be confused with the HQF effect proposed by GLB, in which case the half flux quanta of $(n+1/2)\Phi_0$ are energetically preferred over the integer ones of $n\Phi_0$.
The past decade witnesses the surging interest for the topological superconductors (TSCs), which may host Majorana fermions [@alicea_new_2012; @kallin_chiral_2016; @Sato2017]. The TSCs are considered to have a profound connection to the spin-triplet pairing, or its mathematical equivalents [@read_paired_2000; @Kitaev_2001; @Fu2008]. Brought back to the spotlight are the triplet pairing hopefuls including Sr$_2$RuO$_4$ and UPt$_3$, both of which have attracted intensive interest for decades, including indications of HQF in SQUID devices comprising Sr$_2$RuO$_4$ [@nelson_odd-parity_2004]. However, the experimental evidences still fall short for concluding spin-triplet pairing [@kallin_chiral_2016; @Sato2017; @Mackenzie2017]. The search goes on in relatively new SC materials, including doped topological insulators, noncentrosymmetric SCs [@kallin_chiral_2016; @Sato2017], as well as iron-based SCs [@Zhang2018].
Of particular interest is $\beta$-Bi$_2$Pd with a centrosymmetric tetragonal crystal structure [@Imai2012], which is reported to host spin-polarized topological surface states that coexist with superconductivity [@Sakano2015; @Iwaya2017]. One scanning tunnelling spectroscopy study, in particular, reports observation of Majorana bound states at the center of the vortices in epitaxial thin films [@Lv2017]. Controversy persists, however, while other tunneling spectroscopy and calorimetric studies in bulk specimen suggest the conventional $s$-wave pairing mechanism [@Herrera2015; @Che2016; @Kacmrcik2016]. We performed the Little-Parks experiment on mesoscropic superconducting rings fabricated on textured $\beta$-Bi$_2$Pd thin films. The Little-Parks oscillations shift by one half of a period, or a phase of $\pi$, which is the experimental signature of the HQF predicted by GLB [@geshkenbein_vortices_1987]. It is unequivocally evident that the superconductivity of $\beta$-Bi$_2$Pd originates from unconventional pairing symmetry. The observation resonates with the expectation of a TSC. Our result strongly suggests that $\beta$-Bi$_2$Pd is a spin-triplet SC.
The fluxoid $\Phi^{\prime}$ of a superconducting loop is introduced by F. London as $\Phi^{\prime} =\Phi +(4\pi/c) \oint \lambda^2\vec{j_s}\cdot d\vec{s}$, where $c$ is the speed of light, $\lambda$ is the London penetration depth, and $\vec{j_s}$ is the supercurrent density [@LondonF]. It is shown that $\Phi^{\prime}$ must take quantized values, with integral increments of a fluxoid quantum $\Phi_0$ [@LondonF; @Deaver1961; @Byers1961]. The fact that the applied magnetic flux $\Phi$ can take arbitrary values requires $\vec{j_s}$ to compensate it in order to maintain the quantized $\Phi^{\prime}$. This leads to the periodic oscillation of the free energy, or $T_c$, in response to the applied magnetic field [@Little1962]. In ordinary cases, a circulating $\vec{j_s}$ is not required when the external field provides exactly $\Phi=n\Phi_0$. Therefore the free energy of the superconducting state is the lowest; as a result, the $T_c$ is the highest. The maximum of the free energy and the minimum of $T_c$ occur when $n-\Phi/\Phi_0=\pm\frac{1}{2}$, as depicted in Fig. 1A. For unconventional SCs, the superconducting order parameter becomes anisotropic, retaining the symmetry which represents that of the underlying crystal lattices. It is possible, as suggested by GLB, that the phase factor of the complex order parameter will shift an additional phase difference of $\pi$ along a path across the boundary of two crystal grains, inflicting a sign change in the corresponding free energy term [@geshkenbein_vortices_1987]. An odd number of the $\pi$ phase shifts accumulated around a superconducting loop will reverse minima and maxima of the total free energy . It is thus the maximum of $T_c$, instead of the minimum, that occurs when $n-\Phi/\Phi_0=\pm\frac{1}{2}$, as shown in Fig. 1B. The fluxoid quantization becomes $\Phi^{\prime} = (n+1/2)\Phi_0$. In the absence of an external magnetic field, such a superconducting loop will hold a HQF as its ground state. GLB concluded that such a circumstance is most likely to occur in polycrystalline $p-$wave SCs [@geshkenbein_vortices_1987].
To examine the fluxoid quantization in $\beta$-Bi$_2$Pd, we fabricated sub-$\mu$m-sized ring devices using 50 nm-thick (001)-textured $\beta$-Bi$_2$Pd thin films, deposited on oxidized silicon substrates by magnetron sputtering (Section I of [@SM]). The size of the ring is important because the oscillation occurs in units of $\Phi_0 \approx$ 20 Oe-($\mu$m)$^2$. For a ring of 1 $\mu$m $\times$ 1 $\mu$m, oscilaltion occurs in field increment of about 20 Oe. Measuring much larger rings is more demanding on the field resolution, and creates difficulty determining the zero-exteranl-field state in the presence of the remnant field. For smaller rings, the size becomes comparable to the coherent length. A representative device geometry can be found in Fig. 1C with a mean size of 0.8 $\mu$m $\times$ 0.8 $\mu$m. Control samples with the same device geometries were patterned on 28 nm-thick thin films of Nb, which is a conventional $s-$wave SC. The temperature dependence of the device resistance is shown in Fig. 1D. A broadening of the transition width ($\sim$ 1.5 K) as compared to that of the as-grown films ($<$ 0.2 K) is typical for devices in similar dimensions that have undergone nanofabrication processes [@Gammel1990; @Sochnikov2010; @Carillo2010; @cai_unconventional_2013; @yasui_little-parks_2017]. The Little-Parks effect can be observed when the sample is placed at a fixed temperature within the superconducting transition regime, where the variation of the $T_c$ manifests as a fluctuation of the resistance [@Little1962]. Fig. 1E presents a typical result of the Little-Parks experiment, obtained from the Nb ring device. The observed oscillation period is 30.2 Oe, in good agreement with 32.3 Oe as expected for $\Phi_0$ of the 800 nm $\times$ 800 nm ring area. Importantly, the resistance minima, which correspond to the $T_c$ maxima, occur when $\Phi=n\Phi_0$, as routinely observed for $s-$wave SCs [@Parks1964] and high-$T_c$ cuprate $d$-wave SCs [@Gammel1990; @Carillo2010], both singlet SCs. Up to about 70 oscillations have been observed on a roughly parabolic-shaped background. The aperiodic background is commonly observed in Little-Parks experiments, believed to originate from the misalignment of the magnetic field and the finite line-width of the ring [@Tinkham1963; @Parks1964; @Moshchalkov1995]. As a precaution against trapping vortices, the measurements were always performed after zero-field cooling from 10 K.
The Little-Parks oscillation of the $\beta$-Bi$_2$Pd ring device is shown in Fig. 2A. The same oscillation period of $\sim$ 30 Oe is observed. The aperiodic background can be subtracted from the raw data, and the $\Delta R$ versus $H$ oscillation is presented in Fig. 2B. The magnitude of the resistance oscillation translates to $\sim$ 0.015 K variations of $T_c$, consistent with theoretical expectations for the Little-Parks effect [@TINKHAM1964]. In stark contrast with the case of Nb, however, $\Phi=n\Phi_0$ now corresponds to the resistance *maxima* (or the $T_c$ minima). The resistance minima and the $T_c$ maxima are instead observed when $\Phi=(n+1/2)\Phi_0$. The $\frac{1}{2}\Phi_0$ shift of the free energy minima indicates that it is energetically preferred that fluxoid quantization takes $\Phi^{\prime} = (n+1/2)\Phi_0$. When the external magnetic field is zero, the superconducting ring circulates a finite $\vec{j_s}$ to sustain one HQF, which accounts for the lowest $T_c$ and the highest free energy. The system is more energetically satisfied when the external field supplies $\pm\frac{1}{2}\Phi_0$, whereas $\vec{j_s}$ can rest to zero. The symmetric shape of the magnetoresistance oscillation trace shows that the effect is not due to defect-trapped vortices. We also verify that the result is robust against the different field sweeping directions and current densities (Sections III and IV, Fig S3 of [@SM]). The HQF is repeatedly observed in numerous $\beta$-Bi$_2$Pd rings with various geometrical device shape factors (Section II of [@SM]).
In Fig. 3 we demonstrate the temperature dependence of the Little-Parks effect in $\beta$-Bi$_2$Pd. The $\pi$ phase shift persists from the emergence of the Little-Parks effect at 2 K, through the highest temperature of 2.6 K, before the oscillation disappears presumably due to the loss of coherence over the length scale of the ring device. The lack of temperature variation suggests the predominance of the unique pairing symmetry that gives rise to the HQF, without any detectable dilution of possible $s$-wave components [@kirtley_temperature_1999].
In the following we discuss the implication of our experimental observations. The GLB HQF is an experimental signature for unconventional pairing mechanisms, not restricted to the $p-$wave pairing. In fact, HQF was first observed in $d-$wave SC tricrystals [@tsuei_pairing_1994]. The orientations of the crystal boundaries had to be carefully designed; otherwise HQF would not exist [@tsuei_pairing_1994; @Kirtley1995]. To our best knowledge, HQF has not been observed in polycrystalline specimens of high-$T_c$ SCs, although the Little-Parks experiment has been conducted on microstructured mesh of polycrystalline YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_7$ thin films [@Gammel1990]. In our experiment, on the other hand, HQFs are observed in the overwhelming majority of the $\beta$-Bi$_2$Pd ring devices (Sections II and V of [@SM]). Considering the previous literature reporting the link between $\beta$-Bi$_2$Pd and the spin-triplet pairing [@Sakano2015; @Iwaya2017; @Lv2017], a contributing factor to the robustness of the HQF state might be the unique anisotropy of the $p-$wave pairing. The order parameter reverses sign when rotating 180$^{\circ}$, whereas for $d-$wave the sign reversal occurs upon rotating 90$^{\circ}$. This protects the HQF from moderate disorders on the crystal grain boundaries, comparing to that gauged for $d$-wave SCs [@tsuei_pairing_1994; @Kirtley1995]. Nevertheless, the observation of HQF is an unequivocal evidence for unconventional superconductivity, consistent with previous experiments concluding topological superconductivity in $\beta$-Bi$_2$Pd [@Sakano2015; @Iwaya2017; @Lv2017]. Although our Little-Parks experiment cannot decisively distinguish among different non-$s$-wave pairing mechanisms, the Andreev-reflection spectroscopy measurements on the $\beta$-Bi$_2$Pd thin films conclusively show that it is a spin-triplet SC with $p$-wave pairing. This result will be presented elsewhere.
To conclude, we observed HQFs in superconducting $\beta$-Bi$_2$Pd thin films, evidenced by the $\pi$ phase shift of the Little-Parks oscillations. The presence of HQFs unambiguously indicates unconventional pairing mechanism for superconductivity. Together with tunneling spectroscopy [@Iwaya2017; @Lv2017] and angle-resolved photoemission spectroscopy results [@Sakano2015], the $p-$wave spin-triplet pairing can be concluded. Our observation strongly supports $\beta$-Bi$_2$Pd as a topological superconductor, which would be a suitable candidate material, an intrinsic TSC in which to search for Majorana fermions. The confirmation of the spin-triplet SC may open other venues for condensed matter physics.
[10]{}
M. Tinkham, [*[Introduction to Superconductivity: Second Edition (Dover Books on Physics) (Vol i)]{}*]{} (Dover Publications, 2004), second edition edn.
B. S. Deaver, W. M. Fairbank, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**7**]{}, 43 (1961).
R. Doll, M. Näbauer, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**7**]{}, 51 (1961).
N. Byers, C. N. Yang, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**7**]{}, 46 (1961).
W. A. Little, R. D. Parks, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**9**]{}, 9 (1962).
R. D. Parks, W. A. Little, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**133**]{}, A97 (1964).
P. L. Gammel, P. A. Polakos, C. E. Rice, L. R. Harriott, D. J. Bishop, [ *Phys. Rev. B*]{} [**41**]{}, 2593 (1990).
I. Sochnikov, A. Shaulov, Y. Yeshurun, G. Logvenov, I. Bo鍟猳vi鑶�, [ *Nat Nano*]{} [**5**]{}, 516 (2010).
X. Cai, [*et al.*]{}, [*Phys. Rev. B*]{} [**87**]{}, 081104 (2013).
V. B. Geshkenbein, A. I. Larkin, A. Barone, [*Phys. Rev. B*]{} [**36**]{}, 235 (1987).
M. Sigrist, T. M. Rice, [*J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.*]{} [**61**]{}, 4283 (1992).
C. C. Tsuei, [*et al.*]{}, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**73**]{}, 593 (1994).
J. R. Kirtley, [*et al.*]{}, [*Nature*]{} [**373**]{}, 225 (1995).
D. A. Wollman, D. J. Van Harlingen, W. C. Lee, D. M. Ginsberg, A. J. Leggett, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**71**]{}, 2134 (1993).
D. A. Wollman, D. J. V. Harlingen, J. Giapintzakis, D. M. Ginsberg, [ *Physical Review Letters*]{} [**74**]{}, 797 (1995).
J. Jang, [*et al.*]{}, [*Science*]{} [**331**]{}, 186 (2011).
Y. Yasui, [*et al.*]{}, [*Physical Review B*]{} [**96**]{} (2017). ArXiv: 1710.11348.
S. B. Chung, H. Bluhm, E.-A. Kim, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**99**]{}, 197002 (2007).
J. Alicea, [*Rep. Prog. Phys.*]{} [**75**]{}, 076501 (2012).
C. Kallin, J. Berlinsky, [*Rep. Prog. Phys.*]{} [**79**]{}, 054502 (2016).
M. Sato, Y. Ando, [*Rept.Prog.Phys.*]{} [**80**]{}, 076501 (2017).
N. Read, D. Green, [*Phys. Rev. B*]{} [**61**]{}, 10267 (2000).
A. Y. Kitaev, [*Physics-Uspekhi*]{} [**44**]{}, 131 (2001).
L. Fu, C. L. Kane, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**100**]{}, 096407 (2008).
K. D. Nelson, Z. Q. Mao, Y. Maeno, Y. Liu, [*Science*]{} [**306**]{}, 1151 (2004).
A. P. Mackenzie, T. Scaffidi, C. W. Hicks, Y. Maeno, [*npj Quantum Materials*]{} [**2**]{} (2017).
P. Zhang, [*et al.*]{}, [*Science*]{} p. eaan4596 (2018).
Y. Imai, [*et al.*]{}, [*J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.*]{} [**81**]{}, 113708 (2012).
M. Sakano, [*et al.*]{}, [*Nature Communications*]{} [**6**]{}, 8595 (2015).
K. Iwaya, [*et al.*]{}, [*Nature Communications*]{} [**8**]{}, 976 (2017).
Y.-F. Lv, [*et al.*]{}, [*Science Bulletin*]{} [**62**]{}, 852 (2017).
E. Herrera, [*et al.*]{}, [*Phys. Rev. B*]{} [**92**]{}, 054507 (2015).
L. Che, [*et al.*]{}, [*Phys. Rev. B*]{} [**94**]{}, 024519 (2016).
J. Ka[č]{}mar[č]{}[í]{}k, [*et al.*]{}, [*Phys. Rev. B*]{} [**93**]{}, 144502 (2016).
F. London, [*[Superfliuds]{}*]{} (Wiley, New York, 1950).
Supplementary Materials.
F. Carillo, [*et al.*]{}, [*Phys. Rev. B*]{} [**81**]{}, 054505 (2010).
M. Tinkham, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**129**]{}, 2413 (1963).
V. V. Moshchalkov, [*et al.*]{}, [*Nature*]{} [**373**]{}, 319 (1995).
M. TINKHAM, [*Rev. Mod. Phys.*]{} [**36**]{}, 268 (1964).
J. R. Kirtley, C. C. Tsuei, K. A. Moler, [*Science*]{} [**285**]{}, 1373 (1999).
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
This work was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy, Basic Energy Science, Award Grant No. DESC0009390. We thank Yi Li and C.C. Tsuei for valuable discussions. The e-beam lithography was conducted at the UNDF lab of University of Delaware and the NanoFab lab of NIST (CNST). We thank Kevin Lister and Richard Kasica for assistance in the nanofabrication processes.
![\[fig1\] **Little-Parks effect and the experimental setup.** **(A)** Schematic drawing of the Little-Parks effect of conventional $s-$wave SC. The critical temperature (upper panel) and the resistance (lower panel) oscillate as a function of the applied magnetic flux, in the period of one magnetic flux quantum $\Phi_0 = hc / 2e$. The fluxoid takes integer-quantized values of $\Phi^{\prime}=n\Phi_0$. **(B)** Schematic drawing of the effect of the half-quantum fluxoid manifested as the $\pi$ phase shift in the Little-Parks oscillation. The fluxoid takes fractionally quantized values of $\Phi^{\prime}=(n+1/2)\Phi_0$. **(C)** The scanning electron microscope image of a representative superconducting ring device (upper panel) and the schematic drawing of the experimental setup (lower panel). **(D)** Temperature dependence of the resistance of the $\beta$-Bi$_2$Pd and Nb ring devices. The film thicknesses of $\beta$-Bi$_2$Pd and Nb are 50 nm and 28 nm, respectively. **(E)** The Little-Parks effect of the Nb ring device, showing the ordinary case depicted in (A). The resistance oscillates as a function of the perpendicular magnetic field. The sample was held at a constant temperature of 5.7 K, in the vicinity of the normal-superconducting phase transition. ](Figure_1.eps){width="16cm"}
![\[fig2\] **Little-Parks effect of the $\beta$-Bi$_2$Pd ring device.** **(A)** The oscillation of the $\beta$-Bi$_2$Pd ring device resistance as a function of the perpendicularly applied magnetic field. The sample was held at a constant temperature of 2.5 K. The x-axis is displayed in the unit of the oscillation period of 30 Oe, in agreement with the expected magnetic flux quantum for the device geometry. The black dashed line denotes the aperiodic background. The inset shows the zoom-in view of the low field region of (A). The vertical black dashed lines denote the applied magnetic flux of $\Phi=(n+1/2)\Phi_0$, which correspond to the oscillation minima. The red dot-dashed line denotes the zero external field. **(B)** The Little-Parks oscillation in which the aperiodic background has been subtracted from the raw data as presented in (A). The gray vertical lines denote the the applied magnetic flux of $\Phi=n\Phi_0$, which correspond to the oscillation maxima. ](Figure_2.eps){width="16cm"}
![\[fig3\] **Temperature evolution of the Little-Parks effect of the $\beta$-Bi$_2$Pd ring device.** The oscillation of the resistance as a function of applied magnetic field with the aperiodic background subtracted. The vertical black dashed lines denote the applied magnetic flux of $\Phi=(n+1/2)\Phi_0$. ](Figure_3.eps){width="12cm"}
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Envision for smart city and Internet of Everything imperiously appeals to the implementation of massive machine type communication (mMTC), some features of which, such as massive number of devices and bursty short packet transmissions, require new methods to enable the cellular system to seamlessly support the integration of mMTC. Rigorous theoretical analysis is indispensable to obtain constructive insight for the design of mMTC mechanism. In this paper, we propose and define the notion of massive and sporadic access (MSA) to quantitatively describe the scenario of mMTC. We evaluate the correlation of interference and the correlation of successful transmission events, and verify that these correlations are negligible in the scenario of MSA. In view of this, in order to resolve the difficulty in the precise spatio-temporal analysis that complex interactions persist among the queues, we propose the approximation that all nodes are moving extremely fast so that their locations are independent at different time instants. Furthermore, we compare the original static network and the equivalent network with high mobility to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed approximation method. The proposed approach is promising for providing a convenient and general solution to evaluate and design the mMTC with massive and sporadic access.'
author:
- 'Yi Zhong, *Member, IEEE*, Guoqiang Mao, *Fellow, IEEE*, and Xiaohu Ge, *Senior Member, IEEE* [^1]'
bibliography:
- 'ref.bib'
title: 'Spatio-temporal Modeling for Massive and Sporadic Access'
---
Interference correlation, high mobility, massive access, mMTC, spatio-temporal traffic
Introduction
============
Motivations
-----------
Evolution of smart terminals (smartphones, smartwatch, intelligent glasses, etc.) has spawned a rich diversity of new applications, such as Virtual Reality, Augmented Reality, Industry 4.0 and so on, which post new challenges to wireless networks hosting these applications (see Figure \[fig:mmtc\]). A major branch of these applications is the massive machine type communication (mMTC), also known as one of the three main application scenarios of the fifth generation mobile communications system (5G) [@7736615; @7565189]. The most promising applications of the mMTC include the long-term environmental monitoring with limited energy consumption, the smart city scenarios with millions of sensors, the low-delay and high-reliability scenarios in wireless factory control and so on.
![The practical scenario of a rich diversity of wireless applications.[]{data-label="fig:mmtc"}](mmtc.eps){width="1\linewidth"}
For a typical mMTC application, the number of wireless devices may reach 300,000 in each cell [@6736746]. In addition to the huge number of devices, another distinctive feature of the mMTC is that the access requests from these massive number of devices are sporadic. The characteristic of sporadic access mainly manifests in the following aspects.
- The users access the wireless network sporadically. For instance, the data generated by the mMTC devices may be periodic and driven by some regularly occurring events. Typical application is the use of intelligent water meters, which report the measured data periodically.
- The size of each packet is small, and the data rate is low. The size of the packets for a typical mMTC applications may go down to a few bytes. Meanwhile, the data rate for each user may be around 10 kb/s.
In view of this, we propose the notion of *massive and sporadic access* (MSA), the precise mathematical description of which will be given in the following sections. The massive and sporadic properties for such kind of accesses bring new challenges for the design of an efficient air interface. For the traditional wireless networks, a large overhead within all layers in the protocol stack is required to implement various network functions, such as access control, reliable transmission, authentication, security, and so on. However, for the massive and sporadic access, the amount of information in each attempt of transmission may be only few bytes. The large amount of redundant information generated by the protocol stack in the traditional wireless networks may greatly degrade the efficiency of MSA. Moreover, the interference as well as other networking features of MSA may also be very different from the traditional wireless networks. Therefore, the scenarios of MSA should be modeled and analyzed qualitatively so that the constructive insight for the design of wireless networks with MSA could be obtained.
Though the point process theory has been widely used to evaluate the instantaneous performance metrics for a wireless network such as the coverage probability and the achievable rate [@haenggi2012stochastic; @6042301], it is still not convenient for the characterization of plenty of significant long-term performance metrics such as the delay when the queueing process is considered. In particular, when it is necessary to characterize the coupling between the traffic with spatio-temporal variation and the performance of a wireless network, rigorous analysis based on the point process theory becomes inapplicable [@7886285]. The main difficulty of introducing the queueing analysis to the performance evaluation of a large wireless network, which is non-negligible for a practical system, lies in the complicated interaction among the queues [@rao1988stability; @ephremides1987delay; @telatar1995combining; @6691293], i.e., the serving rates of all queues in a wireless network are highly coupled with the statuses of the queues (i.e., empty or not).
However, for the scenario of MSA, it is very unlikely that a node will be continuously active over consecutive time slots. Thus, the set of active nodes that cause interference changes dramatically over the time. For the case of “extreme sporadic”, the sets of active nodes at different moments may not intersect since the probability that a node is active at two different moments is very small, in which case the interference might be considered as independent at different time instants. For the case of “extreme massive”, an active node can appear anywhere in the plane. Intuitively, the analysis of the scenario of MSA can be approximately equivalent to the analysis of a network whose nodes move extremely fast that there is no coupling between the queues, thereby greatly reducing the analytical difficulties. Therefore, in this paper, we propose to evaluate the scenario of MSA by the equivalence of high mobility [@6380497; @net:Stamatiou10cl], where the nodes move extremely fast that the location of a node in the subsequent time can be considered as totally independent from that in the current time.
Related Works
-------------
In order to characterize the massive and sporadic properties of the MSA, we use the combination of the point process theory and the queueing theory to model both the spatial distribution of the massive number of devices and the sporadic arrival of packets at each device. The stochastic geometry tools, especially the point process theory, are widely used to model the spatial topology of wireless networks in recent years [@haenggi2012stochastic; @haenggi2009stochastic]. For example, the Poisson point process (PPP) is used to analyze the coverage probability, the achievable rate and other performance metrics in cellular networks [@baccelli2009stochastic2; @6042301; @ge2015spatial]. Related works using the point process theory to evaluate the performance of mMTC applications include [@78011591], where a two single-hop relaying schemes exclusively designed for the MTC is proposed and analyzed. By characterizing the received signal and interference powers using the point process theory, the authors in [@78011591] derived the outage probability and the maximum density of MTC devices that can be supported under an outage constraint. In [@8400530], a framework to evaluate the end-to-end outage probability and the uplink data transmission rate in a single-hop relay network for MTC is proposed and evaluated using the stochastic geometry. The authors in [@8354945] propose an analytical framework based on stochastic geometry to investigate the system performance in terms of the average success probability and the average number of simultaneously served MTC devices. The authors in [@7937902] also present a tractable analytical framework to investigate the signal-to-interference ratio (SIR), thereby deriving the success probability, the average number of successful MTC devices and the probability of successful channel utilization for the cellular-based mMTC network. The authors in [@8554298; @8125754] evaluate the performance of massive non-orthogonal multiple access (NOMA) system. The above-mentioned works focus on the performance metrics by considering a snapshot of the network. As for the analysis of the long-term metrics such as the interference correlation and the delay, which requires the description of temporal variation, these approaches proposed in existing works are unable to provide an effective analysis. Moreover, the analysis based on a snapshot of the network cannot completely capture the sporadic property of MSA.
The works related to the interference correlation in static Poisson networks include [@net:Ganti09CL; @net:Haenggi13twc; @net:Zhong14twc], where the interference correlation, as well as the ways to reduce its impact, is explored. The analysis of temporal variation without considering the queueing process includes the local delay, which is defined as the number of time slots required for a packet to be successfully transmitted assuming that the networks are backlogged [@baccelli2010new; @net:Haenggi13tit; @net:Gong13twc]. However, since the queueing process is ignored in the evaluation of local delay, the obtained results are not of great practical significance especially for those cases where random arrival of traffic has a great impact on the network performance.
Related works considering both the spatial distribution of nodes and the temporal variation of traffic could be found in [@blaszczyszyn2015performance; @sapountzis2015analytical; @abbas2015mobility], in which the wireless traffic is modeled based on the granularity of total traffic in each cell. In[@7917340], a traffic-aware spatio-temporal model is proposed for the Internet of Things (IoT) supported by the uplink of a cellular network. The stability for three different transmission strategies are evaluated. In [@8408843], the random access mechanism in the cellular-based massive IoT networks is evaluated based on a spatio-temporal model for the wireless traffic, where the spatial topology is modeled by using tools from the stochastic geometry and the evolutions of queues are assessed based on the stochastic process. In [@7842367], a user-centric mobility management mechanism is proposed to cope with the spatial movements of users and the temporally correlation of wireless channels in ultra-dense networks. In order to model the flow at individual user, our previous work [@7886285] combines the point process theory and the queueing theory, and bounds the statistical distribution of the signal-to-interference ratio (SIR) and the delay in heterogeneous cellular networks. Along this line of thought, continuous works such as [@8436053] and [@8335767] explored the delay and security performance in wireless networks.
Contributions
-------------
In this paper, we quantitatively model the spatio-temporal properties for the scenario of MSA. Afterwards, we explore the correlation of interference and the correlation of successful transmission events at different time instants. Then, we verify that these correlations are indeed negligible for the scenario of MSA. In view of this, we propose to evaluate the scenario of MSA by the analysis of a equivalent network in which all nodes are moving extremely fast. In order to demonstrate the accuracy of the proposed approach, we further compare the non-empty probability and the mean delay for the original static network and the equivalent network with high mobility. The main contributions are summarized as follows.
- We propose the notion of *massive and sporadic access* to quantitatively characterize the mMTC, and discuss the interference-limited regime and the noise-limited regime for various configurations, which plays an important role in practical MSA system design.
- We evaluate the correlations of interference and successful transmission events, and verify that these correlations are ignorable for the scenario of MSA. Consequently, we propose the equivalent analysis of MSA by introducing the high mobility assumption, which significantly reduces the analytical complexity and provides a universal solution to evaluate MSA.
- The non-empty probability, the success probability, the mean delay and the average queue length are derived by using the equivalence of high mobility. The numerical and simulation results demonstrate the accuracy of the proposed equivalent analysis method.
The remaining paper is organized as follows. Section \[sec:model\] describes the spatial distribution model and the arrival process. Section \[sec:mathMSA\] gives the mathematical definition and evaluates the effect of parameters for the scenario of MSA. Section \[sec:equivalence\] discusses the temporal correlation of interference and successful transmission events by considering a backlogged network. Section \[sec:accuracy\] assesses the accuracy of using the high mobility equivalence to analyze the scenario of MSA. Finally, Section \[sec:conclusions\] concludes the paper.
System Model {#sec:model}
============
{width="90.00000%"}
Without loss of generality, we consider the commonly used Poisson bipolar model (see [@haenggi2012stochastic Definition 5.8] and [@haenggi2015meta]) to characterize the spatial distribution of the devices. In particular, we model the spatial distributions of the transmitters as a homogeneous PPP $\Phi=\{x_i\}\in \mathbb{R}^2$ with intensity $\lambda$ (see Figure \[fig:sysmodel\]). We assume that each transmitter is associated with a receiver at a fixed distance $r_0$ and a random orientation. We consider a typical link with the receiver located at the origin and the transmitter located at $x_0$. Then, $|x_0|=r_0$ is the distance between the typical transmitter at $x_0$ and the typical receiver at the origin.
As for the temporal model, we consider a discrete-time queueing system, where the time is assumed to be divided into discrete time slots with equal duration. The transmission of each packet occupies exactly one time slot. Each transmitter is equipped with an infinite queue to store the incoming packets. In each time slot, if a queue is non-empty, it attempts to transmit its head-of-line packet with probability $p$. If the transmission attempt is successful, the packet will be removed from the queue. Otherwise, the packet will be put back to the head-of-line of the queue and wait to be retransmitted in the next time slot. In the scenario of MSA, the packets arrive at the transmitters as stochastic processes with very small arrival rates. In this paper, we assume that the packets arrival process at each transmitter is a Bernoulli process with arrival rate $\xi$ $(0\leq \xi\leq 1)$, which is widely used in modeling the discrete-time system. According to the definition of the Bernoulli process, $\xi$ is also the probability that a packet arrives at a transmitter in each time slot. The arrival processes at different transmitters are assumed to be independent from each other. To be rigorous, we assume that the early arrival model is used where a potential packet departure occurs at the moment immediately before the time slot boundaries, and a potential arrival occurs at the moment immediately after the time slot boundaries (see Figure \[fig:earlyarrival\]). If the time axis is marked by $0,1,...,t,...$, a potential departure occurs in the interval $(t^-,t)$, while a potential arrival occurs in the interval $(t,t^+)$.
![Early arrival model where a potential packet departure occurs at the moment immediately before the time slot boundaries, and a potential arrival occurs at the moment immediately after the time slot boundaries. []{data-label="fig:earlyarrival"}](EarlyArrival.eps){width="1\linewidth"}
We assume that the network is static, i.e., the locations of all nodes are generated first as a realization of the PPP and then remain unchanged in all the following time slots. This assumption is very realistic since the locations of access points (or base stations) in most of the wireless networks are fixed after they are deployed. On the contrary, the nodes may move according to certain mobility model [@7399689]. In the extreme situation, the position of each node is assumed to be changed according to a high mobility random walk model [@baccelli2009stochastic Ch. 1.3] that the location of a node in the next time slot can be considered as totally independent from that in the current time slot. We name this scenario with fast node movement as the high mobility scenario. The interference is greatly affected by the type of mobility for the nodes. For example, when the network is static, the nodes that generate interference in all time slots come from the same set of locations, which are determined when the nodes are first deployed. However, as for the case of high mobility, the locations of the nodes that generate interference change over the time.
The transmit power of all nodes is assumed to be the same, which is normalized to be one. The propagation loss of the electromagnetic wave is assumed to consist of two parts, i.e., the path loss and the fading. The standard path loss model is used, i.e., the path loss between a transmitter and a receiver with distance $r$ apart is denoted by $l(r)=r^{-\alpha}$, where $\alpha$ is the path loss exponent with $\alpha>2$. The fading model is assumed to be the commonly used Rayleigh block fading with the shadowing being ignored. The power fading coefficients keep unchanged during each time slot and are spatially and temporally independent with the exponential distribution of unit mean between different time slots.
The normalized power of thermal noise is assumed to be $W$. Note that whether the scenario of MSA belongs to the interference-limited regime or the noise-limited regime cannot be determined since both the node intensity $\lambda$ and the arrival rate $\xi$ may influence the relationship between the interference and the noise, which will be quantitatively evaluated in the following sections.
In each time slot, a transmitter is active only when its queue is non-empty and it is allowed to transmit (with probability $p$). Let $k\in\mathbb{N}^+$ be the index of the time slots and $\Phi_k\in\Phi$ be the set of all active transmitters in the time slot $k$. Note that the set $\Phi_k$ varies with the time since both the statues of queues and the scheduled results of random access are different in different time slots. Then, the interference at the typical receiver located at the origin $o$ in time slot $k$ is $$I_k=\sum_{x\in\Phi\backslash\{x_0\}}h_{k,x}|x|^{-\alpha}\mathbf{1}(x\in\Phi_k),$$ where $h_{k,x}$ is the fading coefficient between the interfering transmitter $x$ and the typical receiver at the origin. Since the network is static, the original set of transmitters $\Phi$ is independent of the index of time slot $k$.
When the typical transmitter at $x_0$ attempts to deliver a packet to the typical receiver at the origin, the signal to interference plus noise ratio (SINR) at the typical receiver when it is active in time slot $k$ is $$\mathrm{SINR}_k=\frac{h_{k,x_0}r_0^{-\alpha}}{\sum_{x\in\Phi\backslash\{x_0\}}h_{k,x}|x|^{-\alpha}\mathbf{1}(x\in\Phi_k)+W}. \label{eqn:SINRk}$$
The SINR threshold for successfully delivering a packet is $\theta$, i.e., a transmission attempt of a link is successful only when the SINR of such link is above the threshold $\theta$. Then, the success probability for the typical link when it is active in time slot $k$ is $$\mathcal{P}_k=\mathbb{P}\{\mathrm{SINR}_k>\theta\}.$$
Note that the interval between two adjacent packet arrivals is a geometrically distributed random variable due to the Bernoulli arrival. Therefore, the queueing process at the typical link is a discrete-time Geo/G/1 queueing system [@zhang2001discrete]. In particular, when $\mathcal{P}_k$ is the same for all $k\in\mathbb{N}^+$, i.e., the success probability for the typical link in all time slots is the same, the service time (in number of time slots) of each packet follows a geometric distribution with the parameter $\mu\triangleq p\mathcal{P}_k, \forall k\in\mathbb{N}^+$. The parameter $\mu$ is also the mean service rate for the queueing system. In this case, since the service time is also a geometric distributed random variable, the queueing system can be denoted by Geo/Geo/1. We present the following lemma which gives the mean delay for a Geo/Geo/1 queueing system.
\[lem:meandelay\] For a discrete-time Geo/Geo/1 queueing system with packet arrival rate $\xi$ and service rate $\mu$ ($\xi<\mu$), the mean delay is $$D=\frac{1-\xi}{\mu-\xi}. \label{eqn:meandelay}$$
From [@atencia2004discrete Corollary 2], the mean delay (including the queueing delay and the service delay) for a Geo/G/1 queueing system with arrival rate $\xi$ is $$D=\beta_1+\frac{2\overline{\xi}(\beta_1-1)(1-A(\overline{\xi}))+\xi\beta_2}{2(\xi+\overline{\xi}A(\overline{\xi})-\xi/\mu)},$$ where $\overline{\xi}=1-\xi$, $\beta_1$ and $\beta_2$ are the first and the second factorial moments of the service time, $A(\cdot)$ is the generating function of the successive interretrial times.
Since we consider a standard Geo/G/1 queueing system without retrial, i.e., the packet at the head of the queue immediately commences its service whenever the server is idle, the successive interretrial time is always zero, i.e., $A(x)=1, \forall x$. Thus, the mean delay is reduced to $$D=\beta_1+\frac{\xi\beta_2}{2(1-\xi/\mu)}. \label{eqn:meandelayproof1}$$ Note that the service time is a geometric distributed random variable with mean $1/\mu$ for the Geo/Geo/1 queueing system. The first and second raw moments of the service time are $1/\mu$ and $2/\mu^2-1/\mu$ respectively. Then, the first and the second factorial moments of the service time are $\beta_1=1/\mu$ and $\beta_2=2/\mu^2-2/\mu$. Plugging these results into (\[eqn:meandelayproof1\]), we get the lemma.
Mathematical Description of MSA {#sec:mathMSA}
===============================
To explore the performance of MSA, we first give the mathematical definition for the scenario of MSA. The two main parameters related to the MSA are the density of nodes $\lambda$ and the arrival rate $\xi$. To characterize the property of “massive”, we propose the following definition.
\[def:massive\] The number of devices is called “massive” if and only if the density $\lambda$ satisfies $$\lambda\geq\lambda_0\triangleq-\frac{1}{C_0}(\theta Wr_0^\alpha+\ln\varepsilon), \label{eqn:massive}$$ where $\delta=2/\alpha$, $C_0=\pi \theta^\delta r_0^2\Gamma(1+\delta)\Gamma(1-\delta)$, $\Gamma(\cdot)$ is the gamma function, and $\lambda_0$ denotes the minimum density of transmitters that guarantees the success probability of the typical link being smaller than a predefined threshold $\varepsilon$ ($0<\varepsilon<e^{-\theta Wr^\alpha}$) when $\xi\rightarrow1$ and $p=1$, i.e., the backlogged case with all transmitters being active.
The reason for using (\[eqn:massive\]) to distinguish whether the number of devices is massive or not is that the propagation features (such as the path loss exponent) may also make sense in deciding whether a scenario belongs to “massive” or not. The assumption with $\xi\rightarrow1$ and $p=1$ is the worst case that the interference is the largest, i.e., all transmitters are active and cause interference to the typical link. Note that the expression for the success probability in a Poisson network is well-known, which is [@haenggi2012stochastic Equation (5.14)] $$\mathcal{P}_{\rm Poisson}=\exp(-\lambda C_0-\theta Wr_0^\alpha). \label{eqn:succPoisson}$$ Letting $\mathcal{P}_{\rm Poisson}\leq\varepsilon$, we get the inequality in Definition \[def:massive\].
Note that when ignoring the interference and only considering the effect of the thermal noise, the success probability for the typical link in any time slot is $e^{-\theta Wr_0^\alpha}$. In order to make the limitation on the success probability meaningful, the threshold $\varepsilon$ for success probability should satisfy the following inequality $$0<\varepsilon<e^{-\theta Wr_0^\alpha}.
\label{eqn:limit}$$ Otherwise, if $\varepsilon\geq e^{-\theta Wr_0^\alpha}$, the inequality $\mathcal{P}_{\rm Poisson}\leq\varepsilon$ always holds since $\mathcal{P}_{\rm Poisson}\leq e^{-\theta Wr_0^\alpha}$.
In the scenario of MSA, the packets arrive at each transmitter sporadically. To characterize the property of “sporadic”, we propose the following definition.
\[def:sporadic\] The arrival process of packets is called “sporadic” if and only if the arrival rate at each queue $\xi$ satisfies $$\xi\leq\xi_0\triangleq\frac{\beta e^{-\theta Wr_0^\alpha}-1}{\beta-1}, \label{eqn:sporadic}$$ where $\xi_0$ denotes the maximum arrival rate that guarantees the mean delay of the typical link being smaller than a predefined threshold $\beta$ ($\beta>e^{\theta Wr_0^\alpha}$) when $\lambda\rightarrow0$ and $p=1$, i.e., the case without interference and random access.
The assumption $\lambda\rightarrow0$ corresponds to the best case where the interference is ignored. When the interference is ignored, the success probability for the typical link in any time slot is the same, which is $e^{-\theta Wr_0^\alpha}$. Then, when $p=1$, the queueing process at the typical link is a Geo/Geo/1 queueing system with the service rate $e^{-\theta Wr_0^\alpha}$ packet per time slot. If the arrival rate $\xi\geq e^{-\theta Wr_0^\alpha}$, the queue becomes unstable, and the mean delay $D$ will be infinite (i.e., $D=\infty$). If the arrival rate $\xi$ satisfies $\xi<e^{-\theta Wr_0^\alpha}$, according to the equation (\[eqn:meandelay\]) in Lemma \[lem:meandelay\], the mean delay for each packet is $$D=\frac{1-\xi}{e^{-\theta Wr_0^\alpha}-\xi}. \label{eqn:rem2delay}$$ Letting the mean delay be smaller than the predefined threshold $\beta$, i.e., $D\leq\beta$, we get the inequality in Definition \[def:sporadic\].
Note that when the arrival rate $\xi$ approaches $0$, the mean delay given by (\[eqn:rem2delay\]) approaches $e^{\theta Wr_0^\alpha}$, which is the smallest mean delay that could be achieved when the interference is ignored and $p=1$. Therefore, in order to make the limitation on the mean delay meaningful, the threshold $\beta$ for the mean delay should satisfy the following inequality $$\beta>e^{\theta Wr_0^\alpha}.$$
With the above definition for “massive” and “sporadic”, we define the scenario of MSA as follows.
\[def:MSA\] A scenario is named as “*massive and sporadic access*” if and only if the density of devices satisfies $\lambda\geq\lambda_0$, and the arrival rate of packets satisfies $\xi\leq\xi_0$, where $\lambda_0$ and $\xi_0$ are the critical values given by (\[eqn:massive\]) and (\[eqn:sporadic\]), respectively.
![Illustration of the region for massive and sporadic access.[]{data-label="fig:MSARegion"}](MSARegion.eps){width="45.00000%"}
In particular, we define the *MSA region* as follows.
\[def:MSAregion\] The MSA region is defined as the range of the two-tuple $(\lambda, \beta)$ within which the corresponding scenario will be MSA (see Figure \[fig:MSARegion\]).
Effect of Parameters on MSA Region
----------------------------------
![Illustration of the region for massive and sporadic access. The distance between each transmitter and the associated receiver is $r_0=5$, and the SINR threshold is $\theta=10{\rm dB}$. The threshold for success probability when $\xi\rightarrow1$ is $\varepsilon=0.1$, and the threshold for mean delay when $\lambda\rightarrow0$ is $\beta=50$. The path loss exponent $\alpha$ increases from $2$ to $4$ when fixing the normalized noise $W=10^{-4}$, while $W$ increases from $10^{-6}$ to $10^{-3.3}$ when fixing $\alpha=3$.[]{data-label="fig:MSAregion_vary"}](MSAregion_vary.eps){width="1\linewidth"}
The shape of the MSA region is affected by different network parameters, such as the path loss exponent and the thermal noise. In order to explore the effect of these parameters, we plot the processes of change for the shape of the MSA region when increasing the path loss exponent $\alpha$ and the normalized thermal noise $W$ in Figure \[fig:MSAregion\_vary\]. We observe that the critical point $(\lambda_0, \xi_0)$ moves from the upper left to the lower right as $\alpha$ increases, indicating that the MSA region is narrower for larger $\alpha$. This is because the path loss is enlarged due to the increment of $\alpha$, in which case the network should be deployed more densely to achieve the condition for “massive”. Meanwhile, the arrival rate of packets should be smaller in order to achieve the condition for “sporadic”. In particular, the critical density $\lambda_0$ goes to zero when $\alpha$ approaches to $2$, which could also be observed through the equation (\[eqn:massive\]), indicating that any density of the transmitters could be considered as “massive” in the free space propagation model with $\alpha=2$. Figure \[fig:MSAregion\_vary\] also shows that as the normalized noise $W$ increases, the critical point $(\lambda_0, \xi_0)$ moves from the upper right to the lower left. Moreover, it reveals that the change of $W$ has a great influence on the critical arrival rate $\xi_0$ but less effect on the critical density $\lambda_0$. When $W$ approaches to zero, the critical arrival rate $\xi_0$ goes to $1$, illustrating that any arrival rate will be considered as “sporadic” for the case where the thermal noise is ignored.
Interference-limited and Noise-limited
--------------------------------------
Due to the spectral scarcity, most wireless networks are designed to be interference-limited, i.e. the interference rather than the thermal noise dominates the network performance. However, in the case of MSA, even if the potential transmitters are ultra dense, a wireless network may still be noise-limited since the arrival rate of packets is extremely small resulting in minor interference. In this subsection, we discuss the classification of the scenario of MSA to identify whether it belongs to interference-limited or noise-limited.
### Interference-limited
In order to quantitatively define the interference-limited regime, we consider a simplified system in which a packet failed for transmitting will be discarded instead of being retransmitted. Therefore, the interference in the simplified system will always be a lower bound for that in the original system. We define a scenario as interference-limited if the ratio between the success probability ignoring the noise and the success probability ignoring the interference is less than a small threshold $\eta$ in the corresponding simplified system. Note that in the simplified system, the probability that a link being active in a time slot equals to the product of the probability that there is a packet arriving in the said time slot $\xi$ and the transmit probability $p$, which is $p\xi$ according to the definition of the Bernoulli arrival process. The success probability for an active link when ignoring the noise and considering only the effect of the interference is $$\mathcal{P}_{\rm inter}=\exp(-\xi p\lambda C_0). \label{eqn:P_inter1}$$ The success probability for an active link when ignoring the interference and considering only the effect of the noise is $$\mathcal{P}_{\rm noise}=\exp(-\theta Wr_0^\alpha).\label{eqn:P_noise1}$$ Combining (\[eqn:P\_inter1\]) and (\[eqn:P\_noise1\]) with the condition for interference-limitation $\mathcal{P}_{\rm inter}/\mathcal{P}_{\rm noise}\leq\eta$, we get $$\xi\lambda\geq\frac{1}{pC_0}(\theta Wr_0^\alpha-\ln\eta). \label{eqn:boundary_inter}$$ The above inequality gives the limitations on $\xi$ and $\lambda$ that makes a scenario interference-limited.
### Noise-limited
For the noise-limited regime, the success probability for delivering a packet at each time slot is approximated the same, which is $p\exp(-\theta Wr_0^\alpha)$. Then, the queueing process at each link can be considered as a Geo/Geo/1 queueing system with arrival rate $\xi$ and service rate $p\exp(-\theta Wr_0^\alpha)$. The probability of a queue being non-empty equals to the utilization of the queueing system $\xi\exp(\theta Wr_0^\alpha)/p$. The active transmitters constitute an independent thinning version of the original PPP $\Phi$ with thinning probability $\xi\exp(\theta Wr_0^\alpha)$. Therefore, the success probability when ignoring the noise and considering only the effect of interference is $$\mathcal{P}_{\rm inter}=\exp(-\xi \lambda C_0\exp(\theta Wr_0^\alpha)). \label{eqn:P_inter2}$$ The success probability when ignoring the interference and considering only the effect of thermal noise is $$\mathcal{P}_{\rm noise}=\exp(-\theta Wr_0^\alpha).\label{eqn:P_noise2}$$
Similar to the case of interference-limitation, we define a scenario as noise-limited if the ratio between the success probability ignoring the interference and the success probability ignoring the noise is less than a small threshold $\eta$. Combining (\[eqn:P\_inter2\]) and (\[eqn:P\_noise2\]) with the condition for noise-limitation $\mathcal{P}_{\rm noise}/\mathcal{P}_{\rm inter}\leq\eta$, we get $$\xi\lambda\leq\frac{\theta Wr_0^\alpha+\ln\eta}{C_0\exp(\theta Wr_0^\alpha)}. \label{eqn:boundary_noise}$$ The above inequality gives the limitations on $\xi$ and $\lambda$ that makes a scenario noise-limited.
![Illustration of interference-limited regime and noise-limited regime for the scenario of massive and sporadic access. The distance between each transmitter and the associated receiver is $r_0=5$, the SINR threshold is $\theta=10{\rm dB}$, and the transmit probability is $p=1$. The threshold for success probability when $\xi\rightarrow1$ is $\varepsilon=0.1$, and the threshold for mean delay when $\lambda\rightarrow0$ is $\beta=50$. The path loss exponent is $\alpha=3.5$, the normalized noise is $W=10^{-3.4}$, and the threshold to distinguish different regimes is $\eta=0.5$.[]{data-label="fig:diffregimes"}](DiffRegimes.eps){width="1\linewidth"}
Figure \[fig:diffregimes\] shows the value of $(\lambda, \xi)$ that belongs to the interference-limited regime or the noise-limited regime in the scenario of MSA. From Figure \[fig:diffregimes\], we observe that a wireless network can still be noise-limited as long as the arrival rate is small even if the deployed nodes are highly dense. Figure \[fig:diffregimes\] also reveals that there exists a minimum value for the density $\lambda$ to make a network interference-limited in the scenario of MSA. In other words, if the density of the deployed nodes is less than certain value in the scenario of MSA, the network will never be interference-limited for all arrival rate.
![Boundaries of the traffic factor $\xi\lambda$ for the interference-limited regime and the noise-limited regime in the scenario of massive and sporadic access. The distance between each transmitter and the associated receiver is $r_0=5$, the SINR threshold is $\theta=10{\rm dB}$, and the transmit probability is $p=1$. The normalized noise is $W=10^{-3.2}$, and the threshold to distinguish different regimes is $\eta=0.5$.[]{data-label="fig:boundary"}](Boundaries.eps){width="1\linewidth"}
In general, the product $\xi\lambda$ determines whether a wireless network works in the interference-limited regime or the noise-limited regime. Therefore, we define the product of the arrival rate $\xi$ and the density of transmitters $\lambda$ as the *traffic factor*. Intuitively, the traffic factor describes the intensity of the traffic in a wireless network. In Figure \[fig:boundary\], we plot the boundaries of the traffic factor $\xi\lambda$ as functions of the pathloss exponent $\alpha$ for the interference-limited regime given by the inequality (\[eqn:boundary\_inter\]) and for the noise-limited regime given by the inequality (\[eqn:boundary\_noise\]) in the scenario of MSA. Since the Y axis is logarithmic, we observe that the boundary of the traffic factor $\xi\lambda$ for the interference-limited regime increases almost exponentially as the pathloss exponent $\alpha$ grows. We also observe that as $\alpha$ increases, the curve for the boundary of the noise-limited regime first grows and then goes down. This can be intuitively interpreted as that when $\alpha$ starts to increase, the interference decreases rapidly, and small traffic factor $\xi\lambda$ can make the network work in the noise-limited regime. However, if $\alpha$ continues to grow, the success probability of the desired link decreases due to the deterioration of the desired signal, resulting in more retransmissions, which could also be inferred from the equation (\[eqn:P\_inter2\]). In this case, the traffic in the network becomes heavier due to the retransmitted packets, leading to increased interference and more stringent conditions on the traffic fact $\xi\lambda$ to make the network noise-limited.
Evaluation of Correlations {#sec:equivalence}
==========================
Since the queueing process at each individual transmitter in a wireless network depends the statuses (empty or non-empty) of queues at all transmitters, the queueing processes at different transmitters are highly coupled with each other, leading to the interacting queues problem which is rather difficult to cope with. Existing works have only derived the sufficient conditions and necessary conditions for the stability [@7486114], or the upper and lower bounds for certain performance metrics [@7886285]. However, in the case of the MSA, the set of active transmitters that cause interference to the network changes dramatically over the time slots. Moreover, in the scenario of “extreme massive” and “extreme sporadic”, the sets of active transmitters in different time slots may not intersect. Then, the interference in different times slots will be independent, resulting in the decoupling of the queueing processes for different queues in the wireless networks.
Intuitively, the analysis of a wireless network with large number of coupled queues for the scenario of MSA could be approximately equivalent to the analysis of the high mobility case where the interacting queues are decoupled, thereby greatly reducing the analytical complexity. However, the accuracy of such intuition requires to be quantitatively analyzed in order to use this equivalence to simplify the analysis of the MSA. Therefore, in this section, we explore the difference between the original scenario of MSA and the high mobility case from the point of view of interference correlation and successful transmission correlation. Note that in the high mobility network, both the interference and the successful transmission are independent among different time slots, i.e. both the interference correlation and the successful transmission correlation are zero. Thus, we only need to evaluate the correlations for the scenario of MSA.
To facilitate the analysis, we consider a backlogged version of the original network, in which the queues at all transmitters are backlogged and will never be empty. In the backlogged network, each transmitter will be active independently with the same probability $p$. Note that the interference is temporally correlated since a subset from the same set of potential transmitters are active in different time slots. The locations of these potential transmitters are randomly deployed first as a realization of the PPP and then keep unchanged in all the following time slots, which could be considered as the “common randomness”.
Interference Correlation
------------------------
The temporal (Pearson’s) correlation coefficient of the interference in the $i$-th time slot $I_i$ and that in the $j$-th time slot $I_j$ is defined as $$\rho(I_i,I_j)\triangleq\frac{\mathrm{cov}(I_i,I_j)}{\sigma_{I_i}\sigma_{I_j}},$$ where $\mathrm{cov}(I_i,I_j)=\mathbb{E}[I_iI_j]-\mathbb{E}[I_i]\mathbb{E}[I_j]$ is the covariance between $I_i$ and $I_j$, and $\sigma_{I_i}=\sigma_{I_j}=\sqrt{\mathbb{E}[I_i^2]-(\mathbb{E}[I_i])^2}$ is the standard deviation of $I_i$ and $I_j$. The work in [@net:Ganti09CL] has already obtained the temporal correlation coefficient in remarkably simple form as $$\rho(I_i,I_j)=\frac{p}{\mathbb{E}[h_{k,x}^2]},$$ where $h_{k,x}$ is the power fading coefficient between an interfering transmitter $x$ and the typical receiver at the origin in any time slot $k$. Due to the Rayleigh fading assumption, the power fading coefficient $h_{k,x}$ is exponentially distributed with unit mean. Then, the temporal correlation coefficient becomes $$\rho(I_i,I_j)=\frac{p}{2}. \label{eqn:rhoIij}$$ The above equation indicates that the correlation coefficient of the interference between two different time slots grows linearly with the active probability $p$. Note that the correlation coefficient is not related to the density of the nodes $\lambda$. This observation indicates that in the scenario of MSA, the degree of temporally linear correlation of the interference will not be affected by increasing the density of links (i.e., more massive), while it decreases linearly as the arrival rate decreases (i.e., more sporadic).
Successful Transmission Correlation
-----------------------------------
In practical system, we care more about the outcome of the transmission attempt rather than the interference level. Note that the success probability relies on the SINR, the denominator of which is determined by the interference and the thermal noise. Therefore, the temporal correlation of the interference induces the temporal correlation of the successful transmissions. Let $S_k=\mathbf{1}(\mathrm{SINR}_k>\theta)$ be the indicator that the SINR at the typical receiver in time slot $k$ is above the threshold $\theta$, i.e., $S_k$ is the indicator for successful transmission in time slot $k$. The temporal correlation coefficient between $S_i$ and $S_j$, $i\neq j$ is $$\rho(S_i,S_j)=\frac{\mathbb{E}[S_iS_j]-\mathbb{E}[S_i]\mathbb{E}[S_j]}{{\mathbb{E}[S_i^2]-(\mathbb{E}[S_i])^2}}. \label{eqn:rhoSiSj}$$ Note that $\mathbb{E}[S_k^2]=\mathbb{E}[S_k]$ and $\mathbb{E}[S_k]=\mathcal{P}_k$, $\forall k\in\mathbb{N}^+$, we have $$\rho(S_i,S_j)=\frac{\mathbb{P}\{\mathrm{SINR}_i>\theta,\mathrm{SINR}_j>\theta\}-\mathcal{P}_i^2}{{\mathcal{P}_i-\mathcal{P}_i^2}}.$$ Due to the backlogged assumption and the independent thinning, the success probability $\mathcal{P}_i$ is given by the standard form for a Poisson network similar to the equation (\[eqn:succPoisson\]) as follows $$\mathcal{P}_i=\exp(- p\lambda C_0-\theta Wr_0^\alpha). \label{eqn:succBacklogged}$$ Using the formula (\[eqn:SINRk\]) and the exponential distribution property of $h_{k,x}$, we get the joint success probability as $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}[S_iS_j]&\!\!=\!\!&\mathbb{P}\{\mathrm{SINR}_i>\theta,\mathrm{SINR}_j>\theta\} \nonumber\\
&\!\!=\!\!&\mathbb{E}\big\{e^{-\theta (I_i+W) r_0^\alpha}e^{-\theta (I_j+W) r_0^\alpha}\big\} \nonumber\\
&\!\!=\!\!&e^{-2\theta W r_0^\alpha}\mathbb{E}\prod_{x\in\Phi\setminus\{x_0\}}e^{-2\theta r_0^\alpha h_{k,x}|x|^{-\alpha}\mathbf{1}(x\in\Phi_k)} \nonumber\\
&\!\!=\!\!&e^{-2\theta W r_0^\alpha}\mathbb{E}\prod_{x\in\Phi\setminus\{x_0\}}
\Big(1-p+\frac{p}{1+2\theta r_0^\alpha|x|^{-\alpha}}\Big)
\nonumber\\
&\!\!\overset{(a)}{=}\!\!&\exp\Big(-2\theta W r_0^\alpha-2\pi p\lambda\int_0^\infty\frac{2\theta r_0^\alpha r\mathrm{d}r}{r^\alpha+2\theta r_0^\alpha}\Big)\nonumber\\
&\!\!=\!\!&\exp(-2\theta W r_0^\alpha- p\lambda 2^\delta C_0). \label{eqn:jointsucc}\end{aligned}$$ Plugging the above joint success probability into the equation (\[eqn:rhoSiSj\]), we get the temporal correlation coefficient between $S_i$ and $S_j$ as $$\rho(S_i,S_j)=\frac{\exp((2-2^\delta) p\lambda C_0)-1}{\exp(\theta Wr_0^\alpha+ p\lambda C_0)-1}. \label{eqn:rhoSiSj2}$$
The temporal correlation coefficient of the successful transmissions in different time slots depends on the product of the transmit probability $p$ and the density of transmitters $\lambda$. From the equation (\[eqn:rhoSiSj2\]), we observe that when $p\lambda\rightarrow0$ or $p\lambda\rightarrow+\infty$, the temporal correlation coefficient $\rho(S_i,S_j)\rightarrow0$, indicating that the successful transmissions in different time slots tend to be linearly independent when $p\lambda$ is either very large or very small. This can be interpreted as that when $p\lambda\rightarrow0$, the interference could be ignored, and the thermal noise becomes the dominant factor that affects the successful transmission events. Due to the independence of the noise at different receivers, the successful transmission events at different time slots tend to be completely independent. Meanwhile, when $p\lambda\rightarrow+\infty$, the successful transmission events are affected by a large number of independent channel fading coefficients, leading to the independence of the successful transmission events in different time slots. In particular, we get the following lemma.
\[lem:monotonicity\] The temporal correlation coefficient of the successful transmissions $\rho(S_i,S_j)$ is maximized if and only if $p\lambda={C_0^{-1}}{\ln t_0}$, where $t_0\in(1,+\infty)$ is the solution of the equation $$(a-1)t_0^a-abt_0^{a-1}+1=0, \label{eqn:monoeqn}$$ where $a=2-2^\delta$ and $b=\exp(-\theta Wr_0^\alpha)$.
Letting $a=2-2^\delta$, $b=\exp(-\theta Wr_0^\alpha)$, and $$f(t)=\frac{t^a-1}{t-b},$$ we have $0<a, b<1$ and $\rho(S_i,S_j)=bf(\exp(C_0p\lambda))$. Note that the derivative of $f(t)$ is $$f'(t)=\frac{(a-1)t^a-abt^{a-1}+1}{(t-b)^2}. \label{eqn:fder}$$ It can be verified that the numerator $g(t)=(a-1)t^a-abt^{a-1}+1$ is monotone decreasing when $t>1$. Thus, $f'(t)$ is also monotone decreasing when $t>1$, demonstrating that $f(t)$ is a concave function when $t>1$. Since the equality $f(1)=f(+\infty)=0$ holds, there is one and only one maximum value of $f(t)$ for $t\in(1,+\infty)$. Let $t_0=\mathop{\arg\max}\limits_{t\in(1,+\infty)}f(t)$, and $t_0$ should satisfy the following equation $$(a-1)t_0^a-abt_0^{a-1}+1=0.$$ Due to the equation $\rho(S_i,S_j)=bf(\exp(C_0p\lambda))$, we get the result in Lemma \[lem:monotonicity\].
![Temporal correlation coefficient of the successful transmissions $\rho(S_i,S_j)$ as functions of $p\lambda$ for different path loss exponents. The distance between each transmitter and the associated receiver is $r_0=5$, and the SINR threshold is $\theta=10{\rm dB}$. The normalized noise is $W=10^{-4}$.[]{data-label="fig:SuccCorr"}](SuccCorr.eps){width="1\linewidth"}
In Figure \[fig:SuccCorr\], we plot the temporal correlation coefficient of the successful transmissions $\rho(S_i,S_j)$ as functions of $p\lambda$ for different path loss exponents. Figure \[fig:SuccCorr\] verifies Lemma \[lem:monotonicity\] that there is one and only one stationary point that maximizes the temporal correlation coefficient. We also observe that as the path loss exponent $\alpha$ increases, the maximum temporal correlation coefficient first grows then decreases. This is because the attenuation of the interference is small for small $\alpha$, in which case the interference comes from plentiful sources with non-negligible interfering signals. Since the interference levels from different sources are independent due to the independent fading, the successful transmission events in different time slots become less correlated. When $\alpha$ is large, the attenuation of the interference is remarkable, and the thermal noise which is independent at different receivers becomes dominant, leading to the reduction of the temporal correlation.
![The optimal $p\lambda$ that maximizes temporal correlation coefficient $\rho(S_i,S_j)$ as functions of the normalized thermal noise $W$ for different path loss exponents. The distance between each transmitter and the associated receiver is $r_0=5$, and the SINR threshold is $\theta=10{\rm dB}$.[]{data-label="fig:MaxSuccCorr"}](MaxSuccCorr.eps){width="1\linewidth"}
In Figure \[fig:MaxSuccCorr\], we plot the optimal $p\lambda$ that maximizes temporal correlation coefficient $\rho(S_i,S_j)$ as functions of the normalized thermal noise $W$ for different path loss exponents. It is observed that the optimal $p\lambda$ that maximizes temporal correlation increases as the path loss exponent $\alpha$ or the normalized thermal noise $W$ grows. Intuitively, the thermal noise becomes dominant other than the interference when $\alpha$ or $W$ increases, and $p\lambda$ should be enlarged to maintain the same level of correlation. Moreover, Figure \[fig:MaxSuccCorr\] implies that for large thermal noise $W$, the optimal $p\lambda$ that maximizes the temporal correlation tends to stabilize at the same value. In particular, if $W\rightarrow+\infty$, the equation (\[eqn:monoeqn\]) becomes $(a-1)t_0^a+1=0$. By solving this equation, we get the optimal $p\lambda$ that maximizes temporal correlation of successful transmission events when $W\rightarrow+\infty$ as $$p\lambda=-\frac{\ln(1-a)}{aC_0}=-\frac{\ln(2^\delta-1)}{(2-2^\delta)C_0}.$$
Through the expression for the temporal correlation coefficient of the interference given by (\[eqn:rhoIij\]), the transmit probability $p$ should be very small so that the interference correlation among different time slots can be ignored. On the other hand, through the expression for the temporal correlation coefficient of the successful transmission events given by (\[eqn:rhoSiSj2\]), $p\lambda$ should either be very small or very large so that the successful transmission correlation among different time slots can be ignored. Therefore, both the interference correlation and the successful transmission correlation can be ignored either when both $p$ and $\lambda$ are very small (corresponding to small $p$ and small $p\lambda$) or when $p$ is very small and $\lambda$ is very large (corresponding to small $p$ and large $p\lambda$). The former case where both $p$ and $\lambda$ are very small implies the noise-limited regime that the effect of the interference could be ignored, while the latter case where $p$ is very small and $\lambda$ is very large implies the aforementioned MSA scenario. In both cases, the wireless network can be equivalently analyzed by the high mobility assumption. Noting that the noise-limited regime is relatively much easier to be quantitatively evaluated due to the approximation of ignoring the interference, we mainly focus our research on the MSA scenario throughout this paper.
In this section, we have discussed the temporal correlation coefficients of the interference and the successful transmission events by considering a backlogged network in which the queues at all transmitters will never be empty. The transmission of each link is controlled by the transmit probability $p$. For the original network with complex queue evolutions, these temporal correlation coefficients are extremely complicated to quantify. However, the results obtained in the backlogged network illustrate heuristically the temporal correlation in the original system.
Equivalence by High Mobility {#sec:accuracy}
============================
In the practical wireless network with random packet arrival and mutual interference, the long-term network performance metrics, such as the delay and the stability, are extremely difficult to quantify due to the interacting queues problem which is notoriously hard to coupe with [@rao1988stability; @ephremides1987delay; @7886285]. In the previous discussions, we have illustrated that a static wireless network in the scenario of MSA could be approximately equivalent to the high mobility case, which greatly reduce the complexity of the quantitative analysis and design. In order to assess the accuracy of using the high mobility equivalence, we evaluate the empty probability and the mean delay at the stationary regime for the typical link in the scenario of MSA. Furthermore, we compare these two metrics for the original static network and the equivalent network with high mobility.
In the high mobility case, the locations of all transmitters in current time slot can be considered as independent with that in the next time slot. Therefore, the spatial distributions of the transmitters in different time slots are independent PPP with the same intensity $\lambda$. Unlike in the static network that two queues at two nearby transmitters may affect the packet delivery of each other for long periods of time, the mutual effect between the same batch of queues in the high mobility case appears only in current time slot. Thus, the interacting queues can be decoupled and considered as independent from each other in the high mobility case. Moreover, in the static network, the stationary distributions of the queue systems at different transmitters are diversified, while in the high mobility case the stationary distribution is the same for all queues.
Let $\zeta$ be the probability that a queue is non-empty at the stationary regime in the high mobility case. Then, all queues in the high mobility case are non-empty with the same probability $\zeta$ at the stationary regime. Since only the transmitters with non-empty queues are active with probability $p$, the locations of all active transmitters interfering with the typical link constitute a PPP with intensity $p\zeta\lambda$ in each time slot. When the typical transmitter at $x_0$ attempts to deliver a packet at the stationary regime, the success probability in different time slots is the same, which is $$\mathcal{P}_k=\exp\big(-p\zeta\lambda C_0-\theta Wr_0^\alpha\big), \forall k\in\mathbb{N}^+. \label{eqn:succHighMobility}$$
In the high mobility case, the queueing process at the typical link is a Geo/Geo/1 queueing system since the arrival process is geometric due to the Bernoulli arrival, and the service process is also geometric due to the retransmission mechanism with the same transmit probability $p$ and the same success probability $\mathcal{P}_k$. For the Geo/Geo/1 queueing system at the typical link, the arrival rate is $\xi$ while the service rate is $\mu=p\mathcal{P}_k$. Note that the condition for the queue at the typical link being stable is $\xi<\mu$, which turns into $$\xi<p\exp\big(-p\zeta\lambda C_0-\theta Wr_0^\alpha\big). \label{eqn:stablecondition}$$
The probability that the queue at the typical link is non-empty at the stationary regime can be obtained by evaluating the utilization of the Geo/Geo/1 queueing system, which turns into $$\mathbb{P}\{\text{Queue\ is\ non-empty}\}=\frac{\xi}{\mu}=\frac{\xi}{p\mathcal{P}_k}. \label{eqn:non_empty}$$ Plugging (\[eqn:succHighMobility\]) into (\[eqn:non\_empty\]), we get the non-empty probability as $$\mathbb{P}\{\text{Queue\ is\ non-empty}\}=\frac{\xi}{p}\exp\big(p\zeta\lambda C_0+\theta Wr_0^\alpha\big). \label{eqn:non_empty2}$$ Since the typical link is arbitrarily selected from a wireless network, the non-empty probability of the queue at the typical link equals to the value $\zeta$ assumed above. Therefore, we can get a fixed-point equation as follows. $$\frac{\xi}{p}\exp\big(p\zeta\lambda C_0+\theta Wr_0^\alpha\big)=\zeta. \label{eqn:fixpoint}$$ Letting $\omega=-p\zeta\lambda C_0$, the above fixed-point equation (\[eqn:fixpoint\]) transforms into $$\omega\exp(\omega)=-\xi\exp(\theta Wr_0^\alpha)\lambda C_0. \label{eqn:fixpoint2}$$
Let $\mathcal{W}(z)$ be the Lambert $\mathcal{W}$ function which solves the equation $\mathcal{W}(z)e^{\mathcal{W}(z)}=z$. The Lambert $\mathcal{W}$ function has two branches, i.e., the principal branch $\mathcal{W}_0(z)$ and the branch $\mathcal{W}_{-1}(z)$. The result obtained from the branch $\mathcal{W}_{-1}(z)$ is rejected since it leads to a system with a success probability which increases with arrival rate. Using the principal branch of the Lambert $\mathcal{W}$ function $\mathcal{W}_0(z)$ to solve the above fixed-point equation (\[eqn:fixpoint2\]), we get the solution $\omega_0$ as follows $$\omega_0=\mathcal{W}_0(-\xi\lambda C_0\exp(\theta Wr_0^\alpha)).$$ Therefore, we get the following lemma
\[lem:zeta0\] In a network with high mobility, the non-empty probability for all queues at the stationary regime is the same, which is $$\zeta_0=-\frac{1}{p\lambda C_0}\mathcal{W}_0(-\xi\lambda C_0\exp(\theta Wr_0^\alpha)). \label{eqn:zeta0}$$
Plugging (\[eqn:zeta0\]) into (\[eqn:stablecondition\]), we get the following theorem.
\[thm:stablecondition\] In a network with high mobility, the stable condition for each queue is $$\xi<p\exp\big(\mathcal{W}_0(-\xi\lambda C_0\exp(\theta Wr_0^\alpha))\\-\theta Wr_0^\alpha\big). \label{eqn:stablecondition2}$$
Plugging (\[eqn:zeta0\]) into (\[eqn:succHighMobility\]), we get the success probability in the following theorem.
\[thm:succHighMobility2\] In a network with high mobility, the success probability for all active transmissions at the stationary regime is the same, which is $$\mathcal{P}_0=\exp\big(\mathcal{W}_0(-\xi\lambda C_0\exp(\theta Wr_0^\alpha))\\-\theta Wr_0^\alpha\big).
\label{eqn:succHighMobility2}$$
The service rate of a Geo/Geo/1 queueing system at the typical link equals to the success probability. By Lemma \[lem:meandelay\] and Theorem \[thm:succHighMobility2\], we get the mean delay in the following corollary.
\[thm:meandelayhigh\] In a network with high mobility, the mean delay for all queues at the stationary regime is the same, which is $$D_0=\frac{1-\xi}{p\exp\big(\mathcal{W}_0(-\xi\lambda C_0\exp(\theta Wr_0^\alpha))\\-\theta Wr_0^\alpha\big)-\xi}. \label{eqn:meandelayhigh}$$
According to the Little’s Law, the average number of packets in a queue at the stationary regime $L_0$ equals to the product of the arrival rate and the mean delay, i.e., $L_0=\xi D_0$. Thus, we get the average queue length as $$\begin{aligned}
L_0=\frac{\xi(1-\xi)}{p\exp\big(\mathcal{W}_0(-\xi\lambda C_0\exp(\theta Wr_0^\alpha))-\theta Wr_0^\alpha\big)-\xi}. \label{eqn:avelength}\end{aligned}$$
![Non-empty probability in the stable state as functions of the pathloss exponent $\alpha$. The distance between each transmitter and the associated receiver is $r_0=5$, and the SINR threshold is $\theta=10{\rm dB}$. The normalized noise is $W=10^{-3.3}$. The error bars show the standard deviation.[]{data-label="fig:NonemptyCom"}](NonemptyCom.eps){width="1\linewidth"}
![Mean delay in stable state as functions of the pathloss exponent $\alpha$. The distance between each transmitter and the associated receiver is $r_0=5$, and the SINR threshold is $\theta=10{\rm dB}$. The normalized noise is $W=10^{-3.3}$. The error bars show the standard deviation.[]{data-label="fig:MeandelayCom"}](MeandelayCom.eps){width="1\linewidth"}
In Figure \[fig:NonemptyCom\] and Figure \[fig:MeandelayCom\], we compare the simulation results for the scenario of MSA and the numerical results obtained by the high mobility equivalence to evaluate the accuracy of the proposed equivalent analysis method. The simulation for the scenario of MSA is conducted in an area of size $240\times240$, with the statistics within the margins less than $20$ are ignored to eliminate the edge effect (i.e., the links at the edge experience less interference due to the finite edge). The network topology is regenerated for $200$ times according to the point process, and for each realization of the point process, the duration of the simulation is $1000$ time slots. Figure \[fig:NonemptyCom\] and Figure \[fig:MeandelayCom\] reveal that the proposed approximating approach by the equivalence of high mobility provides a good characterization for both the non-empty probability and the mean delay in the stable state of the scenario of MSA.
![Success probability in the stable state as functions of the pathloss exponent $\alpha$. The distance between each transmitter and the associated receiver is $r_0=5$, the SINR threshold is $\theta=10{\rm dB}$, and the transmit probability is $p=0.5$. The normalized noise is $W=10^{-3.3}$.[]{data-label="fig:SuccProb"}](SuccProb.eps){width="1\linewidth"}
![Mean delay in stable state as functions of the arrival rate $\xi$. The distance between each transmitter and the associated receiver is $r_0=5$, the SINR threshold is $\theta=10{\rm dB}$, and the pathloss exponent is $\alpha=3$. The normalized noise is $W=10^{-3.3}$.[]{data-label="fig:Meandelay"}](Meandelay.eps){width="1\linewidth"}
In Figure \[fig:SuccProb\], we plot the success probability in the stable state as functions of the pathloss exponent $\alpha$ for different arrival rate $\xi$ with the high mobility equivalence. We observe that the success probability is limited by large interference for small $\alpha$ and by small desired signal power for large $\alpha$. We also observe that the range of $\alpha$ which makes the network stable become smaller when $\xi$ increases. In Figure \[fig:Meandelay\], we plot the mean delay in the stable state as functions of the arrival rate $\xi$ for different transmit probability $p$ with the high mobility equivalence. Figure \[fig:Meandelay\] reveals that the mean delay increases rapidly when the arrival rate $\xi$ approaches certain critical value, beyond which the network will be unstable.
Conclusions {#sec:conclusions}
===========
Evaluation of the long-term performance metrics of a wireless network, such as the delay and the stability, by using the stochastic geometry tools has long been a difficult problem. In this paper, we define the scenario of MSA and derive the correlation coefficients for interference and successful transmission events at different time slots. Having verified that these correlations are negligible in the scenario of MSA, we propose a convenient approach by the equivalence of high mobility to evaluate the performance for the scenario of MSA.
We further derived the non-empty probability, the success probability, the average queue length, and the mean delay in a network with the high mobility equivalence. Moreover, we compare the non-empty probability and the mean delay for the original static network and the equivalent network with high mobility to demonstrate the accuracy of the proposed approach. The proposed method is promising for providing a convenient and universal solution for the design of the mMTC with massive and sporadic access.
[^1]: Yi Zhong and Xiaohu Ge are with School of Electronic Information and Communications, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, P. R. China (e-mail: {yzhong, xhge}@hust.edu.cn). Guoqiang Mao is with the School of Electrical and Data Engineering, University of Technology Sydney (e-mail: [email protected]).
This research was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) grant No. 61701183.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The spectral slope of strong MHD turbulence has recently been a matter of controversy. While Goldreich-Sridhar model (1995) predicts Kolmogorov’s -5/3 slope of turbulence, shallower slopes were often reported by numerical studies. We argue that earlier numerics was affected by driving due to a diffuse locality of energy transfer in MHD case. Our highest-resolution simulation ($3072^2\times 1024$) has been able to reach the asymptotic $-5/3$ regime of the energy slope. Additionally, we found that so-called dynamic alignment, proposed in the model with -3/2 slope, saturates and therefore can not affect asymptotic slope. The observation of the asymptotic regime allowed us to measure Kolmogorov constant $C_{KA}=3.2\pm 0.2$ for purely Alfvénic turbulence and $C_K=4.1\pm 0.3$ for full MHD turbulence. These values are much higher than the hydrodynamic value of 1.64. The larger value of Kolmogorov constant is an indication of a fairly inefficient energy transfer and, as we show in this Letter, is in theoretical agreement with our observation of diffuse locality. We also explain what has been missing in numerical studies that reported shallower slopes.'
author:
- 'A. Beresnyak'
title: The Spectral Slope and Kolmogorov Constant of MHD turbulence
---
Introduction
============
The equations of incompressible ideal magnetohydrodynamics, written in terms of Elsasser variables,
$$\partial_t{\bf w^\pm}+\hat S ({\bf w^\mp}\cdot\nabla){\bf w^\pm}=0,\label{mhd}$$
where $\hat S= (1-\nabla\Delta^{-1}\nabla)$ is a solenoidal projection, and ${\bf w^\pm}$ (Elsasser variables) are ${\bf w^+=v+b}$ and ${\bf w^-=v-b}$, ${\bf b=B}/(4\pi \rho)^{1/2}$ are remarkably similar to the Euler’s equation. However, ${\bf w}^\pm$ have different transformation properties than ${\bf v}$. While in hydrodynamic turbulence the local average velocity can always be excluded by the choice of reference frame, in MHD ${\bf w}^\pm$ always contain the average local mean magnetic field that can not be excluded. This leads to a situation when large scale magnetic field is much stronger than small-scale turbulent perturbations and dynamics is dominated by this local mean magnetic field [@iroshnikov; @kraichnan]. But turbulence does not become weaker down the cascade as was proposed in aforementioned models. A proper perturbation theory [@galtier2000] revealed that MHD turbulence has a tendency of becoming stronger on smaller scales, rather than weaker, due to the fact that the cascade increases perpendicular wavenumber $k_\perp$, keeping parallel wavenumber $k_\|$ constant. The “strength” of turbulence, as the ratio of the mean-field term to the nonlinear term can be approximated as $\xi=wk_\perp/v_A k_\|$ and can increase due to the increasing anisotropy of perturbations $k_\perp/k_\|$ down the cascade. As turbulence becomes marginally strong ($\xi\sim 1$), i.e., the linear term is comparable to the nonlinear term, the cascading timescales become close to the dynamical timescales $\tau_{casc}\sim\tau_{dyn}=1/wk_\perp$. However, as was argued in @GS95, the perturbation frequency $\omega$ has a lower bound due to an uncertainty relation [^1] $\tau_{casc}\omega>1$, therefore the combination of this lower bound, that limits the strength of turbulence $\xi$ and the tendency of turbulence to become stronger will make it “critically balanced” with $\xi\sim
1$. This critically balanced cascade is strong in a sense that cascading timescale is always of the order of the dynamic timescale and will, therefore, have a Kolmogorov -5/3 spectrum. These critically balanced perturbations will be strongly anisotropic with respect to the local mean magnetic field. Using $\xi\sim 1$ and $w\sim k_\perp^{-1/3}$ one obtains $k_\|\sim k_\perp^{2/3}$, i.e. the anisotropy will increase towards small scales without limit. One can further simplify Eq. 1 by neglecting the term $(\delta w^\mp_\| \nabla_\|) \delta w^\pm$ which is much smaller than the mean field term $(v_A \nabla_\|) \delta w^\pm$. After this Eq. \[mhd\] splits into two equations, one for $\delta w^\pm_\|$, which, in this strongly anisotropic case, $k_\|\ll k_\perp$ represents slow (or pseudo-Alfvén) mode and the equation for $\delta w^\pm_\perp$ which represent Alfvénic mode. The equation for slow mode is passive and does not provide any back-reaction for the Alfvénic equation which could be written in the following form:
$$\partial_t{\bf \delta w^\pm_\perp}\mp({\bf v_A}\cdot\nabla_\|){\delta \bf w^\pm_\perp}+\hat S ({\delta \bf w^\mp_\perp}\cdot\nabla_\perp){\delta \bf w^\pm_\perp}=0,\label{rmhd}$$
One can study this purely Alfvénic dynamics and assume that the omitted slow mode has similar cascade and similar statistical properties. Eq. \[rmhd\] is known as reduced MHD approximation or RMHD, see, e.g., @kadomtsev [@strauss]. RMHD equations provide further support towards Goldreich-Sridhar model, as it has a precise symmetry with respect to anisotropy and the strength of the mean field. Indeed, as long as one increases $v_A$ and stretches the fields in the parallel direction, decreasing $\nabla_\|$, by the same factor, Eq. 2 will be unchanged. Furthermore, a Kolmogorov argument of universality of nonlinear dynamics at each scale, which is based on a two-parametric scaling symmetry, could be amended it with a proper scaling for the anisotropy:
$${\bf w} \to {\bf w}A,\ \ \ \lambda \to \lambda B, \ \ \ t \to t B/A, \ \ \ \Lambda \to \Lambda B/A, \label{symmetry}$$
where $\lambda$ is a perpendicular scale, $\Lambda$ is a parallel scale, $A$ and $B$ are arbitrary parameters. Due to this precise symmetry one can hypothesize that strong Alfvénic turbulence has a universal regime, utilizing the same argumentation as @kolm. In nature, this universal regime can only be achieved as long as $\delta w^\pm \ll v_A$. In numerical simulations, we can directly solve the reduced Eq. \[rmhd\] , which has precise symmetry already built in. From practical viewpoint, the statistics from the full MHD simulation with $\delta w^\pm \sim 0.1 v_A$ is virtually indistinguishable from RMHD statistics and even $\delta w^\pm \sim v_A$ are fairly similar to the former [@BL09a]. Note, that as we see above, both MHD and RMHD dynamics are essentially three-dimensional. In this paper we use both full MHD simulations and RMHD simulations. Statistically isotropic MHD simulation is used to determine a fraction of total energy contained in the slow mode, while RMHD simulations are used to study properties of the universal Alfvénic turbulence.
Previous numerical work confirmed scale-dependent anisotropy of the strong MHD turbulence [see, e.g., @cho2000; @maron2001]. The precise value of the spectral slope, however, was a matter of debate. In particular, [@muller2005] claimed that the mean field strong turbulence has a slope of $-3/2$. This motivated adjustments to the Goldreich-Sridhar model [@galtier2005; @boldyrev2005; @gogoberidze]. A model with so called “dynamic alignment” [@boldyrev2005; @boldyrev2006] became popular after the alignment was discovered in numerical simulations [@BL06]. Boldyrev model assumes that the alignment between velocity and magnetic perturbations decreases the strength of the interaction, also it assumes that the alignment is a power-law function of scale, increasing indefinitely towards small scales, modifying the spectral slope of MHD turbulence from the $-5/3$ Kolmogorov slope to $-3/2$ slope. In this paper we debate the assumption that the alignment is a power-law function of scale. We also prove that earlier measurements of the slope were premature and were unable to reach asymptotic slope due to diffuse locality of MHD turbulence.
Run Type $n_x\cdot n_y \cdot n_z$ Dissipation $\langle\epsilon\rangle$ $L/\eta$
------ ------- -------------------------- ------------------------- -------------------------- ----------
H1 hydro $512^3$ $-3.02\cdot10^{-4}k^2$ 0.091 190
H2 hydro $1024^3$ $-1.20\cdot10^{-4}k^2$ 0.091 370
M1 MHD $1024^3$ $-1.63\cdot10^{-9}k^4$ 0.159 280
R1 RMHD $256\cdot 768^2$ $-6.82\cdot10^{-14}k^6$ 0.073 280
R2 RMHD $512\cdot 1536^2$ $-1.51\cdot10^{-15}k^6$ 0.073 570
R2.5 RMHD $1536^3$ $-1.51\cdot10^{-15}k^6$ 0.073 570
R3 RMHD $1024\cdot 3072^2$ $-3.33\cdot10^{-17}k^6$ 0.073 1100
: Three-dimensional simulations
\[experiments\]
Numerical methods
=================
We used a pseudospectral dealiased code that was able to solve hydrodynamic, MHD and RMHD equations. The RHS of Eq. 2 has an explicit dissipation term $-\nu_n(-\nabla^2)^{n/2}{\bf w^\pm}$ and forcing term ${\bf f}$. The code and the choice for numerical resolution, driving, etc, was described in great detail in our earlier publications [@BL09a; @BL09b; @BL10]. Table 1 shows the parameters of the simulations. The Kolmogorov scale is defined as $\eta=(\nu_n^3/\epsilon)^{1/(3n-2)}$, the integral scale $L=3\pi/4E\int_0^\infty k^{-1}E(k)\,dk$ (which was approximately 0.79 for R1-3). Dimensionless ratio $L/\eta$ could serve as a “length of the spectrum”, although usually spectrum is around an order of magnitude shorter.
![Our hydrodynamic simulations reproduce $C_K=1.64$. As long as the turbulence is local and the effects of large scales could be neglected in the inertial range, the larger $1024$ cube could be seen as consisting of a eight smaller $512$ cubes, as on the right.[]{data-label="hydro"}](hydro_and_cube.eps){width="1.0\columnwidth"}
The resolution in the direction parallel to the mean magnetic field, $n_x$ was reduced by a factor of 3 for simulations R1-3. This was possible due to an empirically known lack of energy in the parallel direction in $k$-space. We ran a simulation R2.5 which has full resolution in $n_x$ to compare with R2 and check the influence of this resolution reduction on the power spectrum. Although the bottleneck effect was slightly less pronounced in R2.5 compared to R2, there was only a small influence in the inertial range. We concluded that using $n_x$ reduced by a factor of 2 or 3 is possible.
For the purpose of this paper we used driving that had a constant energy injection rate. In RMHD simulations R1-3 we drove turbulence to the amplitude that it will be strong on the outer scale. R1-3 were started from lower-resolution simulation that reached stationary state and were further evolved in high resolution for approximately 12 Alfvénic times, which, for strong MHD turbulence also correspond to about 12 dynamical times. The averaged quantities were obtained for the last 6 Alfvénic times. In all magnetic simulations M1, R1-3, we were using hyperviscosity ($n>2$) instead of normal viscosity. This is possible due to the fact that bottleneck effect is much less pronounced in the MHD case, compared to hydro.
Spectra and universality
========================
Much of the study of hydrodynamic turbulence was dedicated to Kolmogorov model which assumes a universal cascade of energy through scales [@kolm]. This model predicts that the power spectrum of turbulence, $E(k)$, will be a power-law function of scale,
$$E(k)=C_K \epsilon^{2/3} k^{-5/3}.$$
where $C_K$ is a Kolmogorov constant. It is well-known that this scaling is not precisely correct and typically has an intermittency correction $(kL)^\alpha$, where $L$ is an outer scale and $\alpha$ is a small number, around $0.035$ [@she]. However, in simulations or measurements with small inertial range this correction can often be neglected. In particular, a compilation of experimental results for hydrodynamic turbulence [@sreenivasan] suggests that a Kolmogorov constant is universal for a wide variety of flows. High-resolution numerical simulations of isotropic incompressible hydrodynamic turbulence [@gotoh] suggest the same value for the Kolmogorov constant.
![Resolution study for MHD simulations. As MHD is less local than hydro, convergence require higher resolution. The estimate of Kolmogorov constant from averaged spectra for this purely Alfvénic turbulence is $C_{KA}=3.2\pm 0.2$.[]{data-label="mhd_ck"}](mhd_ck.eps){width="1.0\columnwidth"}
A robust method for determining the spectral slope and the Kolmogorov constant from simulations is a resolution study [see, e.g., @gotoh], when a number of numerical experiments are performed with different resolution and the spectra are plotted with respect to the dimensionless wavevector, $k\eta$. A physical meaning of such a comparison is based on an assumption that a simulation with higher numerical resolution can be considered both as a simulation resolving smaller physical scales and as a simulation of a larger volume of turbulence (see Fig. \[hydro\]). This assumption is true as long as turbulence can be considered local, i.e. the effects of driving can be neglected in the inertial range. Our hydrodynamic simulations reveal a good convergence of spectra with numerical resolution and show a universal Kolmogorov constant consistent with the one obtained in @gotoh. Also the shape of the dissipation range is similar to the one in aforementioned paper, showing a typical “bump” due to a bottleneck effect. Despite moderate resolution, the inertial ranges converge, which is due to locality of hydrodynamic cascade in spacial scales, making it possible to consider higher and lower resolution simulations on a common ground, neglecting the influence of large scales, where energy is provided by driving. Fig. \[mhd\_ck\] presents a resolution study for simulations R1-3 determining the spectral slope and Kolmogorov constant for Alfvénic turbulence. If the spectrum $-3/2$ was universal, the outer scale point, corresponding to $k=3$ which is marked by a cross will go down from R1 to R3 by a factor of around 1.26, instead it stays at about the same level, indicating that deviations from $-5/3$ slope are small (note that the outer-scale point moves horizontally in Fig. \[hydro\] as well). The flat part of Fig. \[mhd\_ck\] in R3 simulation between $k=54\ (k\eta\approx 0.037)$ and $k=91\ (k\eta\approx 0.063)$ with central frequency $k=70$ was fit to obtain Kolmogorov constant. The value obtained in this fit was $C_K=3.2\pm 0.2$ where the error was mostly due to fluctuation of spectrum in time.
Dynamic alignment
=================
It was suggested that the spectral slope of MHD turbulence is modified by so-called “dynamic alignment” that increases indefinitely towards small scales. Although the tentative correspondence with theoretical scaling from Boldyrev model has been obtained with only one particular measure of alignment, this was interpreted by some studies as a confirmation of the aforementioned model. In this paper we refer to our earlier studies @BL06 [@BL09b] that measured several types of alignment and their dependence on scale. In these studies there were no conclusive evidence that all alignment measures follow the same scaling. In this paper we confirm this finding with higher-resolution simulations, in addition we found evidence that all alignment measures saturate, i.e. approach an asymptotic constant value on small scales. Fig. \[align\] shows the alignment measures in R3, where AA, AA2, DA and PI are different alignment measures: $AA=\langle|\delta {\bf w}^+_\lambda\times \delta {\bf w}^-_\lambda|/|\delta {\bf w}^+_\lambda||\delta {\bf w}^-_\lambda|\rangle$, $AA2=\langle|\delta {\bf v}^+_\lambda\times \delta {\bf b}^-_\lambda|/|\delta {\bf v}^+_\lambda||\delta {\bf b}^-_\lambda|\rangle$, $PI=\langle|\delta {\bf w}^+_\lambda\times \delta {\bf w}^-_\lambda|\rangle/\langle|\delta {\bf w}^+_\lambda||\delta {\bf w}^-_\lambda|\rangle$, $DA=\langle|\delta {\bf v}^+_\lambda\times \delta {\bf b}^-_\lambda|\rangle/\langle|\delta {\bf v}^+_\lambda||\delta {\bf b}^-_\lambda|\rangle$, for more details and motivation, see @BL06 [@BL09b]. Having an inertial range of around two orders of magnitude in scale, if alignment was proportional to $\lambda^{1/4}$ as in @boldyrev2005 [@boldyrev2006], we would expect alignment increase by a factor of $3.2$, while in reality the polarization intermittency PI increases only by a factor of 1.3, and dynamic alignment DA by a factor of 1.8. This is consistent with the range of $\lambda$ between $3$ and $10$.
![Dynamic alignment seems to saturate towards small scales [*before*]{} the dissipation scale. This indicates that the scale-dependent alignment is a transient effect that is present in simulations due to MHD turbulence being less local. The asymptotic regime of MHD turbulence is showing constant alignment, which will not modify the spectral slope $-5/3$ of strong MHD turbulence (GS95 slope).[]{data-label="align"}](align_3072_with_w.eps){width="0.8\columnwidth"}
We are not aware of any convincing physical argumentation explaining why alignment should be a power-law of scale. @boldyrev2006 provides an explanation arguing that alignment will tend to increase indefinitely, but will be bounded by field wandering, i.e. the alignment on each scale will be created independently of other scales (hence the term “dynamic alignment”) and will be proportional to the relative perturbation amplitude $\delta B/B$. But this directly violates precise symmetry of Eq. \[rmhd\], i.e. Eq. \[symmetry\] which states that nothing should depend on $\delta B/B$ as long as other quantities are scaled properly. Physically, this means that field wandering can not destroy alignment or imbalance. Indeed a perfectly aligned state, e.g., with $\delta {\bf w}^-=0$ is a precise solution of Eq. \[rmhd\] and it is not destroyed by its own field wandering. Additionally, @BL09b measured alignment in simulations of strong MHD turbulence with different values of $\delta B_L/B_0$ and found very little or no dependence on this parameter. Fig. \[align\] also compares alignment measure with a first-order structure function of the perturbation amplitude, i.e. $\langle|\delta {\bf w}_\lambda|\rangle$. According to @boldyrev2006 they should scale the same way, but this is not observed.
To summarize, our numerical data are consistent with alignment measures becoming constant in the inertial range and inconsistent with the hypothesis that they depend as $\lambda^{1/4}$ on scale. This finding is important, because if alignment is constant on scale in the asymptotic regime, there is no reason to expect that the power-law scaling of turbulence will deviate from its $-5/3$ value for strong Goldreich-Sridhar turbulence. This result is further supported by the results of the previous section where a steeper asymptotic spectra has been observed.
The amount of slow mode and the total Kolmogorov constant for MHD turbulence
============================================================================
Full incompressible MHD turbulence have a cascade of slow mode, which was not included in our reduced MHD simulations R1-3. Although in nature slow mode is often damped, it is normally present in full MHD incompressible simulations, e.g. the ones presented in @biskamp. The passive cascade of slow mode will have the same energy spectral slope as a Alfvénic mode, and, assuming that the ratio of slow to Alfvénic energies is $C_s$, the [*total*]{} Kolmogorov constant for MHD turbulence will be expressed as
$$C_K=C_{KA}(1+C_s)^{1/3}.\label{ck}$$
The ratio $C_s$ is supposedly depend on how the MHD turbulence is driven. However, historically, previous studies simulated MHD turbulence with zero mean field, either decaying or driven with statistically isotropic forcing, e.g. @muller2005. In this idealized case Kolmogorov constant has been measured, although with fairly limited resolution [@biskamp]. In this paper we will use a less straightforward approach, by measuring $C_s$ from a simulation with zero mean field and substituting it into Eq. \[ck\]. This approach is motivated by our finding that MHD turbulence is less local and therefore it is much harder to achieve an asymptotic universal cascade if one uses zero-mean field simulation. Indeed, one has to observe the transition to the strong local mean field case, which will require at least a couple of order of magnitude in scale and subsequently a transition to universal cascade, which as we observed in previous section, takes about two orders of magnitude in scale, as long as the power-law scaling and Kolmogorov constants are concerned. It is, therefore, impossible to directly measure the properties of universal cascade in zero mean field simulations of currently available simulations. The “natural” value of $C_s$ is unity, because the incompressible MHD equations have four degrees of freedom, out of which Alfvénic mode uses two and slow mode also uses two. Having the same amount of degrees of freedom and the isotropic driving that does not prefer any direction we would expect that the energy will be distributed equally between the modes. We measured how energy is partitioned on small scales of simulation M1 by making a local Fourier transform of smaller cubes and decomposing into modes with respect to the local mean field. The actual partition of energy shows $C_s$ being around $1.3$. Although statistical errors in this measurement are small, it is hard to claim a particular value of $C_s$ based on a numerical simulation with a finite resolution. Conservatively, we will assume that $C_s$ is between $1$, which is equipartition, and $1.3$, which is observed in our simulation M1. The total Kolmogorov constant will be estimated as $4.1\pm0.3$.
Scale locality and Kolmogorov constant
======================================
The energy flux through scales in both MHD and hydrodynamic turbulence can be expressed as a certain third order [*signed*]{} structure function divided by scale and has to be scale-local due to an upper analytical bound on contributions from different $k$ wavebands [see, e.g. @aluie2010]. This upper bound, however, is well applicable to similar third order [*unsigned*]{} structure function. This [*unsigned*]{} third order structure function is related by self-similarity hypothesis to second order structure function, which is a measure of energy. Therefore, we would expect that the ratio of [*unsigned*]{} third order structure function to the signed one will scale approximately as $C_K^{3/2}$. This seriously limits the bound on scale locality from practical standpoint as long as $C_K$ becomes large, i.e., the energy transfer becomes less efficient [@BL10]. Indeed, if the define “scale locality” as a ratio of largest to smallest wavevectors $k_1/k_2$ which still significantly contribute to energy flux through some central wavevector $k_0$, then this ratio will have an upper bound that scale asymptotically with Kolmogorov constant as $C_K^{9/4}$. In other words, inefficient energy transfer can still be very local, but it is also possible that it is less local than efficient energy transfer. A nonlocal or diffuse energy transfer [*must*]{} be inefficient and [*must*]{} have a high value of Kolmogorov constant.
A comparative study of energy spectra in MHD and hydro turbulence in @BL09b revealed that the bottleneck effect is less pronounced or altogether absent in MHD simulations, while in hydro it is always present, both in simulations with normal ($n=2$) and hyperviscosity ($n>2$). This was interpreted as an indication that MHD cascade is less local. Now, our measurement of Kolmogorov constant revealed that MHD energy transfer is less efficient, therefore MHD cascade may be less local than hydro cascade. In view of all numerical evidence available today, MHD cascade is most likely less local than hydro cascade.
Discussion
==========
Previous measurements of the slope usually relied on the highest-resolution simulation and fitted the slope in the fixed $k$-range close to driving scale typically between $k=5$ and $k=20$. In this paper we argue that such a fit is unphysical and instead one should fit a fixed $k\eta$ range. In the former case the result would be a shallower spectral slope due to proximity to the outer scale and driving. In the latter case the effect of the driving will diminish with increasing resolution and one will observe shallower spectra at small resolutions that will become steeper with increasing resolution.
Earlier measurements of Kolmogorov constant in MHD turbulence reported lower values than this study, e.g. $C_K=2.2$ in @biskamp. We believe this is due to insufficient resolution in those simulations, which prevented the observation of the asymptotic regime. In particular, in the case of statistically isotropic simulations like the ones in @biskamp a transition to small scale subAlfvénic regime precede the transition to asymptotic regime. These two transitions require numerical resolution that is even higher than the highest resolution presented in this paper and for now seems computationally impossible. Our own statistically isotropic simulation M1 shows Kolmogorov constant of 3.5, which is still only a lower limit, consistent with 4.1 derived in this paper. For M1 and similar lower-resolution simulations the estimate of $C_K$ continues to grow with increasing resolution, which supports argumentation above.
In this paper we treated so called balanced case, where the rms amplitudes of the $w^\pm$ were statistically the same. A number of attempts to generalize the GS95 model has been made recently [@lithwick2007; @BL08; @chandran2008; @PB09]. Some of these models can be rejected by numerics, in particular the model based on alignment [@PB09] is grossly inconsistent with the dissipation rates measured in imbalanced numerical simulations [@BL09a; @BL10].
LA-UR 10-07274. This research was supported in part by the NSF through TeraGrid resources provided by TACC under grant number TG-AST080005N.
Aluie, H., Eyink, G. L., 2010, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 081101
Beresnyak, A., Lazarian, A. 2006, ApJ, 640, L175
Beresnyak, A., Lazarian, A. 2008, ApJ, 678, 961 (BL08)
Beresnyak, A., Lazarian, A. 2009a, ApJ, 702, 460 (BL09a)
Beresnyak, A., Lazarian, A. 2009b, ApJ, 702, 1190 (BL09b)
Beresnyak, A., Lazarian, A. 2010, ApJ, 722, L110 (BL10)
Biskamp, D. 2003, [*Magnetohydrodynamic Turbulence.*]{} (Cambridge: CUP)
Boldyrev, S. 2005, ApJ, 626, L37
Boldyrev, S. 2006, Phys. Rev. Lett., 96, 115002
Chandran, B. D. G. 2008, ApJ, 685, 646
Cho, J. & Vishniac, E. 2000, ApJ, 539, 273
Galtier, S., Nazarenko, S.V., Newel, A.C., Pouquet, A. 2000, J. Plasma Phys., 63, 447
Galtier, S., Pouquet, A., Mangeney, A. 2005, Phys. of Plasmas, 12, 092310
Gogoberidze, G. 2007, Phys. Plasmas, 14, 022304
Goldreich, P., & Sridhar, S. 1995, ApJ, 438, 763
Gotoh, T., Fukayama, D., Nakano, T., 2002, Phys. of Fluids, 14, 1065
Frisch, U. 1995, [*Turbulence, the legacy of A.N.Kolmogorov*]{}, Cambridge: CUP
Iroshnikov, P.S. 1963, AZh, 40, 742
Kadomtsev, B.B., Pogutse, O.P. 1974, Sov. J. Plasma Phys. 1, 389
Kaneda, Y., Ishihara, T., Yokokawa, M., Itakura, K., & Uno, A. 2003, Phys. Fluids, 15, L21
Kolmogorov, A. 1941, Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR, 31, 538
Kraichnan, R.H. 1965, Phys. Fluids, 8, 1385
Lithwick, Y., Goldreich, P., & Sridhar, S. 2007, ApJ, 655, 269
Maron, J., & Goldreich, P. 2001, ApJ, 554, 1175
Monin, A.S., & Yaglom, A.M. 1975, [*Statistical Fluid Mechanics, vol. 2*]{} (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA)
Müller W.-C., & Grappin, R 2005, Phys. Rev. Lett., 95, 114502
Perez, J., Boldyrev, S. 2009, Phys. Rev. Lett., 102, 025003
She Z., & Leveque E., 1994, Phys. Rev. Lett., 72, 336
Sreenivasan, K., R., 1995, Phys. Fluids, 7, 2778
Strauss, H.R. 1976, Phys. Fluids 19,134
[^1]: Another bound on $\omega$ that follow from the uncertainty in the [*direction*]{} of the ${\bf v}_A$ vector [@BL08], give the same estimate in the case of [*balanced*]{} turbulence considered in @GS95. In the [*imbalanced*]{} case it could lead to a modified relation.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- Carmen Rovi
title: |
The Signature Modulo $8$\
of\
Fibre Bundles
---
Lay summary {#lay-summary .unnumbered}
===========
Topology studies the geometric properties of spaces that are preserved by continuous deformations. Manifolds are the main examples of topological spaces, with the local properties of Euclidean space in an arbitrary dimension $n$. They are the higher dimensional analogs of curves and surfaces. For example a circle is a one-dimensional manifold. Balloons and doughnuts are examples of two-dimensional manifolds. A balloon cannot be deformed continuously into a doughnut, so we see that there are essential topological differences between them.
An “invariant" of a topological space is a number or an algebraic structure such that topologically equivalent spaces have the same invariant. For example the essential topological difference between the balloon and the doughnut is calculated by the “Euler characteristic", which is $2$ for a balloon and $0$ for a doughnut.
In this thesis I investigate the relation between three different but related invariants of manifolds with dimension divisible by $4$: the signature, the Brown-Kervaire invariant and the Arf invariant.
The signature invariant takes values in the set $\{ \dots, -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, \dots \}$ of integers. In this thesis we focus on the signature invariant modulo $8$, that is its remainder after division by $8$.
The Brown-Kervaire invariant takes values in the set $\{0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 \}$.
The Arf invariant takes values in the set $\{ 0, 1 \}$.
The main result of the thesis uses the Brown-Kervaire invariant to prove that for a manifold with signature divisible by $4$, the divisibility by $8$ is decided by the Arf invariant.
The thesis is entirely concerned with pure mathematics. However it is possible that it may have applications in mathematical physics, where the signature modulo $8$ plays a significant role.
Abstract {#abstract .unnumbered}
========
This thesis is divided into three Parts, which are concerned with the residues modulo $4$ and $8$ of the signature $\sigma(M) \in {\mathbb Z}$ of an oriented $d$-dimensional geometric Poincaré complex $M^d$: the usual signature if $d=4k$, and $0$ otherwise.
In Part One we give a new chain complex proof of Morita’s theorem ([@Morita Theorem 1.1]) $$\sigma(M^{4k}) = \textnormal{BK}(H^{2k}(M;{\mathbb Z}_2),\lambda, q) \in {\mathbb Z}_8$$ with $\textnormal{BK}$ the Brown-Kervaire invariant, $\lambda:H^{2k}(M;{\mathbb Z}_2) \times H^{2k}(M;{\mathbb Z}_2) \to {\mathbb Z}_2$ the nonsingular intersection pairing and $$q={\mathcal{P}}_2:H^{2k}(M;{\mathbb Z}_2) \to H^{4k}(M;{\mathbb Z}_4)={\mathbb Z}_4$$ the ${\mathbb Z}_4$-valued quadratic enhancement of $\lambda$ defined by the Pontryagin square ${\mathcal{P}}_2$. The mod $4$ signature is given by $\sigma(M) = q(v_{2k}(M)) \in {\mathbb Z}_4$ with $v_{2k}(M) \in H^{2k}(M; {\mathbb Z}_2)$ the Wu class.
When $\sigma(M) =0 \in {\mathbb Z}_4$ we identify $\sigma(M) \in {\mathbb Z}_8$ with a ${\mathbb Z}_2$-valued Arf invariant, using the new construction of the maximal isotropic subquotient of $(H^{2k}(M; {\mathbb Z}_2), \lambda, q)$.
**Theorem \[4Arf-topology\]** *A $4k$-dimensional geometric Poincaré complex $M$ has signature $\sigma(M) =0 \in {\mathbb Z}_4$ if and only if $L=\langle v_{2k}(M) \rangle \subset H^{2k}(M;{\mathbb Z}_2)$ is a sublagrangian of $(H^{2k}(M;{\mathbb Z}_2),\lambda,q)$, which we call the **Wu sublagrangian**. If such is the case, the maximal isotropic subquotient is a nonsingular symmetric form over ${\mathbb Z}_2$ with a ${\mathbb Z}_2$-valued enhancement $$(W,\mu,h) = (L^{\perp}/L , [\lambda] , h), \textnormal{ with } h= [q]/2 \in {\mathbb Z}_2,$$ and the signature mod $8$ is given by $$\sigma(M) = \textnormal{BK}(H^{2k}(M;{\mathbb Z}_2),\lambda,q) = 4\textnormal{Arf}(W,\mu,h) \in 4{\mathbb Z}_2 \subset {\mathbb Z}_8.$$* The proof is a direct application of an algebraic result, which we give in Proposition \[BK-and-4Arf\].
In Part Two we construct a chain complex model for the intersection form $H^{2k}(E)$ of the total space of a Poincaré duality fibration $F^{2m} \to E^{4k} \to B^{2n}$ with $m + n = 2k,$ following [@SurTransfer] and [@Korzen].
In Part Three we apply the methods of Parts One and Two to obtain new results on $\sigma(E)$ modulo $8$ for the total space $E$ of an Poincaré duality fibration $F^{2m} \to E^{4k} \to B^{2n}.$
By the results in [@Meyerpaper] and [@modfour] we know that the signature of a Poincaré duality fibration $F^{2m} \to E^{4k} \to B^{2n}$ is multiplicative mod $4$, that is, $\sigma(E) \equiv \sigma(B) \sigma(F) \pmod{4} .$ Now $M = E \sqcup - (B \times F)$ (where $-$ reverses the orientation) has $\sigma(M) = \sigma(E) - \sigma(B)\sigma(F) \in {\mathbb Z}$, so that $\sigma(M) \equiv 0 \pmod{4}$, and Theorem \[4Arf-topology\] can be applied to $M$.
**Theorem \[4Arf-general-fibration\]** *The signatures mod $8$ of the fibre, base and total space are related by $$\sigma(E) - \sigma(B)\sigma(F) = 4 \textnormal{Arf}(W,\mu,h) \in 4{\mathbb Z}_2 \subset {\mathbb Z}_8$$ with $(W,\mu,h)$ the maximal isotropic subquotient of $(H^{2k}(M;{\mathbb Z}_2),\lambda,q)$ constructed in \[4Arf-topology\]*
**Theorem \[mod8-theorem\]** *If the action of $\pi_1(B)$ on $(H^m(F;{\mathbb Z})/torsion) \otimes {\mathbb Z}_4$ is trivial, then the Arf invariant in \[4Arf-general-fibration\] is trivial, and the signatures in $F^{2m} \to E^{4k} \to B^{2n}$ are multiplicative mod $8$, $$\sigma(E) - \sigma(B)\sigma(F) = 0 \in {\mathbb Z}_8$$*
Finally we study surface bundles $F^2 \to E^4 \to B^2$ which have $\sigma(E)= 4\in {\mathbb Z}$, which provide examples of non-multiplicativity modulo $8$. Such examples were first constructed by Endo. In Endo’s example the action of $\pi_1(B)$ on $H^{1}(F; {\mathbb Z}_2)$ is non-trivial. A Python module is used to find some further nontrivial examples of non-multiplicativity modulo $8$.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
My first acknowledgement is to thank my supervisor Andrew Ranicki. Andrew is a very enthusiastic and generous supervisor and I am extremely grateful for all the help and advice that he has given me during my PhD. His mathematical insights have been a great source of motivation for my work, and without his contributions and guidance this work would not have been possible. I must emphasize that Andrew has been both friend and mentor to me, going beyond the call of duty as a supervisor.
During my time in Edinburgh I have been very lucky to be part of the Edinburgh Surgery Theory Study Group. It was wonderful to spend many hours learning about surgery theory with Chris, Dee, Patrick, Spiros and Filipp.
I would like to thank Michael Weiss for inviting me to Münster during the autumn of 2014. I am also grateful to the whole of the Leray seminar group for having made me feel so welcome during my stay in Münster.
I would like to thank Saul Schleimer for helping me understand the use of Dehn twists in Endo’s paper and for suggesting that I use Python for computations of examples in chapter \[examples-chapter\].
I am also grateful to Andrew Korzeniewski for clarifying conversations and emails about the work in his thesis.
Many thanks go to Michelle Bucher-Karlsson and Caterina Campagnolo for all the enjoyable hours doing mathematics with them in Geneva, Les Diablerets and Edinburgh and for patiently listening to me talk about parts of my thesis when the work was still in progress. I look forward to more mathematical conversations with them.
Another gratifying mathematical experience took place during my second year, when I became involved in a long term project to connect women with similar interests in topology. This project culminated in a conference in Banff and the writing of joint papers in small groups. Even though I have not included the work from this research experience in my thesis, it was very satisfactory both personally and mathematically to have been part of the “orbifolds team". I would also like to take this opportunity to thank Des Sheihams parents Ivan and Teresa for having funded high-quality recording equipment for the topology group. This has been essential for the production of a collection of more than 200 videos on topology with a special focus on surgery theory, which I have recorded during my PhD.
On the non-mathematical side, I am deeply grateful to Ida Thompson for being such a good friend. My years in Edinburgh would certainly not have been so wonderful without her.
The few sentences that I can write in this page of acknowledgements to thank my parents and my sister Ana cannot do justice to my feelings for them. My parents have always encouraged me to pursue my dreams and have always supported me in important decisions in my life. Not being a mathematician himself, my father was able to shed light on the beauty of mathematics when I was a child. The pursuit of this beauty is the ultimate reason why I am writing this today.
Introduction {#Foundations}
============
Overview {#overview .unnumbered}
--------
The following chart presents the structure of the thesis showing the main topics that will be developed and how they relate to each other.
at 315 222  \[fig:cobo\]
The signature: an introduction
------------------------------
The signature $\sigma(M) \in \mathbb{Z}$ of an oriented $n$-dimensional Poincaré complex $M^n$ is defined as follows,
- If $n=4k$ then $\sigma(M)$ is defined to be the number of positive eigenvalues minus the number of negative eigenvalues of the non-singular symmetric intersection form $(H^{2k}(M; \mathbb{R}), \lambda)$, where $$\lambda : H^{2k}(M; \mathbb{R}) \times H^{2k}(M; \mathbb{R}) \longrightarrow \mathbb{R} ; (u, v) \mapsto \left<u \cup v, [M] \right>$$ is the intersection pairing.
- If $n \neq 4k$ then $\sigma(M) =0 \in \mathbb{Z}$.
In general if we take the cartesian product of Poincaré complexes $X$ and $Y$ then the signature has multiplicative properties, $$\sigma(X \times Y) - \sigma(X) \sigma(Y)=0 \in {\mathbb{Z}}.$$
Chern, Hirzebruch and Serre [@HirzebruchSerreChern] were the first to consider the problem of the multiplicativity of the signature of a fibre bundle $F^{2m} \to E^{4k} \to B^{2n}$ of manifolds. They determined that if $\pi_1(B)$ acts trivially on the cohomology ring $H^*(F, \mathbb{Q})$, then the signature is multiplicative, $$\sigma(E) - \sigma(F) \sigma(B) =0 \in {\mathbb{Z}}.$$
Kodaira [@Kodaira], Hirzebruch [@Ramified-Hirz] and Atiyah [@Atiyah-cov] considered the situation when the action of the fundamental group on $H^*(F; {\mathbb{Q}})$ is non-trivial and independently constructed examples of fibre bundles with non-multiplicative signature.
Meyer[@Meyerpaper] proved that $\sigma(E)=0 \in {\mathbb Z}_4$ for a surface bundle $F^2 \to E^4 \to B^2$. Later on, Hambleton, Korzeniewski and Ranicki [@modfour] provided a high-dimensional version of this result. They proved that with $F\to E \to B$ a fibre bundle of closed, connected, compatibly oriented manifolds, $$\sigma(E) - \sigma(F)\sigma(B)= 0\in {\mathbb Z}_4.$$ Here we identify the signature modulo $8$ with an Arf invariant.
**Theorem \[4Arf-general-fibration\]**
It is of interest to consider a weaker version of the trivial action condition of [@HirzebruchSerreChern]. The following result was conjectured by Klaus and Teichner [@KT]:
\[conjecture-KT\] ([@KT]) Let $F^{2m} \to E \to B^{2n}$ be a fibration of oriented Poincaré complexes such that the action of $\pi_1(B)$ on $H^{m}(F, {\mathbb{Z}}_2)$ is trivial, then $$\sigma(E) -\sigma(F) \sigma(B) = 0 \in {\mathbb Z}_8.$$
In [@Korzen] there is a tentative proof of this result for the case when both $m$ and $n$ are even. Unfortunately that proof had a gap which we discuss in chapter \[mod-eight-proof\]. Our Theorem \[mod8-theorem\] differs from this conjecture in that the action of $\pi_1(B)$ is on $H^m(F, {\mathbb Z})/torsion \otimes {\mathbb Z}_4$.
**Theorem \[mod8-theorem\]** *Let $F^{2m} \to E \to B^{2n}$ be a fibration of oriented Poincaré complexes. If the action of $\pi_1(B)$ on $H^m(F, {\mathbb{Z}})/torsion \otimes {\mathbb{Z}}_4$ is trivial, then $$\sigma(E) -\sigma(F) \sigma(B) =0 \in {\mathbb Z}_8.$$*
Chapter outline
---------------
#### Part I
In Part \[signature modulo 8\] we shall investigate properties of the signature of a symmetric Poincaré complex modulo $8$. The material about hyperquadratic $L$-theory and twisted $Q$-groups presented in chapter \[hyperquad\] is very relevant for this purpose.
In chapter \[Arf-BK\] we give definitions of the Arf and Brown-Kervaire invariants and discuss how they relate to each other. The main result in this chapter is Proposition \[BK-and-4Arf\] where we use a maximal isotropic subquotient construction to express a Brown-Kervaire invariant which is divisible by $4$ as an Arf invariant.
In chapter \[Pontryagin-squares chapter\] we shall concentrate on the definition of classical and equivariant Pontryagin squares.
Making use of the theory about the Brown-Kervaire invariant presented in [@BanRan], we provide in chapter \[Morita-chain-cx\] new chain complex proofs of the results in [@Morita]. One advantage of using chain complexes and the results in [@BanRan] is that the original proofs in [@Morita] and specially that of [@Morita Thm 1.1] are simplified considerably. Another advantage is that we will be able to apply them in the algebraic proof of Theorem \[mod8-theorem\].
#### Part II
In Part II we shall give the construction of an appropriate algebraic model of the chain complex of the total space $C(E)$ of a fibration $F \to E \to B$ in terms of the chain complex of the fibre $C(F)$ and the universal cover of the base $C({\widetilde{B}})$ that will allow us to compute the signature of a fibration. This model was developed in [@Korzen] and uses the idea of transfer maps in $L$-theory from [@SurTransfer].
#### Part III
In Part III we show how the obstruction to multiplicativity of the signature modulo $8$ of a fibration with no condition on the action of the fundamental group of the base is in general given by the Arf invariant. The precise statement is given in Theorem \[4Arf-general-fibration\].
In Part III we prove Theorem \[mod8-theorem\] about multiplicativity of the signature of a fibration modulo $8$ when there is a ${\mathbb Z}_4$-trivial action, which has already been mentioned above. To prove this theorem, we first state its algebraic analogue. All the material presented in parts I and II will be relevant in the proof. Note that the statement of Theorem \[mod8-theorem\] includes the case when $m$ and $n$ are odd, so that base and fibre are of dimensions $4i+2$ and $4j+2$ respectively. In this case Theorem \[mod8-theorem\] takes the following form:
Let $F^{4i+2} \to E^{4k} \to B^{4j+2}$ be a fibration of oriented Poincaré complexes such that the action of $\pi_1(B)$ on $H^{2m+1}(F, {\mathbb{Z}})/torsion \otimes{{\mathbb Z}}_4$ is trivial, then $$\sigma(E) \equiv 0 \in {\mathbb Z}_8.$$
This is specially interesting because it includes the case of surface bundles which has been widely studied in the literature.
One major problem in the context of Theorem \[mod8-theorem\] has been to find non-trivial examples that satisfy this theorem. The surface bundle examples of Atiyah and Kodaira have signature equal to $8$ or a multiple of $8$.
Endo used Meyer’s arguments from [@Meyerpaper] to construct a surface bundle with signature $-4$ which has as basis an orientable surface of genus 111 and as fibre an orientable surface of genus 3. The action of the fundamental group is not given explicitly in the paper. I have written down the action explicitly to confirm that in this example the action of $\pi_1(B)$ on $H^1(F, {\mathbb{Z}}_2)$ is non-trivial, as expected from Theorem \[mod8-theorem\]. Lefschetz fibrations are another important source of examples of surface bundles with non-trivial signature, see for example [@BDS], [@Ozbagci], [@Stipsicz]. Nevertheless these fibrations have singular fibres and the computation of the signature of the total space depends also on the blow-up of the singularities. An interesting construction of surface bundles with signature $4$ is given in [@Endo-alt].
Meyer [@Meyer-thesis section 9] constructed two examples of local coefficient systems with non-trivial signature. One of them has signature 4 and the other has signature 8.
The appendix contains a computer module using the Python programming language which calculates the signature of the total space of a surface bundle by giving the explicit action as input. This module is used in chapter \[examples-chapter\] to construct new examples with non-trivial signatures modulo $8$.
\[signature modulo 8\]
Introduction to Part I {#introduction-to-part-i .unnumbered}
======================
This part of the thesis is concerned with results about the signature modulo $4$ and modulo $8$ of symmetric Poincaré chain complexes over ${\mathbb Z}$. The signature modulo $8$ of a symmetric Poincaré complex can be expressed in general by a ${\mathbb Z}_8$-valued Brown-Kervaire invariant. When the signature is 0 mod $4$, we show that it can be expressed as $4$ times a ${\mathbb Z}_2$-valued Arf invariant modulo $8$.
[@Morita] proved that for a $4k$-dimensional Poincaré space $X$, the signature mod $8$ is the Brown-Kervaire invariant of a ${\mathbb Z}_4$-valued quadratic enhancement of the symmetric form on $H^{2k}(X, {\mathbb Z}_2).$ In [@Morita] Morita also proved that the signature mod $4$ is given by the Pontryagin square evaluated on the Wu class $v_{2k} \in H^{2k}(X, {\mathbb Z}_2)$. We shall prove both results using symmetric Poincaré complexes over ${\mathbb Z}$. One advantage of doing this is that the results are stronger since they refer to chain complexes and not only to spaces. Another advantage is that the proof is significantly simplified. We shall need chain complex versions of the results in [@Morita] in part III of the thesis.
The overview of chapters in this part of the thesis is as follows:
In chapter \[hyperquad\] we shall start by presenting background results about $L$-theory that will be widely used throughout the thesis. Here we present a brief overview of the symmetric construction and symmetric, quadratic and hyperquadratic $L$-theory.
In chapter \[Arf-BK\] we recall the definitions of the Arf and Brown-Kervaire invariants and describe how they relate to each other when the Brown-Kervaire takes values $0$ or $4$ in ${\mathbb Z}_8.$
In chapter \[Pontryagin-squares chapter\] we recall the classical construction of Pontryagin squares and also the construction of the equivariant Pontryagin squares given in [@Korzen]. We shall extend the definition of equivariant Pontryagin squares given in [@Korzen] to the evaluation of the equivariant Pontryagin square on odd cohomology classes.
In chapter \[Morita-chain-cx\] we give chain complex proofs of the results in [@Morita] and discuss how divisibility of the signature by $4$ and by $8$ can be detected.
Background {#hyperquad}
==========
Symmetric, quadratic and hyperquadratic structures {#symm}
--------------------------------------------------
In this section we shall present some background material which will be fundamental for all three parts of the thesis. The ideas presented in this chapter are a review of some fundamental aspects in [@atsI], [@atsII].
### The algebraic theory
Let $R$ denote a ring with involution with unit $1$, $$\overline{\color{White}{a}}: R \to R ; a \mapsto \overline{a}.$$ For $a, b \in R$, this satisfies $$\overline{a + b} = \overline{a} + \overline{b}, ~~~ \overline{\overline{a}}= a, ~~~ \overline{ab}= \overline{b}.\overline{a}, ~~~ \overline{1} = 1.$$
$R$-modules are understood to be left $R$-modules, unless a right $R$-module action is specified.
\[definition1\]
- If $M$ is an $R$-module, then the **transpose** $R$-module is the right $R$-module denoted by $M^{t}$ with the same additive group and with $$M^t \times R \to M^t ; (x, a) \mapsto \overline{a} x.$$
- The [**dual**]{} of the $R$-module is $$M^* = \textnormal{Hom}_R(M, R)$$ with $R$ acting by $$R \times M^* \to M^* ; (a, f) \mapsto (x \mapsto (f(x). \overline{a})).$$
- The **slant map** is the ${\mathbb Z}$-module morphism defined for $R$-modules $M$ and $N$ by $$M^t \otimes_R N \to \textnormal{Hom}_R(M^*, N) ; ~~ x \otimes y \mapsto (f \mapsto \overline{f(x)}.y)$$
The slant map is an isomorphism for f.g. projective $R$-modules $M$ and $N$. In particular for $N=R$ the slant map is a natural $R$-module isomorphism $$M \to M^{**} ; x \to (f \mapsto \overline{f(x)})$$ which identifies $M^{**} \cong M.$
- For any $R$-modules $M$, $N$ $\textnormal{Hom}_R(M, N^*)$ is the abelian group of sesquilinear pairings $$\lambda: M \times N \to R ~ ; ~ (x, y) \mapsto \lambda(x, y),$$ such that for all $x, x' \in M$, $y, y' \in N$, $r, s \in R$
- $\lambda(x+x', y) ~=~ \lambda(x, y) + \lambda(x', y) \in R$,
- $\lambda(x, y+y') ~ = ~ \lambda(x, y)+ \lambda(x, y') \in R$,
- $\lambda(rx, sy) ~=~ s\lambda(x, y)\overline{r} \in R.$
- **Transposition** defines an isomorphism $$T: \textnormal{Hom}_{R}(M, N^*) \to \textnormal{Hom}_R(N, M^*); \lambda \mapsto T\lambda,$$ with $T \lambda(x, y) = \overline{\lambda(y, x)} \in R.$
A finite f.g. projective $R$-module chain complex $$C: ~ \dots \to C_{r+1} \xrightarrow{d} C_{r} \xrightarrow{d}C_{r-1} \to \dots$$ is **$n$-dimensional** if each $C_r$ $(0 \leq r \leq n)$ is a finitely generated projective $R$-module and $C_r=0$ for $r < 0$ and $r > n.$
For an $R$-module chain complex we write $C^r= (C_r)^* ~~ (r \in {\mathbb Z}).$
- For an $R$-module chain complex $C$, the **dual** $R$-module chain complex $C^{-*}$ is $$d_{C^{-*}} : (C^{-*})_r = C^{-r} \to (C^{-*})_{r-1} = C^{-r+1}.$$
- The **$n$-dual** $R$-module chain complex $C^{n-*}$ is $$d_{C^{n-*}} : (C^{n-*})_r = C^{n-r} \to (C^{n-*})_{r-1} = C^{n-r+1}.$$
The $n$-fold suspension of the dual $S^nC^{-*}$ is isomorphic to the $n$-dual $C^{n-*}$.
If a chain complex $C$ is $n$-dimensional then its $n$-dual is also $n$-dimensional.
\[slant-map\] For finite f.g. projective $R$-module chain complexes $C$ and $D$, the **slant map** is an isomorphism $$\begin{array}{ccc}
C^t \otimes_R D & \to &\textnormal{Hom}_R(C^{-*}, D) \\
x \otimes y & \mapsto & (f \mapsto \overline{f(x)}y).
\end{array}$$
\[involution\] Let $C$ be an $R$-module chain complex, where $R$ is a ring with involution. Let $\epsilon = \pm 1$. Define an involution on $C^t \otimes_{R} C$ by the **$\epsilon$-transposition** map $$\begin{array}{ccc}
T_{\epsilon} : C^t_p \otimes_R C_q & \to & C^t_q \otimes_R C_p \\
x \otimes y & \mapsto & (-1)^{pq} y \otimes \epsilon x,
\end{array}$$ with $x \in C_p$ and $y \in C_q.$
$T_{\epsilon}:C^t\otimes_RC \to C^t\otimes_{R}C$ is an automorphism of the ${\mathbb Z}$-module chain complex such that $(T_{\epsilon})^2=1$, giving $C^t\otimes_RC$ a ${\mathbb Z}[{\mathbb Z}_2]$-module structure.
Using the identification via the slant map, we can see that for finite dimensional $C$ the transposition map $T_{\epsilon}$ is an involution isomorphism $$\begin{array}{ccc}
T_{\epsilon} : \textnormal{Hom}_R(C^p, C_q) & \to & \textnormal{Hom}_R(C^q, C_p) \\
\phi & \mapsto & (-1)^{pq} \epsilon \phi^*.
\end{array}$$
Mostly $\epsilon = 1$ for us, but we shall need $\epsilon = -1$ in Chapter \[Pontryagin-squares chapter\].
Note that the transposition involution induces a ${\mathbb{Z}}_2$-action on $C^t \otimes_R C.$
A cycle $f \in \textnormal{Hom}_R(C, D)_n$ is a chain map (up to sign) $$f : S^nC \to D.$$
Note that $H_n(\textnormal{Hom}_R(C, D)) = H_0(\textnormal{Hom}_R(S^nC, D))$ is the ${\mathbb Z}$-module of chain homotopy classes of $R$-module chain maps $S^nC \to D.$
$H_n(C^t \otimes_R D)$ is the ${\mathbb{Z}}$-module of chain homotopy classes of chain maps $C^{n-*} \to D$, since using the slant map we can identify $$H_n(C^t \otimes_R C) = H_n( \textnormal{Hom}_R(C^{-*}, C)) = H_0(\textnormal{Hom}_R(C^{n-*}, C)).$$
A cycle $\phi \in \textnormal{Hom}_R(C^{-*}, C)_n = (C^t \otimes_R C)_n$ is a chain map $\phi : C^{n-*} \to C.$
Let $W$ be the standard free ${\mathbb{Z}}[{\mathbb{Z}}_2]$-module resolution of ${\mathbb{Z}}$,
$$W: \dots {\mathbb{Z}}[{\mathbb{Z}}_2] \xrightarrow{1+T} {\mathbb{Z}}[{\mathbb{Z}}_2] \xrightarrow{1-T}{\mathbb{Z}}[{\mathbb{Z}}_2] \xrightarrow{1+T} {\mathbb{Z}}[{\mathbb{Z}}_2] \to 0$$ and let $\widehat{W}$ be the complete resolution, $$\widehat{W}: \dots {\mathbb{Z}}[{\mathbb{Z}}_2] \xrightarrow{1+T} {\mathbb{Z}}[{\mathbb{Z}}_2] \xrightarrow{1-T}{\mathbb{Z}}[{\mathbb{Z}}_2] \xrightarrow{1+T} {\mathbb{Z}}[{\mathbb{Z}}_2] \to \dots$$
We know from Definition \[involution\] that the transposition involution $T_{\epsilon}$ provides a ${\mathbb{Z}}_2$-action on $C^t \otimes_R C$, so we can define the ${\mathbb{Z}}$-module chain complexes $$\begin{array}{ccl}
W^\% C & =& \textnormal{Hom}_{{\mathbb{Z}}[{\mathbb{Z}}_2]}(W, C^t \otimes_R C) \\
W_\% C & = & W \otimes_{{\mathbb Z}[{\mathbb Z}_2]}(C^t \otimes_R C) \\
\widehat{W}^\% C & = &\textnormal{Hom}_{{\mathbb{Z}}[{\mathbb{Z}}_2]}(\widehat{W}, C^t \otimes_R C) \\
\end{array}$$ In this context the chain complex $C$ is finite-dimensional, so we can use the slant map from Definition \[slant-map\] to identify the tensor product $C^t \otimes_R C$ in the above expressions with $\textnormal{Hom}_R(C^{-*}, C)$.
\[structures\]
- An $n$-dimensional **$\epsilon$-symmetric structure** on a finite dimensional $R$-module chain complex $C$ is a cycle $$\phi \in (W^{\%}C)_n,$$ that is, a collection of morphisms $\left\{\phi_s \in \textnormal{Hom}_R(C^{n-r+s}, C_r) \vert r\in {\mathbb{Z}}, s \in {\mathbb{Z}} \right\}$ such that $$\begin{array}{r}
d \phi_s + (-1)^r \phi_s d^* + (-1)^{n+s-1}(\phi_{s-1}+ (-1)^sT_{\epsilon} \phi_{s-1})=0 : \\
C^{n-r+s-1} \to C_r,
\end{array}$$ with $s \geq 0$ and $\phi_{-1} =0$.
- An $n$-dimensional **$\epsilon$-quadratic structure** of a finite dimensional $R$-module chain complex $C$ is a cycle $$\psi \in (W_{\%}C)_n$$ that is, a collection of morphisms $\{ \psi_s : C^{n-r-s} \to C_{r} \vert \hspace{10pt}s \geq 0\}$ such that $$\begin{array}{r}
d \psi_s + (-1)^r\psi_s d^* + (-1)^{n-s-1}( \psi_{s+1} +(-1)^{s+1} T_{\epsilon}\psi_{s+1}) =0: \\
C^{n-r-s-1} \to C_r
\end{array}$$ with $s\geq 0$.
- An $n$-dimensional **$\epsilon$-hyperquadratic structure** on a finite dimensional $R$-module chain complex is a cycle $$\theta \in (\widehat{W}^{\%} C)_n$$ that is, a collection of morphisms $\{ \theta_s \in \textnormal{Hom}_R(C^{n-r+s}, C_r) \vert r \in {\mathbb Z}, s\in {\mathbb Z}\}$ such that, $$\begin{array}{r}
d \theta_s + (-1)^r \theta_s d^* + (-1)^{n+s-1}(\theta_{s-1} + (-1)^s T_{\epsilon}\theta_{s-1})=0 : \\
C^{n-r+s-1} \to C_r
\end{array}$$ with $s \in {\mathbb Z}.$
In definition \[structures\] each $\phi_s$ is a chain homotopy between $\phi_{s-1}$ and $T_{\epsilon}(\phi_{s-1}),$ each $\psi_s$ is a chain homotopy between $\psi_{s-1}$ and $T_{\epsilon}(\psi_{s-1}),$ and each $\theta_s$ is a chain homotopy between $\theta_{s-1}$ and $T_{\epsilon}(\theta_{s-1}).$
- Two $n$-dimensional $\epsilon$-symmetric structures are equivalent if they differ by the boundary of a chain in $(W^{\%}C)_{n+1}.$
- Two $n$-dimensional $\epsilon$-quadratic structures are equivalent if they differ by the boundary of a chain in $(W_{\%}C)_{n+1}.$
- Two $n$-dimensional $\epsilon$-hyperquadratic structures are equivalent if they differ by the boundary of a chain in $(\widehat{W}^{\%}C)_{n+1}.$
<!-- -->
- $Q^n(C, \epsilon)$ is the abelian group of equivalence classes of $n$-dimensional symmetric structures on $C$.
- $Q_n(C, \epsilon)$ is the abelian group of equivalence classes of $n$-dimensional quadratic structures on $C$.
- $\widehat{Q}^n(C,\epsilon)$ is the abelian group of equivalence classes of $n$-dimensional hyperquadratic structures on $C$
Note that the following isomorphisms hold $$\begin{array}{ccl}
Q^n(C, \epsilon) & \cong & H_n(W^{\%} C) = H_n(\textnormal{Hom}_{{\mathbb{Z}}[{\mathbb{Z}}_2]}(W, C^t \otimes_R C)) = H^n({\mathbb{Z}}_2 ; C^t \otimes_{R} C) \\
Q_n(C, \epsilon) & \cong & H_n(W_\% C) = H_n(W \otimes_{{\mathbb Z}[{\mathbb Z}_2]}(C^t \otimes_R C)) = H_n({\mathbb Z}_2 ; C^t \otimes C)
\\
\widehat{Q}^n(C, \epsilon) & \cong & H_n(\widehat{W}^\% C) = H_n(\textnormal{Hom}_{{\mathbb{Z}}[{\mathbb{Z}}_2]}(\widehat{W}, C^t \otimes_R C)) = \widehat{H}^n({\mathbb Z}_2 ; C^t \otimes_R C).
\end{array}$$
There is a long exact sequence of $Q$-groups, $$\dots \to Q_n(C,\epsilon) \xrightarrow{1+T_{\epsilon}} Q^n(C, \epsilon) \xrightarrow{J} \widehat{Q}^{n}(C,\epsilon) \xrightarrow{H} Q_{n-1}(C, \epsilon) \to \dots$$ with $$\begin{array}{cl}
1+T_{\epsilon} : &(W_{\%} C)_n \to W^{\%}(C)_n \\
& \{\psi_s \in (C^t \otimes_R C)_{n-s} \vert s \geq 0 \} \mapsto \{((1+T_{\epsilon}) \psi)_s = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
(1+T_{\epsilon}) \psi_0 & \mbox{if } s = 0 \\
0 & \mbox{if } s \geq 1
\end{array}
\right.\} \\
J : &(W^{\%} C)_n \to \widehat{W}^{\%}(C)_n \\
& \{\phi_s \in (C^t \otimes_R C)_{n+s} \vert s \geq 0 \} \mapsto \{(J \phi)_s = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\phi_s & \mbox{if } s \geq 0 \\
0 & \mbox{if } s \leq -1
\end{array}
\right.\} \\
H : &(\widehat{W}^{\%} C)_n \to W^{\%}(C)_{n-1} \\
& \{\theta_s \in (C^t \otimes_R C)_{n+s} \vert s \in {\mathbb Z}\} \mapsto \{(H \theta)_s = \theta_{-s-1} \vert s \geq 0 \}. \\
\end{array}$$
An $n$-dimensional $\epsilon$-symmetric complex $(C, \phi)$ is **Poincaré** if $\phi_0: C^{n
-*}\to C$ is a chain equivalence.
The symmetrization chain map is $$1+T_{\epsilon}: W_{\%}(C) \to W^{\%}(C)$$ with $\phi_s = (1+T_{\epsilon}) \psi_0$ if $s=0$ and $\phi_s=0$ if $s \geq 1.$
An $n$-dimensional $\epsilon$-quadratic complex $(C, \psi)$ is **Poincaré** if the symmetrization $(1+T)\psi_0$ is a chain equivalence.
\[algebraic-Wu\] The *Wu classes* of the $\epsilon$-symmetric structure of a chain complex over a ring with involution $R$ are defined by the function $$v_r(\phi): H^{n-r}(C) =H_0(\textnormal{Hom}_R(C, S^{n-r}R)) \to Q^n(S^{n-r}R, \epsilon) ; x \mapsto (x \otimes x)(\phi_{n-2r}).$$
The following are the definitions of $\epsilon$-symmetric, $\epsilon$-quadratic and $\epsilon$-(symmetric, quadratic) Poincaré pairs, which we shall need later on. The definitions that I include here are quoted from [@algpoinc]. A relevant concept in these definitions is that of algebraic mapping cone ${\mathcal{C}}(f)$ of $f: C \rightarrow D$, which is defined by $$d_{{\mathcal{C}}(f)}=\left(\begin{array}{cc} d_D & (-1)^{r-1}f \\ 0 & d_C \end{array} \right): {\mathcal{C}}(f)_r = D_r \oplus C_{r-1} \to {\mathcal{C}}(f)_{r-1} = D_{r-1} \oplus C_{r-2}.$$
An $(n+1)$-dimensional **$\epsilon$-symmetric** Poincaré pair over $R$ $$(f : C \to D, (\delta \phi, \phi))$$ consists of
- an $n$-dimensional $R$-module chain complex $C$,
- an $(n+1)$-dimensional $R$-module chain complex $D$,
- a chain map $f : C \to D,$
- a cycle $(\delta \phi, \phi) \in C(f^{\%} : W^{\%} C \to W^{\%}D)_{n+1} = (W^{\%}D)_{n+1} \oplus (W^{\%}C)_{n}$
such that the $R$-module chain map $D^{n+1-*} \to {\mathcal{C}}(f)$ defined by $$(\delta \phi, \phi)_0 = \left(\begin{array}{c} \delta \phi_0 \\ \phi_0 f^* \end{array} \right) : D^{n+1-r} \to {\mathcal{C}}(f)_r = D_r \oplus C_{r-1}$$ is a chain equivalence.
An $(n+1)$-dimensional **$\epsilon$-quadratic** Poincaré pair over $R$ $$(f : C \to D, (\delta \psi, \psi))$$ consists of
- an $n$-dimensional $R$-module chain complex $C$,
- an $(n+1)$-dimensional $R$-module chain complex $D$,
- a chain map $f : C \to D,$
- a cycle $(\delta \psi, \psi) \in C(f_{\%} : W_{\%} C \to W_{\%}D)_{n+1} = (W_{\%}D)_{n+1} \oplus (W_{\%}C)_{n}$
such that the $R$-module chain map $D^{n+1-*} \to {\mathcal{C}}(f)$ defined by $$(1+T_{\epsilon})(\delta \psi, \psi)_0 = \left(\begin{array}{c} (1+T_{\epsilon})\delta \psi_0 \\ (1+T_{\epsilon})\psi_0 f^* \end{array} \right) : D^{n+1-r} \to {\mathcal{C}}(f)_r = D_r \oplus C_{r-1}$$ is a chain equivalence.
An $(n+1)$-dimensional **$\epsilon$-(symmetric, quadratic)** Poincaré pair over $R$ $$(f : C \to D, (\delta \phi, \psi))$$ consists of
- an $n$-dimensional $R$-module chain complex $C$,
- an $(n+1)$-dimensional $R$-module chain complex $D$,
- a chain map $f : C \to D,$
- a cycle $(\delta \phi, \psi) \in C((1+T_{\epsilon})f_{\%} : W_{\%} C \to W^{\%}D)_{n+1} = (W^{\%}D)_{n+1} \oplus (W_{\%}C)_{n}$
such that the $R$-module chain map $D^{n+1-*} \to {\mathcal{C}}(f)$ defined by $$(\delta \phi, (1+T_{\epsilon})\psi)_0 = \left(\begin{array}{c} \delta \phi_0 \\ (1+T_{\epsilon})\psi_0 f^* \end{array} \right) : D^{n+1-r} \to {\mathcal{C}}(f)_r = D_r \oplus C_{r-1}$$ is a chain equivalence.
### A geometric application: the symmetric construction
In the geometric case $X$ will be a connected space with fundamental group $\pi_1(X) = \pi$ and ${\widetilde{X}}$ its universal cover. The ring will be $R= {\mathbb Z}[\pi]$ and the involution is defined by $$\overline{\color{White}{a}}~:~R \to R ; ~~ \sum_{g \in \pi} n_g g \mapsto \sum_{g \in \pi} n_g g^{-1}.$$ We set $\epsilon =1$, and write $T_{\epsilon}=T$ and $Q^{n}(C, \epsilon)= Q^n(C).$
The symmetric construction is described in detail in [@atsII]. Here we will give a brief summary of the construction together with the definition of symmetric $L$-theory, which is also described in detail in [@atsII]. In the geometric version, the $\epsilon$ from the previous section is $1$ and is left out of the notation of the $Q$-groups.
The diagonal map $\Delta : X \to X \times X$ was used by Lefschetz on the level of homology to identify the Poincaré duality isomorphisms of an oriented manifold with the intersection numbers of submanifolds. The Alexander-Whitney-Steenrod symmetric construction $\Delta:C(X)\to W^{\%}C(X)$ captures cup products, the Steenrod squares and the Pontryagin squares, and is the key to the symmetry properties of Poincaré duality. (There are analogues for primes $p \neq 2$ but only $p=2$ concerns us here.)
Given a CW complex $X$, let $C(X)$ be its singular chain complex of free ${\mathbb Z}$-modules.
(Eilenberg-Zilber) Let $X$ and $Y$ be topological spaces and let $X \times Y$ be the product space of both. There exists a natural chain homotopy equivalence $$EZ_0 : C(X \times Y) \simeq C(X) \otimes_{{\mathbb Z}} C(Y)$$ with natural higher chain homotopies $$EZ_i : C(X \times Y)_r \to (C(X) \otimes_{{\mathbb Z}} C(Y))_{r+i} ~~~ (i \geq 1)$$ such that $$\partial EZ_{i+1} + (-1)^{i} EZ_{i+1}\partial ~= ~ EZ_i ~T + (-1)^{i+1}T~ EZ_i : C(X \times Y)_r \to (C(X) \otimes_{{\mathbb Z}} C(Y))_{r+i} ~~ (i \geq 0),$$ where the transposition isomorphisms are $$T: X \times Y \to Y \times X; (x, y) \mapsto (y, x)$$ and $$T= T_1: C(X) \otimes_{{\mathbb Z}} C(Y) \to C(Y) \otimes_{{\mathbb Z}} C(X) ; x \otimes y \mapsto \pm y \otimes x$$
Note that $EZ_{i+1} : EZ_{i} \simeq T(EZ_i)$ is a chain homotopy, and that for $X=Y$ the collection of $\{ EZ_i \}$ defines a natural chain map $$EZ ~ : ~ C(X \times X) \to \textnormal{Hom}_{{\mathbb Z}[{\mathbb Z}_2]}(W, C(X) \otimes_{{\mathbb Z}} C(X)).$$
See [@Eilenberg-Zilber].
The diagonal maps on the chain complex level are induced by the diagonal map of a space $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta : X \to X \times X ; x \mapsto (x,x).\end{aligned}$$ This map has a $\pi_1(X)-$equivariant generalisation for the universal cover $\widetilde{X}$ of $X$. Writing $\pi = \pi_1(X)$ and $\pi \times \widetilde{X} \to \widetilde{X}, (g, \widetilde{x}) \mapsto g \widetilde{x} $, the generalisation is given by $$\widetilde{\Delta} / \pi : \widetilde{X} / \pi = X \to (\widetilde{X} \times \widetilde{X}) / \pi =(\widetilde{X} \times \widetilde{X}) / \left((x, y) \sim (gx, gy) \right) = (\widetilde{X} \times_{\pi} \widetilde{X}),$$ so that $$\xymatrix{ & \widetilde{X} \times_{\pi} \widetilde{X} \ar[dd] \\
X \ar[ur]^{\widetilde{\Delta}/ \pi } \ar[dr]_{\Delta}& \\
& X \times X}$$
From the diagonal map $X \to {\widetilde{X}}\times_{\pi} {\widetilde{X}}$ we get a ${\mathbb Z}[\pi]$-module chain map $$\Delta_* : C(X) \to C( {\widetilde{X}}\times_{\pi} {\widetilde{X}}).$$ Composing this map with the Eilenberg-Zilber map we obtain a chain equivalence $$EZ \circ \Delta_* :C(X) \to C( {\widetilde{X}}\times_{\pi} {\widetilde{X}}) \to C({\widetilde{X}})^t \otimes_{{\mathbb{Z}}[\pi]} C({\widetilde{X}}),$$ In general we take ${\mathbb Z}[\pi]$-modules to be left ${\mathbb Z}[\pi]$-modules. The superscript $t$ denotes the involution $\bar{g} = g^{-1}$ on ${\mathbb Z}[\pi]$ being used to define the transposition isomorphism which sends the left ${\mathbb Z}[\pi]$-module $C(\widetilde{X})$ to a right ${\mathbb Z}[\pi]$-module $C(\widetilde{X})^{t}$ in order to form the tensor product, $$\Delta_0: C({\widetilde{X}}) \to C({\widetilde{X}})^t \otimes_{{\mathbb{Z}}} C({\widetilde{X}}).$$ Tensoring with ${\mathbb{Z}}$ on the left we get $$\Delta_0 : {\mathbb{Z}} \otimes_{{\mathbb{Z}}[\pi]} C({\widetilde{X}}) \to {\mathbb{Z}} \otimes_{{\mathbb{Z}}[\pi]}( C({\widetilde{X}})^t \otimes_{{\mathbb{Z}}} C({\widetilde{X}})).$$ This is equivalent to a natural chain map $$\Delta_0 : C(X) \to C({\widetilde{X}})^t \otimes_{{\mathbb{Z}}[\pi]} C({\widetilde{X}})$$ which is the chain complex version of the map $X \to {\widetilde{X}}\times_{\pi} {\widetilde{X}}$ from the diagram above. This also has natural higher chain homotopies $$\Delta_i : C(X) \to (C(\widetilde{X})^t \otimes_{{\mathbb{Z}}[\pi]} C(\widetilde{X}))_{r+i} ~~ (i \geq 1)$$ such that $$\partial \Delta_{i+1} + (-1)^i \Delta_{i+1} \partial = (T+ (-1)^{i+1} ) \Delta_{i}: C(X)_r \to (C(\tilde{X})^t \otimes_{{\mathbb Z}[\pi]} C(\tilde{X}) )_{r+i}.$$
The map $\Delta_i : C(X) \to (C(\widetilde{X})^t \otimes_{{\mathbb{Z}}[\pi]} C(\widetilde{X}))_{r+i} ~~ (i \geq 1)$ is a chain homotopy between $\Delta_{i-1}$ and $T \Delta_{i-1}$, constructed by acyclic model theory. The symmetric construction is the natural chain map $$\phi_X= \{ \Delta_i \vert i \geq 0 \} : C(X) \to W^{\%}C({\widetilde{X}}) = \textnormal{Hom}_{{\mathbb{Z}}[{\mathbb{Z}}_2]} (W, C({\widetilde{X}})^t \otimes_{{\mathbb{Z}}[\pi]} C({\widetilde{X}}))$$ which induces group morphisms in $$\label{symmetric construction}
\phi_X : H_n(X) \to H_n( W^{\%}C({\widetilde{X}})) = Q^n(C({\widetilde{X}})).$$
Symmetric, quadratic and hyperquadratic $L$-theory
--------------------------------------------------
In the remainder of this chapter we shall give a summarized presentation of symmetric, quadratic and hyperquadratic $L$-theory. Here we only need to consider $\epsilon=1,$ although in the general theory $\epsilon = \pm 1$ is also allowed. The origin of these theories is the classical Witt group of symmetric bilinear forms over a field $k$, which were first introduced in [@Witt]. Quadratic Witt groups are the surgery obstruction groups introduced by Wall in [@Wall-book] (First published in 1970 and re-edited in 1999). Witt groups over a ring with involution were introduced in [@atsI].
We shall be dealing with left $R$-modules, where $R$ is a ring with involution. $\textnormal{Hom}_R(A, B)$ denotes the additive group of $R$-module morphisms $f: A \to B.$
As in Definition \[definition1\], the **dual $R$-module** of a module $V$ is $V^* \cong \textnormal{Hom}_R(V, R)$ with $R$ acting by $$R \times \textnormal{Hom}_R(V, R) \to \textnormal{Hom}_R (V, R) ; ~ (v, r) \mapsto (x \mapsto f(x). \overline{v})$$
$(V, \lambda)$ is a finitely generated free $R$-module $V$ with a morphism $\lambda: V \to V^*=\textnormal{Hom}_R(V, R)$.
The morphism $\lambda: V \to V^*$ can be expressed as pairing $\lambda: V \times V \to R$.
The form is $\epsilon$-symmetric if $\epsilon\overline{\lambda(x, y)} = \lambda(y, x) \in R$ for all $x, y \in V$. The form is symmetric if $\epsilon=1$ in this expression.
The form is **nonsingular** if $\lambda$ is an isomorphism and **nondegenerate** if $\lambda$ is injective.
A **Lagrangian subspace** of a symmetric form $(V, \lambda)$ is a subspace $L$ such that $\lambda(L, L)=0$ and $\textnormal{dim}(L)= (\frac{1}{2})\textnormal{dim}(V)$. A form which admits a Lagrangian is called **metabolic**.
Two nonsingular symmetric bilinear forms $(V,\lambda),(V',\lambda')$ are **Witt equivalent** if there exists an isomorphism $(V,\lambda) \oplus (U,\mu) \cong (V',\lambda') \oplus (U',\mu')$ with $(U,\mu),(U',\mu')$ forms which admit Lagrangians.
The **Witt group $L^0(R)$** over a ring with involution $R$ is the abelian group of Witt equivalence classes of nonsingular symmetric bilinear forms over $R$, with the group operation corresponding to the orthogonal direct sum of forms. A nonsingular symmetric form $(V, \lambda)$ over a ring $R$, with $V$ a f.g free $R$-module and $\lambda: V \times V \to R$, represents $0$ in the Witt group $L^0(R)$ if it contains a Lagrangian subspace.
Witt groups can also be defined for skew-symmetric forms, and for quadratic forms over a ring with involution $R$. $L^0(R)$ is the Witt group of non-singular symmetric forms over $R$. $L_0(R)$ is the Witt group of non-singular quadratic forms over $R$.
### Symmetric $L$-groups $L^*(R)$
Take $R$ to be a ring with involution. Then the symmetric $L$-group $L^n(R)$ is the abelian group of cobordism classes of $n$-dimensional symmetric complexes $(C, \phi)$ over $R$. Addition is given by direct sum.
The computation of the symmetric $L$-groups of ${\mathbb{Z}}$ which is given in the following definition will be particularly important for the rest of the thesis.
([@atsI]) The symmetric $L$-groups of ${\mathbb{Z}}$ are $4$-periodic $$L^n({\mathbb{Z}}) = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
{\mathbb{Z}} \textnormal{ (signature) } & \mbox{if } n \equiv 0 \pmod{4} \\
{\mathbb{Z}}_2 \textnormal{ (de Rham invariant) } & \mbox{if } n \equiv 1 \pmod{4} \\
0 & \mbox{if } n \equiv 2 \pmod{4} \\
0 & \mbox{if } n \equiv 3 \pmod{4} \\
\end{array}
\right.$$ for $n \geq 0.$
We shall also deal with the $L$-groups of chain complexes over ${\mathbb{Z}}[\pi_1(X)]$. The symmetric signature of Mishchenko [@Mishchenko] is defined for an $n$-dimensional geometric Poincaré complex $X$ by the symmetric Poincaré cobordism class $$\sigma^*(X) = (C({\widetilde{X}}), \phi_X) \in L^n({\mathbb{Z}}[\pi_1(X)]).$$
### Quadratic $L$-groups $L_*(R)$
The cobordism group of $n$-dimensional quadratic complexes over a ring with involution $R$ is denoted by $L_n(R).$ These groups are the surgery obstruction groups of Wall. We shall give no further details about them here apart from the computation over ${\mathbb Z},$ and refer the reader to [@Ker-Mil; @Wall-book; @atsI; @atsII] for an extensive treatment.
It is proved in [@atsII] that the quadratic $L$-groups are $4$-periodic, that is, there is an isomorphism $$L_n(R) \xrightarrow{\cong} L_{n+4}(R).$$ With the definitions in [@atsI; @atsII], the symmetric $L$-groups are in general not $4$-periodic, although there are morphisms $$\bar{S}^2 : L^n(R) \to L^{n+4}(R) \textnormal{~(double skew-suspension)~}$$ and $$1+T : L_n(R) \to L^n(R) \textnormal{~(symmetrization)~}$$ which are isomorphisms modulo $8$-torsion for all $n \geq 0$.
The quadratic $L$-groups over ${\mathbb{Z}}$ are given by $$L_n({\mathbb{Z}}) =
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
{\mathbb{Z}} \textnormal{ (signature/8) } & \mbox{if } n \equiv 0 \pmod{4} \\
0 & \mbox{if } n \equiv 1 \pmod{4} \\
{\mathbb{Z}}_2 \textnormal{ (Arf invariant) } & \mbox{if } n \equiv 2 \pmod{4} \\
0& \mbox{if } n \equiv 3 \pmod{4} \\
\end{array}
\right.$$
### The hyperquadratic $L$-groups $\widehat{L}^*(R)$
The symmetric, quadratic and hyperquadratic $L$-groups are related by an exact sequence $$\dots \longrightarrow L_n(R) \overset{1+T}{\longrightarrow} L^n(R) \overset{J}{\longrightarrow} \widehat{L}^n(R) \overset{\partial}{\longrightarrow} L_{n-1}(R) \longrightarrow \dots,$$ where $T$ is the involution and $1+T$ is the symmetrization map. The symmetrization maps $1+T: L_{*}(R) \to L^*(R)$ are isomorphisms modulo $8$ torsion, so that the hyperquadratic $L$-groups $\widehat{L}^*(R)$ are $8$-torsion groups.
Recall that $L^0(Z)$ is the Witt group of nonsingular symmetric forms over ${\mathbb Z}$ and is isomorphic to ${\mathbb Z}$, the isomorphism given by the signature, and $\widehat{L}^0(Z) \cong {\mathbb Z}_8$ with the isomorphism given by the hyperquadratic signature. The map $J: L^0({\mathbb{Z}}) \longrightarrow \widehat{L}^0({\mathbb{Z}})$ sends a form $(F, \phi)$ to $\phi (v, v)$, where $v \in F$ is a characteristic element, that is an element such that for any $u \in F$ it holds that $$\phi(u, u) = \phi(u, v) \in {\mathbb{Z}}_2.$$
The map $\partial: \widehat{L}^{n}(R) \to L^{n}(R)$ is the boundary map. This boundary is described great detail for low dimensions in [@BanRan page 546].
The hyperquadratic $L$-groups can be interpreted as the **relative group** in this exact sequence. This interpretation gives rise to definition \[hyper\].
\[hyper\] The hyperquadratic $L$-groups $\widehat{L}^n(R)$ are the cobordism groups of $n$-dimensional (symmetric, quadratic) Poincaré pairs $(f: C \to D, (\delta \phi, \psi))$ over a ring with involution $R$ such that the $R$-module chain map $$(\delta \phi_0, (1+T) \psi_0): D^{n-*} \rightarrow {\mathcal{C}}(f)$$ is a chain equivalence.
As we shall see, the $\widehat{L}$-groups can also be defined as cobordism groups of algebraic normal complexes $(C, \phi, \gamma, \theta)$. We will come back to this definition after introducing chain bundle structures.
In general the symmetric and hyperquadratic $L$-groups $L^*(R)$ and $\widehat{L}^*(R)$ are not $4$-periodic. Nevertheless, they are $4$-periodic in their simply-connected version, that is when $R= {\mathbb{Z}}$. The computation of the various simply-connected $L$-groups is given in Proposition 4.3.1 in [@exactseqRan].
The hyperquadratic $L$-groups over ${\mathbb{Z}}$ are given by $$\widehat{L}^n({\mathbb{Z}}) =
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
{\mathbb{Z}}_8 \textnormal{ (signature$\pmod{8}$) } & \mbox{if } n \equiv 0 \pmod{4} \\
{\mathbb{Z}}_2 \textnormal{ (de Rham invariant) } & \mbox{if } n \equiv 1 \pmod{4} \\
0 & \mbox{if } n \equiv 2 \pmod{4} \\
{\mathbb{Z}}_2 \textnormal{ (Arf invariant) }& \mbox{if } n \equiv 3 \pmod{4} \\
\end{array}
\right.$$
Other computations of $L$-groups that will be relevant in chapter 2 are the algebraic $L$-groups of $R= {\mathbb Z}_2$,
$$\begin{aligned}
L_n({\mathbb{Z}}_2) = &
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
{\mathbb{Z}}_2 \textnormal{ (Arf invariant) } & \mbox{if } n \equiv 0 \pmod{2} \\
0 & \mbox{if } n \equiv 1 \pmod{2} \\
\end{array}
\right. \\
L^n({\mathbb{Z}}_2) = &
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
{\mathbb{Z}}_2 \textnormal{ (rank$\pmod{2}$) } & \mbox{if } n \equiv 0 \pmod{2} \\
0 & \mbox{if } n \equiv 1 \pmod{2} \\
\end{array}
\right. \\
\widehat{L}^n({\mathbb Z}_2) = & {\mathbb Z}_2.\end{aligned}$$
with $1+T =0 : L_n({\mathbb Z}_2) \to L^n({\mathbb Z}_2).$
Normal complexes
----------------
An $n$-dimensional geometric Poincaré complex $X$ is a space with the homotopy type of a finite $CW$ complex which satisfies Poincaré duality, that is, it has a fundamental class $[X] \in H_n(X)$ such there is an isomorphism given by the cap product, $$[X] \cap - : H^* ({\widetilde{X}}) \to H_{n-*}({\widetilde{X}}),$$ where ${\widetilde{X}}$ is the universal cover of $X.$ Geometric Poincaré complexes were defined by Wall in [@pcx-wall].
Let $G(j)$ denote the set of homotopy equivalences of $S^{j-1}$ with the compact-open topology. $BG(j)$ classifies homotopy $S^{j-1}$-bundles and $BSG(j)$ classifies oriented homotopy $S^{j-1}$-bundles. (These bundles are also called “spherical fibrations").
If $X$ is an $n$-dimensional geometric Poincaré complex, a regular neighbourhood $N$ of an embedding $X \subset R^{n+j}$ ($j$ large) determines the Spivak normal fibration $$\nu_X ~:~ (D^j,S^{j-1}) \to (N,\partial N) \to X$$ which has a classifying map $$\nu_X : X \to BSG(j)$$ See [@Spivak].
The geometric Poincaré complex $X$ has a Spivak normal structure $$(\nu_X: X \to BSG(j), \rho_X : S^{n+j} \to T(\nu_X)),$$ where $T(\nu_X)= N / \partial N$ denotes the Thom space of $\nu_X.$
An $n$-dimensional *normal* complex $X$ is a space with the homotopy type of a finite $CW$ complex together with a spherical fibration $\nu_X : X \to BSG(j)$ and a map $\rho_X : S^{n+j} \to T(\nu_X)$. The map $\rho_X$ determines a stable homotopy class $$\rho_X \in \pi_{n+j}^s(T(\nu_X)) = \lim_{\underset{k}{\longrightarrow}} \pi_{n+j+k}(\Sigma^k T(\nu_X)).$$ The Hurewicz image of $\rho_X \in \pi_{n+j}^s(T(\nu_X))$ is called the fundamental class $[X] \in H_n(X)\cong H_{n+j}(T(\nu_X))$, but the cap product does not necessarily give an isomorphism.
Normal complexes were defined by Quinn in [@Quinn-normal].
A $4k$-dimensional normal complex $X$ has both a signature $\sigma^*(X) \in {\mathbb Z}$, which is the signature of the symmetric form $$\begin{array}{rl}
H^{2k}(X) / torsion \times H^{2k}(X) / torsion & \to {\mathbb Z}; \\
(x, y) & \mapsto \langle x \cup y, [X] \rangle,
\end{array}$$ and a normal signature $\widehat{\sigma}^*(X) \in \widehat{L}^{4k}({\mathbb Z})={\mathbb Z}_8$. Both these signatures are homotopy invariants. If $X$ is Poincaré the normal signature is the mod $8$ reduction of the signature. In general this is not case, see [@Mod8].
### Chain bundles and algebraic normal complexes {#chain-bundles}
As mentioned before, the $\widehat{L}$-groups can also be defined as the cobordism groups of normal complexes $(C, \phi, \gamma, \theta)$. In the first place we need to define what is meant by a chain bundle structure on a symmetric complex. References giving a detailed exposition of the algebraic theory of chain complexes and chain bundle theory are [@atsI], [@exactseqRan], [@bluebook], [@algpoinc], [@Weiss-Ker]. Here we will summarize the main definitions.
A **chain bundle** over a finite dimensional chain complex $C$ is a $0$-dimensional hyperquadratic structure $$\gamma \in (\widehat{W}^{\%} C^{0-*})_0.$$
An algebraic **normal structure** $(\gamma, \theta)$ on an $n$-dimensional symmetric complex $(C, \phi)$ is a chain bundle $\gamma \in (\widehat{W}^{\%}C^{0-*})$ together with an equivalence of $n$-dimensional hyperquadratic structures on $C$, $$\theta : J(\phi) \to (\widehat{\phi}_0)^{\%}(S^n \gamma)$$ as defined by a chain $\theta \in (\widehat{W}^{\%}C)_{n+1}$ such that $$J(\phi) - (\widehat{\phi}_0)^{\%}(S^n \gamma) = d \theta \in (\widehat{W}^{\%}C)_{n}$$
An algebraic normal complex $(C, \phi, \gamma, \theta)$ is a symmetric complex $(C, \phi)$ together with a chain bundle structure $(\gamma, \theta),$ where $(\gamma, \theta)$ are as defined above.
Each $n$-dimensional symmetric *Poincaré* complex $(C, \phi)$ has a unique equivalence class of normal structures $(\gamma, \theta)$. The image of the equivalence class of symmetric structures $[\phi] \in Q^n(C)$ under the composition $$Q^n(C) \xrightarrow{J} \widehat{Q}^n(C) \xrightarrow{((\widehat{\phi}_0)^{\%})^{-1}} \widehat{Q}^n(C^{n-*}) \xrightarrow{(S^n)^{-1}} \widehat{Q}^0(C^{0-*})$$ is the equivalence class of bundles $[\gamma] \in \widehat{Q}^0(C^{0-*}).$
The Wu classes of the chain bundle $(C, \gamma)$ over a ring with involution $R$ are $R$-module morphisms, $$\begin{aligned}
v_r(\gamma) : H_r(C) & \rightarrow \widehat{H}^r({\mathbb{Z}}_2, R) \\
(x : S^rR \to C) & \mapsto \gamma_{-2r}(x)(x).\end{aligned}$$
### (Symmetric, quadratic) pairs and normal complexes
The one-one correspondence between $n$-dimensional algebraic normal complexes and the homotopy classes of $n$-dimensional (symmetric, quadratic) Poincaré pairs is carefully described in [@algpoinc section 7]
An $n$-dimensional normal complex $(C, \phi, \gamma, \theta)$ determines an $n$-dimensional (symmetric, quadratic) Poincaré pair $(\partial C \to C^{n-*}, (\delta \phi, \psi))$ with $\partial C = \mathcal{C}(\phi_0 : C^{n-*} \to C)_{*+1} $ Conversely, an $n$-dimensional (symmetric, quadratic) Poincaré pair $(f: C \to D, (\delta \phi, \psi))$ determines an $n$-dimensional algebraic normal complex $(\mathcal{C}(f), \phi, \gamma, \theta)$ with $\gamma \in \widehat{Q}^0(\mathcal{C}(f)^{-*})$.\
From this one-one correspondence it can be deduced that there are two alternative definitions of the hyperquadratic $L$-groups over a ring with involution $R$.
Let $R$ be a ring with involution. The hyperquadratic $L$-group $\widehat{L}^n(R)$ can be defined in one two equivalent ways,
- the cobordism group of $n$-dimensional algebraic normal complexes $(C, \phi, \gamma, \theta)$ over $R$,
- the cobordism group of $n$-dimensional (symmetric, quadratic) Poincaré pairs over $R$.
### Classifying chain bundle over a ring $R$ with involution
Chain bundles $\gamma$ over a chain complex $(C, \gamma)$ over a ring with involution $R$ are classified by the $R$-module chain maps $f: C \rightarrow B(\infty)$ and $\chi: \gamma \rightarrow \beta(\infty)$. Here $(B(\infty), \beta(\infty))$ is the universal chain bundle and thus has the property that the Wu classes give $R$-module isomorphisms, $$v_r(\beta(\infty)): H_r(B(\infty)) \xrightarrow{\cong} \widehat{H}^r({\mathbb{Z}}_2, R).$$
The universal chain bundle over a ring $R$ has the property that $$H_0(\textnormal{Hom}_{{\mathbb{Z}}}(C, B(\infty))) \to \widehat{Q}^0(C^{-*})$$ is an isomorphism for any finite dimensional chain complex $C$.
In particular if $R = {\mathbb{Z}}$, then the universal chain bundle $(B(\infty), \beta(\infty))$ is defined by
$$d_{B(\infty)} =
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
2 & \mbox{if } r \textnormal{ is odd} \\
0 & \mbox{if } r \textnormal{ is even} \\
\end{array}
\right. : B(\infty)_r = {\mathbb{Z}} \to B(\infty)_{r-1} = {\mathbb{Z}},$$ That is, the universal chain bundle over ${\mathbb{Z}}$ is given by $$B(\infty): \dots \rightarrow B_{2k+2} = {\mathbb{Z}} \xrightarrow{0} B_{2k+2} = {\mathbb{Z}} \xrightarrow{2}B_{2k} = {\mathbb{Z}} \xrightarrow{0} B_{2k-1} = {\mathbb{Z}} \rightarrow \dots$$ and $$\beta(\infty)_s =
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
1 & \mbox{if } 2r = s \\
0 & \textnormal{otherwise} \\
\end{array}
\right. : B(\infty)_{r-s} = {\mathbb{Z}} \to B(\infty)^{-r} = {\mathbb{Z}}.$$
A **normal $(B, \beta)$-structure**, $(\gamma, \theta, f, \chi)$, on an $n$-dimensional symmetric complex $(C, \phi)$ is a normal structure $(\gamma, \theta)$ together with a chain bundle map, $$(f, \chi): (C, \gamma) \longrightarrow (B, \beta).$$
Note that in the previous definition $(B, \beta)$ is not assumed to be the universal chain bundle.
([@Weiss-Ker]) The **$\langle B, \beta \rangle$-structure $L$-groups $L\left<B, \beta \right>^n (R)$** are the cobordism groups of $n$-dimensional $\langle B, \beta \rangle$-normal complexes $(C, \phi, \gamma, \theta, f, \chi)$ over $R$.
The quadratic $L$-groups and the $(B, \beta)$-structure $L$-groups fit into an exact sequence $$\dots \to L_n(R) \to L\left<B, \beta \right>^n(R) \to \widehat{L}\left<B, \beta \right>^n(R) \to L_{n-1}(R) \to \dots$$
### Twisted $Q$-groups
An **$n$-dimensional symmetric structure $(\phi, \theta)$** on a chain bundle $(C, \gamma)$ is an $n$-dimensional symmetric structure $\phi \in (W^{\%}C)_n$ together with an equivalence of $n$-dimensional hyperquadratic structures on $C$, $$\theta : J(\phi) \to (\widehat{\phi}_0)^{\%}(S^n \gamma)$$ as defined by a chain $\theta \in (\widehat{W}^{\%}C)_{n+1}$ such that $$J(\phi) - (\widehat{\phi}_0)^{\%}(S^n \gamma) = d \theta \in (\widehat{W}^{\%}C)_{n}$$
An equivalence of $n$-dimensional symmetric structures on $(C, \gamma)$ is defined by an equivalence of symmetric structures together with an equivalence of hyperquadratic structures on $C$.
([@algpoinc page 24]) The **twisted quadratic $Q$-group $Q_n(C, \gamma)$** is the abelian group of equivalence classes of $n$-dimensional symmetric structures on a chain bundle $(C, \gamma)$.
The twisted quadratic $Q$-groups fit into an exact sequence $$\begin{array}{rcccccccc} \dots \widehat{Q}^{n+1}(C) & \longrightarrow & Q_n(C, \gamma) & \overset{N_{\gamma}}{\longrightarrow} & Q^n(C) & \overset{J_{\gamma}}{\longrightarrow} & \widehat{Q}^n(C) & \overset{H_{\gamma}}{\longrightarrow} Q_{n-1}(C, \gamma) & \longrightarrow \dots \\
& & (\phi, \theta) & \longmapsto & \phi & \longmapsto & {\tiny J(\phi)- (\phi_0)^{\%}(S^n \gamma)} & & \\
\theta & \longmapsto &(0, \theta) & && & \\
\end{array}$$ In the untwisted case, that is with $\gamma = 0$, we have the usual exact sequence of $Q$-groups, $$\dots \longrightarrow Q_n(C) \overset{1+T}{\longrightarrow} Q^n(C) \overset{J}{\longrightarrow} \widehat{Q}^n(C) \overset{H}{\longrightarrow} Q_{n-1}(C) \longrightarrow \dots$$
The class $(\phi, \theta) \in Q_n(\mathcal{C}(f), \gamma)$ is the **algebraic normal invariant** of\
$(f: C \to D, (\delta \phi, \psi))$.
An $n$-dimensional normal space $(X, \nu_X, \rho_X)$ determines a cycle for a chain bundle $\gamma(\nu)$ and a cycle for an element $(\phi, \theta)$, hence defining an algebraic normal complex $(C(X), \phi, \gamma(\nu_X), \theta(X))$. An oriented spherical fibration $\nu_X : X \to BSG$ determines an equivalence class of chain bundles $(C(X), \gamma(\nu))$ over ${\mathbb Z}$.
The Wu classes of the chain bundle $v_{r}(\gamma (\nu)) \in H_{r}(X ; \mathbb{Z}_2) \to \mathbb{Z}_2$ correspond to the usual Wu classes $v_{r}(\nu) \in H_{r}(X ; \mathbb{Z}_2)$, and the symmetric construction extends to the following commutative diagram, $$\xymatrix{
& \rho_X \in \pi_{n+j}(M(\nu)) \ar[d] \ar[r]^{\hspace{-15pt}Hurewicz} &\dot{H}_{n+j}(M(\nu)) = H_{n}(X)\ar[d]^{\textnormal{\textit{symmetric construction}}} & \\
& (\phi, \theta) = \rho_{\gamma} \in Q_{n}(C(X), \gamma(\nu)) \ar[r] & \hspace{5pt} Q^{n}(C(X)) \\
}$$
\[Proposition: Weiss\] ([@Weiss-Ker Proposition 6.6]) The homomorphism $$\widehat{L} \langle B(\infty), \beta(\infty) \rangle^n(R) \overset{\cong}{\longrightarrow} Q_n(B(\infty), \beta(\infty))$$ is an isomorphism for $n \geq 0$.
An element $(C, \phi, \gamma, \theta, g, \chi) \in \widehat{L}\langle B, \beta \rangle^n (R)$ is an $n$-dimensional algebraic normal complex, i.e. an $n$-dimensional symmetric complex $(C, \phi)$ with a normal $(B, \beta)$-structure $(\gamma, \theta)$, where $$\gamma \in (\widehat{W}^{\%} C^{0-*})_0$$ is a chain bundle, and $$\theta \in (\widehat{W}^{\%} C)_{n+1} \textnormal{}$$ is and equivalence of $n$-dimensional hyperquadratic structures on $C$, $$\theta: J(\phi) \rightarrow (\widehat{\phi}_0)^{\%}(S^n \gamma),$$ and $(g, \chi)$ is a chain bundle map, such that $g: C \rightarrow B$ and $\chi : \gamma \rightarrow \beta$.\
This chain bundle map $$(g, \chi) : (C, \gamma) \rightarrow (B, \beta)$$ induces a map in the twisted $Q$-groups $$(g, \chi)_{\%} : Q_n(C, \gamma) \rightarrow Q_n (B, \beta).$$
The map $\widehat{L}\langle B, \beta \rangle^n (R) \rightarrow Q_n (B, \beta) $ sends $(C, \phi, \gamma, \theta, g, \chi)$ to $(g, \chi)_{\%} (\phi, \theta)$.\
\
Now suppose that $[(\phi, \theta)] \in Q_n (B, \beta) $ so that, $$\begin{aligned}
Q_n (B, \beta) \longrightarrow & \widehat{L}\langle B, \beta \rangle^n (R) \\
[(\phi, \theta)] \longmapsto & (B, \phi, \gamma, \theta, Id, Id).\end{aligned}$$
Consequently the following composition of maps gives the identity, $$\xymatrix{
Q_n (B, \beta) \ar[r] \ar@/^2pc/[rr]^{Id} &
\widehat{L}\langle B, \beta \rangle^n (R) \ar[r] &
Q_n (B, \beta) &
}$$ $$\hspace{80pt}[(\phi, \theta)] \longmapsto (B, \phi, \gamma, \theta, Id, Id) \mapsto (Id, Id)_{\%}(\phi, \theta) = (\phi, \theta). \hspace{20pt}$$
Furthermore we can also consider the composite, $$\widehat{L}\langle B, \beta \rangle^n (R) \longrightarrow
Q_n (B, \beta) \longrightarrow \widehat{L}\langle B, \beta \rangle^n (R).$$ Start by considering an element in $\widehat{L}\langle B, \beta \rangle^n (R) $, say $(C, \phi, \gamma, \theta, g, \chi) \in \widehat{L}\langle B, \beta \rangle^n (R)$, so that, $$\begin{aligned}
\widehat{L}\langle B, \beta \rangle^n (R) & \longrightarrow Q_n (B, \beta) \\
(C, \phi, \gamma, \theta, g, \chi) & \longmapsto (g, \chi)_{\%}(\phi, \theta).\end{aligned}$$ Composition of maps gives, $$\begin{aligned}
\widehat{L}\langle B, \beta \rangle^n (R) & \longrightarrow
Q_n (B, \beta) \longrightarrow \widehat{L}\langle B, \beta \rangle^n (R) \\
(C, \phi, \gamma, \theta, g, \chi) & \mapsto (g, \chi)_{\%}(\phi, \theta) \mapsto (B, g(\phi), \gamma, g(\theta), Id, Id).\end{aligned}$$
Here the map $g: C \rightarrow B$ can be suitably chosen so that $(C, \phi, \gamma, \theta, g, \chi)$ and $(B, g(\phi), \gamma, g(\theta), Id, Id)$ are cobordant, because $(g, \chi)$ is a normal map between them. The fact that they belong to the same cobordism class means that they represent the same element in the group $\widehat{L}\langle B, \beta \rangle^n (R)$, and hence the composition $\widehat{L}\langle B, \beta \rangle^n (R) \longrightarrow Q_n (B, \beta) \longrightarrow \widehat{L}\langle B, \beta \rangle^n (R)$ is again the identity.
The symmetric $(B, \beta)$-structure $\widehat{L}$-groups $\widehat{L}\langle B, \beta \rangle^n ({\mathbb{Z}})$ are the cobordism groups of $n$-dimensional $(B, \beta)$-normal complexes over ${\mathbb{Z}}$. For the universal chain bundle $(B(\infty), \beta(\infty))$ over ${\mathbb{Z}}$, $$\widehat{L}\langle B, \beta \rangle^n ({\mathbb{Z}}) = \widehat{L}^n ({\mathbb{Z}}).$$ Hence there is an isomorphism, $$\widehat{L}^n ({\mathbb{Z}}) \cong Q_n(B, \beta),$$ where $(B, \beta)$ is the universal chain bundle over ${\mathbb Z}$.
For $n \geq 0$, there is **a $(v_{n+1}=0)-$universal chain bundle** over a ring with involution $R$ $(B\langle n+1 \rangle, \beta \langle n+1 \rangle)$ which is defined by the following properties,
- The map $v_r(\beta \langle n+1 \rangle) : H_r(B\langle n+1 \rangle) \to \widehat{H}^r({\mathbb Z}_2; R)$ is an isomorphism for $r \neq n+1,$
- $H_{n+1}(B \langle n+1 \rangle)= 0.$
\[v\_n+1\]([@algpoinc]) The $(v_{n+1}=0)$-symmetric $L$-groups of ring with involution $R$ are defined as $$L\langle v_{n+1}\rangle^m (R)= L\langle B\langle n+1 \rangle, \beta \langle n+1 \rangle \rangle^m(R) \textnormal{ with } m \geq 0.$$
### Twisted $Q$-groups and the mod $8$ signature of a normal complex {#Twisted-Q-groups}
In this section we discuss an expression for the mod $8$ signature in terms of the symmetric and hyperquadratic structures (See Theorem \[sign-theta\]). We shall need this theorem in the proof of Proposition \[signature-Psq\]. First we shall give some definitions that will be relevant for the proof of \[sign-theta\].
([@Mod8]) \[chain bundle\] With $k \geq 0$ and $m \geq 1$, the chain bundle over ${\mathbb{Z}}$ $$(B(k, m), \beta(k, m)) = {\mathcal{C}}(d, \chi)$$ is the algebraic mapping cone ${\mathcal{C}}(d, \chi)$ of the chain bundle map $$(d, \chi): (B(k, m)_{2k+1}, 0) \to (B(k,m)_{2k}, \delta),$$ where both $B(k, m)_{2k+1}$ and $B(k, m)_{2k}$ are regarded as chain complexes concentrated in degree $2k$, and $$\begin{array}{cc}
d = 2m :B(k, m)_{2k+1}= {\mathbb Z}& \to B(k, m)_{2k}={\mathbb Z}\\
\chi= 2m^2: B(k, m)_{2k+1} = {\mathbb Z}& \to B(k, m)^{2k}= {\mathbb Z}\end{array}$$
The universal bundle over ${\mathbb{Z}}$ can be expressed as $$(B(\infty), \beta(\infty)) = \sum^{\infty}_ {k=0} (B(k, 1), \beta(k, 1)),$$ with $k \geq 0$. This is a consequence of the definitions of chain bundle and universal chain bundle.
In the proof of Proposition \[signature-Psq\] we shall also need the following result which is proved in [@BanRan].
\[theta-and-Z8\] ([@BanRan Proposition 52, Corollary 61]) The $4k$-dimensional $Q$-group of $(B(k, 1), \beta(k, 1))$ is given by the isomorphism $$\begin{aligned}
Q_{4k}(B(k, 1), \beta(k, 1))& \xrightarrow{\cong} {\mathbb{Z}}_8 \\
(\phi, \theta) & \mapsto \phi_0(1,1) + 2 \phi_1(1, 1) + 4 \theta_{-2}(1,1).\end{aligned}$$
The proof of Proposition \[signature-Psq\] will be a direct consequence of the following theorem.
\[sign-theta\] ([@Mod8]) The mod $8$ signature of a $4k$-dimensional normal complex over ${\mathbb{Z}}$, $(C, \phi, \gamma, \theta)$, is given by $$\widehat{\sigma}(C, \phi, \gamma, \theta) = \phi_0(v, v) + 2 \phi_1(v, u) + 4 \theta_{-2}(u, u) \in Q_{4k}(B(k, 1), \beta(k, 1)) = {\mathbb{Z}}_8$$ with $(u,v) \in H_0(\textnormal{Hom}_{{\mathbb{Z}}}(C, B(k,1)))$ $$\xymatrix{
C_{2k+1} \ar[r]^{\hspace{-25pt}u} \ar[d]^{d} & B(k, 1)_{2k+1}= {\mathbb{Z}} \ar[d]^2\\
C_{2k} \ar[r]^{\hspace{-25pt}v} & B(k, 1)_{2k}= {\mathbb{Z}}}$$ a chain map representing the $2k$-th Wu class $v_{2k} \in H^{2k}(C ; {\mathbb{Z}}_2).$
The chain bundle $(C, \gamma)$ is classified by a chain bundle map $$(f, \chi): (C, \gamma) \to (B(\infty), \beta(\infty))$$ such that $${\small
\xymatrix{
\txt{$C$} \ar[dr]_f \ar@{->}[rr]^{v_{2k}(\gamma)}
&
&\txt{$B(k, 1)$}\\
&\txt { $B(\infty) = \sum\limits_{k=0}^{\infty} B(k, 1)$}\ar[ur]}}$$
The inclusion$$(B(k, 1), \beta(k, 1)) \to (B(\infty), \beta(\infty))$$ is a chain equivalence so it induces an isomorphism in the twisted $Q$-groups, $$\label{iso-Q}
Q_{4k}(B(k, 1), \beta(k, 1)) \xrightarrow{\cong} Q_{4k}(B(\infty), \beta(\infty)).$$ In [@Weiss-Ker Proposition 6.6] and [@BanRan Proposition 46] there is described an isomorphism $$Q_{4k}(B, \beta) \xrightarrow{\cong} \widehat{L}^{4k}\langle B, \beta \rangle({\mathbb{Z}}),$$ and for the universal chain bundle $(B(\infty), \beta(\infty))$ over ${\mathbb{Z}}$, the symmetric $(B, \beta)$ structure $\widehat{L}$-groups $\widehat{L}^{4k}\langle B(\infty), \beta(\infty) \rangle ({\mathbb{Z}})$ are just the hyperquadratic $L$-groups, $$\widehat{L}^{4k}\langle B(\infty), \beta(\infty) \rangle ({\mathbb{Z}}) = \widehat{L}^{4k}({\mathbb{Z}}),$$ so using the isomorphism in we have that $$Q_{4k}(B(k, 1), \beta(k, 1)) \xrightarrow{\cong} Q_{4k}(B(\infty), \beta(\infty)) \xrightarrow{\cong} \widehat{L}^{4k}({\mathbb{Z}})= {\mathbb{Z}}_8.$$ Hence an element $\widehat{\sigma}(C, \phi, \gamma, \theta) \in \widehat{L}^{4k}({\mathbb{Z}})$ also represents an element in $Q_{4k}(B(k, 1), \beta(k, 1)) \xrightarrow{\cong} {\mathbb{Z}}_8$, $$\widehat{\sigma}(C, \phi, \gamma, \theta) \in Q_{4k}(B(k, 1), \beta(k, 1)) \xrightarrow{\cong} {\mathbb{Z}}_8.$$
By Theorem \[theta-and-Z8\] we know that the $4k$-dimensional $Q$-group of $(B(k, 1), \beta(k, 1))$ is given by the isomorphism $$\begin{aligned}
Q_{4k}(B(k, 1), \beta(k, 1))& \xrightarrow{\cong} {\mathbb{Z}}_8 \\
(\phi, \theta) & \mapsto \phi_0(1,1) + 2 \phi_1(1, 1) + 4 \theta_{-2}(1,1)\end{aligned}$$ and the Wu class $v_{2k}(\gamma) : C \to B(k, 1)$ can be represented as $(u, v) \in H^{2k}(C, {\mathbb{Z}}_2)$ with $v \in C^{2k}$ and $u \in \textnormal{Ker}(d^* : C^{2k} \to C^{2k+1})$ such that $$d^*(v) = 2u \in C^{2k+1}.$$ So there is an induced map, $$\begin{array}{ccl}
Q_{4k}(C, \gamma ) & \xrightarrow{\left((u, v), \chi \right)^\%} & Q_{4k}(B(k, 1), \beta(k, 1)) \\
(\phi, \theta) & \longmapsto & \left((u, v), \chi \right)^\%(\phi, \theta) = \phi_0 (v, v) + 2 \phi_1(v, u) + 4 \theta_{-2}(u, u),
\end{array}$$ so that, $$\widehat{\sigma}(C, \phi, \gamma, \theta) = \phi_0(v, v) + 2 \phi_1(v, u) + 4 \theta_{-2}(u, u) \in Q_{4k}(B(k, 1), \beta(k, 1)) = {\mathbb{Z}}_8.$$
Arf and Brown-Kervaire invariants in algebra {#Arf-BK}
============================================
Quadratic enhancements
----------------------
In this chapter $(V, \lambda)$ will denote a nonsingular symmetric bilinear form over ${\mathbb Z}_2.$ $(V, \lambda)$ is **isotropic** if $\lambda(x,x) = 0 \in {\mathbb Z}_2$ for all $x \in V,$ and **anisotropic** otherwise. There are two indecomposable forms over ${\mathbb Z}_2$, $$P=({\mathbb Z}_2, 1) \textnormal{\hspace{3pt} and \hspace{3pt} } H =\left({\mathbb Z}_2 \oplus {\mathbb Z}_2, \left(
\begin{matrix}
0& 1 \\
1 & 0 \\
\end{matrix}
\right) \right),$$
- $P$ is anisotropic, $H$ is isotropic, so $P \oplus P \ncong H.$
- $H$ has complementary lagrangians ${\mathbb Z}_2 \oplus 0$ and $0 \oplus {\mathbb Z}_2.$
- The form $P \oplus P \cong \left({\mathbb Z}_2 \oplus {\mathbb Z}_2, \left( \begin{matrix}
0& 1 \\
1 & 1 \\
\end{matrix}
\right) \right)$ has a lagrangian $\{(x,x ) \in {\mathbb Z}_2 \oplus {\mathbb Z}_2 \vert x \in {\mathbb Z}_2\}$ without a lagrangian complement.
The following result is well known.
\[form-decomposition\] Every $(V, \lambda)$ decomposes as an orthogonal direct sum of copies of $$P=({\mathbb Z}_2, 1) \textnormal{\hspace{3pt} and \hspace{3pt} } H =\left({\mathbb Z}_2 \oplus {\mathbb Z}_2, \left(
\begin{matrix}
0& 1 \\
1 & 0 \\
\end{matrix}
\right) \right),$$ that is, $$(V, \lambda) = \bigoplus_{p} P \oplus \bigoplus_{k}H.$$
For every non-zero element $x \in V$, either $\lambda(x,x)=0 \in {\mathbb Z}_2$ or $\lambda(x,x)= 1 \in {\mathbb Z}_2$. If $\lambda(x,x)=1 \in {\mathbb Z}_2$ have $(V,\lambda) = (\langle x \rangle,1) \oplus (\langle x \rangle^{\perp}/\langle x \rangle,[\lambda])$. We can then repeat the process of splitting off anisotropic subspaces (i.e with $\lambda(a, a)=1\in {\mathbb Z}_2$) until we are left with an isotropic subspace, that is, a subspace with $\lambda(b,b)=0 \in {\mathbb Z}_2$.
With $(V, \lambda)$ as in the previous proposition, there is an isomorphism in symmetric $L$-theory given by, $$\begin{aligned}
L^0({\mathbb Z}_2) \longrightarrow & {\mathbb Z}_2 \\
(V, \lambda) \longmapsto & \hspace{2pt} p \hspace{-5pt}\pmod{2}.\end{aligned}$$ In particular the symmetric forms $P \oplus P$ and $H$ are both Witt equivalent to $0$.
\[quadratic enhancement\] Let $V$ be a ${\mathbb{Z}}_2$-vector space and $\lambda : V \times V \to {\mathbb{Z}}_2$ a non-singular symmetric bilinear form.
- A **${\mathbb{Z}}_2$-valued quadratic enhancement** of $\lambda$ is a function $h: V \to {\mathbb{Z}}_2$ such that for all $x, y \in V$ $$h(x + y) = h(x) + h (y) + \lambda (x , y) \in {\mathbb{Z}}_2.$$
- A **${\mathbb{Z}}_4$-valued quadratic enhancement** of $\lambda$ is a function $q : V \to {\mathbb{Z}}_4$ such that for all $x, y \in V$ $$\label{Z4-enhancement}
q(x + y) = q (x) + q (y) + i \lambda (x, y) \in {\mathbb{Z}}_4$$ where $i = 2 : {\mathbb{Z}}_2 \to {\mathbb{Z}}_4$ and $x, y \in V$.
The quadratic enhancements $h$ and $q$ cannot be recovered uniquely from the ${\mathbb{Z}}_2$-valued symmetric bilinear pairing $\lambda : V \times V \to {\mathbb{Z}}_2$. Let $j: {\mathbb Z}_4 \to {\mathbb Z}_2$ denote mod $2$ reduction and let $q : V \to {\mathbb{Z}}_4$ be a ${\mathbb Z}_4$-valued enhancement of the bilinear pairing $\lambda$. Then the composition $jq$ is the mod $2$ reduction of $q$ and is given by $$j q(x) = \lambda(x,x) \in {\mathbb Z}_2.$$ (This is a consequence of Equation \[Z4-enhancement\]).
For every $\lambda$ there exists a non-unique ${\mathbb Z}_4$-enhancement $q$, but there may not exist a ${\mathbb Z}_2$-enhancement $h$. Furthermore every $h$ determines a $q$ by the identity $q=2h$.
If $q(V) \subseteq 2 {\mathbb Z}_2 \subset {\mathbb Z}_4$, we can define the ${\mathbb Z}_2$-enhancement $h:V\to {\mathbb Z}_2; ~x \mapsto q(x)/2$ such that $2h=q.$
We now discuss what are the possible ${\mathbb Z}_2$ and ${\mathbb Z}_4$-valued quadratic enhancements of such a nonsingular symmetric bilinear form $(V, \lambda)$.
${\mathbb Z}_2$-enhancements $h$ of $(V, \lambda)$ and the Arf invariant
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following result is well-known.
\[iff-lambda-0\] Let $(V, \lambda)$ be a non-singular symmetric form over ${\mathbb Z}_2$; then the following conditions are equivalent
- $(V, \lambda)$ admits a ${\mathbb Z}_2$-valued quadratic enhancement $h: V \to {\mathbb Z}_2,$
- $\lambda(x, x)= 0\in {\mathbb Z}_2$ for all $x \in V,$ (i.e. $(V, \lambda)$ is isotropic)
- $\lambda$ can be split into an orthogonal sum of hyperbolics, $ \left(
\begin{matrix}
0& 1 \\
1 & 0 \\
\end{matrix}
\right),
$ that is, $(V, \lambda) = \bigoplus \limits_{k} H.$
$(i) \Rightarrow (ii)$ If $(V, \lambda)$ admits a quadratic enhancement $h$, this means that $h(x+y) = h(x)+h(y) + \lambda(x, y) \in {\mathbb Z}_2$, setting $y=x$, we have that $\lambda(x,x)= 2h(x)=0 \in {\mathbb Z}_2.$
$(ii) \Rightarrow (iii)$ For each $x \in V$ there exists a $y \in V$ with $\lambda(x,y)=1$. On the pair $\{x, y\}$, the form is hyperbolic so the pair has an orthogonal complement in $V$. That is, $V = \langle x \rangle^{\perp} / \langle x \rangle \oplus \left({\mathbb Z}_2 \oplus {\mathbb Z}_2, \left(
\begin{matrix}
0& 1 \\
1 & 0 \\
\end{matrix}
\right) \right)$, We can then repeat the process of splitting off hyperbolics until the whole of $V$ has been expressed as a direct sum of hyperbolics. $(iii) \Rightarrow (i)$ Clear from the definition of $h: V \to {\mathbb Z}_2.$
A ${\mathbb Z}_2$-quadratic enhancement $h$ of $H$ will take value $0$ when evaluated on 0, $h(0)=0,$ and can take values either $1$ or $0$ when evaluated on $x$ and $y$, where $\{x, y \}$ form a basis for $ {\mathbb Z}_2 \oplus {\mathbb Z}_2$. So we can form four ${\mathbb Z}_2$-enhancements on $H$, which we shall denote as $h^{0,0}$, $h^{0,1}$, $h^{1, 0}$ and $h^{1,1}$ according to their values on $x$ and $y$.
From the definition of a quadratic enhancement (Definition \[quadratic enhancement\]) we know that the equation $h(x+y)-h(x)-h(y) = \lambda(x, y) \in {\mathbb Z}_2$ must be satisfied and $\lambda(x, y)=1$.
A change of basis from $\{x, y \}$ to $\{x, x+y\}$ establishes an isomorphism from $h^{0,0}$ to $h^{0,1}$. Similarly a change of basis from $\{x, y \}$ to $\{x+y, y \}$ establishes an isomorphism from $h^{0,0}$ to $h^{1, 0}$. So there are two isomorphism classes of ${\mathbb Z}_2$-quadratic enhancements on $H,$
$$\label{values-of-h}
h^{0,0} = \left\{ \begin{array}{rr}x & \mapsto 0 \\
y & \mapsto 0 \\
x+y & \mapsto 1
\end{array} \right.,$$
$$h^{1, 1} =\left\{ \begin{array}{rr}x & \mapsto 1 \\
y & \mapsto 1 \\
x+y & \mapsto 1
\end{array} \right..$$
([@Browder]) Every nonsingular ${\mathbb Z}_2$-quadratic form $(V, \lambda, h)$ can be expressed **non-uniquely** as $$(V, \lambda, h) = \left(\bigoplus_{n} h^{0,0} \oplus \bigoplus_{k} h^{1, 1}\right).$$
The decomposition is **non-unique** because there is an isomorphism $$h^{1,1} \oplus h^{1,1} \cong h^{0,0} \oplus h^{0,0}.$$ This isomorphism is achieved by a change of basis. Note that the number of copies of $h^{1,1}$ counted modulo $2$ is unique.
### The Arf invariant for $(V, \lambda, h)$
Let $V$ be a ${\mathbb{Z}}_2$-vector space and $\lambda$ a non-singular symmetric bilinear form $$\lambda: V \otimes V \to {\mathbb{Z}}_2,$$ and let $h: V \to {\mathbb{Z}}_2$ be a ${\mathbb{Z}}_2$-valued quadratic enhancement of this bilinear form which satisfies the following property, $$h(x+y) = h(x) + h(y) +\lambda (x, y) \in {\mathbb{Z}}_2,$$ as in the previous section. The Arf invariant was first defined in [@Arf] as follows,
With a symplectic basis $\left\{ e_1, \dots, e_k, \bar{e}_1, \dots, \bar{e}_k \right\}$ for $V$, the Arf invariant is defined as $$\textnormal{Arf}(h) = \sum\limits_{j=1}^{k} h(e_j)h(\bar{e}_j) \in {\mathbb{Z}}_2.$$
([@Arf]) \[Arf-L\]
- Two non-singular ${\mathbb Z}_2$-valued quadratic forms on a ${\mathbb Z}_2$-vector space V of finite dimension are Witt equivalent if and only if they have the same Arf invariant.
- There is an isomorphism in quadratic $L$-theory, $$\begin{aligned}
L_0({\mathbb Z}_2) \xrightarrow{\textnormal{Arf}} & {\mathbb Z}_2 \\
(V, \lambda, h) \longmapsto & \hspace{2pt} n \hspace{-5pt}\pmod{2},\end{aligned}$$ where $n$ is the number of copies of $h^{1,1}$ in $(V, \lambda, h) = \bigoplus \limits_n h^{1,1}\oplus \bigoplus \limits_k h^{0,0}.$
The Arf invariant counts the number of copies of $h^{1,1}$ modulo $2$, and $\textnormal{Arf}(h) =1$ if $h$ sends a majority of elements to $1$.
Later on we will make use of the Brown-Kervaire invariant, which we now define. The definition of the Brown-Kervaire invariant was formulated in [@Brown] and was used in [@BanRan]. This invariant has an important relationship with the signature [@Morita], which we shall discuss in section \[BK-and-L\] and in chapter \[Morita-chain-cx\].
${\mathbb Z}_4$-enhancements $q$ of $(V, \lambda)$ and the Brown-Kervaire invariant
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[always-q\] Every symmetric bilinear form $(V, \lambda)$ over ${\mathbb Z}_2$ admits a ${\mathbb Z}_4$-valued quadratic enhancement $q: V \to {\mathbb Z}_4.$
Every $q$ is constructed by lifting the ${\mathbb Z}_2$-valued symmetric bilinear form $\lambda$ to a symmetric form $\Lambda$ over ${\mathbb Z}$ and setting $q(x)= \Lambda(x,x) / 4 \in {\mathbb Z}_4$. Clearly such a lift is non-unique since adding even integers to the diagonal entries in $\Lambda$ does not change $\lambda$ but does change $q$.
We shall now discuss what the possible ${\mathbb Z}_4$-enhancements of both $H$ and $P$ are.
$H$ has four enhancements depending on the values that $q$ takes on $(x, y) \in {\mathbb Z}_2 \oplus {\mathbb Z}_2$. We shall denote these as $q^{0,0}$, $q^{0,2}$, $q^{2,0}$ and $q^{2,2}$.
From the definition of a ${\mathbb Z}_4$-quadratic enhancement (Definition \[quadratic enhancement\]) we know that the equation $q(x+y)-q(x)-q(y) = 2\lambda(x, y) \in {\mathbb Z}_4$ must be satisfied and $\lambda(x, y)=1.$ A change of basis from $\{x, y \}$ to $\{x, x+y\}$ establishes an isomorphism from $q^{0,0}$ to $q^{0,2}$. Similarly a change of basis from $\{x, y \}$ to $\{x+y, y \}$ establishes an isomorphism from $q^{0,0}$ to $q^{2, 0}$. So there are two isomorphism classes of ${\mathbb Z}_4$-quadratic enhancements on $H,$ (see [@Pink Lemma 7]),
$$\label{values-of-h}
q^{0,0} =\left\{ \begin{array}{rr}x & \mapsto 0 \\
y & \mapsto 0 \\
x+y & \mapsto 2
\end{array} \right. ,$$
$$q^{2,2} =\left\{ \begin{array}{rr}x & \mapsto 2 \\
y & \mapsto 2 \\
x+y & \mapsto 2
\end{array} \right..$$
There are two isomorphism classes of quadratic forms on $P= ({\mathbb Z}_2, 1)$. These are given by $q(x)=1$ or by $q(x)=-1$ and are denoted in [@Kirby] as $P_{1}$ and $P_{-1}$ respectively
\[decomposition\] Every ${\mathbb Z}_4$-valued quadratic form over ${\mathbb Z}_2$ $(V, \lambda, q)$ can be expressed non-uniquely as $$(V, \lambda, q) = \left(\bigoplus_{p_+} P_{1} \oplus \bigoplus_{p_-} P_{-1}\right) \oplus \left(\bigoplus_{m} q^{0,0} \oplus \bigoplus_{n} q^{2, 2} \right).$$
The proof of this proposition can be found in [@Pink pages 428, 429]. We stress here that the decomposition is non-unique as there are certain isomorphism relations:
- $q^{0,0} \oplus q^{0,0} \cong q^{2,2} \oplus q^{2,2},$
- $P_1 \oplus P_1 \oplus P_1 \oplus P_1 \cong P_{-1} \oplus P_{-1} \oplus P_{-1} \oplus P_{-1},$
- $q^{0,0} \oplus P_1 \cong P_1 \oplus P_1 \oplus P_{-1},$
- $q^{2,2} \oplus P_1 \cong P_{-1} \oplus P_{-1} \oplus P_{-1},$
- $q^{2,2} \oplus P_{-1} \cong P_1 \oplus P_1 \oplus P_1. $
These isomorphisms are achieved by choosing appropriate changes of basis in each case. They are proved in [@Pink].
We shall also be interested in the classification of ${\mathbb Z}_4$-enhancements up to Witt equivalence.
The forms which admit a lagrangian are referred to in [@Matsumoto] as *split* and denoted by $S_i$.
([@Matsumoto page 130]) Note that by Definition \[Witt-equivalence\] two ${\mathbb Z}_4$-enhanced forms $(V, \lambda, q)$ and $(V', \lambda', q')$ belong to the same Witt class if $$(V, \lambda,q) \oplus S_1 \cong (V', \lambda', q') \oplus S_2,$$ where $S_1$ and $S_2$ are split.
\[Witt-equivalence\]([@algpoinc]) The group $L\langle v_{1} \rangle^0({\mathbb Z}_2)$ is the abelian group of Witt equivalence classes of nonsingular ${\mathbb Z}_4$-valued enhancements of nonsingular symmetric forms over ${\mathbb Z}_2.$
In the literature, the Witt group of nonsingular ${\mathbb Z}_4$-valued enhancements of nonsingular symmetric forms over ${\mathbb Z}_2$ is frequently denoted by $W_{{\mathbb Z}_4}({\mathbb Z}_2).$
A non-singular quadratic form $(V,\lambda, q)$ represents $0$ in the Witt group of ${\mathbb Z}_4$-enhancements of a nonsingular ${\mathbb Z}_2$-symmetric bilinear form $L\langle v_1 \rangle^0({\mathbb Z}_2)$, if it contains a subspace $L$ such that $q(L)=0$, $\lambda(L, L)=0$ and $\textnormal{dim}(L)= (\frac{1}{2})\textnormal{dim}(V)$. We call such a subspace $L$ a lagrangian.
\[split\] ([@Matsumoto page 130]) $q^{0,0}$ admits a lagrangian hence $\left({\mathbb Z}_2\oplus {\mathbb Z}_2, \left(
\begin{matrix}
0& 1 \\
1 & 0 \\
\end{matrix}
\right), q^{0,0}\right)$ is $0$ in the Witt group $L\langle v_1 \rangle^0({\mathbb Z}_2)$.
Similarly $P_{1} \oplus P_{-1}$ admits a lagrangian, $L= (1, 1)$, so $({\mathbb Z}_2\oplus {\mathbb Z}_2, 1 \oplus 1, P_1 \oplus P_{-1} )$ is also $0$ in the Witt group.
We shall denote the Witt class of a ${\mathbb Z}_4$-enhanced form $(V, \lambda, q)$ by a bracket notation $[V, \lambda, q].$
The Witt group of ${\mathbb Z}_4$-valued enhancements of a nonsingular ${\mathbb Z}_2$-valued symmetric form $\lambda$ is generated by the Witt class of $[P_{1}]$.
See [@Matsumoto page 130]. This will be discussed further in section \[Arf&Brown\].
\[4P1\] ([@Matsumoto]) There is a Witt equivalence $$[q^{2,2}] = [4P_{1}] \in L\langle v_1 \rangle^0({\mathbb Z}_2)$$ These two forms are Witt equivalent because there is an isomorphism of forms $$q^{2,2} \oplus P_{-1} \cong P_1 \oplus P_1 \oplus P_1$$ and therefore $$q^{2,2} \oplus (P_{-1} \oplus P_1) \cong P_1 \oplus P_1 \oplus P_1 \oplus P_1.$$ $(P_{-1} \oplus P_1)$ admits a lagrangian as was explained in example \[split\], hence by Definition \[Witt-equivalence\] the forms $q^{2,2}$ and $P_1 \oplus P_1 \oplus P_1 \oplus P_1$ are Witt equivalent.
### The Brown Kervaire invariant for $(V, \lambda, q)$
Let $V$ be a ${\mathbb{Z}}_2$ vector space, $\lambda : V \otimes V \to {\mathbb{Z}}_2$ a non-singular symmetric pairing and let $q : V \to {\mathbb{Z}}_4$ be a quadratic enhancement of the symmetric form so that $$q(x +y) = q(x) + q(y)+ i \lambda (x, y) \in {\mathbb{Z}}_4,$$ where $i = 2 : {\mathbb{Z}}_2 \to {\mathbb{Z}}_4$ and $x, y \in V$.
\[Gauss-sum-formula\] ([@Brown]) The Brown-Kervaire $\textnormal{BK}(V, \lambda, q)$ invariant is defined using a Gauss sum, $$\sum_{x \in V} i ^{q(x)} = \sqrt{2}^{\textnormal{dim}V} e^{2 \pi i \textnormal{BK}(V, \lambda, q) / 8},$$ with $i^2=-1$ and $x \in V$.
\[iso-BK\] ([@Brown; @Pink; @GM]) Two non-singular ${\mathbb Z}_4$-valued quadratic forms on a ${\mathbb Z}_2$-vector space V of finite dimension are Witt equivalent if and only if they have the same Brown-Kervaire invariant. There is an isomorphism in $L$-theory given by $$\begin{aligned}
L\langle v_1 \rangle^0({\mathbb Z}_2) & \xrightarrow{\textnormal{BK}} {\mathbb Z}_8 \\
(V, \lambda, q) \mapsto & 4n + p_+ - p_-\pmod{8},\end{aligned}$$ where $n$, $p_+$ and $p_-$ are the numbers of summands of $q^{2,2}$, $P_1$ and $P_{-1}$ respectively in the decomposition in Proposition \[decomposition\].
It was proved in [@Brown] that two non-singular ${\mathbb Z}_4$-valued quadratic forms on a ${\mathbb Z}_2$-vector space $V$ of finite dimension are Witt equivalent if and only if they have the same Brown-Kervaire invariant. Brown also identified the group with ${\mathbb Z}_8$. The $L$-theory interpretation is discussed in detail in [@algpoinc]. The formula to compute the Brown-Kervaire invariant of a form in terms of the numbers of summands of $q^{2,2}$, $P_1$ and $P_{-1}$ is proved in [@GM].
The Brown-Kervaire invariant as an $L$-theory invariant will be discussed further in section \[BK-and-L\] and in chapter \[Morita-chain-cx\] together with its relation with the signature and hyperquadratic signature.
Relation between the Arf and Brown-Kervaire invariants {#Arf&Brown}
------------------------------------------------------
([@Brown Theorem 1.20 (vii)]) Let $h$ be a ${\mathbb Z}_2$-valued nonsingular quadratic enhancement of a nonsingular symmetric bilinear ${\mathbb Z}_2$-valued form $\lambda$. If $q = 2h$, then $$BK(V, \lambda, q) = 4(\textnormal{Arf}(V, \lambda, h)) \in {\mathbb Z}_8.$$
A Brown-Kervaire invariant that is $0 \in{\mathbb Z}_4$ can always be expressed as an Arf invariant. This will be proved in Proposition \[BK-and-4Arf\]. Before we state Proposition \[BK-and-4Arf\], we shall discuss the relationship between ${\mathbb Z}_2$- and ${\mathbb Z}_4$-valued enhancements of a symmetric form $(V, \lambda)$ over ${\mathbb Z}_2.$
\[relations-q-h\] Let $V$ be a ${\mathbb{Z}}_2$ vector space and $\lambda : V \otimes V\to {\mathbb{Z}}_2$ a nonsingular symmetric bilinear form over ${\mathbb Z}_2$.
- There exists a ${\mathbb Z}_2$-enhancement $h$ if and only if $\lambda(x,x)=0 \in {\mathbb Z}_2.$
- There always exists a ${\mathbb Z}_4$-enhancement $q$.
- For every ${\mathbb Z}_2$-enhancement $h$ there exists a ${\mathbb Z}_4$-enhancement $q$ given by $q = 2h.$
- \[Witt-q-4-(iv)\] Every $(V, \lambda, q)$ is given by $(V, \lambda, q)= \bigoplus \limits_{m} q^{0,0} \oplus \bigoplus \limits_{n} q^{2, 2}\oplus \bigoplus \limits_{p_+} P_{1} \oplus \bigoplus \limits_{p_-} P_{-1}.$ If $$4n+p_+-p_- = 0 \textnormal{ or } 4 \in {\mathbb Z}_8,$$ then $(V, \lambda, q)$ is Witt equivalent to $(V', \lambda', 2h')$ in $L\langle v_1 \rangle^0 ({\mathbb Z}_2),$ where $$\begin{aligned}
(V', \lambda', 2h') & = \bigoplus_m 2h^{0,0} \oplus \bigoplus_n 2h^{1,1} \\
& =\bigoplus_m q^{0,0} \oplus \bigoplus_n q^{2,2}\end{aligned}$$
<!-- -->
- See Proposition \[iff-lambda-0\].
- See Proposition \[always-q\].
- Any ${\mathbb Z}_2$-enhancement $h$ is isomorphic to $$h = \bigoplus_{m} h^{0,0} \oplus \bigoplus_{n} h^{1, 1},$$ so that $$\begin{aligned}
2h &= \bigoplus_{m} 2h^{0,0} \oplus \bigoplus_{n}2h^{1, 1} \\
&= \bigoplus_{m} q^{0,0} \oplus \bigoplus_{n} q^{2, 2} = q.\end{aligned}$$
- If $4n+p_+ - p_- \equiv 0 \textnormal{ or } 4 \pmod8$, then $(V, \lambda, q)$ is isomorphic to $$(V, \lambda, q) = \bigoplus_{m} q^{0,0} \oplus \bigoplus_{n} q^{2, 2} \oplus \bigoplus_k(P_1 \oplus P_{-1}).$$
If $p_+$ and $p_-$ are both $0$, then $(V, \lambda, q) =\bigoplus_{m} q^{0,0} \oplus \bigoplus_{n} q^{2, 2}$, we know by the previous part that this is isomorphic to $(V, \lambda, 2h')$ with $(V, \lambda,h') = \bigoplus \limits_{m} h^{0,0} \oplus \bigoplus \limits_{n} h^{1, 1}.$
If $p_+$ or $p_-$ (or both) are nonzero and $4n+p_+ -p_- = 0 \textnormal{ or } 4 \in {\mathbb Z}_8,$ then $q$ is isomorphic to $$q \cong \bigoplus_{m} q^{0,0} \oplus \bigoplus_{n} q^{2, 2} \oplus \bigoplus_k(P_1 \oplus P_{-1})$$ with $m \geq 0$, $n \geq 0$ and $k = 0 \textnormal{ or } 1.$ That is, the form can be written in a way such that all $P_1$ and $P_{-1}$ can be paired. Since $(P_1 \oplus P_{-1})$ is a split form admitting a lagrangian, then it is zero in the Witt group $L\langle v_1 \rangle^0({\mathbb Z}_2),$ so by Definition \[Witt-equivalence\] $$[(V, \lambda, q)] = \left[\bigoplus_{m} q^{0,0} \oplus \bigoplus_{n} q^{2, 2}\right] \in L\langle v_1 \rangle^0({\mathbb Z}_2).$$
The Witt equivalence of the forms $4P_1$ and $q^{2,2}$ was discussed in example \[4P1\]. They both have Brown-Kervaire invariant $4 \in {\mathbb Z}_8.$ In this example we see how they can be expressed in terms of a ${\mathbb Z}_2$-valued enhancement, $$\begin{aligned}
[4P_1] & = [q^{2,2}] = [2h^{1,1}] \in L\langle v_1 \rangle^0({\mathbb Z}_2).\end{aligned}$$
$[3P_1] \in L\langle v_1 \rangle^0({\mathbb Z}_2)$ is not in the subgroup of $L\langle v_1 \rangle^0({\mathbb Z}_2)$ generated by $[q^{2,2}]$. Therefore the ${\mathbb Z}_4$-enhancement $3P_1$ is not Witt equivalent in $L\langle v_1 \rangle^0({\mathbb Z}_2)$ to a ${\mathbb Z}_4$-enhancement that can be written as $(V, \lambda, 2h)$, where $h$ is a ${\mathbb Z}_2$-valued enhancement.
With the following proposition we describe how a Brown-Kervaire invariant that takes values $0$ and $4$ in ${\mathbb Z}_8$ can always be expressed as a classical ${\mathbb Z}_2$-valued Arf invariant.
\[BK-and-4Arf\] If the Brown-Kervaire invariant of a nonsingular symmetric form over ${\mathbb Z}_2$ with a ${\mathbb Z}_4$-valued quadratic enhancement $(V, \lambda, q)$ is divisible by $4$, then this Brown-Kervaire invariant can be expressed as the classical Arf invariant of a ${\mathbb Z}_2$-valued form, $$\textnormal{BK}(V, \lambda, q) =4 \textnormal{Arf}\left(L^{\perp}/L, [\lambda], \frac{\left[q\right] }{2} \right) \in 4{\mathbb Z}_2 \subset {\mathbb Z}_8$$ where $L^{\perp}= \left \{x \in V \vert \lambda(x,x) = 0 \in {\mathbb Z}_2 \right\}$ and $L= \langle v \rangle$ with $v$ the characteristic element of $\lambda$ in $V$.
Let $(V,\lambda,q)$ be a nonsingular symmetric form over ${\mathbb Z}_2$ with a ${\mathbb Z}_4$-valued quadratic enhancement, and denote its dimension by $n = \textnormal{dim}(V)$. For any ${\mathbb Z}_4$-enhanced form $(V,\lambda,q)$ there is a unique Wu class $v \in V$ such that $$\lambda(x,x) = \lambda(x,v) \in {\mathbb Z}_2 \textnormal{ with } x\in V.$$ The following function is linear $$f : V \longrightarrow {\mathbb Z}_2 ; x \mapsto \lambda(x,x) = jq(x) = \lambda(x,v),$$ where $jq(x)\in {\mathbb Z}_2$ is the mod $2$ reduction of $q(x) \in {\mathbb Z}_4.$
The following identity relating the ${\mathbb Z}_4$-quadratic enhancement and the Brown-Kervaire invariant reduced modulo $4$ is a consequence of [@Morita theorem 1.1] and [@Morita Proposition 2.3]. (We will discuss these results in more detail in chapter \[Morita-chain-cx\]), $$\label{identity}[\textnormal{BK}(V,\lambda,q)] = q(v) \in {\mathbb Z}_4.$$ So $\textnormal{BK}(V,\lambda,q) \in {\mathbb Z}_8$ is divisible by $4$ if and only if $q(v)=0 \in {\mathbb Z}_4$. If $q(v)=0 \in {\mathbb Z}_4$ then $\lambda(v,v) = 0 \in {\mathbb Z}_2$ and the ***Wu sublagrangian*** $L=\langle v \rangle \subset (V,\lambda,q)$ is defined, with $L \subseteq L^\perp = \left\{x \in V|\lambda(x,x)=0 \in {\mathbb Z}_2\right\}$. The ***maximal isotropic subquotient*** $$(L^{\perp}/L, [\lambda], [q])$$ has a canonical ${\mathbb Z}_2$-valued quadratic enhancement $[h]: x \mapsto [q(x)]/2$ and $$\textnormal{BK}(V,\lambda,q) = 4\textnormal{Arf}(L^{\perp}/L,[\lambda],[h]) \subset 4{\mathbb Z}_2 \subset {\mathbb Z}_8.$$ For the dimension of $L^{\perp}/L$ there are two cases, according as to whether $v=0$ or $v\neq 0:$
- If the Wu class is $v=0$ then $(V, \lambda)$ is already isotropic as $L^{\perp}/L = V,$ and $\textnormal{dim}(L^{\perp}/L) = n.$
- If the Wu class is $v \neq 0$ then $(V, \lambda)$ is anisotropic and $\textnormal{dim}(L^{\perp}/L) = n-2.$
In [@algpoinc page 42] there is computed the inclusion of the quadratic $L$-group $L_0({\mathbb Z}_2) = {\mathbb Z}_2$ defined by the Arf invariant into the Witt group of nonsingular ${\mathbb Z}_4$-valued quadratic forms over ${\mathbb Z}_2,$ $L\langle v_{1} \rangle^0({\mathbb Z}_2),$
$$\xymatrix{ L_0({\mathbb Z}_2) \ar[d]^{\textnormal{Arf}} \ar[r] & L\langle v_{1} \rangle^0({\mathbb Z}_2) \ar[d]^{\textnormal{BK}} \ar[r] & \widehat{L}\langle v_{1} \rangle^0({\mathbb Z}_2) \ar[d] \\
{\mathbb Z}_2 \ar[r]^4 & {\mathbb Z}_8 \ar[r] & {\mathbb Z}_4
}$$
Classical and Equivariant Pontryagin squares {#Pontryagin-squares chapter}
============================================
In this chapter we will review the definition of the classical Pontryagin squares and their relationship with cup-$i$ products and Steenrod squares. Pontryagin squares provide a quadratic enhancement of the intersection form of a symmetric bilinear form.
The notion of an equivariant Pontryagin square was introduced in [@Korzen]. Here we extend this notion to prove that the equivariant Pontryagin squares can also be defined on odd cohomology classes. With this definition we can reconstruct the Pontryagin square of the total space $E$ of a fibration of the form $F^{4m+2} \to E \to B^{4n+2}$ from the equivariant Pontryagin square on the base. The main tool for the definition of the equivariant Pontryagin square is the exact sequence in Proposition 19 of [@BanRan]. We shall start by giving some background on cup-$i$ products and Steenrod squares necessary for the definition of the Pontryagin squares.
Cup-$i$ products and Steenrod squares {#cupi}
-------------------------------------
Recall from Chapter \[Foundations\] that we defined the chain approximation map $$\Delta_0 : C(X) \to C(X) \otimes C(X).$$ Writing $[X]$ for the fundamental class of $X$, and using the slant map defined in \[slant-map\] we defined $$\phi_0 := \backslash \Delta_0([X]) : C^{n-r} \to C_r.$$ Recall that a chain homotopy $\Delta_{i+1}: C \to C \otimes C$ between $\Delta_i$ and $T_{\epsilon}\Delta_{i}$ can be constructed inductively, such that the following relation is satisfied $$\partial \Delta_{i+1} + (-1)^i \Delta_{i+1} \partial = (T_{\epsilon} + (-1)^{i+1} ) \Delta_{i}.$$ The higher chain homotopies give information about the failure of $\Delta_0$ to be symmetric, and they are used to define the entire symmetric structure on a symmetric complex. Composing these with the slant map induces,
$$\phi_s := \backslash \Delta_s([X]) : C^{n-r+s} \to C_r.$$
The cup product of two cohomology classes $x \in H^p(X)$ and $y \in H^q(X)$ is $$x \cup y = \Delta_0^*([X])(x \otimes y) \in H^{i+j}(C).$$
Cup products are signed-commutative in cohomology $x \cup y = (-1)^{pq}(y \cup x)$, but they do not commute on the chain level. This is a consequence of the fact that the chain approximation $\Delta_0$ is only defined up to chain homotopy. The transpose $T\Delta_0 $ produces different maps $\phi_0$ on the chain level, which then have the same effect on homology level, as they are homotopic. The non-trivial chain homotopy $\Delta_1: T\Delta_0 \simeq \Delta_0$ gives the failure of the cup product to commute on the chain level.
([@Mosher-Tangora]) For each integer $i \geq 0$ define the **cup-$i$ product** on the chain level as $$C^p(X) \otimes C^q(X) \longrightarrow C^{p+q-i}(X) : (x, y) \longrightarrow x \cup_i y$$ by the formula $$x \cup_i y = \Delta_i(x \otimes y).$$
On cohomology, the cup-$i$ product of $x \in H^p(X)$ and $y \in H^q(X)$ is given by $$x \cup_i y = \Delta_i^*([X])(x \otimes y) \in H^{p+q-i}(X).$$
The higher chain homotopies $\Delta_i$ are strongly related to the Steenrod squares.
([@Steenrod; @Mosher-Tangora]) The Steenrod square $Sq^i$ is a cohomology operation $$Sq^i : H^r(X, {\mathbb{Z}}_2) \longrightarrow H^{r+i}(X; {\mathbb{Z}}_2).$$ On the cochain level, the Steenrod squares are defined as $$Sq^i : C^r(X;\mathbb{Z}_2) \longrightarrow C^{r+i}(X;\mathbb{Z}_2),$$ such that $Sq^i(x) := x \cup_{r-i} x$, with $x \in C^r(X;\mathbb{Z}_2). $
In particular for $X$ a $2n$-dimensional Poincaré space, $$Sq^{n} : H^{n}(X ; \mathbb{Z}_2) \longrightarrow H^{2n}(X ; \mathbb{Z}_2)= {\mathbb Z}_2$$ is the evaluation of the cup product, $$x \mapsto \langle x \cup_0 x, [X] \rangle$$
In chapter \[Foundations\] we presented the symmetric construction as being given by the natural chain map $$\phi_X : C(X) \to \textnormal{Hom}_{{\mathbb{Z}}[{\mathbb{Z}}_2]}(W, C({\widetilde{X}})^t \otimes_{{\mathbb{Z}}[\pi]} C({\widetilde{X}}))$$ induced by the diagonal chain approximation $\Delta$, for any space $X.$ The mod $2$ reduction of the composite $$H_{2n}(X) \xrightarrow{\phi_X} Q^{2n}(C(X)) \xrightarrow{v_i} \textnormal{Hom}_{{\mathbb{Z}}}(H^{2n-i}(X), Q^{2n}(S^{2n-i}{\mathbb{Z}}))$$ is given by $$v_i(\phi_X(x))(y) = \langle v_i \cup y, x \rangle= \langle Sq^i(y), x\rangle \in {\mathbb{Z}}_2.$$
Steenrod squares are related to Wu classes in the following way.
With $X$ a $2n$-dimensional Poincaré space, the $i$-th Wu class $$v_i \in H^{i}(X; {\mathbb{Z}}_2)$$ is given by the Steenrod square, so that for all $x \in H^{2n-i}(X ; {\mathbb{Z}}_2)$ it holds that, $$Sq^i(x) = v_i \cup x \in H^{2n}(X; {\mathbb Z}_2)={\mathbb Z}_2.$$ (See [@Mil-Sta]).
Classical Pontryagin squares
----------------------------
Pontryagin first defined the cohomology operation known as Pontryagin square in [@Pontryagin]. Pontryagin squares were also carefully studied by Whitehead in [@Whitehead2] and [@Whitehead].
Thus with $X$ a space, the Pontryagin square is an unstable cohomology operation $${\mathcal{P}}_2: H^n(X; {\mathbb{Z}}_2) \to H^{2n}(X; {\mathbb{Z}}_4).$$ Although the Pontryagin square is defined on modulo $2$ cohomology classes, it cannot be constructed solely from the modulo $2$ cup product structure.
Let $d^*: C^n(X; {\mathbb{Z}}) \to C^{n+1}(X; {\mathbb{Z}})$ be the singular cohomology coboundary operator. We shall represent an element $x \in H^n(X ; {\mathbb Z}_2)$ as a cycle $$x=(y, z) \in \textnormal{Ker} \left(\left(\begin{array}{cc} d^* & 0 \\ 2 & d^* \end{array} \right) : C^n(X) \oplus C^{n+1}(X) \to C^{n+1}(X) \oplus C^{n+2}(X)\right)$$ Using this notation we define the Pontryagin square as follows.
The Pontryagin square is defined on the cochain level by $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal{P}}_2(x) = {\mathcal P}_2(y, z) &= y \cup_0 y + y \cup_1 d^*y \in H^{2n}(X; {\mathbb{Z}}_4) \\
& = y \cup_0 y + 2 y \cup_1 z \in H^{2n}(X; {\mathbb{Z}}_4).\end{aligned}$$
The construction of the cup-$i$ products was introduced in section \[cupi\], $$\cup_i : C^p(X) \otimes C^q(X) \longrightarrow C^{p+q-i}(X) : (u, v) \longrightarrow u \cup_i v.$$
The coboundary formula for the cup-$1$ product, with $u \in C^p(X)$ and $v \in C^q(X)$ is given by $$d(u \cup_i v) = (-1)^i du \cup_i v + (-1)^{i+p}u \cup_i dv + (-1)^{i+1} u \cup_{i-1} v + (-1)^{pq+1} v \cup_{i-1} u.$$ This formula can be applied to check that $y \cup_0 y + y \cup_1 d^*y \textnormal{ mod} 4 $ is a cocycle mod $4$ and that its cohomology class only depends on that of $x = (y, z) \in H^n(X; {\mathbb{Z}}_2)$ (see [@Mosher-Tangora])
\[Pont-square-definition\] The Pontryagin square is defined on cohomology by $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal{P}}_2: H^n(X ; {\mathbb{Z}}_2) & \to H^{2n}(X; {\mathbb{Z}}_4) \\
x = (y, z) & \mapsto y \cup_0 y + y \cup_1 d^*y,\end{aligned}$$ where (y, z) are as defined above.
The maps in the exact sequence $0 \longrightarrow \mathbb{Z}_2 \overset{i}{\longrightarrow} \mathbb{Z}_4 \overset{r}{\longrightarrow} \mathbb{Z}_2 \longrightarrow 0 $ induce maps in cohomology, $$\dots \longrightarrow H^{2n}(X; \mathbb{Z}_2)\overset{i^*}{ \longrightarrow} H^{2n}(X; \mathbb{Z}_4) \overset{r^*}{\longrightarrow} H^{2n}(X; \mathbb{Z}_2) \overset{\delta}{\longrightarrow} \dots$$ so $$r_* \mathcal{P}_2(x) = x \cup x \in H^{n} (X ; \mathbb{Z}_2),$$ where $r_* : H^{n}(X ; \mathbb{Z}_4) \longrightarrow H^{n}(X ; \mathbb{Z}_2)$ is the map induced by the non-trivial map\
$\mathbb{Z}_4 \longrightarrow \mathbb{Z}_2$.
The Steenrod square $Sq^{n}$ is a mod $2$ reduction of the Pontryagin square: $$\xymatrix{ & H^{2n}(X; \mathbb{Z}_4) \ar[d]^{r^*} \\
H^{n}(X; \mathbb{Z}_2) \ar[r]^{Sq^{n}} \ar[ur]^{\mathcal{P}_2} & H^{2n}(X; \mathbb{Z}_2)
}$$
\[on a sum\] ([@Mosher-Tangora])
- Let $x$ and $x'$ be cocycles in $H^n(X; {\mathbb{Z}}_2)$, where $X$ is a Poincaré space. The Pontryagin square evaluated on a sum is given by, $${\mathcal{P}}_2(x+x') = {\mathcal{P}}_2(x) + {\mathcal{P}}_2(x')+(x \cup x')+(-1)^n(x \cup x') \in H^{2n}(X; {\mathbb{Z}}_4).$$ So that in particular for $n$ even, $${\mathcal{P}}_2(x+x') = {\mathcal{P}}_2(x) + {\mathcal{P}}_2(x')+j (x \cup x')\in {\mathbb{Z}}_4,$$ where $j$ is the non-trivial homomorphism $j: {\mathbb{Z}}_2 \to {\mathbb{Z}}_4.$
- The Pontryagin square is a quadratic function with respect to cup product, that is, $${\mathcal{P}}_2(x+ x') = {\mathcal{P}}_2(x) + {\mathcal{P}}_2(x') + j(x \cup x') \in H^{2n}(X; {\mathbb{Z}}_4)$$ for any $x, x' \in H^{n}(X ; {\mathbb{Z}}_2)$, where $j : {\mathbb{Z}}_2 \to {\mathbb{Z}}_4$ is the non-trivial homomorphism.
This follows directly from the definition of a quadratic enhancement \[quadratic enhancement\] and the evaluation of the Pontryagin square on a sum of cocycles \[on a sum\].
Algebraic Pontryagin squares
----------------------------
In this section we present the algebraic analog of the Pontryagin square. The image of the algebraic Pontryagin square lies in the $4k$-dimensional symmetric $Q$-group of a finitely generated free ${\mathbb{Z}}$-module concentrated in degrees $2k+1$ and $2k$ $$B(2k, s): \dots \to S^{2k+1}{\mathbb{Z}} \xrightarrow{d= s} S^{2k}{\mathbb{Z}} \to \dots$$ Following the computations of $Q$-groups presented in [@BanRan], it can be shown that this $Q$-group is ${\mathbb Z}_4$, when $s=2$.
( [@Mod8])\[algebraic-Pont\] The **${\mathbb Z}_2$-coefficient Pontryagin square** of a $4k$-dimensional symmetric complex $(C, \phi)$ over ${\mathbb Z}$ is the function $$\begin{array}{rcl}
{\mathcal{P}}_2(\phi) : H^{2k}(C ; {\mathbb Z}_2) = H_0(\textnormal{Hom}_{{\mathbb Z}}(C, B(2k,s)))& \to &Q^{4k}(B(2k, 2)) = {\mathbb Z}_4\\
(u, v) & \mapsto & (u, v)^{\%}(\phi) = \phi_0(u, v) + 2\phi_1(v, u).
\end{array}$$
In definition \[algebraic-Pont\], $C$ is a $4k$-dimensional chain complex with a $4k$-dimensional symmetric structure, $B(2k, s)$ is a finitely generated free ${\mathbb{Z}}$-module concentrated in degrees $2k+1$ and $2k$ and let $g$ be a chain map $g = (u, v) : C \longrightarrow B(2k, d)$. Note that there is defined a ${\mathbb{Z}}$-module chain map as follows, $$\xymatrix{
C: \ar[d]_{g = (u, v)} &\dots \ar[r]^{d} &C_{2k+1} \ar[d]_{u} \ar[r]^{d} & C_{2k} \ar[d]_{v} \ar[r]^{d} &C_{2k-1}\ar[d] \ar[r]^{d} & \dots \\
B(2k, s): &\dots \ar[r] & {\mathbb{Z}} \ar[r]^{s=2} & \hspace{5pt} {\mathbb{Z}} \ar[r] & 0 \ar[r] & \dots \\
}$$
Here $u \in \textnormal{Hom}_{{\mathbb{Z}}}(C_{2k+1}, {\mathbb{Z}})$, in fact $u$ is a cocycle such that $$u \in \textnormal{Ker}(d^*: C^{2k+1} \rightarrow C^{2k+2}).$$ Similarly $v \in \textnormal{Hom}_{{\mathbb{Z}}}(C_{2k},{\mathbb{Z}})$, $v$ is a cochain such that $$d^*(v) \in \textnormal{Im}(2: C^{2k}\to C^{2k+1}).$$ Moreover $d^*v = 2u$.
Since $v$ is a morphism $v : C_{2k} \to {\mathbb{Z}}$, we can compose $v$ with a map ${\mathbb{Z}} \to {\mathbb{Z}}_2$, $$[v]: C_{2k} \to {\mathbb{Z}} \to {\mathbb{Z}}_2,$$ which represents a cocycle $$[v] \in \textnormal{Ker}(d^*: \textnormal{Hom}_{{\mathbb{Z}}}(C_{2k}, {\mathbb{Z}}_2) \to \textnormal{Hom}_{{\mathbb{Z}}}(C_{2k+1}, {\mathbb{Z}}_2)).$$
There is an isomorphism $$H_0(\textnormal{Hom}_{{\mathbb{Z}}}(C, B(2k, s))) \to H^{2k}(C, {\mathbb{Z}}_2) ; (u, v) \to [v].$$
Hence, $$\begin{array}{ccc}
{\mathcal{P}}_2(\phi): H^{2k}(C, {\mathbb{Z}}_2)=H_0(\textnormal{Hom}_{{\mathbb{Z}}}(C, B(2k, s))) & \to & {\mathbb{Z}}_4 \\
(u, v) &\mapsto &\phi_0(v, v) + 2\phi_1(v, u).
\end{array}$$
The computation of $Q^{4k}(B(2k, s))$ is given in [@Mod8] as $$Q^{4k}(B(2k, s)) \to {\mathbb{Z}}_4 ; \phi \to \phi_0 + d\phi_1.$$
The ${\mathbb{Z}}$-module chain map $(u, v) : C \longrightarrow B(2k,s)$ induces a map in the $Q$-groups, $$(u, v)\^[%]{}: Q\^[4k]{}(C) Q\^[4k]{}(B(2k,s)) = Q\^[4k]{}(
------------------------
$S^{2k+1}{\mathbb{Z}}$
$\downarrow^2$
$S^{2k}{\mathbb{Z}}$
------------------------
),$$ which sends the symmetric structure of $(C, \phi)$ to the Pontryagin square evaluated on $(u, v).$ That is, with $(u, v) : C \longrightarrow B(2k,s)$ we have,
-------- ---------------------------------- --------------------- --------------------------- --------------------------------- -------------------------------------- ---------------------------------- ------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------- --
[$\xrightarrow{(u, v)^{\%}}$ ]{} [$Q^{4k}(B)$]{} [$\xrightarrow{\cong}$]{} [${\mathbb{Z}}_4$]{} $\xleftarrow{{\mathcal{P}}_2(\phi)}$ [$H^{2k}(C ; {\mathbb{Z}}_2)$]{} [$\overset{\cong}\longleftarrow$]{} [$H_0(\textnormal{Hom}_{{\mathbb{Z}}}(C, B))$ ]{}
$\phi$ $\longmapsto$ $(u, v)^{\%}(\phi)$ $=$ [$\phi_0(v,v)+2 \phi_1(u,v)$]{} $\longleftarrow$ $[v]$ $\longleftarrow$ $(v, u)$
-------- ---------------------------------- --------------------- --------------------------- --------------------------------- -------------------------------------- ---------------------------------- ------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------- --
If $C=C(X)$ is the chain complex of a space $X$ and $\phi=\phi_X[X] \in Q^{4k}(C)$ is the image of a homology class $[X] \in H_{4k}(X)$ under the symmetric construction $\phi_X$ (\[symmetric construction\]) then the evaluation of the Pontryagin square $\mathcal{P}_2:H^{2k}(X;{\mathbb Z}_2) \to H^{4k}(X;{\mathbb Z}_4)$ on the mod $4$ reduction $[X]_4 \in H_{4k}(X;{\mathbb Z}_4)$ is the algebraic Pontryagin square $$\mathcal{P}_2(\phi) : H^{2k}(C; {\mathbb Z}_2)=H^{2k}(X; {\mathbb Z}_2) \to {\mathbb Z}_4 ; x \mapsto \langle \mathcal{P}_2(x), [X]_4 \rangle.$$ There is a commutative diagram , $$\xymatrix{ H^{2k}(C(X); {\mathbb Z}_2) \ar[r]^{{\mathcal{P}}_2(\phi)} & Q^{4k}(B(2k,2))= {\mathbb Z}_4 \\
H^{2k}(X ; {\mathbb Z}_2) \ar[u]^{=} \ar[r]^{\hspace{-55pt} {\mathcal{P}}_2} & H^{4k}(X; {\mathbb Z}_4)= H^{4k}(X ; Q^{4k}(B(2k,2))) \ar[u]_{\langle [X]_4, - \rangle}
}$$ We are mainly interested in the case when $X$ is a $4k$-dimensional geometric Poincaré space and $[X]$ is the fundamental class.
Equivariant Pontryagin squares
------------------------------
### The image of the equivariant Pontryagin square
In the definition of the equivariant Pontryagin square we will need an explicit description for the $2k$-dimensional $Q$-group of a chain complex $B(k, d)$ concentrated in degrees $k$ and $k+1$. We then use this computation to prove the isomorphism $$Q\^[2k]{}(B(k, d))= Q\^[2k]{} (
----------------
$B_{k+1}=I$
$\downarrow^d$
$B_{k}=R$
----------------
) \[\]/(I\^2+2I),$$ which is described in Proposition \[iso-ring-Q\]. The image of the equivariant Pontryagin square lies in this group. The equivariant Pontryagin square was defined on an even cohomology class in [@Korzen]. Here we will extend this definition to an odd class.
The $n$-dimensional $\epsilon$-symmetric $Q$-group $Q^n(C, \epsilon)$ is the abelian group of equivalence classes of $n$-dimensional $\epsilon$-symmetric structures on $C$, $$Q^n(C, \epsilon) = H_n(W^{\%}C)_n.$$
\[Q-group-1-dimension\] The simplest example for a $Q$-group is the computation of the $\epsilon$-symmetric $Q$-groups of a f.g. projective $R$-module chain complex concentrated in degree $k$. Proposition 16 in [@BanRan] gives the full computation of these $\epsilon$-symmetric $Q$-groups. Following this proposition, $$\begin{aligned}
Q^{2k}(B_k, \epsilon) & = H^0({\mathbb{Z}}_2; S(B^k), (-1)^kT_{\epsilon}) \\
&=H^0({\mathbb{Z}}_2; \textnormal{Hom}_R(B^k,B_k), (-1)^kT_{\epsilon})\\
&= \{ \gamma \in \textnormal{Hom}_R(B^k, B_k)\vert T_{\epsilon}\gamma = (-)^k \gamma \}. \\
$$ That is, $Q^{2k}(B_k, \epsilon)$ is the group of $(-)^k \epsilon$-symmetric forms on $B^k.$
We will now focus on the computation of an explicit formula for the $2k$-dimensional $Q$-group of a f.g projective $R$-module chain complex which is concentrated in degrees $k, k+1$: $$B(k,d): \dots \to 0 \to B_{k+1} \overset{d}{\rightarrow} B_k \to \dots$$ This group is given as part of the long exact sequence presented in Proposition 19 of [@BanRan]. Example 20 in [@BanRan] gives the explicit computation for the case $k=0$.
We recall now the notation for the $\epsilon$-duality involution $T_{\epsilon}$ which we will use in the next proposition. Let $R$ be a ring with involution, $$T_{\epsilon} : \textnormal{Hom}_R(B^q, B_q) \to \textnormal{Hom}_{R}(B^q, B_p) ; \gamma \mapsto (-1)^{pq} \epsilon \gamma^*.$$
\[Q-2k\] Let $R= {\mathbb{Z}}[\pi]$ be a ring with involution. The map $$\begin{array}{l}
Q^{2k}(B(k,d), \epsilon) \overset{\cong}{\longrightarrow} \\
\dfrac{ \{ \gamma \in \textnormal{Hom}_{{\mathbb{Z}}[\pi]} (B^k, B_{k}) \vert \gamma= (-1)^k \epsilon \gamma^* \}}{\{d\alpha d^* + (1+(-1)^kT)d ~ \textnormal{ for }~ \alpha \in \textnormal{Hom}_{{\mathbb{Z}}[\pi]} (B^{k+1}, B_{k+1}), \beta \in \textnormal{Hom}_{{\mathbb{Z}}[\pi]} (B^k, B_{k+1}) \beta \vert \alpha= (-1)^k \epsilon \alpha^*\} }; \\
\phi \mapsto \phi_0 + d\phi_1 .
\end{array}$$ is an isomorphism.
We shall write $B$ for $B(k,d)$ where there is no confusion from the context. The exact sequence given in Proposition 19 of [@BanRan] is as follows $$\label{exact-seq-Q}
\dots \to Q^{2k+1}(B, \epsilon) \to B_{k+1} \otimes_A H_{k+1}(B) \overset{F}{\rightarrow} Q^{2k}(d, \epsilon) \overset{t}{\rightarrow} Q^{2k}(B, \epsilon)\to 0.$$ Since the sequence is exact, the $Q$-group $Q^{2k}(B, \epsilon)$ is the cokernel of the map $$B_{k+1} \otimes_A H_{k+1}(B) \overset{F}{\rightarrow} Q^{2k}(d, \epsilon).$$ So in the first place we shall compute the relative group $Q^{2k}(d, \epsilon).$ The chain map $d: B_{k+1} \to B_{k}$ induces a map in the $Q$-groups $$d^{\%} : Q^{2k}(B_{k+1}, \epsilon) \to Q^{2k}(B_{k}, \epsilon) ; \alpha \mapsto d \alpha d^*.$$ The relative group $Q^{2k}(d, \epsilon)$ fits into the long exact sequence of $Q$-groups, $$Q^{2k+1}(B_k) \to Q^{2k+1}(d) \to Q^{2k}(B_{k+1}) \xrightarrow{d^{\%}} Q^{2k}(B_{k}) \to Q^{2k}(d) \to Q^{2k-1}(B_{k+1})=0.$$
Regarding the f.g. free $R$-module chain complex $$B(k,d): \dots \to 0 \to B_{k+1} \overset{d}{\rightarrow} B_k \to \dots$$ as a chain map of chain complexes both concentrated in degree $k$, $$\xymatrix{
\dots \ar[r] & 0 \ar[r] &*+[F]{B_{k+1}} \ar[d]^d \ar[r] &0 \ar[r]& \dots \\
\dots \ar[r] & 0 \ar[r] &*+[F]{B_{k}} \ar[r] &0 \ar[r]& \dots
}$$ we have that $B(k, d)$ is the algebraic mapping cone ${\mathcal{C}}(d)$ of the chain map $d: B_{k+1} \to B_k.$
We have seen in example \[Q-group-1-dimension\] that the $\epsilon$-symmetric $Q$-groups of a f.g. projective $R$-module chain complex concentrated in degree $k$ is given by, $$\begin{aligned}
Q^{2k}(B_k, \epsilon) & = \{ \gamma \in \textnormal{Hom}_A(B^k, B_k)\vert T_{\epsilon}\gamma = (-)^k \gamma \}.\end{aligned}$$ Similarly for $B_{k+1}$. Note that we have defined $d : B_{k+1} \to B_k$ to be a chain map of two chain complexes both concentrated in degree $k$, so that we are considering $B_{k+1}$ to be a chain complex concentrated in degree $k$, thus the computation following Proposition 16 of [@BanRan] is the same as the one given in example \[Q-group-1-dimension\], $$\begin{aligned}
Q^{2k}(B_{k+1}, \epsilon) & = H^0({\mathbb{Z}}_2; S(B^{k+1}), (-1)^kT_{\epsilon}) \\
&=H^0({\mathbb{Z}}_2; \textnormal{Hom}_A(B^{k+1},B_{k+1}), (-1)^kT_{\epsilon})\\
&= \{ \alpha \in \textnormal{Hom}_A(B^{k+1}, B_{k+1})\vert T_{\epsilon}\alpha =(-)^k\alpha \}.\end{aligned}$$
Hence the relative group in the exact sequence is $$\begin{aligned}
Q^{2k}(d, \epsilon) &= \frac{\textnormal{$(-)^k\epsilon$-Sym}(B^{k})}{d^{\%} \textnormal{$(-)^k\epsilon$-Sym}(B^{k+1})}\\
&= \frac{ \{\gamma=(-)^k\gamma^* \in \textnormal{Hom}_A(B^k, B_k)\}}{\{ d\alpha d^* \vert \alpha=(-)^k\alpha^* \in \textnormal{Hom}_A(B^{k+1}, B_{k+1})\}}\end{aligned}$$ and $Q^{2k}(B(k,d),\epsilon)$ is the cokernel of the map $$F ~ : ~ B_{k+1} \otimes_A H_{k+1}(B) \rightarrow \frac{\textnormal{$(-)^k\epsilon$-Sym}(B^{k})}{d^{\%} \textnormal{$(-)^k\epsilon$-Sym}(B^{k+1})}$$ in the long exact sequence on page , so that, $$Q^{2k}(B(k,d),\epsilon)= \textnormal{coker}\left( F: B_{k+1} \otimes_A H_{k+1}(B) \rightarrow \frac{\textnormal{$(-)^k\epsilon$-Sym}(B^{k})}{d^{\%} \textnormal{$(-)^k\epsilon$-Sym}(B^{k+1})}\right).$$
We now refer to Proposition 18 in [@BanRan] for the definition of the map $F$. First note that $B(k,d) = {\mathcal{C}}(d)$, as we have explained above. An element in $B_{k+1} \otimes H_{k+1}(B(k, d)) = B_{k+1} \otimes H_{k+1}({\mathcal{C}}(d))$ is a pair $(\beta, h)$ where $\beta: B^{k} \to B_{k+1}$ is a chain map and $h$ is a chain homotopy $h: d \beta \simeq 0: B^k \to B_k$.
Hence, $$\begin{array}{l}
Q^{2k}(B(k,d), \epsilon) \overset{\cong}{\longrightarrow} \\
\textnormal{coker}\left( (1+(-1)^kT)d : \textnormal{Hom}_A(B^k, B_{k+1}) \rightarrow \frac{\textnormal{$(-)^k\epsilon$-Sym}(B^{k})}{d^{\%} \textnormal{$(-)^k\epsilon$-Sym}(B^{k+1})}\right) \\
= \dfrac{ \{ \gamma \in \textnormal{Hom}_{{\mathbb{Z}}[\pi]} (B^k, B_{k}) \vert \gamma= (-1)^k \epsilon \gamma^* \}}{\{d\alpha d^* + (1+(-1)^kT)d ~ \textnormal{ for }~ \alpha \in \textnormal{Hom}_{{\mathbb{Z}}[\pi]} (B^{k+1}, B_{k+1}), \beta \in \textnormal{Hom}_{{\mathbb{Z}}[\pi]} (B^k, B_{k+1}) \beta \vert \alpha= (-1)^k \epsilon \alpha^*\} } . \\
\end{array}$$
\[iso-ring-Q\] Let $R$ be the ring $R= {\mathbb{Z}}[\pi]$ and let $I$ be the ideal given by $I= \textnormal{Ker}({\mathbb{Z}}[\pi] \to {\mathbb{Z}}_2)$ and $B(k, d)$ be the f.g free ${\mathbb{Z}}[\pi]$-module chain complex concentrated in degrees $k$ and $k+1$, $B(k, d): \dots \to 0 \to B_{k+1}=I \overset{d}{\rightarrow} B_k=R \to 0 \to \dots$, then $$Q\^[2k]{}(B(k, d))= Q\^[2k]{} (
----------------
$B_{k+1}=I$
$\downarrow^d$
$B_{k}=R$
----------------
) \[\]/(I\^2+2I).$$
The ring $R={\mathbb{Z}}[\pi]$ is a ring with involution. This involution extends to the involution on $R/I$. The ideal $I$ is a two sided ideal which is invariant under the involution, so that $I^*=I$. Note that by the definition of the ideal $I=\textnormal{Ker}({\mathbb{Z}}[\pi] \to {\mathbb{Z}}_2)$ we can form an exact sequence of ${\mathbb{Z}}[\pi]$ modules, $$0 \to I=\textnormal{Ker}({\mathbb{Z}}[\pi] \to {\mathbb{Z}}_2) \xrightarrow{d} R={\mathbb{Z}}[\pi] \to {\mathbb{Z}}_2 \to 0,$$ so that $R/I= {\mathbb{Z}}_2$. Also note that the differential in the chain complex $$B(k, d): \dots \to 0 \to B_{k+1}=I \overset{d}{\rightarrow} B_k=R \to 0 \to \dots$$ is now given by the inclusion of the ideal $I$ into the ring $R$. Using the isomorphism described in Proposition \[Q-2k\], we know that $$
[l]{} Q\^[2k]{} (
----------------
$B_{k+1}=I$
$\downarrow^d$
$B_{k}=R$
----------------
)\
\
\_0 + d\_1 .
$$In this expression we have$$= (-)\^k\^\* [Hom]{.nodecor}\_[\[\]]{} (\[\], \[\]) = \[\] \_[\[\]]{} \[\] = \[\]=R.$$Also,$$= (-)\^k\^\* [Hom]{.nodecor}\_[\[\]]{} (I\^\*, I) = I \_[\[\]]{} I =(I\^2).$$
Since $d$ is the inclusion of the ideal $I$ into the ring $R$, then an element in the image of $d$ is an element in $I$, so $d \beta \in I$ and $(1+(-1)^kT)d \beta \in (2I)$. Hence, $$Q\^[2k]{} (
----------------
$B_{k+1}=I$
$\downarrow^d$
$B_{k}=R$
----------------
) R / (I\^2+2I). $$
### Equivariant Pontryagin squares: definition
The notion of equivariant Pontryagin square was introduced in [@Korzen] for even cohomology classes. Here we extend this notion to prove that the equivariant Pontryagin squares can also be defined on odd cohomology classes.
Let $R= {\mathbb{Z}}[\pi]$ be a ring with involution and $I$ the ${\mathbb Z}_2$ augmentation ideal $I=\textnormal{Ker}({\mathbb{Z}}[\pi] \to {\mathbb{Z}}_2)$ as in the previous section. We now define a $R$-module chain map with C a $2k$-dimensional chain complex ${\mathbb{Z}}[\pi] = R$-module, and $B(k, d_R) : \dots 0 \to B_{k+1} = I \to B_k = R \to 0 \to \dots$ $$\xymatrix{
C: \ar[d]_{g = (u, v)} &\dots \ar[r]^{d_C} &C_{k+1} \ar[d]_{u} \ar[r]^{d_C} & C_{k} \ar[d]_{v} \ar[r]^{d_C} &C_{k-1}\ar[d] \ar[r]^{d_C} & \dots \\
B(k, d_R): &\dots \ar[r] & I \ar[r]^{d_R=i} & \hspace{5pt} R \ar[r] & 0 \ar[r] & \dots \\
}$$ This chain complex map is defined by a cocycle $u \in \textnormal{Ker}(d^*_C: C^{k+1} \rightarrow C^{k+2})$ and a cochain $ d^*_C(v) \in \textnormal{Im}(d^*_C: C^{k}\to C^{k+1})$ such that $d_C^*v = d_Ru$.
An element $[x] \in H^k(C; {\mathbb{Z}}_2)$ is given by the composite morphism $$[x] : C_k \xrightarrow{v} {\mathbb{Z}} \to {\mathbb{Z}}_2 = R/I$$ so it is a cocycle of $\textnormal{Hom}_{{\mathbb{Z}}[\pi]}(C_k, {\mathbb{Z}}_2),$ $$[x] \in \textnormal{Ker}(d^* : \textnormal{Hom}_{{\mathbb{Z}}[\pi]}(C_k, {\mathbb{Z}}_2) \to \textnormal{Hom}_{{\mathbb{Z}}[\pi]}(C_{k+1}, {\mathbb{Z}}_2)).$$ Then there is an isomorphism, $$\begin{aligned}
H^k(C; {\mathbb{Z}}_2) &\to H_0(\textnormal{Hom}_{{\mathbb{Z[\pi]}}}(C, B(k, d_R))) \\
[x] & \to (u, v).\end{aligned}$$
\[equivariant-Pont\] Let $R$ be the ring $R = {\mathbb{Z}}[\pi]$ and $I$ be the ideal $I = \textnormal{Ker}({\mathbb{Z}}[\pi] \to {\mathbb{Z}}_2)$. The $R/I$-coefficient Pontryagin square of a $2k$-dimensional symmetric complex $(C, \phi)$ over $R={\mathbb{Z}}[\pi]$ is the function $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal{P}}_{d_R} : H^{k}(C; {\mathbb{Z}}_2)\to Q^{2k}(B(k, d_R))= R/(I^2+2I) ;\\
(u, v) \mapsto (u, v)^\%(\phi) = \phi_0(v, v) + d_R \phi_1(v, u)\end{aligned}$$ with $(v, u) \in C^k \oplus C^{k+1}$ such that $d_C^*(v) = d_Ru$, $d_C^*(u)=0 \in C^{k+2}$.
Note that in definition \[equivariant-Pont\] $k$ can be odd.
The Signature, the Pontryagin square, the Brown-Kervaire and Arf invariants in topology {#Morita-chain-cx}
=======================================================================================
*“Any good theorem should have several proofs, the more the better. For two reasons: usually, different proofs have different strengths and weaknesses, and they generalise in different directions, they are not just repetitions of each other."*
*Sir Michael Atiyah*
In this chapter we will give chain complex proofs of the main results in [@Morita]. We shall prove:
- Morita’s Theorem ([@Morita theorem 1.1]) which gives the mod $8$ relation between the signature of a $4k$-dimensional Poincaré space $X$ and the Brown-Kervaire invariant, $$\sigma (X) = \textnormal{BK}(H^{2k}(X; \mathbb{Z}_2), \lambda, {\mathcal{P}}_2) \in {\mathbb Z}_8.$$ (See theorem \[Morita\]).
- the mod $4$ relation between the signature and Pontryagin square, $$\sigma(X) = \langle {\mathcal{P}}_2(v_{2k}), [X]\rangle \in {\mathbb Z}_4.$$ This will be proved in the first section in this chapter. This proof is just the mod $4$ reduction of the expression for the signature given in [@BanRan Proposition 52, Corollary 61], which we discussed in section \[Twisted-Q-groups\].
The contents of section \[obstructions\] in this chapter were not considered in [@Morita]. In that section we shall describe certain invariants which detect when the signature is divisible either by $4$ or by $8$, and in particular in subsection \[BK-Arf-in-topology\] we state the relation between the Brown-Kervaire and Arf invariants in topology.
The signature modulo $4$ and the Pontryagin square {#first-section}
--------------------------------------------------
Morita [@Morita] proved that there exists a mod $4$ relation between the signature of a $4k$-dimensional Poincaré space and the Pontryagin square. Here we give a new proof of this result by proving its algebraic analogue. In [@Morita] this result is stated geometrically as follows,
([@Morita Proposition 2.3]) Let $X^{4k}$ be an oriented Poincaré complex and ${\mathcal{P}}_2: H^{2k}(X ; {\mathbb{Z}}_2) \to {\mathbb{Z}}_4$ be the Pontryagin square, then $$\sigma(X) = \langle {\mathcal{P}}_2 (v_{2k}), [X] \rangle \in {\mathbb Z}_4,$$ where $v_{2k} \in H^{2k}(X ; {\mathbb{Z}}_2)$ is the $2k$-th Wu class of $X.$
The algebraic analogue of this result is stated as follows, using the algebraic Wu class (defined in \[algebraic-Wu\]):
\[signature-Psq\] Let $(C, \phi)$ be a $4k$-dimensional symmetric Poincaré complex over $\mathbb{Z}$, then $$\sigma(C, \phi) = {\mathcal{P}}_2(v_{2k})\in {\mathbb Z}_4,$$ where $v_{2k} \in H^{2k}(C ; {\mathbb{Z}}_2)$ is the $2k$-th algebraic Wu class of $(C, \phi).$
The proof of this proposition is a direct consequence of Theorem \[sign-theta\]. The chain complexes in this proposition are Poincaré so the hyperquadratic signature (also referred to in the literature as mod $8$ signature) coincides with the signature reduced modulo $8$ and we can simply write the relation in Theorem \[sign-theta\] $$\widehat{\sigma}(C, \phi, \gamma, \theta) = \phi_0(v, v) + 2 \phi_1(v, u) + 4 \theta_{-2}(u, u) \in Q_{4k}(B(k, 1), \beta(k, 1)) = {\mathbb{Z}}_8$$ as $$\sigma(C, \phi) = \phi_0(v, v) + 2 \phi_1(v, u) + 4 \theta_{-2}(u, u) \in {\mathbb{Z}}_8.$$ Reducing modulo $4$ we obtain, $$\xymatrix{
\sigma (C, \phi)= \phi_0(v, v) + 2 \phi_1(v, u) + 4 \theta_{-2}(u, u) \ar@{|->}[d] & \in & Q_{4k}(B(k, 1), \beta(k, 1)) = {\mathbb{Z}}_8\ar[d]^{\textnormal{mod} 4} \\
{\mathcal{P}}_2(\nu_{2k}) = \phi_0(v, v) + 2 \phi_1(v, u) & \in & Q_{4k}(B(k, 1)) = {\mathbb{Z}}_4.}$$
Hence the result follows.
### A condition for divisibility by of the signature by $4$
In [@Morita] the following corollary is proved.
\[sign-pont-zero\] ([@Morita corollary 1.2]) Let $X$ be a $4k$-dimensional oriented Poincaré space, then $\sigma(X) = 0 \in {\mathbb Z}_4$ if and only if $${\mathcal{P}}_2(v_{2k}) = 0 \in {\mathbb{Z}}_4.$$ Here $v_{2k}$ is the $2k$-th Wu class of $M$.
As before we give the algebraic analogue of this corollary.
\[Pontryagin-zero\] Let $(C, \phi)$ be a $4k$-dimensional symmetric Poincaré complex, then $\sigma(C, \phi) = 0 \in {\mathbb Z}_4$ if and only if, $${\mathcal{P}}_2(v_{2k}) = 0 \in {\mathbb{Z}}_4$$ where $v_{2k}$ is the $2k$-th algebraic Wu class of the symmetric chain complex $(C, \phi)$.
The proof of this corollary is now a direct consequence of Proposition \[signature-Psq\].
This corollary is specially interesting in the case of a fibration: From [@modfour Theorem A] we know that for a fibration $F \to E \to B$, the signature is multiplicative modulo $4$, $$\sigma(E) - \sigma(F) \sigma(B) =0 \in {\mathbb Z}_4.$$ In the case of a fibration with dimensions of the base and fibre congruent to $2$ modulo $4$, $$\label{sqsym}
F^{4i+2} \to E \to B^{4j+2},$$ we know that for dimension reasons the signatures of base and fibre is $0$, so that the signature of the total space is always divisible by $4$, $$\sigma(E) = 0 \in {\mathbb Z}_4.$$ Thus by Corollary \[sign-pont-zero\], a property of bundles of the form $F^{4i+2} \to E \to B^{4j+2}$ is that $$\langle {\mathcal{P}}_2(v(\nu_E)), [E] \rangle=0 \in {\mathbb Z}_4.$$
When the fibration has dimensions $F^{4j} \to E^{4k} \to B^{4i}$ we have that $\sigma(E) - \sigma(F) \sigma(B) =0 \in {\mathbb Z}_4,$ and hence $$\langle {\mathcal{P}}_2(v), [E \sqcup -F \times B] \rangle =0 \in {\mathbb Z}_4,$$ where $v$ is the Wu class $v \in H^{2k}(E;{\mathbb Z}_2) \oplus H^{2k}(F \times B).$
The signature modulo $8$ and the Brown-Kervaire invariant
---------------------------------------------------------
### The Brown-Kervaire invariant and quadratic linking forms {#BK-and-L}
In section \[Morita-theorem\] we shall give a proof of [@Morita theorem 1.1] using chain complex methods. This theorem gives a relation between the signature mod $8$ and the Brown-Kervaire invariant of a linking form over $({\mathbb Z}, (2)^{\infty})$.
\[Brown-linking\] The Brown-Kervaire invariant $\textnormal{BK}(T, b, q) \in {\mathbb Z}_8$ of a nonsingular quadratic linking form $(T, b, q)$ is defined using a Gauss sum $$\sum_{x \in T} i^{q(x)} = \sqrt{\vert T \vert} e^{2 \pi i \textnormal{BK}(T, b, q)/8}.$$
Note that this essentially is the same expression as that of Definition \[Gauss-sum-formula\], which gives the Brown-Kervaire invariant of [@Brown]. In [@Brown] $T$ is required to be a ${\mathbb Z}_2$-vector space. The more general application of this Gauss sum is given [@Brum-Morg page 109].
Here we will discuss the relation between the signature modulo $8$, the hyperquadratic signature and the Brown-Kervaire invariant. Important references here are [@exactseqRan], [@BanRan section 4] and [@Mod8].
We start by giving some general definitions about linking forms over $(R, S)$ where $R$ is a ring with involution and $S\subset R$ is a multiplicative subset of central nonzero divisors.
The following are standard definitions from [@exactseqRan].
- **An $(R, S)$-module** is an $R$-module $T$ with a one-dimensional f.g. projective $R$-module resolution $$0 \to P \xrightarrow{d} Q \to T \to 0$$ with $S^{-1}d : S^{-1}P \to S^{-1}Q$ is an $S^{-1}R$-module isomorphism, and $$S^{-1}T = 0.$$
- The **dual** of an $(R, S)$-module $T$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
T\widehat{{\color{White}a}} & = \textnormal{Ext}^1_R(T, R) \\
&= \textnormal{Hom}_R(T, S^{-1}R/R) \\
&= \textnormal{coker}(d^*: Q^* \to P^*).\end{aligned}$$
<!-- -->
- A **$\epsilon$-symmetric linking form $(T, b)$ over $(R, S)$** is an $(R, S)$-module $T$ together with $b \in \textnormal{Hom}_R(T, {T\widehat{{\color{White}a}}})$, such that $b \widehat{{\color{White}a}} = \epsilon b$, so that $$\overline{b(x, y)} = \epsilon b(y, x) \in S^{-1}R/R ~~~ (x, y \in T)$$
- A **lagrangian for $(T, b)$** is an $(R, S)$ module $U \subset T$ such that $$U^{\perp} = \left\{x \in T \vert b(x)(U) = 0 \in S^{-1}R/R \right\}=U,$$ and the sequence $$0 \to U \to T \to {U\widehat{{\color{White}a}}}\to 0$$ is exact, where ${U\widehat{{\color{White}a}}}$ is the dual of $U$.
<!-- -->
- An **$\epsilon$-quadratic linking form $(T, b, q)$ over $(R, S)$** is an $\epsilon$-symmetric linking form $(T, b)$ together with a function $$q: T \to Q_{\epsilon}(R, S) = \frac{\{ c \in S^{-1}R \vert \epsilon \overline{c}= c\}}{\{a+ \epsilon \overline{a} \vert a \in R \}}$$ such that $$\begin{array}{l}
q(ax) = a q(x) \overline{a} \\
q(x+y) = q(x)+ q(y) + b(x, y) + b(y, x) \\
q(x) = b(x,x) \in S^{-1}R/R.
\end{array}$$
- A **lagrangian** $U$ for the nonsingular quadratic linking form $(T, b, q)$ is a lagrangian of the nonsingular form $(T, b)$, such that $q$ restricts to $0$ on $U$.
$L_0(R, S)$ is the cobordism group of quadratic $(R, S)$-module linking forms, and $L^0(R,S)$ is the cobordism group of symmetric $(R, S)$-module linking forms. These groups fit into the localization exact sequences
$$\label{exact2}
\dots \to L^n(R) \to L^n(S^{-1}R) \to L^n(R, S) \to L^{n-1}(R) \to \dots$$
$$\label{exact3}\dots \to L_n(R) \to L_n(S^{-1}R) \to L_n(R, S) \to L_{n-1}(R) \to \dots$$
where $S^{-1}R$ is the localized ring with involution obtained from $R$ by inverting $S$. These exact sequences are defined in detail in [@exactseqRan].
We shall only be concerned with the case $1/2 \in S^{-1}R$
$R={\mathbb Z}$ and $S=(2)^{\infty}$, $1/2 \in S^{-1}R$.
With $1/2 \in S^{-1}R$ there is an isomorphism $ L_*(S^{-1}R) \cong L^*(S^{-1}R)$, so there is a braid of exact sequences,
\
$$\xymatrix@C-11pt@R-15pt{
&&L_0(R) \ar@/^1.7pc/@[Blue]@[thicker][rr] \ar@[Red]@[thicker][dr] &&
L_0(S^{-1}R)\cong L^0(S^{-1}R) \ar@[Blue]@[thicker][dr] \ar@[Green]@/^1.7pc/@[thicker][rr]&& L^0(R, S)
&& \\
&
&&L^0(R) \ar@[Green]@[thicker][ur] \ar@[Red]@[thicker][dr] &&
L_0(R, S) \ar@[Blue]@[thicker][dr] \ar@[Black]@[thicker][ur] && \\
&&
L^1(R, S) \ar@/_1.7pc/@[thicker][rr] \ar@[Green]@[thicker][ur] &&
\widehat{L}^0(R) \ar@[thicker][ur] \ar@[Red]@/_1.7pc/@[thicker][rr]&& L_{-1}(R)
&&}$$
Let $R = {\mathbb{Z}}$, $S= (2)^{\infty}= \left\{2^i \vert i \geq 0 \right\} \subset {\mathbb{Z}}$ and $S^{-1}R = {\mathbb{Z}}[\frac{1}{2}]$. Here is the braid in this case.
[ a]{}
The group $L_{4k}({\mathbb Z}, (2^{\infty}))$ is the cobordism group of $(4k-1)$-dimensional ${\mathbb Z}[\frac{1}{2}]$-acyclic quadratic Poincaré complexes over ${\mathbb Z}$. A quadratic $(4k-1)$-dimensional Poincaré complex determines a nonsingular quadratic linking form over $({\mathbb Z}, (2)^{\infty})$, hence the group $L_{4k}({\mathbb Z}, (2^{\infty}))$ is also the Witt group of nonsingular quadratic linking forms over $({\mathbb Z}, (2^{\infty}))$.
Similarly the $L^{4k}({\mathbb Z}, (2)^{\infty})$ is the cobordism group of $(4k-1)$-dimensional ${\mathbb Z}[\frac{1}{2}]$-acyclic symmetric Poincaré complexes over ${\mathbb Z}$. These have a one-one correspondence with symmetric linking forms over $({\mathbb Z}, (2)^{\infty})$. So that the group $L^{4k}({\mathbb Z}, (2^{\infty}))$ is also the Witt group of nonsingular symmetric linking forms over $({\mathbb Z}, (2^{\infty}))$.
An element $(T,b,q) \in \textnormal{ker}(L_0({\mathbb Z},(2)^{\infty}) \to L^0({\mathbb Z},(2)^{\infty}))$ is represented by a quadratic linking form $(T,b,q)$ such that $(T,b) \oplus (T',b') \cong (T'',b'')$ with $(T',b')$, $(T'',b'')$ symmetric linking forms which admit lagrangians $U' \subset T'$, $U'' \subset T''$. The Brown-Kervaire invariant determines the Witt class of $(T,b,q).$
If $(T,b,q)$ has a lagrangian $U$ (i.e. a lagrangian for $(T,b)$ such that $q$ is $0$ on $U$) then $(T,b,q)=0 \in L_{4k}(Z,(2)^{\infty})$ and $BK(T,b,q)=0 \in Z_8$.
As indicated in the braid above, the Brown-Kervaire invariant splits the sequence $$\xymatrix{\dots \ar[r]& L^1({\mathbb Z}, (2^{\infty}))=0 \ar[r] & \widehat{L}^0({\mathbb Z}) \ar[r] & L_0({\mathbb Z}, (2^{\infty})) \ar@/^1.1pc/[l]^{BK} \ar[r] & L^0({\mathbb Z}, (2^{\infty})) \ar[r]& \dots
}$$ so the Brown-Kervaire invariant of a nonsingular linking form determines the hyperquadratic signature of a normal complex. (See [@BanRan]).
A $4k$-dimensional normal complex can be expressed as a (symmetric, quadratic) pair which has as boundary a $(4k-1)$-dimensional quadratic Poincaré complex.
A $(4k-1)$-dimensional quadratic Poincaré complex $(C, \psi)$ over ${\mathbb Z}$ is always null-cobordant by a quadratic Poincaré pair $(C \to \delta C, (\delta \psi, \psi))$ since $L_{4k-1}({\mathbb Z}) =0$. From the $4k$-dimensional quadratic Poincaré pair $(C \to \delta C, (\delta \psi, \psi))$ we can construct a $4k$-dimensional [**quadratic**]{} complex, $$(\delta C/ C, \delta \psi / \psi),$$ by the algebraic Thom construction (see [@bluebook proposition 1.15])
The symmetrization map $Q_{4k}(\delta C/C) \xrightarrow{1+T} Q^{4k}(\delta C/C)$ allows us to construct a $4k$-dimensional symmetric complex $(\delta C/ C, (1+T)\delta \psi / \psi)$.
\[hyper-sign\] ([@Mod8]) The hyperquadratic signature of a $(4k-1)$-dimensional quadratic Poincaré complex $(C, \psi)$ over ${\mathbb Z}$ is defined by the mod $8$ reduction of the signature of the $4k$-dimensional symmetric complex $(\delta C/ C, (1+T) \delta \psi / \psi),$ $$\widehat{\sigma}^*(C, \psi) = \sigma^*(\delta C/ C, (1+T) \delta \psi / \psi) \in {\mathbb Z}_8.$$
Note that the hyperquadratic signature of a $(4k-1)$-dimensional quadratic Poincaré complex $(C, \psi)$ over ${\mathbb Z}$ is a well defined homotopy invariant but not a cobordism invariant. This is the case because two different nullcobordisms $\delta C$ and $\delta C'$ need not have the same signature. That is, if we consider the $4k$-dimensional quadratic Poincaré complex over ${\mathbb Z}$ given by $(\delta C \cup_C \delta C')$, then by Novikov additivity, $$\sigma(\delta C \cup_C \delta C')= \sigma(\delta C) - \sigma(\delta C').$$ Since $(\delta C \cup_C \delta C')$ is quadratic then $$\sigma(\delta C \cup_C \delta C')= \sigma(\delta C) - \sigma(\delta C') =0 \in {\mathbb Z}_8,$$ so the signatures are only congruent mod $8.$
\[sign-pair\] ([@Mod8]) The hyperquadratic signature of a (symmetric, quadratic) Poincaré pair $(C \to D, (\delta \phi, \psi))$ over ${\mathbb Z}$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\widehat{\sigma}^*(C \to D, (\delta \phi, \psi)) & = \sigma^*(D \cup_{C} \delta C, \delta \phi \cup -(1+T) \delta \psi) \\
& = \sigma (D/C, \delta \phi/ (1+T) \psi) - \widehat{\sigma}^*(C, \psi) \in {\mathbb Z}_8,
\textnormal{~with~} L_{4k-1}({\mathbb Z})=0.\end{aligned}$$
Note that the hyperquadratic signature of a (symmetric, quadratic) Poincaré pair is a cobordism invariant. If $(C \to D, (\delta \phi, \psi))$ is nullcobordant then $D \cup_C \delta C$ is the boundary of a symmetric complex $E$. A boundary has signature $0$, so $\sigma^*(D \cup_C \delta C)=0$. This is an algebraic interpretation of Lemma C in [@brumfield-Morgan].
We are interested in relating the signature modulo $8$ of a $4k$-dimensional symmetric Poincaré complex over ${\mathbb Z}$ with the Brown-Kervaire invariant of a linking form. For this purpose, the following is the most relevant part of the braid in figure \[fig:braid\], $$\label{Braid-essential}
\xymatrix{& L_{4k}({\mathbb Z}[\frac{1}{2}]) = L^{4k}({\mathbb Z}[\frac{1}{2}]) \ar[dr]^{\partial_*} & \\
L^{4k}({\mathbb Z}) \ar[ur] \ar[dr]& & L_{4k}({\mathbb Z}, (2)^{\infty}) \ar@/^1.7pc/[dl]^{BK} \\
& \widehat{L}^{4k}({\mathbb Z}) \ar[ur] & }$$ We shall first discuss this diagram (\[Braid-essential\]) for the case when $k=0$, i.e. with forms.
A nonsingular symmetric form $(K, \lambda) \in L^{0}({\mathbb Z})$ has signature $\sigma(K, \lambda) \in {\mathbb Z}$, which reduced modulo $8$ is sent to the hyperquadratic signature of the normal complex $\widehat{\sigma}^*(K, \lambda, \gamma, \theta)$ via the map $L^{0}({\mathbb Z}) \to \widehat{L}^{0}({\mathbb Z})$, where $(\gamma, \theta)$ is a representative of the unique equivalence class of normal structures on the symmetric form $(K, \lambda)$ as defined in \[chain-bundles\].
We can trace this diagram to see how a nonsingular symmetric form in $L^{0}({\mathbb Z})$ corresponds to a nonsingular quadratic linking form in $L_{0}({\mathbb Z}, (2)^{\infty}).$ The map $L^{0}({\mathbb Z}) \to L_{0}({\mathbb Z}\left[\frac{1}{2}\right]) = L^{0}({\mathbb Z}\left[\frac{1}{2}\right])$ sends the nonsingular symmetric form $(K, \lambda)$ over ${\mathbb Z}$ to a nonsingular symmetric form ${\mathbb Z}[\frac{1}{2}] \otimes_{{\mathbb Z}}(K , \lambda)$ over ${\mathbb Z}\left[\frac{1}{2}\right]$. Since $2$ is a unit in ${\mathbb Z}\left[\frac{1}{2}\right]$, the morphism of forms over ${\mathbb Z}$ $$2: (K, \lambda) \to (K, 4 \lambda)$$ becomes an isomorphism in ${\mathbb Z}\left[\frac{1}{2}\right]$, $${\mathbb Z}\left[\frac{1}{2}\right] \otimes_{{\mathbb Z}}(K , \lambda) = {\mathbb Z}\left[\frac{1}{2}\right] \otimes_{{\mathbb Z}}(K , 4 \lambda) \in L_0 \left({\mathbb Z}\left[\frac{1}{2}\right] \right).$$ Note that ${\mathbb Z}\left[\frac{1}{2}\right] \otimes_{{\mathbb Z}}(K , 4 \lambda) = {\mathbb Z}\left[\frac{1}{2}\right] \otimes_{{\mathbb Z}}(K , 2 \lambda + 2 \lambda^*)$, so this is an even symmetric, i.e. quadratic form. Following [@Mod8], the form $(K, 2\lambda + 2 \lambda^*)$ is mapped to a quadratic linking form $(T, b, q)$ under the boundary map $L_{0}({\mathbb Z}\left[ \frac{1}{2} \right]) \xrightarrow{\partial_*} L_{0}({\mathbb Z}, (2)^{\infty})$, described in detail below.
Recall that a symmetric form $(F, \alpha)$ over ${\mathbb Z}$ is nondegenerate if $\alpha: F \to F^*$ is injective. A symmetric form $(F, \alpha)$ over ${\mathbb Z}$ determines a nondegenerate form $$(F', \alpha') = (F / \textnormal{Ker}(\alpha: F \to F^*), [\alpha])$$ which has the same signature, $$\sigma(F', \alpha') = \sigma(F, \alpha) \in {\mathbb Z}.$$
([@Mod8; @Brum-Morg]) The boundary of a [**nondegenerate**]{} symmetric form $(F, \alpha)$ over ${\mathbb Z}$ is the nonsingular symmetric linking form over $({\mathbb Z}, (2)^{\infty})$ $$T= \partial^*(F, \alpha) = (\partial F, b),$$ with $$\begin{array}{l}
\partial F = \textnormal{coker}(\alpha: F \to F^*) \\
b : \partial F \times \partial F \to {\mathbb Z}\left[\frac{1}{2} \right]/ {\mathbb Z}; (x,y) \mapsto \alpha^{-1}(x, y) \textnormal{ with } x, y \in T. \\
\end{array}$$ If the nonsingular symmetric form is even then it admits a quadratic enhancement, $$\begin{array}{l}
q : \partial F \to {\mathbb Z}_4; x \mapsto \frac{\alpha^{-1}(x,x)}{2}.
\end{array}$$
Applying this proposition to our nonsingular form $\left[\frac{1}{2}\right] \otimes_{{\mathbb Z}}(K , 4 \lambda) \in L_0 \left({\mathbb Z}\left[\frac{1}{2}\right] \right)$, we can construct a nonsingular quadratic linking form given by $$\begin{array}{l}
T = \textnormal{coker}(4: K \to K)_{*+1}= K / 4K, \\
b : T \times T \to {\mathbb Z}_2 ; (x,y) \mapsto (4\lambda)^{-1}(x, y) \textnormal{ with } x, y \in T, \\
q : T \to {\mathbb Z}_4; x \mapsto \frac{(4\lambda)^{-1}(x,x)}{2}
\end{array}$$ where $\lambda : K \to K^*$ is an isomorphism and $\lambda^{-1}: K^* \to K$ defines a symmetric form on $K^*$. There is an exact sequence $$0 \to U =K/ 2K \to T= K/ 4K \to {U\widehat{{\color{White}a}}}= K/ 2K \to 0.$$ The form $(T, b, q )= \left(K/ 4K, (4 \lambda)^{-1}, \frac{(4 \lambda)^{-1}}{2}\right) \in L_{4k}({\mathbb Z}, (2)^{\infty})$ is quadratic and the nonsingular symmetric form $(T, b)$ has a lagrangian $U= K/ 2K$. Hence we can form a $0$-dimensional (symmetric, quadratic) complex given by $$\left({\mathcal{C}}(4:K \to K)_{*+1} \to {\mathcal{C}}(2:K \to K)_{*+1}, \left(0, \frac{(4 \lambda)^{-1}}{2}\right)\right) \in \widehat{L}^{0}({\mathbb Z}).$$ In the braid in figure \[fig:braid\], we see that the map $\widehat{L}^{0}({\mathbb Z})\to L_{4k}({\mathbb Z}, (2)^{\infty})$ is an injection. The Brown-Kervaire invariant of the quadratic linking form $(T, b, q)= \left(K/ 4K, (4 \lambda)^{-1}, \frac{(4 \lambda)^{-1}}{2}\right) \in L_{4k}({\mathbb Z}, (2)^{\infty})$ determines the same Witt class as the hyperquadratic signature of the (symmetric, quadratic) pair $\left({\mathcal{C}}(4:K \to K)_{*+1} \to {\mathcal{C}}(2:K \to K)_{*+1}, \left(0, \frac{(4 \lambda)^{-1}}{2}\right)\right)$, that is, $$\begin{gathered}
\widehat{\sigma}^*\left({\mathcal{C}}(4:K \to K)_{*+1} \to {\mathcal{C}}(2:K \to K)_{*+1}, \left(0, \frac{(4 \lambda)^{-1}}{2}\right)\right) = \\
\textnormal{BK}\left(K/ 4K, (4 \lambda)^{-1}, \frac{(4 \lambda)^{-1}}{2}\right) \in {\mathbb Z}_8.\end{gathered}$$ (See [@BanRan section 4]).
We need to check that $\widehat{\sigma}^*\left({\mathcal{C}}(4:K \to K)_{*+1} \to {\mathcal{C}}(2: K \to K)_{*+1}, \left(0, \frac{(4 \lambda)^{-1}}{2}\right)\right) $ coincides with $\sigma(K, \lambda) \pmod{8}.$
The (symmetric, quadratic) pair $\left({\mathcal{C}}(4:K \to K)_{*+1} \to {\mathcal{C}}(2:K \to K)_{*+1}, \left(0, \frac{(4 \lambda)^{-1}}{2}\right)\right) $ can be expressed as a normal complex, $$\begin{gathered}
\left({\mathcal{C}}(4: K \to K)_{*+1} \to {\mathcal{C}}(2: K \to K)_{*+1}, \left(0, \frac{(4 \lambda)^{-1}}{2}\right)\right) = \\
\left({\mathcal{C}}(2: K \to K)_{*+1}, [\lambda], [\gamma], [\theta]\right) \in \widehat{L}^{4k}({\mathbb Z}).\end{gathered}$$
\[cobordism-normal-cx\] The normal form $(K, \lambda, \gamma, \theta)$ is cobordant to $ \left({\mathcal{C}}(2: K \to K)_{*+1}, [\lambda], [\gamma], [\theta]\right).$
The normal structure on $(K, \lambda, \gamma, \theta)$ restricts to $0$ on $2K \subset K$, so there is a quotient normal structure on $\left({\mathcal{C}}(2: K \to K)_{*+1}, [\lambda], [\gamma], [\theta]\right).$ That is, there is an algebraic normal map $K \to {\mathcal{C}}(2)$ as defined in [@bluebook pages 48 and 49]. The quotient normal structure on $\left({\mathcal{C}}(2: K \to K)_{*+1}, [\lambda], [\gamma], [\theta]\right)$ is the pullback from the universal chain bundle $(B, \beta)$ by the Wu class $K \xrightarrow{v} {\mathbb Z}.$ $$\xymatrix{
K \ar[r]^{\hspace{0pt}v} \ar[d]^{2} & {\mathbb{Z}} \ar[d]^2\\
K \ar[r]^{\hspace{0pt}v} & {\mathbb{Z}}}$$ (See section \[Twisted-Q-groups\] for the definition of the universal chain bundle.) The normal structure is determined by this chain map to the universal chain bundle, which identifies its class in the universal twisted $Q$-group $Q_{0}(B, \beta)$ and consequently its cobordism class in $\widehat{L}^{0}({\mathbb Z})$ as a normal complex.
The classifying map of $(K, \lambda, \gamma, \theta)$ factors through that of the map for $\left({\mathcal{C}}(2: K \to K)_{*+1}, [\lambda], [\gamma], [\theta]\right),$ $$\xymatrix{
& K \ar[r]^{\hspace{0pt}v} \ar[d]^{2} & {\mathbb{Z}} \ar[d]^2\\
K \ar[r]^1 & K \ar[r]^{\hspace{0pt}v} & {\mathbb{Z}}}$$ so the class of the normal structure of $(K, \lambda, \gamma, \theta)$ is identified with the same class as $\left({\mathcal{C}}(2: K \to K)_{*+1}, [\lambda], [\gamma], [\theta]\right)$ in the universal twisted $Q$-group $Q_{0}(B, \beta)$. Consequently both complexes, $(K, \lambda, \gamma, \theta)$ and $\left({\mathcal{C}}(2: K \to K)_{*+1}, [\lambda], [\gamma], [\theta]\right)$ are cobordant in $\widehat{L}^{0}({\mathbb Z}).$
If $(K, \lambda, \gamma, \theta)$ and $\left({\mathcal{C}}(2: K \to K)_{*+1}, [\lambda], [\gamma], [\theta]\right)$ are cobordant, then $(K, \lambda, \gamma, \theta)$ is also cobordant to $\left({\mathcal{C}}(4: K \to K)_{*+1} \to {\mathcal{C}}(2:K \to K)_{*+1}, \left(0, \frac{(4\lambda)^{-1}}{2}\right)\right).$
Hence, $$\begin{gathered}
\widehat{\sigma}^*\left({\mathcal{C}}(4: K \to K)_{*+1} \to {\mathcal{C}}(2:K \to K)_{*+1}, \left(0, \frac{(4\lambda)^{-1}}{2}\right)\right) = \\ \widehat{\sigma}^*(K, \lambda, \gamma, \theta)\equiv \sigma(K, \lambda) \pmod{8}.\end{gathered}$$ This means that the diagram on page coming from the relevant part of the braid in figure \[fig:braid\] is commutative, so that, $$\textnormal{BK} \left({\mathcal{C}}(4\lambda)_{*+1}, (4 \lambda)^{-1}, \frac{(4 \lambda)^{-1}}{2} \right) = \sigma(K, \lambda)\in {\mathbb Z}_8.$$
The symmetric form $({\mathbb Z}, 4,0)$ has signature $1$. The boundary map gives a quadratic linking form $$\partial_*({\mathbb Z}, 4, 0) = ({\mathbb Z}_4, 1/4, 1/8 ),$$ We can compute the Brown-Kervaire invariant of this quadratic linking form by using the Gauss sum formula from Definition \[Brown-linking\], $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{x \in T} e^{2 \pi i q(x)} & = e^{2 \pi i / 4} + e^{2\pi i} \\
& = i + 1\end{aligned}$$ This has argument $\pi/4$, hence $$BK({\mathbb Z}_4, 1/4, 1/8) = \sigma({\mathbb Z}, 4, 0) = 1 \in {\mathbb Z}_8.$$
### Morita’s theorem {#Morita-theorem}
The original statement of [@Morita theorem 1.1] relating the Brown-Kervaire invariant and the signature modulo $8$ is formulated geometrically and it relates the signature of a $4k$-dimensional Poincaré space $X$ and the Brown-Kervaire invariant of a Pontryagin square, which is a quadratic enhancement of the cup product structure on the ${\mathbb{Z}}_2$-vector space $H^{2k}(X; \mathbb{Z}_2)$.
Before Morita proved his theorem, Brown had already given a proof in a special case:
\[Brown’s theorem\] ([@Brown Theorem 1.20 (viii)]) Let $U$ be a finitely generated free abelian group. If $\Phi: U \otimes U \to \mathbb{Z}$ is a symmetric bilinear form over $\mathbb{Z}$ with determinant $1$ or $-1$, and $\eta: U/2U \to \mathbb{Z}_4$ is defined by $\eta(u) = \Phi(u, u) \in {\mathbb Z}_4$, then $\eta$ is quadratic and $$\textnormal{BK}(U/2U, \Phi, \eta) = \sigma(U, \Phi)\in {\mathbb Z}_8.$$
[@Brown Theorem 1.20 (viii)] is purely algebraic and has a straightforward proof.
Morita’s theorem is given in [@Morita] as follows:
\[Morita\] ([@Morita theorem 1.1]) Let $X$ be a $4k$-dimensional Poincaré space, then $$\sigma (X) \equiv \textnormal{BK}(H^{2k}(X; \mathbb{Z}_2), \lambda, {\mathcal{P}}_2) \in {\mathbb Z}_8.$$
The proof given in [@Morita] involves spectral sequences, and a further proof given in [@Taylor] involves Gauss sums. In our proof we will reformulate the theorem in terms of symmetric Poincaré complexes $(C, \phi)$. The Pontryagin square which geometrically depends on the cup and cup-$1$ products, depends algebraically on the symmetric structure $\phi$ as was explained in Chapter \[Pontryagin-squares chapter\]. This is denoted by ${\mathcal{P}}_2(\phi)$, although for simplicity we will write ${\mathcal{P}}_2$ in what follows.
\[Morita-theorem-cx\] Let $(C, \phi)$ be a $4k$-dimensional symmetric Poincaré complex over $\mathbb{Z}$, then $$\sigma (C, \phi) \equiv \textnormal{BK}(H^{2k}(C; \mathbb{Z}_2), \phi, \mathcal{P}_2) \in {\mathbb Z}_8.$$
The proof of Morita’s theorem (\[Morita\]) using the chain complex approach relies on the following key points:
- There is an isomorphism given by the signature $L^{4k}({\mathbb{Z}}) \overset{\sigma}{\longrightarrow} {\mathbb{Z}},$
- There is an injective map $\widehat{L}^{4k}({\mathbb{Z}}) \to L_{4k}({\mathbb Z}, (2)^{\infty}),$
- $\textnormal{BK}(H^{2k}(C, {\mathbb{Z}}_2), \phi, \mathcal{P}_2) \in L_{4k}({\mathbb Z}, (2)^{\infty}),$
- $\sigma(C,\phi)$ maps to $\textnormal{BK}(H^{2k}(C, {\mathbb{Z}}_2), \phi, \mathcal{P}_2)$ under the composition of maps $$\begin{array}{ccccc}
L^{4k}({\mathbb{Z}}) &\to &\widehat{L}^{4k}({\mathbb{Z}}) & \to & L_{4k}({\mathbb Z}, (2)^{\infty}) \\
\sigma(C, \phi) &\mapsto &\widehat{\sigma}^*(C, \phi, \gamma, \theta)& \mapsto & \textnormal{BK}(H^{2k}(C, {\mathbb{Z}}_2), \phi, \mathcal{P}_2).
\end{array}$$
It is not possible to pass directly from Theorem \[Brown’s theorem\] (Brown) to Theorem \[Morita\] (Morita) because in general $$H^{2k}(X; \mathbb{Z}_2) \neq H^{2k}(X)/ 2H^{2k}(X),$$ the difference being given by the exact sequence, $$0 \longrightarrow H^{2k}(X)/ 2H^{2k}(X) \longrightarrow H^{2k}(X; \mathbb{Z}_2) \longrightarrow \textnormal{ker}(2)\longrightarrow 0$$ with $2: H^{2k}(X) \to H^{2k}(X)$.
In the proof of Theorem \[Morita\] Morita uses spectral sequences to prove that the torsion in the middle dimension $H^{2k}(X)$ does not contribute to the Brown-Kervaire invariant.
The proof of Morita’s theorem (as in \[Morita-theorem-cx\]) simplifies considerably by using algebraic symmetric Poincaré complexes $(C, \phi)$. Every $4k$-dimensional symmetric Poincaré complex over ${\mathbb Z}$ is cobordant to one that is connected below the middle dimension. So it can be concentrated in the middle dimension $$C: \dots \longrightarrow 0 \longrightarrow C_{2k} \longrightarrow 0 \longrightarrow \dots$$ Such a symmetric Poincaré complex is homotopy equivalent to a symmetric form. The essential idea is that by using symmetric Poincaré complexes instead of Poincaré spaces we can reduce the proof of Morita’s theorem to Brown’s simpler case by chain complex methods.
(of Theorem \[Morita-theorem-cx\]) A $4k$-dimensional symmetric Poincaré complex $(C, \phi)$ over ${\mathbb Z}$ is cobordant to the symmetric form $(F^{2k}(C), \phi_0)$, where $F^{2k}(C)$ is the finitely generated free abelian group given by $F^{2k}(C)= H^{2k}(C, {\mathbb Z}) / torsion$ and $(F^{2k}(C), \phi_0)$ is a nonsingular symmetric form over ${\mathbb Z}$ with $\phi_0: F^{2k}(C) \times F^{2k}(C) \to {\mathbb Z}.$ It is defined in [@atsI] that the signature of a nonsingular symmetric Poincaré complex $(C, \phi)$ over ${\mathbb Z}$ is given by, $$\sigma(C, \phi) = \sigma(F^{2k}(C), \phi_0) \in {\mathbb Z},$$
Every symmetric Poincaré complex gives rise to a normal complex,
$$\begin{aligned}
L^{4k}({\mathbb Z}) &\to \widehat{L}^{4k}({\mathbb Z}) \\
(C, \phi) & \mapsto (C, \phi, \gamma, \theta )\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\vspace{-50pt}
L^{4k}({\mathbb Z}) &\to \widehat{L}^{4k}({\mathbb Z}) \\
(F^{2k}(C), \phi_0) & \mapsto (F^{2k}(C), \phi_0, [\gamma], [\theta] )\end{aligned}$$
Clearly, since $(C, \phi)$ and $ (F^{2k}(C), \phi_0)$ are cobordant, then the normal complexes $(C, \phi, \gamma, \theta )$ and $(F^{2k}(C), \phi_0, [\gamma], [\theta] )$ are also cobordant. ([@atsII])
From Proposition \[cobordism-normal-cx\] we know that $(F^{2k}(C), \phi, [\gamma], [\theta] )$ is cobordant to the normal complex $({\mathcal{C}}(2:F^{2k}(C) \to F^{2k}(C) ), [\phi]', [\gamma]', [\theta]')$. Similarly $(C, \phi, \gamma, \theta)$ is cobordant to $({\mathcal{C}}(2: C \to C), \phi', \gamma', \theta')$.
Since $F^{2k}(C)$ is a finitely generated free abelian group, we can apply [@Brown theorem 1.20 (viii)]. We define a ${\mathbb Z}_4$-valued quadratic form $$\Phi : F^{2k}(C) / 2 F^{2k}(C) \to {\mathbb Z}_4$$ by $\Phi(u) = \phi_0(u, u) \in {\mathbb Z}_4.$ Hence applying Brown’s theorem, we find that $$\sigma(F^{2k}(C),\phi_0) = \textnormal{BK}\left(F^{2k}(C)/ 2 F^{2k}(C), \phi_0, \Phi \right) \in {\mathbb Z}_8,$$ where $\phi_0: F^{2k}(C)/ 2 F^{2k}(C) \times F^{2k}(C)/ 2 F^{2k}(C) \to {\mathbb Z}_2$ is the mod $2$ reduction of $\phi_0.$ Note that $$F^{2k}(C)/ 2 F^{2k}(C) = H^{2k}({\mathcal{C}}(2:F^{2k}(C) \to F^{2k}(C) ).$$ Similarly, the normal complex $({\mathcal{C}}(2: C \to C), \phi', \gamma', \theta') \in \widehat{L}^{4k}({\mathbb Z})$ is mapped to $\textnormal{BK}(H^{2k}(C;{\mathbb Z}_2), \phi, q) \in L_{4k}({\mathbb Z}, (2)^{\infty}).$
The description of the quadratic enhancement $q$ in the quadratic linking form $(H^{2k}(C;{\mathbb Z}_2), \phi, q)$ as the Pontryagin square ${\mathcal{P}}_2$ follows directly from the argument in chapter \[Pontryagin-squares chapter\], where we described how the symmetric structure $\phi$ of the symmetric Poincaré complex $(C, \phi)$ over ${\mathbb Z}$ is sent to the Pontryagin square, $$\begin{aligned}
(u,v)^{\%}: Q^{4k}(C) &\longrightarrow Q^{4k}\left(S^{2k+1}{\mathbb{Z}} \xrightarrow{2}S^{2k}{\mathbb{Z}} \right) = {\mathbb Z}_4 \\
\phi & \longmapsto {\mathcal{P}}_2(u, v) = \phi_0(v, v) + 2 \phi_1(v, u),\end{aligned}$$ that is, $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal{P}}_2 : H^{2k}(C ; {\mathbb Z}_2) & \longrightarrow {\mathbb Z}_4 \\
(u, v) & \longmapsto \phi_0(v, v) + 2 \phi_1(v, u).\end{aligned}$$ Hence, $$\sigma(C, \phi) = \textnormal{BK}(H^{2k}(C;{\mathbb Z}_2), \phi, {\mathcal{P}}_2) \in {\mathbb Z}_8,$$ and the result follows.
Note also that since $\sigma(C, \phi) = \sigma(F^{2k}(C), \phi_0) \in {\mathbb Z},$ the corresponding Brown-Kervaire invariants are equal, $$\textnormal{BK}\left(H^{2k}(C;{\mathbb Z}_2), \phi, {\mathcal{P}}_2\right) = \textnormal{BK}\left(F^{2k}(C)/ 2 F^{2k}(C), \phi_0, \Phi \right) \in {\mathbb Z}_8.$$
Obstructions to divisibility of the signature by $8$ {#obstructions}
----------------------------------------------------
### The normal structure
Both Theorem \[sign-theta\] which gives the mod $8$ signature of a $4k$-dimensional normal complex over ${\mathbb{Z}}$ by $$\widehat{\sigma}(C, \phi, \gamma, \theta) = \phi_0(v, v) + 2 \phi_1(v, u) + 4 \theta_{-2}(u, u) \in Q_{4k}(B(k, 1), \beta(k, 1)) = {\mathbb{Z}}_8$$ and Morita’s theorem relating the signature and the Brown-Kervaire invariant of the Pontryagin square have important applications to the study of the signature of a fibration. The chain complex proof of Morita’s theorem will be useful in Chapter \[mod-eight-proof\]. We now discuss the application of Theorem \[sign-theta\].
In [@Weiss-Ker] the following exact sequence including the twisted $Q$-groups is defined, $$\begin{array}{rcccccccc} \dots \widehat{Q}^{n+1}(C) & \longrightarrow & Q_n(C, \gamma) & \overset{N_{\gamma}}{\longrightarrow} & Q^n(C) & \overset{J_{\gamma}}{\longrightarrow} & \widehat{Q}^n(C) & \longrightarrow \dots \\
& & (\phi, \theta) & \longmapsto & \phi & \longmapsto & {\tiny J(\phi)- (\phi_0)^{\%}(S^n \gamma)} & & \\
\theta & \longmapsto &(0, \theta) & && & \\
\end{array}$$
This exact sequence involving twisted $Q$-groups is given in the particular case of the chain bundle $(B(k, 1), \beta(k, 1))$ by $$\label{ex-q-twisted} Q^{4k+1}(B(k, 1)) \xrightarrow{0} \widehat{Q}^{4k+1}(B(k,1)) \to Q_{4k}(B(k, 1), \beta(k, 1)) \to Q^{4k}(B(k, 1)) \to \widehat{Q}^{4k}(B(k,1)).$$
From Theorem \[sign-theta\] we know that the mod $8$ signature of a symmetric chain complex can be viewed as an element in the twisted $Q$-group $Q_{4k}(B(k, 1), \beta(k, 1))$, so we are interested in explicit descriptions of the $Q$-groups in the exact sequence \[ex-q-twisted\]. The following computation of appears in the preprint by A. Ranicki and L. Taylor [@Mod8] and it can be deduced from the computations in Banagl and Ranicki [@BanRan Proposition 52, Corollary 61]
\[Q-groups computation\] ([@Mod8])
- The $4k$-dimensional symmetric $Q$-group of $B(k, m)$ is $$Q^{4k}(B(k,m)) = {\mathbb{Z}}_{4m}$$ with an isomorphism $$Q^{4k}(B(k,m)) \to {\mathbb{Z}}_{4m} ; \phi \to \phi_0(1,1) + 2 \phi_1(1,1).$$
- The $4k$-dimensional **twisted** $Q$-group of $(B(k,m), \beta(k,m))$ is $$Q_{4k}(B(k,m), \beta(k,m)) = \left\{ \begin{array}{ccc} {\mathbb{Z}}_{8m} &if & m \textnormal{ is odd} \\
{\mathbb{Z}}_{4m} &if & m \textnormal{ is even}\end{array} \right.$$
In Theorem \[sign-theta\] we have proved that $$\widehat{\sigma}(C, \phi, \gamma, \theta) = \phi_0(v, v) + 2 \phi_1(v, u) + 4 \theta_{-2}(u, u) \in Q_{4k}(B(k, 1), \beta(k, 1)) = {\mathbb{Z}}_8.$$ So we are particularly interested in the computations in Theorem \[Q-groups computation\] when $m=1$, that is $$Q^{4k}(B(k,1)) \to {\mathbb{Z}}_{4} ; \phi \mapsto \phi_0(1,1) + 2 \phi_1(1,1)$$ and
$$Q_{4k}(B(k,1), \beta(k,1)) \to {\mathbb{Z}}_8 ; (\phi, \theta) \mapsto \phi_0(1,1) + 2 \phi_1(1,1) + 4\theta_{-2}(1,1).$$
Furthermore we are also interested in the following computations of $Q$ groups of the chain complex $B(k, 1): B(k, 1)_{2k+1}={\mathbb Z}\xrightarrow{2} B(k, 1)_{2k}= {\mathbb Z}$,
We have the following isomorphisms,
- $\widehat{Q}^{4k+1}(B(k,1)) \cong {\mathbb{Z}}_2.$
- $\widehat{Q}^{4k}(B(k,1)) \cong {\mathbb{Z}}_2.$
- $Q^{4k+1}(B(k, 1)) \cong {\mathbb{Z}}_2.$
- The map $Q^{4k+1}(B(k, 1)) \cong {\mathbb{Z}}_2 \xrightarrow{J_{\beta}=0}\widehat{Q}^{4k+1}(B(k,1)) \cong {\mathbb{Z}}_2$ is the zero map.
- The map $Q^{4k}(B(k, 1)) \cong {\mathbb{Z}}_4 \xrightarrow{J_{\beta}=0}\widehat{Q}^{4k}(B(k,1)) \cong {\mathbb{Z}}_2$ is the zero map.
<!-- -->
- , (ii) Using [@BanRan Proposition 13 (i)] we know that $\widehat{Q}^{4k+1}(B(k,1))$ and $\widehat{Q}^{4k}(B(k,1))$ fit into the exact sequence $$\begin{gathered}
\dots \to H^1({\mathbb{Z}}_2; {\mathbb{Z}}) = 0 \xrightarrow{\widehat{d}^{\%}} H^1({\mathbb{Z}}_2; {\mathbb{Z}}) =0 \to \widehat{Q}^{4k+1}(B(k,1)) \to H^0({\mathbb{Z}}_2; {\mathbb{Z}})= {\mathbb{Z}}_2 \xrightarrow{\widehat{d}^{\%}} \\ H^0({\mathbb{Z}}_2; {\mathbb{Z}}) = {\mathbb{Z}}_2 \to \widehat{Q}^{4k}(B(k,1)) \to H^{-1}({\mathbb{Z}}_2; {\mathbb{Z}})=0\end{gathered}$$ As the differential $d=2$ and ${\mathbb{Z}}$ is a commutative ring with even involution then $\widehat{d}^{\%}=0$. So there are defined isomorphisms $$\widehat{Q}^{4k+1}(B(k,1))\xrightarrow{\cong} H^0({\mathbb{Z}}_2; {\mathbb{Z}})= {\mathbb{Z}}_2$$ and $$H^0({\mathbb{Z}}_2; {\mathbb{Z}}) = {\mathbb{Z}}_2 \xrightarrow{\cong} \widehat{Q}^{4k}(B(k,1)).$$
- We know from [@BanRan] that $Q^{4k+1}(B(k, 1)) \neq 0$. We also know that $$Q_{4k+1}(B(k,1) \beta(k,1)) \xrightarrow{\cong} Q_{4k+1}(B(\infty), \beta(\infty)) \xrightarrow{\cong} \widehat{L}^{4k+1}({\mathbb{Z}}) = {\mathbb{Z}}_2,$$ so from the exact sequence , we deduce that $Q^{4k+1}(B(k, 1)) = {\mathbb{Z}}_2.$
- The map $$\widehat{Q}^{4k+1}(B(k, 1)) = {\mathbb{Z}}_2 \xrightarrow{4} Q_{4k}(B(k, 1), \beta(k,1))= {\mathbb{Z}}_8$$ is injective. This forces the map $Q^{4k+1}(B(k, 1)) = {\mathbb{Z}}_2 \xrightarrow{J_{\beta}=0}\widehat{Q}^{4k+1}(B(k,1)) ={\mathbb{Z}}_2$ in the exact sequence of $Q$-groups in to be the zero map.
- From the proof of Proposition \[signature-Psq\] we know that the map $Q_{4k}(B(k,1), \beta(k,1)) \to Q^{4k}(B(k,1))$ is surjective. This implies that the next map in the exact sequence has to be the zero map. Hence the map $Q^{4k}(B(k, 1)) = {\mathbb{Z}}_4 \xrightarrow{J_{\beta}=0}\widehat{Q}^{4k}(B(k,1)) ={\mathbb{Z}}_2$ is the zero map.
\[obstruction-theta\] Let $(C,\phi)$ be a $4k$-dimensional symmetric Poincaré complex over ${\mathbb Z}$, and let $(\gamma,\theta)$ be the canonical algebraic normal structure, with classifying chain bundle map $(f,\chi):(C,\gamma) \to (B(k,1),\beta(k,1))$. The induced morphism $(f,\chi)_{\%}:Q_{4k}(C,\gamma) \to Q_{4k}(B(k,1),\beta(k,1))$ is such that $$(f,\chi)_{\%}(\phi,\theta)~=~ \phi_0(v,v)~=~\sigma (C,\phi) \in Q_{4k}(B(k,1),\beta(k,1))={\mathbb Z}_8$$ and is the signature of $(C,\phi)$ modulo $8$, for any lift of $v_{2k}(\phi) \in H^{2k}(C; {\mathbb Z}_2)$ to a class $v \in H^{2k}(C)$, with image $$f^{\%}(\phi)~=~{\mathcal{P}}_2(v_{2k}(\phi))~=~\sigma(C,\phi) \in Q^{4k}(B(k,1))={\mathbb Z}_4$$ independent of $\theta$. Here, ${\mathcal{P}}_2:H^{2k}(C;{\mathbb Z}_2) \to {\mathbb Z}_4$ is the algebraic Pontryagin square. If $\sigma(C,\phi) \equiv 0 \pmod{4}$ then $$(f,\chi)_{\%}(\phi,\theta)=\phi_0(v,v) \in \textnormal{Im}(\widehat{Q}^{4k+1}(B(k,1)) \to Q_{4k}(B(k, 1), \beta(k, 1)) )= 4{\mathbb Z}_2 \subset {\mathbb Z}_8$$ depends on $\theta$.
By van der Blij’s theorem [@Blij] the signature mod 8 of a nonsingular symmetric form $(C,\phi)$ over ${\mathbb Z}$ is determined by any Wu class $v \in E$ $$\sigma(C,\phi)\equiv\phi_0(v,v) \bmod 8~.$$ We also know from [@Mod8] that $$\sigma(C, \phi) \in Q_{4k}(B(k,1), \beta(k,1))= {\mathbb Z}_8.$$ (The statement and proof of this result were reproduced in Theorem \[sign-theta\] )
Using the computations above we see that the exact sequence involving twisted $Q$-groups given in [@Weiss-Ker] is given in the particular case of the chain bundle $(B(k, 1), \beta(k, 1))$ by $$Q^{4k+1}(B(k, 1)) \xrightarrow{0} \widehat{Q}^{4k+1}(B(k,1)) \to Q_{4k}(B(k, 1), \beta(k, 1)) \to Q^{4k}(B(k, 1)) \to \widehat{Q}^{4k}(B(k,1))$$ that is, $${\mathbb{Z}}_2 \xrightarrow{0} {\mathbb{Z}}_2 \xrightarrow{4} {\mathbb{Z}}_8 \to {\mathbb{Z}}_4 \xrightarrow{0} {\mathbb{Z}}_2.$$ From this exact sequence we see that if $$\theta = 1 \in \widehat{Q}^{4k+1}(B(k, 1)) = {\mathbb{Z}}_2,$$ then this is mapped to $$\sigma(C, \phi) = 4 \in Q_{4k}(B(k, 1), \beta(k, 1)) = {\mathbb{Z}}_8.$$
This is specially interesting in the case when the $(C, \phi)$ is the chain complex of the total space of a fibration with base and fibre of dimensions congruent to $2$ modulo $4$. In this case we know that the signature will be a multiple of $4$. So $\theta \in \widehat{Q}^{4k+1}(B(k, 1))$ can be used to detect when the signature is divisible by $8$.
### The Arf invariant {#BK-Arf-in-topology}
From Theorem \[Morita-theorem-cx\] we know that if $(C, \phi)$ is a $4k$-dimensional symmetric Poincaré complex over $\mathbb{Z}$, then $$\sigma (C, \phi) = \textnormal{BK}(H^{2k}(C; \mathbb{Z}_2), \phi_0, \mathcal{P}_2(\phi)) \in {\mathbb Z}_8.$$
In Proposition \[BK-and-4Arf\] we proved that if the Brown-Kervaire invariant of a ${\mathbb Z}_4$-valued nonsingular quadratic form $\textnormal{BK}(V, \lambda, q) \in {\mathbb Z}_8$ takes values $0$ or $4$ in ${\mathbb Z}_8$, then this Brown-Kervaire invariant can be expressed as the classical Arf invariant of a ${\mathbb Z}_2$-valued form.
Combining Theorem \[Morita-theorem-cx\] with the result in Proposition \[BK-and-4Arf\] we can state the following theorem.
\[4Arf-Algebra\] If the signature of a symmetric Poincaré complex $(C, \phi)$ takes value $0$ modulo $4$, then this signature modulo $8$ can be expressed as an Arf invariant as follows, $$\sigma(C, \phi)=\textnormal{BK}(H^{2k}(C;{\mathbb Z}_2), \phi_0, {\mathcal{P}}_2(\phi)) = 4 \textnormal{Arf}\left( L^{\perp}/L , [\phi_0], \frac{\left[{\mathcal{P}}_2(\phi) \right]}{2} \right) \in {\mathbb Z}_8,$$ where $L^{\perp} =\left\{x \in H^{2k}(C;{\mathbb Z}_2) \vert \phi_0(x, x)= 0 \in {\mathbb Z}_2 \right\}$ and the Wu sublagrangian $L = \langle v \rangle \subset L^{\perp}$, with $v$ the algebraic Wu class $v \in H^{2k}(C;{\mathbb Z}_2).$
This is a direct application of the proof of Proposition \[BK-and-4Arf\].
This algebraic theorem has the following analogue in topology.
\[4Arf-topology\]An oriented $4k$-dimensional geometric Poincaré space $M$ has signature $0$ mod $4$ if and only if $L=\langle v_{2k}(M) \rangle \subset H^{2k}(M;{\mathbb Z}_2)$ is a sublagrangian of $(H^{2k}(M;{\mathbb Z}_2),\lambda,q)$. If such is the case, there is defined a sublagrangian quotient nonsingular symmetric form over ${\mathbb Z}_2$ with a ${\mathbb Z}_2$-valued enhancement $$(W,\mu,h) = (L^{\perp}/L , [\lambda] , h = [q]/2)$$ and the signature mod $8$ is given by $$\sigma(M) = \textnormal{BK}(H^{2k}(M;{\mathbb Z}_2),\lambda,q) = 4\textnormal{Arf}(W,\mu,h) \in 4{\mathbb Z}_2 \subset {\mathbb Z}_8.$$
The proof is a direct application of an algebraic result, which we give in Proposition \[BK-and-4Arf\].
Let $(C, \phi)$ be a $4k$-dimensional symmetric Poincaré complex over ${\mathbb Z}$, such that the signature is divisible by $4$, $$\sigma(C, \phi) = 0 \in 4 {\mathbb Z}\subset L^{4k}({\mathbb Z})={\mathbb Z}.$$ Then by Theorem \[4Arf-Algebra\] we can express the ${\mathbb Z}_2$-obstruction to divisibility by $8$ as an Arf invariant, since $$\sigma(C, \phi)/4 ~=~ \textnormal{Arf}\left( L^{\perp}/L , [\phi_0], \frac{\left[{\mathcal{P}}_2(\phi) \right]}{2} \right) \in {\mathbb Z}_2,$$ where $L^{\perp} =\left\{x \in H^{2k}(C;{\mathbb Z}_2) \vert \phi_0(x, x)= 0 \in {\mathbb Z}_2 \right\}$ and the Wu sublagrangian $L = \langle v \rangle \subset L^{\perp}$, with $v$ the algebraic Wu class $v \in H^{2k}(C;{\mathbb Z}_2).$
We shall now give examples which illustrate some relevant applications of Theorem \[4Arf-topology\].
Let $\epsilon=\pm 1$. A nonsingular $\epsilon$-symmetric form $(E,\phi)$ over ${\mathbb Z}$ has a signature $\sigma(E,\phi) \in {\mathbb Z}$ and a Wu class $v \in E$ such that $$\phi(x,x) \equiv \phi(x,v) \bmod 2~(x \in E)~.$$ The Wu class is unique up to $2E$. If $\epsilon=-1$ then $\sigma(E,\phi)=0$ and $v=0$.
By van der Blij’s theorem [@Blij] the signature mod 8 of a nonsingular symmetric form $(E,\phi)$ over ${\mathbb Z}$ is determined by any Wu class $v \in E$ $$\sigma(E,\phi)\equiv\phi(v,v) \bmod 8~.$$ As usual, $(E,\phi)$ has an associated ${\mathbb Z}_4$-enhanced nonsingular symmetric form $(V,\lambda,q)$ over ${\mathbb Z}_2$ with $$V~=~E/2E~,~\lambda([x],[y])~=~[\phi(x,y)] \in {\mathbb Z}_2~,~q([x])~=~[\phi(x,x)]\in {\mathbb Z}_4~(x,y \in E)~,$$ such that the isomorphism $BK:L\langle v_1 \rangle^0({\mathbb Z}_2) \to {\mathbb Z}_8$ sends the Witt class of $(V,\lambda,q)$ to $$\textnormal{BK}(V,\lambda,q)~=~[\sigma(E,\phi)]~=~[\phi(v,v)]\in {\mathbb Z}_8~.$$ The image of a Wu class $v \in E$ is the unique Wu class $[v] \in V$ for $(V,\lambda)$, with $$\lambda(a,a)=\lambda(a,[v]) \in {{\mathbb Z}}_2~(a \in V)~,$$ and is such that $$q([v])~=~[\textnormal{BK}(V,\lambda,q)]~=~[\sigma(E,\phi)]~=[\phi(v,v)] \in {\mathbb Z}_8/{\mathbb Z}_2~=~{\mathbb Z}_4~.$$ The following condition on $(E,\phi)$ are equivalent
1. $\sigma(E,\phi) \equiv 0 \bmod 4$,
2. $\phi(v,v) \equiv 0 \bmod 4$,
3. $q([v])=0 \in {\mathbb Z}_4$,
4. $\textnormal{BK}(V,\lambda,q) \in {\rm im}(4:{\mathbb Z}_2 \to {\mathbb Z}_8)$.
If these conditions are satisfied the maximal isotropic subquotient of $(V,\lambda)$ $$(W,\mu)~=~(\,\langle [v] \rangle^{\perp}/\langle [v] \rangle\,,\,[\lambda]\,)$$ has $$\begin{array}{ll}
W&=~\{y \in V\vert \lambda(y,[v])=0 \in {\mathbb Z}_2)\}/\langle [v]\rangle\\[1ex]
&=~\{ y \in V\vert q(y) \in {\rm im}(2:{\mathbb Z}_2 \to {\mathbb Z}_4)\}/\langle [v]\rangle
\end{array}$$ and admits a ${\mathbb Z}_2$-enhancement $$h~:~W \to {\mathbb Z}_2~;~[x] \mapsto q([x])/2= [\phi(x,x)/2]$$ such that $$[\sigma(E,\phi)]~=~[\textnormal{BK}(V,\lambda,q)]~=~4{\rm Arf}(W,\mu,h) \in 4{\mathbb Z}_2 \subset {\mathbb Z}_8~.$$
Let $$(E,\phi)=\bigoplus\limits_4 ({\mathbb Z},1)~,~v~=~(1,1,1,1) \in E~,~
(V,\lambda,q)~=~\bigoplus\limits_4 ({\mathbb Z}_2,1,1)~.$$ The ${\mathbb Z}_2$-enhanced symmetric form $(W,\mu,h)$ over ${\mathbb Z}_2$ is given by $$\begin{array}{l}
W~=~\{(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4) \in V\vert x_1+x_2+x_3+x_4=0 \in {\mathbb Z}_2\}/\langle (1,1,1,1)\rangle~,\\[1ex]
\mu~:~W \times W \to {\mathbb Z}_2~;~((x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4),(y_1,y_2,y_3,y_4))
\mapsto \sum\limits^4_{i=1}x_iy_i~,\\[1ex]
h~:~W \to {\mathbb Z}_2~;~x\mapsto
0~{\rm if}~x=0~,~x \mapsto 1 ~{\rm if}~x \neq 0~.
\end{array}$$ As $h(x) = 1$ for each of the three elements $x \neq 0 \in W$ ${\rm Arf}(W,\mu,h)=1 \in {\mathbb Z}_2$, in accordance with $$\sigma(E,\phi)~=~4{\rm Arf}(W,\mu,h)~=~4 \in {\mathbb Z}_8~.$$
Let $(B,\phi_B)$, $(F,\phi_F)$ be nonsingular $\epsilon$-symmetric forms over $\mathbb Z$ with Wu classes $v_B \in B$, $v_F \in F$. The product nonsingular symmetric form over ${\mathbb Z}$ $$(E',\phi')~=~(B\otimes_{\mathbb Z}F,\phi_B\otimes \phi_F)$$ has signature $$\sigma(E',\phi')~=~\sigma(B,\phi_F)\sigma(F,\phi_F) \in {\mathbb Z}~.$$ For any $a=\sum\limits_i x_i \otimes y_i \in E'$ $$\phi'(a,a)~=~\sum\limits_i\phi_B(x_i,x_i)\phi_F(y_i,y_i)+
2 \sum\limits_{i<j}\phi_B(x_i,x_j)\phi_F(y_i,y_j) \in {\mathbb Z}~,$$ so that $v' = v_B \otimes v_F\in E$ is a Wu class for $(E',\phi')$, and the associated ${\mathbb Z}_4$-enhanced form over ${\mathbb Z}_2$ is $$(V',\lambda',q')~=~(\,E'/2E'\,,\,([a],[b]) \mapsto [\phi'(a,b)]\,,\,[a] \mapsto [\phi'(a,a)]\,)$$ with $$[\sigma(E',\phi')]~=~\textnormal{BK}(V',\lambda',q')~=~[\phi'(v',v')]~=~[\phi_B(v_B,v_B)][\phi_F(v_F,v_F)] \in {\mathbb Z}_8~.$$ Let $(E,\phi)$ be a nonsingular symmetric form over ${\mathbb Z}$ with Wu class $v \in E$ and associated ${\mathbb Z}_4$-enhanced form over ${\mathbb Z}_2$ $$(V,\lambda,q)~=~(E/2E,([x],[y]) \mapsto [\phi(x,y)],[x] \mapsto [\phi(x,x)])~.$$ If $$\sigma(E,\phi)~\equiv~\sigma(E',\phi') \bmod 4$$ then $$(E'',\phi'')~=~(E,\phi) \oplus (E',-\phi')$$ is a nonsingular symmetric form over ${\mathbb Z}$ with Wu class $v''=(v,-v') \in E''$. The signature $$\sigma(E'',\phi'')~=~\sigma(E,\phi)-\sigma(E',\phi') \in {\mathbb Z}$$ is such that $$\sigma(E'',\phi'')~\equiv~0 \bmod 4~.$$ The associated ${\mathbb Z}_4$-enhanced form over ${\mathbb Z}_2$ $$(V'',\lambda'',q'')~=~(V,\lambda,q)\oplus (V',-\lambda',-q')$$ is such that $$q''([v''])~=~q([v])-q'([v'])~=~0 \in {\mathbb Z}_4~.$$ The maximal isotropic subquotient of $(V'',\lambda'')$ $$(W,\mu)~=~(\,\langle[ v'' ]\rangle^\perp/\langle [v''] \rangle,[\lambda''])$$ admits a ${\mathbb Z}_2$-enhancement $h:W \to {\mathbb Z}_2$ and $$\sigma(E'',\phi'')~=~4 {\rm Arf}(W,\mu,h) \in {\mathbb Z}_8~.$$
There are two special cases of the previous example which are of interest:
1. If there exists an isomorphism $f:(V,\lambda)\to (V',\lambda')$ then $$f([v])~=~[v'] \in V'$$ and $$[\sigma(E,\phi)]-[\sigma(E',\phi')]~=~
[\textnormal{BK}(V,\lambda,q)] - [\textnormal{BK}(V',\lambda',q')]~=~0 \in {\mathbb Z}_8/2{\mathbb Z}_4~=~{\mathbb Z}_2$$ so that $$\sigma(E,\phi) \equiv \sigma(E',\phi') \bmod 2~.$$ Furthermore $$\begin{array}{ll}
[\sigma(E,\phi)]-[\sigma(E',\phi')]&=~
[\textnormal{BK}(V,\lambda,q)] - [\textnormal{BK}(V',\lambda',q')]\\[1ex]
&=~q''([v,v'])~=~q([v])-q'([v']) \\[1ex]
&\in
{\rm ker}({\mathbb Z}_8 \to {\mathbb Z}_2)/{\rm im}({\mathbb Z}_4 \to {\mathbb Z}_8)~=~{\mathbb Z}_4/2{\mathbb Z}_4~.
\end{array}$$ Thus $\sigma(E,\phi) \equiv \sigma(E',\phi') \bmod 4$ if and only if $q([v])=q'([v']) \in {\mathbb Z}_4$, if and only if the Wu class $[v'']=([v],[v']) \in E \oplus E'$ for $(E'',\phi'')=(E,\phi) \oplus (E',-\phi')$ is such that $q''([v''])=0\in {\mathbb Z}_4$, in which case $$\sigma(E'',\phi'')~=~\sigma(E,\phi)-\sigma(E',\phi') \equiv 4{\rm Arf}(W,\mu,h) \bmod 8$$ with $$(W,\mu,h)~=~(\{(x,x') \in V'' |q(x)-q'(x') \in 2{\mathbb Z}_4 \subset {\mathbb Z}_4\}/\langle [v'']\rangle \,,\,\lambda \oplus -\lambda',(q \oplus -q')/2\,)~.$$
2. If there exists an isomorphism $f:(V,\lambda,q)\to (V',\lambda',q')$ (this is the case of a ${\mathbb Z}_4$-trivial $\pi_1(B)$-action as will be discussed in Chapter \[mod-eight-proof\]) then $$\begin{array}{ll}
[\sigma(E'',\phi'')]&=~ \textnormal{BK}(V'',\lambda'',q'')\\[1ex]
&=~\textnormal{BK}(V,\lambda,q)- \textnormal{BK}(V',\lambda',q')\\[1ex]
&=~0 \in {\mathbb Z}_8
\end{array}$$ and $$\sigma(E,\phi)~\equiv~\sigma(E',\phi')~=~\sigma(B,\phi_B)\sigma(F,\phi_F)
\bmod\, 8~.$$ Note that $$L~=~\{(x,f(x))\vert x\in V\}/\langle [v'']\rangle \subset W$$ is a lagrangian of $(W,\mu,h)$, so that ${\rm Arf}(W,\mu,h)=0 \in {\mathbb Z}_2$, in accordance with $$\sigma(E'',\phi'')~=~\sigma(E,\phi) - \sigma(E',\phi')~=~4{\rm Arf}(W,\mu,h)~=~0 \in 4{\mathbb Z}_2 \subset {\mathbb Z}_8~.$$
### The Hasse-Witt invariant in $K$-theory {#Hasse-Witt}
The Witt ring of ${\mathbb{R}}$, $W({\mathbb{R}}) = L^0({\mathbb{R}})$ is the abelian group of Witt-equivalence classes of nonsingular symmetric bilinear forms over ${\mathbb{R}}$. These are classified by the signature, so there is an isomorphism $$\sigma: W({\mathbb{R}}) \xrightarrow{\cong} {\mathbb{Z}}.$$ The fundamental ideal of $W({\mathbb{R}})$ consisting of all Witt classes with even rank is given by $I = 2{\mathbb{Z}}$. In [@Milnhus] the chain of ideals $I \supset I^2 \supset I^3 \supset \dots$ is discussed. Here we are specially interested in the quotient $I^2/ I^3$ in the case when $I= 2 {\mathbb{Z}}$, so the case when the chain of ideals is $$2{\mathbb{Z}} \supset 4{\mathbb{Z}} \supset 8 {\mathbb{Z}} \supset \dots$$
Each of these ideals gives us information about the divisibility of the signature by $2$, by $4$ and by $8$ respectively. Each quotient $I^n/ I^{n+1}$is a vector space over the field $$W({\mathbb{R}})/ I \cong {\mathbb{Z}}_2.$$
[@Milnhus Theorem 5.8, chapter III] For each symbol $\phi$ the restriction of the Hasse-Witt function $h_{\phi}$ to the ideal $I^2=4{\mathbb{Z}}$ yields a well defined homomorphism $$h_{\phi} : I^2 \to {\mathbb{Z}}_2.$$ An element $w \in I^2$ is annihilated by every one of these homomorphisms $h_{\phi}$ if and only if $w \in I^3.$
Applying this theorem to the context of the divisibility of the signature, we see that a form $w \in I^3= 8{\mathbb{Z}} \subset I^2 = 4{\mathbb{Z}}$ is divisible by $8$ when $h_{\phi} (w)$ is trivial. If $h_{\phi}(w')$ is non-trivial then $w'$ is a form in $I^2$ but not in $I^3$, so that the form $w'$ has signature divisible by $4$ but not by $8$. In other words the Hasse-Witt invariant detects when a form has signature divisible by $8$.
The relation between the Hasse-Witt invariant and the Arf invariant is discussed in [@Giffen].
Introduction to part II {#introduction-to-part-ii .unnumbered}
=======================
A key feature for our study of the signature of a fibration is obtaining a model for the chain complex of the total space which gives us enough information to compute its signature. It has been known since the work in [@HirzebruchSerreChern], [@Meyerpaper] and [@Korzen] that the signature of the total space depends only on the action of the fundamental group of the base $\pi_1(B)$ on the cohomology of the fibres. Clearly it is not possible to construct the chain complex of the total space by taking into account only the action of $\pi_1(B).$ For example, the base space of the Hopf fibration $S^1 \to S^3 \to S^2 $ has trivial fundamental group $\pi_1(S^2)= \{ 1 \}$, but the chain complex of the total space in this case is clearly not a product. So taking into account the information from the chain complexes of the base and fibre and the action of $\pi_1(B)$ is not enough to construct the chain complex of the total space, but it is enough to construct a model that will detect the signature.
The model that we will develop in this chapter and use in subsequent chapters is inspired by the transfer map in quadratic $L$-theory given in [@SurTransfer]. This model was previously used in [@modfour] and in [@Korzen]. In [@SurTransfer] the surgery transfer of a fibration $F \to E \to B$ with fibre of dimension $m$ and base of dimension $n$ is given by the map $$\begin{array}{ccc}p^{!}: L_n({\mathbb{Z}}[\pi_1(B)]) &\to & L_{n+m}({\mathbb{Z}}[\pi_1(E)]). \end{array}$$
In [@SurTransfer] it is also proven that the surgery transfer map in quadratic $L$-theory agrees with the geometrically defined transfer maps.
A similar transfer map does not exist in symmetric $L$-theory. So it is **not** always possible to define a map $$p^{!}: L^n({\mathbb{Z}}[\pi_1(B)]) \to L^{n+m}({\mathbb{Z}}[\pi_1(E)]).$$ There are two obstructions to lifting a symmetric chain complex $(C, \phi) \in L^n({\mathbb{Z}}[\pi_1(B)])$ to an $(m+n)$-dimensional chain complex $p^!(C, \phi) \in L^{n+m}({\mathbb{Z}}[\pi_1(E)])$ which are described in the appendix of [@SurTransfer]. Basically the difference with the quadratic $L$-theory transfer lies in the fact that the symmetric $L$-groups are not $4$-periodic, so that one cannot assume that we may perform surgery below the middle dimension to make $(C, \phi)$ is highly-connected.
The chain model that we shall discuss in this chapter will provide a well defined map $$L^n({\mathbb{Z}}[\pi_1(B)]) \to L^{n+m}({\mathbb{Z}})$$ This map was constructed in [@Korzen chapters 3, 4]. We review the main ideas of the construction here, as it is relevant for further results in part III.
The construction uses the fact that the chain complex of the total space is *filtered*, so the construction of our model for the total space is similar to that of a Serre spectral sequence. This was the approach taken by Meyer in [@Meyerpaper] where he describes the intersection form of the total space of a surface bundle in terms the intersection form on the base with coefficients in a local coefficient system.
The algebraic model for the signature of a fibration {#model}
====================================================
The ideas and notation in the following diagram have not yet been introduced. The purpose of the diagram is to give an overview of the key steps in the construction of a suitable model for a fibration $F \to E \to B$, which we will explain in detail in this chapter.
\[figure\] ${\textnormal{Theorem \ref{3.15}}}$ at 130 445 ${E \textnormal{ is homotopy equivalent} }$ at 130 425 ${\textnormal{to a filtered $CW$-complex $X$} }$ at 130 405 ${\textnormal{Theorem \ref{chain-iso}}}$ at 340 445 ${\textnormal{There is an isomorphism} }$ at 350 425 ${G_*C(X) \cong C({\widetilde{B}}) \otimes (C({\widetilde{F}}), U) }$ at 350 405 ${\sigma(E) = \sigma (X) \in {\mathbb{Z}}}$ at 130 300 ${\sigma_{{\mathbb{D}}({\mathbb{Z}})}(G_*C(X) ) }$ at 350 310 ${= \sigma_{{\mathbb{D}}({\mathbb{Z}})}(C({\widetilde{B}}) \otimes (C(F), U)) \in {\mathbb{Z}}}$ at 350 290 ${\textnormal{Proposition \ref{sig-ass-complex}}}$ at 240 195 ${\sigma (X) = \sigma_{{\mathbb{D}}({\mathbb{Z}})}(G_*C(X) ) \in {\mathbb{Z}}}$ at 240 165 ${\textnormal{Theorem \ref{3.15} and Proposition \ref{two-functors}}}$ at 240 70 ${\sigma (E) = \sigma_{{\mathbb{D}}({\mathbb{Z}})} ((C({\widetilde{B}}), \phi) \otimes (C(F), \alpha, U))}$ at 240 45 ${ =\sigma ((C({\widetilde{B}}), \phi) \otimes (H^m(F), \bar{\alpha}, \bar{ U}))}$ at 250 20  \[fig:cobo\]
Fibrations and $\Gamma$-fibrations
----------------------------------
A Hurewicz fibration is a continuous function $p: E \to B$ between topological spaces satisfying the homotopy lifting property. This property states that for all spaces $X$ and maps $f: X \to E$ there exist commutative diagrams $$\xymatrix{
X \ar[r]^{f} \ar[d]_{x \mapsto (x, 0)} & E \ar[d]^{p} \\
X \times I \ar[r]^{F} & B }$$ with $F(x, 0) = f(x)$ such that $$\xymatrix{
X \ar[r]^{f} \ar[d]_{x \mapsto (x, 0)} & E \ar[d]^{p} \\
X \times I \ar[ur]^{H} \ar[r]^{F} & B }$$ commutes. That is, there exists a map $H: X \times I \to E$ such that $H(x, 0) = f(x)$ and $p(H(x, t)) = F(x, t).$
For the fibrations that we will consider, the base space $B$ will be a path connected $CW$-complex and for any point $b_0 \in B$, the fibre $F= p^{-1}(b_0)$ has the homotopy type of a finite $CW$-complex. Furthermore all the fibres have the same homotopy type.
In order to consider the most general possible setting for the construction of our chain complex algebraic model of a fibration we will need to use the definition of $\Gamma$-fibration from [@Transfer-K].
([@Transfer-K Definition 1.1]) Let $\Gamma$ be a discrete group. A $\Gamma$-fibration is a $\Gamma$-equivariant map $p' : E' \to B'$ with $E'$ a $\Gamma$-space such that $\Gamma$ acts trivially on $B'$ and $p'$ has the $\Gamma$-equivariant lifting property for any $\Gamma$-space $X$ $$\xymatrix{X \ar[r]^{f} \ar[d]_{x \mapsto (x, 0)} & E' \ar[d]^{p'} \\
X \times I \ar[ur]^{H'} \ar[r]^{F} & B'.}$$
We will consider a fibration $p: E \to B$ with fibre $F = p^{-1}(b)$. $q: \widetilde{E}\to E$ will denote the universal cover of $E$. The composition $p \circ q = \widetilde{p} : \widetilde{E} \to B$ is a $\Gamma$-fibration with $\Gamma= {\pi_1(E)}$. This fibration has fibre $\widetilde{p}^{-1}(b)=\widetilde{F}$, which is the cover of $F$ induced from the universal cover of $E$.
$$\xymatrix{\widetilde{F} \ar[r] \ar[d] & \widetilde{E} \ar[d]^{q} \ar[dr]^{\widetilde{p}= p \circ q} \\
F \ar[r] & E \ar[r]^p & B.}$$
Filtrations
-----------
The argument to construct an algebraic model of the total space appropriate for the computation of the signature is motivated by the well known result that the total space of a fibration is filtered. The following Theorem \[E and X\] was proved in [@Stasheff] using an inductive argument and by [@Schoen] using a different argument based on the $CW$ approximation theorem of Whitehead [@Whitehead], [@Spanier p. 412]. A similar argument to that of [@Stasheff] was used in [@Transfer-K], [@modfour] and [@Korzen].
\[E and X\] ([@Stasheff; @Schoen]) Let $F \to E \to B$ be a Hurewicz fibration where $B$ and $F$ have the homotopy type of $CW$ complexes, then the total space $E$ is weakly homotopically equivalent to a $CW$ complex $X$.
### Filtered spaces
Here we shall define what is meant by filtered spaces. We only consider compactly generated spaces, such as CW complexes.
\[522\] A $k$-filtered topological space $X$ is a topological space which is equipped with a series of subspaces $$X_{-1}= \emptyset \subset X_0 \subset X_1 \subset \dots \subset X_k=X.$$ In the context of this thesis we assume that each of the inclusions $X_j \subset X_{j+1}$ is a *cofibration*.
The condition that $X_j \subset X_{j+1}$ is a cofibration implies that the pair $(X_{j+1}, X_j)$ has the *homotopy extension property.* ([@Hatcher page 14]). In particular, the inclusion of a CW subcomplex is a cofibration, and has the homotopy extension property.
The following gives a definition of a filtered map and a filtered homotopy equivalence.
Let $X$ and $Y$ be two filtered spaces,
- A map $f:X \to Y$ is a filtered map if $f(X_j) \subset Y_j$.
- A filtered homotopy between the maps $f :X \to Y$ and $g: X \to Y$ is a homotopy $H : X \times I \to Y$ such that $H(X_j \times I) \subset Y_j$.
- A filtered homotopy equivalence between two filtered maps $f : X \to Y$ and $h : Y \to X$ is such that $fh \simeq Id \simeq hf$.
In the context established in this section, namely that each of the inclusions $X_j \subset X_{j+1}$ (or $Y_j \subset Y_{j+1}$) is a cofibration, the following lemma holds.
A filtered map $f: X \to Y$ is a filtered homotopy equivalence if and only if each $f_j: X_j \to Y_j$ is a homotopy equivalence of unfiltered spaces.
See [@Brown-book 7.4.1].
A $k$-filtered $CW$-complex $X$ is a $CW$-complex $X$ together with a series of subcomplexes $$X_{-1}=\emptyset \subset X_0 \subset X_1 \subset \dots \subset X_k=X.$$ The cellular chain complex $C(X)$ is filtered with $$F_jC(X) = C(X_j).$$
A $k$-filtered $CW$ satisfies the conditions of \[522\].
The main application will be a filtered complex in the context of Theorem \[E and X\], a fibration $E \xrightarrow{p} B$ with $B$ a $CW$-complex. We will consider $B$ with a filtration given by its skeleta which induces a filtered structure on $E$ by defining $E_k := p^{-1}(B_k),$ where $B_k$ is the $k$-th skeleton of $B$. Note that here the inclusions $E_{k-1} \subset E_k$ are cofibrations.
### Filtered complexes
Here ${\mathbb{A}}$ will denote an additive category.
\[FM\] ([@modfour])
- Let $M$ be an object in the additive category ${\mathbb{A}}$ and let $M$ have a direct sum decomposition, $$M = M_0 \oplus M_1 \oplus \dots \oplus M_k,$$ so that M has a filtration of length $k$, $$F_{-1}M=0 \subseteq F_0M \subseteq F_1M \subseteq \dots \subseteq F_kM = M$$ where $$F_iM = M_0 \oplus M_1 \oplus \dots \oplus M_i.$$ A **$k$-filtered object $F_*M \in {\mathbb{A}}$** is the object $M \in {\mathbb{A}}$ together with the direct sum decomposition of $M$.
- Let $F_*M$ and $F_*N$ be two $k$-filtered objects in the additive category ${\mathbb{A}}$. A filtered morphism is given by $$f = \left( \begin{array}{ccccc} f_0 & f_1 & f_2 & \dots & f_k \\
0 & f_0 & f_1 & \dots & f_{k-1} \\
0 & 0 & f_0 & \dots & f_{k-2} \\
\vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots& \vdots \\
0 & 0 & 0 & \dots & f_0 \end{array} \right) : M = \bigoplus^{k}_{s=0} M_s \to N= \bigoplus^{k}_{s=0} N_s.$$
In the context of chain complexes in the additive category ${\mathbb{A}}$, a $k$-filtered complex $F_*C$ is defined as follows.
Let $C :C_n \to \dots \to C_r \to C_{r-1} \to \dots \to C_{0}$ be a chain complex, and let each $C_r$ be $k$-filtered, that is, $$C_r = C_{r, 0} \oplus C_{r, 1} \oplus \dots \oplus C_{r, s} \oplus \dots \oplus C_{r, k} = \bigoplus^k_{s=0} C_{r,s}.$$ Then a $k$-filtered complex $F_*C$ in ${\mathbb{A}}$ is a finite chain complex $C$ in ${\mathbb{A}}$ where each of the chain groups is $k$-filtered and each of the differentials $d: F_*C_r \xrightarrow{d} F_*C_{r-1}$ is a filtered morphism. The matrix components of $d$ are the maps $C_{r,s} \xrightarrow{d_j} C_{r-1, s-j}.$
The following diagram represents a $k$-filtered $n$-dimensional chain complex $F_*C$ in ${\mathbb{A}}$.
$$\xymatrix{ C_n \ar[r] & \dots \ar[r] & C_r \ar[r] &C_{r-1} \ar[r] &\dots \ar[r] & C_0 \\
\vspace{-10pt}
C_{n, k} \ar[r] \ar[d] & \dots \ar[r] & C_{r, k} \ar[r]\ar[d] &C_{r-1, k} \ar[r] \ar[d] &\dots \ar[r]& C_{0, k} \ar[d] \\
\vdots \ar[d] & &\vdots \ar[d] &\vdots \ar[d] & & \vdots \ar[d] \\
C_{n, s} \ar[r] \ar[d]& \dots \ar[r] & C_{r, s} \ar[dr]^{d_1} \ar[dddr]^{d_j} \ar[r]^{d_0} \ar[d] &C_{r-1, s} \ar[r]\ar[d]&\dots \ar[r] & C_{0, s} \ar[d] \\
C_{n, s-1} \ar[r]\ar[d] & \dots \ar[r]& C_{r, s-1} \ar[r] \ar[d]&C_{r-1, s-1} \ar[r] \ar[d]&\dots \ar[r] & C_{0, s-1} \ar[d] \\
\vdots \ar[d] & &\vdots \ar[d] &\vdots \ar[d] & & \vdots \ar[d] \\
C_{n, s-j} \ar[r]\ar[d] & \dots \ar[r]& C_{r, s-j} \ar[r] \ar[d]&C_{r-1, s-j} \ar[r] \ar[d]&\dots \ar[r] & C_{0, s-j} \ar[d] \\
\vdots \ar[d] & &\vdots \ar[d] &\vdots \ar[d] & & \vdots \ar[d] \\
C_{n, 0} \ar[r] & \dots \ar[r] & C_{r, 0} \ar[r]&C_{r-1, 0} \ar[r] &\dots \ar[r] & C_{0, 0} \\
}$$
$F_sC_r = \sum\limits^s_{i=0}C_{r,i}$, and $F_sC_r/F_{s-1}C_r = C_{r,s}$. So $C_{r,s}$ represents the $s$-th filtration quotient of $C_r$.
The associated complex of a filtered complex {#derived section}
--------------------------------------------
### A complex in the derived category ${\mathbb{D}}({\mathbb{A}})$
Given an additive category ${\mathbb{A}}$ we write ${\mathbb{D}}({\mathbb{A}})$ for the homotopy category of ${\mathbb{A}}$, which is the additive category of finite chain complexes in ${\mathbb{A}}$ and chain homotopy classes of chain maps with $$\textnormal{Hom}_{{\mathbb{D(A)}}}(C, D) = H_0(\textnormal{Hom}_{\mathbb{A}} (C, D)).$$ (See [@SurTransfer Definition 1.5]).
A $k$-filtered complex $F_*C $ in ${\mathbb{A}}$ has an associated chain complex in the derived category ${\mathbb{D}(\mathbb{A})}$. The associated complex of a $k$-filtered space is denoted by $G_*(C)$ and is $k$-dimensional. $$G_*(C): G_k (C)\to \dots \to G_r(C) \to G_{r-1}(C) \to \dots \to G_{0}(C).$$
The **morphisms** in $G_*(C)$ are given by the (filtered) differentials $$(-)^s d_1 : (G_kC)_s = C_{k+s, r}\to (G_kC)_{s-1}=C_{k+s-1, r-1}.$$
Each of the individual terms $G_r(C)$ is an **object** in ${\mathbb{D}(\mathbb{A})}$, hence a chain complex in ${\mathbb{A}}$, $$G_r(C) : \dots \to (G_rC)_s \to (G_rC)_{s-1} \to (G_rC)_{s-2} \to \dots .$$ As a chain complex, $G_rC$ has differentials, $$d_{G_r(C)} = d_0 : G_r(C)_s = C_{r+s, r} \to G_r(C)_{s-1}= C_{r+s-1, r}$$ such that $$(d_{G_r(C)})^2 = d_0^2 =0 : G_r(C)_s= C_{r+s, r} \to G_r(C)_{s-2}=C_{r+s-2, r}$$ Note that the differentials of a filtered complex $d: C_k \to C_{k-1}$ are such that $d^2=0: C_r \to C_{r-2}$. These differentials are upper triangular matrices. If we write $d_0$ for the diagonal, $d_1$ for the superdiagonal we obtain some relations: $$d_0^2 = 0 : C_{r, s} \to C_{r-2, s}$$ $$d_0d_1 + d_1 d_0=0 : C_{r,s} \to C_{r-2, s-1}$$ $$(d_1)^2 + d_0 d_2 + d_2d_0 =0 : C_{r,s} \to C_{r-2, s-2}$$ up to sign. These are the required relations for the objects in the associated complex to be in ${\mathbb{D}(\mathbb{A})}$ and for the differentials to be morphisms in ${\mathbb{D}(\mathbb{A})}$ with square $0$.
The following diagram is an $k$-dimensional $G_*C$ complex in ${\mathbb{D(A)}}$, $$\xymatrix{ G_kC : \ar[d] &\dots \ar[r] & (G_kC)_s \ar[d] \ar[r] & (G_kC)_{s-1} \ar[d] \ar[r] &(G_kC)_{s-2} \ar[d] \ar[r] &\dots \\
\vdots \ar[d] & & \vdots \ar[d] & \vdots \ar[d] & \vdots \ar[d]\\
G_rC : \ar[d] &\dots \ar[r] & (G_rC)_s \ar[d]^{(-)^sd_1} \ar[r]^{d_0} & (G_rC)_{s-1} \ar[d] \ar[r] &(G_rC)_{s-2}\ar[d] \ar[r] &\dots \\
G_{r-1}C : \ar[d] &\dots \ar[r] & (G_{r-1}C)_s \ar[d] \ar[r] & (G_{r-1}C)_{s-1} \ar[r] \ar[d]&(G_{r-1}C)_{s-2} \ar[r] \ar[d]&\dots \\
\vdots \ar[d] & & \vdots \ar[d] & \vdots \ar[d] & \vdots \ar[d]\\
G_0C : &\dots \ar[r] & (G_0C)_s \ar[r] & (G_0C)_{s-1} \ar[r] &(G_0C)_{s-2} \ar[r] &\dots
}$$
For a filtered $CW$-complex $X$, $$G_kC(X) = S^{-k}C(X_k, X_{k-1}).$$
When defining the symmetric structure of a filtered complex, we shall need to understand the behaviour of tensor products of filtered complexes. This is carefully described in [@modfour section 12.2].
Let $F_*C$ and $F_*D$ be filtered chain complexes over ${\mathbb{A}}(R)$ and ${\mathbb{A}}(S)$, where $R$ and $S$ are rings, then the tensor product is a filtered complex, $$F_k(C \otimes_{{\mathbb{Z}}} D) = \bigoplus_{i+j = k} F_iC \otimes_{{\mathbb{Z}}} F_jD.$$
### Duality for a filtered complex and its associated complex in ${\mathbb{D}(\mathbb{A})}$
The definition of a filtered dual chain complex in an additive category with involution ${\mathbb{A}}$ is given in section 12.6 of [@modfour]. Here we will review the ideas that will be necessary in the construction of the symmetric structure in the derived category ${\mathbb{D}(\mathbb{A})}$.
Namely we will need to define what the dual ${F^{\textnormal{dual}}}_*C$ of a $k$-filtered chain complex $F_*C$ is.
([@modfour Definition 12.21 (ii)]) Let $F_*C$ be a $k$-filtered $n$-dimensional chain complex in ${\mathbb{A}}$.
- The filtered dual ${F^{\textnormal{dual}}}_*C$ of $F_*C$ is the $k$-filtered complex with modules $$({F^{\textnormal{dual}}}_*C)_{r, s} = C^*_{n-r, k-s},$$ where $0\leq r \leq n$ and $0 \leq s \leq k$.
- The dual of the differential $C_r \xrightarrow{d} C_{r-1}$ is given by $d^{\textnormal{dual}}: ({F^{\textnormal{dual}}}_*C)_r \to ({F^{\textnormal{dual}}}_*C)_{r-1}$. This dual differential is also $k$-filtered, $$C^*_{n-r, k-s} \xrightarrow{(-)^{r+s +j(n+r)} d^*_j}C^*_{n-(r-1), k-(s-j)}.$$
(See [@modfour 12.20]) The associated complex $G_*(F^{\textnormal{dual}}_*C)$ is the $k$-filtered dual of $G_*C$.
The total space of a fibration is homotopy equivalent to a filtered complex {#E-filtered}
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The aim of this section will be to prove that the total space of a fibration $F \to E \to B$ (with $F$ and $B$ $CW$-complexes) is homotopically equivalent to a filtered $CW$-complex $X$, (see Theorem \[3.15\]).
The argument given here is similar to that given in [@Transfer-K]. This is a $\pi_1(E)$-equivariant version of the inductive proof in [@Stasheff].
Before going into the proof of Theorem \[3.15\], we need to recall some theory from [@Transfer-K] about the behaviour of the pull-back of a bundle over an attaching map on the base.
We consider $(D, d)$ to be a pointed contractible space and $f: D \to B$ a map. Given a morphism $\xi : f(d) \to b$ in $\pi_1(B)$ i.e. a homotopy class relative to $\{ 0, 1 \}$ of paths from $b$ to $f(b)$ in $B$, we have the following definition:
([@Transfer-K Definition 7.3]) Let $h$ be any homotopy between the constant map $c : D \to \{ b\}$ and $f$ such that $h(d, i)$ represents $\xi(i)$. Define $$T_{\xi}: D \times \widetilde{F} \to f^*\widetilde{E},$$ so that we can write a map $$T(f, \xi) : D \times \widetilde{F} \to \widetilde{E}$$ by composing the pullback map with $T_{\xi}$ $$\xymatrix{
D \times \widetilde{F} \ar@/^2pc/[rr]^{T(f, \xi)} \ar[r]^{T_{\xi}} & f^*\widetilde{E} \ar[r] \ar[d]& \widetilde{E} \ar[d]^p \\
&D \ar[r]^f & B.}$$
We will denote the $k$-cells in $B$ by an ordered set $I_k$ and the $k$-th skeleton of $B$ by $B_k$.
\[trivialization\] ([@Transfer-K Corollary 7.5]) Let $D$ be a contractible space and the map $h: (D^k, S^{k-1}) \times I \to (B_k, B_{k-1})$ be a homotopy between two maps $f_1, f_2: D^k \to B$, $\xi_1, \xi_2$ paths from $f_1(d)$ and $f_2(d)$ to $b$ respectively and $\xi : f_1(d) \to f_2(d)$. The following diagram commutes up to homotopy, $$\xymatrix{ (D^k, S^{k-1}) \times \widetilde{F} \ar[dr]^{T(f_1, \xi_1)} \ar[dd]_{\textnormal{ID} \times (\xi_1 * \xi_2^{-1} *\xi^{-1}) }& \\
& (\widetilde{E}_k, \widetilde{E}_{k-1}) \\
(D^k, S^{k-1}) \times \widetilde{F} \ar[ur]_{T(f_2, \xi_2)} &}$$
The map $T(f, \xi)$ provides a trivialization of the bundle along the path $\xi$. This trivialization is an important element in the proof of Theorem \[3.15\].
To follow the same notation as in [@Transfer-K], we shall denote the attaching maps by $$(Q(j), q(j)) : (D^k, S^{k-1}) \to (B_k, B_{k-1}).$$
\[3.15\] ([@Stasheff; @Schoen]) Let $F \to E \to B$ be a fibration such that $B$ and $F$ have the homotopy type of $CW$ complexes. Then ${\widetilde{E}}$ is $\pi_1(E)$-homotopically equivalent to a filtered $\pi_1(E)$-complex ${\widetilde{X}}$.
This proof is based on [@Transfer-K pages 114, 115]. The proof is by induction. We shall denote by ${\widetilde{E}}_0$ the restriction of ${\widetilde{E}}$ to $B_0$. As $B_0$ is the zeroth skeleton of $B$, then ${\widetilde{E}}_0$ is a disjoint union of spaces homotopy equivalent to ${\widetilde{F}}$. If we set ${\widetilde{X}}_0$ to be a number of copies of ${\widetilde{F}}$ one copy for each $0$-cell in $B$, then there is a $\pi_1(E)$-homotopy equivalence between ${\widetilde{E}}_0$ and ${\widetilde{X}}_0$.
For the induction step, suppose we have a $\pi_1(E)$-homotopy equivalence between ${\widetilde{E}}_{k-1}$ and ${\widetilde{X}}_{k-1}$. Writing $\widetilde{p}$ for the map ${\widetilde{E}}\xrightarrow{\widetilde{p}} B$, we have that ${\widetilde{E}}_{k-1}:= \widetilde{p}^{-1}(B_{k-1})$ so that the filtration of $B$ by its skeleta induces a filtration on ${\widetilde{E}}_{k-1}$. The attaching maps $$(Q(j), q(j)) : (D^k, S^{k-1}) \to (B_k, B_{k-1})$$ give rise to the following pullback diagrams
$$\xymatrix{ Q(j)^*{\widetilde{E}}_k \ar[r] \ar[d] & {\widetilde{E}}_k \ar[d] \\
D^k \ar[r]^{Q(j)} & B_{k}, }$$
$$\xymatrix{ q(j)^*{\widetilde{E}}_{k-1} \ar[r] \ar[d] & {\widetilde{E}}_{k-1} \ar[d] \\
S^{k-1} \ar[r]^{q(j)} & B_{k-1}. }$$
These give rise to the following pushout diagram $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pushout}
\xymatrix{Q(j)^*{\widetilde{E}}_k \ar[r] & {\widetilde{E}}_k \\
q(j)^* {\widetilde{E}}_{k-1} \ar[r] \ar[u]& {\widetilde{E}}_{k-1}. \ar[u]
}\end{aligned}$$
Using the trivialization maps from \[trivialization\] the above diagram \[pushout\] extends to $$\xymatrix{\sum_{I_k} D^k \times {\widetilde{F}}\ar[r] &Q(j)^*{\widetilde{E}}_k \ar[r] & {\widetilde{E}}_k \\
\sum_{I_{k-1}} S^{k-1} \times {\widetilde{F}}\ar[u] \ar[r] &q(j)^* {\widetilde{E}}_{k-1} \ar[r] \ar[u]& {\widetilde{E}}_{k-1}. \ar[u]
}$$ From the induction step we have established that there exists a homotopy equivalence between ${\widetilde{E}}_{k-1}$ and ${\widetilde{X}}_{k-1}$, so the bottom row of the previous diagram extends to $$\xymatrix{\sum_{I_k} D^k \times {\widetilde{F}}& & & \\
\sum_{I_{k-1}} S^{k-1} \times {\widetilde{F}}\ar[u] \ar[r] &q(j)^* {\widetilde{E}}_{k-1} \ar[r] & {\widetilde{E}}_{k-1} \ar[r] & {\widetilde{X}}_{k-1}.
}$$
So ${\widetilde{X}}_k$ can be obtained as a pushout from this diagram, $$\xymatrix{\sum_{I_k} D^k \times {\widetilde{F}}\ar[r] & {\widetilde{X}}_{k} \\
\sum_{I_{k-1}} S^{k-1} \times {\widetilde{F}}\ar[u] \ar[r] &{\widetilde{X}}_{k-1}. \ar[u]
}$$
Hence the attaching maps for ${\widetilde{X}}_k$ are given by the attaching from the pushout diagram $\sum_{I_k} D^k \times {\widetilde{F}}\to {\widetilde{X}}_{k}$ and by the attaching maps induced from those of ${\widetilde{X}}_{k-1}.$ So we deduce that ${\widetilde{X}}_{k}$ is a $\pi_1(E)$-filtered space. To prove that there is a homotopy equivalence between ${\widetilde{E}}_k$ and ${\widetilde{X}}_k$ we reproduce the first diagram in [@Transfer-K page 115].
$$\xymatrix{\sum_{j \in I_k}Q(j)^*{\widetilde{E}}_{k-1} \ar[d] & \sum_{j \in I_k} q(j)^*{\widetilde{E}}_{k-1} \ar[r] \ar[l] \ar[d]& {\widetilde{E}}_{k-1} \ar[d] \\
\sum_{j \in I_k}D^k \times {\widetilde{F}}\ar[d] & \sum_{j \in I_k} S^{k-1} \times {\widetilde{F}}\ar[l] \ar[r] \ar[d]& {\widetilde{E}}_{k-1} \ar[d]^{f_{k-1}} \\
\sum_{j \in I_k}D^k \times {\widetilde{F}}\times I & \sum_{j \in I_k} S^{k-1} \times {\widetilde{F}}\times I \ar[l] \ar[r] & {\widetilde{X}}_{k-1} \\
\sum_{j \in I_k}D^k \times {\widetilde{F}}\ar[u] & \sum_{j \in I_k} S^{k-1} \times {\widetilde{F}}\ar[u] \ar[l] \ar[r] & {\widetilde{X}}_{k-1}. \ar[u] \\
}$$
We first note from this diagram that ${\widetilde{X}}_k$ is the pushout of the bottom row and that ${\widetilde{E}}_k$ is the pushout of the top row
$$\xymatrix{\sum_{I_k} D^k \times {\widetilde{F}}\ar[r] & {\widetilde{X}}_{k} \\
\sum_{I_{k-1}} S^{k-1} \times {\widetilde{F}}\ar[u] \ar[r] &{\widetilde{X}}_{k-1}, \ar[u]
}$$
$$\xymatrix{Q(j)^*{\widetilde{E}}_{k} \ar[r] & {\widetilde{E}}_k \\
q(j)^* {\widetilde{E}}_{k-1} \ar[r] \ar[u]& {\widetilde{E}}_{k-1}. \ar[u]
}$$
The push-outs of the two central rows give filtered spaces. Hence by the argument in [@Brown-book page 246] and [@Dieck page 161] the diagram defines a $\pi_1(E)$-homotopy equivalence between ${\widetilde{E}}_k$ and ${\widetilde{X}}_k$, which completes the induction step. Thus the result follows.
The symmetric construction for the derived symmetric structure
--------------------------------------------------------------
We will now use the symmetric construction to define the derived symmetric structure $G_* \phi$. We have shown in the previous section that we can find a $\pi_1(E)$-space ${\widetilde{X}}$ filtered homotopy equivalent to $\widetilde{E}$. So we can construct a filtered chain diagonal approximation $$\Delta^{X} : C(\widetilde{X}) \to C(\widetilde{X})^t \otimes_{{\mathbb{Z}}[\pi_1(X)]} C(\widetilde{X}).$$
This chain diagonal approximation induces a map
$$G_*\Delta^{X} : G_*C(\widetilde{X}) \to G_* (C(\widetilde{X})^t \otimes_{{\mathbb{Z}}[\pi_1(X)]} C(\widetilde{X}) ).$$ Since there exists a chain equivalence, $$\theta_{X,X} : G_* (C(\widetilde{X})^t \otimes_{{\mathbb{Z}}[\pi_1(X)]} C(\widetilde{X}) ) \to G_* (C(\widetilde{X}))^t \otimes_{{\mathbb{Z}}[\pi_1(X)]} G_*(C(\widetilde{X}) ),$$ we can compose this chain equivalence with $G_* \Delta^X$ to obtain a chain diagonal approximation in the derived category,
$$\theta_{X,X} \circ G_*\Delta^{X} : G_*C(\widetilde{X}) \to G_* (C(\widetilde{X}))^t \otimes_{{\mathbb{Z}}[\pi_1(X)]} G_*(C(\widetilde{X}) ).$$
The slant isomorphism allows us to identify $$G_* (C(\widetilde{X}))^t \otimes_{{\mathbb{Z}}[\pi_1(X)]} G_*C({\widetilde{X}}) = \textnormal{Hom}_{{\mathbb{D}}_m {\mathbb{Z}}} (G_*C({\widetilde{X}})^{-*}, G_*C({\widetilde{X}}) ).$$
Let $W$ be the standard free ${\mathbb{Z}}[{\mathbb{Z}}_2]$ resolution of ${\mathbb{Z}}$ $$W: \dots \to {\mathbb{Z}}[{\mathbb{Z}}_2] \xrightarrow{1-T} {\mathbb{Z}}[{\mathbb{Z}}_2] \xrightarrow{1+T} {\mathbb{Z}}[{\mathbb{Z}}_2] \xrightarrow{1-T} {\mathbb{Z}}[{\mathbb{Z}}_2] \to 0.$$ Using the action of $T \in {\mathbb{Z}}_2$ on $G_*C({\widetilde{X}})^t \otimes_{{\mathbb{D}}_m {\mathbb{Z}}} G_*C({\widetilde{X}})$ by the transposition involution we define the ${\mathbb{Z}}$ module chain complex $$W^{\%} G_*C({\widetilde{X}}) = \textnormal{Hom}_{{\mathbb{Z}}[{\mathbb{Z}}_2]}(W, G_*C({\widetilde{X}})^t \otimes_{{\mathbb{D}}_m {\mathbb{Z}}} G_*C({\widetilde{X}})).$$
An $n$-dimensional derived symmetric structure on the associated chain complex in ${\mathbb{D}}( {\mathbb{Z}})$ of a filtered complex $C({\widetilde{X}})$ in ${\mathbb{D}}({\mathbb{Z}})$ is a cycle in $(W^\% G_*C({\widetilde{X}}))_n$
The $n$-dimensional $Q$-group $Q^n(G_*C({\widetilde{X}}))$ of a derived chain complex is the abelian group of equivalence classes of derived $n$-dimensional symmetric structure on $G_*C({\widetilde{X}})$, $$Q^n(G_*C({\widetilde{X}})) = H^n ({\mathbb{Z}}_2; G_*C({\widetilde{X}})^t \otimes_{{\mathbb{D}}_m {\mathbb{Z}}} G_*C({\widetilde{X}})) = H_n(W^\% G_*C({\widetilde{X}})).$$
Transfer functor associated to a fibration {#transfer-sec}
------------------------------------------
In a fibration $F \to E \xrightarrow{p} B$ a point in the base lifts to a copy of the fibre $F$. The total space of a fibre bundle is determined by the homotopy action of $\Omega B$ on the fibre $U: \Omega B \to \textnormal{Map}(F, F) $ with a homotopy equivalence $E \simeq EB \times_{\Omega B} F $
\[ht\] 
For any loop $\omega : S^1 \to B$ the pullback $F \to \omega^*E \to S^1 $ is the mapping torus $\omega^*E= T(h)$ of the monodromy automorphism $h= U(\omega): F \to F.$
So we are considering the homotopy action of $\Omega B$ on the fibre $F$, $$\Omega B \to \textnormal{Map}(F, F); \omega \mapsto h.$$ If $\omega$ is a loop in $\Omega B$, the homotopy class of its corresponding map $h_{\omega}: F \to F$ only depends on the homotopy class of $\omega \in \pi_1(B)$. So there is a homotopy action of the fundamental group $\pi_1(B)$ on the fibre $F$ given by the fibre transport $$u: \pi_1(B) \to [F, F].$$ The homotopy action of $\Omega B$ on $F$ determines the chain homotopy action $$u : \pi_1(B) \to [C(F), C(F)]^{op}.$$ which extends to a ring morphism $$\label{ring-morph}
U : H_0(\Omega B) = {\mathbb{Z}}[\pi_1(B)] \to H_0(\textnormal{Hom}_{{\mathbb{Z}}}(C(F), C(F))).$$
It is also possible to give a $\pi_1(E)$-equivariant version of the fibre transport by considering the $\pi_1(E)$-fibration ${\widetilde{E}}\to B$, with fibres ${\widetilde{F}}$ the pullback to $F$ of the universal cover ${\widetilde{E}}$ of $E$. In this case the ring morphism is given by $$\label{equiv-ring-morph}
U : H_0(\Omega B) = {\mathbb{Z}}[\pi_1(B)] \to H_0(\textnormal{Hom}_{{\mathbb{Z}}[\pi_1(E)]}(C({\widetilde{F}}), C({\widetilde{F}}))).$$
The ring morphisms from \[ring-morph\] and \[equiv-ring-morph\] induce transfer functors as we now explain.
The idea of the transfer functor associated to a fibration $F \to E \xrightarrow{p} B$ was developed in [@SurTransfer].
([@SurTransfer Definition 1.1]) A representation $(A, U)$ of a ring $R$ in an additive category ${\mathbb{A}}$ is an object $A$ in ${\mathbb{A}}$ together with a morphism of rings $U : R \to \textnormal{Hom}_{{\mathbb{A}}}(A, A)^{op}.$
Following the notation in [@SurTransfer] we will denote by ${\mathbb{B}}(R)$ the additive category of based finitely generated free $R$-modules, where $R$ is an associative ring with unity. As above, ${\mathbb{D(A)}}$ denotes the derived homotopy category of the additive category ${\mathbb{A}}$. From [@SurTransfer Definition 1.5] we know that $$\textnormal{Hom}_{{\mathbb{D(A)}}}(C, D) = H_0(\textnormal{Hom}_{{\mathbb{A}}}(C, D)).$$
([@SurTransfer]) A representation $(A, U)$ determines a transfer functor\
$-\otimes (A, U) = F : {\mathbb{B}}(R) \to {\mathbb{D(A)}}$ as follows $$\begin{array}{l}F(R^n) = A^n, \\
F\left((a_{ij} : R^n \to R^m) \right) = \left(U(a_{ij})\right) : A^n \to A^m.
\end{array}$$
The ring morphism induced by the fibre transport, $$U: {\mathbb{Z}}[\pi_1(B)] \to H_0(\textnormal{Hom}_{{\mathbb{Z}}[\pi_1(E)]} (C({\widetilde{F}}), C({\widetilde{F}}))^{op}.$$ determines the representation $(C({\widetilde{F}}), U)$ of the ring ${\mathbb{Z}}[\pi_1(B)]$ into the derived category ${\mathbb{D}}_m({\mathbb{A}}({\mathbb{Z}}[\pi_1(E)])$, $$-\otimes (C({\widetilde{F}}), U) : {\mathbb{B}}({\mathbb{Z}}[\pi_1(B)]) \to {\mathbb{D}}_m({\mathbb{A}}({\mathbb{Z}}[\pi_1(E)])$$ where ${\mathbb{D}}_{m}({\mathbb{A}}({\mathbb{Z}}[\pi_1(E)])$ is the derived category ${\mathbb{D}}({\mathbb{A}}({\mathbb{Z}}[\pi_1(E)])$ with the $m$-duality involution $C \mapsto C^{m-*}$. This functor induced maps in the $L$-groups. In [@SurTransfer] it is defined and used to construct a transfer map in the quadratic $L$-groups associated to a fibration $F^m \to E^{n+m} \to B^n$, $$L_n({\mathbb{Z}}[\pi_1({\widetilde{B}})]) \xrightarrow{-\otimes (C({\widetilde{F}}), U)} L_{n}({\mathbb{D}}_m({\mathbb{A}}({\mathbb{Z}}[\pi_1(E)])) \xrightarrow{\mu} L_{n+m}({\mathbb{Z}}[\pi_1(E)]),$$ where $\mu$ is the Morita map given in [@SurTransfer].
In symmetric $L$-theory the transfer functor still induces a map, $$L^n({\mathbb{Z}}[\pi_1({\widetilde{B}})]) \xrightarrow{-\otimes (C({\widetilde{F}}), U)} L^{n}({\mathbb{D}}_m({\mathbb{A}}({\mathbb{Z}}[\pi_1(E)])),$$ but unlike in quadratic $L$-theory, in general in symmetric $L$-theory a well-defined Morita map does not exist.
In our context, since we are only interested in obtaining information about the ordinary signature of $E$, we can forget about $\pi_1(E)$. That is, we only need to work with the map which we will make precise in the next section, $$L^n({\mathbb{Z}}[\pi_1(B)])\xrightarrow{-\otimes (C(F), \alpha, U)} L^{n}({\mathbb{D}}_m{\mathbb{Z}}) \xrightarrow{\sigma_{{\mathbb{D}}_m {{\mathbb{Z}}}}} {\mathbb{Z}},$$ This is defined in [@Korzen Lemma 4.10].
The signature of a filtered complex and its associated complex in the derived category
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In section \[E-filtered\] we have given the proof that the total space of a fibration $F^{2m} \to E \to B^{2n}$ is homotopically equivalent to a filtered $CW$-complex $X$ with the filtration induced from the cellular structure of the base space. As $X$ is a filtered complex over ${\mathbb{Z}}$, it has an associated complex $(G_*C(X) , G_*\phi \in Q^{2n}(G_*C(X))$ in ${\mathbb{D}}_{2m}({\mathbb{Z}})$, where ${\mathbb{D}}_{2m}({\mathbb Z})$ is the derived category ${\mathbb{D}}({\mathbb Z})$ with the $2m$-duality involution $C \mapsto C^{2m-*}$.
\[L-derived\] ([@Korzen Lemma 4.10]) Let $m, n$ be such that $2m+2n=0 \pmod{4}$, the derived signature of the associated chain complex of a filtered complex induces a well defined map $$\sigma_{{\mathbb{D}}_{2m}{\mathbb{Z}}} : L^{2n}({\mathbb{D}}_{2m}({\mathbb{Z}})) \to L^{2n+2m}({\mathbb Z})= {\mathbb{Z}}.$$
The computation of the signature $\sigma_{{\mathbb{D}}_{2m}{\mathbb{Z}}}(G_*C(X), G_*\phi)$ is done by a construction similar to that of the spectral sequence of a filtered complex. For details see [@Korzen]
\[sig-ass-complex\] ([@Korzen Lemma 4.12]) Let $F^{2m} \to E \to B^{2n}$ be a fibration, and let $X$ be a filtered complex homotopy equivalent to $E$. The signature of $X$ is equal to the signature of its associated complex $(G_*C(X), G_*\phi)$ in the derived category ${\mathbb{D}}_{2m}({\mathbb{Z}})$ $$\sigma(C(X), \phi) = \sigma_{{\mathbb{D}}_{2m}({\mathbb{Z}})}(G_*C(X), G_*\phi).$$
The signature of a filtered complex only depends on the second page of its Serre spectral sequence. For details about the spectral sequence construction see [@Korzen].
For a fibration $F^{2m} \to E \xrightarrow{p} B^{2n}$, with the fibre a $2m$-dimensional geometric Poincaré complex, the derived signature of the associated chain complex of a filtered complex induces a well-defined derived signature map $$\sigma_{{\mathbb{D}}_{2m}({\mathbb Z})} : L^{2n}({\mathbb{D}}_{2m}({\mathbb Z})) \to L^{2m+2n}({\mathbb Z})={\mathbb Z}.$$ and the composite $$p^!: L^{2n}({\mathbb{Z}}[\pi_1(B)]) \xrightarrow{-\otimes (C(F), \alpha, U)} L^{2n}({\mathbb{D}}_m{\mathbb{Z}}) \xrightarrow{\sigma_{{\mathbb{D}}_m {{\mathbb{Z}}}}} L^{2m+2n}({\mathbb Z})= {\mathbb{Z}},$$ is a transfer map in symmetric $L$-theory. The functor $-\otimes (C(F), \alpha, U)$ was discussed in section \[transfer-sec\] and will be reviewed again in section \[functors-sec\].
If $B$ is a $2n$-dimensional geometric Poincaré complex then $E$ is a $(2m+2n)$-dimensional geometric Poincaré complex with the transfer of the symmetric signature $\sigma^*(B) \in L^{2n}(Z[\pi_1(B)])$ the ordinary signature $\sigma(E) = p^!(\sigma^*(B)) \in L^{2m+2n}({\mathbb Z}) = {\mathbb Z}.$
With this example we shall illustrate Proposition \[L-derived\] in two special cases, when the base is a point and when the fibre is a point.
- Case 1: Let $F^{2m} \to E \to \{pt\} $ be a fibration with base a point, that is, we take $n=0$. Then $F \to E$ is a homotopy equivalence, and there is a symmetric $L$-theory transfer $$p^! : L^0({\mathbb Z}) \to L^0({\mathbb{D}}_{2m}({\mathbb Z})) \to L^{2m}({\mathbb Z})={\mathbb Z}$$
In general the ring morphism ${\mathbb Z}[\pi_1(B)] \to \textnormal{Hom}_{{\mathbb Z}}(C(F), C(F))$ induces a map in $L$-theory $L^0({\mathbb Z}[\pi_1(B)]) \to L^0 (\textnormal{Hom}_{{\mathbb Z}}(C(F), C(F)))$. Composing this with the canonical map $L^0(\textnormal{Hom}_{{\mathbb Z}}(C( F ),C( F ))) \to L^0({\mathbb{D}}_{2m}({\mathbb Z}))$ we obtain the first functor in the transfer map. If $B= \{ pt \}$, the ring morphism is ${\mathbb Z}\to \textnormal{Hom}_{{\mathbb Z}}(C( F ),C( F )); 1 \mapsto 1$, and the canonical map sends $1$ to $C(F)$ in the $0$-th filtration. Therefore the transfer map is $$p^!: L^0({\mathbb Z})={\mathbb Z}\to L^{2m}({\mathbb Z}) ; 1 \mapsto \sigma(E)=\sigma(F).$$ and $$p^!(\sigma^*(B)) = \sigma(F)= \sigma( E).$$
- Case 2: Let $\{pt\} \to E \to B^{2n}$ be a fibration with fibre a point, that is we take $m=0$. Then $p:E \to B$ is a homotopy equivalence, and $$p^!:L^{2n}({\mathbb Z}[\pi_1(B)]) \to L^{2n}({\mathbb Z})={\mathbb Z}$$ is the forgetful map induced by the augmentation ${\mathbb Z}[\pi_1(B)]\to {\mathbb Z},$ and $$p^!(\sigma^*( B)) = \sigma(B)= \sigma( E)$$
An isomorphism of derived complexes
-----------------------------------
At this point we know that for a fibration $F^m \to E \to B^n$, $$\sigma (E) = \sigma(X) = \sigma_{{\mathbb{D}}({{\mathbb Z}})}(G_*C(X)) \in {\mathbb Z},$$ and that there is a well defined functor $$L^n({\mathbb{Z}}[\pi_1(B)])\xrightarrow{-\otimes (C(F), \alpha, U)} L^{n}({\mathbb{D}}_m{\mathbb{Z}}) \xrightarrow{\sigma_{{\mathbb{D}}_m {{\mathbb{Z}}}}} {\mathbb{Z}}.$$ To show that this functor describes the signature of the total space we will need that $\sigma_{{\mathbb{D}}({{\mathbb Z}})}(G_*C(X)) = \sigma_{{\mathbb{D}}({{\mathbb Z}})}(C({\widetilde{B}}) \otimes (C(F), \alpha, U)). $
In Lemma \[trivialization\] we saw that there exists a map $$(D^k, S^{k-1}) \times {\widetilde{F}}\to ({\widetilde{E}}_k, {\widetilde{E}}_{k-1}).$$ We compose this map with $({\widetilde{E}}_k, {\widetilde{E}}_{k-1}) \xrightarrow{(f_k, f_{k-1})} ({\widetilde{X}}_k, {\widetilde{X}}_{k-1})$, and write a map of chain complexes, $$C((D^k, S^{k-1}) \times {\widetilde{F}}) \to C({\widetilde{X}}_{k}, {\widetilde{X}}_{k-1}).$$ The complex $C((D^k, S^{k-1}) \times {\widetilde{F}})$ is canonically isomorphic to $C({\widetilde{F}})$ and we already showed in section \[derived section\] that $$S^{-k}C({\widetilde{X}}_{k}, {\widetilde{X}}_{k-1}) \cong G_kC({\widetilde{X}}).$$ So we take a $k$th-desuspension of the map $C((D^k, S^{k-1}) \times {\widetilde{F}}) \to C({\widetilde{X}}_{k}, {\widetilde{X}}_{k-1}) $ and obtain, $$C({\widetilde{F}}) \cong S^{-k}C((D^k, S^{k-1}) \times {\widetilde{F}}) \to S^{-k}C({\widetilde{X}}_{k}, {\widetilde{X}}_{k-1}) \cong G_kC({\widetilde{X}}).$$
\[chain-iso\] ([@Korzen Theorem 4.5]) Given a fibration $p: E \to B$, let $X$ be a filtered complex homotopically equivalent to $E$. Then there is
- a chain isomorphism of chain complexes in the derived category ${\mathbb{D}}({\mathbb{Z}}[\pi_1(B)])$ $$\lambda : G_*C(X) \cong C({\widetilde{B}}) \otimes (C(F), U).$$
- an equivalence of the derived symmetric structure defined on $C({\widetilde{B}}) \otimes (C(F), U)$ and the derived symmetric structure on $G_*C(X).$
<!-- -->
- Firstly we observe that there is a commutative diagram $$\xymatrix{ C({\widetilde{F}}) \ar[r] \ar[d]_{Id} & G_kC({\widetilde{X}}) \ar[d]^{G_kd} \\
C({\widetilde{F}}) \ar[r] & G_{k-1}C({\widetilde{X}}),
}$$ and hence we can construct the following diagram $$\xymatrix{ \bigoplus_{j \in I_k} C({\widetilde{F}}) \ar@/^2pc/[rr]^{Id} \ar[r] \ar[d]_{Id}& G_kC({\widetilde{X}}) \ar[dd]^{G_kd} \ar[r]^{\lambda_k} & C_k({\widetilde{B}}) \otimes C({\widetilde{F}}) \ar[dd]^{d_{C({\widetilde{B}}) \otimes (C({\widetilde{F}}), U)}} \\
\bigoplus_{j \in I_k}C({\widetilde{F}}) \ar[dr] \ar[d] & & \\
\bigoplus_{j \in I_{k-1}}C({\widetilde{F}}) \ar@/^-2pc/[rr]_{Id} \ar[r] & G_{k-1}C({\widetilde{X}}) \ar[r]^{\lambda_{k-1}} & C({\widetilde{B}})_{k-1} \otimes C({\widetilde{F}}). \\
}$$
Here the square on the left $$\xymatrix{\bigoplus_{j \in I_k} C({\widetilde{F}}) \ar[r] \ar[d] & G_kC({\widetilde{X}}) \ar[d]^{G_kd} \\
\bigoplus_{j \in I_k} C({\widetilde{F}}) \ar[r] & G_{k-1}C({\widetilde{X}})
}$$ commutes. The outer square also commutes $$\xymatrix{\bigoplus_{j \in I_k} C({\widetilde{F}}) \ar[r] \ar[d]_{Id} & C_k({\widetilde{B}}) \otimes C({\widetilde{F}}) \ar[d]^{d_{C({\widetilde{B}})\otimes (C({\widetilde{F}}), U)}} \\
\bigoplus_{j \in I_k} C({\widetilde{F}}) \ar[r] &C({\widetilde{B}})_{k-1} \otimes C({\widetilde{F}})
}$$ with the above map being just the identity and the lower map being $d_{C({\widetilde{B}})\otimes (C({\widetilde{F}}), U)}$.
Since the left and the outer squares commute, we deduce that the right square $$\xymatrix{ G_kC({\widetilde{X}}) \ar[d]_{G_kd} \ar[r]^{\lambda_k} & C_k({\widetilde{B}}) \otimes C({\widetilde{F}}) \ar[d]^{d_{C({\widetilde{B}}) \otimes (C({\widetilde{F}}), U)}} \\
G_{k-1}C({\widetilde{X}}) \ar[r]^{\lambda_{k-1}} & C({\widetilde{B}})_{k-1} \otimes C({\widetilde{F}}) \\
}$$ also commutes. Hence $\lambda: G_{k}C({\widetilde{X}}) \to C({\widetilde{B}})_{k} \otimes (C({\widetilde{F}}), U)$ is a chain map.
Using again the same argument now with the diagram $$\xymatrix{ \bigoplus_{j \in I_k} C({\widetilde{F}}) \ar[r] \ar[d]_{Id} & C_k({\widetilde{B}}) \otimes C({\widetilde{F}})\ar[r]^{\epsilon_k} \ar[dd]^{d_{C({\widetilde{B}}) \otimes (C({\widetilde{F}}), U)}} & G_kC({\widetilde{X}}) \ar[dd]^{G_kd} \\
\bigoplus_{j \in I_k}C({\widetilde{F}}) \ar[dr] \ar[d] & & \\
\bigoplus_{j \in I_{k-1}}C({\widetilde{F}}) \ar[r] & C({\widetilde{B}})_{k-1} \otimes C({\widetilde{F}}) \ar[r]^{\hspace{15pt}\epsilon_{k-1}} & G_{k-1}C({\widetilde{X}}) \\
}$$ We can show that the square $$\xymatrix{ C_k({\widetilde{B}}) \otimes C({\widetilde{F}}) \ar[d]_{d_{C({\widetilde{B}}) \otimes (C({\widetilde{F}}), U)}} \ar[r]^{\epsilon_k} & G_kC({\widetilde{X}}) \ar[d]^{G_kd}\\
C({\widetilde{B}})_{k-1} \otimes C({\widetilde{F}}) \ar[r]^{\hspace{15pt}\epsilon_{k-1}} & G_{k-1}C({\widetilde{X}}) \\
}$$ commutes, so that there is also a chain equivalence $$\epsilon: G_{k}C({\widetilde{X}}) \to C({\widetilde{B}})_{k} \otimes (C({\widetilde{F}}), U).$$ Furthermore $\epsilon$ and $\lambda$ are chain homotopy equivalent. Since $G_kC({\widetilde{X}})$ and $C({\widetilde{B}}) \otimes (C({\widetilde{F}}), U)$ are homotopy equivalent chain complexes in the derived category ${\mathbb{D}}({\mathbb{Z}}[\pi_1(B)])$ then this implies that they are isomorphic.
- We have already proved that there is a chain equivalence $\lambda: G_*C(X) \to C({\widetilde{B}}) \otimes (C(F), U)$ and we also already described the filtered chain approximation $\Delta^X: C(X) \to C({\widetilde{X}}) \otimes_{{\mathbb{Z}}[\pi_1(X)]} C({\widetilde{X}})$. The filtered chain approximation on $C({\widetilde{B}}) \otimes (C(F), U)$ can be constructed in the same way. [$$\xymatrix{
G_*C(X) \ar[r]^{\lambda \otimes_{{\mathbb{Z}}[\pi_1(X)]} {\mathbb{Z}}} \ar[d]_{G_*C(\Delta^X)} & C({\widetilde{B}}) \otimes (C(F), U) \ar[d]^{\Delta^{{\widetilde{B}}} \otimes \Delta^{{\widetilde{F}}}}\\
G_*(C({\widetilde{X}}) \otimes_{{\mathbb{Z}}[\pi_1(X)]} C({\widetilde{X}})) \ar[d]_{\theta^{X, X}}& (C({\widetilde{B}}) \otimes_{{\mathbb{Z}}[\pi_1(B)]} C({\widetilde{B}})) \otimes (C({\widetilde{F}}) \otimes_{{\mathbb{Z}}[\pi_1(E)]} C({\widetilde{F}}), U \otimes U) \ar[d]^{\theta^{{\widetilde{B}}, {\widetilde{F}}}} \\
G_*C({\widetilde{X}}) \otimes_{{\mathbb{Z}}[\pi_1(X)]} G_*C({\widetilde{X}}) \ar[r]^{\hspace{-50pt}\lambda \otimes \lambda} & (C({\widetilde{B}}) \otimes (C({\widetilde{F}}), U)) \otimes_{{\mathbb{Z}}[\pi_1(E)]}(C({\widetilde{B}}) \otimes (C({\widetilde{F}}), U)).
}$$ ]{}
Clearly this diagram commutes. Hence, there is an equivalence of both symmetric structures induced from the chain isomorphism $\lambda$.
Using the results of Theorem \[3.15\], Proposition \[sig-ass-complex\] and Theorem \[chain-iso\] we know at this point that $$\sigma (E) = \sigma(X) = \sigma_{{\mathbb{D}}({Z})}(G_*C(X)) = \sigma_{{\mathbb{D}}({Z})}(C({\widetilde{B}}) \otimes (C(F), \alpha, U)) \in {\mathbb{Z}}.$$
Two equivalent functors for the signature of a fibration {#functors-sec}
--------------------------------------------------------
We start by giving the definition of a $({\mathbb Z}, m)$-representation.
A $({\mathbb Z}, m)$-symmetric representation $(A, \alpha, U)$ of a group ring ${\mathbb Z}[\pi]$ is a symmetric representation of ${\mathbb Z}[\pi]$ in the category $\mathbb{A}({\mathbb Z}^{(m)})$, where ${\mathbb Z}^{(m)}$ is the ring ${\mathbb Z}$ with involution given by $a^*= (-1)^m a ~~ (a \in A).$
Let $(C(F), \alpha, U)$ be the $({\mathbb{Z}},m)$-symmetric representation of the group ring ${\mathbb{Z}}[\pi_1(B)]$ in ${\mathbb{D}}_{2m}({\mathbb{Z}})$ associated to the fibration $F^{2m} \to E \to B^{2n}$.
\[functor-chain\] The representation $(C(F), \phi, U)$ gives rise to the following functor, $$- \otimes (C(F), \alpha, U) : {\mathbb{A}}({\mathbb{Z}}[\pi_1(B)]) \to {\mathbb{D}}_{2m}({\mathbb{Z}}).$$
From this representation we can construct another $({\mathbb{Z}}, m)$-representation $(A, \alpha, U)$ associated to the same fibration which is given by $$\begin{array}{l}
A = H_m(C(F))/ torsion, \\
\alpha: A= H^m(C(F))/ torsion \to A^*= H_m(C(F))/ torsion, \\
U : {\mathbb{Z}}[\pi_1(B)] \to H_0(\textnormal{Hom}_{{\mathbb{Z}}}(A, A))^{op}.
\end{array}$$
\[representation A\] The $({\mathbb{Z}}, m)$-symmetric representation $(A, \alpha, U)$ associated to a fibration $F^{2m} \to E \to B^{2n}$ is a $(-1)^m$-symmetric form $(A, \alpha)$ together with the representation $U$ of the group ring ${\mathbb{Z}}[\pi_1(B)]$ in the additive category with involution ${\mathbb{A}}({\mathbb{Z}}^{(m)})$.
\[functor-homology\] The representation $(A, \alpha, U)$ gives rise to the following functor, $$- \otimes (A, \alpha, U) : {\mathbb{A}}({\mathbb{Z}}[\pi_1(B)]) \to {\mathbb{A}}({\mathbb{Z}}^{(m)})$$ where ${\mathbb{Z}}^{(m)}$ is the ring of integers with involution given by $e^* = (-1)^m e.$
The two functors from Definitions \[functor-chain\] and \[functor-homology\] induce maps in symmetric $L$-theory, $$- \otimes (C(F), \alpha, U) : L^{2n}({\mathbb{Z}}[\pi_1(B)]) \to L^{2n}({\mathbb{D}}_{2m}({\mathbb{Z}}))$$ and $$- \otimes (A, \alpha, U) : L^{2n}({\mathbb{Z}}[\pi_1(B)]) \to L^{2n}({\mathbb{Z}}).$$
Note that $(A, \alpha, U) \in L^0({\mathbb{Z}}, (-1)^{m})$, so the second functor does not immediately give us a chain complex of the dimension of the total space. Nevertheless, since the $\epsilon$-symmetric $L$-groups over ${\mathbb{Z}}$ are $4$-periodic, we have an isomorphism given by skew suspension, $$\label{Skew-suspension}
\bar{S}^{m}: L^{2n}({\mathbb{Z}}, (-1)^{n+m}) \xrightarrow \cong L^{2n+2m}({\mathbb{Z}})$$ sending the $2n$-dimensional $(-1)^{n+m}$-symmetric complex $(C(\widetilde{B}), \phi) \otimes (A, \alpha, U)$ to the $2n+2m$-dimensional symmetric complex $\bar{S}(C(\widetilde{B}), \phi) \otimes (A, \alpha, U)$ so that the signatures are defined,
$${\small
\xymatrix{
\txt{$L^{2n}({\mathbb{Z}},(-1)^{n+m})$\\$(C(\widetilde{B}), \phi) \otimes (A, \alpha, U) $} \ar@<-.8ex>[dr] \ar@<.8ex>[dr]^{\sigma} \ar@{->}[rr]^{\cong}
&
&\txt{$L^{2n+2m}({\mathbb{Z}},1)$\\$\bar{S}^m(C(\widetilde{B}), \phi) \otimes (A, \alpha, U) $}\ar@<-.8ex>[dl]_{\sigma} \ar@<.8ex>[dl]\\
&\txt { ${\mathbb{Z}}$\\ $\sigma((C(\widetilde{B}), \phi) \otimes (A, \alpha, U)) =$ \\ $\sigma(\bar{S}^{m}(C(\widetilde{B}), \phi) \otimes (A, \alpha, U))$}}}$$
\[two-functors\]([@Korzen Lemma 4.11]) Using the functors for a fibration $F^{2m} \to E \to B^{2n}$ described in Definitions \[functor-chain\] and \[functor-homology\], the following diagram commutes. $$\xymatrix{
L^{2n}({\mathbb{Z}}[\pi_1(B)]) \ar[d]_{- \otimes (A, \alpha, U)} \ar[rr]^{- \otimes (C(F), \alpha, U)} & & L^{2n}({\mathbb{D}}_{2m}({\mathbb{Z}})) \ar[dd]^{\sigma_{{\mathbb{D}}_{2m}({\mathbb{Z}})}} \\
L^{2n}({\mathbb{Z}}, (-)^{n+m}) \ar[d]_{\bar{S}^m} & \\
L^{2n+2m}({\mathbb{Z}}) \ar[rr]^{\sigma} & & {\mathbb{Z}}
}$$
$$\begin{array}{ccl}
\sigma_{{\mathbb{D}}_{2m}{\mathbb{Z}}}(-\otimes (C, \alpha, U)) & = & \sigma_{{\mathbb{D}}_{2m}{\mathbb{Z}}}(-\otimes (H_*(C\otimes {\mathbb{R}}), \alpha \otimes R, U\otimes R)) \\
& = & \sigma_{{\mathbb{D}}_{2m}{\mathbb{Z}}}(-\otimes (H_0(C\otimes {\mathbb{R}}), \alpha \otimes R, U\otimes R)) + \\
& & \hspace{20pt} \sigma_{{\mathbb{D}}_{2m}{\mathbb{Z}}}(-\otimes (H_1(C\otimes {\mathbb{R}}), \alpha \otimes R, U\otimes R)) + \\
& & \hspace{20pt} \dots + \sigma_{{\mathbb{D}}_{2m}{\mathbb{Z}}}(-\otimes (H_m(C\otimes {\mathbb{R}}), \alpha \otimes R, U\otimes R)) + \\
& & \hspace{20pt} \dots +\sigma_{{\mathbb{D}}_{2m}{\mathbb{Z}}}(-\otimes (H_{2m}(C\otimes {\mathbb{R}}), \alpha \otimes R, U\otimes R))
\end{array}$$ The signature only depends on the middle homology so the only non-zero term is $\sigma_{{\mathbb{D}}_{2m}{\mathbb{Z}}}(-\otimes (H_m(C\otimes {\mathbb{R}}), \alpha \otimes R, U\otimes R))$ the other terms are just hyperbolic modules which are $0 \in L^{2m+2n}({\mathbb{Z}})$. hence, $$\begin{array}{ccl}
\sigma_{{\mathbb{D}}_{2m}{\mathbb{Z}}}(-\otimes (C, \alpha, U)) & = & \sigma_{{\mathbb{D}}_{2m}{\mathbb{Z}}}(-\otimes (H_m(C\otimes {\mathbb{R}}), \alpha \otimes {\mathbb{R}}, U\otimes {\mathbb{R}})) \\
& = & \sigma (- \otimes (A \otimes {\mathbb{R}}, \alpha \otimes {\mathbb{R}}, U \otimes {\mathbb{R}})).
\end{array}$$
We had already noted that $$\sigma(E) = \sigma_{{\mathbb{D}}_{2m}{\mathbb{Z}}} (C({\widetilde{B}}), \phi) \otimes (C(F), \alpha, U).$$ Combining this result with Proposition \[two-functors\] we have that $$\sigma(E) = \sigma((C({\widetilde{B}}), \phi) \otimes (A, \alpha, U)).$$
Introduction to part III {#introduction-to-part-iii .unnumbered}
========================
In this part of the thesis we shall combine ideas from the two previous parts to prove results concerning the signature modulo $8$ of a fibre bundle. As was mentioned before, in [@HirzebruchSerreChern] Chern, Hirzebruch and Serre proved that multiplicativity of the signature of a fibre bundle holds when the action of the fundamental group $\pi_1(B)$ is trivial on the cohomology ring of the fibres $H^*(F; {\mathbb{Q}})$, $$\sigma(E) - \sigma(B)\sigma(F) =0 \in {\mathbb{Z}}.$$ Later on Kodaira, Hirzebruch and Atiyah constructed nonmultiplicative fibre bundles, with the action of $\pi_1(B)$ action on $H^*(F;{\mathbb{Q}})$ necessarily nontrivial.
The signature of a fibre bundle is multiplicative modulo 4, whatever the action. This was proved in [@Meyerpaper] for surface bundles and in [@modfour] for high dimensions. In Theorem \[4Arf-general-fibration\] in chapter \[mod-eight-proof\] we identify the obstruction to multiplicativity of the signature modulo $8$ of a fibration with a ${\mathbb Z}_2$-valued Arf invariant. When shall prove that if the action of $\pi_1(B)$ is trivial on $H^m(F, {\mathbb{Z}})/torsion \otimes {\mathbb{Z}}_4$, this Arf invariant takes value $0$. And we shall prove the following theorem,
**Theorem \[mod8-theorem\].** *Let $F^{2m} \to E^{4k} \to B^{2n}$ be an oriented Poincaré duality fibration. If the action of $\pi_1(B)$ on $H^m(F, {\mathbb{Z}})/torsion \otimes {\mathbb{Z}}_4$ is trivial, then $$\sigma(E) -\sigma(F) \sigma(B) =0\in {\mathbb Z}_8.$$*
Chapter \[examples-chapter\] is devoted to investigating examples with non-trivial signature modulo $8$, that is example of fibre bundles which have signature equal to $4$. The first of these examples, will be a review of the construction by Endo of a surface bundle with signature $4$. A Python module is used to find some further nontrivial examples of non-multiplicativity modulo $8$. The Python module used for these computations is included in the Appendix.
Multiplicativity of the signature modulo $8$ {#mod-eight-proof}
============================================
Notation
--------
In this chapter we shall be using the notation presented in the following table. This notation has been introduced mainly in chapter \[model\].
[ l l ]{}\
**In Algebra:**\
\
$(C, \phi)$ & A $2n$-dimensional $(-1)^n$-symmetric Poincaré\
& complex over ${\mathbb Z}[\pi]$. (Section \[symm\])\
$(A, \alpha)$ & A nonsingular $(-1)^m$-symmetric form over ${\mathbb Z}$\
& with $\alpha: A \to A^*$ (Definition \[representation A\])\
$(A, \alpha, U)$ & A $({\mathbb Z}, m)$-symmetric representation with\
& $U : {\mathbb{Z}}[\pi] \to H_0( \textnormal{Hom}_{{\mathbb Z}}(A, A))^{op}$\
& (Definition \[functor-homology\])\
$\bar{S}^m(A, \alpha, U)$ & Skew-suspension of $(A, \alpha, U)$\
& (Equation \[Skew-suspension\])\
$(C, \phi) \otimes \bar{S}^m(A, \alpha, U) = (D, \Gamma)$ [aaaaaaaaa]{}& A $4k=2m+2n$-dimensional symmetric\
& complex over ${\mathbb Z}$ with the action of $\pi$\
& given by $U$. (Proposition \[two-functors\]).\
$(C, \phi) \otimes \bar{S}^m(A, \alpha, \epsilon) = (D', \Gamma')$ & The $4k$-dimensional symmetric complex\
& over ${\mathbb Z}$ with the action of $\pi$ given by\
& the trivial action $\epsilon$. (Proposition \[two-functors\])\
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
$C^{(2n)-r+s} \otimes \bar{S}^mA^* \xrightarrow{U(\phi_s) (\alpha)}C_r \otimes \bar{S}^mA $ The symmetric structure of a twisted product.
(Theorem \[chain-iso\] and [@SurTransfer])
${\mathcal{P}}_2$ Pontryagin square depending on
the symmetric structure $\Gamma$ (Chapter \[Pontryagin-squares chapter\])
${\mathcal{P}}'_2$ Pontryagin square depending on
the symmetric structure $\Gamma'$ (Chapter \[Pontryagin-squares chapter\])
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ l l ]{}\
**In Topology:**\
\
$(C(\tilde{B}), \phi)$ & The $2m$-dimensional symmetric complex\
& over ${\mathbb Z}[\pi_1(B)]$ of the universal cover\
&of the base. (Section \[symm\])\
$A = H^{m}(F, {\mathbb{Z}})$ & The middle dimensional cohomology\
& of the fibre $F^{2m}$ (Definition \[representation A\])\
$(A, \alpha)$ & The nonsingular $(-1)^m$-symmetric form\
& with $\alpha= (-1)^m \alpha^*: A \to A^*$\
& (Definition \[representation A\])\
$(A, \alpha, U)$ & The symmetric representation with\
& $U : {\mathbb{Z}}[\pi_1(B)] \to H_0( \textnormal{Hom}_{{\mathbb Z}}(A, A))^{op}$\
& (Definition \[functor-homology\])\
$\bar{S}^m(A, \alpha, U)$ & $2m$-dimensional $(-1)^m$-symmetric complex\
& given by skew-suspension of $(A, \alpha, U)$\
& (Equation \[Skew-suspension\])\
$(C(\tilde{B}), \phi) \otimes_{{\mathbb Z}[\pi_1(B)]} \bar{S}^m(A, \alpha, U)$ [aaaaaaaaa]{}& The chain complex model for the\
& total space with the action of $\pi_1(B)$\
& given by $U$. (Proposition \[two-functors\])\
$\sigma \left((C(\tilde{B}), \phi) \otimes_{{\mathbb Z}[\pi_1(B)]} \bar{S}^m(A, \alpha, U) \right)$ [aaaaaaaaa]{}& The signature of the total space\
$= \sigma(E) \in {\mathbb Z}$& is the signature of the chain complex model\
& for the total space with the action of $\pi_1(B)$\
& given by $U$. ([@Korzen Theorem 4.9])\
$(C(\tilde{B}), \phi) \otimes_{{\mathbb Z}[\pi_1(B)]} \bar{S}(A, \alpha, \epsilon)$ & The chain complex model for the\
& total space with trivial action of $\pi_1(B)$,\
& which we denote by $\epsilon$. (Proposition \[two-functors\])\
$\sigma \left((C(\tilde{B}), \phi) \otimes_{{\mathbb Z}[\pi_1(B)]} \bar{S}^m(A, \alpha, \epsilon) \right)$ [aaaaaaaaa]{}& The signature of the trivial product $B \times F$\
$=\sigma(C(\tilde{B}), \phi) \otimes_{{\mathbb Z}[\pi_1(B)]} \sigma(\bar{S}^m(A, \alpha, \epsilon)) $& is the signature of the chain complex model\
$= \sigma(B) \sigma(F) \in {\mathbb Z}$& for the total space with the action of $\pi_1(B)$\
& given by $\epsilon$. ([@Korzen Theorem 4.9])\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$C^{(2n)-r+s}(\tilde{B}) \otimes \bar{S}A^* \xrightarrow{U(\phi_s) (\alpha)}C_r(\tilde{B})\otimes \bar{S}A $ symmetric structure of a twisted product.
(Theorem \[chain-iso\] and [@SurTransfer])
${\mathcal{P}}_2$ Pontryagin square of twisted product
depending on the symmetric structure
of $(C(\tilde{B}), \phi) \otimes \bar{S}(A, \alpha, U)$ (Chapter \[Pontryagin-squares chapter\])
${\mathcal{P}}'_2$ Pontryagin square of untwisted product
depending on the symmetric structure
of $(C(\tilde{B}), \phi) \otimes \bar{S}(A, \alpha, \epsilon)$ (Chapter \[Pontryagin-squares chapter\])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obstructions to multiplicativity modulo 8 of a fibration
--------------------------------------------------------
By the results in [@Meyerpaper] and [@modfour] the signature of a fibration $F^{2m} \to E^{4k} \to B^{2n}$ of geometric Poincaré complexes is multiplicative mod $4$ $$\sigma(E) - \sigma(B) \sigma(F) =0 \in {\mathbb Z}_4 .$$ If we set $M = E \sqcup - (B \times F)$, where $-$ reverses the orientation, then $M$ has signature $$\sigma(M) = \sigma(E) - \sigma(B)\sigma(F) \in {\mathbb Z},$$ so that $\sigma(M) = 0 \in {\mathbb Z}_4$, and Theorem \[4Arf-topology\] can be applied to $M$.
In Theorem \[4Arf-topology\] we have proved that when the signature is divisible by $4$, it is detected modulo $8$ by the Arf invariant. This can be applied in the situation of the signature of a fibration.
\[4Arf-general-fibration\] Let $F^{2m} \to E^{4k} \to B^{2n}$ be a Poincaré duality fibration. With $(V, \lambda)= \left(H^{2k}(E, {\mathbb Z}_2), \lambda \right)$ and $(V', \lambda')= \left(H^{2k}(B \times F), {\mathbb Z}_2), \lambda' \right)$, the signatures mod $8$ of the fibre, base and total space are related by $$\sigma(E) - \sigma(B \times F) = 4 \textnormal{Arf}\left( L^{\perp}/L , [\lambda \oplus - \lambda'], \frac{\left[ {\mathcal{P}}_2 \oplus-{\mathcal{P}}'_2 \right]}{2} \right) \in 4{\mathbb Z}_2 \subset {\mathbb Z}_8,$$ where $L^{\perp} =\left\{(x, x') \in V \oplus V' \vert \lambda(x,x) = \lambda'(x', x') \in {\mathbb Z}_2 \right\}$ and $L = \langle v_{2k} \rangle \subset L^{\perp}$, with $v_{2k}=(v_{2k}(E), v_{2k}(B \times F)) \in V \oplus V'$ the Wu class of $E \sqcup -(B \times F).$
We first rewrite the signatures $\sigma(E)$ and $\sigma(F \times B)$ in terms of Brown-Kervaire invariants, and use the additivity properties of the Brown-Kervaire invariant described in [@Morita Proposition 2.1 (i)] as follows $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma(E) - \sigma(B \times F) &=\textnormal{BK}(H^{2k}(E;{\mathbb Z}_2), \lambda, {\mathcal{P}}_2) - \textnormal{BK}(H^{2k}(B \times F;{\mathbb Z}_2), \lambda', {\mathcal{P}}'_2) \in {\mathbb Z}_8 \\
& = \textnormal{BK}\left(V \oplus V', \lambda \oplus -\lambda', {\mathcal{P}}_2 \oplus - {\mathcal{P}}'_2 \right) \in {\mathbb Z}_8,\end{aligned}$$
We know by [@Meyerpaper] and by [@modfour Theorem A] that $$\sigma(E) - \sigma(B \times F) = 0 \in {\mathbb Z}_4.$$ Applying Theorem \[4Arf-Algebra\], $\textnormal{BK}\left(V \oplus V', \lambda \oplus -\lambda', {\mathcal{P}}_2 \oplus - {\mathcal{P}}'_2 \right) \in 4{\mathbb Z}_2 \subset {\mathbb Z}_8$ can be written as an Arf invariant, $$4 \textnormal{Arf}\left( L^{\perp}/L , [\lambda \oplus - \lambda'], \frac{\left[{\mathcal{P}}_2 \oplus-{\mathcal{P}}'_2\right] }{2} \right) \in {\mathbb Z}_8,$$ with $L^{\perp} =\left\{(x,x') \in V\oplus V' \vert \lambda (x, x)= \lambda'(x',x') \in {\mathbb Z}_2 \right\}$ and the Wu sublagrangian $L = \langle (v_{2k}(E), v_{2k}(B \times F)) \rangle \subset L^{\perp}$, with $(v_{2k}(E), v_{2k}(B \times F))$ the Wu class given by $(v_{2k}(E), v_{2k}(B \times F)) \in H^{2k}(E;{\mathbb Z}_2) \oplus H^{2k}(B \times F;{\mathbb Z}_2) = V \oplus V'.$
In the following theorem we state the chain complex version of Theorem \[4Arf-general-fibration\].
\[algebraic-version-4Arf-obstruction\] Let $(C, \phi)$ be the $2n$-dimensional $(-1)^n$-symmetric Poincaré complex, and let $(A, \alpha, U)$ be a $({\mathbb{Z}}, m)$-symmetric representation. We shall write as before $(D, \Gamma) = (C, \phi) \otimes \bar{S}^m(A, \alpha, U)$ and $(D', \Gamma')=(C, \phi) \otimes \bar{S}^m(A, \alpha, \epsilon)$. Here $(D, \Gamma)$ and $(D', \Gamma')$ are $(2n+2m)$-dimensional symmetric complexes and $(2n+2m)$ is divisible by $4$. Then, $$\sigma(D, \Gamma) - \sigma(D', \Gamma') = 4 \textnormal{Arf}\left( L^{\perp}/L , [\Gamma_0 \oplus -\Gamma'_0], \frac{ \left[{\mathcal{P}}_2 \oplus-{\mathcal{P}}'_2\right] }{2} \right) \in 4{\mathbb Z}_2 \subset {\mathbb Z}_8,$$ where $L^{\perp} =\left\{(x,x') \in H^{2k}(D;{\mathbb Z}_2) \oplus H^{2k}(D';{\mathbb Z}_2) \vert \Gamma_0(x, x) =\Gamma'_0(x', x') \in {\mathbb Z}_2 \right\}$ and the Wu sublagrangian $L = \langle (v_{2k}, v'_{2k}) \rangle \subset L^{\perp}$, with $(v_{2k}, v'_{2k})$ the algebraic Wu class $(v_{2k}, v'_{2k}) \in H^{2k}(D;{\mathbb Z}_2) \oplus H^{2k}(D';{\mathbb Z}_2).$
Note that when both $m$ and $n$ are odd in the fibration $F^{2m} \to E^{4k} \to B^{2n}$ then by [@Meyerpaper] and [@modfour] we have that $$\sigma(E) = 0 \in {\mathbb Z}_4.$$ So the general formula for the signature mod $8$ of a fibration given geometrically in \[4Arf-general-fibration\] and algebraically in \[algebraic-version-4Arf-obstruction\] simplifies in the case of a fibration $F^{4i+2} \to E^{4k} \to B^{4j+2}$ to the expression in Proposition \[4Arf-odd-m-n-geometric\] geometrically or \[algebraic-version-4Arf-obstruction-4i+2\] algebraically.
\[4Arf-odd-m-n-geometric\] Let $F^{4i+2} \to E^{4k} \to B^{4j+2}$ be an oriented Poincaré duality fibration, then $$\sigma(E) =\textnormal{BK}(H^{2k}(E;{\mathbb Z}_2), \lambda, {\mathcal{P}}_2) = 4 \textnormal{Arf}\left( L^{\perp}/L , [\lambda], \frac{\left[{\mathcal{P}}_2\right]}{2} \right) \in {\mathbb Z}_8,$$ where $L^{\perp} =\left\{x \in H^{2k}(E;{\mathbb Z}_2) \vert \lambda (x,x)= 0 \in {\mathbb Z}_2 \right\}$ and $L = \langle v_{2k} \rangle \subset L^{\perp}$, with $v_{2k}(E)$ the Wu class $v_{2k}(E) \in H^{2k}(E;{\mathbb Z}_2).$
Here for dimension reasons $\sigma(F)$ and $\sigma(B)$ are both $0.$ Thus, by [@modfour Theorem A], we know that the signature of $E$ is divisible by $4$. So that we can write $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma(E) - \sigma(B \times F) &= \sigma(E) =\textnormal{BK}(H^{2k}(E;{\mathbb Z}_2), \lambda, {\mathcal{P}}_2) \in {\mathbb Z}_8 \\\end{aligned}$$ and since $\sigma(E)= \textnormal{BK}(H^{2k}(E;{\mathbb Z}_2), \lambda, {\mathcal{P}}_2) =0 \in {\mathbb Z}_4$, then the result follows as an application of Theorem \[4Arf-Algebra\].
Algebraically Proposition \[4Arf-odd-m-n-geometric\] is restated as follows,
\[algebraic-version-4Arf-obstruction-4i+2\] Let $(C, \phi)$ be a $4i+2$-dimensional $(-1)$-symmetric Poincaré complex, and let $(A, \alpha, U)$ be a $({\mathbb{Z}}, 2j+1)$-symmetric representation. We shall write $(D, \Gamma) = (C, \phi) \otimes \bar{S}^{2j+1}(A, \alpha, U)$ and $(D', \Gamma')=(C, \phi) \otimes \bar{S}^{2j+1}(A, \alpha, \epsilon)$, then $\sigma(D', \Gamma')=0 \in {\mathbb Z}$, $\sigma(D, \Gamma)=0 \in {\mathbb Z}_4$ and $$\sigma(D, \Gamma) = 4 \textnormal{Arf}\left( L^{\perp}/L , [\Gamma_0], \frac{\left[{\mathcal{P}}_2\right]}{2} \right) \in 4{\mathbb Z}_2 \subset {\mathbb Z}_8,$$ where $L^{\perp} =\left\{x \in H^{2k}(D;{\mathbb Z}_2) \vert \Gamma_0(x, x)= 0 \in {\mathbb Z}_2 \right\}$ and $L = \langle v_{2k} \rangle \subset L^{\perp}$, with $v_{2k}$ the algebraic Wu class $v_{2k} \in H^{2k}(D;{\mathbb Z}_2).$
### Relation to other expressions in the literature for the signature of a fibre bundle
#### The Arf invariant and the second Stiefel-Whitney class
In [@Meyerpaper] Meyer studied the signature of a surface bundle $F^2 \to E^4 \to B^2$, where both $F$ and $B$ are orientable surfaces of genus $h$ and $g$ respectively. Meyer expressed the signature of the total space in terms of the first Chern class of the complex vector bundle $\beta: B \to BU(h)$ associated to the local coefficient system $\widetilde{B} \times_{\pi_1(B)} {\mathbb{R}}^{2h},$ $$\sigma(E) = 4 c_1(\beta) \in {\mathbb Z}.$$ So that, $$\label{Chern-Stiefel}
\frac{\sigma(E)}{4} = c_1(\beta) \in {\mathbb Z},$$
From [@Mil-Sta problem 14-B] the Chern classes of an $h$-dimensional complex vector bundle $\beta: B \to BU(h)$ are integral lifts of the Stiefel-Whitney classes of the underlying oriented $2h$-dimensional real vector bundle $\beta^{{\mathbb{R}}}: B \to BSO(2h)$. That is, the mod $2$ reduction of the first Chern class is the second Stiefel-Whitney class. Hence the mod $2$ reduction of Equation expresses the second Stiefel-Whitney class of the real vector bundle $\beta^{{\mathbb{R}}}: B \to BSO(2h)$ associated to the local coefficient system $\widetilde{B} \times_{\pi_1(B)} {\mathbb{R}}^{2h}$ as $$\label{sign-stiefel-surf}\frac{\sigma(E)}{4} = w_2(\beta^{{\mathbb{R}}}) \in {\mathbb Z}_2.$$
In Proposition \[4Arf-odd-m-n-geometric\] we have shown that for a fibration $F^{4i+2} \to E^{4k} \to B^{4j+2}$, the signature mod $8$ can be expressed in terms of the Arf invariant. In particular for a surface bundle, $$\label{sign-Arf-surf}\sigma(E) = 4 \textnormal{Arf}\left( L^{\perp}/L , [\lambda], \frac{\left[{\mathcal{P}}_2\right]}{2} \right) \in {\mathbb Z}_8.$$
Combining both expressions in and
$$\textnormal{Arf}\left( L^{\perp}/L , [\lambda], \frac{\left[{\mathcal{P}}_2\right]}{2} \right) = w_2(\beta^{{\mathbb{R}}}) \in {\mathbb Z}_2,$$ with $L^{\perp} =\left\{x \in H^{2k}(E;{\mathbb Z}_2) \vert \lambda(x,x)= 0 \in {\mathbb Z}_2 \right\}$ and $L = \langle v_{2k} \rangle \subset L^{\perp}.$
#### The Arf invariant and the Todd genus
In [@Atiyah-cov] Atiyah considers a $4$-manifold $E$ which arises as a complex algebraic surface with a holomorphic projection $\pi:E \to B$ for some complex structure on $B$. The fibres $F_b = \pi^{-1}(b)$ are algebraic curves but the complex structure varies with $b$. Atiyah establishes that the Todd genera of $E$, $B$ and $F$ are related to the signature of $E$ by the equation, $$\frac{\sigma(E)}{4} = T(E)-T(B)T(F) \in {\mathbb Z}.$$ Following this equation the signature modulo $8$ of the total space is detected by the reduction mod $2$ of difference $T(E)-T(B)T(F)$, since $\sigma(E) = 4(T(E)-T(B)T(F)) \in {\mathbb Z}_8$ is equivalent to $ \frac{\sigma(E)}{4} = T(E)-T(B)T(F) \in {\mathbb Z}_2.$ Comparing this with Proposition \[4Arf-odd-m-n-geometric\] we have that $$\textnormal{Arf}\left( L^{\perp}/L , [\lambda], \frac{\left[{\mathcal{P}}_2\right]}{2} \right) = T(E)-T(B)T(F) \in {\mathbb Z}_2,$$ with $L^{\perp} =\left\{x \in H^{2k}(E;{\mathbb Z}_2) \vert \lambda(x,x)= 0 \in {\mathbb Z}_2 \right\}$ and $L = \langle v_{2k} \rangle \subset L^{\perp}.$
Multiplicativity mod $8$ in the ${\mathbb Z}_4$-trivial case.
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the previous section we have shown that in general there is an obstruction to multiplicativity modulo $8$ of a fibration $F^{2m} \to E^{4k} \to B^{2n}$ given by the Arf invariant.
We shall now prove that by imposing the condition that $\pi_1(B)$ acts trivially on $H^{m}(F, {\mathbb{Z}})/torsion \otimes {\mathbb{Z}}_4$, the obstruction disappears and the fibration has signature multiplicative modulo $8$. Geometrically the theorem is stated as follows.
\[mod8-theorem\] Let $F^{2m} \to E \to B^{2n}$ be an oriented Poincaré duality fibration. If the action of $\pi_1(B)$ on $H^m(F, {\mathbb{Z}})/torsion \otimes {\mathbb{Z}}_4$ is trivial, then $$\sigma(E) - \sigma(F) \sigma(B) = 0\in {\mathbb Z}_8.$$
Clearly by the definition of the signature, when $m$ and $n$ are odd $$\sigma(F)\sigma(B)=0 \in {\mathbb Z}.$$ So in this case, the theorem establishes that $$\sigma(E) \equiv 0 \in {\mathbb Z}_8.$$
### Tools for proving Theorem \[mod8-theorem\]
We shall prove Theorem \[mod8-theorem\] by proving its algebraic analogue, which we state as Theorem \[mod8-algebraic\]. In this section we prove some results that will be needed in the proof of the algebraic statement of the theorem (as in \[mod8-algebraic\]).
The **algebraic analogue** of the condition that $\pi_1(B)$ acts trivially on $H^{m}(F, {\mathbb{Z}})/torsion \otimes {\mathbb{Z}}_4$ is defined as follows:
\[Z4-triviality\] A $({\mathbb{Z}}, m)$-symmetric representation $(A, \alpha, U)$ of a group ring ${\mathbb{Z}}[\pi]$ **is ${\mathbb{Z}}_4$-trivial** if $$U(r) \otimes 1= \epsilon(r)\otimes1 : A \otimes {\mathbb{Z}}_4 \to A \otimes {\mathbb{Z}}_4$$ for all $r\in {\mathbb{Z}}[\pi],$ where $\epsilon$ denotes the trivial action homomorphism $$\epsilon: {\mathbb Z}[\pi_1(B)] \to H_0(\textnormal{Hom}_{{\mathbb Z}}(A, A))^{op}.$$
A weaker condition is that of **${\mathbb Z}_2$-triviality**:
\[Z2-triviality\] ([@Korzen chapter 8]) A $({\mathbb{Z}}, m)$-symmetric representation $(A, \alpha, U)$ of a group ring ${\mathbb{Z}}[\pi]$ **is ${\mathbb{Z}}_2$-trivial** if $$U(r) \otimes 1= \epsilon(r)\otimes1 : A \otimes {\mathbb{Z}}_2 \to A \otimes {\mathbb{Z}}_2$$ for all $r\in {\mathbb{Z}}[\pi],$ where $\epsilon$ denotes the trivial action homomorphism as in the previous definition.
In particular any statement which holds under assumption of a ${\mathbb Z}_2$-trivial action is also true for an assumption of ${\mathbb Z}_4$-triviality. The converse may not be true.
In the statement of the algebraic analogue of Theorem \[mod8-theorem\] we shall let $(C, \phi)$ be a $2n$-dimensional $(-1)^n$-symmetric Poincaré complex over ${\mathbb Z}[\pi]$ and $(A, \alpha, U)$ be a $({\mathbb Z}, m)$-symmetric representation with ${\mathbb Z}_4$-trivial $U : {\mathbb Z}[\pi] \to H_0 (\textnormal{Hom}_{{\mathbb Z}}(A, A))^{op}$. When a result is true with a ${\mathbb Z}_2$-trivial action we shall indicate this accordingly.
With $4k =2m+2n$, we shall write $(D, \Gamma)$ for the $4k$-dimensional symmetric Poincaré complex over ${\mathbb Z}$ given by, $$(D, \Gamma) = (C, \phi) \otimes_{{\mathbb Z}[\pi]} \bar{S}^m(A, \alpha, U),$$ and $(D', \Gamma')$ for the $4k$-dimensional symmetric Poincaré complex over ${\mathbb Z}$ given by $$(D', \Gamma') = (C, \phi) \otimes_{{\mathbb Z}[\pi]}\bar{S}^m(A, \alpha, \epsilon),$$ where $(A, \alpha, \epsilon)$ is the trivial representation.
\[lemma-mod8-algebraic\] If the representation $(A, \alpha, U)$ is ${\mathbb Z}_2$-trivial then $${\mathbb Z}_2 \otimes_{{\mathbb Z}}(D, \Gamma) \cong {\mathbb Z}_2 \otimes_{{\mathbb Z}}(D', \Gamma').$$ That is,
- $H^{2k}(D, {\mathbb Z}_2) \cong H^{2k}(D', {\mathbb Z}_2).$
- the symmetric structure reduced mod $2$ is the same for both symmetric complexes $(D, \Gamma)$ and $(D', \Gamma').$
\[proof-iso\] (i) We will first show that if the representation $(A, \alpha, U)$ is ${\mathbb Z}_2$-trivial then: $$H^{2k}(D, {\mathbb Z}_2) \cong H^{2k}(D', {\mathbb Z}_2).$$
From Definition \[functor-homology\] we know that the representation $(A, \alpha, U)$ gives rise to the following symmetric Poincaré complex $(C, \phi) \otimes \bar{S}^m(A, \alpha, U) = (D, \Gamma)$ over ${\mathbb{Z}}$, $$D =C \otimes \bar{S}^m(A, U) : \dots \to C_n \otimes \bar{S}^m(A,U) \xrightarrow{d_{C \otimes \bar{S}^m(A, U)}} C_{n-1}\otimes \bar{S}^m(A,U) \to \dots$$
$H^{2k}( D; \mathbb{Z}_2)$ has coefficients in ${\mathbb{Z}}_2$ so the chain groups of the chain complex are modules over ${\mathbb{Z}}_2$ and the differentials are the mod $2$ reduction of the differentials of the chain complex $D =C \otimes \bar{S}^m(A, U)$ over ${\mathbb{Z}}$, $$D \otimes {\mathbb Z}_2 = C \otimes \bar{S}^m (A, U) \otimes {\mathbb Z}_2 : \dots \to C_n \otimes \bar{S}^m(A,U) \otimes {\mathbb Z}_2 \xrightarrow{d_{C \otimes \bar{S}^m(A, U)\otimes {\mathbb Z}_2}} C_{n-1} \otimes \bar{S}^m(A,U)\otimes {\mathbb Z}_2 \to \dots$$
Using the definition of ${\mathbb Z}_2$-triviality there is an isomorphism of chain complexes $$C \otimes \bar{S}^m (A, U) \otimes {\mathbb Z}_2 = C \otimes \bar{S}^m(A, \epsilon) \otimes {\mathbb Z}_2,$$ since taking the mod $2$ reduction of the chain complex means that the action $U$ becomes the trivial action. It follows that $H^{2k}( D ; \mathbb{Z}_2)$ and $H^{2k}(D'; \mathbb{Z}_2)$ are isomorphic vector spaces over ${\mathbb Z}_2$. Note that this isomorphism only holds because the coefficients are in ${\mathbb{Z}}_2$, and we have assumed ${\mathbb Z}_2$-triviality. The integral cohomologies need not be always isomorphic. So in general with ${\mathbb Z}$ coefficients, we may have: $$H^{2k}(D ; \mathbb{Z}) \neq H^{2k}( D'; \mathbb{Z}).$$ As the result holds with a ${\mathbb Z}_2$-trivial assumption, this means that it also holds if we assume ${\mathbb Z}_4$-triviality.
\(ii) Here we will prove that if the representation $(A, \alpha, U)$ is ${\mathbb Z}_2$-trivial then the symmetric structure reduced mod $2$ is the same for both symmetric complexes $(D, \Gamma) \otimes_{{\mathbb Z}}{\mathbb Z}_2$ and $(D', \Gamma')\otimes_{{\mathbb Z}}{\mathbb Z}_2$ :
Note that the chain complex $(D, \Gamma)= (C(\tilde{B}), \phi) \otimes_{{\mathbb Z}[\pi]} \bar{S}^m(A, \alpha, U)$ is a symmetric Poincaré complex over ${\mathbb{Z}}$ with symmetric structure $$C^{(2n)-r+s} \otimes \bar{S}A^* \xrightarrow{U(\phi_s) (\alpha)} C_r \otimes \bar{S}A.$$
The mod $2$ reduction of this chain complex is a symmetric Poincaré complex over ${\mathbb{Z}}_2$. Using the definition of ${\mathbb{Z}}_2$-triviality (\[Z4-triviality\]), the symmetric structure of the mod $2$ reduction is given by $$C^{(2n)-r+s} \otimes \bar{S}A^* \otimes {\mathbb{Z}}_2 \xrightarrow{U(\phi_s) (\alpha) \otimes 1= \epsilon (\phi_s) (\alpha) \otimes 1} C_r\otimes \bar{S}A \otimes {\mathbb{Z}}_2.$$ From this we see that the mod $2$ reductions of the symmetric structures in the trivial and the ${\mathbb{Z}}_2$-trivial cases are equal. Hence $$(D, \Gamma) \otimes_{{\mathbb Z}}{\mathbb Z}_2 \cong (D', \Gamma')\otimes_{{\mathbb Z}}{\mathbb Z}_2.$$
From the proof of \[lemma-mod8-algebraic\] (i) and \[lemma-mod8-algebraic\](ii) we know that for a ${\mathbb{Z}}_2$-trivial twisted product and for an untwisted product, the vector spaces given by the middle dimensional cohomology with ${\mathbb{Z}}_2$ coefficients are isomorphic and the ${\mathbb{Z}}_2$-valued symmetric structure is also the same in both cases. Clearly the results in this lemma also hold when the action $U$ is ${\mathbb Z}_4$-trivial
#### Comparing Pontryagin squares for the twisted and untwisted product:
In chapter \[Pontryagin-squares chapter\] we defined algebraic Pontryagin squares depending on the symmetric structure of a symmetric complex. A ${\mathbb Z}_4$-valued quadratic function such as the Pontryagin square cannot be recovered uniquely from the associated ${\mathbb{Z}}_2$-valued bilinear pairing $\Gamma_0 : H^{2k}(D;{\mathbb Z}_2)\times H^{2k}(D;{\mathbb Z}_2) \to {\mathbb{Z}}_2$. It is crucial for the proof of Theorem \[mod8-theorem\] to note that the Pontryagin square depends on the definition of the symmetric structure on integral cochains. This was already described in Definition \[Pont-square-definition\] where the Pontryagin square was defined by $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal{P}}_2(\Gamma): H^{2k}(D ; {\mathbb{Z}}_2) & \to {\mathbb{Z}}_4\\
x & \mapsto \Gamma_0(x, x) + \Gamma_1(x, dx).\end{aligned}$$
Depending on the integral symmetric structures, we have two different lifts of the mod $2$ symmetric structure on $$V = H^{2k}( D; \mathbb{Z}_2) = H^{2k}(D'; \mathbb{Z}_2)$$ which give rise to two different Pontryagin squares.
In other words we are considering two chain complexes which are different over ${\mathbb Z}$, $(D, \Gamma)$ and $(D', \Gamma')$ but are chain equivalent when reduced over ${\mathbb Z}_2$, $$(D, \Gamma) \otimes_{{\mathbb Z}}{\mathbb Z}_2 = (D', \Gamma')\otimes_{{\mathbb Z}}{\mathbb Z}_2.$$ In the situation of Theorem \[mod8-algebraic\] we know from the proof of \[mod8-algebraic\] (i)(a) and (i)(b) that we have the same ${\mathbb Z}_2$-valued symmetric bilinear form for the twisted and untwisted products, $$(H^{2k}(D;{\mathbb Z}_2), \Gamma_0) = (H^{2k}(D'; {\mathbb Z}_2), \Gamma'_0),$$ where
- $(H^{2k}(D;{\mathbb Z}_2), \Gamma_0) = \left( H^{2k}( (C, \phi) \otimes_{{\mathbb Z}[\pi]} \bar{S}^m(A, \alpha, U); \mathbb{Z}_2), U(\phi) (\alpha) \right),$
- $(H^{2k}(D'; {\mathbb Z}_2), \Gamma'_0) =\left( H^{2k}( (C, \phi) \otimes_{{\mathbb Z}[\pi]} \bar{S}^m(A, \alpha, \epsilon); \mathbb{Z}_2), \epsilon (\phi) (\alpha) \right),$
but the integral symmetric structures $ \Gamma$ and $ \Gamma'$ are different in the twisted and untwisted products, so this gives rise in general to two different Pontryagin squares of the same ${\mathbb{Z}}_2$-valued symmetric bilinear form.
In what follows we will use the notation ${\mathcal{P}}_{2}$ for the twisted Pontryagin square and ${\mathcal{P}}'_2$ for the Pontryagin square on an untwisted product.
The following Proposition \[differ-linear-map\] applies precisely to the general situation of the two Pontryagin squares ${\mathcal{P}}_2$ and ${\mathcal{P}}'_2$ that we have just described above.
\[differ-linear-map\] Let $V$ be a ${\mathbb{Z}}_2$-valued vector space and $\lambda : V \otimes V\to {\mathbb{Z}}_2$ a non-singular symmetric bilinear pairing. Any two quadratic enhancements $q, q' : V \to {\mathbb{Z}}_4$ over $\lambda$ differ by a linear map, $$q'(x)-q(x) = 2 \lambda(x, t) \in {\mathbb Z}_4$$ for some $t \in V$.
See [@Taylor], [@Deloup], [@Mod8 page 10].
Consequently from this proposition we know that the two Pontryagin squares ${\mathcal{P}}_2$ and ${\mathcal{P}}'_2$ differ by linear map. Furthermore the Brown-Kervaire invariants of two quadratic enhancements as in Proposition \[differ-linear-map\] are related by the following theorem,
[@Brown Theorem 1.20 (x)] Let $V$ be a ${\mathbb{Z}}_2$-valued vector space and $\lambda : V \otimes V\to {\mathbb{Z}}_2$ a non-singular symmetric bilinear pairing, then any two quadratic enhancements $q, q' : V \to {\mathbb{Z}}_4$ over $\lambda$ differ by a linear map, $q'(x)-q(x) = 2 \lambda(x, t) \in {\mathbb Z}_4$ and $$\textnormal{BK}(V,\lambda,q)-\textnormal{BK}(V, \lambda,q')=2q(t) \in {\mathbb Z}_8$$ for some $t \in V$.
Note that when $\textnormal{BK}(V,\lambda,q)$ and $\textnormal{BK}(V,\lambda,q')$ are divisible by $4$ we can write this relation in terms of the Arf invariant, $$\textnormal{Arf}(W, \mu ,h)-\textnormal{Arf}(W, \mu, h')=h(t) \in {\mathbb Z}_2.$$
We will now show that by setting the condition of a ${\mathbb Z}_4$-trivial action $U$ there is an isomorphism between the untwisted Pontryagin square and the ${\mathbb Z}_4$-twisted Pontryagin square, in which case $h(t)=0.$
#### Pontryagin squares in terms of the action $U$
For the proof of \[mod8-algebraic\] we will need to express the Pontryagin square of the symmetric Poincaré complex $(D, \Gamma)$ over ${\mathbb Z}$ in terms of the equivariant Pontryagin square of the $(-1)^n$-symmetric Poincaré complex $(C, \phi)$ over ${\mathbb Z}[\pi]$ and symmetric structure of $(A, \alpha)$. For this we use [@Korzen Lemma 8.8] and Definition \[equivariant-Pont\], which gives the expression of the equivariant Pontryagin square $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal{P}}_{d_R} : H^{n}(C; {\mathbb{Z}}_2)\to Q^{2n}(B(k, d_R))= R/(I^2+2I) ;\\
(u, v) \mapsto (u, v)^\%(\phi) = \phi_0(v, v) + d_R \phi_1(v, u)\end{aligned}$$ with $(v, u) \in C^n \oplus C^{n+1}$ such that $d_C^*(v) = d_Ru \in C^{n+1}$, $d_{C}^*(u)=0 \in C^{n+2}$ and where $R = {\mathbb{Z}}[\pi]$ and $I$ is the ideal $I = \textnormal{Ker}({\mathbb{Z}}[\pi] \to {\mathbb{Z}}_2)$.
\[Pontryagin-total-space\] ([@Korzen Lemma 8.8]) Let $(D, \Gamma)= (C, \phi) \otimes \bar{S}^m(A, \alpha, U)$ be a $4k$-dimensional symmetric Poincaré complex over ${\mathbb Z}$, with $U$ the action of ${\mathbb Z}[\pi]$ on $(A, \alpha)$. Then the Pontryagin square on $(D, \Gamma)$ can be expressed as $${\mathcal{P}}_2 (x)=\left( U\left( {\mathcal{P}}_{d_R} \right) \alpha \right) (x) \in {\mathbb Z}_4,$$ where $x \in H^{2k}(D; {\mathbb Z}_2)$ and ${\mathcal{P}}_{d_R}$ is the equivariant Pontryagin square on the symmetric Poincaré complex $(C, \phi)$ over ${\mathbb Z}[\pi]$.
\[Z4-pont\] If the action $U$ is ${\mathbb Z}_4$-trivial then the ${\mathbb Z}_4$-twisted Pontryagin square $${\mathcal{P}}_2 (x)=\left( U\left( {\mathcal{P}}_{d_R} \right) \alpha \right) (x) \in {\mathbb Z}_4$$ is isomorphic to the untwisted Pontryagin square $${\mathcal{P}}'_2 (x)=\left( \epsilon \left( {\mathcal{P}}_{d_R} \right) \alpha \right) (x) \in {\mathbb Z}_4.$$
An element $x \in H^{2k}(D; {\mathbb Z}_2) = H^{2k}(D'; {\mathbb Z}_2)$ is described in general as a linear combination of a product, $x = \sum \limits_i c_i \otimes a_i$, so that $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal{P}}_2\left(\sum \limits_i c_i \otimes a_i\right) & = \sum \limits_i {\mathcal{P}}_2(c_i \otimes a_i) + 2 \sum \limits_{i < j} \Gamma_0 (a_i \otimes c_i, a_j \otimes c_j).\end{aligned}$$ As $\Gamma_0$ is isomorphic to $\Gamma'_0$, then the difference between ${\mathcal{P}}_2$ and ${\mathcal{P}}'_2$ is given by the difference between $$\sum \limits_i \left( U\left( {\mathcal{P}}_{d_R} \right) \alpha \right) (c_i \otimes a_i) \in {\mathbb Z}_4,$$ and $$\sum \limits_i \left( \epsilon \left( {\mathcal{P}}_{d_R} \right) \alpha \right) (c_i \otimes a_i) \in {\mathbb Z}_4.$$ As the action $U$ is trivial over ${\mathbb Z}_4$, then the terms in these two sums are equal, so that the two Pontryagin squares are isomorphic.
### The algebraic analogue of \[mod8-theorem\]
We can now state and prove the algebraic analogue of \[mod8-theorem\]. The proof of the algebraic analogue implies the proof of the geometric statement.
\[mod8-algebraic\] Let $(D, \Gamma)= (C, \phi) \otimes \bar{S}^m(A, \alpha, U)$ be a $4k$-dimensional symmetric Poincaré complex over ${\mathbb Z}$, with $U$ the action of the ${\mathbb Z}[\pi]$ on $(A, \alpha)$, if the representation $(A, \alpha, U)$ is ${\mathbb Z}_4$-trivial then: $$\sigma(D, \Gamma) - \sigma(D', \Gamma') = 0 \in {\mathbb Z}_8,$$ where $(D', \Gamma')= (C, \phi) \otimes \bar{S}^m(A, \alpha, \epsilon)$ is the trivial product.
The signatures modulo $8$ of both $(D, \Gamma)$ and $(D', \Gamma')$ are given by Morita’s theorem \[Morita-theorem-cx\] to be
- $\sigma(D, \Gamma) \equiv \textnormal{BK}(H^{2k}(D; {\mathbb Z}_2), \Gamma_0, {\mathcal{P}}_2) \pmod{8},$
- $\sigma(D', \Gamma') \equiv \textnormal{BK}(H^{2k}(D'; {\mathbb Z}_2), \Gamma_0, {\mathcal{P}}'_2) \pmod{8}.$
From Lemma \[lemma-mod8-algebraic\] we know that $$(H^{2k}(D; {\mathbb Z}_2), \Gamma_0) \cong (H^{2k}(D'; {\mathbb Z}_2), \Gamma'_0)$$ and from Lemma \[Z4-pont\] we know that the two Pontryagin squares ${\mathcal{P}}_2$ and ${\mathcal{P}}'_2$ are isomorphic, hence $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma(D, \Gamma) & = \textnormal{BK}(H^{2k}(D; {\mathbb Z}_2), \Gamma_0, {\mathcal{P}}_2) \\
& = \textnormal{BK}(H^{2k}(D'; {\mathbb Z}_2), \Gamma'_0, {\mathcal{P}}'_2) \\
& = \sigma(D', \Gamma') \in {\mathbb Z}_8.\end{aligned}$$ so the result follows.
The geometric proof of Theorem \[mod8-theorem\], which states that $\sigma(E)- \sigma(B \times F) = 0 \in {\mathbb Z}_8$ for a fibration $F^{2m}\to E^{4k} \to B^{2n}$ with trivial action of $\pi_1(B)$ on $H^m(F, {\mathbb Z})/torsion \otimes {\mathbb Z}_4$ is a consequence of the algebraic proof:
For the total space of a Poincaré fibration $F^{2m} \to E^{4k} \to B^{2n}$ with ${\mathbb Z}_4$-trivial action the ${\mathbb Z}_4$-enhanced symmetric forms over ${\mathbb Z}_2$ $$(H^{2k}(E;{\mathbb Z}_2),\lambda_E,q_E)~,~
(H^{2n}(B;{\mathbb Z}_2)\otimes_{{\mathbb Z}_2}H^{2m}(F;{\mathbb Z}_2),\lambda_B\otimes \lambda_F,q_B \otimes q_F)$$ of the symmetric Poincaré complexes over ${\mathbb Z}_4$ $$(C(E;{\mathbb Z}_4),\phi_E)~,~(C(B;{\mathbb Z}_4),\phi_B) \otimes (C(F;{\mathbb Z}_4),\phi_F)$$ are Witt equivalent, so that $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma(E)&= \textnormal{BK}(H^{2k}(E;{\mathbb Z}_2),\lambda_E,q_E) \\[1ex]
&=\textnormal{BK}(H^n(B;{\mathbb Z}_2),\lambda_B,q_B)\textnormal{BK}(H^m(F;{\mathbb Z}_2),\lambda_F,q_F)\\[1ex]
&=\sigma(B) \sigma(F) \in {\mathbb Z}_8.\end{aligned}$$
#### Multiplicativity modulo $8$ with a ${\mathbb Z}_2$-trivial action
In [@KT] S. Klaus and P. Teichner conjectured that for an oriented Poincaré fibration $F^{2m} \to E^{4k} \to B^{2n}$ with trivial action of $\pi_1(B)$ on $H^{m}(F; {\mathbb Z}_2)$, $$\sigma(E)- \sigma(F)\sigma(B) =0 \in {\mathbb Z}_8.$$
Their attempt at a proof involved spectral sequences in the style of [@HirzebruchSerreChern].
In [@Korzen] there is another attempt of proof of this conjecture for the case when both fibre and base have dimensions multiples of $4$, i.e for a fibration $F^{4m} \to E^{4n+ 4m} \to B^{4n}$. This attempt in [@Korzen] already used the algebraic model of the total space that we have presented in chapter \[model\], so that the algebraic version of the theorem is similar to the one that we are using here. The argument in [@Korzen] was to reduce a general fibration with ${\mathbb Z}_2$-trivial action to the direct sum of a double covers. The double cover of a $4n$-dimensional complex is known to have multiplicative signature modulo $8$ ([@visible], [@bluebook]). Unfortunately the proof in [@Korzen] has the following gap: On [@Korzen page 98] there is an assumption that there is always a possible choice of basis $\left\{a_i \right\}$ for $A = H^{2m}(F; {\mathbb Z}) / torsion$ such that the symmetric form $\alpha: A \to A^*$ is diagonal. In general it is not always possible to diagonalize a symmetric form over ${\mathbb Z}$, so this assumption (which is crucial for the rest of the proof) is too strong.
For this conjecture to be true with a ${\mathbb Z}_2$-trivial action, we would need to prove that there exists an isomorphism of the untwisted and the twisted Pontryagin squares with $U$ a ${\mathbb Z}_2$-trivial action. At the moment it is only clear that two such Pontryagin squares differ by a linear map as explained in Proposition \[differ-linear-map\]. However there is no problem if the action is ${\mathbb Z}_4$-trivial, as shown in Theorem \[mod8-theorem\].
Examples of surface bundles with non-trivial signature {#examples-chapter}
======================================================
*“The abstractions and the examples have to go hand in hand."*
*Sir Michael Atiyah*
Review of the example in [@Endo]
--------------------------------
Atiyah [@Atiyah-cov], Kodaira [@Kodaira] and Hirzebruch [@Ramified-Hirz] constructed surface bundles with non-trivial action of the fundamental group which have signature divisible by $8$. That these constructions have signature divisible by $8$ is clarified by Hirzebruch in [@Ramified-Hirz page 264]. Lefschetz fibrations also provide examples of fibrations with non-zero signature. Nevertheless in the case of a Lefschetz fibration, the signature does not depend solely on the action of the fundamental group, but also on the existence of singular fibres. The example in [@Endo] is a construction of a surface bundle with signature $4$ depending only on the non-trivial action of $\pi_1(B)$. In [@Endo], Endo gives the computation of a surface bundle with fibre an orientable surface of genus $3$ and base an orientable surface of genus $111$. Although the action is not given explicitly in [@Endo], it has been possible to compute this from the information given in the paper. This action is defined by 222 matrices in $\textnormal{Sp}(6, {\mathbb{Z}})$. Rather giving all 222 matrices we shall explain the how they are constructed and will give some of them explicitly, so that it will become clear that the action of $\pi_1(B)$ is not ${\mathbb Z}_4$-trivial, since it is not even ${\mathbb Z}_2$-trivial. The method used by Endo for the construction of this example was initially formulated by Meyer in [@Meyerpaper].
In this example we give a description of Endo’s construction and give explicitly some of the matrices of the action.
Let $F^2 \to E \to B^2$ be a surface bundle. The genus of the fibre in this example is $h=3$. The bundle $E$ is determined by its monodromy homomorphism $$\pi_1(B) \overset{\chi}{\longrightarrow} \mathcal{M}_h$$ where $\mathcal{M}_h$ is the mapping class group of the fibre $F_h$.
Since every element of $\mathcal{M}_h$ leaves the intersection form on $H^1(F, {\mathbb Z})$ invariant and since $(H^1(F_h, \mathbb{R}), \langle . \rangle)$ is isomorphic to the standard symmetric form $(\mathbb{R}^{2h}, \omega)$, there is a natural representation $$\mathcal{M}_h \overset{\sigma}{\rightarrow} \textnormal{Sp}(2h, \mathbb{Z}).$$ Hence the action $U: \pi_1(B) \to \textnormal{Sp}(2h, \mathbb{Z})$ factors through $$\pi_1(B) \overset{\chi}{\rightarrow} \mathcal{M}_h \overset{\sigma}{\rightarrow} \textnormal{Sp}(2h, \mathbb{Z}).$$
Endo uses the presentation in [@Wajnryb] for the mapping class group $\mathcal{M}_h$ of the fibre.
The presentation given in the paper [@Wajnryb] has some errata in the relations. These where corrected in a later paper [@Errata]. Although Endo only refers to [@Wajnryb] and not to the correction [@Errata], he did not use any of the incorrect relations in [@Wajnryb] in his example, so fortunately [@Endo] is not affected by these errata.
The generators of the presentation of the mapping class group $\mathcal{M}_h$ of the fibre $F_h$ are $y_i$, $u_i$ and $z_i$, and these can be interpreted as Dehn twists with respect to the curves in the following figure
\[ht\] 
The relations are as given in [@Wajnryb] and [@Errata].
The convention in [@Endo] is that positive twists are interpreted as right twists:
\[ht\] 
For example the action of the generator $u_2$ on homology is given by:
\[ht\] 
This map is given by a matrix in $\textnormal{Sp}(2h, \mathbb{Z})$,
$$\left( \begin{array}{cccccc}
1& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0 \\
0& 1& 0&0& 1& 0 \\
0& 0& 1&0& 0& 0 \\
0& 0& 0&1& 0& 0 \\
0& 0& 0&0& 1& 0\\
0& 0& 0&0& 0& 1 \\
\end{array} \right) \left( \begin{array}{c}
0 \\
0 \\
0 \\
0\\
1\\
0 \\
\end{array} \right) = \left( \begin{array}{c}
0 \\
1 \\
0 \\
0\\
1\\
0 \\
\end{array} \right).$$ The explicit representation of all the generators is given on [@Endo page 920].
To find a non-trivial example Endo requires a long word of generators of the mapping class group $\mathcal{M}_h$. The construction of this word of generators is described in [@Endo page 923]. Endo then follows a commutator collection process to rearrange the word as a product of commutators, so that the commutators in $\pi_1(B)$ are mapped to commutators in $\mathcal{M}_h,$ $$\begin{aligned}
\pi_1(B) \overset{\chi}{\longrightarrow} &\hspace{9pt} \mathcal{M}_h \hspace{5pt} \overset{\sigma}{\longrightarrow} \textnormal{Sp}(2h, \mathbb{Z}) \\
[a_i, b_i] \hspace{1pt} \longmapsto & [A_i, B_i, ].\end{aligned}$$ with $A_i$ and $B_i$ products of generators of $\mathcal{M}_h.$
As the genus of the base in this example is $111$, the action is defined by 222 matrices in $\textnormal{Sp}(6, \mathbb{Z})$, such that the product of the commutator is equal to $1$. A generator of $\mathcal{M}_h$ is represented by a matrix in $\textnormal{Sp}(6, \mathbb{Z})$. After the collection process on the word of generators we have commutators $[A_i, B_i],$ where each $A_i$ or $B_i$ is the product of generators of $\mathcal{M}_h$. Using the explicit representation given in [@Endo page 920], $\sigma: \mathcal{M}_h \to \textnormal{Sp}(6, \mathbb{Z})$, we can find the matrices corresponding to each $A_i$ or $B_i$ by taking the product of the matrices that represent each of the generators in $\textnormal{Sp}(6, \mathbb{Z}).$
Two of them are for example,
$$\left( \begin{array}{cccccc}
1& 0& 0&-1& 0& 0 \\
0& 1& 0&0& 0& 0 \\
0& 0& 1&0& 0& 0 \\
0& 0& 0&1& 0& 0 \\
0& 0& 0&0& 1& 0\\
0& 0& 0&0& 0& 1 \\
\end{array} \right),$$
$$\left( \begin{array}{cccccc}
1& 0& 0&0& 0& 0 \\
0& 1& 0&0& 0& 0 \\
0& 0& 1&0& 0& 0 \\
1& -1& 0&1& 0& 0 \\
-1& 1& 0&0& 1& 0\\
0& 0& 0&0& 0& 1 \\
\end{array} \right).$$
These are clearly not trivial when reduced modulo $4$, as expected from the proof of Theorem \[mod8-theorem\]. Interestingly these matrices are also trivial when reducing mod $2$, so Endo’s example does not provide a counterexample for disproving the conjecture in [@KT].
Constructing further examples {#more-examples}
-----------------------------
By Novikov additivity we know that if two compact oriented $4k$-dimensional manifolds are glued by an orientation reversing diffeomorphism of their boundaries, then the signature of the union is the sum of the signature of the components. Following this idea Meyer computed the signature of the fibre bundle by dividing the base $B$ into pairs of pants $X$ and then computing the signature of the lift in the total space of each of these pairs of pants.
 \[T(f, g)\]
The manifold on the right in figure \[T(f, g)\] is a $4$-dimensional manifold with three boundary components, where each boundary component is a mapping torus given by an automorphism of the fibre. We shall refer to this as $T(f, g)$ as it is the part of the total space depending on the two symplectic automorphisms $$f, g: (H, \phi) \to (H, \phi)$$ of the skew-symmetric form $(H, \phi) = (H^1(F, {\mathbb Z}), \phi)$. Define $(V = H \oplus H, \Phi= \phi \oplus - \phi)$ and three Lagrangians $$\begin{aligned}
A&= \{(x, x ) \in H \oplus H \vert x \in H \}, \\
B&= \{(y, f(y) ) \in H \oplus H \vert y \in H \}, \\
C&= \{(z, g(z)) \in H \oplus H \vert x \in H \}.\end{aligned}$$ The form $\Phi : V \times V \to {\mathbb{Z}}$ is a skew-symmetric bilinear map with $$\Phi(A\times A)=\Phi(B\times B)=\Phi(C\times C)=0.$$
As in [@Wall-non-add], we consider the additive relation between $A$ and $B$ defined as $a \sim b$ if $\exists c \in C$ such that $a = b+c$. The domain of this relation is the set of $(x,x) = a \in A$ that can be expressed as $(b + c)= (y + z, f(y)+g(z))$, with $b= (y, f(y))$ and $c= (z, g(z))$. That is, the set $$A \cap (B+C)= \{(x,x) = (y, f(y)) + (z, g(z)) | x = y+z=f(y)+g(z)\}.$$ We define (as in [@Wall-non-add]) a bilinear map $\Psi: A \cap (B+C) \times A \cap (B+C) \to {\mathbb{R}}$ by $$\begin{aligned}
\Psi((x,x), (x', x')) & = \Phi((x,x), (y', f(y'))) \\
& = \phi(x, y') - \phi(x, f(y')) \\
& = \phi(x, (1-f) y').\end{aligned}$$ The form $\Psi$ is symmetric as we now check, $$\begin{aligned}
\Psi((x,x), (x', x'))-\Psi((x',x'), (x, x)) &= \phi(x, (1-f) y') -\phi(x', (1-f) y) \\
& = \phi(x, (1-f) y') +\phi((1-f) y, x') \\
&= \phi(x, y') - \phi(x, f(y')) + \phi(y, x') - \phi(f(y), x') \\
& = \phi(x+y, x' + y') - \phi(x, x')- \phi(y, y') \\
& \hspace{30pt} - \phi(x+f(y), x'+f(y')) + \phi(x,x')+\phi(f(y), f(y')) \\
& = \phi(z, z') - \phi(g(z), g(z')) \\
& = \Phi((z, g(z)), (z', g(z'))) = 0\end{aligned}$$
The signature of $(A \cap (B+ C), \Psi)$ is the nonadditivity invariant of [@Wall-non-add] such that $\sigma(T(f, g))= \sigma(A \cap (B+ C), \Psi) \in {\mathbb Z}.$
### Constructing an isomorphism $H \xrightarrow{\cong} A \cap (B+C)$ {#constructing-an-isomorphism-h-xrightarrowcong-a-cap-bc .unnumbered}
If $1-f$ is an automorphism, then from the equality $y+z = f(y)+g(z)$ we obtain the relation $$y = -(1-f)^{-1}(1-g)z \hspace{20pt} \textnormal{for any } z \in H$$ and we define, $$\begin{aligned}
H \xrightarrow{\cong} &A \cap (B+C) \\
z \mapsto & (y+z , f(y)+g(z)) = (x, x) \\
& = (-(1-f)^{-1}(1-g)z + z, f (-(1-f)^{-1}(1-g)z )+ g(z)) \\
& = \left((1-f)^{-1}(-(1-g)+(1-f))z, (1-f)^{-1}(-f(1-g)z+ (1-f)g(z)) \right) \\
& = \left((1-f)^{-1}(g-f)z, (1-f)^{-1}((-f+fg)z+ (g-fg)z) \right) \\
& = \left((1-f)^{-1}(g-f)z, (1-f)^{-1}((g-f)z) \right)
\end{aligned}$$
That is, the isomorphism is given by $$\begin{aligned}
h: H \xrightarrow{\cong} &A \cap (B+C) \\
z \mapsto & \left((1-f)^{-1}(g-f)z, (1-f)^{-1}((g-f)z) \right)\end{aligned}$$
As $\Psi$ above is symmetric, then composition with the isomorphism $h$ gives a symmetric matrix. $$h^* \Psi h(z, z') = \phi \left( (1-f)^{-1}(g-f) z, -(1-g) z' \right)$$
We can now choose two arbitrary automorphisms $f$ and $g$ and find that the form $S(f, g)= \phi(1-g^{-1})(1-f)^{-1} (g-f)$ is indeed symmetric. The signature of this symmetric form $S(f, g)$ is the signature of $T(f, g)$, which is the part of the total space corresponding to the pair of pants that is determined by the two automorphisms $f$ and $g$. $T(f, g)$ has boundary components three mapping tori $T(f)$, $T(g)$ and $T(fg)$.
Now consider the space $T(f, gf^{-1}g^{-1})$. This has boundary components, $T(f)$, $T(gf^{-1}g^{-1})$ and $T([f,g])$, where $[f, g]= fgf^{-1}g^{-1}$.
It can be proved that the boundary components $T(f)$, $T(gf^{-1}g^{-1})$ are related by a homeomorphism, and identifying these two boundary components gives a bundle over a punctured torus with one boundary component, $T(fgf^{-1}g^{-1})=T([f,g])$, and this space has the same signature as $T(f, gf^{-1}g^{-1})$
Our first example is a local coefficient system. The base has genus $2$ and the fibre genus $1$.
As the base has genus $2$ we need to define have four automorphisms $f_1$, $g_1$, $f_2$, $g_2$, all of them symplectic matrices.
$$f_1 = \left( \begin{array}{cccccc}
0 & 1 \\
-1 & 0
\end{array} \right),$$
$$g_1 = \left( \begin{array}{cccccc}
0 & 1 \\
-1 & 1
\end{array} \right),$$
$$f_2 = \left( \begin{array}{cccccc}
0 & -1 \\
1 & -1
\end{array} \right),$$
$$g_2 = \left( \begin{array}{cccccc}
0 & 1 \\
-1 & 0
\end{array} \right),$$
Here we have made a choice of the first two automorphisms $f_1$ and $g_1$ and then constructed the other bearing in mind that the product of the commutators has to be equal to $1$, $[f_1, g_1].[f_2, g_2] = 1$. So in this example, $f_1 = g_2$ and $g_1= -f_2$.
All four matrices are invertible. And none of $\textnormal{det}(I-f_1)$, $\textnormal{det}(I-g_1)$, $\textnormal{det}(I-f_2)$, $\textnormal{det}(I-g_2)$ is $0$.
The symmetric form for $f_1$, $g_1$ is: $$S(f_1,g_1f_1^{-1}g_1^{-1}) =\left( \begin{array}{cccccc}
4 & -3 \\
-3 & 3.5
\end{array} \right),$$ this has $2$ positive eigenvalues, i.e, signature $2$.
The symmetric form for $f_2$, $g_2$ is: $$S(f_2,g_2f_2^{-1}g_2^{-1}) =\left( \begin{array}{cccccc}
-4/3 & -2/3 \\
-2/3 & -10/3
\end{array} \right),$$ this has $2$ negative eigenvalues, i.e, signature $-2$.
Hence the local coefficient system has signature $4$.
Another example is a local coefficient system. The base has genus $2$ and the fibre genus $1$.
As the base has genus $2$ we need to define have four automorphisms $f_1$, $g_1$, $f_2$, $g_2$, all of them symplectic matrices.
$$f_1 = \left( \begin{array}{cccccc}
0 & 1 \\
-1 & 0
\end{array} \right),$$
$$g_1 = \left( \begin{array}{cccccc}
0 & 1 \\
-1 & 1
\end{array} \right),$$
$$f_2 = \left( \begin{array}{cccccc}
4 & -3 \\
7 & -5
\end{array} \right),$$
$$g_2 = \left( \begin{array}{cccccc}
-3 & 2 \\
-5 & 3
\end{array} \right),$$
The product of the commutators $[f_1, g_1].[f_2, g_2] = 1$ In this example we have made the same choice as in the previous example for the first two commutators $f_1$ and $g_1$ and we have constructed the other two by conjugating both by an suitable matrix. So with $$D = \left( \begin{array}{cccccc}
1 & 1 \\
1 & 2
\end{array} \right),$$ we have the following relations $$f_2 = -D . g_1. D^{-1} \textnormal{ \hspace{2pt} and \hspace{5pt}} g_2 = D . f_1. D^{-1}$$ All four matrices are invertible. And none of $\textnormal{det}(I-f_1)$, $\textnormal{det}(I-g_1)$, $\textnormal{det}(I-f_2)$, $\textnormal{det}(I-g_2)$ is $0$.
The symmetric form for $f_1$, $g_1$ is: $$S(f_1,g_1f_1^{-1}g_1^{-1}) =\left( \begin{array}{cccccc}
4 & -3 \\
-3 & 3.5
\end{array} \right),$$ this has $2$ positive eigenvalues, i.e, signature $2$.
The symmetric form for $f_2$, $g_2$ is: $$S(f_2,g_2f_2^{-1}g_2^{-1}) =\left( \begin{array}{cccccc}
-6 & 4 \\
4 & -3.33333333
\end{array} \right),$$ this has $2$ negative eigenvalues, i.e, signature $-2$. Hence the local coefficient system has signature $4$.
Python module for computations in section \[more-examples\]
===========================================================
In this appendix we give the Python module used to compute the examples in section \[more-examples\]. We shall not give any detailed explanations as this material has already been discussed in section \[more-examples\]. What we give here is the Python module, which we have written using the Python 3.4.1. version.
[EKK[[$^{+}$]{}]{}02]{}
C. Arf. Untersuchungen über quadratische [F]{}ormen in [K]{}örpern der [C]{}harakteristik 2. [I]{}. , 183:148–167, 1941.
M. F. Atiyah. The signature of fibre-bundles. In [*Global [A]{}nalysis ([P]{}apers in [H]{}onor of [K]{}. [K]{}odaira)*]{}, pages 73–84. Univ. Tokyo Press, Tokyo, 1969.
J. Bryan, R. Donagi, and A. Stipsicz. Surface bundles: some interesting examples. , 25(1):61–68, 2001.
G. W. Brumfiel and J. W. Morgan. Quadratic functions, the index modulo [$8$]{}, and a [$\mathbb{Z}_4$]{}-[H]{}irzebruch formula. , 12:105–122, 1973.
G. W. Brumfiel and J. W. Morgan. Homotopy theoretic consequences of [N]{}. [L]{}evitt’s obstruction theory to transversality for spherical fibrations. , 67(1):1–100, 1976.
M. Banagl and A. Ranicki. Generalized [A]{}rf invariants in algebraic [$L$]{}-theory. , 199(2):542–668, 2006.
R. Brown. . McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York-Toronto, Ont.-London, 1968.
W. Browder. . Springer-Verlag, New York, 1972. Ergebnisse der Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete, Band 65.
E. H. Brown, Jr. Generalizations of the [K]{}ervaire invariant. , 95:368–383, 1972.
J.S. Birman and B. Wajnryb. Presentations of the mapping class group. ([E]{}rrata) “[A]{} simple presentation of the mapping class group of an orientable surface” \[[I]{}srael [J]{}. [M]{}ath. [**45**]{} (1983), no. 2-3, 157–174; [MR]{}0719117 (85g:57007)\] by [W]{}ajnryb. , 88(1-3):425–427, 1994.
S. S. Chern, F. Hirzebruch, and J-P. Serre. On the index of a fibered manifold. , 8:587–596, 1957.
T. Dieck. Partitions of unity in homotopy theory. , 23:159–167, 1971.
F. Deloup and G. Massuyeau. Quadratic functions on torsion groups. , 198(1-3):105–121, 2005.
H. Endo, M. Korkmaz, D. Kotschick, B. Ozbagci, and A. Stipsicz. Commutators, [L]{}efschetz fibrations and the signatures of surface bundles. , 41(5):961–977, 2002.
H. Endo. A construction of surface bundles over surfaces with non-zero signature. , 35:915 – 930, 1998.
S. Eilenberg and J. A. Zilber. On products of complexes. , 75:200–204, 1953.
C. H. Giffen. The relation of quadratic [$K$]{}-theory to [H]{}ermitian [$K$]{}-theory. , 15(5):971–984, 1987.
L. Guillou and A. Marin. Une extension d’un théorème de [R]{}ohlin sur la signature. , 62:97–118, 1986.
A. Hatcher. . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2002.
F. Hirzebruch. The signature of ramified coverings. , Global [A]{}nalysis ([P]{}apers in [H]{}onor of [K]{}. [K]{}odaira):253–265, 1969.
I. Hambleton, A. Korzeniewski, and A. Ranicki. The signature of a fibre bundle is multiplicative mod 4. , 11:251–314, 2007.
M. Kervaire and John W. Milnor. Groups of homotopy spheres. , 77:504–537, 1963.
R. Kirby and P. Melvin. Local surgery formulas for quantum invariants and the [A]{}rf invariant. In [*Proceedings of the [C]{}asson [F]{}est*]{}, volume 7 of [*Geom. Topol. Monogr.*]{}, pages 213–233 (electronic). Geom. Topol. Publ., Coventry, 2004.
K. Kodaira. A certain type of irregular algebraic surfaces. , 19:207–215, 1967.
A. Korzeniewski. On the signature of fibre bundles and absolute whitehead torsion. , PhD Thesis, 2005.
S. Klaus and P. Teichner. Private communication. 2003.
W. L[ü]{}ck and A. Ranicki. Surgery transfer. , 1361:167–246, 1988.
W. L[ü]{}ck. The transfer maps induced in the algebraic [$K_0$]{}-and [$K_1$]{}-groups by a fibration. [I]{}. , 59(1):93–121, 1986.
Y. Matsumoto. An elementary proof of [R]{}ochlin’s signature theorem and its extension by [G]{}uillou and [M]{}arin. In [*À la recherche de la topologie perdue*]{}, volume 62 of [ *Progr. Math.*]{}, pages 119–139. Birkhäuser Boston, Boston, MA, 1986.
W. Meyer. Die [S]{}ignatur von lokalen [K]{}oeffizientensystemen und [F]{}aserbündeln. , (53):viii+59, 1972.
W. Meyer. Die [S]{}ignatur von [F]{}l[ä]{}chenb[ü]{}ndeln. , 201:239–264, 1973.
J. W. Milnor and D. Husemoller. . Springer-Verlag, New York, 1973. Ergebnisse der Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete, Band 73.
A. S. Mishchenko. Homotopy invariants of multiply connected manifolds. [III]{}. [H]{}igher signatures. , 35:1316–1355, 1971.
S. Morita. On the [P]{}ontrjagin square and the signature. , 18:405–414, 1971.
J. W. Milnor and J. D. Stasheff. . Princeton University Press, Princeton, N. J., 1974. Annals of Mathematics Studies, No. 76.
R.E. Mosher and M.C. Tangora. Cohomology operations and applications in homotopy theory. , pages x+214, 1968.
B Ozbagci. Signatures of [L]{}efschetz fibrations. , 202(1):99–118, 2002.
U. Pinkall. Regular homotopy classes of immersed surfaces. , 24(4):421–434, 1985.
L. Pontrjagin. Characteristic cycles on manifolds. , 35:34–37, 1942.
F. Quinn. Surgery on [P]{}oincaré and normal spaces. , 78:262–267, 1972.
A. Ranicki. The algebraic theory of surgery [I]{}. , 40:87–192, 1980.
A. Ranicki. The algebraic theory of surgery [II]{}. , 40:193–283., 1980.
A. Ranicki. . Mathematical Notes 26, Princeton, 1981.
A. Ranicki. . Cambridge University Press, 1992.
A. Ranicki. lgebraic [P]{}oincaré cobordism. , 279:213–255, 2001.
A. Ranicki and L. R. Taylor. The mod $8$ signature of normal complexes. .
R. Schoen. Fibrations over a [CW]{}h-base. , 62(1):165–166 (1977), 1976.
E. H. Spanier. . McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, 1966.
M. Spivak. Spaces satisfying [P]{}oincaré duality. , 6:77–101, 1967.
J. D. Stasheff. A classification theorem for fibre spaces. , 2:239–246, 1963.
N. E. Steenrod. Products of cocycles and extensions of mappings. , 48:290–320, 1947.
A. I. Stipsicz. Surface bundles with nonvanishing signature. , 95(4):299–307, 2002.
L. R. Taylor. Gauss sums in algebra and topology. .
F. van der Blij. An invariant of quadratic forms mod [$8$]{}. , 21:291–293, 1959.
B. Wajnryb. A simple presentation for the mapping class group of an orientable surface. , 45(2-3):157–174, 1983.
C. T. C. Wall. Poincaré complexes i. , 86:213 – 245, 1967.
C. T. C. Wall. Non-additivity of the signature. , 7:269–274, 1969.
C. T. C. Wall. , volume 69 of [*Mathematical Surveys and Monographs*]{}. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, second edition, 1970, 1999. Edited and with a foreword by A. A. Ranicki.
M. Weiss. Surgery and the generalized [K]{}ervaire invariant. [I]{}. , 51(1):146–192, 1985.
M. Weiss. Visible [$L$]{}-theory. , 4(5):465–498, 1992.
J. H. C. Whitehead. On simply connected, [$4$]{}-dimensional polyhedra. , 22:48–92, 1949.
J. H. C. Whitehead. A certain exact sequence. , 52:51–110, 1950.
E. Witt. , 176:31–44, 1936.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We show that there is no useful and universal definition of a running gravitational constant, G(E), in the perturbative regime below the Planck scale. By consideration of the loop corrections to several physical processes, we show that the quantum corrections vary greatly, in both magnitude and sign, and do not exhibit the required properties of a running coupling constant. We comment on the potential challenges of these results for the Asymptotic Safety program.'
author:
- 'Mohamed M. Anber${}^{1}$'
- 'John F. Donoghue${}^{2,3}$'
title: '[**On the running of the gravitational constant** ]{}'
---
Introduction
============
The concepts of running coupling constants and the renormalization group are of great utility in renormalizable field theories. It is tempting to attempt a definition of a running gravitational constant $G(q^2)$ in the context of quantum general relativity. As a simple example, one could take the quantum correction to the gravitational potential between heavy masses [@potential][^1] $$V(r) = -G\frac{Mm}{r}\left[1+ \frac{41}{10\pi}\frac{G}{r^2}\right]\,,$$ and turn it into a running coupling $$G(r) = G\left[1+ \frac{41}{10\pi}\frac{G}{r^2}\right]$$ which would imply that the gravitational strength gets stronger at short distance. We will return to the weaknesses of this particular definition in Sec. 8 below, but it is only one of many attempted definitions that have been suggested in the literature [@runningG].
Moreover there is an extensive approach to quantum gravity that relies on the running of the gravitational coupling. Within the hypothesis of Asymptotic Safety [@Weinberg:1980gg; @asymsafety], a suitably normalized version of the gravitational coupling is proposed to run to an ultraviolet fixed point. In Euclidean space, one treats the dimensionless combination $g= Gk_E^2$, where $k_E$ is a measure of the Euclidean energy, and the fixed point is described by $$g= Gk_E^2 \to g_* ~~~~{\rm as} ~~~k_E \to \infty\,.$$ This would imply that the running gravitational strength itself vanishes at large energy, $G(k_E)\to 0$. This behavior is often summarized by a function $$G(k_E) = \frac{G_N}{1+\alpha G_N k_E^2}\,,
\label{runningform}$$ where $G_N$ is the gravitational coupling at zero energy.
Gravitational corrections are calculable at low energy using effective field theory [@Donoghue:1994dn]. However the effective field theory presents a very different picture of quantum effects - one in which the gravitational constant does [*not*]{} run. Because of the dimensional coupling, loops do not lead to a renormalization of the leading gravitational action $R$, i.e. the one that contains the gravitational constant $G$, but rather renormalize higher order terms in the action that come with higher derivatives, i.e. terms such as $R^2$ or $R_{\mu\nu}R^{\mu\nu}$. Indeed there is a power counting theorem that says that each gravitational loop always brings in two more powers of the energy. The content of the renormalization group within effective field theory has been explored by Weinberg and others [@weinberg]. While the technique is useful at predicting some leading and subleading logarithmic kinematic dependence, it does not involve the running of the leading order coupling, and in gravity does not predict the running of $G$. Efforts to define a running coupling in the perturbative regime must attempt something outside of the usual application of the renormalization group.
The purpose of this paper is to explore explicit physical calculations in Lorentzian spacetime to see if there is a definition of running gravitational coupling which is physically useful and universal in the regime where we can maintain control of our calculations. Our answer is negative - no such definition is both useful and universal.
Gravitational corrections to coupling constants
===============================================
Ultraviolet divergences in field theories correspond to counterterms in a local Lagrangian. In a theory with a dimensional coupling constant with an inverse mass dimension, such as general relativity, these local terms are ones which have a higher mass dimension than the original starting Lagrangian. For example, for gravitational corrections to Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) the divergences generated at one loop have the forms $${\cal L}_{ct} = Gc_1 F^{\mu\nu} \partial^2F_{\mu\nu} + Gc_2\bar{\psi}\gamma_\mu \psi \partial_\nu F^{\mu\nu} + Gc_3 \bar{\psi}\gamma_\mu D_\nu \psi F^{\mu\nu}\,,$$ when regularized dimensionally. (We will discuss regularization with a dimensionful cutoff in the next section.) Equivalently field redefinitions and/or equations of motion can be used to rewrite some of these operators (and the accompanying divergences) as contact interactions such as $${\cal L'}_{ct} = Gc_4\bar{\psi}\gamma_\mu \psi \bar{\psi}\gamma^\mu \psi\,.$$ The divergences can be absorbed into renormalized parameters of these higher dimensional operators, as in standard effective field theory practice. The scale dependence that arises in dimensional regularization will then be associated with the coefficients of the higher order operators, i.e. the set $c_i$, rather than the original coupling constant, which in the QED case would be the electric charge. Finite remainders will also carry this higher order momentum dependence, i.e. they will be of order $Gq^2$ or $Gq^2\ln q^2$ higher than the original coupling.
Because loops generate these higher order effects in the momentum expansion, attempts to have the loops contribute to the running of the original charge $e$ require some repackaging of the higher order effects into a revised definition of the original charge. Logically this is conceivable by renormalizing the coupling at a higher energy scale. The standard effective field theory treatment is equivalent to renormalzing the operators near zero energy. However, by choosing a renomalization condition that defines the charge at a higher energy scale $E$, one would in general include some of the higher momentum dependence into the definition of the charge. For example, for a given amplitude $Amp_i$ we would define $$\begin{aligned}
Amp_i &=& a_i g^2 +b_ig^2\kappa^2 q^2 \nonumber \\
&=& a_i g^2 (1+ \frac{b_i}{a_i}\kappa^2 E^2) + b_i g^2\kappa^2(q^2-E^2)\nonumber \\
&=& a_i g^2(E) + b_ig^2(E) \kappa^2(q^2-E^2)\,,\end{aligned}$$ when renormalizing at the scale $q^2 =+E^2$. Here $G=\kappa^2/(32\pi)$ and $a_i~b_i$ are process dependent constants. This can certainly be done by explicit construction - indeed it can be done in multiple ways through different choices of the renormalization condition. By construction, this provides a gravitational contribution to the running of the coupling with energy.
However there are obstructions that will in general keep any such construction from being useful and universal in effective field theories such as general relativity. One is a kinematic ambiguity. The higher order corrections are proportional to $Gq^2$, and $q^2$ refers to a four-vector which can take both positive and negative values. A renormalization condition defined at one sign of $q^2$ produces a charge definition that fails to be applicable in the crossed reaction with the opposite sign of $q^2$. We will refer to this as the [*crossing problem*]{}. (In the above schematic example, this is visible in the ambiguity between renormalizing at $q^2=+E^2$ or $q^2=-E^2$.) The other obstruction is process dependence or [*non-universality*]{}. Because there are in general multiple higher order operators that are possible, and because these enter into different processes in different ways, the divergences and finite parts of different reactions will not be the same. A definition of the charge that is appropriate for one reaction will not work for another. To be useful, a running coupling must capture at least a significant or common portion of the quantum corrections. (In the preceding schematic example, problems would arise if the ratio $b_i/a_i$ is highly process dependent.) We have demonstrated these obstacles in Yukawa theories [@Anber:2010uj], and the same problems arise in the attempts to define gravitational corrections to running gauge charges.
In renormalizable theories these obstacles are not present. For logarithmic running couplings, the kinematic ambiguity is absent because the real part of $\ln q^2$ is the same for both spacelike and timelike $q^2$. The process dependence is absent because the running is connected with the actual renormalization of the charge - the $\ln (q^2/\mu^2)$ factor that arises is tied to the $1/\epsilon$ divergence absorbed into the renormalized charge. Because charge renormalization is universal, the corresponding logarithmic corrections are also universal.
In [@Anber:2010uj], we did find one case where a gravitational correction to a running coupling could be constructed perturbatively without obvious flaws. This was $\lambda \phi^4$ theory. In this case, the unique higher order operator vanishes by the equation of motion - the gravitational corrections are one-loop-finite. In addition, the complete permutation symmetry of the $\phi^4$ interaction means that all reactions are crossing symmetric, and involve a unique crossing symmetric combination of kinematic invariants. There is no crossing problem. Because there is only one type of vertex in this theory, there is also no non-universality problem. These allowed a reasonable definition of the gravitational correction to the running of $\lambda$. However, we will see that these nice properties are not shared by the gravitational self interactions.
Dimensional cutoffs
===================
The comments of the preceding section are reasonably obvious when dimensional regularization is used. Indeed they are consistent with the portion of the literature concerning gravitational corrections to gauge couplings that employed dimensional regularization [@doesnot]. However, more recently there has been another subset of this literature which used dimensionful cutoffs in the analysis and which reached the opposite conclusion, i.e. that there was a universal gravitational correction to the running of the gauge charges [@does; @does2]. This dichotomy appears to violate a key principle that true physics is independent of the renormalization scheme. In fact, there is no disagreement between the schemes and the apparent difference arises from an incorrect interpretation of the dimensionful cutoff schemes. It is important for us to demonstrate the flaw of these cutoff calculations, because many attempts to define a running gravitational constant, $G(\Lambda)$ employ a similarly incorrect reasoning.
If we rescale the vector field, $A^\mu \to A^\mu/e_0$, then the electric charge appears only in the photon part of the Lagrangian $${\cal L} = -\frac{1}{4e_0^2}F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu} + \bar{\psi} i \slashed{D}\psi\,.$$ After including gravition loops regularized with a dimensional cutoff $\Lambda$, there is a quadratic cutoff dependence in the leading term, as well as logarithmic cutoff dependence with a high order operator $${\cal L} = -\frac{1+a\kappa^2 \Lambda^2}{4e_0^2}F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu} + b \ln \Lambda^2 ~F_{\mu\nu}\partial^2 F^{\mu\nu} \,.
\label{cutoffL}$$ This demonstrates that, in contrast with dimensional regularization, the lowest order charge $e_0$ does get renormalized (quadratically) by graviton loops when using a dimensionful cutoff as a regularizer.
The incorrect interpretation of this is to identify the cutoff dependence with the running of the coupling. Specifically, by writing $$e^2(\Lambda) =\frac{ e_0^2}{1+ a \kappa^2 \Lambda^2}\,,$$ the authors of [@does2] identify a beta function $$\beta (e) = \Lambda \frac{\partial e}{\partial \Lambda} =- a e\kappa^2 \Lambda^2$$ for the running of the coupling.
However this interpretation is incorrect, because the quadratic $\Lambda$ dependence disappears from physical observables in the process of renormalization. For example, the Coulomb potential at low energy, calculated from Eq. \[cutoffL\] is $${ V}(r) = \frac{ e_0^2}{4\pi(1+ a \kappa^2 \Lambda^2)} \frac1{r}\,.$$ If we use this to identify the electric charge we obtain $$\alpha = \frac{e^2}{4\pi} =\frac{ e_0^2}{4\pi(1+ a \kappa^2 \Lambda^2)} =\frac1{137}\,.$$ When expressing predictions in terms of the measured value of $\alpha$, the quadratic $\Lambda$ dependence is removed from all observables at all energies. It does not indicate the running of the electric charge. This analysis is supported by explicit calculation [@Toms:2011zz].
These same comments apply to dimensionful cutoffs and the gravitational coupling $G$. When using a scheme with a dimensionful cutoff, one will generate corrections to the gravitational constant $G=G_0(1+aG_0\Lambda^2)$. If this is done in a way that preserves general covariance, the same correction will be obtained in any process that involves $G$. This quadratic dependence will disappear from all observables once one identifies the physical renormalized parameter $G$ to be equal to its Newtonian value.
Note that the logarithmic $\ln \Lambda$ dependence can be useful in tracing the running of couplings. This is because at high energies the logarithm must also contain kinematic variables, i.e. $\ln (\Lambda^2/q^2)$. This is analogous to tracing the $\ln q^2 $ behavior from the $1/\epsilon$ dependence in dimensional regularization.
These features explain how dimensional regularization and cutoff regularization can agree in calculations involving gravity. There are no quadratic divergences in dimensional regularization, but we have seen that such divergences in cutoff schemes disappear from observables under renormalization. When considering gravitational corrections, the logarithmic cutoff dependence and the $1/\epsilon$ dependence are both associated with higher order terms of order $\kappa^2 q^2$, and the residual kinematic effects will be in agreement when the calculations are properly done. Dimensional regularization is a good regulator for the gravitational interaction because it has a clear and direct interpretation. For this reason, we use dimensional regularization throughout this paper.
Pure gravity: The graviton propagator
=====================================
Let us first consider the purely gravitational sector. At one loop, pure gravity is finite for on-shell amplitudes, because the higher order counterterms, $R^2$ and $R_{\mu\nu} R^{\mu\nu}$ vanish by the equation of motion $R_{\mu\nu}=0$. Finite one-loop corrections do exist. These are higher order in the momentum variables, and do not have the same kinematic dependence as the lowest order effects governed by the gravitational constant $G$. However, by working at a high energy renormalization scale, we will see if we can attempt to package these loop effects as a running coupling $G(E)$.
Even though our primary focus in this paper involves on-shell physical reactions, it is useful to start by consideration of the vacuum polarization diagram and the graviton propagator. The only quantum correction that is demonstrably universal is that involving the vacuum polarization. Every graviton exchange receives a correction from the vacuum polarization. Because each end of the propagator carries a factor of $\kappa$, a modification of the propagator could be interpreted as modification of the coupling $G(q^2)$. However, we will see that there still remains the crossing problem because $q^2$ can carry either sign.
The graviton propagator at lowest order is given by $$iD_F^{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta} = \frac {i{\cal
P}^{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}}{q^2+i\epsilon}\,,$$ where $${\cal P}^{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta} =
\frac12\left[\eta^{\alpha\gamma}\eta^{\beta\delta} +
\eta^{\beta\gamma}\eta^{\alpha\delta}
-\eta^{\alpha\beta}\eta^{\gamma\delta}\right]\,.$$ The inclusion of the vacuum polarization diagram modifies the propagator $${i{\cal
P}^{\alpha\beta\lambda\xi}\over
q^2}i\Pi_{\lambda\xi\mu\nu}(q){i{\cal P}^{\mu\nu\gamma\delta}\over
q^2}~.$$
The vacuum polarization diagram is divergent and the required counter terms have the form obtained by ‘t Hooft and Veltman [@'tHooft:1974bx] $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta {\cal L}=\frac{\sqrt{g}}{16\pi^2\epsilon}\left[\frac{1}{120}R^2+\frac{7}{20}R_{\alpha\beta}R^{\alpha\beta} \right]\end{aligned}$$ with $\epsilon=(d-4)/2$. Because such terms appear in the most general effective Lagrangian, one can absorb these divergences into the renormalized values of their coefficients. Expressing $R^2$ and $R_{\alpha\beta}R^{\alpha\beta}$ in terms of the Fourier-space momenta, we find upon symmetrizing the indices $$\begin{aligned}
\sqrt{g}R^2=h^{\mu\nu}\left[ q^4\eta_{\alpha\beta}\eta_{\mu\nu}-q^2\left(\eta_{\mu\nu} q_\alpha q_\beta+ \eta_{\alpha\beta} q_\mu q_\nu \right) +q_{\alpha}q_{\beta}q_{\mu}q_{\nu} \right]h^{\alpha\beta}\,,\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\sqrt{g}R_{\alpha\beta}R^{\alpha\beta}&=&\frac{1}{4}h^{\mu\nu}\left[q^4\eta_{\alpha\beta}\eta_{\mu\nu}-\frac{q^2}{2}\left(q_{\alpha}q_\mu\eta_{\nu\beta}+q_{\alpha}q_{\nu}\eta_{\mu\beta}+q_{\beta}q_{\mu}\eta_{\nu\alpha}+q_{\beta}q_{\nu}\eta_{\mu\alpha}\right) \right.\\
&&\left.\quad\quad\quad -q^2(\eta_{\alpha\beta}q_\mu q_\nu+\eta_{\mu\nu}q_\alpha q_\beta)+q^4I_{\alpha\beta,\mu\nu}+2q_\alpha q_\beta q_\mu q_\nu\right]h^{\alpha\beta}\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $I_{\alpha\beta,\mu\nu}=(\eta_{\alpha\mu}\eta_{\beta\nu}+\eta_{\alpha\nu}\eta_{\beta\mu})/2$. In addition, one can use the presence of the $1/\epsilon$ terms to read out the dependence on $\ln q^2$ $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\Pi_{\alpha\beta,\mu\nu}(q)&=&-\frac{2G}{\pi}\ln\left(-\frac{q^2}{\mu_1^2} \right) \left[\frac{q^4}{60}\eta_{\alpha\beta}\eta_{\mu\nu}-\frac{q^2}{60}\left(\eta_{\mu\nu} q_\alpha q_\beta+ \eta_{\alpha\beta} q_\mu q_\nu \right) +\frac{1}{60}q_{\alpha}q_{\beta}q_{\mu}q_{\nu} \right]\\
\nonumber
&&-\frac{2G}{\pi}\ln\left(-\frac{q^2}{\mu_2^2}\right)\left[\frac{7}{40}q^4\eta_{\alpha\beta}\eta_{\mu\nu}-\frac{7}{80}q^2\left(q_{\alpha}q_\mu\eta_{\nu\beta}+q_{\alpha}q_{\nu}\eta_{\mu\beta}+q_{\beta}q_{\mu}\eta_{\nu\alpha}+q_{\beta}q_{\nu}\eta_{\mu\alpha}\right) \right.\\
&&\left.\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad -\frac{7}{40}q^2(\eta_{\alpha\beta}q_\mu q_\nu+\eta_{\mu\nu}q_\alpha q_\beta)+\frac{7}{40}q^4I_{\alpha\beta,\mu\nu}+\frac{7}{20}q_\alpha q_\beta q_\mu q_\nu\right]\,,\end{aligned}$$ where we have assigned $\ln(-q^2/\mu_1^2)$ and $\ln(-q^2/\mu_2^2)$ for $R^2$ and $R_{\alpha\beta}R^{\alpha\beta}$ respectively.
The polarization tensor can be written in the form [@Weinberg:1980gg] $$\begin{aligned}
\Pi^{\alpha\beta,\mu\nu}(q)&=&q^4A(q^2)L^{\alpha\beta}(q)L^{\mu\nu}(q)-q^2B(q^2)\left[L^{\alpha\mu}(q)L^{\beta\nu}(q)+L^{\alpha\nu}(q)L^{\beta\mu}(q) -2L^{\alpha\beta}(q)L^{\mu\nu}(q)\right],\end{aligned}$$ where $L^{\mu\nu}(q)=\eta^{\mu\nu}-q^{\mu}q^{\nu}/q^2$. Contracting $\Pi^{\alpha\beta,\gamma\delta}(q)$ with $L^{\alpha\beta}(q)L^{\mu\nu}(q)$, and $L^{\alpha\mu}(q)L^{\beta\nu}(q)$ we obtain two equations in $A(q^2)$, and $B(q^2)$ $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\Pi^{\alpha\beta,\mu\nu}(q)L_{\alpha\beta}(q)L_{\mu\nu}(q)&=&3q^2\left[3q^2A(q^2)+4B(q^2) \right]\,,\\
\Pi^{\alpha\beta,\mu\nu}(q)L_{\alpha\mu}(q)L_{\beta\nu}(q)&=&3q^2\left[q^2A(q^2)-2B(q^2) \right]\,.\end{aligned}$$ Hence, we find $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
A(q^2)&=&-\frac{1}{30\pi}G\ln\left(\frac{-q^2}{\mu_1^2}\right)-\frac{7}{10\pi}G\ln\left(\frac{-q^2}{\mu_2^2}\right)\,,\\
B(q^2)&=&\frac{7}{40\pi}Gq^2\ln\left(\frac{-q^2}{\mu_2^2}\right)\,.\end{aligned}$$
On the other hand, the bare propagator takes the general form $$\begin{aligned}
i{\cal D}^{\alpha\beta,\mu\nu}(q^2)=\frac{i}{2q^2}\left[L^{\alpha\mu}L^{\beta\nu}+L^{\alpha\nu}L^{\beta\mu}-L^{\alpha\beta}L^{\mu\nu} \right]\,,\end{aligned}$$ while the quantum corrected propagator reads $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
i{\cal D}'^{\alpha\beta,\mu\nu}&=&i{\cal D}^{\alpha\beta,\mu\nu}+i{\cal D}^{\alpha\beta,\gamma\delta}i\Pi_{\gamma\delta,\rho\tau}i{\cal D}^{\rho\tau,\mu\nu}\\
&=&\frac{i}{2q^2}(1+2B(q^2)) \left[L^{\alpha\mu}L^{\beta\nu}+L^{\alpha\nu}L^{\beta\mu}-L^{\alpha\beta}L^{\mu\nu} \right]-i\frac{A(q^2)}{4}L^{\alpha\beta}L^{\mu\nu}\,.
\label{dressed}\end{aligned}$$ The first term above is a dressed propagator. Therefore, it is appropriate to define the running coupling as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{one way of normalizing}
G(q^2)=G(1+2B(q^2))=G\left(1+\frac{7}{20\pi}Gq^2\ln\left(\frac{-q^2}{\mu_2^2}\right)\right)\,.\end{aligned}$$ On the other hand, the second term in Eq. \[dressed\] also contributes comparably to gravitational amplitudes. For example, non-relativistic scattering involves the $00,00$ component of ${\cal D}^{\mu\nu,\alpha\beta}$ and we can equally define a running coupling from that component $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal D}^{00,00}=\frac{1}{2q^2}\left(1+2B-\frac{q^2A}{2} \right)L^{00}L^{00}=\frac{1}{2q^2} G(q^2)L^{00}L^{00}\,,\end{aligned}$$ and hence, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{0000 components}
G(q^2)=G\left[1+\frac{1}{60\pi} Gq^2\ln\left(\frac{-q^2}{\mu_2^2}\right)+\frac{7}{10\pi} Gq^2\ln\left(\frac{-q^2}{\mu_1^2}\right) \right]\,.\end{aligned}$$ This corresponds exactly to the vacuum polarization contribution to the shift in the Newtonian interaction as calculated in [@Donoghue:1994dn], but it could be more widely applicable. Since $M_P$ is the only scale in gravity, we expect $\mu_1$ and $\mu_2$ to be of this order, and hence Eqs. \[one way of normalizing\] and \[0000 components\] are valid for low energies $E<M_P$. For spacelike $q^2$ this corresponds to an increase in the strength of gravity, while for timelike values it is a decrease. Of course this sign ambiguity is a signal of the crossing problem. It is present no matter which components of the propagator are considered. If converted to Euclidean space by the Wick rotation $q^2 \to (iq_4)^2 -\mathbf{q}^2 =-q_E^2$, the effective strength increases.
At one loop order, it would be hard to convincingly favor one of the two definitions Eqs. \[one way of normalizing\] or \[0000 components\]. However, they do at least have a common sign.
However, we know ahead of time that this definition is not going to enter into any physical one-loop processes in pure gravity. Since on-shell processes are one loop finite, any reference to the higher order operators $R^2$ or $R_{\mu\nu}R^{\mu\nu}$ must drop out of physical observables at one loop. The coefficients $\mu_1$ and $\mu_2$ are in this category and will not appear in on-shell processes. On-shell reactions may have logarithms such as $\ln s/t$, but not $\ln s/\mu_{1,2}^2$.
Pure gravity: Graviton scattering
=================================
The simplest physical process in pure gravity is graviton-graviton scattering. The lowest order scattering amplitude involves a large number of individual tree diagrams but is given by the simple form $${A}^{tree}(++;++) = i\frac{\kappa^2}{4} \frac{s^3}{tu}\,,
\label{gravtree}$$ where the signs $+,-$ refer to helicity indices and $s,t,u$ are the usual Mandelstam variables. In power counting, this is a dimensionless amplitude of order $GE^2$. Our labeling of momentum and helicities corresponds to the final state particle being outgoing, in contrast to some conventions in the literature which label all particles as ingoing[^2].
The one loop amplitudes have been calculated by Dunbar and Norridge [@Dunbar:1994bn]. These are of order $G^2E^4$ and take the form
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:2}
{\cal A}^{1-loop}(++;--) & = & -i\,{\kappa^4 \over 30720
\pi^2}
\left( s^2+t^2 + u^2 \right) \,, \nonumber\\
{\cal A}^{1-loop}(++;+-) & = & -{1 \over 3}
{\cal A}^{1-loop}(++;--)\nonumber \\
{\cal A}^{1-loop}(++;++) & = &\frac{\kappa^2}
{4(4\pi)^{2-\epsilon}}\,
\frac{\Gamma^2(1-\epsilon)\Gamma(1+\epsilon)}
{\Gamma(1-2\epsilon)}\,
{\cal A}^{tree}(++;++)\,\times(s\,t\,u)\\
&&\hspace{-0em}\times\left[\rule{0pt}{4.5ex}\right.
\frac{2}{\epsilon}\left(
\frac{\ln(-u)}{st}\,+\,\frac{\ln(-t)}{su}\,+\,\frac{\ln(-s)}{tu}
\right)+\,\frac{1}{s^2}\,f\left(\frac{-t}{s},\frac{-u}{s}\right)
\nonumber\\&&\hspace{1.4em}
+2\,\left(\frac{\ln(-u)\ln(-s)}{su}\,+\,\frac{\ln(-t)\ln(-s)}{tu}\,+\,
\frac{\ln(-t)\ln(-s)}{ts}\right)
\left.\rule{0pt}{4.5ex}\right]\,,\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:f}
f\left(\frac{-t}{s},\frac{-u}{s}\right)&=&
\frac{(t+2u)(2t+u)\left(2t^4+2t^3u-t^2u^2+2tu^3+2u^4\right)}
{s^6}
\left(\ln^2\frac{t}{u}+\pi^2\right)\nonumber\\&&
+\frac{(t-u)\left(341t^4+1609t^3u+2566t^2u^2+1609tu^3+
341u^4\right)}
{30s^5}\ln\frac{t}{u}\nonumber\\&&
+\frac{1922t^4+9143t^3u+14622t^2u^2+9143tu^3+1922u^4}
{180s^4}\,.\end{aligned}$$ Other amplitudes can be obtained from these by crossing.
The dimensional regularization parameter $\epsilon =(4-d)/2$ appears in the amplitude ${\cal A}^{1-loop}(++;++)$. This is an infrared divergence, and is canceled as usual from the radiation of soft gravitons. An explicit calculation of the sum of direct and radiative cross sections [@Donoghue:1999qh] yields the result $$\begin{aligned}
\label{sum-crs}
&&\hspace{-3em}\left(\frac{d\sigma}{d\Omega}\right)_{tree}
+ \left(\frac{d\sigma}{d\Omega}\right)_{rad.}
+\left(\frac{d\sigma}{d\Omega}\right)_{nonrad.}=\\
&=& \frac{\kappa^4 s^5}{2048\pi^2 t^2 u^2}\,
\left\{ \rule{0pt}{2.6em}\right.
1 + {\kappa^2 s \over 16 \pi^2}
\left[\rule{0pt}{2em}\right.
\ln\frac{-t}{s}\ln\frac{-u}{s}+
\frac{tu}{2s^2}\,f\left(\frac{-t}{s},\frac{-u}{s}\right)
\nonumber\\
&&-\left(\frac{t}{s}\,\ln{\frac{-t}{s}}+\frac{u}{s}\,
\ln{\frac{-u}{s}}\right)
\left(
3\ln(2\pi^2)+\gamma+\ln\frac{s}{\mu^2}+
\frac{\sum_{ij}\eta_i\eta_j{\cal
F}^{(1)}(\gamma_{ij})}{\sum_{ij}\eta_i\eta_j{\cal
F}^{(0)}(\gamma_{ij})}
\right)
\left.\rule{0pt}{2em}\right]
\left.\rule{0pt}{2.6em}\right\}.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Here $\mu$ is an infrared scale related to the experimental energy resolution and ${\cal F}^{(i)}$ are functions defined in [@Donoghue:1999qh] related to the angles of emission of soft graviton radiation.
The last line of the cross section formula is related to infrared physics and does not appear appropriate for inclusion in the definition of a running coupling. Instead we focus on the correction displayed in the preceding line. We would like a renormalization point in the physical region[^3] with a single energy scale $E$. We choose the central physical point $s=2E^2,~ t=u=-E^2$. This leads to the identification $$G^2(E) = G^2\left[1 +\frac{\kappa^2 E^2\left(\ln^2 2+\frac{1}{8}\left(\frac{2297}{180}+\frac{63\pi^2}{64} \right) \right)}{8\pi^2}\right]~~~.
\label{running1}$$ We see that this definition leads to a growing running coupling $G(E)$, as opposed to the expectation from asymptotic safety of a decrease in strength at high energy. It works acceptably for this process because it absorbs the main effects of the quantum corrections in the neighborhood of the central point.
We could alternatively consider the crossed reaction ${\cal A}(+,-;+,-)$ which is obtained from ${\cal A}(+,+;+,+)$ by the exchange $s\leftrightarrow t$. This makes the quantum corrections somewhat different, with the corresponding kinematic factor being $$1 + \frac{\kappa^2 t}{16 \pi^2}
\left[ \ln\frac{-s}{t}\ln\frac{-u}{t}+ \frac{su}{2t^2} f \left(\frac{-s}{t},\frac{-u}{t}\right) \right]
= 1 +\frac{\kappa^2E^2\left(\frac{29}{10}\ln 2-\frac{67}{45} \right)}{16\pi^2}$$ instead of the factor in Eq. \[running1\]. The quantum corrections in this channel differ from those of the original reaction and they are not accurately summarized by the same running coupling. This is a manifestation of the crossing problem.
Gravitational scattering of a massless scalar particle
======================================================
In renormalizable gauge theories, the running coupling applies universally to all processes. As mentioned above, this is because the running is tied to the renormalization of the gauge charge. General covariance requires that a valid definition of a running $G$ also be universally applicable. The gravitational coupling not only parameterizes the self interactions of gravitons, but it also describes the gravitational coupling of matter. In this section, we look at the effects of loops on the gravitational interactions of a scalar particle.
We consider a scalar particle that has only gravitational interactions. The scattering $\phi + \phi \to \phi +\phi$ via graviton exchange at tree level has $s,~t, ~{\rm and}~ u$ channel poles, with amplitude $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal M}_{tree}=i\frac{\kappa^2}{4}\left[\frac{st}{u}+\frac{su}{t}+\frac{tu}{s} \right]\,.\end{aligned}$$ We note that this amplitude, and the loop amplitudes to follow, has a permutation (crossing) symmetry such that all channels are governed by the same amplitude. This will eliminate the crossing problem that arises in most other reactions. However we can test for universality by testing whether the interactions lead to a similar running coupling as suggested in the purely gravitational sector.
In this theory there is a higher order operator which is required at one loop. Divergences proportional to $${\cal L}_2 = \frac{203}{320\epsilon} (D_\mu \phi D^\mu \phi)^2$$ arise at one loop. In matrix elements, this operator generates a contribution proportional to $s^2 + t^2 +u^2$. The one loop amplitudes, up to rational terms in the kinematic variables, have been given in [@Dunbar:1995ed]. However the rational terms are constrained by the permutation symmetry to also be proportional to $s^2 + t^2 +u^2$ and we will absorb them into the higher order Lagrangian ${\cal L}_2$.
The total scattering amplitude of this process, apart from a polynomial in $s$, $t$, and $u$, is given by [^4] $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
{\cal M}_{1-loop}&=&i\frac{\kappa^4}{\left(4\pi\right)^2}\left[\frac{(s^4+t^4)}{16}I_4(s,t)+\frac{(s^4+u^4)}{16}I_4(s,u)+\frac{(u^4+t^4)}{16}I_4(t,u)-\frac{s(s^2+2t^2+2u^2)}{8}I_3(s) \right.\\
\nonumber
&&\left.\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad-\frac{t(t^2+2s^2+2u^2)}{8}I_3(t)-\frac{u(u^2+2t^2+2s^2)}{8}I_3(u)+\frac{(163u^2+163t^2+43tu)}{960}I_2(s) \right.\\
\label{AAAAScattering}
&&\left.\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad +\frac{(163u^2+163s^2+43us)}{960}I_2(t)+\frac{(163s^2+163t^2+43ts)}{960}I_2(u) \right]\,,\end{aligned}$$ where the $I_4(s,t)$, $I_3(s)$, and $I_2(s)$ are respectively the scalar box, triangle and bubble integrals: $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
I_4(s,t)&=&\frac{1}{st}\left\{\frac{2}{\epsilon^2}\left[(-s)^{-\epsilon}+(-t)^{-\epsilon} \right]-\ln^2\left(\frac{-s}{-t}\right)-\pi^2 \right\}\\
\nonumber
&&=\frac{1}{st}\left\{\frac{4}{\epsilon^2}-\frac{2\ln(-s)+2\ln(-t)}{\epsilon}+2\ln(-s)\ln(-t)+\mbox{finite} \right\}\,,\\
\nonumber
I_3(s)&=&\frac{1}{\epsilon^2}\left(-s\right)^{-1-\epsilon}=-\frac{1}{s}\left(\frac{1}{\epsilon^2}-\frac{\ln(-s)}{\epsilon}+\frac{\ln^2(-s)}{2} \right)\,,\\
I_2(s)&=&\frac{1}{\epsilon(1-2\epsilon)}\left(-s\right)^{-\epsilon}=\left(\frac{1}{\epsilon}-\ln(-s)+\mbox{finite}\right)\,.\end{aligned}$$
We follow Ref. [@Dunbar:1995ed] in removing the infrared divergences by use of $$\label{removing IR}
{\cal M}_{IR} =\frac{\kappa^2}{2(4\pi)^2}\frac{\left((-s)^{1-\epsilon}+(-t)^{1-\epsilon}+(-u)^{1-\epsilon}\right)}{\epsilon^2}{\cal M}_{tree}\,,$$ where the residual hard part is defined via $${\cal M}_h = {\cal M}_{1-loop} - {\cal M}_{IR}\,.$$ With the renormalization of the higher order operator, the one loop hard amplitude is $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
{\cal M}_{h}&=&i\frac{\kappa^4}{\left(4\pi\right)^2}\left\{\frac{(s^4+t^4)}{8st}\ln(-s)\ln(-t)+\frac{(s^4+u^4)}{8su}\ln(-s)\ln(-u)+\frac{(u^4+t^4)}{8tu}\ln(-t)\ln(-u) \right.\\
\nonumber
&&\left.\quad\quad\quad\quad+\frac{(s^2+2t^2+2u^2)}{16}\ln^2(-s) +\frac{(t^2+2s^2+2u^2)}{16}\ln^2(-t)+\frac{(u^2+2t^2+2s^2)}{16}\ln^2(-u) \right.\\
\nonumber
&&\left.\quad\quad\quad\quad+\frac{1}{16}\left(\frac{st}{u}+\frac{tu}{s}+\frac{us}{t} \right)\left(s\ln^2(-s)+t\ln^2(-t)+u\ln^2(-u) \right)\right.\\
\nonumber
&&\left.\quad\quad\quad\quad+\left[ -\frac{(163u^2+163t^2+43tu)}{960}\ln\left(\frac{-s}{\mu^2}\right)-\frac{(163u^2+163s^2+43us)}{960}\ln\left(\frac{-t}{\mu^2}\right)\right.\right.\\
\label{AAAAhardScattering}
&&\left.\left.\quad\quad\quad\quad-\frac{(163s^2+163t^2+43ts)}{960}\ln\left(\frac{-u}{\mu^2}\right)+d_1^{ren}(\mu)(s^2+t^2+u^2) \right]\right\}\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $\mu$ is an infrared scale. In this result, we have grouped the single logs with the higher order operator, because those logs are the ones that pick up the scale dependence when you shift the scale associated with the higher order operator $ d_1^{ren}(\mu)$.
We again evaluate the matrix element at the central kinematic point $s=2E^2,~t=u=-E^2$. The result is $${\cal M}_{total}={\cal M}_{tree}+{\cal M}_h= i\frac{9\kappa^2 E^2}{8}\left[1-\frac{\kappa^2E^2}{360\left(4\pi\right)^2} \left(609\ln\frac{E^2}{\mu^2}+\left(340\pi^2+\left(123-340\ln 2\right)\ln2 \right) \right) \right]\,.$$ If we were to use this to identify a running coupling the result would be $$G(E) = G\left[1-\frac{\kappa^2E^2}{360\left(4\pi\right)^2} \left(609\ln\frac{E^2}{\mu^2}+\left(340\pi^2+\left(123-340\ln 2\right)\ln2 \right) \right) \right]\,.
\label{running2}$$ The single log term which appears in Eq. \[running2\] could reasonably be associated with the higher order operator $d_1$, and perhaps should be removed from this expression. The most serious flaw of this result in comparison to Eq. \[running1\] is that it has the opposite sign. The leading corrections to graviton scattering and to scalar scattering go in the opposite direction, which is not accountable by a common definition of a running coupling, an obvious lack of universality.
Gravitational scattering of non-identical particles
===================================================
Here we consider a different situation for the matter couplings - the scattering of non-identical particles. We will neglect the particle masses, so this corresponds to scattering at $s>>m^2$. This situation demonstrates both the crossing problem and the non-universality problem.
The example of the last section has more crossing symmetry than most gravitational reactions. Processes involving non-identical particles, or with fermions, will typically involve dominantly only one of the $s,t,u$ channels. Typical gravitational scattering of very massive particles will involve primarily $t$-channel exchange. Such distinctions highlight the difficulty of any given definition of a running $G$ being applicable to all processes.
By a direct computation of the appropriate set of Feynman diagrams, we find that the tree and one-loop amplitudes of the reaction $A+B\to A+B$ are $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
{\cal M}_{tree}&=&\frac{i\kappa^2 su}{4t}\,,\\
\nonumber
{\cal M}_{1-loop}&=&i\frac{\kappa^4}{\left(4\pi \right)^2}\left[\frac{1}{16}\left(s^4I_4(s,t)+u^4 I_4(u,t)\right) +\frac{1}{8}\left(s^3+u^3+tsu \right)I_3(t)-\frac{1}{8}\left(s^3I_3(s)+u^3I_3(u) \right) \right.\\
\label{ABAB scattering}
&&\left.\quad\quad\quad-\frac{1}{240}\left(71us-11t^2\right)I_2(t)+\frac{1}{16}\left(s^2I_2(s)+u^2I_2(u)\right) \right]\,.\end{aligned}$$ Then, we use Eq. \[removing IR\] in removing the IR divergences. The resulting hard amplitude reads $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
{\cal M}_{h}&=&i\frac{\kappa^4}{\left(4\pi \right)^2}\left[\frac{1}{8}\left(\frac{s^3}{t}\ln(-s)\ln(-t)+\frac{u^3}{t} \ln(-u)\ln(-t)\right) -\frac{1}{16t}\left(s^3+u^3+tsu \right)\ln(-t)+\frac{1}{16}\left(s^2\ln^2(-s)+u^2\ln^2(-u)\right) \right.\\
\nonumber
&&\left.\quad\quad\quad+\frac{us}{16t}\left(s\ln^2(-s)+t\ln^2(-t)+u\ln^2(-u) \right)+\frac{1}{240}\left(71us-11t^2\right)\ln(-t)-\frac{1}{16}\left(s^2\ln(-s)+u^2\ln(-u)\right) \right]\,,\\\end{aligned}$$ and the total amplitude at the center kinematic point $s=2E^2,~t=u=-E^2$ is $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal M}_{total}=\frac{i\kappa^2E^2}{2}\left[1-\frac{\kappa^2 E^2}{10(4\pi)^2}\left(\left(19+10\ln 2\right)\ln\left(\frac{E^2}{\mu^2}\right)+5\left(\pi^2-(\ln 2-1)\ln 2 \right) \right) \right]\,.\end{aligned}$$
On the other hand, the amplitude of the reaction $A+A\to B+B$ is given by Eq. \[ABAB scattering\] with the exchange $s\leftrightarrow t$, and has the amplitude $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal M}_{total}=\frac{i\kappa^2E^2}{8}\left[1+\frac{\kappa^2 E^2}{10(4\pi)^2}\left(9\ln\left(\frac{E^2}{\mu^2}\right)-5\pi^2+\left(19+5\ln 2 \right)\ln2 \right) \right]\,.\end{aligned}$$ The crossing problem is obvious here. The loop corrections are in opposite directions in the two reactions, largely because of the change in sign of the kinematic variables under crossing. Any definition of a running $G$ cannot capture this behavior - the coupling must either increase with energy scale or decrease with energy. The processes also illustrate the non-universality problem. Even two reactions that are this closely related have a different magnitude for the one loop correction when evaluated in the physical region.
Gravitational scattering of heavy masses
========================================
Finally we consider the quantum corrections to the scattering of heavy objects - let us call them planets. Are the gravitational corrections here similar to those of massless scalars or gravitons? This tests the universality property of a running coupling. This scattering amplitude is closest to the situations that we are familiar with defining the running couplings in QED or QCD
The gravitational interaction at one-loop is the result of several Feynman diagrams that vary in magnitude and sign. Written in coordinate space, the total loop correction changes the interaction to that quoted above in Eq. 1. Written in its original momentum space for this corresponds to $$V(q) = -4\pi\frac{GMm}{\mathbf{q}^2}\left[1+\frac{41}{20\pi}G{\mathbf{q}}^2\ln \left( \frac{\mu^2}{{\mathbf q}^2}\right)\right]\,.
\label{potential}$$ Note that in this case, we have written this result in terms of the spatial part of $q^2$, i.e. $q^2=-{\mathbf q}^2$ because the results were derived in the non-relativistic approximation. We should not consider crossing this amplitude to timelike $q^2$ because the planet masses could be well above the Planck scale. This result corresponds to an increase in the gravitational strength with increasing energy. Ascribing it to a a running $G$ would yield Eq. 2, or equivalently the momentum factor in square brackets in Eq. \[potential\]. Note that the parameter $\mu$ does not enter the coordinate space potential at finite $r$ because the Fourier transform of a constant is a delta function. We keep $\mu \sim M_P$ for the low energy validity of the effective theory.
The scattering amplitude leading to the result in Eq. \[potential\] includes all diagrams, including box and crossed-box diagrams and some triangle diagrams. In QED or QCD we do not use the full set of diagrams for the running charge, as we include only the vertex corrections and vacuum polarization. In these theories, this is appropriate because it is these diagrams that renormalize the gauge charge. In gravity, none of these diagrams renormalize G at low energy, so the rationale for including only a subset is not clear. Moreover, in gravity, this subset of diagrams does not by itself form a gauge invariant set. Nevertheless, we can look at this subset of diagrams in a particular gauge. In harmonic gauge, the inclusion of both vertex and vacuum polarization would be $$G(q) =G \left[1- \frac{167}{60\pi}G{\mathbf{q}}^2\ln \left( \frac{\mu^2}{{\mathbf q}^2}\right)\right]\,,$$ i.e. it carries the opposite sign from the full result. Even within this subset, one potentially might like to exclude the vertex diagrams because there is no Ward identity that indicates that these must be the same for all particles (i.e. photons vs planets). The vacuum polarization is however universal. Including only it would yield $$G(q) =G \left[1+ \frac{43}{60\pi}G{\mathbf{q}}^2\ln \left( \frac{\mu^2}{{\mathbf q}^2}\right)\right]\,,
\label{purevacpol}$$ as can be seen from Sec. 4. Overall, the non-relativistic scattering amplitude is made up of many large contributions that differ in sign and magnitude. Identifying a subset as the running charge would not capture the leading quantum effects. Moreover, we see that even the sign of the potential definition is not obvious as vertex and vacuum polarization diagrams have opposite signs. The sign of vacuum polarization correction in Eq. \[purevacpol\] agrees with that of the the total scattering amplitude in Eq. \[potential\], but the magnitude is different by a factor of three.
Lessons
=======
We have explored one-loop calculations in general relativity in the region where there is perturbative control over the theory. There emerges no definition of a running $G$ that is both useful and universal. The nature of the energy expansion of the effective field theory of gravity implies that quantum corrections are associated with the renormalization of higher order operators rather than the original Einstein action. This implies that the usual theoretical framework for running couplings, the renormalization group, does not by itself define a running $G$. And while a definition generally can be made that is useful within a given process, the quantum effects are so non-universal that this definition will not be usefully applied to other reactions.
We have illustrated a series of reactions with one-loop corrections which differ significantly. Perhaps lost in the variety of signs and magnitudes is the key point that quantum corrections do not organize themselves into a running coupling. This is the expected behavior of an effective field theory. The relevant higher order operators are process dependent and decoupled from the renormalization of the lowest order operator. The kinematic variation of the one loop corrections are more complex than just mirroring the leading behavior because they involve higher powers of the momentum invariants and there are many allowed kinematic factors present at higher order. Attempts to repackage this larger kinematic variation as if it were a modification of the lowest order amplitude, i.e. a running coupling, will then in general fail because the running coupling cannot mimic the richer kinematics of the higher order terms. This leads directly to the crossing problem and the non-universality problem, both of which occur when one tries to define a running $G$.
Our work also provides cautions for the Asymptotic Safety program, which employs a running gravitational coupling in the non-perturbative regime beyond the Planck scale. Let us mention some of the obstacles. The process of defining the running coupling requires a truncation of the operator basis, and the effects of the infinite set of higher order operators get repackaged as if they were contained in a small set of low order operators. This raises the issues that appears in our calculations - will this repackaging be universal? Will the matter couplings in the theory - which provide one definition of $G$ - have the same quantum corrections as the pure gravity sector - which provide another definition of $G$? Will 2-point, 4-point and 8-point functions, for example, have the same behavior? Due to the presence of all the higher order operators, general covariance by itself does not require these functions to have the universal behavior expected from a running coupling constant. Our calculations showed highly non-universal behavior. Another issue is the continuation back to physical Lorentzian spacetime. In Asymptotic Safety, the running coupling defined in Euclidean space must be continued to physical spacteimes when applied to the real world. Lorentzian spacetimes have momentum variables of both signs and the analytic continuation of power corrections must be more complicated, and we have seen examples of reactions where the crossing problem made any running coupling useless. A naive continuation of a function such as Eq. \[runningform\] raises the possibility of poles for certain kinematic configurations.
The best candidate for a universal contribution to a running $G$ comes from the vacuum polarization amplitude. The correction to the graviton propagator will occur anytime a graviton is exchanged, either at tree level or within loops. However, here the perturbative result has the wrong sign when Euclideanized - the gravitational strength increases. There is also the crossing problem in Lorentzian spacetime. Even if the vacuum polarization could be summed to a function with a good high energy behavior, for example a form such as $$\frac{{\cal P}^{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}}{q^2 + \alpha G q^4}~~,$$ but such functions often have trouble with ghosts when used at high energy or within loop diagrams. [^5] The potential problems of gravity treated beyond the Planck scale need not be problematic if the effective theory gets modified at that scale by new degrees of freedom and a change in the description of the theory. General relativity would still form a quantum effective field theory with calculable quantum effects below the Planck energy. However, in such effective field theories with a dimensional coupling it has not proven useful to employ running coupling constants. We have shown the difficulties of trying to define a running $G$ in gravity.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
The work of J.D. is supported in part by the U.S. NSF grant PHY-0855119. The work of M.A. has been supported by NSERC Discovery Grant of Canada. John Donoghue acknowledges the kind hospitality of the Niels Bohr International Academy, where most of this research was accomplished, and thanks N.E.J. Bjerrum-Bohr for useful conversations.
[99]{}
N. E. J. Bjerrum-Bohr, J. F. Donoghue, B. R. Holstein, “Quantum gravitational corrections to the nonrelativistic scattering potential of two masses,” Phys. Rev. [**D67**]{}, 084033 (2003). \[hep-th/0211072\].\
I. B. Khriplovich, G. G. Kirilin, “Quantum power correction to the Newton law,” J. Exp. Theor. Phys. [**95**]{}, 981-986 (2002). \[gr-qc/0207118\].
A. F. Radkowski, “ Some aspects of the Source Description of gravitation,” Annals of Physics [**56**]{}, 319 (1970).
X. Calmet, S. D. H. Hsu, D. Reeb, “Quantum gravity at a TeV and the renormalization of Newton’s constant,” Phys. Rev. [**D77**]{}, 125015 (2008). \[arXiv:0803.1836 \[hep-th\]\].\
E. Elizalde, S. D. Odintsov, I. L. Shapiro, “Asymptotic regimes in quantum gravity at large distances and running Newtonian and cosmological constants,” Class. Quant. Grav. [**11**]{}, 1607-1614 (1994). \[hep-th/9404064\].\
N. E. J. Bjerrum-Bohr, J. F. Donoghue, B. R. Holstein, “Quantum corrections to the Schwarzschild and Kerr metrics,” Phys. Rev. [**D68**]{}, 084005 (2003). \[hep-th/0211071\].\
G. Narain, R. Anishetty, “Short Distance Freedom of Quantum Gravity,” \[arXiv:1109.3981 \[hep-th\]\].\
H. W. Hamber, “Ultraviolet Divergences and Scale-Dependent Gravitational Couplings,” \[arXiv:1002.0813 \[hep-th\]\].\
H. W. Hamber, R. M. Williams, “Nonlocal effective gravitational field equations and the running of Newton’s G,” Phys. Rev. [**D72**]{}, 044026 (2005). \[arXiv:hep-th/0507017 \[hep-th\]\].\
R. Garattini, “Running Cosmological Constant and Running Newton Constant in Modified Gravity Theories,” AIP Conf. Proc. [**1241**]{}, 866-875 (2010). \[arXiv:0911.2393 \[gr-qc\]\].\
F. Girelli, S. Liberati, R. Percacci, C. Rahmede, “Modified Dispersion Relations from the Renormalization Group of Gravity,” Class. Quant. Grav. [**24**]{}, 3995-4008 (2007). \[gr-qc/0607030\].\
M. Reuter, H. Weyer, “Quantum gravity at astrophysical distances?,” JCAP [**0412**]{}, 001 (2004). \[hep-th/0410119\].\
D. A. R. Dalvit, F. D. Mazzitelli, “Heat kernel and scaling of gravitational constants,” Phys. Rev. [**D52**]{}, 2577-2580 (1995). \[arXiv:hep-th/9410032 \[hep-th\]\].
Weinberg, S., “Ultraviolet divergencies in quantum theories of gravitation”, in Hawking, S.W., and Israel, W., eds., General Relativity: An Einstein Centenary Survey, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.; New York, U.S.A., 1979).
M. Niedermaier, M. Reuter, “The Asymptotic Safety Scenario in Quantum Gravity,” Living Rev. Rel. [**9**]{}, 5 (2006).
J. F. Donoghue, “General Relativity As An Effective Field Theory: The Leading Quantum Corrections,” Phys. Rev. D [**50**]{}, 3874 (1994) \[arXiv:gr-qc/9405057\].\
J. F. Donoghue, “Leading quantum correction to the Newtonian potential,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**72**]{}, 2996 (1994) \[arXiv:gr-qc/9310024\].\
C. P. Burgess, “Quantum gravity in everyday life: General relativity as an effective field theory,” Living Rev. Rel. [**7**]{}, 5 (2004) \[arXiv:gr-qc/0311082\].
S. Weinberg, “Phenomenological Lagrangians,” Physica A [**96**]{}, 327 (1979).\
M. Buchler and G. Colangelo, “Renormalization group equations for effective field theories,” Eur. Phys. J. C [**32**]{}, 427 (2003) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0309049\].\
M. Bissegger and A. Fuhrer, “A renormalizable effective theory for leading logarithms in ChPT,” Eur. Phys. J. C [**51**]{}, 75 (2007) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0701132\].\
J. Bijnens, “Chiral Perturbation Theory Beyond One Loop,” Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. [**58**]{}, 521 (2007) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0604043\].\
J. Bijnens and L. Carloni, “Leading Logarithms in the Massive O(N) Nonlinear Sigma Model,” Nucl. Phys. B [**827**]{}, 237 (2010) \[arXiv:0909.5086 \[hep-ph\]\].\
N. Kivel, M. V. Polyakov and A. Vladimirov, “Chiral Logarithms in the Massless Limit Tamed,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**101**]{}, 262001 (2008) \[arXiv:0809.3236 \[hep-ph\]\].\
J. Koschinski, M. V. Polyakov and A. A. Vladimirov, “Leading Infrared Logarithms from Unitarity, Analyticity and Crossing,” Phys. Rev. D [**82**]{}, 014014 (2010) \[arXiv:1004.2197 \[hep-ph\]\].
M. M. Anber, J. F. Donoghue, M. El-Houssieny, “Running couplings and operator mixing in the gravitational corrections to coupling constants,” Phys. Rev. [**D83**]{}, 124003 (2011). \[arXiv:1011.3229 \[hep-th\]\]
A. R. Pietrykowski, “Gauge dependence of gravitational correction to running of gauge couplings,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**98**]{}, 061801 (2007) \[arXiv:hep-th/0606208\].\
D. J. Toms, “Quantum gravity and charge renormalization,” Phys. Rev. D [**76**]{}, 045015 (2007) \[arXiv:0708.2990 \[hep-th\]\].\
D. Ebert, J. Plefka and A. Rodigast, “Absence of gravitational contributions to the running Yang-Mills coupling,” Phys. Lett. B [**660**]{}, 579 (2008) \[arXiv:0710.1002 \[hep-th\]\].\
Y. Tang and Y. L. Wu, “Gravitational Contributions to the Running of Gauge Couplings,” arXiv:0807.0331 \[hep-ph\].\
A. Rodigast and T. Schuster, “Gravitational Corrections to Yukawa and $\phi^4$ Interactions,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**104**]{}, 081301 (2010) \[arXiv:0908.2422 \[hep-th\]\].\
J. E. Daum, U. Harst and M. Reuter, “Running Gauge Coupling in Asymptotically Safe Quantum Gravity,” JHEP [**1001**]{}, 084 (2010) \[arXiv:0910.4938 \[hep-th\]\].
S. P. Robinson and F. Wilczek, “Gravitational correction to running of gauge couplings,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**96**]{}, 231601 (2006) \[arXiv:hep-th/0509050\].\
Y. Tang and Y. L. Wu, “Gravitational Contributions to the Running of Gauge Couplings,” arXiv:0807.0331 \[hep-ph\].\
D. J. Toms, “Quantum gravitational contributions to quantum electrodynamics,” Nature [**468**]{}, 56-59 (2010). \[arXiv:1010.0793 \[hep-th\]\].\
H. -J. He, X. -F. Wang, Z. -Z. Xianyu, “Gauge-Invariant Quantum Gravity Corrections to Gauge Couplings via Vilkovisky-DeWitt Method and Gravity Assisted Gauge Unification,” \[arXiv:1008.1839 \[hep-th\]\]. D. J. Toms, “Quadratic divergences and quantum gravitational contributions to gauge coupling constants,” Phys. Rev. [**D84**]{}, 084016 (2011).
G. ’t Hooft, M. J. G. Veltman, “One loop divergencies in the theory of gravitation,” Annales Poincare Phys. Theor. [**A20**]{}, 69-94 (1974).
D. C. Dunbar, P. S. Norridge, “Calculation of graviton scattering amplitudes using string based methods,” Nucl. Phys. [**B433**]{}, 181-208 (1995). \[hep-th/9408014\].
J. F. Donoghue, T. Torma, “Infrared behavior of graviton-graviton scattering,” Phys. Rev. [**D60**]{}, 024003 (1999). \[hep-th/9901156\].
D. C. Dunbar, P. S. Norridge, “Infinities within graviton scattering amplitudes,” Class. Quant. Grav. [**14**]{}, 351-365 (1997). \[hep-th/9512084\].
G. Dvali, S. Folkerts and C. Germani, “Physics of Trans-Planckian Gravity,” Phys. Rev. D [**84**]{}, 024039 (2011) \[arXiv:1006.0984 \[hep-th\]\]. S. B. Giddings, M. Schmidt-Sommerfeld and J. R. Andersen, “High energy scattering in gravity and supergravity,” Phys. Rev. D [**82**]{}, 104022 (2010) \[arXiv:1005.5408 \[hep-th\]\].\
S. B. Giddings, “The gravitational S-matrix: Erice lectures,” arXiv:1105.2036 \[hep-th\].
[^1]: We do not display the classical correction to the potential, as it is not relevant for our discussion. For an early attempt to calculate the quantum correction to the gravitational potential see [@radkowski].
[^2]: The amplitude in Eq. \[gravtree\] is often referred to as the maximally helicity violating (MHV) amplitude in the all-ingoing convention.
[^3]: The scattering amplitudes quoted are only valid on-shell. Off-shell evaluation would involve divergences.
[^4]: We correct for a few typos found in the result Eq 4.12 of [@Dunbar:1995ed]. We verified Eq. \[AAAAScattering\] by directly computing the whole set of the one-loop Feynman diagrams.
[^5]: For other challenges with the trans-Planckian gravity see e.g. [@Dvali:2010ue] and [@Giddings:2010pp].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this paper we introduce and study uniform bases for the ideal arrangements. In particular, explicit uniform bases are presented on each Lie type. Combining the explicit uniform bases with the work of Abe-Horiguchi-Masuda-Murai-Sato, we also obtain explicit presentations of the cohomology rings of regular nilpotent Hessenberg varieties in all Lie types.'
address:
- 'Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Science and Technology, Tokyo University of Science, 2641 Yamazaki, Noda, Chiba 278-8510, Japan'
- 'Department of Pure and Applied Mathematics, Graduate School of Information Science and Technology, Osaka University, 1-5, Yamadaoka, Suita, Osaka, 565-0871, Japan'
- 'Department of Mathematics, Graduate School of Science, Kyoto University, Kyoto, 606-8522, Japan'
- 'Graduate school of Mathematical Sciences, University of Tokyo, Komaba, Meguro-ku, Tokyo 153-8914, Japan'
author:
- Makoto Enokizono
- Tatsuya Horiguchi
- Takahiro Nagaoka
- Akiyoshi Tsuchiya
title: Uniform bases for ideal arrangements
---
Introduction {#sec:introduction}
============
In this paper we study bases of the logarithmic derivation modules of the ideal arrangements. Ideal arrangements are subarrangements of the Weyl arrangement which are free arrangements from the work of Abe, Barakat, Cuntz, Hoge, and Terao ([@ABCHT]). Here, a (central) hyperplane arrangement $\A$ is free if its logarithmic derivation module $D(\A)$ (geometrically a polynomial vector fields tangent to $\A$) is a free module. To prove freeness for the ideal arrangements, they first provided the multiple addition theorem (MAT) and applied MAT to the ideal arrangements. In the proof of MAT they gave a method to construct a basis of the logarithmic derivation module $D(\A)$ from a basis of $D(\A')$ for suitable arrangements $\A \supset \A'$.
For a construction of explicit bases of the logarithmic derivation modules of the ideal arrangements for each Lie type, Barakat, Cuntz, and Hoge provided ones for types $E$ and $F$ by computer when the work of [@ABCHT] was in progress. Also, Terao and Abe worked for types $A$ and $B$, respectively. In [@AHMMS] explicit and uniform bases were constructed for types $A$, $B$, $C$, $G$. Motivated by this, we introduce the notion of uniform bases for the ideal arrangements. We then prove the existence of uniform bases by using the method to construct bases in MAT of [@ABCHT].
We now describe our uniform bases for the ideal arrangements. Let $\mathfrak{t}$ be a real euclidean space and $\Phi$ an irreducible root system of rank $n$ on $\mathfrak{t}^*$, the dual space of $\mathfrak{t}$. The set of positive roots is denoted by $\Phi^+$. To $\alpha \in \Phi^+$ we assign the hyperplane $H_\alpha:=\ker \alpha$ in $\mathfrak{t}$. The set of hyperplanes $H_\alpha$ $(\alpha \in \Phi^+)$ is called the **Weyl arrangement**. Let $I \subset \Phi^+$ be a lower ideal and the set of hyperplanes $H_\alpha$ $(\alpha \in I)$ is called the **ideal arrangement**, denoted by $\A_I$. Let $\CR=\mbox{Sym}(\mathfrak{t}^*)$ be the symmetric algebra of the dual space $\mathfrak{t}^*$ and we consider the set of $\R$-derivations of $\CR$, denoted by $\operatorname{Der}\CR$. The **logarithmic derivation module** of an ideal arrangement $\A_I$ is defined as $$D(\A_I)=\{ \theta\in \operatorname{Der}\CR \mid \theta(\alpha)\in \CR\alpha \ ({}^\forall \alpha\in I)\}.$$ By the work of [@ABCHT] the logarithmic derivation module $D(\A_I)$ is a free $\CR$-module, namely $\A_I$ is a free arrangement. To explain our uniform bases for the ideal arrangement, we need a “good” decomposition of positive roots $\Phi^+=\coprod_{i=1}^n \ \Phi^+_i$ (see Section \[section:uniformbases\] for the details). We fix such a decomposition and define the **Hessenberg function $h_I: \{1,\ldots,n\} \to \Z_{\geq 0}$ associated with a lower ideal $I$**. Note that the Hessenberg function $h_I$ suitably converts a lower ideal $I$ into numerical values. A set of derivations $\{\psi_{i,j} \in \operatorname{Der}\CR \mid 1 \leq i \leq n, i \leq j \leq i+|\Phi_i^+| \}$ forms **uniform bases for the ideal arrangements** if derivations $\{\psi_{i,h_I(i)} \mid 1 \leq i \leq n \}$ form an $\CR$-basis of $D(\A_I)$ for any lower ideal $I$. Our main theorem states that there exist uniform bases for the ideal arrangements (Theorem \[theorem:main1\]). Furthermore, our uniform bases are inductively constructed by invertible matrices $P_m$ for $0 \leq m \leq \operatorname{ht}(\Phi^+)$. More precisely, the initial data $\psi_{1,1},\ldots,\psi_{n,n}$ are the dual basis of the simple roots $\alpha_1, \ldots, \alpha_n$ up to a non-zero scalar multiplication. (Note that $P_0$ is the diagonal matrix whose diagonal entries are the non-zero scalars.) For the next step $\psi_{1,2},\ldots,\psi_{n,n+1}$, each $\psi_{i,i+1}$ is defined by a linear combination of $\alpha_1\psi_{1,1},\ldots,\alpha_n\psi_{n,n}$ as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
[\psi_{i,i+1}]_{1 \leq i \leq n}&=P_1[\alpha_{j}\psi_{j,j}]_{1 \leq j \leq n} \end{aligned}$$ for some invertible matrix $P_1$. Proceeding inductively, $\psi_{i,i+m}$ is defined by a linear combination of the products $\alpha_{j,j+m}\psi_{j,j+m-1}$ where $P_m$ denotes the array of the coefficients in the linear combinations. Here, the derivations $\psi_{j,j+m-1}$ are defined in the previous step, and the notation $\alpha_{j,j+m}$ means a positive root in $\Phi^+_j$ with height $m$. Hence, our uniform bases are determined by the invertible matrices $P_0,P_1,\ldots,P_{\operatorname{ht}(\Phi^+)}$ in order. We also prove that when we determined $P_0,P_1,\ldots,P_{m-1}$, the invertible matrix $P_m$ is uniquely determined up to an equivalence defined by the special elementary row operations (Theorem \[theorem:main1uniqueness\]). Moreover, we give explicitly the invertible matrices $P_0,P_1,\ldots,P_{\operatorname{ht}(\Phi^+)}$ on each Lie type (Section \[section:matrixPm\]). In particular, for type $D$ an explicit formula for uniform bases is described. (For types $A,B,C,G$ an explicit formula for uniform bases were given in [@AHMMS].)
Surprisingly, the logarithmic derivation module of an ideal arrangement determines the cohomology ring of the regular nilpotent Hessenberg variety from the work of [@AHMMS]. Hessenberg varieties are subvarieties of the full flag variety which was introduced by De Mari, Procesi, and Shayman around 1990 ([@dMS; @dMPS]). This subject is relatively new, and it has been found that geometry, combinatorics, and representation theory interact nicely on Hessenberg varieties (cf. [@AH]). As one of the interactions, the cohomology ring of a regular nilpotent Hessenberg variety can be described in terms of the logarithmic derivation module of the ideal arrangement ([@AHMMS]). Originally, explicit presentations of the cohomology rings of regular nilpotent Hessenberg varieties in type $A$ are given by [@AHHM] from the point of view of the localization technique. Motivated by this work, in [@AHMMS] explicit presentations of the cohomology rings of regular nilpotent Hessenberg varieties for types $A,B,C,G$ are given from the perspective of surprising connection with the logarithmic derivation modules of the ideal arrangements. From our explicit uniform bases for the ideal arrangements, we obtain explicit presentations of the cohomology rings of regular nilpotent Hessenberg varieties in all Lie types (Corollary \[corollary:cohomologyHess\]) which generalize the result of [@HHM].
The paper is organized as follows. After briefly reviewing some background and terminology on ideal arrangements in Section \[section:ideal arrangements\], we introduce the notion of uniform bases and state a key proposition for uniform bases in Section \[section:uniformbases\]. The proofs of the main theorems (Theorems \[theorem:main1\] and \[theorem:main1uniqueness\]) for the existence and “uniqueness” of uniform bases are achieved in Section \[section:maintheorem\]. We construct explicit uniform bases on each Lie type in Section \[section:matrixPm\]. In Section \[section:root subsystem\], we discuss uniform bases for the ideal arrangements in a root subsystem. In particular, uniform bases for the ideal arrangements of types $E_6,E_7$ can be obtained from that of type $E_8$. In Section \[section:Hessenberg varieties\], we explain the connection between ideal arrangements and Hessenberg varieties given in [@AHMMS] and give explicit presentations of the cohomology rings of regular nilpotent Hessenberg varieties in all Lie types (Corollary \[corollary:cohomologyHess\]).
**Acknowledgements.**
We are grateful to Takuro Abe for his historical and valuable comments on bases of the logarithmic derivation modules of the ideal arrangements. The first author was partially supported by JSPS Grant-in-Aid for Research Activity Start-up: 19K23407. The second author was partially supported by JSPS Grant-in-Aid for JSPS Research Fellow: 17J04330. He was also partially supported by JSPS Grant-in-Aid for Young Scientists: 19K14508. The third author was partially supported by JSPS Grant-in-Aid for JSPS Research Fellow: 19J11207. The fourth author was partially supported by JSPS Grant-in-Aid for JSPS Research Fellow: 19J00312. He was also partially supported by JSPS Grant-in-Aid for Young Scientists: 19K14505.
Ideal arrangements {#section:ideal arrangements}
==================
In this section we first refer some terminologies of hyperplane arrangements (for a general reference, see [@OT]). Then we explain ideal-free theorem proved by [@ABCHT]. More specifically, we explain the method to construct bases of the logarithmic derivation modules of the ideal arrangements.
Let $V$ be a finite dimensional real vector space. A **hyperplane arrangement** $\A$ in $V$ is a finite set of linear hyperplanes in $V$. Let $\CR=\mbox{Sym}(V^*)$ be the symmetric algebra of $V^*$, where $V^*$ is the dual space of $V$. A map $\theta: \CR \to \CR$ is an **$\R$-derivation** if it satisfies
1. $\theta$ is $\R$-linear,
2. $\theta(f \cdot g)=\theta(f) \cdot g+f \cdot \theta(g)$ for all $f,g \in \CR$.
We denote the set of $\R$-derivations by $\operatorname{Der}\CR$. Note that $\operatorname{Der}\CR$ is an $\CR$-module. We can naturally regard an element of $V$ as an $\R$-derivation, so we have the following identification: $$\operatorname{Der}\CR=\CR \otimes V.$$ If we take a basis $x_1,\ldots,x_n$ of $V^*$, then the $\CR$-module $\operatorname{Der}\CR$ can be expressed as $\bigoplus_{i=1}^n \CR \, \frac{\partial}{\partial{x_i}}$ where $\frac{\partial}{\partial{x_i}}$ denotes the partial derivative with respect to $x_i$.
A non-zero element $\theta \in \operatorname{Der}\CR$ is **homogeneous of (polynomial) degree** $d$ if $\theta=\sum_{k=1}^{\ell}f_k\otimes v_k$ $(f_k\in \CR,\ v_k\in V)$ and all non-zero $f_k$’s are of degree $d$. In this case, we denote $\deg(\theta)=d$ as usual.
For each hyperplane $H \in \A$, we denote the defining linear form of $H$ by $\alpha_H \in V^*$. The **logarithmic derivation module** $D(\A)$ of a hyperplane arrangement $\A$ is defined as $$D(\A):=\{\theta \in \operatorname{Der}\CR \mid
\theta(\alpha_H) \in \CR \alpha_H \ (^\forall H \in \A)\}.$$ Note that $D(\A)$ is a graded $\CR$-submodule, but not a free $\CR$-module in general. We say that a hyperplane arrangement $\A$ is **free with the exponents** $\exp(\A)=
(d_1,\ldots,d_n)$ if $D(\A)$ is a free $\CR$-module with homogeneous basis $\theta_1,\ldots,\theta_n$ of degree $d_1,\ldots,d_n$.
Let $\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_n$ be a basis of $V^*$. Given derivations $\theta_1,\ldots,\theta_n$, we define a matrix $\textrm{M}(\theta_1,\ldots,\theta_n)$ by $$\textrm{M}(\theta_1,\ldots,\theta_n)=(\theta_i(\alpha_j))_{1 \leq i,j \leq n}.$$ It is convenient to write $f \ \dot{=} \ g$ for $f,g \in \CR$ if $f=cg$ for some $c \in \R\setminus \{0\}$. The following criterion for bases of the logarithmic derivation modules is known.
\[theorem:Saito’s criterion\] Let $\A$ be a hyperplane arrangement in an $n$-dimensional real vector space $V$. Let $\theta_1,\ldots,\theta_n \in D(\A)$ be homogeneous derivations. Then the following arguments are equivalent$:$
1. $\theta_1,\ldots,\theta_n$ form an $\CR$-basis for $D(\A)$$;$
2. $\theta_1,\ldots,\theta_n$ are linearly independent over $\CR$ and $\sum_{i=1}^n \deg \theta_i=|\A|$$;$
3. $\det {\rm M}(\theta_1,\ldots,\theta_n) \ \dot{=} \ \big(\prod_{H \in \A} \alpha_H \big)$.
We now explain ideal arrangements which are the main objects of the paper. Let $\mathfrak{t}$ be a (real) euclidean space. Let $\Phi \subset \mathfrak{t}^*$ be an irreducible root system of rank $n$. We denote the set of positive roots by $\Phi^+$. We fix simple roots $\alpha_1,\dots,\alpha_n$ and define a partial order $\preceq$ on $\Phi^+$; $\alpha \preceq \beta$ if and only if $\beta-\alpha \in \sum_{i=1}^n \Z_{\ge 0} \alpha_i$. A **lower ideal** $I \subset \Phi^+$ is a collection of positive roots such that if $\alpha \in \Phi^+$ and $\beta \in I$ with $\alpha \preceq \beta$, then $\alpha \in I$. The **ideal arrangement** $\A_I$ associated with a lower ideal $I$ is defined as $$\A_I:=\{\ker\alpha \mid \alpha \in I\}.$$ If we take $I=\Phi^+$, then $\A_{\Phi^+}$ is called the **Weyl arrangement**. Recall that $\CR=\mbox{Sym}(\mathfrak{t}^*)$ and the logarithmic derivation module of the ideal arrangement $\A_I$ is $$D(\A_I)=\{ \theta\in \operatorname{Der}\CR=\CR\otimes \mathfrak{t} \mid \theta(\alpha)\in \CR\alpha \ ({}^\forall \alpha\in I)\}.$$
The height of a root $\alpha=\sum_{i=1}^n k_i \alpha_i$ is defined by $\operatorname{ht}(\alpha)=\sum_{i=1}^n k_i$. The **height distribution** in $I$ is a sequence $(i_1,i_2,\dots,i_m)$, where $i_j$ is the number of positive roots of height $j$ in $I$, and $m$ is the maximum of the height of positive roots in $I$. Also, the **dual partition** of the height distribution $(i_1, i_2,\dots,i_m)$ in $I$ is the sequence of $n$ elements given by $((0)^{i_0-i_1}, (1)^{i_1-i_2}, \dots, (m-1)^{i_{m-1}-i_m}, (m)^{i_m})$, where $i_0 = n$ and $(i)^j$ denotes the $j$-copies of $i$. We denote the dual partition of the height distribution in $I$ by $\mathcal{DP}(I)$.
\[theorem:ABCHT\] Any ideal arrangement $\A_I$ is free with the exponents $\mathcal{DP}(I)$.
To prove Theorem \[theorem:ABCHT\], Abe, Barakat, Cuntz, Hoge, and Terao provided the multiple addition theorem (MAT) ([@ABCHT Theorem 3.1]). In the proof of MAT they gave a method to construct an $\CR$-basis of $D(\A)$ from that of $D(\A')$ for suitable arrangements $\A \supset \A'$. For the rest of this section, we briefly explain the method to construct an $\CR$-basis under the circumstances of ideal arrangements.
For a lower ideal $I$ we define the height of $I$ by $\operatorname{ht}(I)=\mbox{max}\{\operatorname{ht}(\alpha) \mid \alpha \in I \}$. Suppose that $\operatorname{ht}(I)=m+1$ with $m \geq 0$. Let $I'$ be a lower ideal defined by $$I':=\{\alpha \in I \mid \operatorname{ht}(\alpha) \leq m \}$$ and we set $I \setminus I' = \{\beta_1,\ldots,\beta_q \}$. For each $j=1,\ldots,q$, we define a hyperplane arrangement $\A''_j$ in $H_j$ by $\A''_j=\{H \cap H_j \mid H \in \A_{I'} \}$ where $H_j$ is a hyperplane defined by the linear function $\beta_j$. For each $j=1,\ldots,q$, we fix a map $$\nu_j: \A''_j \to \A_{I'}$$ such that $\nu_j(X) \cap H_j =X$, and define a homogeneous polynomial $$b_{\nu_j}:= \frac{\prod_{H \in \A_{I'}} \alpha_H}{\prod_{X \in \A''_j} \alpha_{\nu_j(X)}}= \frac{\prod_{\alpha \in I'} \alpha}{\prod_{X \in \A''_j} \alpha_{\nu_j(X)}}.$$
\[proposition:idealbnu\] For any $\theta \in D(\A_{I'})$, $$\theta(\beta_j) \in \CR(\beta_j, b_{\nu_j}).$$
\[proposition:ABCHTdegree\] One has $\deg(b_{\nu_j})=m$.
Let $\theta_1, \ldots, \theta_n$ be an $\CR$-basis of $D(\A_{I'})$ with $d_i:=\deg(\theta_i)$ such that $d_1 \leq \ldots \leq d_{n-p} < d_{n-p+1}=\cdots=d_n=m$ for some $p$. Then, the degree of $\theta_1,\ldots,\theta_{n-p}$ is strictly less than $m$, so we have $\theta_1,\ldots,\theta_{n-p} \in D(\A_I)$ from Propositions \[proposition:idealbnu\] and \[proposition:ABCHTdegree\]. We put $\varphi_i:=\theta_{n-i+1}$ for $1 \leq i \leq p$. By Proposition \[proposition:idealbnu\], for $1 \leq i \leq p$ and $1 \leq j \leq q$ we can write $$\varphi_i(\beta_j) \equiv c_{ij}^{(\nu_j)} b_{\nu_j} \ \ \ \ \ \mbox{mod} \ \beta_j$$ for some rational number $c_{ij}^{(\nu_j)}$ ($1 \leq i \leq p$, $1 \leq j \leq q$). The following is a key of the proof of MAT ([@ABCHT Theorem 3.1]).
\[proposition:ABCHTrank\] The $(p \times q)$-matrix $C:=(c_{ij}^{(\nu_j)})_{\substack{1 \leq i \leq p \\ 1 \leq j \leq q}}$ has rank $q$.
Hence by Proposition \[proposition:ABCHTrank\], there exists $P=(p_{ik})_{1 \leq i,k \leq p} \in \operatorname{GL}(p,\Q)$ such that $$PC=\begin{bmatrix}
E_q \\
O
\end{bmatrix}.$$ We put $$\psi_i:=\sum_{k=1}^p p_{ik} \varphi_k$$ for $1 \leq i \leq p$. One can see that $\beta_1\psi_1,\ldots,\beta_q\psi_q,\psi_{q+1},\ldots,\psi_{p} \in D(\A_I)$. It is clear that $\theta_{1},\ldots,\theta_{n-p},\beta_1\psi_1,\ldots,\beta_q\psi_q,\psi_{q+1},\ldots,\psi_{p}$ are linearly independent over $\CR$ and the sum of their degree is equal to $|\A_I|$, so they form an $\CR$-basis of $D(\A_I)$ from Theorem \[theorem:Saito’s criterion\].
\[theorem:ABCHTbasis\] The derivations $\theta_{1},\ldots,\theta_{n-p}, \beta_1\psi_1,\ldots,\beta_q\psi_q, \psi_{q+1},\ldots,\psi_{p}$ form an $\CR$-basis of $D(\A_I)$.
Hence by Theorem \[theorem:ABCHTbasis\] we can construct an $\CR$-basis of $D(\A_I)$ for any lower ideal $I$ from that of $D(\A_{I'})$ for the smaller lower ideal $I' \subset I$. Our motivation is to construct these bases uniformly. In next section we introduce the notion of *uniform bases*. Then, we construct uniform bases inductively by using the method of Abe, Barakat, Cuntz, Hoge, and Terao explained above.
Uniform bases {#section:uniformbases}
=============
In this section we first introduce the notion of Hessenberg functions $h_I$ associated with lower ideals $I$ for all Lie types. Hessenberg functions convert the lower ideals into numerical values. Then we define uniform bases and state a key proposition for uniform bases. In what follows, we frequently use the symbol $$[n]:=\{1,2,\ldots,n\}.$$
Let $\e_1,\e_2,\ldots,\e_n$ be the exponents of the Weyl group $W$. (For the list of exponents $e_1,\ldots,e_n$, see for example [@Hum1990 p.59 Table 1 and p.81 Theorem 3.19].) We define a decomposition of all positive roots $\Phi^+$ as follows. Let $\Phi^+_i$ be a set of positive roots $\alpha_{i,i+1}, \alpha_{i,i+2}, \ldots, \alpha_{i,i+\e_i}$ for $1 \leq i \leq n$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
&\alpha_{i,i+1}=\alpha_i \ \ \ {\rm the \ simple \ root} \label{eq:decomposition1} \\
&\alpha_{i,j} \lessdot \alpha_{i,j+1} \ \ {\rm for \ any} \ j \ {\rm with} \ i<j<i+\e_i \label{eq:decomposition2}\end{aligned}$$ Here, we denote the covering relation by the symbol $\lessdot$, namely, $\alpha_{i,j} \prec \alpha_{i,j+1}$ and there is no element $\beta \in \Phi^+$ such that $\alpha_{i,j} \prec \beta \prec \alpha_{i,j+1}$. The sets $\Phi^+_i \ (1 \leq i \leq n)$ give disjoint $n$ maximal chains. In particular, we have a decomposition of the positive roots $\Phi^+=\coprod_{i=1}^n \ \Phi^+_i$. Note that such a decomposition is not unique. We fix such a decomposition $\Phi^+=\coprod_{i=1}^n \ \Phi^+_i$ and define the **Hessenberg function $h_I: [n] \to \Z_{\geq 0}$ associated with a lower ideal $I$** by the following formula: $$\label{eq:Hessft}
h_I(i):=\begin{cases}
\mbox{max}\{j \mid \alpha_{i,j} \in I \cap \Phi^+_i \} \ \ \ &{\rm if} \ I \cap \Phi^+_i \neq \emptyset, \\
i \ \ \ &{\rm if} \ I \cap \Phi^+_i = \emptyset
\end{cases}$$ for $1 \leq i \leq n$.
\[example:An-1Hessenbergfunction\] In type $A_{n-1}$ we set the exponents $e_i=n-i$ for $i=1,\ldots,n-1$ and positive roots $\Phi_{A_{n-1}}^+=\{x_i-x_j \mid 1 \leq i < j \leq n \}$. Let $\alpha_{i,j}=x_i-x_j$ for $1 \leq i < j \leq n$. Then, $\Phi_i^+=\{\alpha_{i,i+1},\ldots,\alpha_{i,n} \}$ satisfies the conditions and . In this setting, for example, the Hessenberg function[^1] $h_I:[n-1] \to \Z_{\geq 0}$ associated with the lower ideal $I=\{\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_{n-1}\}$ is given by $h_I(i)=i+1$ for $i \in [n-1]$.
We fix a decomposition $\Phi^+=\coprod_{i=1}^n \ \Phi^+_i$ satisfying and . A set of derivations $\{\psi_{i,j} \in \operatorname{Der}\CR \mid 1 \leq i \leq n, i \leq j \leq i+e_i \}$ forms **uniform bases for the ideal arrangements** (or simply **uniform bases**) if derivations $\{\psi_{i,h_I(i)} \mid 1 \leq i \leq n \}$ form an $\CR$-basis of $D(\A_I)$ for any lower ideal $I$.
Noting that $\operatorname{ht}(\alpha_{i,j})=j-i$, a set $\{h_I(i)-i \mid 1 \leq i \leq n \}$ is the dual partition of the height distribution in $I$. From this together with Theorem \[theorem:ABCHT\] we have $$\label{eq:exponentsHessenbergfunction}
\exp(\A_I)=\{h_I(i)-i \mid 1 \leq i \leq n \}.$$ In particular, we have $$\operatorname{ht}(I)=\mbox{max} \{h_I(i)-i \mid 1 \leq i \leq n \}.$$ For each lower ideal $I$ we define a subset $\Lambda_I$ of $[n]$ as follows: $$\Lambda_I:=\{i \in [n] \mid h_I(i)-i = \operatorname{ht}(I) \}.$$ Let us denote the cardinality of $\Lambda_I$ by $\lambda_I=|\Lambda_I|$.
We consider the setting of Example \[example:An-1Hessenbergfunction\]. Let $n=5$ and we take $$I=\{x_1-x_2, x_1-x_3, x_2-x_3, x_3-x_4, x_3-x_5, x_4-x_5 \}.$$ Then, the associated Hessenberg function $h_I$ is given by $h_I(1)=3, h_I(2)=3, h_I(3)=5, h_I(4)=5$ and we have $\Lambda_I=\{1,3 \}$.
For each integer $m$ with $0 \leq m \leq \operatorname{ht}(\Phi^+)$, we define the lower ideal $I_m$ by $$\label{eq:Im}
I_m:=\{\alpha \in \Phi^+ \mid \operatorname{ht}(\alpha) \leq m \}.$$ We write the Hessenberg function associated with the lower ideal $I_m$ by $h_m$. For simplicity, we denote $\Lambda_{I_m}$ and $\lambda_{I_m}$ by $\Lambda_m$ and $\lambda_m$, respectively. Namely, $$\label{eq:Lambdam}
\Lambda_m=\{i \in [n] \mid h_m(i)-i = m \}.$$ We note that $$\{(i,j) \mid 1 \leq i \leq n \ {\rm and} \ i \leq j \leq i+\e_i \}=\{(i,i+m) \mid 0 \leq m \leq \operatorname{ht}(\Phi^+) \ {\rm and} \ i \in \Lambda_m \}.$$ Let $R$ be a commutative ring. For two subsets $S, T \subset [n]$ we denote by $\operatorname{M}(S,T;R)$ the set of matrices $[a_{s,t}]_{s \in S \atop t \in T}$ with entries $a_{s,t} \in R$. We also denote by $\operatorname{GL}(S;R)$ the set of invertible matrices $[a_{s,t}]_{s,t \in S}$ with entries $a_{s,t} \in R$. That is, $$\begin{aligned}
\operatorname{M}(S,T;R)=&\{(a_{s,t})_{s \in S \atop t \in T} \ \mbox{matrices} \mid a_{s,t} \in R \}, \\
\operatorname{GL}(S;R)=&\{(a_{s,t})_{s,t \in S} \ \mbox{invertible matrices} \mid a_{s,t} \in R \}. \end{aligned}$$ The following is a key proposition.
\[proposition:key\] Assume that derivations $\{\psi_{i,i+m} \in \operatorname{Der}(\CR) \mid 0 \leq m \leq \operatorname{ht}(\Phi^+) \ {\rm and} \ i \in \Lambda_m \}$ satisfy the following four conditions$:$
1. For any $i\in[n]$, $\psi_{i,i}=p_i \, \alpha_i^*$ for some non-zero rational number $p_i$ where $\alpha_1^*,\ldots,\alpha_n^*$ is the dual basis of the simple roots $\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_n$$;$
2. For any $m \geq 1$ there exists $P_m \in \operatorname{GL}(\Lambda_m;\Q)$ such that $$[\psi_{i,i+m}]_{i \in \Lambda_m}=P_m[\alpha_{i,i+m}\psi_{i,i+m-1}]_{i \in \Lambda_m};$$
3. For any $m \geq 0$, $\{\psi_{i,h_m(i)} \mid i \in [n] \} \subset D(\A_{I_m})$$;$
4. For any $m \geq 0$ and any $(i,j) \in \Lambda_{m} \times \Lambda_{m+1}$ with $i \neq j$, $$\psi_{i,i+m}(\alpha_{j,j+m+1}) \in \CR\alpha_{j,j+m+1}.$$
Then, derivations $\{\psi_{i,i+m} \in \operatorname{Der}(\CR) \mid 0 \leq m \leq \operatorname{ht}(\Phi^+) \ {\rm and} \ i \in \Lambda_m \}$ form uniform bases.
One can see that $\deg(\psi_{i,j})=j-i$ from the conditions $(1)$ and $(2)$. By we have $\sum_{i=1}^{n} \deg(\psi_{i,h_I(i)})=|\A_I|$. From this together with Theorem \[theorem:Saito’s criterion\] it is enough to prove the following two claims:\
*Claim 1* For any lower ideal $I$, $\psi_{i,h_I(i)} \in D(\A_I)$ for each $i \in [n]$.\
*Claim 2* For any lower ideal $I$, the derivations $\{\psi_{i,h_I(i)} \mid i \in [n] \}$ are linearly independent over $\CR$.
*Proof of Claim 1.* We prove this by induction on $\operatorname{ht}(I)$. The base case $\operatorname{ht}(I)=0$ is clear since $I=\emptyset$ and $D(\A_I)=\operatorname{Der}(\CR)$. Now we assume that $m>0$ and Claim 1 holds for any lower ideal $I'$ with $\operatorname{ht}(I')=m-1$. For a lower ideal $I$ with $\operatorname{ht}(I)=m$, we define a lower ideal $I'$ by $I':=I \cap I_{m-1}$. Namely, $I'=\{\alpha \in I \mid \operatorname{ht}(\alpha) \leq m-1 \}$ by the definition . One can see that $$h_{I'}(i)=\begin{cases}
h_I(i)-1 \ \ \ &{\rm if} \ i \in \Lambda_I, \\
h_I(i) \ \ \ &{\rm if} \ i \notin \Lambda_I.
\end{cases}$$ *Case 1* Suppose that $i \notin \Lambda_I$. In this case we have $h_I(i)=h_{I'}(i)$, so we prove that $\psi_{i,h_{I'}(i)} \in D(\A_{I})$. Since $\operatorname{ht}(I')=m-1$, we have $\psi_{i,h_{I'}(i)} \in D(\A_{I'})$ by inductive assumption. Noting that $I=I' \cup \{\alpha_{j,j+m} \mid j \in \Lambda_I \}$, it is enough to prove that $\psi_{i,h_{I'}(i)}(\alpha_{j,j+m}) \in \CR \alpha_{j,j+m}$ for any $j \in \Lambda_I$. Let $H_{i,j}$ be the hyperplane defined by a positive root $\alpha_{i,j}$. For each $j \in \Lambda_{I}$ we define a hyperplane arrangement $\A''_j$ in $H_{j,j+m}$ by $\A''_j=\{H \cap H_{j,j+m} \mid H \in \A_{I'} \}$ and we take a map $$\nu_j: \A''_j \to \A_{I'}$$ such that $\nu_j(X) \cap H_{j,j+m} =X$. The homogeneous polynomial $$b_{\nu_j}:= \frac{\prod_{H \in \A_{I'}} \alpha_H}{\prod_{X \in \A''_j} \alpha_{\nu_j(X)}}= \frac{\prod_{\alpha \in I'} \alpha}{\prod_{X \in \A''_j} \alpha_{\nu_j(X)}}$$ has degree $m-1$ by Proposition \[proposition:ABCHTdegree\], and we obtain $$\label{eq:ProofProp1}
\psi_{i,h_{I'}(i)}(\alpha_{j,j+m}) \in \CR(\alpha_{j,j+m}, b_{\nu_j})$$ from Proposition \[proposition:idealbnu\]. If $i \notin \Lambda_{I'}$, then we have $\deg(\psi_{i,h_{I'}(i)})=h_{I'}(i)-i<\operatorname{ht}(I')=m-1=\deg(b_{\nu_j})$. Hence by we obtain $\psi_{i,h_{I'}(i)}(\alpha_{j,j+m}) \in \CR(\alpha_{j,j+m})$ for $i \notin \Lambda_{I'}$. If $i \in \Lambda_{I'}$, then we have $h_{I'}(i)=i+m-1$. Note that $i \in \Lambda_{I'} \subset \Lambda_{m-1}$ and $j \in \Lambda_I \subset \Lambda_m$. We also have $i \neq j$ because $i \notin \Lambda_I$ and $j \in \Lambda_I$. Thus, it follows from the condition $(4)$ that $\psi_{i,h_{I'}(i)}(\alpha_{j,j+m})=\psi_{i,i+m-1}(\alpha_{j,j+m}) \in \CR(\alpha_{j,j+m})$.
*Case 2* Suppose that $i \in \Lambda_I$. Then, we have $h_I(i)=i+m=h_m(i)$. From the condition $(3)$ and $\A_I \subset \A_{I_m}$, we obtain $\psi_{i,h_I(i)}=\psi_{i,h_m(i)} \in D(\A_{I_m}) \subset D(\A_I)$.
Case 1 and Case 2 show Claim 1.
*Proof of Claim 2.* In order to prove Claim 2, we prove Claim 2' as follows:
*Claim 2'* For any lower ideal $I$ with $\operatorname{ht}(I)=m$ and any matrix $F=[f_{ij}]_{i \in \Lambda_I \atop j \in \Lambda_m} \in \operatorname{M}(\Lambda_I, \Lambda_m; \CR)$ such that row vectors $\textbf{f}_i=[f_{ij}]_{j \in \Lambda_m} \ (i \in \Lambda_I)$ are linearly independent over $\CR$, we put $[\xi_i^F]_{i \in \Lambda_I}:=F[\psi_{i,i+m}]_{i \in \Lambda_m}$. Then, the derivations $\{\xi_i^F \mid i \in \Lambda_I\} \cup \{\psi_{i,h_I(i)} \mid i \notin \Lambda_I \}$ are linearly independent over $\CR$.\
We prove Claim 2' by induction on $\operatorname{ht}(I)$. The base case $\operatorname{ht}(I)=0$ is clear since $I=\emptyset$ and the derivations $\{\psi_{i,i}=p_i \, \alpha_i^* \mid i \in [n] \}$ are $\CR$-basis of $D(\A_I)=\operatorname{Der}(\CR)$.
Now we assume that $m>0$ and Claim 2' holds for any lower ideal $I'$ with $\operatorname{ht}(I')=m-1$ and any matrix $F'\in \operatorname{M}(\Lambda_{I'}, \Lambda_{m-1}; \CR)$ such that row vectors in $F'$ are linearly independent over $\CR$. For a lower ideal $I$ with $\operatorname{ht}(I)=m$ and any matrix $F\in \operatorname{M}(\Lambda_{I}, \Lambda_{m}; \CR)$ such that row vectors in $F$ are linearly independent over $\CR$, we define the lower ideal $I':=I \cap I_{m-1}$. From the condition $(2)$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{bmatrix}
[\xi_i^F]_{i \in \Lambda_I} \\
[\psi_{i,h_I(i)}]_{i \notin \Lambda_I}
\end{bmatrix}
=&
\begin{bmatrix}
F[\psi_{i,i+m}]_{i \in \Lambda_m} \\
[\psi_{i,h_I(i)}]_{i \notin \Lambda_I}
\end{bmatrix}
=
\begin{bmatrix}
FP_m[\alpha_{i,i+m}\psi_{i,i+m-1}]_{i \in \Lambda_m} \\
[\psi_{i,h_I(i)}]_{i \notin \Lambda_I}
\end{bmatrix}\\
=&
\begin{bmatrix}
FP_m\operatorname{diag}(\alpha_{i,i+m})[\psi_{i,i+m-1}]_{i \in \Lambda_m} \\
[\psi_{i,h_I(i)}]_{i \notin \Lambda_I}
\end{bmatrix}\\
=&
\begin{bmatrix}
FP_m\operatorname{diag}(\alpha_{i,i+m})[\psi_{i,i+m-1}]_{i \in \Lambda_m} \\
[\psi_{i,i+m-1}]_{i \in \Lambda_{I'}\setminus\Lambda_I} \\
[\psi_{i,h_I(i)}]_{i \notin \Lambda_{I'}} \\
\end{bmatrix}\\
=&
\begin{bmatrix}
F'[\psi_{i,i+m-1}]_{i \in \Lambda_{m-1}} \\
[\psi_{i,h_I(i)}]_{i \notin \Lambda_{I'}}
\end{bmatrix}
=
\begin{bmatrix}
[\xi_i^{F'}]_{i \in \Lambda_{I'}} \\
[\psi_{i,h_I(i)}]_{i \notin \Lambda_{I'}}
\end{bmatrix}\end{aligned}$$ where $[\xi_i^{F'}]_{i \in \Lambda_{I'}}:=F'[\psi_{i,i+m-1}]_{i \in \Lambda_{m-1}}$ and $F'=[f'_{ij}]_{i \in \Lambda_{I'} \atop j \in \Lambda_{m-1}}$ is the matrix given by
$$F'=\begin{array}{rcclll}
\ldelim[{2}{0.5ex}[] &\multicolumn{1}{c|}{FP_m\operatorname{diag}(\alpha_{i,i+m})}&O& \rdelim]{2}{0.5ex}[]&\hspace{-8pt} \rdelim\}{1}{0.2ex}[{\scriptsize $\Lambda_I$}]&\hspace{-5pt} \rdelim\}{2}{0.5ex}[{\scriptsize $\Lambda_{I'}$}] \\
\cline{2-3}
&\multicolumn{1}{c|}{O}& \delta_{ij}&&&\\
&\raisebox{2ex}[1ex][0ex]{$\underbrace{\hspace{20ex}}_{\Lambda_m}$}&&&&\\
&\multicolumn{2}{c}{\raisebox{2ex}[1ex][0ex]{$\underbrace{\hspace{25ex}}_{\Lambda_{m-1}}$}}&&&
\end{array}$$
More precisely, $$f'_{ij}=\begin{cases}
(i,j)\mbox{-entry of} \ [FP_m\operatorname{diag}(\alpha_{i,i+m})] & {\rm if} \ (i,j)\in\Lambda_I \times \Lambda_m, \\
\delta_{ij} & {\rm if} \ (i,j)\in(\Lambda_{I'}\setminus\Lambda_I) \times (\Lambda_{m-1}\setminus\Lambda_m), \\
0 & {\rm otherwise}.
\end{cases}$$ It is clear that row vectors in $F'$ are linearly independent over $\CR$. Hence by the inductive assumption, $\{\xi_i^{F'} \mid i \in \Lambda_{I'}\} \cup \{\psi_{i,h_I(i)} \mid i \notin \Lambda_{I'} \}$ are linearly independent over $\CR$, so is $\{\xi_i^F \mid i \in \Lambda_I\} \cup \{\psi_{i,h_I(i)} \mid i \notin \Lambda_I \}$. Applying Claim 2' to $F=[\delta_{ij}]_{i \in \Lambda_I \atop j \in \Lambda_m}$, we obtain Claim 2.
Therefore, we proved Claim 1 and Claim 2. This completes the proof.
\[remark:key\] Assume that the derivations $\{\psi_{i,j} \in \operatorname{Der}(\CR) \mid 1 \leq i \leq n \ {\rm and} \ i \leq j \leq i+\e_i \}$ satisfy the following conditions:
1. For any $i\in[n]$ we can write $\psi_{i,i}=p_i \, \alpha_i^*$ for some non-zero rational number $p_i$;
2. For any $m \geq 1$ we can write $$[\psi_{i,i+m}]_{i \in \Lambda_m}=P_m[\alpha_{i,i+m}\psi_{i,i+m-1}]_{i \in \Lambda_m}$$ for some invertible matrix $P_m \in \operatorname{GL}(\Lambda_m;\Q)$;
3. For any lower ideal $I \subset \Phi^+$, $\{\psi_{i,h_I(i)} \mid i \in [n] \} \subset D(\A_I)$.
Then the derivations $\{\psi_{i,j} \in \operatorname{Der}(\CR) \mid 1 \leq i \leq n \ {\rm and} \ i \leq j \leq i+\e_i \}$ form uniform bases because the conditions $(3)$ and $(4)$ in Proposition \[proposition:key\] mean that $\{\psi_{i,h_I(i)} \mid i \in [n] \} \subset D(\A_I)$ for the special lower ideal $I=I_m, I_m\cup\{\alpha_{j,j+m+1}\}_{j \in \Lambda_{m+1} \atop j \neq i}$.
Main theorem {#section:maintheorem}
============
In this section we prove the existence of uniform bases which are inductively constructed by using invertible matrices (Theorem \[theorem:main1\]). Moreover, we prove that the invertible matrices associated with our uniform bases are unique in some sense (Theorem \[theorem:main1uniqueness\]).
\[theorem:main1\] For arbitrary decomposition $\Phi^+=\coprod_{i=1}^n \ \Phi^+_i$ satisfying and , there exist uniform bases $\{\psi_{i,i+m} \in \operatorname{Der}(\CR) \mid 0 \leq m \leq \operatorname{ht}(\Phi^+) \ {\rm and} \ i \in \Lambda_m \}$ of the following form. The initial data are of the form $$\psi_{i,i}=p_i \, \alpha_i^* \ \ \ \ \ (i \in [n])$$ where $p_i$ is arbitrary non-zero rational number and $\alpha_1^*, \ldots, \alpha_n^*$ is the dual basis of the simple roots $\alpha_1, \ldots, \alpha_n$. For any $m$ with $1 \leq m \leq \operatorname{ht}(\Phi^+)$ $$\psi_{i,i+m}=\sum_{j \in \Lambda_m}p_{ij}^{(m)} \, \alpha_{j,j+m}\psi_{j,j+m-1} \ \ \ \ \ (i \in \Lambda_m)$$ for some rational numbers $p_{ij}^{(m)}$.
It suffices to construct derivations $\{\psi_{i,i+m} \in \operatorname{Der}(\CR) \mid 0 \leq m \leq \operatorname{ht}(\Phi^+) \ {\rm and} \ i \in \Lambda_m \}$ satisfying the four conditions in Proposition \[proposition:key\]. For the construction, we apply the method of Abe, Barakat, Cuntz, Hoge, and Terao explained in Section \[section:ideal arrangements\] to the sequence of the lower ideals in : $$I_1 \subset I_2 \subset \cdots \subset I_{\operatorname{ht}(\Phi^+)}.$$
For $m$ with $0 \leq m < \operatorname{ht}(\Phi^+)$, we construct inductively derivations $\{\psi_{i,i+m}\}_{i \in \Lambda_{m}}$ and $\{\theta_{i,i+m+1}\}_{i \in \Lambda_{m+1}}$ with $\deg(\psi_{i,j})=\deg(\theta_{i,j})=j-i$ so that the derivations $\{\theta_{i,i+m+1} \mid i \in \Lambda_{m+1}\} \cup \{\psi_{i,i+m} \mid i \in \Lambda_{m} \setminus \Lambda_{m+1}\} \cup \cdots \cup \{\psi_{i,i+1} \mid i \in \Lambda_{1} \setminus \Lambda_{2}\}$ form an $\CR$-basis for $D(\A_{I_{m+1}})$ as follows. As the base case, when $m=0$, for any non-zero rational number $p_i$ we define $$\label{eq:ProofConstructionPsiBaseCase}
\psi_{i,i}=p_i \, \alpha_i^* \ \ \ \ \ {\rm for} \ i \in \Lambda_0=[n],$$ and $$\theta_{i,i+1}=\alpha_{i,i+1} \psi_{i,i} \ \ \ \ \ {\rm for} \ i \in \Lambda_1=[n].$$ For general $m$ with $0 < m < \operatorname{ht}(\Phi^+)$ we proceed inductively as follows. Let $H_{i,j}$ be the hyperplane defined by a positive root $\alpha_{i,j}$. Then we have $$\A_{I_{m+1}}=\A_{I_{m}} \cup \{H_{j,j+m+1} \mid j \in \Lambda_{m+1} \}.$$ For each $j \in \Lambda_{m+1}$ we define a hyperplane arrangement $\A''_{j}$ in $H_{j,j+m+1}$ by $\A''_{j}=\{H \cap H_{j,j+m+1} \mid H \in \A_{I_{m}} \}$ and we take a map $$\nu_j: \A''_{j} \to \A_{I_{m}}$$ such that $\nu_j(X) \cap H_{j,j+m+1} =X$. The homogeneous polynomial $$b_{\nu_j}= \frac{\prod_{H \in \A_{I_{m}}} \alpha_H}{\prod_{X \in \A''_j} \alpha_{\nu_j(X)}} = \frac{\prod_{\alpha \in I_{m}} \alpha}{\prod_{X \in \A''_j} \alpha_{\nu_j(X)}}$$ has degree $m$ by Proposition \[proposition:ABCHTdegree\], and we obtain $$\theta_{i,i+m}(\alpha_{j,j+m+1}) \in \CR(\alpha_{j,j+m+1}, b_{\nu_j})$$ for $i \in \Lambda_{m}$ and $j \in \Lambda_{m+1}$ from Proposition \[proposition:idealbnu\]. Hence, we can write $$\label{eq:ProofMod}
\theta_{i,i+m}(\alpha_{j,j+m+1}) \equiv c_{ij}^{(\nu_j)} b_{\nu_j} \ \ \ \ \ \mbox{mod} \ \alpha_{j,j+m+1}$$ for some rational numbers $c_{ij}^{(\nu_j)}$ ($i \in \Lambda_{m}$, $j \in \Lambda_{m+1}$). By Proposition \[proposition:ABCHTrank\], the matrix $C_{m}:=(c_{ij}^{(\nu_j)})_{i \in \Lambda_{m} \atop j \in \Lambda_{m+1}}$ has full rank $\lambda_{m+1}$. Thus, there exists $P_{m}=(p_{ij}^{(m)})_{i,j \in \Lambda_{m}} \in \operatorname{GL}(\Lambda_{m},\Q)$ such that $$\label{eq:ProofPmQm}
P_{m}C_{m}=(\delta_{ij})_{i \in \Lambda_{m} \atop j \in \Lambda_{m+1}}.$$ We define $$\label{eq:ProofConstructionPsi}
\psi_{i,i+m}:=\sum_{j \in \Lambda_{m}} p_{ij}^{(m)} \theta_{j,j+m}$$ for $i \in \Lambda_{m}$ and $$\label{eq:ProofConstructionTheta}
\theta_{i,i+m+1}:= \alpha_{i,i+m+1} \psi_{i,i+m}$$ for $i \in \Lambda_{m+1}$. From the inductive assumption together with we see that $$\label{eq:ProofCondition(3)}
\psi_{i,h_{m}(i)} \in D(\A_{I_{m}}) \ \ \ \ \ {\rm for} \ i \in [n].$$ By the inductive argument, it follows from Theorem \[theorem:ABCHTbasis\] that the derivations $\{\theta_{i,i+m+1} \mid i \in \Lambda_{m+1} \} \cup \{\psi_{i,i+m} \mid i \in \Lambda_{m}\setminus\Lambda_{m+1} \} \cup\cdots \cup \{\psi_{i,i+1} \mid i \in \Lambda_1 \setminus \Lambda_2 \}$ form an $\CR$-basis for $D(\A_{I_{m+1}})$.
Finally, when $m=\operatorname{ht}(\Phi^+)$, we define $$\psi_{i,i+m}=\theta_{i,i+m}$$ for $i \in \Lambda_{m}$. Note that $|\Lambda_m|=1$ whenever $m=\operatorname{ht}(\Phi^+)$ because the root with the highest height is uniquely determined. Hence, if $m=\operatorname{ht}(\Phi^+)$, then we have $[\psi_{i,i+m}]_{i \in \Lambda_m}=P_m [\theta_{i,i+m}]_{i \in \Lambda_m}$ where $P_{m}=(1) \in \operatorname{GL}(\Lambda_{m},\Q)$.
Now we check that the derivations $\{\psi_{i,i+m} \in \operatorname{Der}(\CR) \mid 0 \leq m \leq \operatorname{ht}(\Phi^+) \ {\rm and} \ i \in \Lambda_m \}$ satisfy the conditions $(1), (2), (3), (4)$ in Proposition \[proposition:key\]. The condition $(1)$ is exactly the definition in . The condition $(2)$ follows from and . The condition $(3)$ is nothing but . We check the condition $(4)$. If $m=0$, then $\psi_{i,i}(\alpha_{j,j+1})=p_i\alpha_i^*(\alpha_j)=0$ for $i \in \Lambda_0=[n]$ and $j \in \Lambda_{1}=[n]$ with $i \neq j$. If $m \geq 1$, then we have for $i \in \Lambda_m$ and $j \in \Lambda_{m+1}$ with $i \neq j$ $$\begin{aligned}
\psi_{i,i+m}(\alpha_{j,j+m+1})&=\sum_{k \in \Lambda_{m}} p_{ik}^{(m)} \theta_{k,k+m}(\alpha_{j,j+m+1}) \ \ \ \ \ \ ({\rm from} \ \eqref{eq:ProofConstructionPsi})\\
&\equiv \sum_{k \in \Lambda_{m}} p_{ik}^{(m)} c_{kj}^{(\nu_j)} b_{\nu_j} \ \ \ \ \ \mbox{mod} \ \alpha_{j,j+m+1} \ \ \ \ \ \ ({\rm by} \ \eqref{eq:ProofMod})\\
&= \delta_{ij} b_{\nu_j} \ \ \ \ \ \ ({\rm from} \ \eqref{eq:ProofPmQm})\\
&=0 \ \ \ \ \ \ ({\rm because} \ i \neq j).\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, we conclude that the derivations $\{\psi_{i,i+m} \in \operatorname{Der}(\CR) \mid 0 \leq m \leq \operatorname{ht}(\Phi^+) \ {\rm and} \ i \in \Lambda_m \}$ form uniform bases from Proposition \[proposition:key\].
We obtain from Theorem \[theorem:main1\] uniform bases $\{\psi_{i,i+m} \in \operatorname{Der}(\CR) \mid 0 \leq m \leq \operatorname{ht}(\Phi^+) \ {\rm and} \ i \in \Lambda_m \}$ by the recursive description. For any non-zero rational numbers $p_1, \ldots, p_n$, we fix the initial data $$\begin{aligned}
\notag \psi_{i,i}=p_i \, \alpha_i^* \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ &(i \in [n]). \end{aligned}$$ Proceeding inductively, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:main1-2}
\psi_{i,i+m}=\sum_{j \in \Lambda_m}p_{ij}^{(m)} \, \alpha_{j,j+m}\psi_{j,j+m-1} \ \ \ \ \ &(1 \leq m \leq \operatorname{ht}(\Phi^+), \ i \in \Lambda_m) \end{aligned}$$ for some rational numbers $p_{ij}^{(m)}$. Then we define matrices $P_m$ ($0 \leq m \leq \operatorname{ht}(\Phi^+)$) by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:matrixP}
P_0&:=\operatorname{diag}(p_1,\ldots,p_n), \notag \\
P_m&:=(p_{ij}^{(m)})_{i,j \in \Lambda_m} \ \ \ {\rm for} \ m>0.\end{aligned}$$ As seen in the proof of Theorem \[theorem:main1\], $P_m$ is invertible for all $m$. We call the matrices $\{P_m \mid 0 \leq m \leq \operatorname{ht}(\Phi^+) \}$ **the invertible matrices associated with uniform bases** $\{\psi_{i,i+m} \in \operatorname{Der}(\CR) \mid 0 \leq m \leq \operatorname{ht}(\Phi^+) \ {\rm and} \ i \in \Lambda_m \}$. These invertible matrices are not unique. In fact, we can multiply $\psi_{i,i+m}$ by a non-zero scalar. Also, $\psi_{j,j+m}$ is an element of $D(\A_{\Phi^+})$ for any $j \in \Lambda_m \setminus \Lambda_{m+1}$, so we can replace $\psi_{i,i+m}$ with the $\psi_{i,i+m}$ plus a constant times $\psi_{j,j+m}$ for arbitrary $j \in \Lambda_m \setminus \Lambda_{m+1}$ with $j \neq i$. These correspond to the following two types of elementary row operations for matrices in $\operatorname{GL}(\Lambda_m;\Q)$:
1. multiply one row of the matrix by a non-zero scalar constant$;$
2. replace an $i$-th row with the $i$-th row plus a constant times $j$-th row for $j \in \Lambda_m \setminus \Lambda_{m+1}$ with $j \neq i$.
For $P_m, P'_m \in \operatorname{GL}(\Lambda_m;\Q)$, $P_m$ is **equivalent** to $P'_m$ if $P'_m$ is obtained from $P_m$ by finitely many elementary row operations $(1)$ and $(2)$ above. The following theorem states that $P_m$ is uniquely determined up to the equivalence when we determined the invertible matrices $P_0,\ldots,P_{m-1}$.
\[theorem:main1uniqueness\] Let $\Phi^+=\coprod_{i=1}^n \ \Phi^+_i$ be a decomposition satisfying and . Let $\{P_m \mid 0 \leq m \leq \operatorname{ht}(\Phi^+) \}$ and $\{P'_m \mid 0 \leq m \leq \operatorname{ht}(\Phi^+) \}$ be two sets of the invertible matrices associated with uniform bases $\{\psi_{i,i+m} \in \operatorname{Der}(\CR) \mid 0 \leq m \leq \operatorname{ht}(\Phi^+), i \in \Lambda_m \}$ and $\{\psi'_{i,i+m} \in \operatorname{Der}(\CR) \mid 0 \leq m \leq \operatorname{ht}(\Phi^+), i \in \Lambda_m \}$ respectively. Assume that $P_r=P'_r$ for any $r=0,1.\ldots,m-1$. Then $P_m$ is equivalent to $P'_m$.
Let $\{P_m \mid 0 \leq m \leq \operatorname{ht}(\Phi^+) \}$ be the invertible matrices associated with uniform bases $\Psi:=\{\psi_{i,i+m} \in \operatorname{Der}(\CR) \mid 0 \leq m \leq \operatorname{ht}(\Phi^+), i \in \Lambda_m \}$. Then, we can write from $$\label{eq:proof2psi}
\psi_{i,i+m}=\sum_{k \in \Lambda_m} p_{ik}^{(m)} \alpha_{k,k+m}\psi_{k,k+m-1}=\sum_{k \in \Lambda_m} p_{ik}^{(m)} \theta_{k,k+m}$$ where $P_m=(p_{ij}^{(m)})_{i,j \in \Lambda_m}$ and $\theta_{k,k+m}:=\alpha_{k,k+m}\psi_{k,k+m-1}$ for $k \in \Lambda_m$. For $k \in \Lambda_m$, we define a lower ideal $I_m^{(k)}$ by $I_m^{(k)}=I_m \setminus \{\alpha_{k,k+m} \}$. Since the set of derivations $\Psi$ forms uniform bases, we have $\psi_{k,k+m-1} \in D(\A_{I_m^{(k)}})$ which implies that $\theta_{k,k+m}=\alpha_{k,k+m}\psi_{k,k+m-1} \in D(\A_{I_m})$.
We write $\A''_{j}=\{H \cap H_{j,j+m+1} \mid H \in \A_{I_{m}} \}$ where $H_{j,j+m+1}$ is the hyperplane defined by the positive root $\alpha_{j,j+m+1}$. We fix a map $\nu_j: \A''_{j} \to \A_{I_{m}}$ such that $\nu_j(X) \cap H_{j,j+m+1} =X$, and define the homogeneous polynomial $b_{\nu_j}= (\prod_{H \in \A_{I_{m}}} \alpha_H) / (\prod_{X \in \A''_j} \alpha_{\nu_j(X)})$ which has degree $m$ from Proposition \[proposition:ABCHTdegree\]. It follows from Proposition \[proposition:idealbnu\] that for $k \in \Lambda_{m}$ and $j \in \Lambda_{m+1}$ we can write $$\theta_{k,k+m}(\alpha_{j,j+m+1}) \equiv c_{kj}^{(\nu_j)} b_{\nu_j} \ \ \ \ \ \mbox{mod} \ \alpha_{j,j+m+1}$$ for some rational numbers $c_{kj}^{(\nu_j)}$. From this together with we have $$\label{eq:proof2psi2}
\psi_{i,i+m}(\alpha_{j,j+m+1}) \equiv b_{\nu_j} \big(\sum_{k \in \Lambda_m} p_{ik}^{(m)} c_{kj}^{(\nu_j)} \big) \ \ \ \ \ \mbox{mod} \ \alpha_{j,j+m+1}.$$ We consider a lower ideal $I:=I_m\cup\{\alpha_{j,j+m+1}\}$, and one see that $\psi_{i,i+m} \in D(\A_I)$ for $i \in \Lambda_m$ and $j \in \Lambda_{m+1}$ with $i \neq j$ since $\Psi$ form uniform bases. In particular, $\psi_{i,i+m}(\alpha_{j,j+m+1}) \in \CR \alpha_{j,j+m+1}$. From this together with , we obtain $$\sum_{k \in \Lambda_m} p_{ik}^{(m)} c_{kj}^{(\nu_j)}=0 \ \ \ \ \ \ {\rm for} \ i \in \Lambda_m, \ j \in \Lambda_{m+1} \ {\rm with} \ i \neq j.$$ Let $C_{m}:=(c_{ij}^{(\nu_j)})_{i \in \Lambda_{m} \atop j \in \Lambda_{m+1}}$. The matrix $C_m$ has full rank $\lambda_{m+1}$ by Proposition \[proposition:ABCHTrank\]. Therefore, we obtain $$\label{eq:proof2PmCm}
P_mC_m=(q_j\delta_{ij})_{i \in \Lambda_{m} \atop j \in \Lambda_{m+1}}$$ for some non-zero rational numbers $q_j$ ($j \in \Lambda_{m+1}$).
We take another invertible matrices $\{P'_m \mid 0 \leq m \leq \operatorname{ht}(\Phi^+) \}$ associated with uniform bases $\{\psi'_{i,i+m} \in \operatorname{Der}(\CR) \mid 0 \leq m \leq \operatorname{ht}(\Phi^+), i \in \Lambda_m \}$. From the assumption $P_r=P'_r$ for $r=0,\ldots,m-1$, we have $\psi_{s,s+r}=\psi'_{s,s+r}$ for $0 \leq r \leq m-1$ and $s \in \Lambda_r$. Noting that $\theta'_{k,k+m}:=\alpha_{k,k+m}\psi'_{k,k+m-1}=\alpha_{k,k+m}\psi_{k,k+m-1}=\theta_{k,k+m}$ for $k \in \Lambda_m$, by similar argument we have $$\label{eq:proof2P'mCm}
P'_mC_m=(q'_j\delta_{ij})_{i \in \Lambda_{m} \atop j \in \Lambda_{m+1}}$$ for some non-zero rational numbers $q'_j$ ($j \in \Lambda_{m+1}$). From and , we have $$\label{eq:AmA'm}
A_m C_m= (\delta_{ij})_{i \in \Lambda_{m} \atop j \in \Lambda_{m+1}} =A'_m C_m$$ where $A_m=(q_j^{-1}\delta_{ij})_{i \in \Lambda_{m} \atop j \in \Lambda_{m+1}} \cdot P_m$ and $A'_m=({q'}_j^{-1}\delta_{ij})_{i \in \Lambda_{m} \atop j \in \Lambda_{m+1}} \cdot P'_m$. Let $\mathbf{a}_i$ and $\mathbf{a}'_i$ be $i$-th row vectors of $A_m$ and $A'_m$ respectively for $i\in \Lambda_m$. Then, the difference $\mathbf{a}'_i-\mathbf{a}_i$ belongs to the kernel of $C_m$ by . For any $j \in \Lambda_m \setminus \Lambda_{m+1}$ the $j$-th row vector $\mathbf{p}_j$ of $P_m$ is an element of $\ker C_m$ by , and these row vectors $\mathbf{p}_j$ are linearly independent because $P_m$ is invertible. Since the matrix $C_m$ has rank $\lambda_{m+1}$, the row vectors $\mathbf{p}_j$ $(j \in \Lambda_m \setminus \Lambda_{m+1})$ form a basis of $\ker C_m$. Hence, the difference $\mathbf{a}'_i-\mathbf{a}_i$ can be written as a linear combination of $\mathbf{p}_j$ $(j \in \Lambda_m \setminus \Lambda_{m+1})$, which means that $P_m$ is equivalent to $P'_m$, as desired.
If we want to find uniform bases, then it is enough to determine the invertible matrices $P_{0}, P_{1}, \ldots, P_{\operatorname{ht}(\Phi^+)}$ in order. In next section, giving a decomposition $\Phi^+=\coprod_{i=1}^n \ \Phi^+_i$ satisfying and , we will describe explicitly uniform bases and the associated invertible matrices $P_m$ on each Lie type.
The invertible matrices associated with uniform bases {#section:matrixPm}
=====================================================
In this section we fix a decomposition $\Phi^+=\coprod_{i=1}^n \ \Phi^+_i$ satisfying and , and describe explicitly uniform bases and the associated invertible matrices $P_m$ in on each Lie type. For a construction of an explicit $\CR$-basis of $D(\A_I)$ for each Lie type, Barakat, Cuntz, and Hoge provided ones for types $E$ and $F$ by computer when the work of [@ABCHT] was in progress. Also, Terao and Abe worked for the special lower ideal $I_m$ in of types $A$ and $B$, respectively. Uniform bases were constructed for types $A, B, C, G$ in [@AHMMS Proposition 10.3, Theorem 10.9, Theorem 10.14, and Theorem 10.17]. For the other types, we construct explicit uniform bases. We also describe the associated invertible matrices $P_m$ on each Lie type.
Throughout this section, $V$ is an $n$-dimensional real euclidean space, and $x_1,\ldots,x_n$ is an orthonormal basis of $V^*$. We denote the partial derivatives by $\partial_i=\frac{\partial}{\partial_{x_i}}$ for all $i=1,\ldots,n$. The euclidean space $\mathfrak{t}$ in which the ideal arrangements are realized will be defined to be a certain subspace of $V$ or $V$ itself.
Type $A_{n-1} \ (n \geq 2)$ {#subsection:typeA}
---------------------------
Let $\mathfrak{t}$ be the hyperplane in $V$ defined by the linear function $x_1+\cdots+x_n$. Then we have $$\CR = \operatorname{Sym}(\mathfrak{t}^*)=\R[x_1,\ldots,x_n]/(x_1+\cdots+x_n).$$ We take the set of positive roots of type $A_{n-1}$ as $$\Phi^{+}_{A_{n-1}} = \{x_i - x_j \in \mathfrak{t}^* \mid 1 \leq i < j \leq n\}$$ and set the exponents $\e_1,\ldots,\e_{n-1}$ as $$e_i = n-i \ \ \ \ \ \ \mbox{for} \ 1 \leq i \leq n-1.$$ We arrange all positive roots in a strict upper triangular $n\times n$ matrix shown in Figure \[picture:PositiveRootTypeA\].
(350,140) (300,120)[(50,20)[$x_1-x_n$]{}]{} (170,127)[$\cdots$]{} (220,127)[$\cdots$]{} (50,120)[(50,20)[$x_1-x_3$]{}]{} (0,120)[(50,20)[$x_1-x_2$]{}]{} (300,100)[(50,20)[$x_2-x_n$]{}]{} (220,107)[$\cdots$]{} (100,100)[(50,20)[$x_2-x_4$]{}]{} (50,100)[(50,20)[$x_2-x_3$]{}]{}
(120,85)[$\ddots$]{} (170,85)[$\ddots$]{}
(300,60)[(50,20)[$x_i-x_n$]{}]{} (270,67)[$\cdots$]{} (200,60)[(50,20)[$x_i-x_{i+2}$]{}]{} (150,60)[(50,20)[$x_i-x_{i+1}$]{}]{} (220,45)[$\ddots$]{} (270,45)[$\ddots$]{}
(325,45)[$\vdots$]{} (325,85)[$\vdots$]{}
(300,20)[(50,20)[$x_{n-2}-x_n$]{}]{} (250,20)[(50,20)[$x_{n-2}-x_{n-1}$]{}]{} (300,0)[(50,20)[$x_{n-1}-x_n$]{}]{}
In Figure \[picture:PositiveRootTypeA\] the partial order $\preceq$ on $\Phi^+_{A_{n-1}}$ is defined as follows:
1. if a root $\alpha$ is left-adjacent to a root $\beta$, then $\alpha \lessdot \beta$;
2. if a root $\alpha$ is lower-adjacent to a root $\beta$, then $\alpha \lessdot \beta$.
For two positive roots $\alpha,\beta$, we define $\alpha \preceq \beta$ if there exist positive roots $\gamma_0,\ldots,\gamma_N$ such that $\alpha=\gamma_0 \lessdot \gamma_1 \lessdot \cdots \lessdot \gamma_N=\beta$. We denote positive roots in $\Phi^{+}_{A_{n-1}}$ by $$\label{eq:positiverootA}
\alpha_{i,j}=x_i-x_j \ \ \ \ \ {\rm for \ all} \ 1 \leq i < j \leq n.$$ Note that $\alpha_{i,j} \preceq \alpha_{k,\ell}$ iff $i \geq k$ and $j \leq \ell$. Recall that $\Phi^+_i=\{\alpha_{i,j} \mid i < j \leq i+e_i \}$, namely it is the set of all positive roots in the $i$-th row in Figure \[picture:PositiveRootTypeA\]. A **Hessenberg function for type $A_{n-1}$** is defined to be a function $h: [n-1] \to [n-1]$ satisfying the following two conditions
1. $h(1) \leq h(2) \leq \cdots \leq h(n-1)$,
2. $h(i) \geq i$ for $i \in [n-1]$.
Under the decomposition $\Phi^+_{A_{n-1}}=\coprod_{i=1}^{n-1} \ \Phi^+_i$, one can see that the set of lower ideals $I \subset \Phi^+$ and the set of Hessenberg functions $h$ for type $A_{n-1}$ are in one-to-one correspondence which sends $I$ to $h_I$ in .
Now we explain the uniform bases given by [@AHMMS]. Let $\overline\partial:=\partial_1+\cdots+\partial_n$. For $1 \leq i \leq n-1$ and $i \leq j \leq n$, we define $$\psi^{A_{n-1}}_{i,j} := \sum_{k=1}^i \left( \prod_{\ell=i+1}^{j} (x_k-x_\ell)\right)\big(\partial_k-\frac 1 n \overline \partial \big) \in \operatorname{Der}\CR=\CR \otimes \mathfrak{t}$$ with the convention $\prod_{\ell=i+1}^{j} (x_k-x_\ell)=1$ whenever $j=i$. Note that $\partial_k$ is not an element of $\operatorname{Der}\CR$ but $\partial_k-\frac 1 n \overline \partial$ is, because $\CR = \operatorname{Sym}(\mathfrak{t}^*)=\R[x_1,\ldots,x_n]/(x_1+\cdots+x_n)$.
$($[@AHMMS Proposition 10.3]$)$ \[theorem:psiA\] The derivations $\{\psi^{A_{n-1}}_{i,j} \mid 1 \leq i \leq n-1, i \leq j \leq n \}$ form uniform bases for the ideal arrangements of type $A_{n-1}$.
As explained in [@AHMMS], the derivations $\psi^{A_{n-1}}_{i,j}$ satisfy the following recursive formula: $$\begin{aligned}
\psi^{A_{n-1}}_{i,i}&= \partial_1+\cdots+\partial_i-\frac{i}{n}\overline\partial \ \ \ {\rm for} \ i \in [n-1]; \\
\psi^{A_{n-1}}_{i,j}&= \psi^{A_{n-1}}_{i-1,j-1} + (x_i-x_j)\psi^{A_{n-1}}_{i,j-1} \ \ \ {\rm for} \ (i,j) \ {\rm with} \ i < j \leq n,\end{aligned}$$ where we take the convention $\psi^{A_{n-1}}_{0,*}=0$ for any $*$. Note that $\operatorname{ht}(\Phi^+_{A_{n-1}})=n-1$ and the set $\Lambda_m$ in is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\Lambda_m=\begin{cases}
[n-1] \ \ \ \ {\rm if} \ m=0, \\
[n-m] \ \ \ {\rm if} \ 1 \leq m \leq n-1.
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ One can see from the recursive formula above that $$\begin{aligned}
\psi^{A_{n-1}}_{i,i}&=\alpha_i^* \ \ \ {\rm for} \ i \in [n-1], \\
\psi^{A_{n-1}}_{i,i+m}&= \sum _{j=1}^{i} \alpha_{j,j+m} \psi^{A_{n-1}}_{j,j+m-1}
\ \ \ {\rm for} \ 1 \leq m \leq n-1 \ {\rm and} \ 1 \leq i \leq n-m.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, the invertible matrices $P_m^{A_{n-1}}$ $(0 \leq m \leq n-1)$ associated with the uniform bases $\{\psi^{A_{n-1}}_{i,i+m} \mid \ 0 \leq m \leq n-1, i \in \Lambda_m \}$ are given by $$P_0^{A_{n-1}}=
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & & \\
& \ddots & \\
& & 1
\end{pmatrix}, \ \ \
P_m^{A_{n-1}}=
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & & \\
\vdots & \ddots & \\
1 & \cdots & 1
\end{pmatrix} \ \ (1 \leq m \leq n-1).$$
Type $B_n \ (n \geq 2)$ {#subsection:typeB}
-----------------------
Let $\mathfrak{t}=V$. Then we have $$\CR = \operatorname{Sym}(\mathfrak{t}^*)=\R[x_1,\ldots,x_n].$$ We take the set of positive roots of type $B_n$ as $$\Phi^{+}_{B_n} = \{x_i \pm x_j \in \mathfrak{t}^* \mid 1 \leq i < j \leq n\} \cup \{x_i \in \mathfrak{t}^* \mid 1 \leq i \leq n\}$$ and set the exponents $\e_1,\ldots,\e_n$ as $$e_i = 2(n-i)+1 \ \ \ \ \ \ \mbox{for} \ 1 \leq i \leq n.$$ We arrange all positive roots of $B_n$ as shown in Figure \[picture:PositiveRootTypeB\].
(440,120)
(400,100)[(40,20)[$x_1+x_2$]{}]{} (335,105)[$\cdots$]{} (160,100)[(40,20)[$x_1-x_n$]{}]{} (200,100)[(40,20)[$x_1$]{}]{} (240,100)[(40,20)[$x_1+x_n$]{}]{} (95,105)[$\cdots$]{} (0,100)[(40,20)[$x_1-x_2$]{}]{} (55,85)[$\ddots$]{} (218,85)[$\vdots$]{} (375,85)[$\cdot$]{} (380,87.5)[$\cdot$]{} (385,90)[$\cdot$]{}
(320,60)[(40,20)[$x_i+x_{i+1}$]{}]{} (160,60)[(40,20)[$x_i-x_n$]{}]{} (295,65)[$\cdots$]{} (200,60)[(40,20)[$x_i$]{}]{} (135,65)[$\cdots$]{} (240,60)[(40,20)[$x_i+x_n$]{}]{} (80,60)[(40,20)[$x_i-x_{i+1}$]{}]{} (135,45)[$\ddots$]{} (218,45)[$\vdots$]{} (295,45)[$\cdot$]{} (300,47.5)[$\cdot$]{} (305,50)[$\cdot$]{} (240,20)[(40,20)[$x_{n-1}+x_n$]{}]{} (200,20)[(40,20)[$x_{n-1}$]{}]{} (160,20)[(40,20)[$x_{n-1}-x_n$]{}]{} (200,0)[(40,20)[$x_n$]{}]{}
In Figure \[picture:PositiveRootTypeB\] the partial order $\preceq$ on $\Phi^+_{B_n}$ is defined as follows:
1. if a root $\alpha$ is left-adjacent to a root $\beta$, then $\alpha \lessdot \beta$;
2. if a root $\alpha$ is lower-adjacent to a root $\beta$, then $\alpha \lessdot \beta$.
For two positive roots $\alpha,\beta$, we define $\alpha \preceq \beta$ if there exist positive roots $\gamma_0,\ldots,\gamma_N$ such that $\alpha=\gamma_0 \lessdot \gamma_1 \lessdot \cdots \lessdot \gamma_N=\beta$. For each $i=1,\ldots,n$, we denote positive roots in $\Phi^{+}_{B_n}$ by $$\alpha_{i,j}=
\begin{cases}
x_i-x_j \ \ \ \ \ &{\rm if} \ i+1 \leq j \leq n, \\
x_i \ \ \ \ \ &{\rm if} \ j=n+1, \\
x_i+x_{2n+2-j} \ \ \ \ \ &{\rm if} \ n+2 \leq j \leq 2n+1-i.
\end{cases}$$ Note that $\alpha_{i,j} \preceq \alpha_{k,\ell}$ iff $i \geq k$ and $j \leq \ell$. Similarly to type $A$, $\Phi^+_i=\{\alpha_{i,j} \mid i < j \leq i+e_i \}$ is the set of all positive roots in the $i$-th row in Figure \[picture:PositiveRootTypeB\]. A **Hessenberg function for type $B_n$** is defined to be a function $h: [n] \to [2n]$ satisfying the following three conditions
1. $i \leq h(i) \leq 2n+1-i$ for $i \in [n]$,
2. if $h(i) \neq 2n+1-i$, then $h(i) \leq h(i+1)$ for $i=1,\ldots, n-1$,
3. if $h(i) = 2n+1-i$, then $h(i+1) = 2n+1-(i+1)$ for $i=1,\ldots, n-1$.
Under the decomposition $\Phi^+_{B_n}=\coprod_{i=1}^{n} \ \Phi^+_i$, one can see that the set of lower ideals $I \subset \Phi^+_{B_n}$ and the set of Hessenberg functions $h$ for type $B_n$ are in one-to-one correspondence which sends $I$ to $h_I$ in .
In [@AHMMS], the derivation $\psi^{B_n}_{i,j}$ for $1 \leq i \leq n$ and $i \leq j \leq 2n+1-i$ is defined as $$\psi^{B_n}_{i,j} := \sum_{k=1}^i \left( \prod_{\ell=i+1}^{j} \alpha_{k,\ell} \right) \partial_k \in \operatorname{Der}\CR=\CR \otimes \mathfrak{t},$$ where we take the convention $\prod_{\ell=i+1}^{j} \alpha_{k,\ell}=1$ whenever $j=i$.
$($[@AHMMS Theorem 10.9]$)$ \[theorem:psiB\] The derivations $\{\psi^{B_n}_{i,j} \mid 1 \leq i \leq n, i \leq j \leq 2n+1-i \}$ form uniform bases for the ideal arrangements of type $B_n$.
The derivations $\psi^{B_n}_{i,j}$ satisfy the following recursive formula ([@AHMMS]) $$\begin{aligned}
\psi^{B_n}_{i,i}&= \partial_1+\cdots+\partial_i \ \ \ {\rm for} \ i \in [n], \\
\psi^{B_n}_{i,j}&= \psi^{B_n}_{i-1,j-1} + \alpha_{i,j}\psi^{B_n}_{i,j-1} \ \ \ {\rm for} \ (i,j) \ {\rm with} \ i<j\leq 2n+1-i, \end{aligned}$$ where we take the convention $\psi^{B_n}_{0,*}=0$ for any $*$. Note that $\operatorname{ht}(\Phi^+_{B_n})=2n-1$ and the set $\Lambda_m$ in is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\Lambda_m=[n-k] \ \ \ {\rm if} \ m=2k,2k+1.\end{aligned}$$ From the recursive formula above we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\psi^{B_n}_{i,i}&= \alpha_i^* \ \ \ {\rm for} \ 1 \leq i \leq n, \\
\psi^{B_n}_{i,i+m}&= \sum _{j=1}^{i} \alpha_{j,j+m} \psi^{B_n}_{j,j+m-1}
\ \ \ {\rm for} \ 1 \leq m \leq 2n-1 \ {\rm and} \ i \in \Lambda_m.\end{aligned}$$ Hence, the invertible matrices $P_m^{B_n}$ $(0 \leq m \leq 2n-1)$ associated with the uniform bases $\{\psi^{B_n}_{i,i+m} \mid \ 0 \leq m \leq 2n-1, i \in \Lambda_m \}$ are given by $$P_0^{B_n}=
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & & \\
& \ddots & \\
& & 1
\end{pmatrix}, \ \ \
P_m^{B_n}=
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & & \\
\vdots & \ddots & \\
1 & \cdots & 1
\end{pmatrix} \ \ (1 \leq m \leq 2n-1).$$
Type $C_n \ (n \geq 2)$ {#subsection:typeC}
-----------------------
Let $\mathfrak{t}=V$ and we have $$\CR = \operatorname{Sym}(\mathfrak{t}^*)=\R[x_1,\ldots,x_n].$$ We take the set of positive roots of type $C_n$ as $$\Phi^{+}_{C_n} = \{x_i \pm x_j \in \mathfrak{t}^* \mid 1 \leq i < j \leq n\} \cup \{2x_i \in \mathfrak{t}^* \mid 1 \leq i \leq n\}$$ and set the exponents $\e_1,\ldots,\e_n$ as $$e_i = 2(n-i)+1 \ \ \ \ \ \ \mbox{for} \ 1 \leq i \leq n.$$ We arrange all positive roots of $C_n$ as shown in Figure \[picture:PositiveRootTypeC\].
(440,120)
(400,100)[(40,20)[$2x_1$]{}]{} (295,105)[$\cdots$]{} (160,100)[(40,20)[$x_1-x_n$]{}]{} (200,100)[(40,20)[$x_1+x_n$]{}]{} (360,100)[(40,20)[$x_1+x_2$]{}]{} (95,105)[$\cdots$]{} (0,100)[(40,20)[$x_1-x_2$]{}]{} (55,85)[$\ddots$]{} (178,85)[$\vdots$]{} (218,85)[$\vdots$]{} (375,85)[$\cdot$]{} (380,87.5)[$\cdot$]{} (385,90)[$\cdot$]{} (335,85)[$\cdot$]{} (340,87.5)[$\cdot$]{} (345,90)[$\cdot$]{}
(320,60)[(40,20)[$2x_i$]{}]{} (160,60)[(40,20)[$x_i-x_n$]{}]{} (255,65)[$\cdots$]{} (200,60)[(40,20)[$x_i+x_n$]{}]{} (135,65)[$\cdots$]{} (280,60)[(40,20)[$x_i+x_{i+1}$]{}]{} (80,60)[(40,20)[$x_i-x_{i+1}$]{}]{} (135,45)[$\ddots$]{} (178,45)[$\vdots$]{} (218,45)[$\vdots$]{} (295,45)[$\cdot$]{} (300,47.5)[$\cdot$]{} (305,50)[$\cdot$]{} (255,45)[$\cdot$]{} (260,47.5)[$\cdot$]{} (265,50)[$\cdot$]{} (240,20)[(40,20)[$2x_{n-1}$]{}]{} (200,20)[(40,20)[$x_{n-1}+x_n$]{}]{} (160,20)[(40,20)[$x_{n-1}-x_n$]{}]{} (200,0)[(40,20)[$2x_n$]{}]{}
In Figure \[picture:PositiveRootTypeC\] the partial order $\preceq$ on $\Phi^+_{C_n}$ is defined as follows:
1. if a root $\alpha$ is left-adjacent to a root $\beta$, then $\alpha \lessdot \beta$;
2. if a root $\alpha$ is lower-adjacent to a root $\beta$, then $\alpha \lessdot \beta$.
For two positive roots $\alpha,\beta$, we define $\alpha \preceq \beta$ if there exist positive roots $\gamma_0,\ldots,\gamma_N$ such that $\alpha=\gamma_0 \lessdot \gamma_1 \lessdot \cdots \lessdot \gamma_N=\beta$. For each $i=1,\ldots,n$, we denote positive roots[^2] in $\Phi^{+}_{C_n}$ by $$\alpha_{i,j}=
\begin{cases}
x_i-x_j \ \ \ \ \ &{\rm if} \ i+1 \leq j \leq n, \\
x_i+x_{2n+1-j} \ \ \ \ \ &{\rm if} \ n+1 \leq j \leq 2n-i, \\
2x_i \ \ \ \ \ &{\rm if} \ j=2n+1-i.
\end{cases}$$ Note that $\alpha_{i,j} \preceq \alpha_{k,\ell}$ iff $i \geq k$ and $j \leq \ell$. Similarly to type $A$, $\Phi^+_i=\{\alpha_{i,j} \mid i < j \leq i+e_i \}$ is the set of all positive roots in the $i$-th row in Figure \[picture:PositiveRootTypeC\]. A **Hessenberg function for type $C_n$** is defined to be the same one as type $B_n$. Under the decomposition $\Phi^+_{C_n}=\coprod_{i=1}^{n} \ \Phi^+_i$, one can see that the set of lower ideals $I \subset \Phi^+_{C_n}$ and the set of Hessenberg functions $h$ for type $C_n$ are in one-to-one correspondence which sends $I$ to $h_I$ in .
Like the derivation defined in [@AHMMS], we define the derivation[^3] $\psi^{C_n}_{i,j}$ for $1 \leq i \leq n$ and $i \leq j \leq 2n+1-i$ by $$\label{eq:psiC}
\psi^{C_n}_{i,j} := \sum_{k=1}^i \left( \prod_{\ell=i+1}^{j} \alpha_{k,\ell} \right) \partial_k \in \operatorname{Der}\CR=\CR \otimes \mathfrak{t},$$ where we take the convention $\prod_{\ell=i+1}^{i} \alpha_{k,\ell}=1$.
$($[@AHMMS Theorem 10.14]$)$ \[theorem:psiC\] The derivations $\{\psi^{C_n}_{i,j} \mid 1 \leq i \leq n, i \leq j \leq 2n+1-i \}$ form uniform bases for the ideal arrangements of type $C_n$.
Using the recursive formula in [@AHMMS], we have $$\begin{aligned}
\psi^{C_n}_{i,i}&= \partial_1+\cdots+\partial_i \ \ \ {\rm for} \ i=1,\ldots,n, \\
\psi^{C_n}_{i,j}&=\psi^{C_n}_{i-1,j-1} + \alpha_{i,j}\psi^{C_n}_{i,j-1} \ \ \ {\rm for} \ (i,j) \ {\rm with} \ i<j < 2n+1-i, \\
\psi^{C_n}_{i,2n+1-i}&=2\psi^{C_n}_{i-1,2n-i} + \alpha_{i,2n+1-i}\psi^{C_n}_{i,2n-i} \ \ \ {\rm for} \ i=1,\ldots,n, \end{aligned}$$ where we take the convention $\psi^{C_n}_{0,*}=0$ for any $*$. Note that $\operatorname{ht}(\Phi^+_{C_n})=2n-1$ and the set $\Lambda_m$ in is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\Lambda_m=[n-k] \ \ \ {\rm if} \ m=2k,2k+1.\end{aligned}$$ From the recursive formula above we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\psi^{C_n}_{i,i}&= \alpha_i^* \ \ \ {\rm for} \ 1 \leq i \leq n-1, \\
\psi^{C_n}_{n,n}&= 2\alpha_n^*, \\
\psi^{C_n}_{i,i+m}&= \sum _{j=1}^{i} \alpha_{j,j+m} \psi^{C_n}_{j,j+m-1}
\ \ \ {\rm for} \ 1 \leq m \leq 2n-1 \ {\rm and} \ i \in \Lambda_m \setminus \{\underset{\ell \in \Lambda_m}{\mbox{max}} \, \ell \}. \\
\psi^{C_n}_{i,i+m}&= \sum _{j=1}^{i-1} 2 \alpha_{j,j+m} \psi^{C_n}_{j,j+m-1} + \alpha_{i,i+m} \psi^{C_n}_{i,i+m-1}
\ \ \ {\rm for} \ 1 \leq m \leq 2n-1 \ {\rm and} \ i= \underset{\ell \in \Lambda_m}{\mbox{max}} \, \ell. \end{aligned}$$ Thus, the invertible matrices $P_m^{C_n}$ $(0 \leq m \leq 2n-1)$ associated with the uniform bases $\{\psi^{C_n}_{i,i+m} \mid \ 0 \leq m \leq 2n-1, i \in \Lambda_m \}$ are given by $$P_0^{C_n}=
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & & & \\
& \ddots & & \\
& & 1 & \\
& & & 2
\end{pmatrix}, \ \ \
P_m^{C_n}=
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & & & \\
\vdots & \ddots & & \\
1 & \cdots & 1 & \\
2 & \cdots & 2 & 1
\end{pmatrix} \ \ (1 \leq m \leq 2n-1).$$
Type $D_n \ (n \geq 4)$
-----------------------
[^4] \[subsection:typeD\] Let $\mathfrak{t}=V$ and we have $$\CR = \operatorname{Sym}(\mathfrak{t}^*)=\R[x_1,\ldots,x_n].$$ We take the set of positive roots of type $D_n$ as $$\Phi^{+}_{D_n} = \{x_i \pm x_j \in \mathfrak{t}^* \mid 1 \leq i < j \leq n\}$$ and set the exponents $\e_1,\ldots,\e_n$ as $$\begin{aligned}
e_i &= 2(n-i)-1 \ \ \ \ \ \ \mbox{for} \ 1 \leq i \leq n-1, \\
e_n &= n-1. \end{aligned}$$ We arrange all positive roots of $D_n$ as shown in Figure \[picture:PositiveRootTypeD\].
(440,100)
(295,85)[$\cdots$]{} (160,80)[(40,20)[$x_1-x_n$]{}]{} (200,80)[(40,20)[$x_1+x_n$]{}]{} (360,80)[(40,20)[$x_1+x_2$]{}]{} (95,85)[$\cdots$]{} (0,80)[(40,20)[$x_1-x_2$]{}]{} (55,65)[$\ddots$]{} (178,65)[$\vdots$]{} (218,65)[$\vdots$]{} (335,65)[$\cdot$]{} (340,67.5)[$\cdot$]{} (345,70)[$\cdot$]{}
(160,40)[(40,20)[$x_i-x_n$]{}]{} (255,45)[$\cdots$]{} (200,40)[(40,20)[$x_i+x_n$]{}]{} (135,45)[$\cdots$]{} (280,40)[(40,20)[$x_i+x_{i+1}$]{}]{} (80,40)[(40,20)[$x_i-x_{i+1}$]{}]{} (135,25)[$\ddots$]{} (178,25)[$\vdots$]{} (218,25)[$\vdots$]{} (255,25)[$\cdot$]{} (260,27.5)[$\cdot$]{} (265,30)[$\cdot$]{} (200,0)[(40,20)[$x_{n-1}+x_n$]{}]{} (160,0)[(40,20)[$x_{n-1}-x_n$]{}]{}
(160,80)[(1,0)[80]{}]{} (160,100)[(1,0)[80]{}]{} (160,80)[(0,1)[20]{}]{} (240,80)[(0,1)[20]{}]{}
(160,40)[(1,0)[80]{}]{} (160,60)[(1,0)[80]{}]{} (160,40)[(0,1)[20]{}]{} (240,40)[(0,1)[20]{}]{}
(160,0)[(1,0)[80]{}]{} (160,20)[(1,0)[80]{}]{} (160,0)[(0,1)[20]{}]{} (240,0)[(0,1)[20]{}]{}
In Figure \[picture:PositiveRootTypeD\] the partial order $\preceq$ on $\Phi^+_{D_n}$ is defined as follows:
1. if a root $\alpha$ is left-adjacent to a root $\beta$, then $\alpha \lessdot \beta$, except for $(\alpha,\beta)=(x_i-x_n,x_i+x_n)$ $(1 \leq i \leq n-1)$ which are pictorially divided by a dotted line;
2. $x_i-x_{n-1} \lessdot x_i+x_n$ and $x_i-x_n \lessdot x_i+x_{n+1}$ for $1 \leq i \leq n-1$;
3. if a root $\alpha$ is lower-adjacent to a root $\beta$, then $\alpha \lessdot \beta$.
For two positive roots $\alpha,\beta$, we define $\alpha \preceq \beta$ if there exist positive roots $\gamma_0,\ldots,\gamma_N$ such that $\alpha=\gamma_0 \lessdot \gamma_1 \lessdot \cdots \lessdot \gamma_N=\beta$. We denote positive roots in $\Phi^{+}_{D_n}$ by $$\alpha_{i,j}=
\begin{cases}
x_i-x_j \ \ \ \ \ &{\rm if} \ i+1 \leq j \leq n, \\
x_i+x_{2n-j} \ \ \ \ \ &{\rm if} \ n+1 \leq j \leq 2n-i-1
\end{cases}$$ for each $i=1,\ldots,n-1$, and $$\alpha_{n,j}=x_{2n-j}+x_n \ \ \ \ \ {\rm if} \ n+1 \leq j \leq 2n-1.$$
Note that $\Phi^+_i$ is the set of all positive roots in the $i$-th row except for the root $x_i+x_n$ for $i=1,\ldots,n-1$, and $\Phi^+_n$ is the set of all positive roots in the $(n+1)$-th column in Figure \[picture:PositiveRootTypeD\]. Motivated by this, we define the coordinate in type $D_n$ as shown in Figure \[picture:CoordinateTypeD\].
(470,120) (380,105)[$\cdots$]{} (155,100)[(50,20)[$(1,n-1)$]{}]{} (245,100)[(40,20)[$(n,2n-1)$]{}]{} (430,100)[(40,20)[$(1,2n-2)$]{}]{} (90,105)[$\cdots$]{} (25,100)[(25,20)[$(1,2)$]{}]{} (50,85)[$\ddots$]{} (180,85)[$\vdots$]{} (263,85)[$\vdots$]{} (412,85)[$\cdot$]{} (417,87.5)[$\cdot$]{} (422,90)[$\cdot$]{}
(155,60)[(50,20)[$(i,n-1)$]{}]{} (340,65)[$\cdots$]{} (245,60)[(40,20)[$(n,2n-i)$]{}]{} (128,65)[$\cdots$]{} (360,60)[(50,20)[$(i,2n-1-i)$]{}]{} (80,60)[(35,20)[$(i,i+1)$]{}]{} (125,45)[$\ddots$]{} (180,45)[$\vdots$]{} (263,45)[$\vdots$]{} (340,45)[$\cdot$]{} (345,47.5)[$\cdot$]{} (350,50)[$\cdot$]{} (245,20)[(40,20)[$(n,n+2)$]{}]{} (155,20)[(50,20)[$(n-2,n-1)$]{}]{} (155,0)[(50,20)[$(n-1,n-1)$]{}]{}
(205,100)[(40,20)[$(1,n)$]{}]{} (223,85)[$\vdots$]{} (205,60)[(40,20)[$(i,n)$]{}]{} (223,45)[$\vdots$]{} (205,20)[(40,20)[$(n-2,n)$]{}]{} (205,0)[(40,20)[$(n-1,n)$]{}]{}
(285,100)[(50,20)[$(1,n+1)$]{}]{} (310,85)[$\vdots$]{} (285,60)[(50,20)[$(i,n+1)$]{}]{} (310,45)[$\vdots$]{} (285,20)[(50,20)[$(n-2,n+1)$]{}]{}
(0,100)[(25,20)[$(1,1)$]{}]{} (55,60)[(25,20)[$(i,i)$]{}]{} (105,20)[(50,20)[$(n-2,n-2)$]{}]{} (245,0)[(40,20)[$(n,n+1)$]{}]{} (245,-20)[(40,20)[$(n,n)$]{}]{}
(20,85)[$\ddots$]{} (80,45)[$\ddots$]{}
We define a **Hessenberg function for type $D_n$** as a function $h: [n] \to [2n-1]$ satisfying the following conditions
1. $i \leq h(i) \leq 2n-1-i$ for $i=1,\ldots, n-1$,
2. $n \leq h(n) \leq 2n-1$,
3. if $h(i) \neq 2n-1-i$, then $h(i) \leq h(i+1)$ for $i=1,\ldots, n-2$,
4. if $h(i) = 2n-1-i$, then $h(i+1) = 2n-1-(i+1)$ for $i=1,\ldots, n-2$,
5. if $h(i) \geq n+1$, then $h(n) \geq 2n-i$ for $i=1,\ldots, n-2$,[^5]
6. if $h(n) \geq 2n-i$, then $h(i) \geq n-1$ for $i=1,\ldots, n-2$.
Under the decomposition $\Phi^+_{D_n}=\coprod_{i=1}^{n} \ \Phi^+_i$, one can see that the set of lower ideals $I \subset \Phi^+_{D_n}$ and the set of Hessenberg functions $h$ for type $D_n$ are in one-to-one correspondence which sends $I$ to $h_I$ in . We write a Hessenberg function by listing its values in sequence, namely, $h = (h(1), h(2), \ldots , h(n))$.
It is useful to express a Hessenberg function $h$ pictorially by drawing a configuration of boxes on a square grid with the coordinate in Figure \[picture:CoordinateTypeD\] whose shaded boxes correspond to the roots of the lower ideal $I$ associated with $h$ and $(i,i)$-boxes (see for example [@AHHM] for type $A$). For example the picture of the Hessenberg function $h=(3,5,4,7)$ is shown in Figure \[picture:The picture for h=(3,5,4,7)\].
(210,75) (0,63) (5,63) (10,63) (15,63) (20,63) (24,63) (0,68) (5,68) (10,68) (15,68) (20,68) (24,68) (0,73) (5,73) (10,73) (15,73) (20,73) (24,73) (0,77) (5,77) (10,77) (15,77) (20,77) (24,77)
(30,63) (35,63) (40,63) (45,63) (50,63) (54,63) (30,68) (35,68) (40,68) (45,68) (50,68) (54,68) (30,73) (35,73) (40,73) (45,73) (50,73) (54,73) (30,77) (35,77) (40,77) (45,77) (50,77) (54,77)
(60,63) (65,63) (70,63) (75,63) (80,63) (84,63) (60,68) (65,68) (70,68) (75,68) (80,68) (84,68) (60,73) (65,73) (70,73) (75,73) (80,73) (84,73) (60,77) (65,77) (70,77) (75,77) (80,77) (84,77)
(120,63) (125,63) (130,63) (135,63) (140,63) (144,63) (120,68) (125,68) (130,68) (135,68) (140,68) (144,68) (120,73) (125,73) (130,73) (135,73) (140,73) (144,73) (120,77) (125,77) (130,77) (135,77) (140,77) (144,77)
(30,43) (35,43) (40,43) (45,43) (50,43) (54,43) (30,48) (35,48) (40,48) (45,48) (50,48) (54,48) (30,53) (35,53) (40,53) (45,53) (50,53) (54,53) (30,57) (35,57) (40,57) (45,57) (50,57) (54,57)
(60,43) (65,43) (70,43) (75,43) (80,43) (84,43) (60,48) (65,48) (70,48) (75,48) (80,48) (84,48) (60,53) (65,53) (70,53) (75,53) (80,53) (84,53) (60,57) (65,57) (70,57) (75,57) (80,57) (84,57)
(90,43) (95,43) (100,43) (105,43) (110,43) (114,43) (90,48) (95,48) (100,48) (105,48) (110,48) (114,48) (90,53) (95,53) (100,53) (105,53) (110,53) (114,53) (90,57) (95,57) (100,57) (105,57) (110,57) (114,57)
(120,43) (125,43) (130,43) (135,43) (140,43) (144,43) (120,48) (125,48) (130,48) (135,48) (140,48) (144,48) (120,53) (125,53) (130,53) (135,53) (140,53) (144,53) (120,57) (125,57) (130,57) (135,57) (140,57) (144,57)
(150,43) (155,43) (160,43) (165,43) (170,43) (174,43) (150,48) (155,48) (160,48) (165,48) (170,48) (174,48) (150,53) (155,53) (160,53) (165,53) (170,53) (174,53) (150,57) (155,57) (160,57) (165,57) (170,57) (174,57)
(60,23) (65,23) (70,23) (75,23) (80,23) (84,23) (60,28) (65,28) (70,28) (75,28) (80,28) (84,28) (60,33) (65,33) (70,33) (75,33) (80,33) (84,33) (60,37) (65,37) (70,37) (75,37) (80,37) (84,37)
(90,23) (95,23) (100,23) (105,23) (110,23) (114,23) (90,28) (95,28) (100,28) (105,28) (110,28) (114,28) (90,33) (95,33) (100,33) (105,33) (110,33) (114,33) (90,37) (95,37) (100,37) (105,37) (110,37) (114,37)
(120,23) (125,23) (130,23) (135,23) (140,23) (144,23) (120,28) (125,28) (130,28) (135,28) (140,28) (144,28) (120,33) (125,33) (130,33) (135,33) (140,33) (144,33) (120,37) (125,37) (130,37) (135,37) (140,37) (144,37)
(120,3) (125,3) (130,3) (135,3) (140,3) (144,3) (120,8) (125,8) (130,8) (135,8) (140,8) (144,8) (120,13) (125,13) (130,13) (135,13) (140,13) (144,13) (120,17) (125,17) (130,17) (135,17) (140,17) (144,17)
(0,00)[(30,20)]{} (0,20)[(30,20)]{} (0,40)[(30,20)]{} (0,60)[(30,20)[$(1,1)$]{}]{}
(30,00)[(30,20)]{} (30,20)[(30,20)]{} (30,40)[(30,20)[$(2,2)$]{}]{} (30,60)[(30,20)[$(1,2)$]{}]{}
(60,00)[(30,20)]{} (60,20)[(30,20)[$(3,3)$]{}]{} (60,40)[(30,20)[$(2,3)$]{}]{} (60,60)[(30,20)[$(1,3)$]{}]{}
(90,00)[(30,20)]{} (90,20)[(30,20)[$(3,4)$]{}]{} (90,40)[(30,20)[$(2,4)$]{}]{} (90,60)[(30,20)[$(1,4)$]{}]{}
(120,00)[(30,20)[$(4,4)$]{}]{} (120,20)[(30,20)[$(4,5)$]{}]{} (120,40)[(30,20)[$(4,6)$]{}]{} (120,60)[(30,20)[$(4,7)$]{}]{}
(150,00)[(30,20)]{} (150,20)[(30,20)]{} (150,40)[(30,20)[$(2,5)$]{}]{} (150,60)[(30,20)[$(1,5)$]{}]{}
(180,0)[(30,20)]{} (180,20)[(30,20)]{} (180,40)[(30,20)]{} (180,60)[(30,20)[$(1,6)$]{}]{}
Now we define the derivations $\{\psi^{D_n}_{i,j} \mid 1 \leq i \leq n-1, i \leq j \leq 2n-i-1\} \cup \{\psi^{D_n}_{n,j} \mid n \leq j \leq 2n-1 \}$ by a recursive formula which is a different flavor than that of types $A,B,C$. We begin with the case when $j=i$. In this case we make the following definition $$\begin{aligned}
\psi^{D_n}_{i,i}&= \partial_1+\cdots+\partial_i, \ \ \ {\rm for} \ 1 \leq i \leq n-2,\\
\psi^{D_n}_{n-1,n-1}&= \partial_1+\cdots+\partial_{n-1}-\partial_n, \\
\psi^{D_n}_{n,n}&= \partial_1+\cdots+\partial_{n-1}+\partial_n.\end{aligned}$$ Now we proceed inductively for the rest of the $\psi^{D_n}_{i,j}$ as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\psi^{D_n}_{i,j}&= \psi^{D_n}_{i-1,j-1} + \alpha_{i,j}\psi^{D_n}_{i,j-1}+\delta_{j,n-1}\xi^{D_n}_{i} \ \ {\rm for} \ 1 \leq i \leq n-1 {\rm,} \ i+1 \leq j \leq 2n-1-i, \label{eq:psiDi}\\
\psi^{D_n}_{n,j}&= \alpha_{n,j}\psi^{D_n}_{n,j-1}+(-1)^{j-n}\psi^{D_n}_{2n-j,n} \ \ \ \ \ \ \ {\rm for} \ n+1 \leq j \leq 2n-1, \label{eq:psiDn}\end{aligned}$$ where $\psi^{D_n}_{0,j}$ is defined to be the following $$\label{eq:psi0D}
\psi^{D_n}_{0,j}=
\begin{cases}
0 \ \ \ {\rm for} \ 1 \leq j \leq n-2, \\
(-1)^n \left(\sum_{k=1}^{n} x_1 \cdots \widehat x_k \cdots x_n \partial_k \right) \ \ \ {\rm for} \ j=n-1, \\
-x_{2n-j}x_{2n-j+1}\cdots x_{n}\psi^{D_n}_{0,n-1} \ \ \ {\rm for} \ n \leq j \leq 2n-3,
\end{cases}$$ and $\xi^{D_n}_{i}$ is defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:xiD}
\xi^{D_n}_{i}=&\sum_{k=1}^i \left( (x_k-x_{i+1})\cdots(x_k-x_{n-1})x_n + (-1)^{n-i} x_{i+1} \cdots x_{n} \right) x_k^{-1} \partial_k \\
&+ (-1)^{n-i} \sum_{k=i+1}^{n} x_{i+1} \cdots \widehat{x_k} \cdots x_n \partial_k, \notag\end{aligned}$$ where the caret sign $\widehat{}$ over $x_j$ means that the entry $x_j$ is to be omitted. Note that $\big( (x_j-x_{i+1})\cdots(x_j-x_{n-1})x_n + (-1)^{n-i} x_{i+1} \cdots x_{n-1}x_{n} \big)$ is divisible by $x_j$. Thus, $\xi^{D_n}_{i}$ is an element of $\operatorname{Der}\CR=\CR \otimes \mathfrak{t}$, so is $\psi^{D_n}_{i,j}$. Also, we define $\xi^{D_n}_{i}$ for $i=0$ as $$\xi^{D_n}_{0}:=\psi^{D_n}_{0,n-1}.$$ Note that we need the derivations $\xi^{D_n}_{i}$ only for $0 \leq i \leq n-2$. In fact, if we take $i=n-1$ in , then one can see that $j=n$ and $\xi^{D_n}_{n-1}$ does not appear in the right hand side of .
In type $D_4$, the positive roots $\alpha_{i,j}$ are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha_{1,2}&=x_1-x_2, \ \alpha_{1,3}=x_1-x_3, \ \alpha_{1,4}=x_1-x_4, \ \alpha_{1,5}=x_1+x_3, \ \alpha_{1,6}=x_1+x_2, \\
\alpha_{2,3}&=x_2-x_3, \ \alpha_{2,4}=x_2-x_4, \ \alpha_{2,5}=x_2+x_3, \\
\alpha_{3,4}&=x_3-x_4, \\
\alpha_{4,5}&=x_3+x_4, \ \alpha_{4,6}=x_2+x_4, \ \alpha_{4,7}=x_1+x_4, \end{aligned}$$ and we arrange the derivations $\psi^{D_4}_{i,j}$ in the coordinate shown in Figure \[picture:CoordinateTypeD\] as follows:
(280,85) (0,00)[(40,20)]{} (0,20)[(40,20)]{} (0,40)[(40,20)]{} (0,60)[(40,20)[$\psi^{D_4}_{1,1}$]{}]{} (40,00)[(40,20)]{} (40,20)[(40,20)]{} (40,40)[(40,20)[$\psi^{D_4}_{2,2}$]{}]{} (40,60)[(40,20)[$\psi^{D_4}_{1,2}$]{}]{} (80,00)[(40,20)]{} (80,20)[(40,20)[$\psi^{D_4}_{3,3}$]{}]{} (80,40)[(40,20)[$\psi^{D_4}_{2,3}$]{}]{} (80,60)[(40,20)[$\psi^{D_4}_{1,3}$]{}]{} (120,00)[(40,20)]{} (120,20)[(40,20)[$\psi^{D_4}_{3,4}$]{}]{} (120,40)[(40,20)[$\psi^{D_4}_{2,4}$]{}]{} (120,60)[(40,20)[$\psi^{D_4}_{1,4}$]{}]{} (160,00)[(40,20)[$\psi^{D_4}_{4,4}$]{}]{} (160,20)[(40,20)[$\psi^{D_4}_{4,5}$]{}]{} (160,40)[(40,20)[$\psi^{D_4}_{4,6}$]{}]{} (160,60)[(40,20)[$\psi^{D_4}_{4,7}$]{}]{} (200,00)[(40,20)]{} (200,20)[(40,20)]{} (200,40)[(40,20)[$\psi^{D_4}_{2,5}$]{}]{} (200,60)[(40,20)[$\psi^{D_4}_{1,5}$]{}]{} (240,0)[(40,20)]{} (240,20)[(40,20)]{} (240,40)[(40,20)]{} (240,60)[(40,20)[$\psi^{D_4}_{1,6}$]{}]{}
Then the derivations $\psi^{D_4}_{i,j} \in \operatorname{Der}\CR=\CR \otimes \mathfrak{t}$ are computed as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\psi^{D_4}_{1,1} =&\partial_{1},\\
\psi^{D_4}_{1,2} =& (x_1-x_2)\partial_{1},\\
\psi^{D_4}_{1,3} =& \frac{\big((x_1-x_2)(x_1-x_3)(x_1+x_4)-x_2x_3x_4\big)}{x_1}\partial_1-x_3x_4\partial_2-x_2x_4\partial_3-x_2x_3\partial_4,\\
\psi^{D_4}_{1,4} =& \frac{\big((x_1-x_2)(x_1-x_3)(x_1-x_4)(x_1+x_4)+x_2x_3x_4^2\big)}{x_1}\partial_1+x_3x_4^2\partial_2+x_2x_4^2\partial_3+x_2x_3x_4\partial_4,\\
\psi^{D_4}_{1,5} =& \frac{\big((x_1-x_2)(x_1-x_3)(x_1-x_4)(x_1+x_4)(x_1+x_3)+x_2x_3^2x_4^2\big)}{x_1}\partial_1 \\
&+x_3^2x_4^2\partial_2+x_2x_3x_4^2\partial_3+x_2x_3^2x_4\partial_4,\\
\psi^{D_4}_{1,6} =& \frac{\big((x_1-x_2)(x_1-x_3)(x_1-x_4)(x_1+x_4)(x_1+x_3)(x_1+x_2)+x_2^2x_3^2x_4^2\big)}{x_1}\partial_1 \\
&+x_2x_3^2x_4^2\partial_2+x_2^2x_3x_4^2\partial_3+x_2^2x_3^2x_4\partial_4,\\
\psi^{D_4}_{2,2} =& \partial_{1}+\partial_{2},\\
\psi^{D_4}_{2,3} =& \frac{\big((x_1-x_3)(x_1+x_4)+x_3x_4\big)}{x_1}\partial_1+\frac{\big((x_2-x_3)(x_2+x_4)+x_3x_4\big)}{x_2}\partial_2+x_4\partial_3+x_3\partial_4,\\
\psi^{D_4}_{2,4} =& \frac{\big((x_1-x_3)(x_1-x_4)(x_1+x_4)-x_3x_4^2\big)}{x_1}\partial_1+\frac{\big((x_2-x_3)(x_2-x_4)(x_2+x_4)-x_3x_4^2\big)}{x_2}\partial_2 \\
&-x_4^2\partial_3-x_3x_4\partial_4,\\
\psi^{D_4}_{2,5} =& \frac{\big((x_1-x_3)(x_1-x_4)(x_1+x_4)(x_1+x_3)-x_3^2x_4^2\big)}{x_1}\partial_1 \\
&+\frac{\big((x_2-x_3)(x_2-x_4)(x_2+x_4)(x_2+x_3)-x_3^2x_4^2\big)}{x_2}\partial_2 \\
&-x_3x_4^2\partial_3-x_3^3x_4\partial_4,\\
\psi^{D_4}_{3,3} =& \partial_{1}+\partial_{2}+\partial_{3}-\partial_{4},\\
\psi^{D_4}_{3,4} =& x_1\partial_1 + x_2\partial_2+x_3\partial_3+x_4\partial_4, \\
\psi^{D_4}_{4,4} =& \partial_{1}+\partial_{2}+\partial_{3}+\partial_{4},\\
\psi^{D_4}_{4,5} =& -\frac{\big((x_1-x_3)(x_1-x_4)-x_3x_4 \big)}{x_1}\partial_{1}-\frac{\big((x_2-x_3)(x_2-x_4)-x_3x_4 \big)}{x_2}\partial_{2}+x_4\partial_{3}+x_3\partial_{4},\\
\psi^{D_4}_{4,6} =& \frac{\big((x_1-x_2)(x_1-x_3)(x_1-x_4)+x_2x_3x_4\big)}{x_1}\partial_1+x_3x_4\partial_2+x_2x_4\partial_3+x_2x_3\partial_4,\\
\psi^{D_4}_{4,7} =& x_2x_3x_4\partial_1+x_1x_3x_4\partial_2+x_1x_2x_4\partial_3+x_1x_2x_3\partial_4.\end{aligned}$$
It is straightforward from the definition of $\psi^{D_n}_{i,j}$ to see the following explicit formula for $\psi^{D_n}_{i,j}$. For $1 \leq i \leq n-1$ we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\psi^{D_n}_{i,j}=&\sum_{k=1}^{i} (x_k-x_{i+1})\cdots(x_k-x_j) \partial_k \ \ \ \ \ \ {\rm for} \ i \leq j \leq n-2 \ (i \neq n-1), \label{eq:psi1} \\
\psi^{D_n}_{i,n-1}=&\sum_{k=1}^{i} \left((x_k-x_{i+1})\cdots(x_k-x_{n-1})(x_k+x_n) +(-1)^{n-i} x_{i+1}\cdots x_n \right) x_k^{-1}\partial_k \label{eq:psi2} \\
&+(-1)^{n-i} \sum_{k=i+1}^n x_{i+1} \cdots \widehat{x_k} \cdots x_n \partial_k, \notag \\
\psi^{D_n}_{i,n+j}=&\sum_{k=1}^{i} \big((x_k-x_{i+1})\cdots(x_k-x_{n})(x_k+x_n)\cdots(x_k+x_{n-j}) \label{eq:psi3} \\
&+(-1)^{n-i+1} x_{i+1}\cdots x_{n-1-j} x_{n-j}^2\cdots x_n^2 \big) x_k^{-1}\partial_k \notag \\
&+(-1)^{n-i+1} x_{n-j} \cdots x_n \sum_{k=i+1}^n x_{i+1} \cdots \widehat{x_k} \cdots x_n \partial_k \ \ \ \ \ \ {\rm for} \ 0 \leq j \leq n-1-i, \notag \end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\psi^{D_n}_{n,2n-1-r}=&\sum_{k=1}^{r} \left((-1)^{n-r+1} (x_k-x_{r+1})\cdots(x_k-x_{n-1})(x_k-x_n) + x_{r+1}\cdots x_n \right) x_k^{-1}\partial_k \label{eq:psi4} \\
&+ \sum_{k=r+1}^n x_{r+1} \cdots \widehat{x_k} \cdots x_n \partial_k \ \ \ \ \ \ {\rm for} \ 0 \leq r \leq n-1 \notag.\end{aligned}$$
\[proposition:psiD\] Let $I$ be a lower ideal in $\Phi^{+}_{D_n}$ and $h_I$ the associated Hessenberg function in . Then, $\psi^{D_n}_{i,h_I(i)}$ is an element of $D(\A_I)$ for $i=1,\ldots,n$.
We fix $i$ and put $j=h_I(i)$. We consider a Hessenberg function $h$ such that $h(i)=j$, and choose the maximal Hessenberg function $h^{(i,j)}$ from such Hessenberg functions. The lower ideal associated with $h^{(i,j)}$ is denoted by $I^{(i,j)}$. Note that the lower ideal $I^{(i,j)}$ is the maximal lower ideal among lower ideals $I$ such that $\alpha_{i,j+1} \notin I$ with respect to inclusion. It is enough to prove that $\psi^{D_n}_{i,j}$ belong to $D(\A_{I^{(i,j)}})$ because $D(\A_{I^{(i,j)}}) \subset D(\A_I)$.\
*Case 1* Suppose that $1 \leq i \leq n-2$ and $i \leq j \leq n-2$. Then the Hessenberg function $h^{(i,j)}$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
h^{(i,j)}(t)=\begin{cases}
j \ \ \ &{\rm if} \ 1 \leq t \leq i, \\
2n-1-t \ \ \ &{\rm if} \ i+1 \leq t \leq n-1, \\
2n-1-i \ \ \ &{\rm if} \ t = n.
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ The picture of the Hessenberg function $h^{(i,j)}$ is shown in Figure \[picture:h\^[(i,j)]{}Case1\]. Here, $d_t=t+e_t=2n-1-t$ for $1 \leq t \leq n-1$.
(490,165)
(0,153) (5,153) (10,153) (14,153) (0,158) (5,158) (10,158) (14,158) (0,162) (5,162) (10,162) (14,162)
(40,153) (45,153) (50,153) (54,153) (40,158) (45,158) (50,158) (54,158) (40,162) (45,162) (50,162) (54,162)
(80,153) (85,153) (90,153) (94,153) (80,158) (85,158) (90,158) (94,158) (80,162) (85,162) (90,162) (94,162)
(40,118) (45,118) (50,118) (54,118) (40,123) (45,123) (50,123) (54,123) (40,127) (45,127) (50,127) (54,127)
(80,118) (85,118) (90,118) (94,118) (80,123) (85,123) (90,123) (94,123) (80,127) (85,127) (90,127) (94,127)
(100,103) (105,103) (110,103) (115,103) (120,103) (125,103) (130,103) (135,103) (140,103) (144,103) (100,108) (105,108) (110,108) (115,108) (120,108) (125,108) (130,108) (135,108) (140,108) (144,108) (100,112) (105,112) (110,112) (115,112) (120,112) (125,112) (130,112) (135,112) (140,112) (144,112)
(170,103) (175,103) (180,103) (185,103) (190,103) (195,103) (200,103) (205,103) (210,103) (214,103) (170,108) (175,108) (180,108) (185,108) (190,108) (195,108) (200,108) (205,108) (210,108) (214,108) (170,112) (175,112) (180,112) (185,112) (190,112) (195,112) (200,112) (205,112) (210,112) (214,112)
(220,103) (225,103) (230,103) (235,103) (240,103) (245,103) (249,103) (220,108) (225,108) (230,108) (235,108) (240,108) (245,108) (249,108) (220,112) (225,112) (230,112) (235,112) (240,112) (245,112) (249,112)
(255,103) (260,103) (265,103) (270,103) (275,103) (280,103) (285,103) (290,103) (295,103) (300,103) (304,103) (255,108) (260,108) (265,108) (270,108) (275,108) (280,108) (285,108) (290,108) (295,108) (300,108) (304,108) (255,112) (260,112) (265,112) (270,112) (275,112) (280,112) (285,112) (290,112) (295,112) (300,112) (304,112)
(385,103) (390,103) (395,103) (400,103) (405,103) (410,103) (415,103) (420,103) (424,103) (385,108) (390,108) (395,108) (400,108) (405,108) (410,108) (415,108) (420,108) (424,108) (385,112) (390,112) (395,112) (400,112) (405,112) (410,112) (415,112) (420,112) (424,112)
(100,68) (105,68) (110,68) (115,68) (120,68) (125,68) (130,68) (135,68) (140,68) (144,68) (100,73) (105,73) (110,73) (115,73) (120,73) (125,73) (130,73) (135,73) (140,73) (144,73) (100,77) (105,77) (110,77) (115,77) (120,77) (125,77) (130,77) (135,77) (140,77) (144,77)
(170,68) (175,68) (180,68) (185,68) (190,68) (195,68) (200,68) (205,68) (210,68) (214,68) (170,73) (175,73) (180,73) (185,73) (190,73) (195,73) (200,73) (205,73) (210,73) (214,73) (170,77) (175,77) (180,77) (185,77) (190,77) (195,77) (200,77) (205,77) (210,77) (214,77)
(220,68) (225,68) (230,68) (235,68) (240,68) (245,68) (249,68) (220,73) (225,73) (230,73) (235,73) (240,73) (245,73) (249,73) (220,77) (225,77) (230,77) (235,77) (240,77) (245,77) (249,77)
(255,68) (260,68) (265,68) (270,68) (275,68) (280,68) (285,68) (290,68) (295,68) (300,68) (304,68) (255,73) (260,73) (265,73) (270,73) (275,73) (280,73) (285,73) (290,73) (295,73) (300,73) (304,73) (255,77) (260,77) (265,77) (270,77) (275,77) (280,77) (285,77) (290,77) (295,77) (300,77) (304,77)
(330,68) (335,68) (340,68) (345,68) (350,68) (355,68) (360,68) (365,68) (369,68) (330,73) (335,73) (340,73) (345,73) (350,73) (355,73) (360,73) (365,73) (369,73) (330,77) (335,77) (340,77) (345,77) (350,77) (355,77) (360,77) (365,77) (369,77)
(170,33) (175,33) (180,33) (185,33) (190,33) (195,33) (200,33) (205,33) (210,33) (214,33) (170,38) (175,38) (180,38) (185,38) (190,38) (195,38) (200,38) (205,38) (210,38) (214,38) (170,42) (175,42) (180,42) (185,42) (190,42) (195,42) (200,42) (205,42) (210,42) (214,42)
(220,33) (225,33) (230,33) (235,33) (240,33) (245,33) (249,33) (220,38) (225,38) (230,38) (235,38) (240,38) (245,38) (249,38) (220,42) (225,42) (230,42) (235,42) (240,42) (245,42) (249,42)
(255,33) (260,33) (265,33) (270,33) (275,33) (280,33) (285,33) (290,33) (295,33) (300,33) (304,33) (255,38) (260,38) (265,38) (270,38) (275,38) (280,38) (285,38) (290,38) (295,38) (300,38) (304,38) (255,42) (260,42) (265,42) (270,42) (275,42) (280,42) (285,42) (290,42) (295,42) (300,42) (304,42)
(255,18) (260,18) (265,18) (270,18) (275,18) (280,18) (285,18) (290,18) (295,18) (300,18) (304,18) (255,23) (260,23) (265,23) (270,23) (275,23) (280,23) (285,23) (290,23) (295,23) (300,23) (304,23) (255,27) (260,27) (265,27) (270,27) (275,27) (280,27) (285,27) (290,27) (295,27) (300,27) (304,27)
(0,150)[(20,15)[$(1,1)$]{}]{}
(23,155)[$\cdots$]{} (23,135)[$\ddots$]{}
(40,150)[(20,15)[$(1,i)$]{}]{} (48,135)[$\vdots$]{} (40,115)[(20,15)[$(i,i)$]{}]{}
(63,155)[$\cdots$]{} (63,119)[$\cdots$]{} (63,94)[$\ddots$]{}
(80,150)[(20,15)[$(1,j)$]{}]{} (88,135)[$\vdots$]{} (80,115)[(20,15)[$(i,j)$]{}]{} (88,94)[$\vdots$]{}
(100,150)[(50,15)[$(1,j+1)$]{}]{} (123,135)[$\vdots$]{} (100,115)[(50,15)[$(i,j+1)$]{}]{} (100,100)[(50,15)[$(i+1,j+1)$]{}]{} (123,85)[$\vdots$]{} (100,65)[(50,15)[$(j+1,j+1)$]{}]{}
(153,155)[$\cdots$]{} (153,120)[$\cdots$]{} (153,104)[$\cdots$]{} (153,68)[$\cdots$]{} (153,50)[$\ddots$]{}
(170,150)[(50,15)[$(1,n-1)$]{}]{} (194,135)[$\vdots$]{} (170,115)[(50,15)[$(i,n-1)$]{}]{} (170,100)[(50,15)[$(i+1,n-1)$]{}]{} (194,85)[$\vdots$]{} (170,65)[(50,15)[$(j+1,n-1)$]{}]{} (194,50)[$\vdots$]{} (170,30)[(50,15)[$(n-1,n-1)$]{}]{}
(220,150)[(35,15)[$(1,n)$]{}]{} (236,135)[$\vdots$]{} (220,115)[(35,15)[$(i,n)$]{}]{} (220,100)[(35,15)[$(i+1,n)$]{}]{} (236,85)[$\vdots$]{} (220,65)[(35,15)[$(j+1,n)$]{}]{} (236,50)[$\vdots$]{} (220,30)[(35,15)[$(n-1,n)$]{}]{}
(255,150)[(55,15)[$(n,2n-1)$]{}]{} (279,135)[$\vdots$]{} (255,115)[(55,15)[$(n,2n-i)$]{}]{} (255,100)[(55,15)[$(n,2n-1-i)$]{}]{} (279,85)[$\vdots$]{} (255,65)[(55,15)[$(n,2n-1-j)$]{}]{} (279,50)[$\vdots$]{} (255,30)[(55,15)[$(n,n+1)$]{}]{} (255,15)[(55,15)[$(n,n)$]{}]{}
(383,155)[$\cdots$]{} (363,120)[$\cdots$]{} (343,104)[$\cdots$]{} (313,68)[$\cdots$]{} (313,50)[$\cdot$]{} (318,52.5)[$\cdot$]{} (323,55)[$\cdot$]{}
(330,65)[(45,15)[$(j+1,d_{j+1})$]{}]{}
(376,85)[$\cdot$]{} (378,87.5)[$\cdot$]{} (380,90)[$\cdot$]{}
(385,100)[(45,15)[$(i+1,d_{i+1})$]{}]{}
(430,115)[(25,15)[$(i,d_i)$]{}]{}
(456,135)[$\cdot$]{} (458,137.5)[$\cdot$]{} (460,140)[$\cdot$]{}
(465,150)[(25,15)[$(1,d_1)$]{}]{}
Let $\alpha \in I^{(i,j)}$. Since all shaded boxes except for the boxes $(r,r)$ with $1 \leq r \leq n$ in Figure \[picture:h\^[(i,j)]{}Case1\] correspond to coordinates of all positive roots in $I^{(i,j)}$, $\alpha$ is one of the following forms $$\begin{aligned}
x_k-x_\ell \ \ \ &(1 \leq k < \ell \leq i), \label{eq:Case1(1)} \\
x_k-x_\ell \ \ \ &(1 \leq k \leq i < \ell \leq j), \label{eq:Case1(2)} \\
x_k \pm x_\ell \ \ \ &(i < k < \ell \leq n). \label{eq:Case1(3)} \end{aligned}$$ From the formula $\eqref{eq:psi1}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\psi^{D_n}_{i,j} (\alpha)= \begin{cases}
(x_k-x_{i+1})\cdots(x_k-x_j) - (x_\ell-x_{i+1})\cdots(x_\ell-x_j) &{\rm if} \ \alpha \ {\rm is \ of \ the \ form} \ \eqref{eq:Case1(1)}, \\
(x_k-x_{i+1})\cdots(x_k-x_j) &{\rm if} \ \alpha \ {\rm is \ of \ the \ form} \ \eqref{eq:Case1(2)}, \\
0 &{\rm if} \ \alpha \ {\rm is \ of \ the \ form} \ \eqref{eq:Case1(3)}.
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ One can see that $\psi^{D_n}_{i,j} (\alpha) \equiv 0$ mod $\alpha$ in both of cases.\
*Case 2* Suppose that $1 \leq i \leq n-1$ and $j = n-1$. In this case, the Hessenberg function $h^{(i,j)}$ is defined by $$\begin{aligned}
h^{(i,j)}(t)=\begin{cases}
n-1 \ \ \ &{\rm if} \ 1 \leq t \leq i, \\
2n-1-t \ \ \ &{\rm if} \ i+1 \leq t \leq n-1, \\
2n-1 \ \ \ &{\rm if} \ t = n.
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ The picture of the Hessenberg function $h^{(i,j)}$ is shown in Figure \[picture:h\^[(i,j)]{}Case2\].
(405,165) (0,153) (5,153) (10,153) (14,153) (0,158) (5,158) (10,158) (14,158) (0,162) (5,162) (10,162) (14,162)
(40,153) (45,153) (50,153) (54,153) (40,158) (45,158) (50,158) (54,158) (40,162) (45,162) (50,162) (54,162)
(80,153) (85,153) (90,153) (95,153) (100,153) (105,153) (110,153) (115,153) (120,153) (124,153) (80,158) (85,158) (90,158) (95,158) (100,158) (105,158) (110,158) (115,158) (120,158) (124,158) (80,162) (85,162) (90,162) (95,162) (100,162) (105,162) (110,162) (115,162) (120,162) (124,162)
(165,153) (170,153) (175,153) (180,153) (185,153) (190,153) (195,153) (200,153) (205,153) (210,153) (214,153) (165,158) (170,158) (175,158) (180,158) (185,158) (190,158) (195,158) (200,158) (205,158) (210,158) (214,158) (165,162) (170,162) (175,162) (180,162) (185,162) (190,162) (195,162) (200,162) (205,162) (210,162) (214,162)
(40,118) (45,118) (50,118) (54,118) (40,123) (45,123) (50,123) (54,123) (40,127) (45,127) (50,127) (54,127)
(80,118) (85,118) (90,118) (95,118) (100,118) (105,118) (110,118) (115,118) (120,118) (124,118) (80,123) (85,123) (90,123) (95,123) (100,123) (105,123) (110,123) (115,123) (120,123) (124,123) (80,127) (85,127) (90,127) (95,127) (100,127) (105,127) (110,127) (115,127) (120,127) (124,127)
(165,118) (170,118) (175,118) (180,118) (185,118) (190,118) (195,118) (200,118) (205,118) (210,118) (214,118) (165,123) (170,123) (175,123) (180,123) (185,123) (190,123) (195,123) (200,123) (205,123) (210,123) (214,123) (165,127) (170,127) (175,127) (180,127) (185,127) (190,127) (195,127) (200,127) (205,127) (210,127) (214,127)
(80,103) (85,103) (90,103) (95,103) (100,103) (105,103) (110,103) (115,103) (120,103) (124,103) (80,108) (85,108) (90,108) (95,108) (100,108) (105,108) (110,108) (115,108) (120,108) (124,108) (80,112) (85,112) (90,112) (95,112) (100,112) (105,112) (110,112) (115,112) (120,112) (124,112)
(130,103) (135,103) (140,103) (145,103) (150,103) (155,103) (159,103) (130,108) (135,108) (140,108) (145,108) (150,108) (155,108) (159,108) (130,112) (135,112) (140,112) (145,112) (150,112) (155,112) (159,112)
(165,103) (170,103) (175,103) (180,103) (185,103) (190,103) (195,103) (200,103) (205,103) (210,103) (214,103) (165,108) (170,108) (175,108) (180,108) (185,108) (190,108) (195,108) (200,108) (205,108) (210,108) (214,108) (165,112) (170,112) (175,112) (180,112) (185,112) (190,112) (195,112) (200,112) (205,112) (210,112) (214,112)
(220,103) (225,103) (230,103) (235,103) (240,103) (245,103) (250,103) (255,103) (260,103) (264,103) (220,108) (225,108) (230,108) (235,108) (240,108) (245,108) (250,108) (255,108) (260,108) (264,108) (220,112) (225,112) (230,112) (235,112) (240,112) (245,112) (250,112) (255,112) (260,112) (264,112)
(290,103) (295,103) (300,103) (305,103) (310,103) (315,103) (320,103) (325,103) (329,103) (290,108) (295,108) (300,108) (305,108) (310,108) (315,108) (320,108) (325,108) (329,108) (290,112) (295,112) (300,112) (305,112) (310,112) (315,112) (320,112) (325,112) (329,112)
(80,63) (85,63) (90,63) (95,63) (100,63) (105,63) (110,63) (115,63) (120,63) (124,63) (80,68) (85,68) (90,68) (95,68) (100,68) (105,68) (110,68) (115,68) (120,68) (124,68) (80,72) (85,72) (90,72) (95,72) (100,72) (105,72) (110,72) (115,72) (120,72) (124,72)
(130,63) (135,63) (140,63) (145,63) (150,63) (155,63) (159,63) (130,68) (135,68) (140,68) (145,68) (150,68) (155,68) (159,68) (130,72) (135,72) (140,72) (145,72) (150,72) (155,72) (159,72)
(165,63) (170,63) (175,63) (180,63) (185,63) (190,63) (195,63) (200,63) (205,63) (210,63) (214,63) (165,68) (170,68) (175,68) (180,68) (185,68) (190,68) (195,68) (200,68) (205,68) (210,68) (214,68) (165,72) (170,72) (175,72) (180,72) (185,72) (190,72) (195,72) (200,72) (205,72) (210,72) (214,72)
(165,48) (170,48) (175,48) (180,48) (185,48) (190,48) (195,48) (200,48) (205,48) (210,48) (214,48) (165,53) (170,53) (175,53) (180,53) (185,53) (190,53) (195,53) (200,53) (205,53) (210,53) (214,53) (165,57) (170,57) (175,57) (180,57) (185,57) (190,57) (195,57) (200,57) (205,57) (210,57) (214,57)
(0,150)[(20,15)[$(1,1)$]{}]{}
(23,155)[$\cdots$]{} (23,135)[$\ddots$]{}
(40,150)[(20,15)[$(1,i)$]{}]{} (48,135)[$\vdots$]{} (40,115)[(20,15)[$(i,i)$]{}]{}
(63,155)[$\cdots$]{} (63,119)[$\cdots$]{} (63,89)[$\ddots$]{}
(80,150)[(50,15)[$(1,n-1)$]{}]{} (104,135)[$\vdots$]{} (80,115)[(50,15)[$(i,n-1)$]{}]{} (80,100)[(50,15)[$(i+1,n-1)$]{}]{} (104,82)[$\vdots$]{} (80,60)[(50,15)[$(n-1,n-1)$]{}]{}
(130,150)[(35,15)[$(1,n)$]{}]{} (146,135)[$\vdots$]{} (130,115)[(35,15)[$(i,n)$]{}]{} (130,100)[(35,15)[$(i+1,n)$]{}]{} (146,82)[$\vdots$]{} (130,60)[(35,15)[$(n-1,n)$]{}]{}
(165,150)[(55,15)[$(n,2n-1)$]{}]{} (189,135)[$\vdots$]{} (165,115)[(55,15)[$(n,2n-i)$]{}]{} (165,100)[(55,15)[$(n,2n-1-i)$]{}]{} (189,82)[$\vdots$]{} (165,60)[(55,15)[$(n,n+1)$]{}]{} (165,45)[(55,15)[$(n,n)$]{}]{}
(220,150)[(50,15)[$(1,n+1)$]{}]{} (244,135)[$\vdots$]{} (220,115)[(50,15)[$(i,n+1)$]{}]{} (220,100)[(50,15)[$(i+1,n+1)$]{}]{} (244,88)[$\vdots$]{}
(318,155)[$\cdots$]{} (298,120)[$\cdots$]{} (273,104)[$\cdots$]{} (273,87)[$\cdot$]{} (278,89.5)[$\cdot$]{} (283,92)[$\cdot$]{}
(290,100)[(45,15)[$(i+1,d_{i+1})$]{}]{}
(335,115)[(25,15)[$(i,d_i)$]{}]{}
(363,135)[$\cdot$]{} (368,137.5)[$\cdot$]{} (373,140)[$\cdot$]{}
(380,150)[(25,15)[$(1,d_1)$]{}]{}
In this case, $\alpha \in I^{(i,j)}$ is one of the following forms $$\begin{aligned}
x_k-x_\ell \ \ \ &(1 \leq k < \ell \leq i) \label{eq:Case2(1)}, \\
x_k-x_\ell \ \ \ &(1 \leq k \leq i < \ell \leq n-1) \label{eq:Case2(2)}, \\
x_k \pm x_\ell \ \ \ &(i < k < \ell \leq n) \label{eq:Case2(3)}, \\
x_k+x_n \ \ \ &(1 \leq k \leq i) \label{eq:Case2(4)}. \end{aligned}$$ Using the formula $\eqref{eq:psi2}$, we show that $\psi^{D_n}_{i,j} (\alpha) \equiv 0$ mod $\alpha$. If $\alpha$ is of the form , then we have $$\begin{aligned}
\psi^{D_n}_{i,n-1}(\alpha)=& \left((x_k-x_{i+1})\cdots(x_k-x_{n-1})(x_k+x_n) +(-1)^{n-i} x_{i+1}\cdots x_n \right) x_k^{-1} \\
&- \left((x_\ell-x_{i+1})\cdots(x_\ell-x_{n-1})(x_\ell+x_n) +(-1)^{n-i} x_{i+1}\cdots x_n \right) x_\ell^{-1} \\
\equiv& 0 \ \ \ \ \ {\rm mod} \ x_k-x_\ell.\end{aligned}$$ If $\alpha$ is of the form , then $$\begin{aligned}
\psi^{D_n}_{i,n-1}(\alpha)=& \left((x_k-x_{i+1})\cdots(x_k-x_{n-1})(x_k+x_n) +(-1)^{n-i} x_{i+1}\cdots x_n \right) x_k^{-1} \\
&-(-1)^{n-i} x_{i+1} \cdots \widehat{x_\ell} \cdots x_n \\
\equiv& (-1)^{n-i} x_{i+1}\cdots x_n x_\ell^{-1}-(-1)^{n-i} x_{i+1} \cdots \widehat{x_\ell} \cdots x_n \ \ \ \ \ {\rm mod} \ x_k-x_\ell \\
=& 0. \end{aligned}$$ If $\alpha$ is of the form , then $$\begin{aligned}
\psi^{D_n}_{i,n-1}(\alpha)=&(-1)^{n-i} x_{i+1} \cdots \widehat{x_k} \cdots x_n \pm (-1)^{n-i} x_{i+1} \cdots \widehat{x_\ell} \cdots x_n \\
\equiv& 0 \ \ \ \ \ {\rm mod} \ x_k \pm x_\ell. \end{aligned}$$ If $\alpha$ is of the form , then $$\begin{aligned}
\psi^{D_n}_{i,n-1}(\alpha)=&\left((x_k-x_{i+1})\cdots(x_k-x_{n-1})(x_k+x_n) +(-1)^{n-i} x_{i+1}\cdots x_n \right) x_k^{-1} \\
&+ (-1)^{n-i} x_{i+1} \cdots x_{n-1} \\
\equiv& (-1)^{n-i} x_{i+1}\cdots x_n (-x_n^{-1}) + (-1)^{n-i} x_{i+1} \cdots x_{n-1} \ \ \ \ \ {\rm mod} \ x_k+x_n \\
=& 0. \end{aligned}$$ *Case 3* Suppose that $1 \leq i \leq n-1$ and $n \leq j \leq 2n-1-i$. Then the Hessenberg function $h^{(i,j)}$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
h^{(i,j)}(t)=\begin{cases}
j \ \ \ &{\rm if} \ 1 \leq t \leq i, \\
2n-1-t \ \ \ &{\rm if} \ i+1 \leq t \leq n-1, \\
2n-1 \ \ \ &{\rm if} \ t = n,
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ and the picture of the Hessenberg function $h^{(i,j)}$ is shown in Figure \[picture:h\^[(i,j)]{}Case3\].
(435,165) (0,153) (5,153) (10,153) (14,153) (0,158) (5,158) (10,158) (14,158) (0,162) (5,162) (10,162) (14,162)
(40,153) (45,153) (50,153) (54,153) (40,158) (45,158) (50,158) (54,158) (40,162) (45,162) (50,162) (54,162)
(80,153) (85,153) (90,153) (95,153) (100,153) (105,153) (110,153) (115,153) (120,153) (124,153) (80,158) (85,158) (90,158) (95,158) (100,158) (105,158) (110,158) (115,158) (120,158) (124,158) (80,162) (85,162) (90,162) (95,162) (100,162) (105,162) (110,162) (115,162) (120,162) (124,162)
(130,153) (135,153) (140,153) (145,153) (150,153) (155,153) (159,153) (130,158) (135,158) (140,158) (145,158) (150,158) (155,158) (159,158) (130,162) (135,162) (140,162) (145,162) (150,162) (155,162) (159,162)
(165,153) (170,153) (175,153) (180,153) (185,153) (190,153) (195,153) (200,153) (205,153) (210,153) (214,153) (165,158) (170,158) (175,158) (180,158) (185,158) (190,158) (195,158) (200,158) (205,158) (210,158) (214,158) (165,162) (170,162) (175,162) (180,162) (185,162) (190,162) (195,162) (200,162) (205,162) (210,162) (214,162)
(240,153) (245,153) (250,153) (254,153) (240,158) (245,158) (250,158) (254,158) (240,162) (245,162) (250,162) (254,162)
(40,118) (45,118) (50,118) (54,118) (40,123) (45,123) (50,123) (54,123) (40,127) (45,127) (50,127) (54,127)
(80,118) (85,118) (90,118) (95,118) (100,118) (105,118) (110,118) (115,118) (120,118) (124,118) (80,123) (85,123) (90,123) (95,123) (100,123) (105,123) (110,123) (115,123) (120,123) (124,123) (80,127) (85,127) (90,127) (95,127) (100,127) (105,127) (110,127) (115,127) (120,127) (124,127)
(130,118) (135,118) (140,118) (145,118) (150,118) (155,118) (159,118) (130,123) (135,123) (140,123) (145,123) (150,123) (155,123) (159,123) (130,127) (135,127) (140,127) (145,127) (150,127) (155,127) (159,127)
(165,118) (170,118) (175,118) (180,118) (185,118) (190,118) (195,118) (200,118) (205,118) (210,118) (214,118) (165,123) (170,123) (175,123) (180,123) (185,123) (190,123) (195,123) (200,123) (205,123) (210,123) (214,123) (165,127) (170,127) (175,127) (180,127) (185,127) (190,127) (195,127) (200,127) (205,127) (210,127) (214,127)
(240,118) (245,118) (250,118) (254,118) (240,123) (245,123) (250,123) (254,123) (240,127) (245,127) (250,127) (254,127)
(80,103) (85,103) (90,103) (95,103) (100,103) (105,103) (110,103) (115,103) (120,103) (124,103) (80,108) (85,108) (90,108) (95,108) (100,108) (105,108) (110,108) (115,108) (120,108) (124,108) (80,112) (85,112) (90,112) (95,112) (100,112) (105,112) (110,112) (115,112) (120,112) (124,112)
(130,103) (135,103) (140,103) (145,103) (150,103) (155,103) (159,103) (130,108) (135,108) (140,108) (145,108) (150,108) (155,108) (159,108) (130,112) (135,112) (140,112) (145,112) (150,112) (155,112) (159,112)
(165,103) (170,103) (175,103) (180,103) (185,103) (190,103) (195,103) (200,103) (205,103) (210,103) (214,103) (165,108) (170,108) (175,108) (180,108) (185,108) (190,108) (195,108) (200,108) (205,108) (210,108) (214,108) (165,112) (170,112) (175,112) (180,112) (185,112) (190,112) (195,112) (200,112) (205,112) (210,112) (214,112)
(260,103) (265,103) (270,103) (275,103) (280,103) (285,103) (290,103) (295,103) (300,103) (304,103) (260,108) (265,108) (270,108) (275,108) (280,108) (285,108) (290,108) (295,108) (300,108) (304,108) (260,112) (265,112) (270,112) (275,112) (280,112) (285,112) (290,112) (295,112) (300,112) (304,112)
(330,103) (335,103) (340,103) (345,103) (350,103) (355,103) (360,103) (365,103) (369,103) (330,108) (335,108) (340,108) (345,108) (350,108) (355,108) (360,108) (365,108) (369,108) (330,112) (335,112) (340,112) (345,112) (350,112) (355,112) (360,112) (365,112) (369,112)
(80,58) (85,58) (90,58) (95,58) (100,58) (105,58) (110,58) (115,58) (120,58) (124,58) (80,63) (85,63) (90,63) (95,63) (100,63) (105,63) (110,63) (115,63) (120,63) (124,63) (80,67) (85,67) (90,67) (95,67) (100,67) (105,67) (110,67) (115,67) (120,67) (124,67)
(130,58) (135,58) (140,58) (145,58) (150,58) (155,58) (159,58) (130,63) (135,63) (140,63) (145,63) (150,63) (155,63) (159,63) (130,67) (135,67) (140,67) (145,67) (150,67) (155,67) (159,67)
(165,58) (170,58) (175,58) (180,58) (185,58) (190,58) (195,58) (200,58) (205,58) (210,58) (214,58) (165,63) (170,63) (175,63) (180,63) (185,63) (190,63) (195,63) (200,63) (205,63) (210,63) (214,63) (165,67) (170,67) (175,67) (180,67) (185,67) (190,67) (195,67) (200,67) (205,67) (210,67) (214,67)
(165,43) (170,43) (175,43) (180,43) (185,43) (190,43) (195,43) (200,43) (205,43) (210,43) (214,43) (165,48) (170,48) (175,48) (180,48) (185,48) (190,48) (195,48) (200,48) (205,48) (210,48) (214,48) (165,52) (170,52) (175,52) (180,52) (185,52) (190,52) (195,52) (200,52) (205,52) (210,52) (214,52)
(0,150)[(20,15)[$(1,1)$]{}]{}
(23,155)[$\cdots$]{} (23,135)[$\ddots$]{}
(40,150)[(20,15)[$(1,i)$]{}]{} (48,135)[$\vdots$]{} (40,115)[(20,15)[$(i,i)$]{}]{}
(63,155)[$\cdots$]{} (63,119)[$\cdots$]{} (63,90)[$\ddots$]{}
(80,150)[(50,15)[$(1,n-1)$]{}]{} (104,135)[$\vdots$]{} (80,115)[(50,15)[$(i,n-1)$]{}]{} (80,100)[(50,15)[$(i+1,n-1)$]{}]{} (104,80)[$\vdots$]{} (80,55)[(50,15)[$(n-1,n-1)$]{}]{}
(130,150)[(35,15)[$(1,n)$]{}]{} (146,135)[$\vdots$]{} (130,115)[(35,15)[$(i,n)$]{}]{} (130,100)[(35,15)[$(i+1,n)$]{}]{} (146,80)[$\vdots$]{} (130,55)[(35,15)[$(n-1,n)$]{}]{}
(165,150)[(55,15)[$(n,2n-1)$]{}]{} (189,135)[$\vdots$]{} (165,115)[(55,15)[$(n,2n-i)$]{}]{} (165,100)[(55,15)[$(n,2n-1-i)$]{}]{} (189,80)[$\vdots$]{} (165,55)[(55,15)[$(n,n+1)$]{}]{} (165,40)[(55,15)[$(n,n)$]{}]{}
(223,155)[$\cdots$]{} (223,120)[$\cdots$]{} (223,104)[$\cdots$]{} (223,66)[$\cdot$]{} (228,67.5)[$\cdot$]{} (233,69)[$\cdot$]{}
(240,150)[(20,15)[$(1,j)$]{}]{} (248,135)[$\vdots$]{} (240,115)[(20,15)[$(i,j)$]{}]{} (248,102)[$\vdots$]{}
(260,150)[(50,15)[$(1,j+1)$]{}]{} (283,135)[$\vdots$]{} (260,115)[(50,15)[$(i,j+1)$]{}]{} (260,100)[(50,15)[$(i+1,j+1)$]{}]{} (283,88)[$\vdots$]{}
(353,155)[$\cdots$]{} (338,120)[$\cdots$]{} (313,104)[$\cdots$]{} (313,91)[$\cdot$]{} (318,92.5)[$\cdot$]{} (323,94)[$\cdot$]{}
(330,100)[(45,15)[$(i+1,d_{i+1})$]{}]{}
(375,115)[(25,15)[$(i,d_i)$]{}]{}
(401,135)[$\cdot$]{} (403,137.5)[$\cdot$]{} (405,140)[$\cdot$]{}
(410,150)[(25,15)[$(1,d_1)$]{}]{}
Then, $\alpha \in I^{(i,j)}$ is one of the following forms $$\begin{aligned}
x_k-x_\ell \ \ \ &(1 \leq k < \ell \leq i) \label{eq:Case3(1)}, \\
x_k-x_\ell \ \ \ &(1 \leq k \leq i < \ell \leq n) \label{eq:Case3(2)}, \\
x_k+x_\ell \ \ \ &(1 \leq k \leq i, 2n-j \leq \ell \leq n) \label{eq:Case3(3)}, \\
x_k \pm x_\ell \ \ \ &(i < k < \ell \leq n) \label{eq:Case3(4)}.\end{aligned}$$ Using the formula $\eqref{eq:psi3}$, we show that $\psi^{D_n}_{i,j} (\alpha) \equiv 0$ mod $\alpha$. We put $s=j-n$. Then $0 \leq s \leq n-1-i$ and $j=n+s$. If $\alpha$ is of the form , then we have $$\begin{aligned}
\psi^{D_n}_{i,n+s}(\alpha)=& \big((x_k-x_{i+1})\cdots(x_k-x_{n})(x_k+x_n)\cdots(x_k+x_{n-s}) \\
& \ \ \ +(-1)^{n-i+1} x_{i+1}\cdots x_{n-1-s} x_{n-s}^2\cdots x_n^2 \big)x_k^{-1} \\
&-\big((x_\ell-x_{i+1})\cdots(x_\ell-x_{n})(x_\ell+x_n)\cdots(x_\ell+x_{n-s}) \\
& \ \ \ +(-1)^{n-i+1} x_{i+1}\cdots x_{n-1-s} x_{n-s}^2\cdots x_n^2 \big)x_\ell^{-1} \\
\equiv& 0 \ \ \ \ \ {\rm mod} \ x_k-x_\ell\end{aligned}$$ If $\alpha$ is of the form , then $$\begin{aligned}
\psi^{D_n}_{i,n+s}(\alpha)=& \big((x_k-x_{i+1})\cdots(x_k-x_{n})(x_k+x_n)\cdots(x_k+x_{n-s}) \\
&+(-1)^{n-i+1} x_{i+1}\cdots x_{n-1-s} x_{n-s}^2\cdots x_n^2 \big)x_k^{-1} \\
&-(-1)^{n-i+1} x_{n-s} \cdots x_n (x_{i+1} \cdots \widehat{x_\ell} \cdots x_n) \\
=& \big((x_k-x_{i+1})\cdots(x_k-x_{n})(x_k+x_n)\cdots(x_k+x_{n-s}) \\
&+(-1)^{n-i+1} x_{i+1}\cdots x_{n-1-s} x_{n-s}^2\cdots x_n^2 \\
&-(-1)^{n-i+1} x_{i+1}\cdots x_{n-1-s} x_{n-s}^2\cdots x_n^2 (x_k x_\ell^{-1}) \big)x_k^{-1} \\
\equiv& 0 \ \ \ \ \ {\rm mod} \ x_k-x_\ell. \end{aligned}$$ If $\alpha$ is of the form , then $i< 2n-j \leq \ell$ because of the condition for Case 3. So, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\psi^{D_n}_{i,n+s}(\alpha)=& \big((x_k-x_{i+1})\cdots(x_k-x_{n})(x_k+x_n)\cdots(x_k+x_{n-s}) \\
&+(-1)^{n-i+1} x_{i+1}\cdots x_{n-1-s} x_{n-s}^2\cdots x_n^2 \big)x_k^{-1} \\
&+(-1)^{n-i+1} x_{n-s} \cdots x_n (x_{i+1} \cdots \widehat{x_\ell} \cdots x_n) \\
\equiv& 0 \ \ \ \ \ {\rm mod} \ x_k+x_\ell. \end{aligned}$$ If $\alpha$ is of the form , then $$\begin{aligned}
\psi^{D_n}_{i,n+s}(\alpha)=&(-1)^{n-i+1} x_{n-s} \cdots x_n (x_{i+1} \cdots \widehat{x_k} \cdots x_n) \pm (-1)^{n-i+1} x_{n-s} \cdots x_n (x_{i+1} \cdots \widehat{x_\ell} \cdots x_n) \\
\equiv& 0 \ \ \ \ \ {\rm mod} \ x_k \pm x_\ell. \end{aligned}$$ *Case 4* Suppose that $i = n$ and $n \leq j \leq 2n-1$. We put $r=2n-1-j$. Then $0 \leq r \leq n-1$ and the Hessenberg function $h^{(i,j)}$ is given as follows $$\begin{aligned}
h^{(i,j)}(t)=\begin{cases}
n \ \ \ &{\rm if} \ 1 \leq t \leq r, \\
2n-1-t \ \ \ &{\rm if} \ r+1 \leq t \leq n-1, \\
2n-1-r \ \ \ &{\rm if} \ t = n.
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ The picture of the Hessenberg function $h^{(i,j)}$ is shown in Figure \[picture:h\^[(i,j)]{}Case4\].
(405,165) (0,153) (5,153) (10,153) (14,153) (0,158) (5,158) (10,158) (14,158) (0,162) (5,162) (10,162) (14,162)
(40,153) (45,153) (50,153) (54,153) (40,158) (45,158) (50,158) (54,158) (40,162) (45,162) (50,162) (54,162)
(80,153) (85,153) (90,153) (95,153) (100,153) (105,153) (110,153) (115,153) (120,153) (124,153) (80,158) (85,158) (90,158) (95,158) (100,158) (105,158) (110,158) (115,158) (120,158) (124,158) (80,162) (85,162) (90,162) (95,162) (100,162) (105,162) (110,162) (115,162) (120,162) (124,162)
(130,153) (135,153) (140,153) (145,153) (150,153) (155,153) (159,153) (130,158) (135,158) (140,158) (145,158) (150,158) (155,158) (159,158) (130,162) (135,162) (140,162) (145,162) (150,162) (155,162) (159,162)
(40,118) (45,118) (50,118) (54,118) (40,123) (45,123) (50,123) (54,123) (40,127) (45,127) (50,127) (54,127)
(80,118) (85,118) (90,118) (95,118) (100,118) (105,118) (110,118) (115,118) (120,118) (124,118) (80,123) (85,123) (90,123) (95,123) (100,123) (105,123) (110,123) (115,123) (120,123) (124,123) (80,127) (85,127) (90,127) (95,127) (100,127) (105,127) (110,127) (115,127) (120,127) (124,127)
(130,118) (135,118) (140,118) (145,118) (150,118) (155,118) (159,118) (130,123) (135,123) (140,123) (145,123) (150,123) (155,123) (159,123) (130,127) (135,127) (140,127) (145,127) (150,127) (155,127) (159,127)
(80,103) (85,103) (90,103) (95,103) (100,103) (105,103) (110,103) (115,103) (120,103) (124,103) (80,108) (85,108) (90,108) (95,108) (100,108) (105,108) (110,108) (115,108) (120,108) (124,108) (80,112) (85,112) (90,112) (95,112) (100,112) (105,112) (110,112) (115,112) (120,112) (124,112)
(130,103) (135,103) (140,103) (145,103) (150,103) (155,103) (159,103) (130,108) (135,108) (140,108) (145,108) (150,108) (155,108) (159,108) (130,112) (135,112) (140,112) (145,112) (150,112) (155,112) (159,112)
(165,103) (170,103) (175,103) (180,103) (185,103) (190,103) (195,103) (200,103) (205,103) (210,103) (214,103) (165,108) (170,108) (175,108) (180,108) (185,108) (190,108) (195,108) (200,108) (205,108) (210,108) (214,108) (165,112) (170,112) (175,112) (180,112) (185,112) (190,112) (195,112) (200,112) (205,112) (210,112) (214,112)
(220,103) (225,103) (230,103) (235,103) (240,103) (245,103) (250,103) (255,103) (260,103) (264,103) (220,108) (225,108) (230,108) (235,108) (240,108) (245,108) (250,108) (255,108) (260,108) (264,108) (220,112) (225,112) (230,112) (235,112) (240,112) (245,112) (250,112) (255,112) (260,112) (264,112)
(290,103) (295,103) (300,103) (305,103) (310,103) (315,103) (320,103) (325,103) (329,103) (290,108) (295,108) (300,108) (305,108) (310,108) (315,108) (320,108) (325,108) (329,108) (290,112) (295,112) (300,112) (305,112) (310,112) (315,112) (320,112) (325,112) (329,112)
(80,63) (85,63) (90,63) (95,63) (100,63) (105,63) (110,63) (115,63) (120,63) (124,63) (80,68) (85,68) (90,68) (95,68) (100,68) (105,68) (110,68) (115,68) (120,68) (124,68) (80,72) (85,72) (90,72) (95,72) (100,72) (105,72) (110,72) (115,72) (120,72) (124,72)
(130,63) (135,63) (140,63) (145,63) (150,63) (155,63) (159,63) (130,68) (135,68) (140,68) (145,68) (150,68) (155,68) (159,68) (130,72) (135,72) (140,72) (145,72) (150,72) (155,72) (159,72)
(165,63) (170,63) (175,63) (180,63) (185,63) (190,63) (195,63) (200,63) (205,63) (210,63) (214,63) (165,68) (170,68) (175,68) (180,68) (185,68) (190,68) (195,68) (200,68) (205,68) (210,68) (214,68) (165,72) (170,72) (175,72) (180,72) (185,72) (190,72) (195,72) (200,72) (205,72) (210,72) (214,72)
(165,48) (170,48) (175,48) (180,48) (185,48) (190,48) (195,48) (200,48) (205,48) (210,48) (214,48) (165,53) (170,53) (175,53) (180,53) (185,53) (190,53) (195,53) (200,53) (205,53) (210,53) (214,53) (165,57) (170,57) (175,57) (180,57) (185,57) (190,57) (195,57) (200,57) (205,57) (210,57) (214,57)
(0,150)[(20,15)[$(1,1)$]{}]{}
(23,155)[$\cdots$]{} (23,135)[$\ddots$]{}
(40,150)[(20,15)[$(1,i)$]{}]{} (48,135)[$\vdots$]{} (40,115)[(20,15)[$(r,r)$]{}]{}
(63,155)[$\cdots$]{} (63,119)[$\cdots$]{} (63,89)[$\ddots$]{}
(80,150)[(50,15)[$(1,n-1)$]{}]{} (104,135)[$\vdots$]{} (80,115)[(50,15)[$(r,n-1)$]{}]{} (80,100)[(50,15)[$(r+1,n-1)$]{}]{} (104,82)[$\vdots$]{} (80,60)[(50,15)[$(n-1,n-1)$]{}]{}
(130,150)[(35,15)[$(1,n)$]{}]{} (146,135)[$\vdots$]{} (130,115)[(35,15)[$(r,n)$]{}]{} (130,100)[(35,15)[$(r+1,n)$]{}]{} (146,82)[$\vdots$]{} (130,60)[(35,15)[$(n-1,n)$]{}]{}
(165,150)[(55,15)[$(n,2n-1)$]{}]{} (189,135)[$\vdots$]{} (165,115)[(55,15)[$(n,2n-r)$]{}]{} (165,100)[(55,15)[$(n,2n-1-r)$]{}]{} (189,82)[$\vdots$]{} (165,60)[(55,15)[$(n,n+1)$]{}]{} (165,45)[(55,15)[$(n,n)$]{}]{}
(220,150)[(50,15)[$(1,n+1)$]{}]{} (244,135)[$\vdots$]{} (220,115)[(50,15)[$(r,n+1)$]{}]{} (220,100)[(50,15)[$(r+1,n+1)$]{}]{} (244,88)[$\vdots$]{}
(318,155)[$\cdots$]{} (298,120)[$\cdots$]{} (273,104)[$\cdots$]{} (273,87)[$\cdot$]{} (278,89.5)[$\cdot$]{} (283,92)[$\cdot$]{}
(290,100)[(45,15)[$(r+1,d_{r+1})$]{}]{}
(335,115)[(25,15)[$(r,d_r)$]{}]{}
(363,135)[$\cdot$]{} (368,137.5)[$\cdot$]{} (373,140)[$\cdot$]{}
(380,150)[(25,15)[$(1,d_1)$]{}]{}
Similarly to Case 2, one can see that $\psi^{D_n}_{n,2n-1-r}(\alpha) \equiv 0$ mod $\alpha$ for any $\alpha \in I^{(i,j)}$.
Therefore, it follows from Cases 1, 2, 3, 4 that $\psi^{D_n}_{i,j}$ is an element of $D(\A_{I^{(i,j)}})$, and this completes the proof.
\[theorem:psiD\] The derivations $\{\psi^{D_n}_{i,j} \mid 1 \leq i \leq n-1, i \leq j \leq 2n-i-1\} \cup \{\psi^{D_n}_{n,j} \mid n \leq j \leq 2n-1 \}$ form uniform bases for the ideal arrangements of type $D_n$.
From Proposition \[proposition:psiD\] we have $\{\psi^{D_n}_{i,h_I(i)} \mid i \in [n] \} \subset D(\A_I)$ for any lower ideal $I$. Since $\deg(\psi^{D_n}_{i,j})=j-i$, it is enough to prove that $\psi^{D_n}_{1,h(1)}, \ldots, \psi^{D_n}_{n,h(n)}$ are linearly independent over $\CR$ for any Hessenberg function $h$ for type $D_n$ by Theorem \[theorem:Saito’s criterion\]. We prove this by splitting into two cases. Let $$\label{eq:iDnh}
i^{D_n}_h:=\min\{ i \in [n-1] \mid h(i) \geq n-1 \}.$$
*Case 1* Suppose that $h(n) \geq 2n-i^{D_n}_h-1$. We prove the linear independence of $\psi^{D_n}_{1,h(1)}, \ldots, \psi^{D_n}_{n,h(n)}$ over $\CR$ by induction on $n$. As the base case $n=4$, the claim is straightforward. Now we assume that $n > 4$ and the claim holds for $n-1$. We first note that a Hessenberg function $h$ for type $D_n$ induces the Hessenberg function $h'$ for type $D_{n-1}$ defined by $$\begin{aligned}
h'(i-1)&=h(i)-1 \ \ \ {\rm for} \ 2 \leq i \leq n-1, \\
h'(n-1)&=\min \{h(n)-1, 2n-3 \}.\end{aligned}$$ The picture of $h'$ is obtained from that of $h$ by removing the $1$-st row. One see that $i^{D_{n-1}}_{h'} \geq i^{D_n}_h$, so we have $h'(n-1) \geq 2(n-1)-i^{D_{n-1}}_{h'}-1$. That is, $h'$ is a Hessenberg function for type $D_{n-1}$ satisfying the condition for Case 1.
We consider the following surjection $$\label{eq:Dmapbar}
\begin{array}{ccc}
\bigoplus_{k=1}^n \R[x_1,\ldots,x_n] \partial_k & \stackrel{}{\longrightarrow} & \bigoplus_{k=2}^n \R[x_2,\ldots,x_n] \partial_k \\
\rotatebox{90}{$\in$} & & \rotatebox{90}{$\in$} \\
\sum_{k=1}^n f_k(x_1,\ldots,x_n)\partial_k & \longmapsto & \sum_{k=2}^n f_k(0,x_2,\ldots,x_n)\partial_k
\end{array}$$ and the image of $\psi$ under the map is denoted by $\overline{\psi}$. Then we have $$\begin{aligned}
\overline{\psi^{D_n}_{i,j}}&=\psi^{D_{n-1}}_{i-1,j-1}(x_2,\ldots,x_n) \ \ \ \ \ \ {\rm for} \ i \in [n-1], i \leq j \leq 2n-1-i, \label{eq:barpsiD1} \\
\overline{\psi^{D_n}_{n,j}}&=\begin{cases}
\psi^{D_{n-1}}_{n-1,j-1}(x_2,\ldots,x_n) \ \ \ {\rm if} \ i \in [n-1], i \leq j \leq 2n-1-i, \\
0 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ {\rm if} \ j=2n-1. \label{eq:barpsiD2}
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ Suppose that $$\label{eq:psiDlinearlyindependent}
\sum_{k=1}^n f_k(x_1,\ldots,x_n) \psi^{D_n}_{k,h(k)}=0$$ for $f_k(x_1,\ldots,x_n) \in \R[x_1,\ldots,x_n]$ such that all $f_k(x_1,\ldots,x_n)$ $(1 \leq k \leq n)$ have no common divisor.
*Case [1-1]{}* Assume that $h(1) < n-1$. Then we have $\psi^{D_{n-1}}_{0,h(1)-1}=0$ and $h(n) < 2n-1$ by the definition of the Hessenberg function. Applying the map in to both sides of , we obtain from and $$\sum_{k=2}^n f_k(0,x_2\ldots,x_n) \psi^{D_{n-1}}_{k-1,h'(k-1)}(x_2,\ldots,x_n)=0.$$ By the inductive assumption, we obtain $f_k(0,x_2,\ldots,x_n)=0$ for $k=2,\ldots,n$. Hence, we can write $f_k(x_1,\ldots,x_n)=x_1 f'_k(x_1,\ldots,x_n)$ for some $f'_k(x_1,\ldots,x_n) \in \R[x_1,\ldots,x_n]$. Comparing the coefficient of $\partial_1$ in , we have $$f_1(x_1,\ldots,x_n)(x_1-x_2)\cdots(x_1-x_{h(1)})+x_1(f'_2(x_1,\ldots,x_n)+\cdots)=0.$$ Substituting $x_1=0$ into the equation above, we obtain $$f_1(0,x_2,\ldots,x_n)(-x_2)\cdots(-x_{h(1)})=0.$$ Hence, we have $f_1(0,x_2,\ldots,x_n)=0$ which implies $f_1(x_1,\ldots,x_n)$ is divisible by $x_1$. However, all $f_k(x_1,\ldots,x_n)$ have no common divisor, so $f_k(x_1,\ldots,x_n)=0$ for $k=1,\ldots,n$.
*Case [1-2]{}* Assume that $h(1) = n-1$. Then we have $$\label{eq:psiDn-10,h(1)-1}
\psi^{D_{n-1}}_{0,h(1)-1}(x_2,\ldots,x_n)=(-1)^{n-1}\sum_{k=2}^n x_2 \cdots \widehat{x_{k}} \cdots x_n \, \partial_k=(-1)^{n-1} \psi^{D_{n-1}}_{n-1,2n-3}(x_2,\ldots,x_n).$$ Since $h(1)=n-1$, we have $i^{D_n}_h=1$. Thus, $h(n) \geq 2n-i^{D_n}_h-1=2n-2$, i.e. $h(n)=2n-1$ or $h(n)=2n-2$.
If $h(n)=2n-1$, then $\overline{\psi^{D_n}_{n,h(n)}}=0$ from and $h'(n-1)=2n-3$. Applying the map in to both sides of , we obtain from and $$(-1)^{n-1} f_1(0,x_2\ldots,x_n) \psi^{D_{n-1}}_{n-1,h'(n-1)}(x_2,\ldots,x_n)+\sum_{k=2}^{n-1} f_k(0,x_2\ldots,x_n) \psi^{D_{n-1}}_{k-1,h'(k-1)}(x_2,\ldots,x_n)=0.$$ By the inductive assumption, we obtain $f_k(0,x_2,\ldots,x_n)=0$ for $k=1,\ldots,n-1$. Hence, we can write $f_k(x_1,\ldots,x_n)=x_1 f'_k(x_1,\ldots,x_n)$ for some $f'_k(x_1,\ldots,x_n) \in \R[x_1,\ldots,x_n]$. Comparing the coefficient of $\partial_1$ in , we have $$x_1(f'_1(x_1,\ldots,x_n)+\cdots)+f_n(x_1,\ldots,x_n) x_2\cdots x_n=0.$$ Substituting $x_1=0$ into the equation above, we obtain $f_n(0,x_2,\ldots,x_n)=0$ which implies $f_n(x_1,\ldots,x_n)$ is divisible by $x_1$. Therefore, $f_k(x_1,\ldots,x_n)=0$ for $k=1,\ldots,n$ since all $f_k(x_1,\ldots,x_n)$ have no common divisor.
If $h(n)=2n-2$, then $h'(n-1)=2n-3$. Hence by , $\overline{\psi^{D_n}_{n,h(n)}}=\psi^{D_{n-1}}_{n-1,h'(n-1)}(x_2,\ldots,x_n)$. Applying the map in to both sides of , we obtain from and $$\begin{aligned}
& \big((-1)^{n-1} f_1(0,x_2\ldots,x_n)+f_n(0,x_2\ldots,x_n) \big)\psi^{D_{n-1}}_{n-1,h'(n-1)}(x_2,\ldots,x_n) \\
&+\sum_{k=2}^{n-1} f_k(0,x_2\ldots,x_n) \psi^{D_{n-1}}_{k-1,h'(k-1)}(x_2,\ldots,x_n)=0.\end{aligned}$$ By the inductive assumption, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
&f_1(0,x_2,\ldots,x_n)=(-1)^n f_n(0,x_2,\ldots,x_n), \label{eq:f1=fnD} \\
&f_k(0,x_2,\ldots,x_n)=0 \ \ \ {\rm for} \ k=2,\ldots,n-1. \label{eq:fkDcase1-2}\end{aligned}$$ Hence, we can write $f_k(x_1,\ldots,x_n)=x_1 f'_k(x_1,\ldots,x_n)$ for $k=2,\ldots,n-1$. Comparing the coefficient of $\partial_1$ in , $$\begin{aligned}
&f_1(x_1,\ldots,x_n) \big( (x_1-x_2)\cdots(x_1-x_{n-1})(x_1+x_n)+(-1)^{n-1}x_2\cdots x_n \big)x_1^{-1} \\
&+x_1(f'_2(x_1,\ldots,x_n)+\cdots)+f_n(x_1,\ldots,x_n)\big( (-1)^{n}(x_1-x_2)\cdots(x_1-x_n)+x_2\cdots x_n \big)x_1^{-1}=0.\end{aligned}$$ Substituting $x_1=0$ into the equation above, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
&f_1(0,x_2,\ldots,x_n) \big( \sum_{k=2}^{n-1} (-x_2)\cdots\widehat{(-x_k)}\cdots(-x_{n-1})(x_n) +(-x_2)\cdots(-x_{n-1}) \big) \\
&+(-1)^n f_n(0,x_2,\ldots,x_n) \big( \sum_{k=2}^n (-x_2)\cdots\widehat{(-x_k)}\cdots(-x_n) \big)=0.\end{aligned}$$ Hence by , we have $2f_1(0,x_2,\ldots,x_n)(-x_2)\cdots(-x_{n-1})=0$ which implies that $f_1(0,x_2,\ldots,x_n)=f_n(0,x_2,\ldots,x_n)=0$. From this together with , we conclude $f_k(x_1,\ldots,x_n)=0$ for $k=1,\ldots,n$ because all $f_k(x_1,\ldots,x_n)$ have no common divisor.
*Case [1-3]{}* Assume that $h(1) \geq n$. It follows from similar discussion on Case [1-2]{} that $f_k(x_1,\ldots,x_n)=0$ for $k=1,\ldots,n$.
*Case 2* Suppose that $h(n) \leq 2n-i^{D_n}_h-1$. We prove the linear independence of $\psi^{D_n}_{1,h(1)}, \ldots, \psi^{D_n}_{n,h(n)}$ over $\CR$ by induction on $m_h:=2n-i^{D_n}_h-1-h(n)$. As the base case $m_h=0$, namely $h(n)=2n-i^{D_n}_h-1$, the claim follows from Case 1. Now we assume that $m_h>0$, that is, $$\label{eq:psiDninductionCase2}
h(n) < 2n-i^{D_n}_h-1$$ and the claim holds for any Hessenberg function $\tilde{h}$ for type $D_n$ with $m_{\tilde{h}} = m_h-1$.
For the given Hessenberg function $h$ with , we can define a Hessenberg function $\tilde{h}$ by $$\tilde{h}(i)=\begin{cases}
h(i) \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ {\rm for} \ i=1,\dots,n-1, \\
h(n)+1 \ \ \ {\rm for} \ i=n.
\end{cases}$$ By the definition we have $i^{D_n}_h=i^{D_n}_{\tilde{h}}$, so $m_{\tilde{h}}=m_h-1$. Hence, $\psi^{D_n}_{1,\tilde{h}(1)},\ldots,\psi^{D_n}_{n,\tilde{h}(n)}$ are linearly independent over $\CR$ by the inductive assumption. Suppose that $$\label{eq:typeDCase2linearlyindependence1}
\sum_{k=1}^n f_k \psi^{D_n}_{k,h(k)}=0$$ for $f_k \in \R[x_1,\ldots,x_n]$. Since $\psi^{D_n}_{n,\tilde{h}(n)}=\alpha_{n,\tilde{h}(n)} \psi^{D_n}_{n,h(n)}+(-1)^{\tilde{h}(n)-n}\psi^{D_n}_{2n-\tilde{h}(n),n}$ by , we have $$\label{eq:typeDCase2linearlyindependence2}
\sum_{k=1}^{n-1} g_k \psi^{D_n}_{k,\tilde{h}(k)} + f_n \psi^{D_n}_{n,\tilde{h}(n)}=(-1)^{\tilde{h}(n)-n} f_n \psi^{D_n}_{2n-\tilde{h}(n),n},$$ where $g_k=\alpha_{n,\tilde{h}(n)} f_k$ for $k \in [n-1]$. We show that $\psi^{D_n}_{2n-\tilde{h}(n),n}$ can be written as a linear combination of $\psi^{D_n}_{1,\tilde{h}(1)},\ldots,\psi^{D_n}_{n-1,\tilde{h}(n-1)}$ over $\CR$. We first note that $1 \leq 2n- \tilde{h}(n) \leq n$ because $n \leq \tilde{h}(n) \leq 2n-1$ by the definition $(2)$ of a Hessenberg function. If $2n-\tilde{h}(n)=n$, then $n \leq h(n)=\tilde{h}(n)-1=n-1$, yielding a contradiction. If $2n-\tilde{h}(n)=1$, then $h(n)=\tilde{h}(n)-1=2n-2$. The assumption now implies $i^{D_n}_h<1$, a contradiction. Hence, we have $$\begin{aligned}
&2 \leq 2n- \tilde{h}(n) \leq n-1, \label{eq:inequality2n-h(n)} \\
&1 \leq 2n- \tilde{h}(n)-1 \leq n-2. \label{eq:inequality2n-h(n)-1}\end{aligned}$$ By the definition and assumption , we have $h(2n- \tilde{h}(n)) \geq h(i^{D_n}_h) \geq n-1$ and $h(2n- \tilde{h}(n)-1) \geq h(i^{D_n}_h) \geq n-1$. Also, by the definition $(5)$ of a Hessenberg function we have $h(2n- \tilde{h}(n)) \leq n$ and $h(2n- \tilde{h}(n)-1) \leq n$. Thus, both of the values $h(2n- \tilde{h}(n))$ and $h(2n- \tilde{h}(n)-1)$ are equal to $n-1$ or $n$.
If $h(2n- \tilde{h}(n))=n$, then it follows from and the definition of $\tilde{h}$ that $$\psi^{D_n}_{2n-\tilde{h}(n),n}=\psi^{D_n}_{2n-\tilde{h}(n),h(2n- \tilde{h}(n))}=\psi^{D_n}_{2n-\tilde{h}(n),\tilde{h}(2n- \tilde{h}(n))}.$$
If $h(2n- \tilde{h}(n))=n-1$, then we have $h(2n- \tilde{h}(n)-1)=n-1$ by the definition $(3)$ of a Hessenberg function. From , , and the definition of $\tilde{h}$ together with , we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\psi^{D_n}_{2n-\tilde{h}(n),n} &= \psi^{D_n}_{2n-\tilde{h}(n)-1,n-1}+\alpha_{i,n} \psi^{D_n}_{2n-\tilde{h}(n),n-1}= \psi^{D_n}_{2n-\tilde{h}(n)-1,h(2n- \tilde{h}(n)-1)}+\alpha_{i,n} \psi^{D_n}_{2n-\tilde{h}(n),h(2n- \tilde{h}(n))} \\
&= \psi^{D_n}_{2n-\tilde{h}(n)-1,\tilde{h}(2n- \tilde{h}(n)-1)}+\alpha_{i,n} \psi^{D_n}_{2n-\tilde{h}(n),\tilde{h}(2n- \tilde{h}(n))}.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, $\psi^{D_n}_{2n-\tilde{h}(n),n}$ can be written as a linear combination of $\psi^{D_n}_{1,\tilde{h}(1)},\ldots,\psi^{D_n}_{n-1,\tilde{h}(n-1)}$ over $\CR$. This together with implies $f_n=0$ because $\psi^{D_n}_{1,\tilde{h}(1)},\ldots,\psi^{D_n}_{n,\tilde{h}(n)}$ are linearly independent over $\CR$ by the inductive assumption. Hence by , we have $\sum_{k=1}^{n-1} f_k \psi^{D_n}_{k,h(k)}=0$. However, since $\psi^{D_n}_{k,h(k)}=\psi^{D_n}_{k,\tilde{h}(k)}$ for $1 \leq k \leq n-1$, from the $\CR$-linearly independence of $\psi^{D_n}_{1,\tilde{h}(1)},\ldots,\psi^{D_n}_{n-1,\tilde{h}(n-1)}$ we obtain $f_k=0$ for $1 \leq k \leq n-1$.
Therefore, we proved that $\psi^{D_n}_{1,h(1)},\ldots,\psi^{D_n}_{n,h(n)}$ are linearly independent over $\CR$ for any Hessenberg function $h$ for type $D_n$ by Cases 1 and 2, and this completes the proof.
The derivations $\psi^{D_n}_{i,j}$ are uniform bases and have an explicit formula. Unfortunately, they are not of the form $\eqref{eq:main1-2}$ because of the form of the derivations $\psi_{0,j}$ for $n \leq j \leq 2n-3$. In order to give uniform bases $\tilde\psi^{D_n}_{i,j}$ of the form $\eqref{eq:main1-2}$, we need to modify $\psi^{D_n}_{i,j}$ a little bit.
As the base case, when $j=i$, we define $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde\psi^{D_n}_{i,i}=\psi^{D_n}_{i,i} \ \ \ {\rm for} \ i \in [n]. \end{aligned}$$ Proceeding inductively, we define for $i=1$ $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde\psi^{D_n}_{1,j}&=\alpha_{1,j}\tilde\psi^{D_n}_{1,j-1} \ \ \ \ \ \ {\rm if} \ 1< j \leq 2n-2 \ {\rm with} \ j \neq n-1,n, \\
\tilde\psi^{D_n}_{1,n-1}&=\alpha_{1,n-1}\tilde\psi^{D_n}_{1,n-2} + \xi^{D_n}_{1}, \\
\tilde\psi^{D_n}_{1,n}&=\alpha_{1,n}\tilde\psi^{D_n}_{1,n-1} + \xi^{D_n}_{0}, \end{aligned}$$ and for $1 < i \leq n-1$ $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde\psi^{D_n}_{i,j}&=\tilde\psi^{D_n}_{i-1,j-1}+\alpha_{i,j}\tilde\psi^{D_n}_{i,j-1} \ \ \ \ \ \ {\rm if} \ i< j \ {\rm with} \ j \neq n-1, \\
\tilde\psi^{D_n}_{i,n-1}&=\tilde\psi^{D_n}_{i-1,n-2}+\alpha_{i,n-1}\tilde\psi^{D_n}_{i,n-2} + \xi^{D_n}_{i} \ \ \ \ \ \ {\rm if} \ i< n-1, \end{aligned}$$ and for $i=n$ $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde\psi^{D_n}_{n,j}&=\alpha_{n,j}\tilde\psi^{D_n}_{n,j-1}+(-1)^{j-n}\tilde\psi^{D_n}_{2n-j,n} \ \ \ \ \ \ {\rm if} \ \ n+1 \leq j \leq 2n-1. \end{aligned}$$
\[lemma:PsiTildepsi\] For all $(i,j)$, we have $$\tilde\psi^{D_n}_{i,j} \equiv \psi^{D_n}_{i,j} \ \ \ {\rm mod} \ D(\A_{\Phi^+_{D_n}}).$$ In particular, $\{\psi^{D_n}_{i,h_I(i)} \mid i\in[n] \} \subset D(\A_I)$ for any lower ideal $I \subset \Phi^+_{D_n}$.
Since $\psi_{0,n-1}$ is an element of $D(\A_{\Phi^+_{D_n}})$, so is $\psi_{0,j}$ for $n \leq j \leq 2n-3$. From this together with the recursive formulas for $\{\psi_{i,j} \}$ and $\{\tilde\psi_{i,j} \}$, we obtain that $\tilde\psi_{i,j} \equiv \psi_{i,j}$ mod $D(\A_{\Phi^+_{D_n}})$ for all $(i,j)$. For the rest, it follows from Proposition \[proposition:psiD\] and $D(\A_{\Phi^+_{D_n}}) \subset D(\A_I)$.
\[lemma:xiD\] The derivation $\xi^{D_n}_{i}$ in holds $$\begin{aligned}
\xi^{D_n}_{i}&=-\frac{1}{2}\alpha_{i+1,n} \psi^{D_n}_{i+1,n-1} + (-1)^{n-i} \frac{1}{2}\alpha_{n,2n-1-i}\psi^{D_n}_{n,2n-2-i} \\
&=-\frac{1}{2}\alpha_{i+1,n} \tilde\psi^{D_n}_{i+1,n-1} + (-1)^{n-i} \frac{1}{2}\alpha_{n,2n-1-i}\tilde\psi^{D_n}_{n,2n-2-i}\end{aligned}$$ for $0 \leq i \leq n-2$.
For the second equality, it follows from the recursive formulas for $\{\psi_{i,j}\}$ and $\{\tilde\psi_{i,j}\}$ that $\psi^{D_n}_{i+1,n-1}=\tilde\psi^{D_n}_{i+1,n-1}$ and $\psi^{D_n}_{n,2n-2-i}=\tilde\psi^{D_n}_{n,2n-2-i}$.
We show the first equality. From the formulas and we have $$\begin{aligned}
\psi^{D_n}_{i+1,n-1}=&\sum_{k=1}^{i+1} \left((x_k-x_{i+2})\cdots(x_k-x_{n-1})(x_k+x_n) +(-1)^{n-i-1} x_{i+2}\cdots x_n \right) x_k^{-1}\partial_k \\
&+(-1)^{n-i-1} \sum_{k=i+2}^n x_{i+2} \cdots \widehat{x_k} \cdots x_n \partial_k, \\
\psi^{D_n}_{n,2n-2-i}=&\sum_{k=1}^{i+1} \left((-1)^{n-i} (x_k-x_{i+2})\cdots(x_k-x_{n-1})(x_k-x_n) + x_{i+2}\cdots x_n \right) x_k^{-1}\partial_k \\
&+ \sum_{k=i+2}^n x_{i+2} \cdots \widehat{x_k} \cdots x_n \partial_k. \end{aligned}$$ Noting that $\alpha_{i+1,n}=x_{i+1}-x_n$ and $\alpha_{n,2n-1-i}=x_{i+1}+x_n$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
&-\alpha_{i+1,n} \psi^{D_n}_{i+1,n-1} + (-1)^{n-i} \alpha_{n,2n-1-i}\psi^{D_n}_{n,2n-2-i} \\
=&\sum_{k=1}^{i} \big((x_k-x_{i+2})\cdots(x_k-x_{n-1})x_k \cdot 2x_n -(x_k-x_{i+2})\cdots(x_k-x_{n-1})x_n \cdot 2x_{i+1} \\
&+(-1)^{n-i} x_{i+2}\cdots x_n \cdot 2x_{i+1} \big) x_k^{-1}\partial_k+\big( (-1)^{n-i} x_{i+2}\cdots x_n \cdot 2x_{i+1} \big)x_{i+1}^{-1}\partial_{i+1} \\
&+(-1)^{n-i} \sum_{k=i+2}^n x_{i+2} \cdots \widehat{x_k} \cdots x_n \cdot 2x_{i+1}\partial_k \\
=&\sum_{k=1}^{i} \big(2(x_k-x_{i+1})(x_k-x_{i+2})\cdots(x_k-x_{n-1})x_n +(-1)^{n-i} 2x_{i+1} x_{i+2}\cdots x_n \big) x_k^{-1}\partial_k \\
&+(-1)^{n-i} 2\big(\sum_{k=i+1}^n x_{i+1} \cdots \widehat{x_k} \cdots x_n \partial_k \big) \\
&=2 \xi^{D_n}_{i}\end{aligned}$$ as desired.
For type $D_n$ we have $\operatorname{ht}(\Phi^+_{D_n})=2n-3$. Also, the set $\Lambda_m$ in for $m=2k,2k+1$ is given by $$\label{eq:LambdaD}
\Lambda_m=\begin{cases}
[n-k-1]\cup\{n\} \ \ \ &{\rm if} \ 1 \leq m \leq n-1, \\
[n-k-1] \ \ \ &{\rm if} \ n \leq m \leq 2n-3.
\end{cases}$$
\[proposition:tildepsi\] The derivations $\{\tilde\psi^{D_n}_{i,i+m} \mid 0 \leq m \leq 2n-3, i \in \Lambda_m \}$ have the following expressions. As the base case $m=0$, $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde\psi^{D_n}_{i,i}&=\alpha_i^* \ \ \ \ {\rm for} \ i=1,\ldots,n-2, \\
\tilde\psi^{D_n}_{i,i}&=2\alpha_i^* \ \ \ {\rm for} \ i=n-1,n. \end{aligned}$$ For $m$ with $1 \leq m \leq n-1$, $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde\psi^{D_n}_{i,i+m}=&\sum _{j=1}^{i} \alpha_{j,j+m} \tilde\psi^{D_n}_{j,j+m-1} \ \ \ {\rm for} \ 1 \leq i < n-m-1, \\
\tilde\psi^{D_n}_{i,i+m}=&\sum _{j=1}^{n-m-1} \alpha_{j,j+m} \tilde\psi^{D_n}_{j,j+m-1} -\frac{1}{2}\alpha_{n-m,n}\tilde\psi^{D_n}_{n-m,n-1}+(-1)^{m+1}\frac{1}{2}\alpha_{n,n+m}\tilde\psi^{D_n}_{n,n+m-1} \ \ \ \\
& \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ {\rm for} \ i = n-m-1, \\
\tilde\psi^{D_n}_{i,i+m}=&\sum _{j=1 \atop j \neq n-m}^{i} \alpha_{j,j+m} \tilde\psi^{D_n}_{j,j+m-1} +\frac{1}{2}\alpha_{n-m,n}\tilde\psi^{D_n}_{n-m,n-1}+(-1)^{m+1}\frac{1}{2}\alpha_{n,n+m}\tilde\psi^{D_n}_{n,n+m-1} \ \ \ \\
& \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ {\rm for} \ n-m \leq i \leq n-1, \\
\tilde\psi^{D_n}_{n,n+m}=&(-1)^{m}\left(\sum _{j=1}^{n-m-1} \alpha_{j,j+m} \tilde\psi^{D_n}_{j,j+m-1} +\frac{1}{2}\alpha_{n-m,n}\tilde\psi^{D_n}_{n-m,n-1}\right)+\frac{1}{2}\alpha_{n,n+m}\tilde\psi^{D_n}_{n,n+m-1}. \end{aligned}$$ For $m$ with $n \leq m \leq 2n-3$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde\psi^{D_n}_{i,i+m}&=\sum _{j=1}^{i} \alpha_{j,j+m} \tilde\psi^{D_n}_{j,j+m-1}.\end{aligned}$$
When $m=0$, it is clear that $\tilde\psi^{D_n}_{i,i}=\alpha_i^*$ for $i \in [n-2]$ and $\tilde\psi^{D_n}_{i,i}=2\alpha_i^*$ for $i=n-1,n$. We prove the claim for $m>0$ by induction on $i$. As the base case $i=1$, if $1 < j \leq 2n-2$ with $j \neq n-1,n$, then $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde\psi^{D_n}_{1,j}=\alpha_{1,j}\tilde\psi^{D_n}_{1,j-1}.\end{aligned}$$ If $j=n-1$, then we have $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde\psi^{D_n}_{1,n-1}&=\alpha_{1,n-1}\tilde\psi^{D_n}_{1,n-2}+\xi^{D_n}_{1} =\alpha_{1,n-1}\tilde\psi^{D_n}_{1,n-2}-\frac{1}{2}\alpha_{2,n}\tilde\psi^{D_n}_{2,n-1}+(-1)^{n-1}\frac{1}{2}\alpha_{n,2n-2}\tilde\psi^{D_n}_{n,2n-3}\end{aligned}$$ by Lemma \[lemma:xiD\]. Similarly, if $j=n$, then $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde\psi^{D_n}_{1,n}=\alpha_{1,n}\tilde\psi^{D_n}_{1,n-1}+\xi^{D_n}_{0} =\frac{1}{2}\alpha_{1,n}\tilde\psi^{D_n}_{1,n-1}+(-1)^{n}\frac{1}{2}\alpha_{n,2n-1}\tilde\psi^{D_n}_{n,2n-2}.\end{aligned}$$ Now we assume that $i > 1$ and the claim holds for $i-1$. We first consider the case $1 \leq m \leq n-1$. If $1 \leq i < n-m-1$, then by the inductive assumption we have $$\tilde\psi^{D_n}_{i,i+m}= \tilde\psi^{D_n}_{i-1,i+m-1} + \alpha_{i,j}\tilde\psi^{D_n}_{i,i+m-1}=\sum _{j=1}^{i} \alpha_{j,j+m} \tilde\psi^{D_n}_{j,j+m-1}.$$ If $i = n-m-1$, then from Lemma \[lemma:xiD\] $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde\psi^{D_n}_{i,i+m}&= \tilde\psi^{D_n}_{i-1,i+m-1} + \alpha_{i,i+m}\tilde\psi^{D_n}_{i,i+m-1}+\xi^{D_n}_{i}=\tilde\psi^{D_n}_{n-m-2,n-2} + \alpha_{n-m-1,n-1}\tilde\psi^{D_n}_{n-m-1,n-2}+\xi^{D_n}_{n-m-1} \\
&=\sum _{j=1}^{n-m-1} \alpha_{j,j+m} \tilde\psi^{D_n}_{j,j+m-1}+\xi^{D_n}_{n-m-1} \\
&=\sum _{j=1}^{n-m-1} \alpha_{j,j+m} \tilde\psi^{D_n}_{j,j+m-1}-\frac{1}{2}\alpha_{n-m,n}\tilde\psi_{n-m,n-1}+(-1)^{m+1}\frac{1}{2}\alpha_{n,n+m}\tilde\psi_{n,n+m-1}. \end{aligned}$$ If $i=n-m$, then we have $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde\psi^{D_n}_{i,i+m}&= \tilde\psi^{D_n}_{i-1,i+m-1} + \alpha_{i,i+m}\tilde\psi^{D_n}_{i,i+m-1}=\tilde\psi^{D_n}_{n-m-1,n-1} + \alpha_{n-m,n}\tilde\psi^{D_n}_{n-m,n-1} \\
&=\sum _{j=1}^{n-m-1} \alpha_{j,j+m} \tilde\psi^{D_n}_{j,j+m-1} -\frac{1}{2}\alpha_{n-m,n}\tilde\psi^{D_n}_{n-m,n-1}+(-1)^{m+1}\frac{1}{2}\alpha_{n,n+m}\tilde\psi^{D_n}_{n,n+m-1} + \alpha_{n-m,n}\tilde\psi^{D_n}_{n-m,n-1} \\
&=\sum _{j=1}^{n-m-1} \alpha_{j,j+m} \tilde\psi^{D_n}_{j,j+m-1} +\frac{1}{2}\alpha_{n-m,n}\tilde\psi^{D_n}_{n-m,n-1}+(-1)^{m+1}\frac{1}{2}\alpha_{n,n+m}\tilde\psi^{D_n}_{n,n+m-1}.\end{aligned}$$ If $n-m < i \leq n-1$, then by the inductive assumption $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde\psi^{D_n}_{i,i+m}&= \tilde\psi^{D_n}_{i-1,i+m-1} + \alpha_{i,j}\tilde\psi^{D_n}_{i,i+m-1} \\
&=\sum _{j=1 \atop j \neq n-m}^{i-1} \alpha_{j,j+m} \tilde\psi^{D_n}_{j,j+m-1} +\frac{1}{2}\alpha_{n-m,n}\tilde\psi^{D_n}_{n-m,n-1}+(-1)^{m+1}\frac{1}{2}\alpha_{n,n+m}\tilde\psi^{D_n}_{n,n+m-1} + \alpha_{i,j}\tilde\psi^{D_n}_{i,i+m-1} \\
&=\sum _{j=1 \atop j \neq n-m}^{i} \alpha_{j,j+m} \tilde\psi^{D_n}_{j,j+m-1} +\frac{1}{2}\alpha_{n-m,n}\tilde\psi^{D_n}_{n-m,n-1}+(-1)^{m+1}\frac{1}{2}\alpha_{n,n+m}\tilde\psi^{D_n}_{n,n+m-1}.\end{aligned}$$ If $i=n$, then we have $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde\psi^{D_n}_{n,n+m}=&\alpha_{n,n+m}\tilde\psi^{D_n}_{n,n+m-1}+(-1)^{m}\tilde\psi^{D_n}_{n-m,n} \\
=&\alpha_{n,n+m}\tilde\psi^{D_n}_{n,n+m-1}+(-1)^{m} \big(\sum_{j=1}^{n-m-1} \alpha_{j,j+m}\tilde\psi^{D_n}_{j,j+m-1}+\frac{1}{2}\alpha_{n-m,n}\tilde\psi^{D_n}_{n-m,n-1} \\
&+(-1)^{m+1}\frac{1}{2}\alpha_{n,n+m}\tilde\psi^{D_n}_{n,n+m-1} \big) \\
=&(-1)^{m}\left(\sum _{j=1}^{n-m-1} \alpha_{j,j+m} \tilde\psi^{D_n}_{j,j+m-1} +\frac{1}{2}\alpha_{n-m,n}\tilde\psi^{D_n}_{n-m,n-1}\right)+\frac{1}{2}\alpha_{n,n+m}\tilde\psi^{D_n}_{n,n+m-1}. \end{aligned}$$
Next we consider the case $n \leq m \leq 2n-3$. Then, by the inductive assumption we have $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde\psi^{D_n}_{i,i+m}&=\tilde\psi^{D_n}_{i-1,i+m-1}+ \alpha_{i,i+m} \tilde\psi^{D_n}_{i,i+m-1} \\
&=\sum _{j=1}^{i} \alpha_{j,j+m} \tilde\psi^{D_n}_{j,j+m-1}.\end{aligned}$$
Therefore, we proved the desired equalities.
Motivated by Proposition \[proposition:tildepsi\], we define a matrix $P_m^{D_n}$ of size $|\Lambda_m|=\lambda_m$ as follows. As the base case, when $m=0$, $$P_0^{D_n}=
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & & & & \\
& \ddots & & & \\
& & 1 & & \\
& & & 2 & \\
& & & & 2
\end{pmatrix}.$$ For $m$ with $1 \leq m < n-1$, when $m=2k+1$ odd, we define $$P_{2k+1}^{D_n}=
\begin{array}{rcccccccccl}
\ldelim({11}{1ex}[]&1 & & & & & & & & & \rdelim){11}{1ex}[] \\
&\vdots & \ddots & & & & & & & &\\
&1 & \cdots & 1 & & & & & & & \\
&1 & \cdots & 1 & 1 & -\frac{1}{2} & 0 & \cdots & 0 & \frac{1}{2}& \\
&1 & \cdots & 1 & 1 & \frac{1}{2} & 0 & \cdots & 0 & \frac{1}{2} & \\
&1 & \cdots & 1 & 1 & \frac{1}{2} & 1 & \ddots & \vdots & \vdots & \\
&\vdots & & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & 0 & \vdots & \\
&1 & \cdots & 1 & 1 & \frac{1}{2} & 1 & \cdots & 1 & \frac{1}{2}& \\
&-1 & \cdots & -1 & -1 & -\frac{1}{2} & 0 & \cdots & 0 & \frac{1}{2}&\\
& \multicolumn{3}{c}{\raisebox{2ex}[1ex][0ex]{$\underbrace{\hspace{13ex}}_{{n-2k-3}}$}} &&&\multicolumn{3}{c}{\raisebox{2ex}[1ex][0ex]{$\underbrace{\hspace{11ex}}_{{k}}$}}&&\\
\end{array}, \ $$ and when $m=2k+2$ even, we define $$P_{2k+2}^{D_n}=
\begin{array}{rcccccccccl}
\ldelim({11}{1ex}[]&1 & & & & & & & & & \rdelim){11}{1ex}[] \\
&\vdots & \ddots & & & & & & & &\\
&1 & \cdots & 1 & & & & & & &\\
&1 & \cdots & 1 & 1 & -\frac{1}{2} & 0 & \cdots & 0 & -\frac{1}{2}& \\
&1 & \cdots & 1 & 1 & \frac{1}{2} & 0 & \cdots & 0 & -\frac{1}{2} & \\
&1 & \cdots & 1 & 1 & \frac{1}{2} & 1 & \ddots & \vdots & \vdots &\\
&\vdots & & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & 0 & \vdots &\\
&1 & \cdots & 1 & 1 & \frac{1}{2} & 1 & \cdots & 1 & -\frac{1}{2} & \\
&1 & \cdots & 1 & 1 & \frac{1}{2} & 0 & \cdots & 0 & \frac{1}{2}&\\
& \multicolumn{3}{c}{\raisebox{2ex}[1ex][0ex]{$\underbrace{\hspace{10ex}}_{{n-2k-4}}$}} & &&\multicolumn{3}{c}{\raisebox{2ex}[1ex][0ex]{$\underbrace{\hspace{11ex}}_{{k}}$}}&&
\end{array}. \ $$ For $m=n-1$, when $m=2k+1$ odd, we define $$P_{n-1}^{D_n}=
\begin{array}{rcccccl}
\ldelim({6}{1ex}[]&\frac{1}{2} & 0 & \cdots & 0 & \frac{1}{2}& \rdelim){6}{1ex}[] \\
&\frac{1}{2} & 1 & \ddots & \vdots & \vdots &\\
&\vdots & \vdots & \ddots & 0 & \vdots & \\
&\frac{1}{2} & 1 & \cdots & 1 & \frac{1}{2} &\\
&-\frac{1}{2} & 0 & \cdots & 0 & \frac{1}{2}&\\
& &\multicolumn{3}{c}{\raisebox{2ex}[1ex][0ex]{$\underbrace{\hspace{11ex}}_{{k}}$}}&&
\end{array}, \ $$ and when $m=2k+2$ even, we define $$P_{n-1}^{D_n}=
\begin{array}{rcccccl}
\ldelim({6}{1ex}[]&\frac{1}{2} & 0 & \cdots & 0 & -\frac{1}{2}& \rdelim){6}{1ex}[] \\
&\frac{1}{2} & 1 & \ddots & \vdots & \vdots& \\
&\vdots & \vdots & \ddots & 0 & \vdots & \\
&\frac{1}{2} & 1 & \cdots & 1 & -\frac{1}{2} & \\
&\frac{1}{2} & 0 & \cdots & 0 & \frac{1}{2}&\\
& &\multicolumn{3}{c}{\raisebox{2ex}[1ex][0ex]{$\underbrace{\hspace{11ex}}_{k}$}}&&
\end{array}. \ $$ For $m$ with $n \leq m \leq 2n-3$, we define $$P_m^{D_n}=
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & & \\
\vdots & \ddots & \\
1 & \cdots & 1
\end{pmatrix}.$$ From Proposition \[proposition:tildepsi\] we obtain $$\label{eq:PsiPmD}
[\tilde\psi^{D_n}_{i,i+m}]_{i \in \Lambda_m}=P_m[\alpha_{i,i+m}\tilde\psi^{D_n}_{i,i+m-1}]_{i \in \Lambda_m}$$ for any $m$ with $1 \leq m \leq 2n-3$ where we think of indices for rows and columns of the matrix $P_m$ as the set $\Lambda_m$ in , and we arrange them as in increasing order. One can see that $\det P_m=1$ if $m \neq n-1$ and $\det P_{n-1}=\frac{1}{2}$, so we obtain $P_m \in \operatorname{GL}(\Lambda_m,\Q)$ for all $1 \leq m \leq 2n-3$. From this together with Lemma \[lemma:PsiTildepsi\], we obtain the following theorem by Proposition \[proposition:key\] (see also Remark \[remark:key\]).
\[theorem:tildepsiD\] The derivations $\{\tilde\psi^{D_n}_{i,i+m} \mid 0 \leq m \leq 2n-3, i \in \Lambda_m \}$ form uniform bases for the lower ideals of type $D_n$. Furthermore, $P_m^{D_n}$ $(0 \leq m \leq 2n-3)$ are the invertible matrices associated with the uniform bases $\{\tilde\psi^{D_n}_{i,i+m} \mid \ 0 \leq m \leq 2n-1, i \in \Lambda_m \}$.
Type $G_2$ {#subsection:typeG}
----------
Let $\mathfrak{t}$ be the hyperplane in $V=\R^3$ defined by the linear function $x_1+x_2+x_3$. Then we have $$\CR = \operatorname{Sym}(\mathfrak{t}^*)=\R[x_1,x_2,x_3]/(x_1+x_2+x_3).$$ We set the exponents $\e_1,\e_2$ as $$\e_1=5, \ \e_2=1$$ We arrange all positive roots of $G_2$ as shown in Figure \[picture:PositiveRootTypeG\].
(300,40) (0,20)[(60,20)[$x_1-x_2$]{}]{} (60,00)[(60,20)[$-2x_1+x_2+x_3$]{}]{} (60,20)[(60,20)[$-x_1+x_3$]{}]{} (120,20)[(60,20)[$-x_2+x_3$]{}]{} (180,20)[(60,20)[$x_1-2x_2+x_3$]{}]{} (240,20)[(60,20)[$-x_1-x_2+2x_3$]{}]{}
In Figure \[picture:PositiveRootTypeG\] the partial order $\preceq$ on $\Phi^+_{G_2}$ is defined as follows:
1. if a root $\alpha$ is left-adjacent to a root $\beta$, then $\alpha \lessdot \beta$,
2. if a root $\alpha$ is lower-adjacent to a root $\beta$, then $\alpha \lessdot \beta$.
For two positive roots $\alpha,\beta$, we define $\alpha \preceq \beta$ if there exist positive roots $\gamma_0,\ldots,\gamma_N$ such that $\alpha=\gamma_0 \lessdot \gamma_1 \lessdot \cdots \lessdot \gamma_N=\beta$. We denote positive roots by $$\begin{aligned}
&\alpha_{1,2}=x_1-x_2, \ \ \ \alpha_{1,3}=-x_1+x_3, \ \ \ \alpha_{1,4}=-x_2+x_3, \\
&\alpha_{1,5}=x_1-2x_2+x_3, \ \ \ \alpha_{1,6}=-x_1-x_2+2x_3, \\
&\alpha_{2,3}=-2x_1+x_2+x_3.\end{aligned}$$ Note that $\alpha_{i,j} \preceq \alpha_{k,\ell}$ iff $i \geq k$ and $j \leq \ell$. The decomposition $\Phi^+_{G_2}=\Phi^+_1 \coprod \Phi^+_2$ shows that all positive roots are decomposed by positive roots of each rows in Figure \[picture:PositiveRootTypeG\]. A **Hessenberg function for type $G_2$** is defined to be a function $h:\{1,2\} \rightarrow \{1,2,\ldots,6\}$ satisfying the following conditions
1. $1 \leq h(1) \leq 6$ and $2 \leq h(2) \leq 3$,
2. if $h(1) \geq 3$, then $h(2)=3$.
Under the decomposition $\Phi^+_{G_2}=\Phi^+_1 \coprod \Phi^+_2$, one can see that the set of lower ideals $I \subset \Phi^+_{G_2}$ and the set of Hessenberg functions $h$ for type $G_2$ are in one-to-one correspondence which sends $I$ to $h_I$ in .
The uniform bases $\psi^{G_2}_{i,j} \in \operatorname{Der}\CR$ given in [@AHMMS] are defined as follows. Let $\overline\partial:=\partial_1+\partial_2+\partial_3$. Then, we define $$\begin{aligned}
\psi^{G_2}_{1,1}&= -\partial_2+\partial_3, \\
\psi^{G_2}_{2,2}&= \partial_3-\frac{1}{3}\overline\partial, \\
\psi^{G_2}_{1,j}&= \left( \prod_{\ell=2}^{j} \alpha_{1,\ell} \right) (-\partial_2+\partial_3) \ \ \ \ \ {\rm for} \ 1 < j \leq 6, \\
\psi^{G_2}_{2,3}&= x_1(\partial_1-\frac{1}{3}\overline\partial)+x_2(\partial_2-\frac{1}{3}\overline\partial)+x_3(\partial_3-\frac{1}{3}\overline\partial).\end{aligned}$$
$($[@AHMMS Theorem 10.17]$)$ \[theorem:psiG\] The derivations $\{\psi^{G_2}_{1,1},\ldots,\psi^{G_2}_{1,6},\psi^{G_2}_{2,2},\psi^{G_2}_{2,3} \}$ form uniform bases for the ideal arrangements of type $G_2$.
For type $G_2$ the derivations $\psi^{G_2}_{i,j}$ satisfy the following recursive formula ([@AHMMS]) $$\begin{aligned}
\psi^{G_2}_{1,1}&= -\partial_2+\partial_3, \\
\psi^{G_2}_{2,2}&= \partial_3-\frac{1}{3}\overline\partial, \\
\psi^{G_2}_{i,j}&= \psi^{G_2}_{i-1,j-1} + \alpha_{i,j}\psi^{G_2}_{i,j-1} \ \ \ {\rm for} \ (i,j) \ {\rm with} \ i<j\leq i+\e_i, \end{aligned}$$ where we take the convention $\psi^{G_2}_{0,*}=0$ for any $*$. Note that $\operatorname{ht}(\Phi^+_{G_2})=5$ and the set $\Lambda_m$ in is given by $$\Lambda_m=\begin{cases}
\{1,2\} \ \ \ &{\rm for} \ m=0,1, \\
\{1\} \ \ \ &{\rm for} \ 2 \leq m \leq 5.
\end{cases}$$ From the recursive formula above we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\psi^{G_2}_{i,i}&= \alpha_i^* \ \ \ {\rm for} \ i =1,2, \\
\psi^{G_2}_{1,j}&= \alpha_{1,j} \psi^{G_2}_{1,j-1} \ \ \ {\rm for} \ 1 < j \leq 6, \\
\psi^{G_2}_{2,3}&= \alpha_{1,2} \psi^{G_2}_{1,1} + \alpha_{2,3} \psi^{G_2}_{2,2}.\end{aligned}$$ Hence, the invertible matrices $P_m^{G_2}$ associated with the uniform bases $\{\psi^{G_2}_{i,i+m} \mid \ 0 \leq m \leq 5, i \in \Lambda_m \}$ are given by $$P_0^{G_2}=
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & \\
& 1
\end{pmatrix}, \ \ \
P_1^{G_2}=
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & \\
1 & 1
\end{pmatrix}, \ \ \
P_m^{G_2}=
\begin{pmatrix}
1
\end{pmatrix} \ \ \ (2 \leq m \leq 5).$$
Type $F_4$ {#subsection:typeF}
----------
Let $\mathfrak{t}$ be the euclidean space $V=\R^4$ and we have $$\CR = \operatorname{Sym}(\mathfrak{t}^*)=\R[x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4].$$ We set the exponents $\e_1,\e_2, \e_3, \e_4$ as $$\e_1=1, \ \e_2=11, \ \e_3=7, \ \e_4=5.$$ We take the simple roots $\alpha_1=\frac{1}{2}(x_1-x_2-x_3-x_4), \alpha_2=x_2-x_3, \alpha_3=x_3-x_4, \alpha_4=x_4$ so that a labeling of the Dynkin diagram is as follows:
(90,20) (0,10) (30,10) (60,10) (90,10)
(2.3,10)[(1,0)[25]{}]{} (32.3,11)[(1,0)[25]{}]{} (32.3,9)[(1,0)[25]{}]{} (62.3,10)[(1,0)[25]{}]{}
(44,13)(50,10)(44,7)
(-2,0)[[2]{}]{} (28,0)[[3]{}]{} (58,0)[[4]{}]{} (88,0)[[1]{}]{}
We arrange all positive roots of $F_4$ as shown in Figure \[picture:PositiveRootTypeF\].
(500,80) (0,60)[(30,20)[$x_2-x_3$]{}]{}
(30,60)[(30,20)[$x_2-x_4$]{}]{} (30,40)[(30,20)[$x_3-x_4$]{}]{}
(60,60)[(15,20)[$x_2$]{}]{} (60,40)[(15,20)[$x_3$]{}]{} (60,20)[(15,20)[$x_4$]{}]{}
(75,60)[(85,20)[$\frac{1}{2}(x_1+x_2-x_3-x_4)$]{}]{} (75,40)[(85,20)[$\frac{1}{2}(x_1-x_2+x_3-x_4)$]{}]{} (75,20)[(85,20)[$\frac{1}{2}(x_1-x_2-x_3+x_4)$]{}]{} (75,0)[(85,20)[$\frac{1}{2}(x_1-x_2-x_3-x_4)$]{}]{}
(160,60)[(30,20)[$x_2+x_3$]{}]{} (160,40)[(30,20)[$x_2+x_4$]{}]{} (160,20)[(30,20)[$x_3+x_4$]{}]{}
(190,60)[(85,20)[$\frac{1}{2}(x_1+x_2+x_3-x_4)$]{}]{} (190,40)[(85,20)[$\frac{1}{2}(x_1+x_2-x_3+x_4)$]{}]{} (190,20)[(85,20)[$\frac{1}{2}(x_1-x_2+x_3+x_4)$]{}]{}
(275,60)[(30,20)[$x_1-x_4$]{}]{} (275,40)[(30,20)[$x_1-x_3$]{}]{} (275,20)[(30,20)[$x_1-x_2$]{}]{}
(305,60)[(85,20)[$x_1$]{}]{} (305,40)[(85,20)[$\frac{1}{2}(x_1+x_2+x_3+x_4)$]{}]{}
(390,60)[(30,20)[$x_1+x_4$]{}]{}
(420,60)[(30,20)[$x_1+x_3$]{}]{}
(450,60)[(30,20)[$x_1+x_2$]{}]{}
(75,80)[(1,0)[115]{}]{} (75,60)[(1,0)[115]{}]{} (75,40)[(1,0)[115]{}]{} (75,20)[(1,0)[115]{}]{} (75,20)[(0,1)[60]{}]{} (190,20)[(0,1)[60]{}]{}
(275,60)[(1,0)[115]{}]{} (275,40)[(1,0)[115]{}]{} (390,40)[(0,1)[20]{}]{}
(275,40)[(0,1)[20]{}]{}
In Figure \[picture:PositiveRootTypeF\] the partial order $\preceq$ on $\Phi^+_{F_4}$ is defined as follows:
1. if a root $\alpha$ is left to a root $\beta$, then $\alpha \lessdot \beta$, except that $\alpha,\beta$ are divided by a dotted line;
2. if a root $\alpha$ is lower-adjacent to a root $\beta$, then $\alpha \lessdot \beta$;
3. if two roots $\alpha,\beta$ are divided by a dotted line, and a root $\gamma$ is immediately to the northwest of $\alpha$ and a root $\delta$ is immediately to the southeast of $\beta$, then $\alpha \lessdot \delta$ and $\gamma \lessdot \beta$.
(60,45) (0,30)[(15,15)[$\gamma$]{}]{} (15,15)[(15,15)[$\alpha$]{}]{} (30,15)[(15,15)[$\beta$]{}]{} (45,0)[(15,15)[$\delta$]{}]{}
(15,30)[(1,0)[30]{}]{} (15,15)[(1,0)[30]{}]{} (15,15)[(0,1)[15]{}]{} (45,15)[(0,1)[15]{}]{}
For two positive roots $\alpha,\beta$, we define $\alpha \preceq \beta$ if there exist positive roots $\gamma_0,\ldots,\gamma_N$ such that $\alpha=\gamma_0 \lessdot \gamma_1 \lessdot \cdots \lessdot \gamma_N=\beta$.
Now we fix a decomposition $\Phi^+_{F_4}=\Phi^+_1 \coprod \Phi^+_2 \coprod \Phi^+_3 \coprod \Phi^+_4$ satisfying and . The positive roots $\alpha_{i,j}$ are defined as
[|c||c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|]{} positive roots $\backslash$ $j$ & $2$ & $3$ & $4$ & $5$ & $6$ & $7$ $\alpha_{1,j}$ & $\frac{1}{2}(x_1-x_2-x_3-x_4)$ & & & & & $\alpha_{2,j}$ & & $x_2-x_3$ & $x_2-x_4$ & $x_2$ & $x_2+x_4$ & $x_2+x_3$ $\alpha_{3,j}$ & & & $x_3-x_4$ & $x_3$ & $x_3+x_4$ & $\frac{1}{2}(x_1-x_2+x_3+x_4)$ $\alpha_{4,j}$ & & & & $x_4$ & $\frac{1}{2}(x_1-x_2-x_3+x_4)$ & $\frac{1}{2}(x_1-x_2+x_3-x_4)$
Motivated by this, we define the coordinate in type $F_4$ as shown in Figure \[picture:CoordinateTypeF\].
(350,70) (0,60)[(30,20)[$(2,2)$]{}]{} (30,60)[(30,20)[$(2,3)$]{}]{} (60,60)[(30,20)[$(2,4)$]{}]{} (90,60)[(30,20)[$(2,5)$]{}]{} (120,60)[(30,20)[$(4,8)$]{}]{} (150,60)[(30,20)[$(2,7)$]{}]{} (180,60)[(30,20)[$(2,8)$]{}]{} (210,60)[(30,20)[$(3,10)$]{}]{} (240,60)[(30,20)[$(2,10)$]{}]{} (270,60)[(30,20)[$(2,11)$]{}]{} (300,60)[(30,20)[$(2,12)$]{}]{} (330,60)[(30,20)[$(2,13)$]{}]{}
(30,40)[(30,20)[$(3,3)$]{}]{} (60,40)[(30,20)[$(3,4)$]{}]{} (90,40)[(30,20)[$(3,5)$]{}]{} (120,40)[(30,20)[$(4,7)$]{}]{} (150,40)[(30,20)[$(2,6)$]{}]{} (180,40)[(30,20)[$(4,9)$]{}]{} (210,40)[(30,20)[$(3,9)$]{}]{} (240,40)[(30,20)[$(2,9)$]{}]{}
(60,20)[(30,20)[$(4,4)$]{}]{} (90,20)[(30,20)[$(4,5)$]{}]{} (120,20)[(30,20)[$(4,6)$]{}]{} (150,20)[(30,20)[$(3,6)$]{}]{} (180,20)[(30,20)[$(3,7)$]{}]{} (210,20)[(30,20)[$(3,8)$]{}]{}
(90,0)[(30,20)[$(1,1)$]{}]{} (120,0)[(30,20)[$(1,2)$]{}]{}
(120,80)[(1,0)[60]{}]{} (120,60)[(1,0)[60]{}]{} (120,40)[(1,0)[60]{}]{} (120,20)[(1,0)[60]{}]{} (120,20)[(0,1)[60]{}]{} (180,20)[(0,1)[60]{}]{}
(210,60)[(1,0)[60]{}]{} (210,40)[(1,0)[60]{}]{} (210,40)[(0,1)[20]{}]{} (270,40)[(0,1)[20]{}]{}
Note that $\operatorname{ht}(\Phi^+_{F_4})=11$ and the set $\Lambda_m$ in is given by $$\label{eq:LambdaF}
\Lambda_m=\begin{cases}
\{1,2,3,4\} \ \ \ &{\rm for} \ m=0,1, \\
\{2,3,4\} \ \ \ &{\rm for} \ 2 \leq m \leq 5, \\
\{2,3\} \ \ \ &{\rm for} \ m=6,7, \\
\{2\} \ \ \ &{\rm for} \ 8 \leq m \leq 11.
\end{cases}$$
For the decomposition $\Phi^+_{F_4}=\Phi^+_1 \coprod \Phi^+_2 \coprod \Phi^+_3 \coprod \Phi^+_4$ above, a **Hessenberg function for type $F_4$** is defined to be a function $h:\{1,\ldots,4\} \rightarrow \{1,\ldots,13\}$ satisfying the following conditions
1. $i \leq h(i) \leq i+e_i$ for $i=1,2,3,4$,
2. if $h(2) \geq k$, then $h(3) \geq k$ for $k=4,5,6,10$,
3. if $h(3) \geq k$, then $h(4) \geq k$ for $k=5,7,9$,
4. if $h(4) \geq k$, then $h(1) =2$ for $k=6$,
5. if $h(4) \geq k$, then $h(3) \geq k-2$ for $k=7,9$,
6. if $h(4) \geq k$, then $h(2) \geq k-3$ for $k=8,9$,
7. if $h(2) \geq 8$, then $h(4) = 9$,
8. if $h(3) \geq 10$, then $h(2) \geq 8$.
Under this decomposition $\Phi^+_{F_4}=\Phi^+_1 \coprod \Phi^+_2 \coprod \Phi^+_3 \coprod \Phi^+_4$, one can see that the set of lower ideals $I \subset \Phi^+_{F_4}$ and the set of Hessenberg functions $h$ for type $F_4$ are in one-to-one correspondence which sends $I$ to $h_I$ in .
A Hessenberg function $h$ such that $h(1)=1, h(2) \leq 7, h(3) \leq 6, h(4) \leq 5$ for type $F_4$ is exactly the Hessenberg function $h$ such that $h(1)=1$ for type $B_4$ which is naturally identified with that of type $B_3$.
We find uniform bases $\{\psi^{F_4}_{i,i+m} \in \operatorname{Der}\CR \mid 0 \leq m \leq 11, i \in \Lambda_m \}$ inductively. As the base case, when $m=0$, we define $$\psi^{F_4}_{i,i}=\alpha_i^* \ \ \ \ \ {\rm for} \ i=1,2,3,4.$$ Explicitly, $$\begin{aligned}
\psi^{F_4}_{1,1}&=2\partial_1, \\
\psi^{F_4}_{2,2}&=\partial_1+\partial_2, \\
\psi^{F_4}_{3,3}&=2\partial_1+\partial_2+\partial_3, \\
\psi^{F_4}_{4,4}&=3\partial_1+\partial_2+\partial_3+\partial_4. \end{aligned}$$ Proceeding inductively, for $m > 0$ and $i \in \Lambda_m$ we write $$\label{eq:psiF}
\psi^{F_4}_{i,i+m}=\sum_{j \in \Lambda_{m}} p_{ij}^{(m)} \alpha_{j,j+m}\psi^{F_4}_{j,j+m-1}$$ for some rational numbers $p_{ij}^{(m)}$. We determine the rational numbers $p_{ij}^{(m)}$ such that all of the derivations $\psi_{i,i+m}$ form uniform bases. As the proof of Proposition \[proposition:psiD\], we consider the maximal lower ideal $I^{(i,i+m)}$ containing the root $\alpha_{i,i+m}$ with respect to the inclusion. Since $\psi^{F_4}_{i,i+m}(\alpha) \in \CR \alpha$ for any $\alpha \in I^{(i,i+m)}$, by the following has to hold $$\sum_{j \in \Lambda_{m}} p_{ij}^{(m)} \alpha_{j,j+m}\psi^{F_4}_{j,j+m-1}(\alpha) \equiv 0 \ \ \ \mod \alpha.$$ Now we know an explicit formula for $\psi^{F_4}_{j,j+m-1}$ ($j \in \Lambda_{m}$) by inductive step, so we obtain a linear equation in $p_{ij}^{(m)}$ ($j \in \Lambda_{m}$) for each $\alpha \in I^{(i,i+m)}$. We computed a solution of the system of the linear equations in $p_{ij}^{(m)}$ ($j \in \Lambda_{m}$), and the result is given as follows. (We also checked the solution by using Maple[^6].) For each $m$ with $0 \leq m \leq 11=\operatorname{ht}(\Phi^+_{F_4})$, the matrix $P_m^{F_4}=(p_{ij}^{(m)})_{i,j \in \Lambda_m}$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
&P_0^{F_4}=
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \\
\end{pmatrix}, \ \
P_1^{F_4}=
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 1 & 1 & 1 \\
0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & 1 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & 1 & 1 \\
\end{pmatrix}, \ \
P_2^{F_4}=
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0 & 0 \\
1 & 1 & 1 \\
0 & 0 & 1 \\
\end{pmatrix}, \ \
P_3^{F_4}=
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & -\frac{1}{2} & -1 \\
1 & 1 & -1 \\
\frac{1}{2} & \frac{1}{2} & 1 \\
\end{pmatrix}, \\
&P_4^{F_4}=
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0 & -2 \\
0 & 1 & 2 \\
0 & 0 & 1 \\
\end{pmatrix}, \ \
P_5^{F_4}=
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & 0 \\
-\frac{1}{2} & \frac{1}{2} & 1 \\
\end{pmatrix}, \ \
P_6^{F_4}=
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 1 \\
0 & 1 \\
\end{pmatrix}, \ \
P_7^{F_4}=
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0 \\
2 & 1 \\
\end{pmatrix}, \\
&P_m^{F_4}=
\begin{pmatrix}
1 \\
\end{pmatrix} \ \ \ (8 \leq m \leq 11).\end{aligned}$$ Here, we arrange indices for rows and columns of the matrix $P^{F_4}_m$ as in increasing order. Note that $$\begin{aligned}
[\psi^{F_4}_{i,i}]_{i \in \Lambda_0}&=P_0^{F_4}[\alpha_{i}^*]_{i \in \Lambda_0}\\
[\psi^{F_4}_{i,i+m}]_{i \in \Lambda_m}&=P_m^{F_4}[\alpha_{i,i+m}\psi^{F_4}_{i,i+m-1}]_{i \in \Lambda_m} \ \ \ {\rm for} \ 1 \leq m \leq 11.\end{aligned}$$ One can check that $\det P^{F_4}_m \neq 0$, so we obtain the following theorem by Proposition \[proposition:key\] (see also Remark \[remark:key\]).
\[theorem:psiF\] The derivations $\{\psi^{F_4}_{i,i+m} \mid 0 \leq m \leq 11, i \in \Lambda_m \}$ form uniform bases for the ideal arrangements of type $F_4$.
Type $E_n \ (n=6,7,8)$ {#subsection:typeE}
----------------------
We consider types $E_n \ (n=6,7,8)$ by case-by-case to compute the invertible matrices.
### Type $E_8$ {#subsubsection:typeE8}
Let $\mathfrak{t}_{E_8}$ be the euclidean space $V=\R^8$ and we have $$\CR_{E_8} = \operatorname{Sym}(\mathfrak{t}_{E_8}^*)=\R[x_1,\ldots,x_8].$$ We set the exponents $\e^{E_8}_1,\ldots, \e^{E_8}_8$ as $$\e^{E_8}_1=19, \ \e^{E_8}_2=29, \ \e^{E_8}_3=23, \ \e^{E_8}_4=13, \ \e^{E_8}_5=11, \ \e^{E_8}_6=7, \ \e^{E_8}_7=1, \ \e^{E_8}_8=17.$$
We take the simple roots $\alpha_1=\frac{1}{2}(x_1-x_2-x_3-x_4-x_5-x_6-x_7-x_8), \alpha_2=x_2-x_3, \alpha_3=x_3-x_4, \alpha_4=x_4-x_5, \alpha_5=x_5-x_6, \alpha_6=x_6-x_7, \alpha_7=x_7-x_8, \alpha_8=x_7+x_8$ so that a labeling of the Dynkin diagram is as follows:
(90,50) (0,10) (30,10) (60,10) (90,10) (120,10) (150,10) (180,10) (60,40)
(2.3,10)[(1,0)[25]{}]{} (32.3,10)[(1,0)[25]{}]{} (62.3,10)[(1,0)[25]{}]{} (92.3,10)[(1,0)[25]{}]{} (122.3,10)[(1,0)[25]{}]{} (152.3,10)[(1,0)[25]{}]{} (60,12.3)[(0,1)[25]{}]{}
(-2,0)[[1]{}]{} (28,0)[[8]{}]{} (58,0)[[6]{}]{} (88,0)[[5]{}]{} (118,0)[[4]{}]{} (148,0)[[3]{}]{} (178,0)[[2]{}]{} (65,37.5)[[7]{}]{}
Then, the positive roots are the following forms $$\begin{aligned}
& x_i \pm x_j \ \ \ (1 \leq i,j \leq 8), \label{eq:Epositive1} \\
& \frac{1}{2}(x_1 \pm x_2 \pm x_3 \pm x_4 \pm x_5 \pm x_6 \pm x_7 \pm x_8). \label{eq:Epositive2}\end{aligned}$$
We arrange all positive roots of $E_8$ as shown in Figure \[picture:PositiveRootTypeE8\]. For simplicity, we denote the positive root $x_i \pm x_j$ of the form by $i \pm j$. Also, we denote by $\frac{1}{2}(i_1 i_2 \dots i_k)$ the positive root of the form such that coefficients of $x_i$ are positive for $i=i_1, i_2, \dots ,i_k$. For example, the notation $\frac{1}{2}(12478)$ means the positive root $\frac{1}{2}(x_1+x_2-x_3+x_4-x_5-x_6+x_7+x_8)$. Using the simple notations above, we arrange all positive roots of $E_8$ as shown in Figure \[picture:PositiveRootTypeE8\].
(500,310) (0,300)[[$2-3$]{}]{}
(25,300)[[$2-4$]{}]{} (25,290)[[$3-4$]{}]{}
(50,300)[[$2-5$]{}]{} (50,290)[[$3-5$]{}]{} (50,280)[[$4-5$]{}]{}
(75,300)[[$2-6$]{}]{} (75,290)[[$3-6$]{}]{} (75,280)[[$4-6$]{}]{} (75,270)[[$5-6$]{}]{}
(100,300)[[$2-7$]{}]{} (100,290)[[$3-7$]{}]{} (100,280)[[$4-7$]{}]{} (100,270)[[$5-7$]{}]{} (100,260)[[$6-7$]{}]{}
(125,300)[[$2-8$]{}]{} (125,290)[[$3-8$]{}]{} (125,280)[[$4-8$]{}]{} (125,270)[[$5-8$]{}]{} (125,260)[[$6-8$]{}]{} (125,250)[[$7-8$]{}]{}
(117,310)[[$(a)$]{}]{} (97,257)[(0,1)[50]{}]{} (147,257)[(0,1)[50]{}]{} (97,257)[(1,0)[50]{}]{} (97,307)[(1,0)[50]{}]{}
(154,245)[(0,1)[5]{}]{} (154,255)[(0,1)[5]{}]{} (154,265)[(0,1)[5]{}]{} (154,275)[(0,1)[5]{}]{} (154,285)[(0,1)[5]{}]{} (154,295)[(0,1)[5]{}]{} (154,305)[(0,1)[5]{}]{}
(165,300)[[$2+8$]{}]{} (165,290)[[$3+8$]{}]{} (165,280)[[$4+8$]{}]{} (165,270)[[$5+8$]{}]{} (165,260)[[$6+8$]{}]{} (165,250)[[$7+8$]{}]{}
(190,300)[[$2+7$]{}]{} (190,290)[[$3+7$]{}]{} (190,280)[[$4+7$]{}]{} (190,270)[[$5+7$]{}]{} (190,260)[[$6+7$]{}]{}
(215,300)[[$2+6$]{}]{} (215,290)[[$3+6$]{}]{} (215,280)[[$4+6$]{}]{} (215,270)[[$5+6$]{}]{}
(240,300)[[$2+5$]{}]{} (240,290)[[$3+5$]{}]{} (240,280)[[$4+5$]{}]{}
(265,300)[[$2+4$]{}]{} (265,290)[[$3+4$]{}]{}
(290,300)[[$2+3$]{}]{}
(182,310)[[$(\bar{a})$]{}]{} (162,257)[(0,1)[50]{}]{} (212,257)[(0,1)[50]{}]{} (162,257)[(1,0)[50]{}]{} (162,307)[(1,0)[50]{}]{}
(252,312)[[$(b)$]{}]{} (160,247)[(0,1)[62]{}]{} (160,309)[(1,0)[152]{}]{} (160,247)[(1,0)[27]{}]{} (187,247)[(0,1)[8]{}]{} (187,255)[(1,0)[27]{}]{} (214,255)[(0,1)[11]{}]{} (214,266)[(1,0)[23]{}]{} (237,266)[(0,1)[11]{}]{} (237,277)[(1,0)[25]{}]{} (262,277)[(0,1)[11]{}]{} (262,288)[(1,0)[25]{}]{} (287,288)[(0,1)[10]{}]{} (287,298)[(1,0)[25]{}]{} (312,298)[(0,1)[11]{}]{}
(319,245)[(0,1)[5]{}]{} (319,255)[(0,1)[5]{}]{} (319,265)[(0,1)[5]{}]{} (319,275)[(0,1)[5]{}]{} (319,285)[(0,1)[5]{}]{} (319,295)[(0,1)[5]{}]{} (319,305)[(0,1)[5]{}]{}
(0,210)[[$\frac{1}{2}(128)$]{}]{} (0,200)[[$\frac{1}{2}(138)$]{}]{} (0,190)[[$\frac{1}{2}(148)$]{}]{} (0,180)[[$\frac{1}{2}(158)$]{}]{} (0,170)[[$\frac{1}{2}(168)$]{}]{} (0,160)[[$\frac{1}{2}(178)$]{}]{} (0,150)[[$\frac{1}{2}(1)$]{}]{}
(30,210)[[$\frac{1}{2}(127)$]{}]{} (30,200)[[$\frac{1}{2}(137)$]{}]{} (30,190)[[$\frac{1}{2}(147)$]{}]{} (30,180)[[$\frac{1}{2}(157)$]{}]{} (30,170)[[$\frac{1}{2}(167)$]{}]{}
(60,210)[[$\frac{1}{2}(126)$]{}]{} (60,200)[[$\frac{1}{2}(136)$]{}]{} (60,190)[[$\frac{1}{2}(146)$]{}]{} (60,180)[[$\frac{1}{2}(156)$]{}]{}
(90,210)[[$\frac{1}{2}(125)$]{}]{} (90,200)[[$\frac{1}{2}(135)$]{}]{} (90,190)[[$\frac{1}{2}(145)$]{}]{}
(120,210)[[$\frac{1}{2}(124)$]{}]{} (120,200)[[$\frac{1}{2}(134)$]{}]{}
(150,210)[[$\frac{1}{2}(123)$]{}]{}
(22,224)[[$(\bar{b})$]{}]{} (-5,157)[(0,1)[64]{}]{} (-5,221)[(1,0)[184]{}]{} (-5,157)[(1,0)[32]{}]{} (27,157)[(0,1)[8]{}]{} (27,165)[(1,0)[32]{}]{} (59,165)[(0,1)[10]{}]{} (59,175)[(1,0)[28]{}]{} (87,175)[(0,1)[10]{}]{} (87,185)[(1,0)[30]{}]{} (117,185)[(0,1)[10]{}]{} (117,195)[(1,0)[30]{}]{} (147,195)[(0,1)[10]{}]{} (147,205)[(1,0)[32]{}]{} (179,205)[(0,1)[16]{}]{}
(102,222)[[$(c)$]{}]{} (60,177)[(0,1)[42]{}]{} (60,219)[(1,0)[117]{}]{} (60,177)[(1,0)[25]{}]{} (85,177)[(0,1)[10]{}]{} (85,187)[(1,0)[30]{}]{} (115,187)[(0,1)[10]{}]{} (115,197)[(1,0)[30]{}]{} (145,197)[(0,1)[10]{}]{} (145,207)[(1,0)[32]{}]{} (177,207)[(0,1)[12]{}]{}
(185,145)[(0,1)[5]{}]{} (185,155)[(0,1)[5]{}]{} (185,165)[(0,1)[5]{}]{} (185,175)[(0,1)[5]{}]{} (185,185)[(0,1)[5]{}]{} (185,195)[(0,1)[5]{}]{} (185,205)[(0,1)[5]{}]{} (185,215)[(0,1)[5]{}]{}
(195,210)[[$\frac{1}{2}(12678)$]{}]{} (195,200)[[$\frac{1}{2}(13678)$]{}]{} (195,190)[[$\frac{1}{2}(14678)$]{}]{} (195,180)[[$\frac{1}{2}(15678)$]{}]{}
(235,210)[[$\frac{1}{2}(12578)$]{}]{} (235,200)[[$\frac{1}{2}(13578)$]{}]{} (235,190)[[$\frac{1}{2}(14578)$]{}]{}
(275,210)[[$\frac{1}{2}(12478)$]{}]{} (275,200)[[$\frac{1}{2}(13478)$]{}]{}
(315,210)[[$\frac{1}{2}(12378)$]{}]{}
(205,224)[[$(\bar{c})$]{}]{} (190,177)[(0,1)[44]{}]{} (190,221)[(1,0)[162]{}]{} (190,177)[(1,0)[42]{}]{} (232,177)[(0,1)[8]{}]{} (232,185)[(1,0)[39]{}]{} (271,185)[(0,1)[10]{}]{} (271,195)[(1,0)[40]{}]{} (311,195)[(0,1)[10]{}]{} (311,205)[(1,0)[41]{}]{} (352,205)[(0,1)[16]{}]{}
(290,222)[[$(d)$]{}]{} (235,187)[(0,1)[32]{}]{} (235,219)[(1,0)[115]{}]{} (235,187)[(1,0)[34]{}]{} (269,187)[(0,1)[10]{}]{} (269,197)[(1,0)[40]{}]{} (309,197)[(0,1)[10]{}]{} (309,207)[(1,0)[41]{}]{} (350,207)[(0,1)[12]{}]{}
(360,145)[(0,1)[5]{}]{} (360,155)[(0,1)[5]{}]{} (360,165)[(0,1)[5]{}]{} (360,175)[(0,1)[5]{}]{} (360,185)[(0,1)[5]{}]{} (360,195)[(0,1)[5]{}]{} (360,205)[(0,1)[5]{}]{} (360,215)[(0,1)[5]{}]{}
(-30,120)[[$\frac{1}{2}(12568)$]{}]{} (-30,110)[[$\frac{1}{2}(13568)$]{}]{} (-30,100)[[$\frac{1}{2}(14568)$]{}]{}
(10,120)[[$\frac{1}{2}(12468)$]{}]{} (10,110)[[$\frac{1}{2}(13468)$]{}]{}
(50,120)[[$\frac{1}{2}(12368)$]{}]{}
(-20,134)[[$(\bar{d})$]{}]{} (-30,97)[(0,1)[34]{}]{} (-30,131)[(1,0)[116]{}]{} (-30,97)[(1,0)[37]{}]{} (7,97)[(0,1)[8]{}]{} (7,105)[(1,0)[39]{}]{} (46,105)[(0,1)[10]{}]{} (46,115)[(1,0)[40]{}]{} (86,115)[(0,1)[16]{}]{}
(45,132)[[$(e)$]{}]{} (10,107)[(0,1)[22]{}]{} (10,129)[(1,0)[74]{}]{} (10,107)[(1,0)[34]{}]{} (44,107)[(0,1)[10]{}]{} (44,117)[(1,0)[40]{}]{} (84,117)[(0,1)[12]{}]{}
(93,95)[(0,1)[5]{}]{} (93,105)[(0,1)[5]{}]{} (93,115)[(0,1)[5]{}]{} (93,125)[(0,1)[5]{}]{}
(100,120)[[$\frac{1}{2}(12458)$]{}]{} (100,110)[[$\frac{1}{2}(13458)$]{}]{}
(140,120)[[$\frac{1}{2}(12358)$]{}]{}
(180,120)[[$\frac{1}{2}(12348)$]{}]{}
(135,132)[[$(\bar{e})$]{}]{} (100,107)[(0,1)[22]{}]{} (100,129)[(1,0)[74]{}]{} (100,107)[(1,0)[34]{}]{} (134,107)[(0,1)[10]{}]{} (134,117)[(1,0)[40]{}]{} (174,117)[(0,1)[12]{}]{}
(88,136)[[$(f)$]{}]{} (-32,95)[(0,1)[38]{}]{} (-32,133)[(1,0)[248]{}]{} (-32,95)[(1,0)[41]{}]{} (9,95)[(0,1)[8]{}]{} (9,103)[(1,0)[39]{}]{} (48,103)[(0,1)[10]{}]{} (48,113)[(1,0)[50]{}]{} (98,113)[(0,-1)[8]{}]{} (98,105)[(1,0)[39]{}]{} (137,105)[(0,1)[10]{}]{} (137,115)[(1,0)[79]{}]{} (216,115)[(0,1)[18]{}]{}
(223,95)[(0,1)[5]{}]{} (223,105)[(0,1)[5]{}]{} (223,115)[(0,1)[5]{}]{} (223,125)[(0,1)[5]{}]{}
(230,120)[[$\frac{1}{2}(12567)$]{}]{} (230,110)[[$\frac{1}{2}(13567)$]{}]{} (230,100)[[$\frac{1}{2}(14567)$]{}]{}
(270,120)[[$\frac{1}{2}(12467)$]{}]{} (270,110)[[$\frac{1}{2}(13467)$]{}]{}
(310,120)[[$\frac{1}{2}(12367)$]{}]{}
(450,134)[[$(h)$]{}]{} (358,105)[(0,1)[26]{}]{} (358,131)[(1,0)[116]{}]{} (358,105)[(1,0)[38]{}]{} (396,105)[(0,1)[10]{}]{} (396,115)[(1,0)[78]{}]{} (474,115)[(0,1)[16]{}]{}
(305,132)[[$(g)$]{}]{} (270,107)[(0,1)[22]{}]{} (270,129)[(1,0)[74]{}]{} (270,107)[(1,0)[34]{}]{} (304,107)[(0,1)[10]{}]{} (304,117)[(1,0)[40]{}]{} (344,117)[(0,1)[12]{}]{}
(353,95)[(0,1)[5]{}]{} (353,105)[(0,1)[5]{}]{} (353,115)[(0,1)[5]{}]{} (353,125)[(0,1)[5]{}]{}
(360,120)[[$\frac{1}{2}(12457)$]{}]{} (360,110)[[$\frac{1}{2}(13457)$]{}]{}
(400,120)[[$\frac{1}{2}(12357)$]{}]{}
(440,120)[[$\frac{1}{2}(12347)$]{}]{}
(395,132)[[$(\bar{g})$]{}]{} (360,107)[(0,1)[22]{}]{} (360,129)[(1,0)[74]{}]{} (360,107)[(1,0)[34]{}]{} (394,107)[(0,1)[10]{}]{} (394,117)[(1,0)[40]{}]{} (434,117)[(0,1)[12]{}]{}
(348,136)[[$(\bar{f})$]{}]{} (228,95)[(0,1)[38]{}]{} (228,133)[(1,0)[248]{}]{} (228,95)[(1,0)[41]{}]{} (269,95)[(0,1)[8]{}]{} (269,103)[(1,0)[39]{}]{} (308,103)[(0,1)[10]{}]{} (308,113)[(1,0)[48]{}]{} (356,113)[(0,-1)[10]{}]{} (356,103)[(1,0)[42]{}]{} (398,103)[(0,1)[10]{}]{} (398,113)[(1,0)[78]{}]{} (476,113)[(0,1)[20]{}]{}
(483,95)[(0,1)[5]{}]{} (483,105)[(0,1)[5]{}]{} (483,115)[(0,1)[5]{}]{} (483,125)[(0,1)[5]{}]{}
(0,60)[[$\frac{1}{2}(12456)$]{}]{} (0,50)[[$\frac{1}{2}(13456)$]{}]{}
(40,60)[[$\frac{1}{2}(12356)$]{}]{}
(80,60)[[$\frac{1}{2}(12346)$]{}]{}
(120,60)[[$\frac{1}{2}(12345)$]{}]{}
(130,74)[[$(i)$]{}]{} (-2,45)[(0,1)[26]{}]{} (-2,71)[(1,0)[158]{}]{} (-2,45)[(1,0)[38]{}]{} (36,45)[(0,1)[10]{}]{} (36,55)[(1,0)[120]{}]{} (156,55)[(0,1)[17]{}]{}
(15,72)[[$(\bar{h})$]{}]{} (0,47)[(0,1)[22]{}]{} (0,69)[(1,0)[114]{}]{} (0,47)[(1,0)[34]{}]{} (34,47)[(0,1)[10]{}]{} (34,57)[(1,0)[80]{}]{} (114,57)[(0,1)[12]{}]{}
(163,45)[(0,1)[5]{}]{} (163,55)[(0,1)[5]{}]{} (163,65)[(0,1)[5]{}]{}
(170,60)[[$\frac{1}{2}(1245678)$]{}]{} (170,50)[[$\frac{1}{2}(1345678)$]{}]{}
(220,60)[[$\frac{1}{2}(1235678)$]{}]{}
(270,60)[[$\frac{1}{2}(1234678)$]{}]{}
(320,60)[[$\frac{1}{2}(1234578)$]{}]{}
(370,60)[[$\frac{1}{2}(1234568)$]{}]{}
(420,60)[[$\frac{1}{2}(1234567)$]{}]{}
(255,72)[[$(\bar{i})$]{}]{} (170,47)[(0,1)[22]{}]{} (170,69)[(1,0)[193]{}]{} (170,47)[(1,0)[42]{}]{} (212,47)[(0,1)[10]{}]{} (212,57)[(1,0)[151]{}]{} (363,57)[(0,1)[12]{}]{}
(430,74)[[$(j)$]{}]{} (168,45)[(0,1)[26]{}]{} (168,71)[(1,0)[295]{}]{} (168,45)[(1,0)[46]{}]{} (214,45)[(0,1)[10]{}]{} (214,55)[(1,0)[249]{}]{} (463,55)[(0,1)[16]{}]{}
(468,45)[(0,1)[5]{}]{} (468,55)[(0,1)[5]{}]{} (468,65)[(0,1)[5]{}]{}
(0,10)[[$1-3$]{}]{} (0,0)[[$1-2$]{}]{}
(25,10)[[$1-4$]{}]{}
(50,10)[[$1-5$]{}]{}
(75,10)[[$1-6$]{}]{}
(100,10)[[$1-7$]{}]{}
(125,10)[[$1-8$]{}]{}
(15,22)[[$(\bar{j})$]{}]{} (0,-3)[(0,1)[22]{}]{} (0,19)[(1,0)[148]{}]{} (0,-3)[(1,0)[22]{}]{} (22,-3)[(0,1)[10]{}]{} (22,7)[(1,0)[126]{}]{} (148,7)[(0,1)[12]{}]{}
(120,20)[[$(k)$]{}]{} (100,9)[(0,1)[8]{}]{} (100,17)[(1,0)[46]{}]{} (100,9)[(1,0)[46]{}]{} (146,9)[(0,1)[8]{}]{}
(155,-5)[(0,1)[5]{}]{} (155,5)[(0,1)[5]{}]{} (155,15)[(0,1)[5]{}]{}
(160,10)[[$1+8$]{}]{}
(185,10)[[$1+7$]{}]{}
(210,10)[[$1+6$]{}]{}
(235,10)[[$1+5$]{}]{}
(260,10)[[$1+4$]{}]{}
(285,10)[[$1+3$]{}]{}
(310,10)[[$1+2$]{}]{}
(180,20)[[$(\bar{k})$]{}]{} (160,9)[(0,1)[8]{}]{} (160,17)[(1,0)[46]{}]{} (160,9)[(1,0)[46]{}]{} (206,9)[(0,1)[8]{}]{}
In Figure \[picture:PositiveRootTypeE8\] the partial order $\preceq$ on $\Phi^+_{E_8}$ is defined as follows. In each area separated by dotted lines we have the following relation
1. if a root $\alpha$ is left-adjacent to a root $\beta$, then $\alpha \lessdot \beta$,
2. if a root $\alpha$ is lower-adjacent to a root $\beta$, then $\alpha \lessdot \beta$.
For the blocks $(\bullet)$ and $(\bar{\bullet})$ with same shape where the symbol $\bullet$ means $a,b,\ldots, k$, we have the following relation
1. if a root $\alpha$ is in the block $(\bullet)$ and $\beta$ is in the same place as $\alpha$ in the block $(\bar{\bullet})$, then $\alpha \lessdot \beta$.
For two positive roots $\alpha,\beta$, we define $\alpha \preceq \beta$ if there exist positive roots $\gamma_0,\ldots,\gamma_N$ such that $\alpha=\gamma_0 \lessdot \gamma_1 \lessdot \cdots \lessdot \gamma_N=\beta$.
Now we fix a decomposition $\Phi^+_{E_8}=\coprod_{i=1}^8 \Phi^+_i$ satisfying and . Using the simple notations above again, we define the positive roots $\alpha_{i,j}$ as follows:
[|c||c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|]{} positive roots $\backslash$ $j$ & $2$ & $3$ & $4$ & $5$ & $6$ & $7$ & $8$ & $9$ & $10$ & $11$ & $12$ $\alpha_{1,j}$ & $\frac{1}{2}(1)$ & $\frac{1}{2}(178)$ & $\frac{1}{2}(168)$ & $\frac{1}{2}(158)$ & $\frac{1}{2}(148)$ & $\frac{1}{2}(138)$ & $\frac{1}{2}(137)$ & $\frac{1}{2}(136)$ & $\frac{1}{2}(135)$ & $\frac{1}{2}(125)$ & $\frac{1}{2}(124)$ $\alpha_{2,j}$ & & $2-3$ & $2-4$ & $2-5$ & $2-6$ & $2-7$ & $2-8$ & $2+7$ & $2+6$ & $2+5$ & $2+4$ $\alpha_{3,j}$ & & & $3-4$ & $3-5$ & $3-6$ & $3-7$ & $3-8$ & $3+7$ & $3+6$ & $3+5$ & $3+4$ $\alpha_{4,j}$ & & & & $4-5$ & $4-6$ & $4-7$ & $4-8$ & $4+7$ & $4+6$ & $4+5$ & $\frac{1}{2}(145)$ $\alpha_{5,j}$ & & & & & $5-6$ & $5-7$ & $5-8$ & $5+7$ & $5+6$ & $\frac{1}{2}(156)$ & $\frac{1}{2}(15678)$ $\alpha_{6,j}$ & & & & & & $6-7$ & $6-8$ & $6+7$ & $\frac{1}{2}(167)$ & $\frac{1}{2}(157)$ & $\frac{1}{2}(147)$ $\alpha_{7,j}$ & & & & & & & $7-8$ & & & & $\alpha_{8,j}$ & & & & & & & & $7+8$ & $6+8$ & $5+8$ & $4+8$
[|c||c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|]{} & $13$ & $14$ & $15$ & $16$ & $17$ & $18$ & $19$ & $20$ & $21$ $\alpha_{1,j}$ & $\frac{1}{2}(12478)$ & $\frac{1}{2}(12468)$ & $\frac{1}{2}(12458)$ & $\frac{1}{2}(12457)$ & $\frac{1}{2}(12456)$ & $\frac{1}{2}(1245678)$ & $\frac{1}{2}(1235678)$ & $\frac{1}{2}(1234678)$ & $\alpha_{2,j}$ & $2+3$ & $\frac{1}{2}(123)$ & $\frac{1}{2}(12378)$ & $\frac{1}{2}(12368)$ & $\frac{1}{2}(12358)$ & $\frac{1}{2}(12348)$ & $\frac{1}{2}(12347)$ & $\frac{1}{2}(12346)$ & $\frac{1}{2}(12345)$ $\alpha_{3,j}$ & $\frac{1}{2}(134)$ & $\frac{1}{2}(13478)$ & $\frac{1}{2}(13468)$ & $\frac{1}{2}(13458)$ & $\frac{1}{2}(13457)$ & $\frac{1}{2}(13456)$ & $\frac{1}{2}(1345678)$ & $1-2$ & $1-3$ $\alpha_{4,j}$ & $\frac{1}{2}(14578)$ & $\frac{1}{2}(14568)$ & $\frac{1}{2}(14567)$ & $\frac{1}{2}(13567)$ & $\frac{1}{2}(13467)$ & & & & $\alpha_{5,j}$ & $\frac{1}{2}(14678)$ & $\frac{1}{2}(13678)$ & $\frac{1}{2}(13578)$ & $\frac{1}{2}(13568)$ & & & & & $\alpha_{6,j}$ & $\frac{1}{2}(146)$ & & & & & & & & $\alpha_{7,j}$ & & & & & & & & & $\alpha_{8,j}$ & $3+8$ & $2+8$ & $\frac{1}{2}(128)$ & $\frac{1}{2}(127)$ & $\frac{1}{2}(126)$ & $\frac{1}{2}(12678)$ & $\frac{1}{2}(12578)$ & $\frac{1}{2}(12568)$ & $\frac{1}{2}(12567)$
[|c||c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|]{} & $22$ & $23$ & $24$ & $25$ & $26$ & $27$ & $28$ & $29$ & $30$ & $31$ $\alpha_{1,j}$ & & & & & & & & & & $\alpha_{2,j}$ & $\frac{1}{2}(1234578)$ & $\frac{1}{2}(1234568)$ & $\frac{1}{2}(1234567)$ & $1-8$ & $1+7$ & $1+6$ & $1+5$ & $1+4$ & $1+3$ & $1+2$ $\alpha_{3,j}$ & $1-4$ & $1-5$ & $1-6$ & $1-7$ & $1+8$ & & & & & $\alpha_{4,j}$ & & & & & & & & & & $\alpha_{5,j}$ & & & & & & & & & & $\alpha_{6,j}$ & & & & & & & & & & $\alpha_{7,j}$ & & & & & & & & & & $\alpha_{8,j}$ & $\frac{1}{2}(12467)$ & $\frac{1}{2}(12367)$ & $\frac{1}{2}(12357)$ & $\frac{1}{2}(12356)$ & & & & & &
Note that $\operatorname{ht}(\Phi^+_{E_8})=29$ and the set $\Lambda_m$ in is given by $$\label{eq:LambdaE8}
\Lambda_m=\begin{cases}
\{1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8\} \ \ \ &{\rm for} \ m=0,1, \\
\{1,2,3,4,5,6,8\} \ \ \ &{\rm for} \ 2 \leq m \leq 7, \\
\{1,2,3,4,5,8\} \ \ \ &{\rm for} \ 8 \leq m \leq 11, \\
\{1,2,3,4,8\} \ \ \ &{\rm for} \ 12 \leq m \leq 13, \\
\{1,2,3,8\} \ \ \ &{\rm for} \ 14 \leq m \leq 17, \\
\{1,2,3\} \ \ \ &{\rm for} \ 18 \leq m \leq 19, \\
\{2,3\} \ \ \ &{\rm for} \ 20 \leq m \leq 23, \\
\{2\} \ \ \ &{\rm for} \ 24 \leq m \leq 29.
\end{cases}$$
For the decomposition $\Phi^+_{E_8}=\coprod_{i=1}^8 \Phi^+_i$ above, a **Hessenberg function for type $E_8$** is defined to be a function $h^{E_8}:\{1,\ldots,8\} \rightarrow \{1,\ldots,31\}$ satisfying the following conditions
1. $i \leq h^{E_8}(i) \leq i+e_i$ for $i=1,\ldots,8$,
2. if $h^{E_8}(1) \geq k$, then $h^{E_8}(2) \geq k$ for $k=11,12,20$,
3. if $h^{E_8}(1) \geq k$, then $h^{E_8}(3) \geq k+1$ for $k=8,9,10,12,\ldots,18$,
4. if $h^{E_8}(1) \geq k$, then $h^{E_8}(4) \geq k+2$ for $k=10$,
5. if $h^{E_8}(1) \geq k$, then $h^{E_8}(6) \geq k+4$ for $k=8,9$,
6. if $h^{E_8}(1) \geq k$, then $h^{E_8}(8) \geq k+6$ for $k=3,\ldots,7,11,13,14,16,19$,
7. if $h^{E_8}(2) \geq k$, then $h^{E_8}(1) \geq k-2$ for $k=14,\ldots,17,22$,
8. if $h^{E_8}(2) \geq k$, then $h^{E_8}(3) \geq k$ for $k=4,\ldots,12,25,26$,
9. if $h^{E_8}(2) \geq k$, then $h^{E_8}(8) \geq k+5$ for $k=9,19,20$,
10. if $h^{E_8}(3) \geq k$, then $h^{E_8}(1) \geq k-3$ for $k=13,21,22,23$,
11. if $h^{E_8}(3) \geq k$, then $h^{E_8}(2) \geq k-2$ for $k=24,25$,
12. if $h^{E_8}(3) \geq k$, then $h^{E_8}(4) \geq k$ for $k=5,\ldots,11,17$,
13. if $h^{E_8}(3) \geq k$, then $h^{E_8}(5) \geq k+1$ for $k=14,15$,
14. if $h^{E_8}(3) \geq k$, then $h^{E_8}(8) \geq k+4$ for $k=9$,
15. if $h^{E_8}(4) \geq k$, then $h^{E_8}(3) \geq k-2$ for $k=17$,
16. if $h^{E_8}(4) \geq k$, then $h^{E_8}(5) \geq k$ for $k=6,\ldots,10,13,16$,
17. if $h^{E_8}(4) \geq k$, then $h^{E_8}(6) \geq k+1$ for $k=12$,
18. if $h^{E_8}(4) \geq k$, then $h^{E_8}(8) \geq k+3$ for $k=9$,
19. if $h^{E_8}(5) \geq k$, then $h^{E_8}(1) \geq k-5$ for $k=14,15$,
20. if $h^{E_8}(5) \geq k$, then $h^{E_8}(4) \geq k-2$ for $k=15,16$,
21. if $h^{E_8}(5) \geq k$, then $h^{E_8}(6) \geq k$ for $k=7,8,9,11,13$,
22. if $h^{E_8}(5) \geq k$, then $h^{E_8}(8) \geq k+2$ for $k=9$,
23. if $h^{E_8}(6) \geq k$, then $h^{E_8}(1) \geq k-6$ for $k=10,11,12$,
24. if $h^{E_8}(6) \geq k$, then $h^{E_8}(4) \geq k-3$ for $k=12,13$,
25. if $h^{E_8}(6) \geq k$, then $h^{E_8}(5) \geq k-2$ for $k=11,13$,
26. if $h^{E_8}(6) \geq k$, then $h^{E_8}(7) \geq k$ for $k=8$,
27. if $h^{E_8}(6) \geq k$, then $h^{E_8}(8) \geq k+1$ for $k=9$,
28. if $h^{E_8}(8) \geq k$, then $h^{E_8}(1) \geq k-8$ for $k=15,16,17,19,22,24,25$,
29. if $h^{E_8}(8) \geq k$, then $h^{E_8}(2) \geq k-7$ for $k=14,16,17,23,24$,
30. if $h^{E_8}(8) \geq k$, then $h^{E_8}(3) \geq k-6$ for $k=13$,
31. if $h^{E_8}(8) \geq k$, then $h^{E_8}(4) \geq k-5$ for $k=12,21,22$,
32. if $h^{E_8}(8) \geq k$, then $h^{E_8}(5) \geq k-4$ for $k=11,18,19,20$,
33. if $h^{E_8}(8) \geq k$, then $h^{E_8}(6) \geq k-3$ for $k=10$.
Under this decomposition $\Phi^+_{E_8}=\coprod_{i=1}^8 \Phi^+_i$, one can see that the set of lower ideals $I \subset \Phi^+_{E_8}$ and the set of Hessenberg functions $h$ for type $E_8$ are in one-to-one correspondence which sends $I$ to $h_I$ in .
By similar discussion on the case of type $F_4$, we obtain uniform bases $\{\psi^{E_8}_{i,i+m} \in \operatorname{Der}\CR \mid 0 \leq m \leq 29, i \in \Lambda_m \}$ as follows. For each $m$ with $0 \leq m \leq 29=\operatorname{ht}(\Phi^+_{E_8})$, we define the matrix $P_m^{E_8}=(p_{ij}^{(m)})_{i,j \in \Lambda_m}$ by $$\begin{aligned}
&P_0^{E_8}= \begin{pmatrix} \begin {array}{cccccccc} 1&0&0&0&0&0&0&0\\ \noalign{\medskip}0
&1&0&0&0&0&0&0\\ \noalign{\medskip}0&0&1&0&0&0&0&0
\\ \noalign{\medskip}0&0&0&1&0&0&0&0\\ \noalign{\medskip}0&0&0&0&1&0&0
&0\\ \noalign{\medskip}0&0&0&0&0&1&0&0\\ \noalign{\medskip}0&0&0&0&0&0
&1&0\\ \noalign{\medskip}0&0&0&0&0&0&0&1\end {array} \end{pmatrix}, \ \
P_1^{E_8}= \begin{pmatrix} \begin {array}{cccccccc} 1&0&0&0&0&0&0&0\\ \noalign{\medskip}0
&1&0&0&0&0&0&0\\ \noalign{\medskip}0&1&1&0&0&0&0&0
\\ \noalign{\medskip}0&1&1&1&0&0&0&0\\ \noalign{\medskip}0&1&1&1&1&0&0
&0\\ \noalign{\medskip}1&1&1&1&1&1&0&1\\ \noalign{\medskip}1&1&1&1&1&1
&1&1\\ \noalign{\medskip}1&0&0&0&0&0&0&1\end {array} \end{pmatrix}, \\
&P_2^{E_8}=
\begin{pmatrix} \begin {array}{ccccccc} 1&0&0&0&0&0&0\\ \noalign{\medskip}0
&1&0&0&0&0&0\\ \noalign{\medskip}0&1&1&0&0&0&0
\\ \noalign{\medskip}0&1&1&1&0&0&0\\ \noalign{\medskip}-1&1&1&1&1&-1
&-1\\ \noalign{\medskip}-1&1&1&1&1&1&-1\\ \noalign{\medskip}1&1&1&
1&1&1&1\end {array} \end{pmatrix}, \ \
P_3^{E_8}=
\begin{pmatrix} \begin {array}{ccccccc} 1&-\frac{1}{2}&-\frac{1}{2}&-\frac{1}{2}&-\frac{1}{4}&-\frac{1}{2}&-\frac{1}{4}
\\ \noalign{\medskip}0&1&0&0&0&0&0\\ \noalign{\medskip}0&1&1&0&0&0
&0\\ \noalign{\medskip}1&1&1&1&-1&-\frac{1}{2}&\frac{1}{2}\\ \noalign{\medskip}2&2&2
&2&1&-1&1\\ \noalign{\medskip}1&1&1&1&\frac{1}{2}&1&\frac{1}{2}
\\ \noalign{\medskip}2&-4&-4&-4&-2&-1&1\end {array} \end{pmatrix}, \\
&P_4^{E_8}= \begin{pmatrix} \begin {array}{ccccccc} 1&0&0&0&0&-\frac{1}{2}&0
\\ \noalign{\medskip}0&1&0&0&0&0&0\\ \noalign{\medskip}-\frac{2}{3}&1&1&-\frac{1}{3}
&0&\frac{1}{3}&-\frac{1}{6}\\ \noalign{\medskip}-2&3&3&1&0&1&-\frac{1}{2}
\\ \noalign{\medskip}-2&3&3&1&1&3&-\frac{1}{2}\\ \noalign{\medskip}0&0&0&0&0
&1&0\\ \noalign{\medskip}4&6&6&2&0&-2&1\end {array} \end{pmatrix}, \ \
P_5^{E_8}= \begin{pmatrix} \begin {array}{ccccccc} 1&-\frac{3}{8}&-\frac{3}{16}&-\frac{1}{8}&-\frac{1}{8}&-\frac{1}{4}&-\frac{1}{32}
\\ \noalign{\medskip}\frac{2}{3}&1&-\frac{3}{4}&-\frac{1}{12}&-\frac{1}{12}&-\frac{1}{6}&\frac{1}{12}
\\ \noalign{\medskip}\frac{4}{3}&2&1&-\frac{1}{6}&-\frac{1}{6}&-\frac{1}{3}&\frac{1}{6}\\ \noalign{\medskip}
2&3&\frac{3}{2}&1&-\frac{3}{2}&-3&\frac{1}{4}\\ \noalign{\medskip}2&3&\frac{3}{2}&1&1&-3&\frac{1}{4}
\\ \noalign{\medskip}1&\frac{3}{2}&\frac{3}{4}&\frac{1}{2}&\frac{1}{2}&1&\frac{1}{8}\\ \noalign{\medskip}8&-
18&-9&-1&-1&-2&1\end {array} \end{pmatrix}, \\
&P_6^{E_8}=
\begin{pmatrix} \begin {array}{ccccccc} 1&\frac{3}{4}&0&0&0&0&\frac{1}{16}
\\ \noalign{\medskip}0&1&0&0&0&0&0\\ \noalign{\medskip}\frac{8}{3}&4&1&0&0&0
&1/6\\ \noalign{\medskip}16&18&3&1&0&-2&1\\ \noalign{\medskip}-8&-
6&0&0&1&2&-\frac{1}{2}\\ \noalign{\medskip}-4&-3&0&0&0&1&-\frac{1}{4}
\\ \noalign{\medskip}0&12&0&0&0&0&1\end {array} \end{pmatrix}, \ \
P_7^{E_8}= \begin{pmatrix} \begin {array}{ccccccc} 1&0&0&0&0&0&\frac{1}{16}
\\ \noalign{\medskip}0&1&0&0&0&0&\frac{1}{12}\\ \noalign{\medskip}\frac{8}{3}&2&1&0&0
&0&\frac{1}{3}\\ \noalign{\medskip}0&6&3&1&1&2&\frac{1}{2}\\ \noalign{\medskip}0&0
&0&0&1&0&0\\ \noalign{\medskip}-8&-3&-\frac{3}{2}&-\frac{1}{2}&\frac{1}{2}&1&-\frac{3}{4}
\\ \noalign{\medskip}0&0&0&0&0&0&1\end {array} \end{pmatrix}, \\
&P_8^{E_8}= \begin{pmatrix} \begin {array}{cccccc} 1&0&0&\frac{1}{16}&\frac{1}{8}&\frac{1}{16}
\\ \noalign{\medskip}0&1&0&0&0&\frac{1}{12}\\ \noalign{\medskip}\frac{4}{3}&2&1&\frac{1}{
12}&\frac{1}{6}&\frac{1}{4}\\ \noalign{\medskip}-16&0&0&1&-2&-1
\\ \noalign{\medskip}-8&0&0&\frac{1}{2}&1&-\frac{1}{2}\\ \noalign{\medskip}0&0&0&0
&0&1\end {array} \end{pmatrix}, \ \
P_9^{E_8}= \begin{pmatrix} \begin {array}{cccccc} 1&\frac{3}{2}&\frac{3}{4}&0&\frac{1}{8}&-\frac{1}{8}
\\ \noalign{\medskip}-\frac{1}{3}&1&-\frac{1}{4}&0&-\frac{1}{24}&\frac{1}{24}\\ \noalign{\medskip}
-\frac{2}{3}&2&1&0&-\frac{1}{12}&\frac{1}{12}\\ \noalign{\medskip}-\frac{16}{3}&-8&-4&1&\frac{4}{3}&-\frac{4}{3}\\ \noalign{\medskip}-4&-6&-3&0&1&-1\\ \noalign{\medskip}4&6&3&0
&1/2&1\end {array} \end{pmatrix}, \\
&P_{10}^{E_8}= \begin{pmatrix} \begin {array}{cccccc} 1&0&0&0&0&\frac{1}{4}
\\ \noalign{\medskip}-\frac{1}{3}&1&0&0&0&-\frac{1}{12}\\ \noalign{\medskip}\frac{2}{3}&0&
1&0&0&\frac{1}{6}\\ \noalign{\medskip}-\frac{16}{3}&0&-8&1&\frac{4}{3}&-\frac{8}{3}
\\ \noalign{\medskip}-4&0&-6&0&1&-2\\ \noalign{\medskip}0&0&0&0&0&1\end {array} \end{pmatrix}, \ \
P_{11}^{E_8}= \begin{pmatrix} \begin {array}{cccccc} 1&-3&0&0&0&0\\ \noalign{\medskip}0
&1&0&0&0&0\\ \noalign{\medskip}0&0&1&\frac{1}{8}&\frac{1}{6}&-\frac{1}{6}
\\ \noalign{\medskip}0&0&0&1&0&0\\ \noalign{\medskip}-8&24&-6&\frac{3}{4}&
1&-1\\ \noalign{\medskip}0&0&-6&\frac{3}{4}&1&1\end {array} \end{pmatrix}, \\
&P_{12}^{E_8}= \begin{pmatrix} \begin {array}{ccccc} 1&-3&0&0&0\\ \noalign{\medskip}0
&1&0&0&0\\ \noalign{\medskip}\frac{8}{3}&-8&1&\frac{1}{4}&\frac{1}{6}
\\ \noalign{\medskip}\frac{16}{3}&-16&0&1&\frac{2}{3}\\ \noalign{\medskip}8&-24&0
&0&1\end {array} \end{pmatrix}, \ \
P_{13}^{E_8}= \begin{pmatrix} \begin {array}{ccccc} 1&-3&-\frac{3}{4}&-\frac{3}{16}&0
\\ \noalign{\medskip}0&1&0&0&0\\ \noalign{\medskip}\frac{4}{3}&-4&1&-\frac{1}{4}
&0\\ \noalign{\medskip}\frac{16}{3}&-16&4&1&\frac{4}{3}
\\ \noalign{\medskip}0&0&0&0&1\end {array} \end{pmatrix}, \\
&P_{14}^{E_8}= \begin{pmatrix} \begin {array}{cccc} 1&-6&0&-\frac{1}{4}
\\ \noalign{\medskip}\frac{1}{6}&1&0&\frac{1}{24}\\ \noalign{\medskip}\frac{2}{3}&-4&1
&-\frac{1}{6}\\ \noalign{\medskip}4&-24&0&1\end {array}
\end{pmatrix}, \ \
P_{15}^{E_8}=\begin{pmatrix} \begin {array}{cccccccc} 1&0&0&\frac{1}{4}
\\ \noalign{\medskip}0&1&0&\frac{1}{24}\\ \noalign{\medskip}\frac{2}{3}&0&1&\frac{1}{6}\\ \noalign{\medskip}0&0&0&1\end {array} \end{pmatrix}, \ \
P_{16}^{E_8}= \begin{pmatrix} \begin {array}{cccc} 1&6&0&\frac{1}{4}
\\ \noalign{\medskip}0&1&0&0\\ \noalign{\medskip}\frac{2}{3}&4&1&\frac{1}{6}\\ \noalign{\medskip}0&24&0&1\end {array} \end{pmatrix}, \\
&P_{17}^{E_8}= \begin{pmatrix} \begin {array}{cccc} 1&0&\frac{3}{2}&0
\\ \noalign{\medskip}0&1&0&0\\ \noalign{\medskip}0&0&1
&0\\ \noalign{\medskip}4&24&6&1\end {array} \end{pmatrix}, \ \
P_{18}^{E_8}=
\begin{pmatrix} \begin {array}{ccc} 1&0&\frac{3}{2}
\\ \noalign{\medskip}-\frac{1}{6}&1&-\frac{1}{4}\\ \noalign{\medskip}0&0&1\end {array} \end{pmatrix}, \ \
P_{19}^{E_8}= \begin{pmatrix} \begin {array}{ccc} 1&-6&\frac{3}{2}
\\ \noalign{\medskip}0&1&0\\ \noalign{\medskip}0&0&1\end {array} \end{pmatrix}, \\
&P_{20}^{E_8}=P_{21}^{E_8}= \begin{pmatrix} \begin {array}{cc} 1&\frac{1}{4}
\\ \noalign{\medskip}0&1\end {array} \end{pmatrix}, \ \
P_{22}^{E_8}=P_{23}^{E_8}= \begin{pmatrix} \begin {array}{cc} 1&0
\\ \noalign{\medskip}4&1\end {array} \end{pmatrix}, \ \
P_m^{E_8}=
\begin{pmatrix}
1 \\
\end{pmatrix} \ \ \ (24 \leq m \leq 29).\end{aligned}$$ Here, we think of indexes for rows and columns of the matrix $P^{E_8}_m$ as $\Lambda_m$ given in , and we arrange them as in increasing order. We set $$\begin{aligned}
[\psi^{E_8}_{i,i}]_{i \in \Lambda_0}&=P_0^{E_8}[\alpha_{i}^*]_{i \in \Lambda_0},\\
[\psi^{E_8}_{i,i+m}]_{i \in \Lambda_m}&=P_m^{E_8}[\alpha_{i,i+m}\psi^{E_8}_{i,i+m-1}]_{i \in \Lambda_m} \ \ \ {\rm for} \ 1 \leq m \leq 29.\end{aligned}$$ Note that $\psi^{E_8}_{i,i}=\alpha_i^*$ for $1 \leq i \leq 8$, namely $$\begin{aligned}
\psi^{E_8}_{1,1}&=2\partial_1, \\
\psi^{E_8}_{2,2}&=\partial_1+\partial_2, \\
\psi^{E_8}_{3,3}&=2\partial_1+\partial_2+\partial_3, \\
\psi^{E_8}_{4,4}&=3\partial_1+\partial_2+\partial_3+\partial_4, \\
\psi^{E_8}_{5,5}&=4\partial_1+\partial_2+\partial_3+\partial_4+\partial_5, \\
\psi^{E_8}_{6,6}&=5\partial_1+\partial_2+\partial_3+\partial_4+\partial_5+\partial_6, \\
\psi^{E_8}_{7,7}&=\frac{1}{2}(5\partial_1+\partial_2+\partial_3+\partial_4+\partial_5+\partial_6+\partial_7-\partial_8), \\
\psi^{E_8}_{8,8}&=\frac{1}{2}(7\partial_1+\partial_2+\partial_3+\partial_4+\partial_5+\partial_6+\partial_7+\partial_8). \end{aligned}$$
We can check by using Maple that $\{\psi^{E_8}_{i,h_I(i)} \mid 1 \leq i \leq 8 \} \subset D(\A_I)$ for any lower ideal $I \subset \Phi_{E_8}^+$. From this together with $\det P^{E_8}_m \neq 0$ $(1 \leq m \leq 29)$, we obtain the following theorem by Proposition \[proposition:key\] (see also Remark \[remark:key\]).
\[theorem:psiE8\] The derivations $\{\psi^{E_8}_{i,i+m} \mid 0 \leq m \leq 29, i \in \Lambda_m \}$ form uniform bases for the ideal arrangements of type $E_8$.
### Type $E_7$ {#subsubsection:typeE7}
Let $\mathfrak{t}_{E_7}$ be the hyperplane in $\mathfrak{t}_{E_8}=\R^8$ defined by the linear function $\alpha_2^*=x_1+x_2$: $$\mathfrak{t}_{E_7}=\{(x_1,\ldots,x_8) \in \R^8 \mid x_1+x_2=0 \}.$$ Then we have $$\CR_{E_7} = \operatorname{Sym}(\mathfrak{t}_{E_7}^*)=\R[x_1,\ldots,x_8]/(x_1+x_2).$$ Taking the exponents $\e_1^{E_7},\e_3^{E_7},\ldots, \e_8^{E_7}$ as $$\e_1^{E_7}=9, \ \e_3^{E_7}=17, \ \e_4^{E_7}=13, \ \e_5^{E_7}=11, \ \e_6^{E_7}=7, \ \e_7^{E_7}=1, \ \e_8^{E_7}=5,$$ we define the positive root $\alpha_{i,j}$ $(i=1,3,\ldots,8, i< j \leq i+\e_i^{E_7})$ for $E_7$ by the $\alpha_{i,j}$ for $E_8$. The poset structure of the positive roots for type $E_7$ can be obtained from Figure \[picture:PositiveRootTypeE8\] by removing the first row in Figure \[picture:PositiveRootTypeE8\].
Note that $\operatorname{ht}(\Phi^+_{E_7})=17$ and the set $\Lambda_m$ in is given by $$\label{eq:LambdaE7}
\Lambda_m=\begin{cases}
\{1,3,4,5,6,7,8\} \ \ \ &{\rm for} \ m=0,1, \\
\{1,3,4,5,6,8\} \ \ \ &{\rm for} \ 2 \leq m \leq 5, \\
\{1,3,4,5,8\} \ \ \ &{\rm for} \ m=6,7, \\
\{1,3,4,8\} \ \ \ &{\rm for} \ m=8,9, \\
\{1,3,8\} \ \ \ &{\rm for} \ m=10,11, \\
\{1,3\} \ \ \ &{\rm for} \ m=12,13, \\
\{3\} \ \ \ &{\rm for} \ 14 \leq m \leq 17.
\end{cases}$$
A Hessenberg function $h^{E_8}$ for type $E_8$ such that $h^{E_8}(2)=2$ and $h^{E_8}(i) \leq i+\e_i^{E_7}$ for $i=1,3,\ldots,8$ is called a **Hessenberg function for type $E_7$**, denoted by $h^{E_7}$. We may omit the $2$nd value $h^{E_7}(2)$, namely $h^{E_7}$ is a function on $\{1,3,\ldots,8\}$ given by $h^{E_7}(i)=h^{E_8}(i)$ for some $h^{E_8}$ with $h^{E_8}(i) \leq i+\e_i^{E_7}$ for $i=1,3,\ldots,8$. Under the decomposition $\Phi^+_{E_7}=\Phi^+_1\coprod(\coprod_{i=3}^8 \Phi^+_i)$ above, one can see that the set of lower ideals $I \subset \Phi^+_{E_7}$ and the set of Hessenberg functions $h$ for type $E_7$ are in one-to-one correspondence which sends $I$ to $h_I$ in .
To explain uniform bases $\{\psi^{E_7}_{i,i+m} \in \operatorname{Der}\CR \mid 0 \leq m \leq 17, i \in \Lambda_m \}$, we first define the matrix $P^{E_7}_m=(p_{ij}^{(m)})_{i,j \in \Lambda_m}$ $(0 \leq m \leq 17=\operatorname{ht}(\Phi^+_{E_7}))$ by $$\begin{aligned}
&P^{E_7}_0= \left( \begin {array}{ccccccc} 1&0&0&0&0&0&0\\ \noalign{\medskip}0
&1&0&0&0&0&0\\ \noalign{\medskip}0&0&1&0&0&0&0
\\ \noalign{\medskip}0&0&0&1&0&0&0\\ \noalign{\medskip}0&0&0&0&1&0
&0\\ \noalign{\medskip}0&0&0&0&0&1&0\\ \noalign{\medskip}0&0&0&0&0
&0&1\end {array} \right), \ \
P^{E_7}_1= \left( \begin {array}{ccccccc} 1&0&0&0&0&0&0\\ \noalign{\medskip}0
&1&0&0&0&0&0\\ \noalign{\medskip}0&1&1&0&0&0&0
\\ \noalign{\medskip}0&1&1&1&0&0&0\\ \noalign{\medskip}1&1&1&1&1&0
&1\\ \noalign{\medskip}1&1&1&1&1&1&1\\ \noalign{\medskip}1&0&0&0&0
&0&1\end {array} \right), \\
&P^{E_7}_2= \left( \begin {array}{cccccc} 1&0&0&0&0&0\\ \noalign{\medskip}0
&1&0&0&0&0\\ \noalign{\medskip}0&1&1&0&0&0
\\ \noalign{\medskip}-1&1&1&1&-1&-1\\ \noalign{\medskip}-1&1&1&1
&1&-1\\ \noalign{\medskip}1&1&1&1&1&1\end {array} \right), \ \
P^{E_7}_3= \left( \begin {array}{cccccc} 1&-\frac{1}{2}&-\frac{1}{2}&-\frac{1}{4}&-\frac{1}{2}&-\frac{1}{4}\\ \noalign{\medskip}0&1&0&0&0&0\\ \noalign{\medskip}1&1&1&-1&-\frac{1}
{2}&\frac{1}{2}\\ \noalign{\medskip}2&2&2&1&-1&1\\ \noalign{\medskip}1&
1&1&\frac{1}{2}&1&\frac{1}{2}\\ \noalign{\medskip}2&-4&-4&-2&-1&1\end {array}
\right), \\
&P^{E_7}_4= \left( \begin {array}{cccccc} 1&0&0&0&-\frac{1}{2}&0
\\ \noalign{\medskip}-\frac{2}{3}&1&-\frac{1}{3}&0&\frac{1}{3}&-\frac{1}{6}\\ \noalign{\medskip}-2
&3&1&0&1&-\frac{1}{2}\\ \noalign{\medskip}-2&3&1&1&3&-\frac{1}{2}
\\ \noalign{\medskip}0&0&0&0&1&0\\ \noalign{\medskip}4&6&2&0&-2
&1\end {array} \right), \ \
P^{E_7}_5= \left( \begin {array}{cccccc} 1&-\frac{3}{8}&-\frac{1}{8}&-\frac{1}{8}&-\frac{1}{4}&0
\\ \noalign{\medskip}0&1&0&0&0&0\\ \noalign{\medskip}0&3&1&-1&-2
&0\\ \noalign{\medskip}0&3&1&1&-2&0\\ \noalign{\medskip}0&\frac{3}{2}&
\frac{1}{2}&\frac{1}{2}&1&0\\ \noalign{\medskip}8&-9&-1&-1&-2&1\end {array}
\right), \\
&P^{E_7}_6= \left( \begin {array}{ccccc} 1&0&0&0&0\\ \noalign{\medskip}\frac{4}
{3}&1&0&0&0\\ \noalign{\medskip}16&6&1&0&-2
\\ \noalign{\medskip}-8&0&0&1&2\\ \noalign{\medskip}-4&0&0&0&1
\end {array} \right), \ \
P^{E_7}_7=
\left( \begin {array}{ccccc} 1&0&0&0&0\\ \noalign{\medskip}\frac{4}
{3}&1&0&0&0\\ \noalign{\medskip}8&6&1&0&0
\\ \noalign{\medskip}0&0&0&1&0\\ \noalign{\medskip}-8&-3&-\frac{1}{2}&
\frac{1}{2}&1\end {array} \right), \\
&P^{E_7}_8= \left( \begin {array}{cccc} 1&0&\frac{1}{8}&\frac{1}{8}
\\ \noalign{\medskip}\frac{2}{3}&1&\frac{1}{12}&\frac{1}{12}\\ \noalign{\medskip}-8&0
&1&-1\\ \noalign{\medskip}-8&0&1&1\end {array} \right), \ \
P^{E_7}_9= \left( \begin {array}{cccc} 1&\frac{3}{2}&0&\frac{1}{8}
\\ \noalign{\medskip}0&1&0&0\\ \noalign{\medskip}-8&-12&1&0\\ \noalign{\medskip}0&0&0&1\end {array} \right), \ \
P^{E_7}_{10}= \left( \begin {array}{ccc} 1&0&0\\ \noalign{\medskip}-12&1&1\\ \noalign{\medskip}-12&0&1\end {array}
\right), \\
&P^{E_7}_{11}= \left( \begin {array}{ccc} 1&0&0\\ \noalign{\medskip}0&1&0\\ \noalign{\medskip}-12&1&1\end {array}
\right), \ \
P^{E_7}_{12}= \left( \begin {array}{cc} 1&\frac{1}{12}
\\ \noalign{\medskip}0&1\end {array} \right), \ \
P^{E_7}_{13}= \left( \begin {array}{cc} 1&0\\ \noalign{\medskip}12&1\end {array} \right), \ \
P_m^{E_7}=
\begin{pmatrix}
1 \\
\end{pmatrix} \ \ \ (14 \leq m \leq 17).\end{aligned}$$ Here, we think of indices for rows and columns of the matrix $P^{E_7}_m$ as $\Lambda_m$ given in , and we arrange them as in increasing order. We set $$\begin{aligned}
[\psi^{E_7}_{i,i}]_{i \in \Lambda_0}&=P_0^{E_7}[\alpha_{i}^*]_{i \in \Lambda_0},\\
[\psi^{E_7}_{i,i+m}]_{i \in \Lambda_m}&=P_m^{E_7}[\alpha_{i,i+m}\psi^{E_7}_{i,i+m-1}]_{i \in \Lambda_m} \ \ \ {\rm for} \ 1 \leq m \leq 17.\end{aligned}$$ Note that $\psi^{E_7}_{i,i}=\alpha_i^*$ for $i=1,3,\ldots,8$, namely $$\begin{aligned}
\psi^{E_7}_{1,1}&=\psi^{E_8}_{1,1}-\psi^{E_8}_{2,2}=\partial_1-\partial_2, \\
\psi^{E_7}_{3,3}&=\psi^{E_8}_{3,3}-\frac{3}{2}\psi^{E_8}_{2,2}=\frac{1}{2}\partial_1-\frac{1}{2}\partial_2+\partial_3, \\
\psi^{E_7}_{4,4}&=\psi^{E_8}_{4,4}-2\psi^{E_8}_{2,2}=\partial_1-\partial_2+\partial_3+\partial_4, \\
\psi^{E_7}_{5,5}&=\psi^{E_8}_{5,5}-\frac{5}{2}\psi^{E_8}_{2,2}=\frac{3}{2}\partial_1-\frac{3}{2}\partial_2+\partial_3+\partial_4+\partial_5, \\
\psi^{E_7}_{6,6}&=\psi^{E_8}_{6,6}-3\psi^{E_8}_{2,2}=2\partial_1-2\partial_2+\partial_3+\partial_4+\partial_5+\partial_6, \\
\psi^{E_7}_{7,7}&=\psi^{E_8}_{7,7}-\frac{3}{2}\psi^{E_8}_{2,2}=\frac{1}{2}(2\partial_1-2\partial_2+\partial_3+\partial_4+\partial_5+\partial_6+\partial_7-\partial_8), \\
\psi^{E_7}_{8,8}&=\psi^{E_8}_{8,8}-2\psi^{E_8}_{2,2}=\frac{1}{2}(3\partial_1-3\partial_2+\partial_3+\partial_4+\partial_5+\partial_6+\partial_7+\partial_8). \end{aligned}$$
We can check by using Maple that $\{\psi^{E_7}_{i,h_I(i)} \mid i=1,3,\ldots,8 \} \subset D(\A_I)$ for any lower ideal $I \subset \Phi_{E_7}^+$. From this together with $\det P^{E_7}_m \neq 0$ $(1 \leq m \leq 17)$, we obtain the following theorem by Proposition \[proposition:key\] (see also Remark \[remark:key\]).
\[theorem:psiE7\] The derivations $\{\psi^{E_7}_{i,i+m} \mid 0 \leq m \leq 17, i \in \Lambda_m \}$ form uniform bases for the ideal arrangements of type $E_7$.
### Type $E_6$ {#subsubsection:typeE6}
Let $\mathfrak{t}_{E_6}$ be the hyperplane in $\mathfrak{t}_{E_7}$ defined by the linear function $\alpha_3^*=\frac{1}{2}x_1-\frac{1}{2}x_2+x_3$: $$\mathfrak{t}_{E_6}:=\{(x_1,\ldots,x_8) \in \mathfrak{t}_{E_7} \mid \frac{1}{2}x_1-\frac{1}{2}x_2+x_3=0 \}.$$ Here, we remark that $\alpha_1^*,\alpha_3^*,\ldots,\alpha_8^*$ is the dual basis of the simple roots $\alpha_1,\alpha_3\ldots,\alpha_8$ for type $E_7$. Then we have $$\CR_{E_6} = \operatorname{Sym}(\mathfrak{t}_{E_6}^*)=\R[x_1,\ldots,x_8]/(x_1+x_2,\frac{1}{2}x_1-\frac{1}{2}x_2+x_3).$$ Taking the exponents $\e_1^{E_6},\e_4^{E_6},\ldots, \e_8^{E_6}$ as $$\e_1^{E_6}=5, \ \e_4^{E_6}=11, \ \e_5^{E_6}=8, \ \e_6^{E_6}=7, \ \e_7^{E_6}=1, \ \e_8^{E_6}=4,$$ we define the positive root $\alpha_{i,j}$ $(i=1,4,\ldots,8, i< j \leq i+\e_i^{E_6})$ for $E_6$ by the $\alpha_{i,j}$ for $E_7$. The poset structure of the positive roots for type $E_7$ can be obtained from Figure \[picture:PositiveRootTypeE8\] by removing the first row and the second row in Figure \[picture:PositiveRootTypeE8\].
Note that $\operatorname{ht}(\Phi^+_{E_6})=11$ and the set $\Lambda_m$ in is given by $$\label{eq:LambdaE6}
\Lambda_m=\begin{cases}
\{1,4,5,6,7,8\} \ \ \ &{\rm for} \ m=0,1, \\
\{1,4,5,6,8\} \ \ \ &{\rm for} \ 2 \leq m \leq 4, \\
\{1,4,5,8\} \ \ \ &{\rm for} \ m=5, \\
\{1,4,8\} \ \ \ &{\rm for} \ m=6,7, \\
\{1,8\} \ \ \ &{\rm for} \ m=8, \\
\{1\} \ \ \ &{\rm for} \ 9 \leq m \leq 11.
\end{cases}$$
A Hessenberg function $h^{E_7}$ for type $E_7$ such that $h^{E_7}(3)=3$ and $h^{E_7}(i) \leq i+\e_i^{E_6}$ for $i=1,4,\ldots,8$ is called a **Hessenberg function for type $E_6$**, denoted by $h^{E_6}$. We may omit the $3$rd value $h^{E_6}(3)$, namely $h^{E_6}$ is a function on $\{1,4,\ldots,8\}$ given by $h^{E_6}(i)=h^{E_7}(i)$ for some $h^{E_7}$ with $h^{E_7}(i) \leq i+\e_i^{E_6}$ for $i=1,4,\ldots,8$. Under the decomposition $\Phi^+_{E_6}=\Phi^+_1\coprod(\coprod_{i=4}^8 \Phi^+_i)$ above, one can see that the set of lower ideals $I \subset \Phi^+_{E_6}$ and the set of Hessenberg functions $h$ for type $E_6$ are in one-to-one correspondence which sends $I$ to $h_I$ in .
As well as type $E_7$, to give uniform bases $\{\psi^{E_6}_{i,i+m} \in \operatorname{Der}\CR \mid 0 \leq m \leq 11, i \in \Lambda_m \}$, we first define the matrix $P^{E_6}_m=(p_{ij}^{(m)})_{i,j \in \Lambda_m}$ $(0 \leq m \leq 11=\operatorname{ht}(\Phi^+_{E_6}))$ by $$\begin{aligned}
&P^{E_6}_0=\left( \begin {array}{cccccc} 1&0&0&0&0&0\\ \noalign{\medskip}0
&1&0&0&0&0\\ \noalign{\medskip}0&0&1&0&0&0
\\ \noalign{\medskip}0&0&0&1&0&0\\ \noalign{\medskip}0&0&0&0&1
&0\\ \noalign{\medskip}0&0&0&0&0&1\end {array} \right), \ \
P^{E_6}_1=\left( \begin {array}{cccccc} 1&0&0&0&0&0\\ \noalign{\medskip}0
&1&0&0&0&0\\ \noalign{\medskip}0&1&1&0&0&0
\\ \noalign{\medskip}1&1&1&1&0&1\\ \noalign{\medskip}1&1&1&1&1
&1\\ \noalign{\medskip}1&0&0&0&0&1\end {array} \right), \\
&P^{E_6}_2=\left( \begin {array}{ccccc} 1&0&0&0&0\\ \noalign{\medskip}0
&1&0&0&0\\ \noalign{\medskip}-1&1&1&-1&-1
\\ \noalign{\medskip}-1&1&1&1&-1\\ \noalign{\medskip}1&1&1&1
&1\end
{array} \right), \ \
P^{E_6}_3=
\left( \begin {array}{ccccc} 1&-\frac{1}{2}&-\frac{1}{4}&-\frac{1}{2}&-\frac{1}{4}
\\ \noalign{\medskip}1&1&-1&-\frac{1}{2}&\frac{1}{2}\\ \noalign{\medskip}2&2
&1&-1&1\\ \noalign{\medskip}1&1&\frac{1}{2}&1&\frac{1}{2}\\ \noalign{\medskip}
2&-4&-2&-1&1\end {array} \right), \\
&P^{E_6}_4= \left( \begin {array}{ccccc} 1&0&0&-\frac{1}{2}&0
\\ \noalign{\medskip}0&1&0&0&0\\ \noalign{\medskip}0&2&1&2
&0\\ \noalign{\medskip}0&0&0&1&0\\ \noalign{\medskip}4&2&0&-
2&1\end {array} \right), \ \
P^{E_6}_5= \left( \begin {array}{cccc} 1&-\frac{1}{4}&-\frac{1}{8}&-\frac{1}{4}
\\ \noalign{\medskip}-2&1&0&0\\ \noalign{\medskip}-4&2&1&0
\\ \noalign{\medskip}0&1&\frac{1}{2}&1\end {array} \right), \ \
P^{E_6}_6= \left( \begin {array}{ccc} 1&0&-\frac{1}{2}
\\ \noalign{\medskip}0&1&1\\ \noalign{\medskip}0&0&1\end {array} \right), \\
&P^{E_6}_7= \left( \begin {array}{ccc} 1&0&0\\ \noalign{\medskip}0&1&0\\ \noalign{\medskip}-2&1&1\end {array}
\right), \ \
P^{E_6}_8=\left( \begin {array}{cc} 1&0\\ \noalign{\medskip}2&1\end {array} \right), \ \
P_m^{E_6}=
\begin{pmatrix}
1 \\
\end{pmatrix} \ \ \ (9 \leq m \leq 11).\end{aligned}$$ Here, we think of indices for rows and columns of the matrix $P^{E_6}_m$ as $\Lambda_m$ given in , and we arrange them as in increasing order. We set $$\begin{aligned}
[\psi^{E_6}_{i,i}]_{i \in \Lambda_0}&=P_0^{E_6}[\alpha_{i}^*]_{i \in \Lambda_0},\\
[\psi^{E_6}_{i,i+m}]_{i \in \Lambda_m}&=P_m^{E_6}[\alpha_{i,i+m}\psi^{E_6}_{i,i+m-1}]_{i \in \Lambda_m} \ \ \ {\rm for} \ 1 \leq m \leq 11.\end{aligned}$$ Note that $\psi^{E_6}_{i,i}=\alpha_i^*$ for $i=1,4,\ldots,8$, namely $$\begin{aligned}
\psi^{E_6}_{1,1}&=\psi^{E_7}_{1,1}-\frac{2}{3}\psi^{E_7}_{3,3}=\frac{2}{3}\partial_1-\frac{2}{3}\partial_2-\frac{2}{3}\partial_3, \\
\psi^{E_6}_{4,4}&=\psi^{E_7}_{4,4}-\frac{4}{3}\psi^{E_7}_{3,3}=\frac{1}{3}\partial_1-\frac{1}{3}\partial_2-\frac{1}{3}\partial_3+\partial_4, \\
\psi^{E_6}_{5,5}&=\psi^{E_7}_{5,5}-\frac{5}{3}\psi^{E_7}_{3,3}=\frac{2}{3}\partial_1-\frac{2}{3}\partial_2-\frac{2}{3}\partial_3+\partial_4+\partial_5, \\
\psi^{E_6}_{6,6}&=\psi^{E_7}_{6,6}-2\psi^{E_7}_{3,3}=\partial_1-\partial_2-\partial_3+\partial_4+\partial_5+\partial_6, \\
\psi^{E_6}_{7,7}&=\psi^{E_7}_{7,7}-\psi^{E_7}_{3,3}=\frac{1}{2}(\partial_1-\partial_2-\partial_3+\partial_4+\partial_5+\partial_6+\partial_7-\partial_8), \\
\psi^{E_6}_{8,8}&=\psi^{E_7}_{8,8}-\frac{4}{3}\psi^{E_7}_{3,3}=\frac{1}{2}(\frac{5}{3}\partial_1-\frac{5}{3}\partial_2-\frac{5}{3}\partial_3+\partial_4+\partial_5+\partial_6+\partial_7+\partial_8). \end{aligned}$$
We can check by using Maple that $\{\psi^{E_6}_{i,h_I(i)} \mid i=1,4,\ldots,8 \} \subset D(\A_I)$ for any lower ideal $I \subset \Phi_{E_6}^+$. From this together with $\det P^{E_6}_m \neq 0$ $(1 \leq m \leq 11)$, we obtain the following theorem by Proposition \[proposition:key\] (see also Remark \[remark:key\]).
\[theorem:psiE6\] The derivations $\{\psi^{E_6}_{i,i+m} \mid 0 \leq m \leq 11, i \in \Lambda_m \}$ form uniform bases for the ideal arrangements of type $E_6$.
Uniform bases for the ideal arrangements in a root subsystem {#section:root subsystem}
============================================================
In this section we prove that uniform bases for the ideal arrangements in a root subsystem of given a root system can be obtained from that of the given root system. From this point of view, one can see that uniform bases of types $E_6$ and $E_7$ can be obtained from that of type $E_8$.
Recall that $\mathfrak{t}$ is a real euclidean space of dimension $n$ and $\Phi \subset \mathfrak{t}^*$ an irreducible root system. Under the isomorphism $\mathfrak{t} \cong \mathfrak{t}^*$ induced from the inner product $( \ , \ )$ on $\mathfrak{t}$, the image of a root $\alpha \in \mathfrak{t}^*$ is denoted by $\hat\alpha \in \mathfrak{t}$. We also denote $\check\beta \in \mathfrak{t}^*$ by the image of $\beta \in \mathfrak{t}$, that is, $$\mathfrak{t} \cong \mathfrak{t}^*; \ \hat\alpha \mapsfrom \alpha, \ \beta \mapsto \check\beta.$$ Let $\alpha_1,\ldots, \alpha_n$ be the simple roots and its dual basis is denoted by $\beta_1,\ldots,\beta_n$ in this section. Let $S$ be a nonempty subset of $[n]$ and $\mathfrak{t}'$ a subspace of $\mathfrak{t}$ spanned by $\hat\alpha_i$ for $i \in S$. Note that $\mathfrak{t}'$ is orthogonal to $\beta_i$ for $i \notin S$: $$\mathfrak{t}'=\{x \in \mathfrak{t} \mid (\beta_i, x)=0 \ {\rm for \ all} \ i \notin S \}.$$ The inner product on $\mathfrak{t}$ naturally induces that on $\mathfrak{t}'$. Then, the isomorphisms $\mathfrak{t} \cong \mathfrak{t}^*$ and $\mathfrak{t}' \cong (\mathfrak{t}')^*$ via the inner products on $\mathfrak{t}$ and $\mathfrak{t}'$ respectively make the following commutative diagram: $$\xymatrix{\mathfrak{t}\ar[r]^-{\cong} &\mathfrak{t}^*\ar@{->>}[d]\\ \mathfrak{t}'\ar@{^{(}->}[u]\ar[r]^-{\cong}&(\mathfrak{t}')^*}$$ Note that $(\mathfrak{t}')^*$ is isomorphic to the quotient space $\mathfrak{t}^*/{\rm span}\{\check{\beta_i} \mid i \notin S \}$. We denote by $\overline{\alpha}$ the image of $\alpha \in \mathfrak{t}^*$ under the surjective map $\mathfrak{t}^* \to (\mathfrak{t}')^*$. We define $\Phi' \subset (\mathfrak{t}')^*$ as the image of a set $\{\alpha \in \Phi \mid \alpha(\beta_i) =0 \ {\rm for} \ i \notin S \}$ under the surjection $\mathfrak{t}^* \to (\mathfrak{t}')^*$. Then, $\Phi'$ is a root system on $(\mathfrak{t}')^*$ and we can take $\{\overline{\alpha_i} \mid i \in S \}$ as the simple roots of $\Phi'$.
Let $\e_1,\ldots,\e_n$ (resp. $\e'_i \ (i \in S)$) be the exponents of the Weyl group $W$ (resp. $W'$) where $W$ and $W'$ are the Weyl groups associated with $(\mathfrak{t},\Phi)$ and $(\mathfrak{t}',\Phi')$ respectively. A decomposition $\Phi^+=\coprod_{i=1}^n \ \Phi^+_i$ satisfying and induces the decomposition $\Phi'^+=\coprod_{i \in S} \ \Phi'^+_i$ satisfying and where $\Phi'^+_i$ is defined as $\Phi'^+_i=\{\overline{\alpha_{i,i+1}},\ldots, \overline{\alpha_{i,i+\e'_i}} \}$ for $i \in S$. Let $\CR=\operatorname{Sym}\mathfrak{t}^*$ and $\CR'=\operatorname{Sym}(\mathfrak{t}')^* \cong \CR/(\check{\beta_i} \mid i \notin S)$. Let $\{\psi_{i,j} \in \operatorname{Der}\CR \mid i \in [n] \ {\rm and} \ i \leq j \leq \e_i \}$ be uniform bases for the ideal arrangements in $(\mathfrak{t},\Phi)$ of the form in Theorem \[theorem:main1\]. We denote the invertible matrices associated with the uniform bases by $P_m$ for $0 \leq m \leq \operatorname{ht}(\Phi^+)$. Namely, we can write $$\begin{aligned}
\psi_{i,i}&=p_i \beta_i \ \ \ {\rm for} \ i \in [n], \\
\psi_{i,i+m}&=\sum_{j \in \Lambda_m} p_{ij} \alpha_{j,j+m}\psi_{j,j+m-1} \ \ \ {\rm for} \ 1 \leq m \leq \operatorname{ht}(\Phi^+) \ {\rm and} \ i \in \Lambda_m,\end{aligned}$$ where $P_0=\operatorname{diag}(p_1,\ldots,p_n)$ and $P_m=(p_{ij})_{i,j \in \Lambda_m} \in \operatorname{GL}(\Lambda_m;\Q)$. Then, we define $\{\psi'_{i,j} \in \operatorname{Der}\CR'=\CR' \otimes \mathfrak{t}' \mid i \in [n] \ {\rm and} \ i \leq j \leq \e_i \ \}$ as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\psi'_{i,i}&=p_i \gamma_i \ \ \ {\rm for} \ i \in [n], \\
\psi'_{i,i+m}&=\sum_{j \in \Lambda_m} p_{ij} \overline{\alpha_{j,j+m}}\psi'_{j,j+m-1} \ \ \ {\rm for} \ 1 \leq m \leq \operatorname{ht}(\Phi^+) \ {\rm and} \ i \in \Lambda_m,\end{aligned}$$ where $\{\gamma_i \in \mathfrak{t}' \mid i \in S\}$ is the dual basis of the simple roots $\{\overline{\alpha_i} \in (\mathfrak{t}')^* \mid i \in S\}$ for $\Phi'$ with the convention $\gamma_j=0$ whenever $j \notin S$.
\[lemma:6-1\] Let $i$ and $j$ be positive integers with $1 \leq i \leq n$ and $i \leq j \leq \e_i$. Then, $$\psi'_{i,j}(\overline{\alpha})=\overline{\psi_{i,j}(\alpha)}$$ for any $\overline{\alpha} \in \Phi'$.
Since we can take $\{\overline{\alpha_k} \mid k \in S \}$ as the simple roots of $\Phi'$, it is enough to check that $\psi'_{i,j}(\overline{\alpha_k})=\overline{\psi_{i,j}(\alpha_k)}$ for any $k \in S$. We prove this by induction on $m:=j-i$. As the base case, when $m=0$, we have $$\psi'_{i,i}(\overline{\alpha_k})=p_i \gamma_i(\overline{\alpha_k})=p_i \delta_{ik}=\overline{\psi_{i,i}(\alpha_k)}.$$ Now we assume that $m>0$ and the claim holds for $m-1$. Then, for any $i \in [n]$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\psi'_{i,i+m}(\overline{\alpha_k})&=\sum_{j \in \Lambda_m} p_{ij} \overline{\alpha_{j,j+m}} \psi'_{j,j+m-1}(\overline{\alpha_k}) \\
&=\sum_{j \in \Lambda_m} p_{ij} \overline{\alpha_{j,j+m}} \overline{\psi_{j,j+m-1}(\alpha_k)} \ \ \ ({\rm by \ the \ inductive \ assumption})\\
&=\overline{\psi_{i,i+m}(\alpha_k)}.\end{aligned}$$ This completes the proof.
\[proposition:6-2\] A set of derivations $\{\psi'_{i,j} \in \operatorname{Der}\CR' \mid i \in S \ {\rm and} \ i \leq j \leq \e'_i \ \}$ forms uniform bases for the ideal arrangements in $(\mathfrak{t}',\Phi')$.
Let $I'$ be a lower ideal in $\Phi'^+$ and $h_{I'}: S \to \Z_{\geq 0}$ the associated Hessenberg function. We first show that $\psi'_{i,h_{I'}(i)} \in D(\A_{I'})$ for any $i \in S$. Namely, we prove that $\psi'_{i,h_{I'}(i)}(\overline{\alpha}) \in \CR' \overline{\alpha}$ for any $\overline{\alpha} \in I'$. Since we have $\psi'_{i,h_{I'}(i)}(\overline{\alpha})=\overline{\psi_{i,h_{I'}(i)}(\alpha)}$ by Lemma \[lemma:6-1\], it is enough to prove that $\psi_{i,h_{I'}(i)}(\alpha) \in \CR \alpha$. Let $I$ be a lower ideal in $\Phi^+$ defined as $$\label{eq:6-1}
I=\{\alpha_{i,j} \mid i \in S \ {\rm and} \ \overline{\alpha_{i,j}} \in I' \}.$$ Note that the Hessenberg function $h_I$ associated with $I$ is given by $$h_I(i)=\begin{cases}
h_{I'}(i) & {\rm if} \ i \in S, \\
i & {\rm if} \ i \notin S.
\end{cases}$$ Since $\{\psi_{i,j} \in \operatorname{Der}\CR \mid i \in [n] \ {\rm and} \ i \leq j \leq \e_i \}$ forms uniform bases for the ideal arrangements in $(\mathfrak{t},\Phi)$, we have $\psi_{i,h_{I'}(i)}(\alpha)=\psi_{i,h_{I}(i)}(\alpha) \in \CR \alpha$. Hence, we obtain that $\psi'_{i,h_{I'}(i)} \in D(\A_{I'})$ for any $i \in S$.
From Theorem \[theorem:Saito’s criterion\] it suffices to show that $\det(\psi'_{i,h_{I'}(i)}(\overline{\alpha_j}))_{i,j \in S}$ is equal to $\prod_{\overline{\alpha} \in I'} \overline{\alpha}$ up to a non-zero scalar multiplication. Considering the lower ideal $I$ in , from Theorem \[theorem:Saito’s criterion\] we have $$\det(\psi_{i,h_{I}(i)}(\alpha_j))_{i,j \in [n]} \ \dot{=} \ \prod_{\alpha \in I} \alpha$$ because $\{\psi_{i,j} \in \operatorname{Der}\CR \mid i \in [n] \ {\rm and} \ i \leq j \leq \e_i \}$ forms uniform bases for the ideal arrangements in $(\mathfrak{t},\Phi)$. This implies that $$\label{eq:6-2}
\det(\overline{\psi_{i,h_{I}(i)}(\alpha_j)})_{i,j \in [n]} \ \dot{=} \ \big(\prod_{\alpha \in I} \overline{\alpha} \big)=\big(\prod_{\overline{\alpha} \in I'} \overline{\alpha} \big) \ \ \ \ \ \ {\rm in} \ \CR',$$ where the second equality follows from the definition . Noting that $\psi_{i,h_I(i)}(\alpha_j)=\psi_{i,i}(\alpha_j) \ \dot{=} \ \delta_{ij}$ for $i \notin S$, we have $$\det(\psi_{i,h_{I}(i)}(\alpha_j))_{i,j \in [n]} \ \dot{=} \ \det(\psi_{i,h_{I}(i)}(\alpha_j))_{i,j \in S} \ \dot{=} \ \det(\psi_{i,h_{I'}(i)}(\alpha_j))_{i,j \in S}.$$ From this together with we obtain $$\det(\overline{\psi_{i,h_{I'}(i)}(\alpha_j)})_{i,j \in S} \ \dot{=} \ \big(\prod_{\overline{\alpha} \in I'} \overline{\alpha} \big).$$ But the left hand side coincides with $\det(\psi'_{i,h_{I'}(i)}(\overline{\alpha_j}))_{i,j \in S}$ by Lemma \[lemma:6-1\], so this completes the proof.
We can apply Proposition \[proposition:6-2\] to type $E$. Let $\psi^{E}_{i,j}=\psi^{E_8}_{i,j}$ for $1 \leq i \leq 8$ and $i \leq j \leq \e^{E_8}_i$. For each $m$ with $0 \leq m \leq 29=\operatorname{ht}(\Phi^+_{E_8})$, we denote by $P_m^{E}=(p_{ij})_{i,j \in \Lambda_m}$ the matrix $P_m^{E_8}$ in Section \[subsubsection:typeE8\] for simplicity. We define $\psi'^{E}_{i,j}$ and $\psi''^{E}_{i,j}$ for $1 \leq i \leq 8$ and $i \leq j \leq \e^{E_8}_i$ as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\psi'^{E}_{i,i}&=\begin{cases} \psi^{E_7}_{i,i} \ \ \ {\rm if} \ i=1,3,4,5,6,7,8, \\
0 \ \ \ \ \ \ {\rm if} \ i=2,
\end{cases} \\
\psi'^{E}_{i,i+m}&=\sum_{j \in \Lambda_m} p_{ij} \overline{\alpha_{j,j+m}}\psi'_{j,j+m-1} \ \ \ {\rm for} \ 1 \leq m \leq \operatorname{ht}(\Phi^+) \ {\rm and} \ i \in \Lambda_m,\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\psi''^{E}_{i,i}&=\begin{cases} \psi^{E_6}_{i,i} \ \ \ {\rm if} \ i=1,4,5,6,7,8, \\
0 \ \ \ \ \ \ {\rm if} \ i=2, 3,
\end{cases} \\
\psi''^{E}_{i,i+m}&=\sum_{j \in \Lambda_m} p_{ij} \overline{\alpha_{j,j+m}}\psi''_{j,j+m-1} \ \ \ {\rm for} \ 1 \leq m \leq \operatorname{ht}(\Phi^+) \ {\rm and} \ i \in \Lambda_m.\end{aligned}$$
\[corollary:subroottypeE\] A set of derivations $\{\psi'^{E}_{i,j} \in \operatorname{Der}\CR_{E_7} \mid i=1,3,4,5,6,7,8 \ {\rm and} \ i \leq j \leq \e^{E_7}_i \}$ forms uniform bases for the ideal arrangements in type $E_7$. A set of derivations $\{\psi''^{E}_{i,j} \in \operatorname{Der}\CR_{E_6} \mid i=1,4,5,6,7,8 \ {\rm and} \ i \leq j \leq \e^{E_6}_i \}$ forms uniform bases for the ideal arrangements in type $E_6$.
The cohomology rings of regular nilpotent Hessenberg varieties {#section:Hessenberg varieties}
==============================================================
The logarithmic derivation modules $D(\A_I)$ for the lower ideals $I$ have a surprising connection with the cohomology rings of regular nilpotent Hessenberg varieties by the work of [@AHMMS]. Originally, explicit presentations of the cohomology rings of regular nilpotent Hessenberg varieties in type $A_{n-1}$ is given by [@AHHM] using the localization technique. Motivated by this work, uniform bases for the lower ideals of types $A_{n-1},B_n,C_n,G_2$ are constructed in [@AHMMS]. In this section we first introduce the Hessenberg varieties. We then explain the work of [@AHMMS] and an explicit presentation of the cohomology rings of regular nilpotent Hessenberg varieties in all Lie types. Throughout this paper, all cohomology rings will be taken with real coefficients.
Let $G$ be a semisimple linear algebraic group of rank $n$. We fix a Borel subgroup $B$ of $G$ and a maximal torus $T$ included in $B$. The Lie algebras of $G$ and $B$ are denoted by $\mathfrak{g}$ and $\mathfrak{b}$, respectively. A **Hessenberg space** $H$ is a $\mathfrak{b}$-submodule of $\mathfrak{g}$ containing $\mathfrak{b}$. One can see that there is one-to-one correspondence between the set of lower ideals and the set of Hessenberg spaces which sends $I \subset \Phi^+$ by $$H(I):=\mathfrak{b}\oplus \big(\bigoplus_{\alpha \in I} \mathfrak{g}_{-\alpha} \big),$$ where $\mathfrak{g}_{\alpha}$ is the root space for a root $\alpha$. The **Hessenberg variety** $\operatorname{Hess}(X,I)$ associated with an element $X\in \mathfrak{g}$ and a lower ideal $I \subset \Phi^+$ is defined as the following subvariety of the flag variety $G/B$: $$\operatorname{Hess}(X,I):=\{g B \in G/B \mid \mbox{Ad}(g^{-1})(X) \in H(I)\}.$$
In what follows, we concentrate on Hessenberg varieties $\operatorname{Hess}(N,I)$ for a regular nilpotent element $N$ and we call them **regular nilpotent Hessenberg varieties**. Here, we recall that an element $X\in \mathfrak{g}$ is [nilpotent]{} if $\mbox{ad}(X)$ is nilpotent, i.e., $\mbox{ad}(X)^k=0$ for some $k>0$. An element $X\in \mathfrak{g}$ is [regular]{} if its $G$-orbit of the adjoint action has the largest possible dimension.
Let $\hat T$ be the character group of $T$. Since any $\alpha \in \hat T$ extends to a character of $B$, $\alpha$ defines a complex line bundle $L_\alpha:=G \times_B \C_{\alpha}$ where $\C_{\alpha}$ is the one-dimensional $B$-module via $\alpha$. We may regard $\hat T$ as an additive group so that $\hat T \otimes_{\Z} \R$ is identified with the dual space $\mathfrak{t}^*$ of the Lie algebra of the maximal compact torus. To each $\alpha \in \mathfrak{t}^*$ we can assign the Euler class $e(L_{-\alpha}) \in H^2(G/B)$. This assignment induces a ring homomorphism $$\label{eq:varphi}
\varphi\colon \CR=\mbox{Sym}(\mathfrak{t}^*) \to H^*(G/B)$$ which doubles the grading on $\CR$. According to Borel’s theorem [@B], the map $\varphi$ is surjective and its kernel is the ideal generated by $W$-invariants in $\CR$ with zero constant term. Here, $W$ is the Weyl group. Composing $\varphi$ with the restriction map $H^*(G/B) \to H^*(\operatorname{Hess}(N,I))$, we have a ring homomorphism $$\label{eq:varphiNilpotent}
\varphi_I\colon \CR\to H^*(\operatorname{Hess}(N,I)).$$ The map $\varphi_I$ is surjective from the result of [@AHMMS] (Theorem \[theorem:AHMMS\] below). Moreover, its kernel can be described in terms of the logarithmic derivation module $D(\A_I)$. We can identify $\mathfrak{t}$ and $\mathfrak{t}^*$ via the Killing form which implies the isomorphism $\CR\otimes\mathfrak{t} \cong \CR\otimes\mathfrak{t}^*$. Composing the isomorphism with the multiplication map $\CR\otimes\mathfrak{t}^*\to \CR$, we obtain an $\CR$-module map $$\Quadraticmap: \operatorname{Der}\CR=\CR\otimes\mathfrak{t} \cong \CR\otimes\mathfrak{t}^*\to \CR.$$ We define an ideal $\mathfrak{a}(I)$ as the image of the logarithmic derivation module $D(\A_I)$ under the map $\Quadraticmap$: $$\mathfrak{a}(I):=\Quadraticmap(D(\A_I)).$$
\[theorem:AHMMS\] The map $\varphi_I$ in is surjective and its kernel coincides with the ideal $\mathfrak{a}(I)$. In particular, $\varphi_I$ induces the ring isomorphism $$H^*(\operatorname{Hess}(N,I)) \cong \CR/\mathfrak{a}(I).$$
From Theorem \[theorem:AHMMS\] together with explicit uniform bases for the lower ideals, we obtain an explicit presentation of the cohomology rings of regular nilpotent Hessenberg varieties in all Lie types. In fact, motivated by the explicit presentation given in [@AHHM Theorem A] for type $A_{n-1}$, in [@AHMMS] the explicit presentation for types $A_{n-1},B_n,C_n,G_2$ are obtained from this perspective ([@AHMMS Corollary 10.4, Corollary 10.10, Corollary 10.15, Corollary 10.18]). We now state that an explicit presentation of the cohomology rings of regular nilpotent Hessenberg varieties in all Lie types which includes that of [@AHHM; @AHMMS] for types $A_{n-1},B_n,C_n,G_2$.
Let $\varpi_1, \ldots, \varpi_n$ be the fundamental weights. In what follows, $L$ means either of Lie types $A_n,B_n,C_n,D_n.E_6,E_7,E_8,F_4,G_2$. Let $\alpha^L_{i,j}$ be the positive root for type $L$ defined in Section \[section:matrixPm\]. Using the invertible matrices $P^L_m$ for type $L$ defined in Section \[section:matrixPm\], we define inductively polynomials $f^{L}_{i,i+m} \in \CR$ for $0 \leq m \leq \operatorname{ht}(\Phi^+)$ and $i \in \Lambda_m$ as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
[f^{L}_{i,i}]_{i \in \Lambda_0}&=\tilde{P_0^{L}}[\varpi_i]_{i \in \Lambda_0},\\
[f^{L}_{i,i+m}]_{i \in \Lambda_m}&=P_m^{L}[\alpha^L_{i,i+m}\psi^{L}_{i,i+m-1}]_{i \in \Lambda_m} \ \ \ {\rm for} \ 1 \leq m \leq \operatorname{ht}(\Phi^+),\end{aligned}$$ where $\tilde{P^L_0}$ is the diagonal matrix with entries $\frac{2p_1}{||\alpha_1||^2},\ldots,\frac{2p_n}{||\alpha_n||^2}$ and $p_1,\ldots,p_n$ are the entries of the diagonal matrix $P^L_0$. Noting that $\Quadraticmap(\alpha_i^*)=\frac{2}{||\alpha_i||^2} \, \varpi_i$, we have $$\label{fLpsiL}
f^L_{i,i+m}=\Quadraticmap(\psi^L_{i,i+m}) \ \ \ {\rm for} \ 0 \leq m \leq \operatorname{ht}(\Phi^+) \ {\rm and} \ i \in \Lambda_m.$$ Here, for only type $L=D_n$ we think of the equality as $f^{D_n}_{i,i+m}=\Quadraticmap(\tilde\psi^{D_n}_{i,i+m})$.
Recall that the set of lower ideals $I \subset \Phi_{L}^+$ and the set of Hessenberg functions $h$ for type $L$ defined in Section \[section:matrixPm\] are in one-to-one correspondence which sends $I$ to $h_I$ in . We denote a regular nilpotent Hessenberg variety $\operatorname{Hess}(N,I)$ by $\operatorname{Hess}(N,h)$ where $h$ is corresponding to the lower ideal $I$, i.e. $h=h_I$. Since $\{\psi^L_{i,i+m} \mid 0 \leq m \leq \operatorname{ht}(\Phi^+), i \in \Lambda_m \}$ forms uniform bases for the lower ideals of type $L$, we obtain the explicit presentation of the cohomology rings of regular nilpotent Hessenberg varieties in all Lie types from Theorem \[theorem:AHMMS\] and .
\[corollary:cohomologyHess\] Let $h$ be a Hessenberg function for type $L$ and $\operatorname{Hess}(N,h)$ the associated regular nilpotent Hessenberg variety for type $L$. Then, the following ring isomorphism holds $$H^*(\operatorname{Hess}(N,h)) \cong \CR/(f^L_{1,h(1)},\ldots,f^L_{n,h(n)}).$$
The regular nilpotent Hessenberg variety $\operatorname{Hess}(N,h)$ for the special case when $h(i)=i+1$ for $i \in [n]$ is called the **Peterson variety**, denoted by $Pet$. An explicit presentation of $H^*(Pet)$ is given by [@HHM] as follows: $$H^*(Pet) \cong \CR/(\alpha_i \varpi_i \mid 1 \leq i \leq n).$$ One can see that Corollary \[corollary:cohomologyHess\] generalizes the explicit presentation above.
The polynomials $f^L_{i,j}$ have the explicit formula for types $L=A_{n-1},B_n,C_n,G_2$ by [@AHHM; @AHMMS]. For type $D_n$ we also have an explicit formula for $g^{D_n}_{i,j}:=\Quadraticmap(\psi^{D_n}_{i,j})$ because $\Quadraticmap$ sends $\partial_i$ to $x_i$. That is, for $1 \leq i \leq n-1$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
g^{D_n}_{i,j}=&\sum_{k=1}^{i} (x_k-x_{i+1})\cdots(x_k-x_j) x_k \ \ \ \ \ \ {\rm for} \ i \leq j \leq n-2 \ (i \neq n-1), \\
g^{D_n}_{i,n-1}=&\sum_{k=1}^{i} \big((x_k-x_{i+1})\cdots(x_k-x_{n-1})(x_k+x_n) \big) +(-1)^{n-i} n \, x_{i+1} \cdots x_n, \\
g^{D_n}_{i,n+j}=&\sum_{k=1}^{i} \big((x_k-x_{i+1})\cdots(x_k-x_{n})(x_k+x_n)\cdots(x_k+x_{n-j}) \big) \\
&+(-1)^{n-i+1} n \, x_{i+1}\cdots x_{n-1-j} x_{n-j}^2\cdots x_n^2 \ \ \ \ \ \ {\rm for} \ 0 \leq j \leq n-1-i. \end{aligned}$$ We also have $$\begin{aligned}
g^{D_n}_{n,2n-1-r}=&\sum_{k=1}^{r} \left((-1)^{n-r+1} (x_k-x_{r+1})\cdots(x_k-x_{n-1})(x_k-x_n) \right) + n \, x_{r+1}\cdots x_n \end{aligned}$$ for $0 \leq r \leq n-1$.
From Theorems \[theorem:psiD\] and \[theorem:AHMMS\] we obtain the following corollary.
\[corollary:fijD\] Let $h$ be a Hessenberg function for type $D_n$ and $\operatorname{Hess}(N,h)$ the associated regular nilpotent Hessenberg variety for type $D_n$. Then, the following ring isomorphism holds $$H^*(\operatorname{Hess}(N,h)) \cong \R[x_1,\ldots,x_n]/(g^{D_n}_{1,h(1)},\ldots,g^{D_n}_{n,h(n)}).$$
Also, we can describe systematically explicit presentations of the cohomology rings of the regular nilpotent Hessenberg varieties for type $E$. Using notations in Section \[section:root subsystem\], we define $g^{E}_{i,j}=\Quadraticmap(\psi^{E}_{i,j}), g'^{E}_{i,j}=\Quadraticmap(\psi'^{E}_{i,j}), g''^{E}_{i,j}=\Quadraticmap(\psi''^{E}_{i,j})$. Note that $g^{E}_{i,j}=f^{E_8}_{i,j}$. One can see inductively that $$\begin{aligned}
g'^{E}_{i,j} &\equiv g^{E}_{i,j} \ \ \ {\rm mod} \ g^{E}_{2,2}, \\
g''^{E}_{i,j} &\equiv g^{E}_{i,j} \ \ \ {\rm mod} \ (g^{E}_{2,2},g^{E}_{3,3}). \end{aligned}$$ This together with Corollary \[corollary:subroottypeE\] implies the following corollary. Recall that Hessenberg functions $h^{E_7}$ and $h^{E_6}$ for types $E_7$ and $E_6$ respectively satisfy $h^{E_7}(2)=2$ and $h^{E_6}(2)=2, h^{E_6}(3)=3$.
\[corollary:fijE\] Let $h$ be a Hessenberg function for type $E_n (n=6,7,8)$ and $\operatorname{Hess}(N,h)$ the associated regular nilpotent Hessenberg variety for type $E$. Then, the following ring isomorphism holds $$H^*(\operatorname{Hess}(N,h)) \cong \R[x_1,\ldots,x_8]/(g^{E}_{1,h(1)},\ldots,g^{E}_{8,h(8)}).$$
[9]{} H. Abe, M. Harada, T. Horiguchi, and M. Masuda, *The cohomology rings of regular nilpotent Hessenberg varieties in Lie type A*, Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN., **2019** (2019), 5316–5388.
H. Abe and T. Horiguchi, *A survey of recent developments on Hessenberg varieties*, arXiv:1904.11155.
T. Abe, M. Barakat, M. Cuntz, T. Hoge, and H. Terao, *The freeness of ideal subarrangements of Weyl arrangements*, J. European Math. Soc. **18** (2016), 1339–1348.
T. Abe, T. Horiguchi, M. Masuda, S. Murai, and T. Sato, *Hessenberg varieties and hyperplane arrangements*, to appear in J. Reine Angew. Math., DOI: 10.1515/crelle-2018-0039.
A. Borel, *Sur la cohomologie des espaces fibrés principaux et des espaces homogénes de groupes de Lie compacts*, Ann. of Math. (2) **57** (1953), 115–207.
F. De Mari, C. Procesi, and M. A. Shayman, *Hessenberg varieties*, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. [**332**]{} (1992), no. 2, 529–534.
F. De Mari and M. A. Shayman, *Generalized Eulerian numbers and the topology of the Hessenberg variety of a matrix*, Acta Appl. Math. **12** (1988), no. 3, 213–235.
M. Harada, T. Horiguchi, and M. Masuda, *The equivariant cohomology rings of Peterson varieties in all Lie types*, Canad. Math. Bull. **58** (2015), no. 1, 80–90.
J. E. Humphreys, *Reflection groups and Coxeter groups*, Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics, 29. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1990.
P. Orlik and H. Terao, *Arrangements of hyperplanes*, Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften, **300**, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1992.
K. Saito, *Theory of logarithmic differential forms and logarithmic vector fields*, J. Fac. Sci. Univ. Tokyo Sect.IA Math. **27** (1980), 265–291.
H. Terao, *Arrangements of hyperplanes and their freeness I, II.*, J. Fac. Sci. Univ. Tokyo, **27**(2): 293–320, 1980.
[^1]: A Hessenberg function $h$ for type $A_{n-1}$ is usually defined on the set $[n]$. More specifically, $h:[n] \to [n]$ is a Hessenberg function for type $A_{n-1}$ if $h$ is weakly increasing and $h(i) \geq i$ for $i \in [n]$. We have $h(n)=n$ by the definition, so we may omit the $n$-th value of $h$.
[^2]: We remark that the notation $\alpha_{i,2n+1-i}$ is used for $x_i$ in [@AHMMS].
[^3]: The derivation $\psi^{C_n}_{i,2n+1-i}$ in is $\psi^{C}_{i,2n+1-i}$ defined in [@AHMMS] up to scalar multiplication.
[^4]: Note that statements in this subsection valid for $n \geq 2$.
[^5]: The condition $(5)$ is true for $i=n-1$ because $h(n-1) = n-1$ or $h(n-1)=n$.
[^6]: The program is available at https://researchmap.jp/ehrhart/Database/.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Scientists have been seeking ways to use [*Wolbachia*]{} to eliminate the mosquitoes that spread human diseases. Could [*Wolbachia*]{} be the determining factor in controlling the mosquito-borne infectious diseases? To answer this question mathematically, we develop a reaction-diffusion model with free boundary in a one-dimensional environment. We divide the female mosquito population into two groups: one is the uninfected mosquito population that grows in the whole region while the other is the mosquito population infected with [*Wolbachia*]{} that occupies a finite small region and invades the environment with a spreading front governed by a free boundary satisfying the well-known one-phase Stefan condition. For the resulting free boundary problem, we establish criteria under which spreading and vanishing occur. Our results provide useful insights on designing a feasible mosquito releasing strategy to invade the whole mosquito population with [*Wolbachia*]{} infection and thus eventually eradicate the mosquito-borne diseases.'
author:
- 'Yunfeng Liu[^1], Zhiming Guo[^2], Mohammad El Smaily[^3] and Lin Wang[^4]'
date: October 2019
title: A Wolbachia infection model with free boundary
---
[**Keywords.**]{} [*Wolbachia*]{} infection; reaction-diffusion systems; free boundary; spreading-vanishing dichotomy.
Introduction {#intro}
============
Recently, several public health projects have been launched, in China [@Xinhua], USA [@Google] and France [@Naturenews], with an aim to fight mosquito populations that transmit Zika virus, Dengue fever and Chikungunya. All of these projects involve the release of male [*Aedes aegypti*]{} mosquitoes infected with the [*Wolbachia*]{} bacteria to the wild. For instance, 20000 male [*Aedes aegypti mosquitoes*]{} carrying [*Wolbachia*]{} bacteria were released on Stock Island of the Florida Keys in the week of April 20, 2017. Google’s Verily is about to release 20 million machine-reared [*Wolbachia*]{}-infected mosquitoes in Fresno (see [@Google]). A factory in Southern China is manufacturing millions of “mosquito warriors" (male [*Aedes aegypti*]{} mosquitoes carrying [*Wolbachia*]{} bacteria) to combat epidemics transmitted by mosquitoes [@Xinhua].
The science behind these projects is based on the following two facts: (i) [*Wolbachia*]{} often induces cytoplasmic incompatibility (CI) which leads to early embryonic death when [*Wolbachia*]{}-infected males mate with uninfected females and (ii) [*Wolbachia*]{}-infected females produce viable embryos after mating with either infected or uninfected males, resulting in a reproductive advantage over uninfected females. In practice, [*Wolbachia*]{} has been successfully transferred into [*Aedes aegypti*]{} or [*Aedes albopictus*]{} by embryonic microinjections, and the injected infection has been stably maintained with complete CI and nearly perfect maternal transmission [@Wolbachia1; @Wolbachia2; @Wolbachia3; @Wolbachia4; @Wolbachia5; @Wolbachia7; @Wolbachia6; @Wolbachia8]. Thus, the bacterium is expected to invade host population easily driving the host population to decline. Successful [*Wolbachia*]{} invasion in [*Aedes aegypti*]{} has been observed by Xi et al. in the laboratory caged population within seven generations [@Wolbachia9].
By releasing [*Aedes albopictus*]{} mosquitoes infected with [*Wolbachia*]{} bacteria into the wild, it is expected that over a long time period, the wild [*Aedes aegypti*]{} mosquito population would decline drastically and hopefully be completely replaced by infected mosquitoes so that the mosquito-borne infectious diseases such as Zika, Dengue fever and Chikungunya would be eradicated. To qualitatively examine if [*Wolbachia*]{} can effectively invade the wild uninfected mosquito population, Zheng, Tang and Yu [@BOZHENG] considered the following model: $$\label{eq zhengbotang}
\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle{\frac{{\rm d} u}{d t}}= u[b_{1}-\delta_{1}(u+v)]&\hbox{for }~t>0,\vspace{7 pt} \\
\displaystyle{\frac{{\rm d} v}{d t}}=v\left[\displaystyle{\frac{b_{2}v}{u+v}}-\delta_{2}(u+v)\right]&\hbox{for }~t>0,
\end{array}\right.$$ where $u$ denotes the number of reproductive infected insects and $v$ denotes uninfected ones, $b_{1}$ and $b_{2}$ denote half of the constant birth rates for the infected and uninfected insects respectively. The parameter $\delta_{1}$ (resp. $\delta_{2}$) denotes the density-dependent death rate for the infected (resp. uninfected) population. The birth rate of uninfected mosquitoes is diminished by the factor $\frac{v}{u+v}$ due to the sterility caused by cytoplasmic incompatibility (CI) for mating between infected males and uninfected females.
Let us now recall the origin of system with some details. Let $r_{f}$ and $r_{m}$ denote the number of released female mosquitoes and the number of released males respectively and suppose they were infected with [*Wolbachia*]{}. Also, assume that $r_{f}$ and $r_{m}$ satisfy $$\label{eqintroduce1}
\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle{\frac{{\rm d} r_{f}}{d t}= -\delta_{1}r_{f} T(t)},&t>0,\vspace{7 pt} \\
\displaystyle{\frac{{\rm d} r_{m}}{d t}= -\delta_{1}r_{m} T(t)},&t>0,
\end{array}\right.$$ where $$T(t)=r_{f}+r_{m}+I_{f}+I_{m}+U_{f}+U_{m}$$ denotes the total population size, with $U_{f},$ $U_{m}$, $I_{f}$ and $I_{m}$ standing for the numbers of uninfected reproductive females, uninfected reproductive males, and infected reproductive females and males other than those from releasing, respectively. Let $b_{I}$ (resp. $b_{U}$) be the natural birth rate of the infected (resp. uninfected) mosquitos and $0\leq\delta\leq 1$ be the proportion of mosquitos born female. Then the proportion of mosquitos born male is $1-\delta$. With complete CI (see Table \[liuhua\]) and perfect maternal transmission, we have
$$\label{eqintroduce2}
\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle{\frac{{\rm d} I_{f}}{d t}= \delta b_{I}[I_{f}+r_{f}]-\delta_{1}I_{f} T(t),}&t>0,\vspace{7 pt} \\
\displaystyle{\frac{{\rm d}I_{m}}{d t}= (1-\delta)b_{I}[I_{f}+r_{m}]-\delta_{1}I_{m} T(t),}&t>0,\vspace{7 pt}\\
\displaystyle{\frac{{\rm d} U_{f}}{d t}= \delta b_{U}\left[U_{f}\,\frac{U_{m}}{r_{m}+I_{m}+U_{m}}\right]-\delta_{2}U_{f} T(t),}&t>0, \vspace{7 pt}\\
\displaystyle{\frac{{\rm d} U_{m}}{d t}= (1-\delta)b_{U}\left[U_{f}\frac{U_{m}}{r_{m}+I_{m}+U_{m}}\right]-\delta_{2}U_{m} T(t),}&t>0.
\end{array}\right.$$
\[liuhua\]
mate $U_{m}$ $I_{m}$
--------- ------------------------- -------------------------
$U_{f}$ $U_{f}~\hbox{or}~U_{m}$ $\times$
$I_{f}$ $I_{f}~\hbox{or}~I_{m}$ $I_{f}~\hbox{or}~I_{m}$
: Strong CI, $\times$ means “no offspring”
One can easily verify that both $r_{f}$ and $r_{m}$ approach $0$ as $t\rightarrow+\infty$. We denote by $$\label{eqintroduce3}
u(t)=I_{f}+I_{m} ~\hbox{ and }~v(t)=U_{f}+U_{m}.$$ Assuming equal determination case, which means that $\delta={1}/{2}$, $I_{f}=I_{m}$ and $U_{f}=U_{m},$ then system can be obtained by setting $b_{1}={ b_{I}}/{2}$ and $b_{2}={ b_{U}}/{2}$. In order to obtain the spatiotemporal dynamics of , Huang et al. [@huangmugen1; @huangmugen2] studied the following reaction-diffusion system: $$\label{Eq_Huang}
\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle{\frac{\partial u}{\partial t}= d_{1}\Delta u+u(b_{1}-\delta_{1}(u+v)),}&t>0,~~ x\in \Omega, \vspace{7 pt}\\
\displaystyle{\frac{\partial v}{\partial t}=d_{2}\Delta v+v\left(\frac{b_{2}v}{u+v}-\delta_{2}(u+v)\right),}&t>0, ~~ x\in \Omega,\vspace{7 pt}\\
\displaystyle{\frac{\partial u}{\partial\nu}=\frac{\partial v}{\partial\nu}=0,} &t>0,~~ x\in\partial\Omega,\vspace{7 pt}\\
u(0,x)=u_{0}(x), ~~ v(0,x)=v_{0}(x), &x\in \Omega.
\end{array}\right.$$ In , $d_{1}$ and $d_{2}$ are the diffusion rates, $\Delta$ denotes the Laplace operator in the spatial variable $x$, and $\nu$ denotes the unit outward normal vector to the boundary of $\Omega$. We mention that is obtained from a delay differential equation model in [@BOZHENG] after ignoring the delay factor and incorporating the spatial inhomogeneity. Similarly, there has been several mathematical models formulated to describe the [*Wolbachia*]{} spreading dynamics [@huangmugen2018JTB; @yujianshe2018siam; @yujianshe-zhengbo2019; @BOZHENG-JBD]. These models focused on studying the subtle relation between the threshold releasing level for [*Wolbachia*]{}-infected mosquitoes and several important parameters including the CI intensity and the fecundity cost of [*Wolbachia*]{} infection.
We also note that female Aedes aegypti mosquitoes infected with the [*Wolbachia*]{} bacteria were initially released at a specific site. Hence, the infected female mosquitoes initially occupy only a small region, while the wild uninfected females are distributed over the whole area.
To model the spatial spreading of [*Wolbachia*]{} in the wild mosquito population and explore the possibility that the infection can indeed occupy the whole region, it is natural to consider system under the setting of a free boundary problem.
In this work, we consider the following free boundary problem in one-dimensional space: $$\label{Eq_ourmodel-two}
\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle{\frac{\partial u}{\partial t}= d_{1}u_{xx}+u(b_{1}(x)-\delta_{1}(u+v))},&t>0, ~~ 0<x<h(t), \vspace{7 pt}\\
\displaystyle{\frac{\partial v}{\partial t}=d_{2}v_{xx}+v\left(\frac{b_{2}(x)v}{u+v}-\delta_{2}(u+v)\right),}&t>0,~~ x>0,\vspace{7 pt}
\\
\displaystyle{u_{x}(t,0)=v_{x}(t,0)=0, u(t,h(t))=0,}&t>0,\vspace{7 pt}\\
\displaystyle{h'(t)=-\mu u_{x}(t,h(t)),}&t>0, \vspace{7 pt}\\
h(0)=h_{0},\vspace{7 pt}\\
u(0,x)=u_{0}(x),& x\in[0,h_{0}],\vspace{7 pt}\\
v(0,x)=v_{0}(x),& x\in[0,+\infty).
\end{array}\right.$$ The equation governing the movement of the spreading front $x=h(t)$ is deduced in a manner similar to that in Section 1.3 of [@Du2012]. It is known as the one-phase Stefan condition in the literature. This type of free boundary condition has been widely used in previous works such as [@caolizhao2017; @dingwwduyihong2017; @dingwwpengrui2017; @duyihongshou; @lifangDPP2016; @Lin2007A; @Linandzhu2016; @wuchanghong2016; @ShiguiRuan; @wangmingxinP-P2014; @weilzhoumaolin2016].
We shall consider system with constant birth rates $b_1$ and $b_2$ in Section \[specific model\] and consider space-dependent birth rates $b_1(x)$ and $b_2(x)$ in Section \[Section4\], while the natural death rate is assumed to be spatially independent.
Throughout this paper, we assume that $b_{1}(x)$ and $b_{2}(x)$ satisfy the following conditions, unless otherwise stated: $$\tag{\bf $B_{1}$}\label{B2}
\left\| \begin{array}{l}\exists \,\theta\in(0,1)\text{ such that } b_{i}\in C^{0,\theta}\left([0,+\infty)\right)\cap L^{\infty}\left([0,+\infty)\right), \\ \\
b_{i}\geq0,~i=1,2.\end{array}\right.$$ $C^{0,\theta}\left([0,+\infty)\right)$ is the Hölder space with Hölder exponent $\theta.$ The initial conditions $u_{0}$ and $v_{0}$ are assumed to be bounded and satisfy $$\label{eq initial functions}
\left\{\begin{array}{l}
u_{0}\in C^{2}([0,h_{0}]),\vspace{7 pt}\\
u'_{0}(0)=u_{0}(h_{0})=0,\vspace{7 pt}\\
u_{0}(x)>0 \text{ for all }x\in (0,h_{0}),\vspace{7 pt}\\
v_{0}\in C^{2}[0,\infty) \cap {L}^{\infty}[0,\infty)~\text{ and }~v_{0}>0.
\end{array}\right.$$
For the free boundary problem -, the main question we are concerned about is whether the infected population can eventually occupy the whole space or not.
If the infected population eventually occupies the whole space, i.e. $$\displaystyle{\lim_{t\to\infty}h(t)=+\infty},$$ we say [*spreading*]{} occurs; otherwise, we say [*vanishing*]{} occurs.
The main goal of this work is to derive conditions under which the spreading occurs. If spreading occurs, then the whole mosquito population will become infected with [*Wolbachia*]{} bacteria and this leads to the [*extinction*]{} of the mosquito population and eventually the eradication of mosquito-borne diseases.
#### Organization of the paper. {#organization-of-the-paper. .unnumbered}
The paper is organized as follows. We first establish the global existence and uniqueness of solutions to the free boundary problem in Section \[existence\]. In Section \[specific model\], we present a detailed analysis of a specific case of model . In Section \[Section4\], we study the population dynamics of infected mosquitoes in a heterogeneous environment with a free boundary condition. In order to better understand the effects of dispersal and spatial variations on the outcome of the competition, we study system over a bounded domain with Neumann boundary conditions. We summarize our results in the last section.
Global existence of smooth solutions {#existence}
====================================
Using arguments that are similar to those in [@dusupandinf], we can establish the following result concerning the existence and uniqueness of solutions to system -.
\[Thm\_existence\] Consider system with initial conditions . Assume that $b_1$ and $b_2$ satisfy . Then, there exists $T>0$ such that admits a unique solution $(u, v, h(t))$ satisfying
(i) $(u,v,h) \in C^{\frac{(1+\theta)}{2},1+\theta}(Q)\times C^{\frac{(1+\theta)}{2},1+\theta}(Q^\infty)\times C^{1+\frac{\theta}{2}}([0,T])$,\
(ii) $\|u\|_{C^{\frac{(1+\theta)}{2},1+\theta}(Q)}+\| v\|_{C^{\frac{(1+\theta)}{2},1+\theta}(Q^\infty)}+\|h\|_{C^{1+\frac{\theta}{2}}([0,T])}\leq K$,
where $0<\theta<1$ is the Hölder exponent in , $$\begin{array}{c}
Q=\{(t,x)\in \mathbb{R}^{2},\text{ such that }t\in[0,T] \text{ and }x\in[0,h(t)]\},\\
Q^\infty=\{(t,x)\in \mathbb{R}^{2}, \text{ such that } t\in[0,T] \text{ and }x\in[0,+\infty)\},\end{array}$$ $K$ and $T$ are constants that depend only on $h_{0}$, $\theta$, $\| u_{0}\|_{C^{2}([0,h_{0}])}$ and $\|v_{0}\|_{C^{2}([0,+\infty))}$.
The next result provides some bounds on the solutions to system with initial conditions .
\[le2.2\] Let $(u,v,h)$ be a solution of for $t\in [0,T]$ for some $T>0$. Then,
(i) $0<u(t,x)\leq M_{1}$ for all $t\in (0,T]$ and $x\in [0,h(t))$, where $$M_1:=\max\left\{\frac{\|b_{1}\|_{L^{\infty}([0,\infty))}}{\delta_{1}}, \|u_{0}\|_{L^{\infty}([0,h_{0}])}\right\}.$$
(ii) $0<v(t,x)\leq M_{2}$ for all $t\in (0,T]$ and $x\in [0, +\infty)$, where $$M_2:=\max\left\{\frac{\|b_{2}\|_{L^{\infty}([0,\infty))}}{\delta_{2}}, \|v_{0}\|_{L^{\infty}([0,+\infty))}\right\}.$$
(iii) $0< h'(t)\leq \Lambda$ for all $t\in (0,T]$, where $\Lambda> 0$ depends on $\mu$, $d_{1}$, $\|u_{0}\|_{L^{\infty}([0,h_{0}])}$ and $\|u_0'\|_{C[0,h_{0}]}$.
The strong maximum principle yields that $u(t,x)>0$ for all $t\in (0,T]$ and $x\in [0,h(t))$, and $v(t,x)>0$ for all $t\in (0,T]$ and $x\in [0,+\infty)$. Note that $u(t,h(t))=0$ yields that $$u_{x}(t,h(t))<0\text{ for all }t\in(0,T].$$ Thus, $h'(t)>0$ for $t\in (0,T]$. Next, we consider the initial value problem $$\label{le2.204}
\left\{\begin{array}{l}
u'(t)=u(t)(\|b_{1}\|_{L^\infty([0,\infty))}-\delta_{1}u(t)),\mbox{ for } t>0,\vspace{7 pt}\\
u(0)=\|u_{0}\|_{L^{\infty}([0,h_{0}])} .
\end{array}\right.$$ From the comparison principle, we know that $$u(t,x)\leq \max\left\{\frac{\|b_{1}\|_{L^{\infty}([0,\infty))}}{\delta_{1}}, \|u_{0}\|_{L^{\infty}([0,h_{0}])}\right\}.$$ Similarly, we can show that $$v(t,x)\leq \max\left\{\frac{\|b_{2}\|_{L^{\infty}([0,\infty))}}{\delta_{2}}, \|v_{0}\|_{L^{\infty}([0,+\infty))}\right\}.$$ To prove (iii), we first consider the auxiliary function $$\label{le2.205}
\omega_{1}(t,x):=M_{1}\left[2M(h(t)-x)-M^{2}(h(t)-x)^{2}\right]$$ for $t\in[0,T]$ and $x\in[h(t)-M^{-1}, h(t)]$, where $$\displaystyle{M = \max\left\{\frac{1}{h_{0}},\sqrt{\frac{\|b_{1}\|_{L^{\infty}([0,\infty))}}{2 d_{1}}},\frac{\|u_0'\|_{C[0,h_{0}]}}{M_{1}} \right\}}.$$ We have $$\label{le2.206}
\left\{\begin{array}{rl}
\omega_{1t}-d_{1}\omega_{1xx}&\geq 2d_{1}M_{1}M^{2}\geq b_{1} M_{1}\vspace{7 pt}\\
&\geq u[b_{1}-\delta_{1}(u+v)]=u_{t}-d_{1}u_{xx},\vspace{7 pt}\\
\omega_{1}(t,h(t))&=0=u(t,h(t)),\vspace{7 pt}\\
\omega_{1}(t,h(t)-M^{-1})&=M_{1}\geq u(t,h(t)-M^{-1}).
\end{array}\right.$$ We also note that $$u_{0}(x)=-\int^{h_{0}}_{x}u_0'(s)ds\leq (h_{0}-x)\|u_0'\|_{C[0,h_{0}]}$$ and $$\omega_{1}(0,x)=M_{1}M(h_{0}-x)[2-M(h_{0}-x)]\geq M_{1}M(h_{0}-x),
\text{ for }x\in [h_{0}-M^{-1},h_{0}].$$ Thus, $\omega_{1}(0,x)\geq u(0,x)$. Applying the comparison principle, we get $$\omega_{1}(t,x)\geq u(t,x),\text{ for }~t\in [0,T]~\text{ and }~x\in [h(t)-M^{-1}, h(t)].$$ Since $\omega_{1}(t,h(t))=0=u(t,h(t))$, we then have $$u_{x}(t,h(t))\geq \omega_{1x}(t,h(t))=-2MM_{1}.$$ Consequently, $h'(t)=-\mu u_{x}(t,h(t))\leq \Lambda $ with $\Lambda:=2\mu MM_{1}$.
Bearing the above result in mind, we can show that the local solution obtained in Theorem \[Thm\_existence\] can indeed be extended to all $t > 0$.
\[Thm\_uniqueness\] System - admits a unique solution for $t\in [0, \infty)$.
Let $[0, T_{max})$ be the maximal time interval in which the unique solution exists. We will show that $T_{max}=\infty$. Suppose to the contrary that $T_{max}<\infty$. In view of Lemma \[le2.2\], there exists positive constants $M_{1}$, $M_{2}$ and $\Lambda$, independent of $T_{max}$, such that for $t\in [0,T_{max}]$, $$0<u(t,x)\leq M_{1},~0< v(t,x)\leq M_{2}~\text{ and }~0< h'(t)\leq \Lambda.$$ Fix $\delta \in (0,T_{max})$ and $K>T_{max}.$ Using the standard $L^{p}$ estimates together with the Sobolev embedding theorem and the Hölder estimates for parabolic equations (see Lunardi [@Lunardi] for eg.), we can find $M_{3}$ depending only on $\delta$, $K$, $M_{1}$ and $M_{2}$ such that $$\|u(t,\cdot)\|_{C^{1+\theta}[0, h(t))}\leq M_{3}\text{ and } \|v(t,\cdot)\|_{C^{1+\theta}[0,+\infty)}\leq M_{3} ~\text{ for all }~t\in [\delta, T_{max}),$$ where we used the convention that $u(t,x)=0$ for $x\geq h(t)$. By virtue of the proof of Theorem 2.1 in [@dusupandinf], there exists a $\tau>0$ depending only on $M_{1}$, $M_{2}$ and $M_{3}$ such that the solution of with the initial time $T_{max}-\frac{\tau}{2}$ can be extended uniquely to the time $T_{max}+\frac{\tau}{2}$, which contradicts the definition of $T_{max}.$ Thus, $T_{max}=+\infty$ and the proof is complete.
The special case of constant birth rates {#specific model}
========================================
System was investigated in [@huangmugen1; @huangmugen2] for two disjoint cases. Namely, the fitness benefit case and the fitness cost case. Define $\kappa_1$ and $\kappa_2$ as $\kappa_{1}=b_{1}/\delta_{1}$ and $ \kappa_{2}=b_{2}/\delta_{2}$. [*Wolbachia*]{} is said to have the fitness benefit if $\kappa_1>\kappa_2$, which means that the local area is more (or at least equally) favourable for infected mosquitoes. The fitness cost case is represented by $\kappa_1<\kappa_2$, see [@BOZHENG].
In this section, we assume that $b_{i}(x)=b_{i} $ for $i=1,2$, where $b_{i}$ are positive constants. In other words, we have the constant-coefficient free boundary problem given by$$\label{Eq_ourmodel}
\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle{\frac{\partial u}{\partial t}= d_{1}u_{xx}+u(b_{1}-\delta_{1}(u+v)),}&t>0, ~~0<x<h(t), \vspace{7 pt}\\
\displaystyle{\frac{\partial v}{\partial t}=d_{2}v_{xx}+v\left(\frac{b_{2}v}{u+v}-\delta_{2}(u+v)\right),}&t>0,~~ x>0,\vspace{7 pt}
\\
u_{x}(t,0)=v_{x}(t,0)=0, u(t,h(t))=0,&t>0,\vspace{7 pt}\\
h'(t)=-\mu u_{x}(t,h(t)),&t>0,\vspace{7 pt}\\ h(0)=h_{0},\vspace{7 pt}\\
u(0,x)=u_{0}(x), ~~ x\in[0,h_{0}], & \vspace{7 pt}\\v(0,x)=v_{0}(x), ~~ x\in[0,+\infty).
\end{array}\right.$$ System is essentially a competition model. For the fitness benefit case, $\kappa_1>\kappa_2$, $u$ is the so-called superior competitor and $v$ the inferior competitor (see [@dusupandinf]). For the fitness cost case, $\kappa_1<\kappa_2$, represents a strong competition [@xriben1995]. Throughout this section, we always assume $u$ is a superior competitor. That is, the [*Wolbachia*]{} infection has a fitness benefit. The strong competition case is usually more complicated to be studied mathematically. To the best of our knowledge, results for competition models with a free boundary are very limited in strong competition case. Further details can be seen in [@Zhou1; @Zhou2].
We organize this section as follows. In subsection \[Preliminary\] we present some preliminary results, which play a role in proving our main results. Subsection \[the\_vanishing\] is devoted to the vanishing case. The invasion dynamics is studied in detail in Subsection \[the fitness benefit\]. A rough estimation of asymptotic spreading speed of [*Wolbachia*]{} invasion is given in Subsection \[the speed\].
Preliminary results {#Preliminary}
-------------------
Consider the system $$\label{eqjingchangyong}
\left\{\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle{\frac{\partial u}{\partial t}=d_{1} u_{xx}(t,x)+u(t,x)(b_{1}-\delta_{1}u(t,x))},~~ t>0,~0<x<L,\vspace{7 pt}\\
\displaystyle{u_{x}(t,0)=u(t,L)=0},\qquad t\in (0, \infty).
\end{array}\right.$$ The following result holds.
\[le3.1\] Let $L^{*}=\displaystyle{\frac{\pi}{2}\sqrt{\frac{d_{1}}{b_{1}}}}$ and $\displaystyle{d_{*}=\frac{4b_{1}L^{2}}{\pi^{2}}}$. Then,
(i) if $L\leq L^{*}$, all positive solutions of tend to zero in $C([0, L])$ as $t \rightarrow +\infty.$
(ii) If $L> L^{*}$, there exists a unique positive stationary solution $\phi$ of such that all positive solutions of approach $\phi$ in $C([0, L])$ as $t \rightarrow +\infty$.
\(i) and (ii) follow from Propositions 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 of [@GUOLAOSHI].
We recall the following comparison principle.
\[le3.2\] Assume that $0\leq T_{0}<T<+\infty$ and $\bar{h},\underline{h}\in C^{1}([T_{0},T])$. Denote by $$G_{T}=\{(t,x)\in \mathbb{R}^{2}:t\in (T_{0},T],~~ x\in(0,\underline{h})\}$$ $$G^1_{T}=\{(t,x)\in \mathbb{R}^{2}:t\in (T_{0},T]~\text{ and }~ x\in(0,\overline{h})\}.$$ Let $$\underline{u}\in C(\overline{G_{T}})\cap C^{1,2}(G_{T}),\quad \bar{u} \in C(\overline{G^1_{T}})\cap C^{1,2}(G^1_{T})$$ and $$\bar{v},\underline{v} \in L^{\infty}\cap C([T_{0},T]\times[0,+\infty))\cap C^{1,2}((T_{0},T]\times[0,+\infty)).$$ Suppose that
\[eqbjdl\] $$\left\{\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle{\frac{\partial \bar{u}}{\partial t}-d_{1} \bar{u}_{xx}\geq\delta_{1} \bar{u}(\kappa_{1}-\bar{u}- \underline{v}),}\qquad T_{0}<t\leq T ,~ 0<x<\bar{h}(t),\vspace{7 pt}\\
\displaystyle{\frac{\partial \underline{u}}{\partial t}-d_{1} \frac{\partial^{2}\underline{u}}{\partial x^{2}}\leq\delta_{1} \underline{u}(\kappa_{1}-\underline{u}-\bar{v}), }\qquad T_{0}<t\leq T , ~0<x<\underline{h}(t),\vspace{7 pt}\\
\displaystyle{\frac{\partial \bar{v}}{\partial t}-d_{2}\bar{v}_{xx}\geq\delta_{2}\bar{v}\left(\frac{\kappa_{2}\bar{v}}{\underline{u}+\bar{v}}-\bar{v}- \underline{u}\right),}\qquad T_{0}<t\leq T ,~ x>0,\vspace{7 pt}\\
\displaystyle{\frac{\partial \underline{v}}{\partial t}-d_{2}\frac{\partial^{2}\underline{v}}{\partial x^{2}}\leq \delta_{2}\underline{v}\left(\frac{\kappa_{2}\underline{v}}{\bar{u}+\underline{v}}-\underline{v}- \bar{u}\right),}\qquad T_{0}<t\leq T ,~x>0,
\end{array}\right.$$ $$\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\underline{h}'(t)\leq -\mu \underline{u}_{x}(t,\underline{h}(t)),&T_{0}<t\leq T ,\vspace{7 pt}\\
\bar{h}'(t)\geq -\mu \bar{u}_{x}(t,\bar{h}(t)) , &T_{0}<t\leq T ,
\end{array}\right.$$\
and\
$$\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\bar{u}_{x}(t,0)\leq0,~~ \bar{u}(t,\bar{h}(t))=0, &T_{0}<t\leq T, \vspace{7 pt}\\
\partial_{x}\underline{u}(t,0)\geq 0, ~~ \underline{u}(t,\underline{h}(t))=0,&T_{0}<t\leq T,\vspace{7 pt} \\
\bar{v}_{x}(t,0)\leq0,~~ \underline{v}_{x}(t,0)\geq 0,&T_{0}<t\leq T, \vspace{7 pt}\\
\underline{h}(T_{0})\leq h(T_{0})\leq \bar{h}(T_{0}), \vspace{7 pt}\\
\underline{u}(T_{0},x) \leq u(T_{0},x)\leq \bar{u}(T_{0},x), &0\leq x\leq h(T_{0}),\vspace{7 pt}\\
\underline{v}(T_{0},x) \leq v(T_{0},x)\leq \bar{v}(T_{0},x),&x\geq 0.
\end{array}\right.$$
\
Let $(u, v, h)$ be the unique solution of . Then,\
(i) $h(t)\leq \bar{h}(t),$ $u(t,x)\leq \bar{u}(t,x)$ and $v(t,x)\geq \underline{v}(t,x)$ for all $(t,x)$ in $(T_{0},T]\times [0,+\infty).$\
(ii) $ h(t)\geq \underline{h}(t),$ $u(t,x)\geq \underline{u}(t,x)$ and $ v(t,x)\leq \bar{v}(t,x)$ for all $(t,x)$ in $(T_{0},T]\times [0,+\infty).$
The following follows from Lemmas A.2 and A.3 in [@xinwx1].
\[lexin3.4\]
(a) Let $a$, $b$ and $q$ be fixed positive constants. For any given $\varepsilon>0$ and $L>0$, there exists $$\displaystyle{l>\max\left\{L,\frac{\pi}{2}\sqrt{\frac{d}{a}}\right\}}$$ such that, if the continuous and non-negative function $U(t,x)$ satisfies $$\label{xin2.3}
\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
U_{t}-dU_{xx}\geq U(a-bU), &t>0,~~ 0<x<l,\vspace{7 pt}\\
U_{x}(t,0)=0,U(t,l)\geq q,& t>0,~~ (q\geq0),
\end{array}\right.$$ with $U(0,x)>0$ for all $x\in [0,l)$, then $$\liminf_{t\rightarrow+\infty}U(t,x)>\frac{a}{b}-
\varepsilon~\text{uniformly~on}~
[0,L].$$
(b) Let $a$, $b$ and $q$ be fixed positive constants. For any given $\varepsilon>0$ and $L>0$, there exists $\displaystyle{l> \max\left\{L,\frac{\pi}{2}\sqrt{\frac{d}{a}}\right\}}$ such that $$\limsup_{t\rightarrow+\infty}V(t,x)<\frac{a}{b}+\varepsilon
~\text{uniformly~on}~[0,L],$$ where $V(t,x)$ is a continuous and non-negative function satisfying $$\label{xin2.4}
\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
V_{t}-dV_{xx}\leq V(a-bV), &t>0, 0<x<l,\vspace{7 pt}\\
V_{x}(t,0)=0,V(t,l)\leq q, &t>0,\;\; (q\geq0),
\end{array}\right.$$ and $V(0,x)>0$ for all $x\in[0,l)$.
We are now in the position to present part of our main results.
The vanishing case {#the_vanishing}
------------------
We consider the vanishing case in this subsection.
\[th4.2\] Let $(u,v,h)$ be the solution of system with initial data . If $h_{\infty}<+\infty$, then $$\lim_{t\rightarrow +\infty} \|u(t,\cdot)\|_{C[0, h(t)]}=0~\text{ and }~\lim_{t\rightarrow +\infty}v(t,x)=\kappa_{2}$$ uniformly in any bounded subset of $[0,+\infty)$.
Theorem \[Thm\_existence\] yields that for $\theta \in (0,1)$, there is a constant $\hat{C}$ depending on $\theta$, $(u_{0}, v_{0})$, $h_{0}$ and $h_{\infty}$ such that $$\label{eqth4.2yong}
\|u\|_{C^{(1+\theta)/2,1+\theta}(G)}+\|v\|_{C^{(1+\theta)/2,1+\theta}(G)}
+\|h(t)\|_{C^{1+\theta/2}([0,\infty))}\leq \hat{C},$$ where $$G:=\{(t,x)\in[0,\infty)\times[0, h(t)]\}.$$ Suppose that $$\displaystyle{\limsup_{t \rightarrow +\infty}\|u(t, \cdot)\|_{C([0, h(t)])}}= \varepsilon >0.$$ Then, there exists a sequence $(t_{k}, x_{k})$ in $(0, \infty)\times [0, h(t)]$, where $t_{k} \rightarrow \infty$ as $k \rightarrow \infty$, such that $$u(t_{k}, x_{k})\geq \frac{\varepsilon}{2}\text{ for all }k \in \mathbb{N}.$$ Note that $0\leq x_{k}<h(t_{k})< h_{\infty} < \infty.$ By passing to a subsequence if necessary, it follows that $x_{k} \rightarrow x_{0} \in (0, h_{\infty})$ as $k \rightarrow \infty$. Define $$u_{k}(t, x):=u (t+t_{k},x)~\text{ and }~v_{k}(t, x)=v (t+t_{k},x)$$ for $t \in (-t_{k}, \infty)$ and $x \in [0, h(t+t_{k})]$. It follows from and standard parabolic regularity that $\{(u_{k},v_{k}) \}$ has a subsequence $\{(u_{k_{i}},v_{k_{i}}) \}$ satisfying $(u_{k_{i}},v_{k_{i}}) \rightarrow (\tilde{u}, \tilde{v})$ as $k_{i} \rightarrow \infty$, where $(\tilde{u}, \tilde{v})$ is the solution to the following system $$\label{eqth4.2y1}
\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle{\frac{\partial \tilde{u}}{\partial t}= d_{1}\tilde{u}_{xx}+\tilde{u}\left[b_{1}-\delta_{1}(\tilde{u}+\tilde{v})\right],}&(t,x)\in (-\infty, +\infty)\times(0, h_{\infty}),\vspace{7 pt}\\
\displaystyle{\frac{\partial\tilde{v}}{\partial t}=d_{2}\tilde{v}_{xx}+\tilde{v}\left[\frac{b_{2}\tilde{v}}{\tilde{u}+\tilde{v}}-\delta_{2}(\tilde{u}+\tilde{v})\right],}&(t,x)\in (-\infty, +\infty)\times(0, h_{\infty}),
\end{array}\right.$$ with $\tilde{u}(t,h_{\infty})=0$ for all $t\in\mathbb{R}$. Since $$\tilde{u}(0,x_{0})=\lim_{k_{i} \rightarrow \infty} u_{k_{i}}(0,x_{k_{i}})=\lim_{k_{i} \rightarrow \infty}u(t_{k_{i}},x_{t_{k_{i}}})\geq \frac{\varepsilon}{2},$$ the maximum principle implies that $\tilde{u} > 0$ in $(-\infty, +\infty)\times(0, h_{\infty})$. Hence, we can apply Hopf Lemma at the point $(0, h_{\infty})$ to obtain $\tilde{u}_{x}(0, h_{\infty})< 0.$ Therefore, we have $u_{x}(t_{k_{i}}, h(t_{k_{i}}))= \partial_{x} u_{k_{i}}(0, h(t_{k_{i}}))< 0$ for large $i$. This, together with the Stefan condition, implies that $h'(t_{k_{i}})>0$ .
On the other hand, $h_{\infty}< +\infty$ implies $h^{'}(t)\rightarrow 0$ as $t\rightarrow\infty$ (see Lemma 3.3 in [@twotaiwanren]). This is a contradiction. Thus, $$\lim_{t\rightarrow +\infty} \|u(t,\cdot)\|_{C[0, h(t)]}=0.$$
Next, we prove that $\displaystyle{\lim_{t \rightarrow +\infty} v (t,x)= \kappa_{2}}$. Having $\displaystyle{\lim_{t\rightarrow +\infty} \|u(t,\cdot)\|_{C[0, h(t)]}=0}$ implies that, for any $\varepsilon \in (0,1)$, there exists $T>0$ such that $0 \leq u(t,x) \leq \varepsilon $ for all $t > T$ and $x\in (0 + \infty)$. Thus, $$\label{eqth4.2y2}
\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle{\frac{\partial v}{\partial t}\geq d_{2}v_{xx}+v\left[\frac{b_{2}v}{\varepsilon+v}-\delta_{2}(\varepsilon+v)\right],}&t>T, ~~x>0,\vspace{7 pt}\\
v_{x}(t,0)=0, ~~ v(t,+\infty)\geq 0,&t>T, \vspace{7 pt}\\ v(T,x)>0.
\end{array}\right.$$ By Lemma \[lexin3.4\] and the arbitrariness of $\varepsilon$, we have $\displaystyle{\liminf_{t \rightarrow +\infty}v(t,x)\geq b_2/\delta_2=\kappa_{2}}$ uniformly in any bounded subset of $[0, +\infty)$. This, together with the fact $\displaystyle{\limsup_{t \rightarrow +\infty}v(t,x)\leq \kappa_{2}},$ shows that $\displaystyle{\lim_{t \rightarrow +\infty}v(t,x)=\kappa_{2}}$.
The invasion dynamics {#the fitness benefit}
---------------------
\[th4.1\] Suppose $(u,v,h)$ is the solution of system under conditions . If $h_{\infty}=+\infty$, then $\displaystyle{\lim_{t\rightarrow +\infty}u(t,x)=\kappa_{1}}$ and $\displaystyle{\lim_{t\rightarrow +\infty}v(t,x)=0}$ uniformly in any compact subset of $[0,+\infty)$.
Consider the system $$\label{eq ode1}
\left\{\begin{array}{l}
\tilde{u}^{'}(t)=\delta_{1}\tilde{u}(\kappa_{1}-\tilde{u}),t>0,\vspace{7 pt}\\
\tilde{u}(0)=\|u_{0}\|_{L^{\infty}([0,h_{0}])}.
\end{array}\right.$$ Then, $\displaystyle{\lim_{t\rightarrow+\infty}\tilde{u}(t)=\kappa_{1}}$ and $u(t,x)\leq \tilde{u}(t)$. Consequently, we have $$\limsup_{t\rightarrow+\infty}u(t,x)\leq\kappa_{1}\text{ uniformly for $x\in [0,+\infty)$.}$$ In a similar manner, we can obtain that $$\displaystyle{\limsup_{t\rightarrow+\infty} v(t,x) \leq \kappa_{2}}\text{ uniformly for $x \in [0,+\infty)$.}$$ Since $\kappa_{1}>\kappa_{2}$ then, for $\displaystyle{\delta=\frac{\kappa_{1}-\kappa_{2}}{2}}$, there exists $T_{1}>0$ such that $v(t,x)\leq \kappa_{2}+\delta$ for all $t>T_{1}$ and $ x\geq 0$. If $h_{\infty}=+\infty$, then for any given $L$, there exists $\displaystyle{l>\left \{L,\frac{\pi}{2}\sqrt{\frac{d_{1}}{\delta_{1}\delta}}\right\}}$ such that $u$ satisfies $$\label{eq u1}
\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle{\frac{\partial u}{\partial t}\geq d_{1}u_{xx}+\delta_{1} u(\delta- u)},&t>T_{1}, 0<x<l, \vspace{7 pt}\\
u_{x}(t,0)= 0, u(t,l)\geq 0,&t>T_{1},\vspace{7 pt}\\
u(T_{1},x)>0, &0<x<l.
\end{array}\right.$$ By Lemma \[lexin3.4\], we know that for sufficiently small $\varepsilon>0,$ $\displaystyle{\liminf_{t\rightarrow+\infty}u(t,x)>\delta-\varepsilon}$ uniformly in any compact subset of $[0,L]$. Since $h_{\infty}=+\infty$, there exists $T_{2}>T_{1}$ such that $h(T_{2})>L$ and $u(t,x)\geq {\delta}/{2} $ for all $t>T_{2}$ and $0\leq x<L$. Then, $(u, v)$ satisfies $$\label{eq vu1}
\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle{\frac{\partial u}{\partial t}= d_{1}u_{xx}+u[b_{1}-\delta_{1}(u+v)],}&t>T_{2},~~ 0<x<L, \vspace{7 pt}\\
\displaystyle{\frac{\partial v}{\partial t}=d_{2}v_{xx}+v\left[\frac{b_{2}v}{u+v}-\delta_{2}(u+v)\right],}&t>T_{2},~~ 0<x<L,\vspace{7 pt}\\
u_{x}(t,0)=v_{x}(t,0)=0,&t>T_{2},\vspace{7 pt}\\
\displaystyle{u(T_{2},x)\geq \frac{\delta}{2},} ~~ v(T_{2},x)\leq \kappa_{2}+\delta,&0<x<L.
\end{array}\right.$$ Let $(\underline{u},\bar{v})$ be the solution to the following problem: $$\label{eq vu2}
\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle{\frac{\partial\underline{u} }{\partial t}= d_{1}\underline{u}_{xx}+\underline{u}[b_{1}-\delta_{1}(\underline{u}+\bar{v})],}&t>T_{2}, ~~ 0<x<L, \vspace{7 pt}\\
\displaystyle{\frac{\partial\bar{v}}{\partial t}=d_{2}\bar{v}_{xx}+\bar{v}\left[\frac{b_{2}\bar{v}}{\underline{u}+\bar{v}}-\delta_{2}(\underline{u}+\bar{v})\right],}&t>T_{2},~~ 0<x<L,\vspace{7 pt}\\
\partial_{x}\underline{u}(t,0)=\bar{v}_{x}(t,0)=0,&t>T_{2},\vspace{7 pt}\\
\displaystyle{\underline{u}(t,L)= \frac{\delta}{2}}, ~~ \bar{v}(t,L)= \kappa_{2}+\delta,&t>T_{2},\vspace{7 pt}\\
\displaystyle{\underline{u}(T_{2},x)= \frac{\delta}{2},}~~ \bar{v}(T_{2},x)= \kappa_{2}+\delta,&0\leq x\leq L.
\end{array}\right.$$
It follows from the comparison principle that $$u(t,x)\geq \underline{u}(t,x)\text{ and }v(t,x)\leq \bar{v}(t,x)\text{ for }t>T_{2}\text{ and }0\leq x \leq L.$$ By Corollary 3.6 of [@H.SMITH1995], we have $$\displaystyle{\lim_{t\rightarrow+\infty}\underline{u}(t,x)=\underline{u}_{L}(x)}\text{ and }\displaystyle{\lim_{t\rightarrow+\infty}\bar{v}(t,x)=\bar{v}_{L}(x)} \text{ uniformly in }[0,L].$$ Here, $(\underline{u}_{L},\bar{v}_{L})$ satisfies $$\label{eq new-add-a1}
\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
d_{1}\partial_{xx}\underline{u}_{L}+\underline{u}_{L}[b_{1}-\delta_{1}(\underline{u}_{L}+\bar{v}_{L})]=0,& 0<x<L,\vspace{7 pt} \\
\displaystyle{d_{2}\partial_{xx}\bar{v}_{L}+\bar{v}_{L}\left[\frac{b_{2}\bar{v}_{L}}{\underline{u}_{L}+\bar{v}_{L}}-\delta_{2}(\underline{u}_{L}+\bar{v}_{L})\right]=0,}& 0<x<L,\vspace{7 pt}\\
\partial_{x}\underline{u}_{L}(0)=\partial_{x}\bar{v}_{L}(0)=0,\vspace{7 pt} \\
\displaystyle{\underline{u}_{L}(L)= \frac{\delta}{2}}, ~~ \bar{v}_{L}(L)= \kappa_{2}+\delta.
\end{array}\right.$$ Letting $L\rightarrow+\infty$, it follows from standard elliptic regularity and a diagonal procedure that $(\underline{u}_{L}(x),\bar{v}_{L}(x))$ converges to $(\underline{u}_{\infty}(x),\bar{v}_{\infty}(x))$ uniformly on any compact subset of $[0,+\infty)$, where $(\underline{u}_{\infty},\bar{v}_{\infty})$ satisfies $$\label{eq new-add-a2}
\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
d_{1}\partial_{xx}\underline{u}_{\infty}+\underline{u}_{\infty}[b_{1}-\delta_{1}(\underline{u}_{\infty}+\bar{v}_{\infty})]=0,& x>0\vspace{7 pt} \\
\displaystyle{d_{2}\partial_{xx}\bar{v}_{\infty}+\bar{v}_{\infty}\left[\frac{b_{2}\bar{v}_{\infty}}{\underline{u}_{\infty}+\bar{v}_{\infty}}-\delta_{2}(\underline{u}_{\infty}+\bar{v}_{\infty})\right]=0,}& x>0\vspace{7 pt}\\
\partial_{x}\underline{u}_{\infty}(0)=\partial_{x}\bar{v}_{\infty }(0)=0, \vspace{7 pt}\\
\displaystyle{\underline{u}_{\infty}(x)\geq\frac{\delta}{2}}, ~~ \bar{v}_{\infty}(x)\leq \kappa_{2}+\delta,&0<x<+\infty.
\end{array}\right.$$ We consider now the following system: $$\label{eq zhbode}
\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle{\frac{d u_{1}}{d t}= u_{1}(b_{1}-\delta_{1}(u_{1}+v_{1})),}&t>0,\vspace{7 pt} \\
\displaystyle{\frac{dv_{1}}{dt}=v_{1}\left(\frac{b_{2}v_{1}}{u_{1}+v_{1}}-\delta_{2}(u_{1}+v_{1})\right),}&t>0,\vspace{7 pt}\\
\displaystyle{u_{1}(0)=\frac{\delta}{2}}, ~~ v_{1}(0)=\kappa_{2}+\delta.
\end{array}\right.$$ Since $\kappa_{1}>\kappa_{2},$ then $(u_{1},v_{1})\rightarrow (\kappa_{1},0)$ as $t\rightarrow +\infty$ (see Lemma 2.2 of [@BOZHENG], for e.g.). Then, the solution $(U,V)$ of the problem $$\label{eq new-add-a3}
\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle{\frac{\partial U}{\partial t}=d_{1}U_{xx}+ U(b_{1}-\delta_{1}(U+V)),}&t>0, ~~ x\geq0,\vspace{7 pt}\\
\displaystyle{\frac{\partial V}{\partial t}= d_{2}V_{xx} +V\left(\frac{b_{2}V}{U+V}-\delta_{2}(U+V)\right),}&t>0,~~ x\geq0,\vspace{7 pt}\\
U_{x}(t,0)=V_{x}(t,0)=0,&t>0,\vspace{7 pt}\\
\displaystyle{U(0,x)=\frac{ \delta}{2}}, ~~ V(0,x)= \kappa_{2}+\delta,&x\geq0.
\end{array}\right.$$ satisfies $( U(t,x),V(t,x))\rightarrow (\kappa_{1},0),$ as $t\rightarrow+\infty,$ uniformly in $x\in[0,+\infty)$. By the comparison principle, we have $\underline{u}_{\infty}\geq U$ and $\bar{v}_{\infty}\leq V$ for $t\geq 0$, which immediately yields that $$\lim_{t\rightarrow +\infty}u(t,x)=\kappa_{1}\mbox{ and }\lim_{t\rightarrow +\infty}v(t,x)= 0.$$
The criteria for spreading and vanishing are given in the following theorem.
\[th4.3\] If $\displaystyle{h_{0}\geq\frac{\pi}{2}\sqrt{\frac{d_{1}}{\delta_{1}(\kappa_{1}-\kappa_{2})}}:=h_0^*}$, then $h_{\infty}=+\infty$.
Note that $h(t)$ is nondecreasing. We only need to show that $h_{\infty}<+\infty$ implies $h_{\infty}\leq h_0^*$. It follows from Theorem \[th4.2\] that $h_{\infty}<+\infty$ implies $$\displaystyle{\lim_{t\rightarrow +\infty} \|u(t,\cdot)\|_{C[0, h(t)]}=0}\text{ and }\displaystyle{\lim_{t\rightarrow +\infty}v(t,x)=\kappa_{2}}$$ uniformly in any bounded subset of $[0,+\infty)$. Assume that $h_{\infty}>h_0^*$. Then for sufficiently small $\varepsilon>0$, there exists $T>0$ such that $$\displaystyle{h(t)>\frac{\pi}{2}\sqrt{\frac{d_{1}}{\delta_{1}(\kappa_{1}-\kappa_{2})-\varepsilon}}}~\text{ and }~\displaystyle{v(t,x)\leq\kappa_{2}+\frac{\varepsilon}{\delta_{1}}}\text{ for }t\geq T\text{ and }x\in [0,+\infty).$$ Let $\underline{u}$ be the solution of the following problem $$\label{eqth4.3y1}
\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle{\frac{\partial \underline{u}}{\partial t}- d_{1}\underline{u}_{xx}=\delta_{1}\underline{u}
\left(\kappa_{1}-\kappa_{2}-\frac{\varepsilon}{\delta_{1}}-\underline{u}\right),}& t>T,~~ 0<x<h(T),\vspace{7 pt}\\
\displaystyle{\underline{u}_{x}(t,0)=0=\underline{u}(t,h(T)), }&t>T,\vspace{7 pt}\\
\underline{u}(T,x)=u(T,x),&0<x<h(T).
\end{array}\right.$$ By the comparison principle, we have $\underline{u}(t,x)\leq u(t,x)$ for all $t\geq T$ and $x\in [0,h(T)]$. Since $h(t)>\frac{\pi}{2}\sqrt{\frac{d_{1}}{\delta_{1}(\kappa_{1}-\kappa_{2})-\varepsilon}}$ for $t>T$ then, by Lemma \[le3.1\], we know that $\displaystyle{\lim_{t\rightarrow+\infty}\underline{u}= \underline{U}>0}$ uniformly in any compact subset of $(0,h(T))$, where $\underline{U}$ is the unique positive solution of $$\label{eqth4.3y2}
\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle{-d_{1}\underline{U}_{xx}=\delta_{1}\underline{U}\left[\kappa_{1}-\kappa_{2}-\frac{\varepsilon}{\delta_{1}}-\underline{U}\right], }& 0<x<h(T),\vspace{7 pt}\\
\underline{U}_{x}(t,0)=0=\underline{U}(t,h(T)).
\end{array}\right.$$ Thus, $$\displaystyle{\liminf_{t\rightarrow+\infty}u(t,x)\geq\lim_{t\rightarrow+\infty}\underline{u}(t,x)=\underline{U}(x)>0},$$ which is a contradiction. Therefore, $h_{\infty}\leq h_0^*$ and this completes the proof.
\[th4.4\] If $h_{0}<h_0^*$, then there exists $\bar{\mu}>0$ such that $h_{\infty}=+\infty$ as $\mu\geq\bar{\mu}$.
Since $\displaystyle{\limsup_{t\rightarrow+\infty}v(t,x)\leq \kappa_{2}+\varepsilon}$ uniformly for $x\in[0,+\infty)$, then there exists $T_{1}>0$ such that $v(t,x)\leq \kappa_{2}$ when $t>T_{1}$. So, $(u,h)$ satisfies $$\label{eq new-add-sharp-criteria1}
\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle{\frac{\partial u}{\partial t}\geq d_{1}u_{xx}+\delta_{1}u[\kappa_{1}-\kappa_{2}-u],}& t>T_{1},~~ 0<x<h(t),\vspace{7 pt}\\
h'(t)=-\mu u_{x}(t,h(t)),&t>T_{1},\vspace{7 pt}\\
u_{x}(t,0)= 0, u(t,h(t))= 0,&t>T_{1},\vspace{7 pt}\\
u(T_{1},x)>0, &0<x<h(T_{1}).
\end{array}\right.$$ Note that, $u(T_{1},x)$ depends on $\mu$. So, we consider the following problem.
$$\label{eq new-add-sharp-criteria2}
\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle{\frac{\partial \widetilde{u}(t,x)}{\partial t}= d_{1}\widetilde{u}_{xx}+\widetilde{u}(b_{1}-\delta_{1}(\widetilde{u}+\widetilde{v})),}&t>0, ~~ 0<x<h_{0}, \vspace{7 pt}
\\
\displaystyle{\frac{\partial \widetilde{v}(t,x)}{\partial t}=d_{2}\widetilde{v}_{xx}+\widetilde{v}\left(\frac{b_{2}\widetilde{v}}{\widetilde{u}+\widetilde{v}}-\delta_{2}(\widetilde{u}+\widetilde{v})\right),}&t>0, ~~ 0<x<h_{0},\vspace{7 pt}\\
\widetilde{u}_{x}(t,0)=\widetilde{v}_{x}(t,0)=0,&t>0,\vspace{7 pt}\\
\widetilde{u}(t,h_{0})=0,&t>0,\vspace{7 pt}\\
\widetilde{u}(0,x)=u_{0}(x),&0<x<h_{0},\vspace{7 pt}\\
\widetilde{v}(0,x)=\max\left\{\kappa_{2},\|v_{0}\|_{L^{\infty}([0,+\infty))}\right\},&0<x<h_{0},\vspace{7 pt} \\
\widetilde{v}_{x}(t,h_{0})=\max\left\{\kappa_{2},\|v_{0}\|_{L^{\infty}([0,+\infty))}\right\},& t>0.
\end{array}\right.$$
It follows from the comparison principle that $$u(T_{1},x)\geq\widetilde{u}(T_{1},x)~\text{ for all }~(t,x)\in[0,+\infty)\times[0,h_{0}].$$ Clearly, $\widetilde{u}(T_{1},x)$ is independent of $\mu$. Now, we consider the following system. $$\label{eqth4.4y1}
\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle{\frac{\partial \underline{u}}{\partial t}- d_{1}\underline{u}_{xx}=\delta_{1}\underline{u}[\kappa_{1}-\kappa_{2}-\underline{u}]},& t>T_{1},~~ 0<x<\underline{h}(t),\vspace{7 pt}\\
\underline{u}_{x}(t,0)=0=\underline{u}(t,\underline{h}(t)), &t>T_{1},\vspace{7 pt}\\
\underline{h}^{'}(t)=-\mu\underline{u}_{x}(t,\underline{h}(t)), &t>T_{1},\vspace{7 pt}\\
\underline{u}(T_{1},x)=\widetilde{u}(T_{1},x),& x\in [0,h_{0}],\vspace{7 pt}\\
\underline{h}(T_{1})=h_{0}.
\end{array}\right.$$ By Lemma \[le3.2\], we know that $\underline{h}(t)\leq h(t)$ for $t>T_{1}$. It follows from [@duyihongshou Lemma 3.7] that $\underline{h}_{\infty}=+\infty$ if $\mu\geq\bar{\mu},$ where $$\displaystyle{\bar{\mu}:=\max \left(1,\frac{\|\widetilde{u}(T_{1},x)\|_{\infty}}{\kappa_{1}-\kappa_{2}} \right)\frac{d_{1}(h_0^*-h_{0})}{\displaystyle{\int^{h_{0}}_{0}\widetilde{u}(T_{1},x)dx}}}.$$ This implies that $h_{\infty}=+\infty$.
By Theorems \[th4.3\] and \[th4.4\], we can also derive spreading criteria in terms of the diffusion coefficient $d_1$, for any fixed $h_0$.
\[th4.6\] Let $\displaystyle{d^*_{1}=\frac{4\delta_{1}(\kappa_{1}-\kappa_{2})h^{2}_{0}}{\pi^{2}}}$, where $h_{0}$ is any prefixed positive constant. Then, spreading occurs provided that either
1. $0< d_{1}\leq d^*_{1}$
2. [or]{}
3. $d_{1}> d^*_{1}$ and $\mu\geq\bar{\mu}$.
Our next result is a criterion on “vanishing".
\[th4.5\] Assume that $$\displaystyle{h_{0}<\frac{\pi}{2}\sqrt{\frac{d_{1}}{b_{1}}}=\frac{\pi}{2}\sqrt{\frac{d_1}{\delta_1\kappa_1}}<h_0^*}.$$ Then, there exists $\underline{\mu}>0$ such that $h_{\infty}<+\infty,$ whenever $\mu\leq\underline{\mu}$.
Consider the following problem $$\label{eqth4.5y2}
\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\bar{u}_{t}-d_{1}\bar{u}_{xx}=\bar{u}(b_{1}-\delta_{1}\bar{u}),&t>0,~~ 0<x<\bar{h}(t),\vspace{7 pt}\\
\bar{u}_{x}(t,0)=0,\bar{u}(t,\bar{h}(t))=0,&t>0,\vspace{7 pt}\\
\bar{h}'(t)=-\mu u_{x}(t,\bar{h}(t)),&t>0,\vspace{7 pt}\\
u(0,x)=u_{0}(x),~~ \bar{h}(0)=h_{0},&x\in[0,h_{0}].
\end{array}\right.$$ Lemma \[le3.2\] applies and yields that $$h(t)\leq \bar{h}(t)~ \text{ and }~u(t,x)\leq \bar{u}(t,x)~\text{ for }~t>0 \text{ and }0\leq x\leq h(t).$$ Furthermore, by Lemma 3.8 of [@duyihongshou], there exists $\underline{\mu}>0$ such that $\bar{h}_{\infty}<+\infty$ in the case $\mu \leq \underline{\mu}$, where $$\underline{\mu}=\frac{\tilde{\delta}\tilde{\gamma} h^{2}_{0}}{4\tilde{M}},~~\tilde{\gamma}=\frac{1}{2}\left[(\frac{\pi}{2})^{2}\frac{d_{1}}{h^{2}_{0}}-b_{1}\right],$$ and $\tilde{\delta}$, $\tilde{M}$ are such that $$\left(\frac{\pi}{2}\right)^{2}\frac{d_{1}}{(1+\tilde{\delta})^{2}h^{2}_{0}}-b_{1}=\tilde{\gamma}$$ and $$u_{0}(x)\leq \tilde{M}\cos\left(\frac{\pi}{2}\frac{x}{h_{0}(1+\tilde{\delta}/2)}\right), \text{ for }x\in [0,h_{0}].$$ Therefore, $h_{\infty}< +\infty$.
The spreading speed {#the speed}
-------------------
If spreading occurs, it is important to estimate the spreading speed of $h(t)$. Following an idea in [@twotaiwanren], one can obtain a rough estimate of the spreading speed as stated in the following theorem.
\[th6.1\] Suppose that $\kappa_1>\kappa_2$ and let $(u,v,h)$ be the solution of . If $h_{\infty}=+\infty$, $u_{0}(x)\leq \kappa_{1}$ in $[0,h_{0})$, $~v_{0}(x)>0$ in $[0,+\infty)$ and $~\displaystyle{\liminf_{x\rightarrow+\infty}v_{0}(x)\geq\kappa_{2}}$, then $$\limsup_{t\rightarrow+\infty}\frac{h(t)}{t}\leq s_{*},$$ where $s_{*}$ is the minimal speed of the traveling waves to the problem related with in the entire space. This estimation of the spreading speed is independent of $\mu$.
However, in the fitness benefit case, we can derive an estimate better than the one in Theorem \[the speed\]. We first recall Proposition 5.1 of [@dusupandinf].
\[pr4.1\] For any given constants $d_{1}>0$, $b_{1}>0$, $\delta_{1}>0$ and $\beta\in [0,2\sqrt{b_{1}d_{1}})$, the problem $$\label{speed1}\begin{array}{l}
-d_{1}U^{''}+\beta U^{'}=b_{1} U-\delta_{1} U^{2}~ \text{ for }~x\in (0,\infty),\vspace{7 pt}\\
U(0)=0,
\end{array}$$ admits a unique positive solution $U=U_{\beta}$, which depends on $d_{1},b_{1},\delta_{1},\beta$, and satisfies $U_{\beta}(x)\rightarrow \kappa_{1}$ as $x\rightarrow +\infty$. Moreover, $U^{'}(x)>0$ for $x\geq0,$ and for each $\mu>0$, there exists a unique $\beta_{0}=\beta_{0}(\mu,d_{1},b_{1},\delta_{1})\in(0,2\sqrt{b_{1}d_{1}})$ such that $\mu U^{'}_{\beta_{0}}(0)=\beta_{0}$.
Our result reads:
\[thspeed4\] Assume $\kappa_1>\kappa_2$. If $h_{\infty}=+\infty$, then $$\beta_{0}(\mu,\kappa_{1}-\kappa_{2},d_{1})\leq \liminf_{t\rightarrow+\infty}\frac{h(t)}{t}\leq\limsup_{t\rightarrow+\infty}\frac{h(t)}{t}\leq\beta_{0}(\mu,b_{1}, \delta_{1},d_{1}),$$ where $\beta_0$ is determined by Proposition \[pr4.1\].
Note that $$\label{eqspeed4.6111}
\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle{\frac{\partial u}{\partial t}- d_{1}u_{xx}=u[b_{1}-\delta_{1}(u+v)]\leq u(b_{1}-\delta_{1}u),}&t>0, ~~ 0<x<h(t), \vspace{7 pt}\\
u_{x}(t,0)=0,u(t,h(t))=0,&t>0,\vspace{7 pt}\\
h'(t)=-\mu u_{x}(t,h(t)),&t>0,\vspace{7 pt}\\
u(0,x)=u_{0}(x),&x\in[0,h_{0}].
\end{array}\right.$$ Thus, the pair $(u, h)$ is a subsolution to the problem $$\label{eqspeed4.6222}
\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle{\frac{\partial \bar{u}}{\partial t}- d_{1}\bar{u}_{xx}= \bar{u}(b_{1}-\delta_{1}\bar{u}),}&t>0, ~~ 0<x<\bar{h}(t), \vspace{7 pt}\\
\bar{u}_{x}(t,0)=0,\bar{u}(t,\bar{h}(t))=0,&t>0,\vspace{7 pt}\\
\bar{h}'(t)=-\mu \bar{u}_{x}(t,\bar{h}(t)),&t>0,\vspace{7 pt}\\
\bar{u}(0,x)=u_{0}(x),\bar{h}(0)=h_{0},&x\in[0,h_{0}].
\end{array}\right.$$ By the comparison principle, $h(t)\leq \bar{h}(t)$ for $t>0$. Theorem 4.2 of [@duyihongshou] yields that $$\displaystyle{\lim_{t\rightarrow+\infty}\frac{\bar{h}(t)}{t}=\beta_{0}(\mu,b_{1}, \delta_{1},d_{1})}.$$ Hence $$\limsup_{t\rightarrow+\infty}\frac{h(t)}{t}\leq\beta_{0}(\mu,b_{1}, \delta_{1},d_{1}).$$
Note that $\displaystyle{\limsup_{t\rightarrow+\infty}v(t,x)\leq \kappa_{2}}$ uniformly for $x\in [0,+\infty)$ and $h_{\infty}=+\infty.$ Then, there exists $T_{\varepsilon}>0$ such that $v(t,x)\leq\kappa_{2}+\varepsilon$ and $$\displaystyle{h(T_{\varepsilon})>\frac{\pi}{2}\sqrt{\frac{d_{1}}{\kappa_{1}-\kappa_{2}-\varepsilon}}}~ \text{ when $t>T_{\varepsilon}$.}$$ Next, we consider the following problem $$\label{eqspeed4.6333}
\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle{\frac{\partial \underline{u}}{\partial t}-d_{1}\frac{\partial^{2}\underline{u}}{\partial x^{2}}= \underline{u}(\kappa_{1}-\kappa_{2}-\varepsilon-\underline{u}),}&t>T_{\varepsilon},~~ 0<x<\underline{h}(t),\vspace{7 pt} \\
\underline{u}_{x}(t,0)=0,\underline{u}(t,\underline{h}(t))=0,&t>T_{\varepsilon},\vspace{7 pt}\\
\underline{h}'(t)=-\mu \underline{u}_{x}(t,\underline{h}(t)),&t>T_{\varepsilon},\vspace{7 pt}\\
\underline{u}(T_{\varepsilon},x)=u(T_{\varepsilon},x),&x\in[0,h(T_{\varepsilon})].
\end{array}\right.$$ By the comparison principle, we obtain $h(t)\geq\underline{h}(t)$ for $t>T_{\varepsilon}$. From Theorem \[th4.3\], we know that $\underline{h}(\infty)=+\infty$. Using a similar argument as above, we have $\displaystyle{\lim_{t\rightarrow+\infty}\frac{\underline{h}(t)}{t}=\beta_{0}(\mu,\kappa_{1}-\kappa_{2},d_{1})}$. Therefore, $$\liminf_{t\rightarrow+\infty}\frac{h(t)}{t}\geq\beta_{0}(\mu,\kappa_{1}-\kappa_{2},d_{1}).$$
The free boundary problem with a heterogeneous birth rate {#Section4}
=========================================================
In this section, we consider the free boundary problem - with the heterogeneous birth rates $b_1(x)$ and $b_2(x)$.
Some useful lemmas
------------------
In this subsection, we first study a related eigenvalue problem:
$$\label{Eq_2-the main principal eigenvalue}
\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
d\phi_{xx}+b(x)\phi+\lambda\phi=0,&x\in(0,h_{0}),\vspace{7 pt}\\
\phi_{x}(0)=\phi(h_{0})=0.
\end{array}\right.$$
Problem admits a positive principal eigenvalue $\lambda_{1}$ determined by $$\label{by-variational-method}
\lambda_{1}=\inf_{\phi\in W^{1,2}((0,h_{0}))}\left\{\int^{h_{0}}_{0}[d\phi^{2}_{x}-b(x)\phi^{2}]dx,~\phi_{x}(0)=\phi(h_{0})=0,\int^{h_{0}}_{0}\phi^{2}dx=1\right\}.$$ We state two hypotheses that we refer to when needed. We use a generic symbol $B(x)$ in the statement of the hypotheses. The function $B(x)$ will be replaced accordingly (by $b,$ $b_1$ or $b_2$) in the rest of this Section. $$\tag{\bf $B_{2}$}\label{B3} B(x)\in C^{1}\left([0,+\infty)\right)\cap L^{\infty}\left([0,+\infty)\right) \text{ and }B(x)\text{ is positive somewhere in}~(0,h_{0}).$$ $$\tag{\bf $B_{3}$}\label{B4}
\left\| \begin{array}{l}
B(x)\in C^{1}\left([0,+\infty)\right)\text{ and } \underline{b}<B(x)<\bar{b} \text{ for all } x\in[0,+\infty), \\
\text{where } \underline{b} \text{ and }\bar{b} \text{ are two positive constants.}
\end{array}\right.$$
In order to compare the principal eigenvalues $\lambda_{1}$ associated with different parameters, we denote the principal eigenvalue $\lambda_{1}$ by $\lambda_{1}(d,h_{0})$. When we fix $h_{0}$ and study the property of $\lambda_{1}$ as $d$ varies, we write $\lambda_{1}=\lambda_{1}(d)$. Similarly, we write $\lambda_{1}=\lambda_{1}(h_{0})$ when $d$ is fixed while $h_{0}$ varies.
We gather the following known results about the dependance of $\lambda_1$ on $d$ and $h$.
\[the case about d\] Suppose that $b(x)$ satisfies , where $B(x)$ is replaced by $b(x)$. Then, $\lambda_{1}=\lambda_{1}(d)$ has the following properties:
1. $\lambda_{1}(d)$ is increasing with respect to $d$.\
2. $\lambda_{1}(d)\rightarrow+\infty$ as $d\rightarrow+\infty$ and $\lambda_{1}(d)\rightarrow -\displaystyle{\max_{x\in[0,l]}b(x)<0}$ as $d\rightarrow 0$.\
3. For any fixed $h_{0}>0$, there exists $d=d^{*}>0$ such that\
- $\lambda_{1}(d)<0$ for $0<d<d^{*}$,\
- $\lambda_{1}(d)>0$ for $d>d^{*}$, and\
- $\lambda_{1}(d)=0$ for $d=d^{*}$.
\[the case about l\] Assume that holds, where $B(x)$ is replaced by $b(x)$. Then, $\lambda_{1}=\lambda_{1}(h_{0})$ has the following properties:
1. $\lambda_{1}(h_{0})$ is monotone decreasing with respect to $h_{0}$.\
2. $\lambda_{1}(h_{0})\rightarrow+\infty$ as $h_{0}\rightarrow0$ and $\displaystyle{\lim_{h_{0}\rightarrow+\infty}\lambda_{1}(h_{0})<0}$.\
3. For any fixed $d>0$, there exists $h_{0}=h^{*}_{0}>0$ such that\
- $\lambda_{1}(h_{0})>0$ for $0<h_{0}<h^{*}_{0}$,\
- $\lambda_{1}(h_{0})<0$ for $h_{0}>h^{*}_{0},$\
- $\lambda_{1}(h_{0})=0$ for $h_{0}=h^{*}_{0}$.
For the reader’s convenience, we also recall some facts related to the following problem $$\label{Eq_ourmodelstationary1}
\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle{\frac{\partial v}{\partial t}=d_{2}v_{xx}+v\left(b_{2}(x)-\delta_{2}v\right),}&t>0, ~~ x>0,\vspace{7 pt}\\
v_{x}(t,0)=0, &t>0,\vspace{7 pt}
\\
v(0,x)=v_{0}(x), &x\in[0,+\infty).
\end{array}\right.$$ The proof of the next lemma follows from Lemma 5.2 and Lemma 6.2 of [@zhouxiaowenzi].
\[the long time behavior\] Assume that $b_{2}(x)$ satisfies , where $B(x)$ is replaced by $b_2(x)$. Let $v(t,x)$ be the unique solution of (\[Eq\_ourmodelstationary1\]) with an initial condition $$v_{0}\in C^{2}[0,\infty) \cap {L}^{\infty}[0,\infty)\text{ and }v_{0}>0.$$ Then, $$\lim_{t\rightarrow+\infty}v(t,\cdot)=\phi_{v*}\text{ uniformly in any compact subset of } [0,\infty),$$ where $\phi_{v*}$ is the unique positive solution of the following elliptic problem $$\label{Eq_ourmodelstationary2}
\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
d_{2}v_{xx}+v\left(b_{2}(x)-\delta_{2}v)\right)=0,&x>0,\vspace{7 pt}\\
v_{x}(0)=0.
\end{array}\right.$$
Sharp criteria for spreading and vanishing {#inhom_criteria}
------------------------------------------
Let us first consider the vanishing case.
\[similarly with th4.2\] Let $(u,v,h)$ be the solution of system subject to initial conditions . If $h_{\infty}<+\infty$ and $b_{2}$ satisfies , where we replace $B(x)$ by $b_2(x)$, then $$\lim_{t\rightarrow +\infty} \|u(t,\cdot)\|_{C[0, h(t)]}=0~\text{ and }~\lim_{t\rightarrow +\infty}v(t,x)=\phi_{v*}$$ uniformly in any bounded subset of $[0,+\infty)$.
The proof is similar to that of Theorem \[th4.2\], above.
In order to obtain sharp criteria for spreading, we require stronger conditions on $b_{1}(x)$ and $\delta_{1}$. Namely, we assume that $$\label{assume}
b_{1}(x)-\delta_{1}\phi_{v*}\text{ is positive somewhere in }[0,h_{0}].$$ Our assumption is not excessive in the sense that, when $b_{i}$ and $\delta_{i}~(i=1,2)$ are constant, we have $\phi_{v*}=\frac{b_{2}}{\delta_{2}}$. Consequently, $b_{1}-\delta_{1}\phi_{v*}$ is a positive constant over the interval $[0,+\infty)$.
\[the general case spreading\] Assume that $b_{1}(x)-\delta_{1}\phi_{v*}(x)$ satisfies and $b_{2}(x)$ satisfies (where $B$ is replaced accordingly). If $0<d_{1}<d_{1}^{*}$, then spreading occurs.
First, we consider the following equation: $$\left\{\begin{array}{ll}\label{aaa}
\displaystyle{\frac{\partial \overline{v}}{\partial t}(t,x)=d_{2}\overline{v}_{xx}+\overline{v}(b_{2}(x)-\delta_{2}\overline{v}),}&t>0, ~~ x>0,\vspace{7 pt}\\
\overline{v}_{x}(t,0)=0,&t>0,\vspace{7 pt}\\
\overline{v}(0,x)=v_{0}(x).
\end{array}\right.$$ Since $b_{2}(x)$ satisfies the hypotheses of Lemma \[the long time behavior\], all solutions of (\[aaa\]) with non-trivial non-negative initial values converge to $\phi_{v*}$ as $t\rightarrow \infty$.
It follows, from the comparison principle, that $v\leq\overline{v}$ for all $t>0$ and $x>0$. Since $\displaystyle{\lim_{t\rightarrow+\infty} \overline{v}(t,x)= \phi_{v*}}$ uniformly in any compact subset of $[0,\infty),$ then, for any $\varepsilon>0$, there exists $T>0$ such that $ v(t,x)\leq \phi_{v*}+\varepsilon,$ for $t\geq T$.
Consider the following eigenvalue problem: $$\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
d_{1}\varphi_{xx}+\varphi(b_{1}(x)-\delta_{1}(\phi_{v*}+\varepsilon))+\lambda\varphi=0,~x\in(0,h_{0}),\vspace{7 pt}\\
\varphi_{x}(0)=\varphi(h_{0})=0.
\end{array}\right.$$ It is well known that the principal eigenvalue $\lambda_{1}$ can be characterized by $$\lambda_{1}=\inf_{\varphi\in H^{1}(0,h_{0})}\left\{\int^{h_{0}}_{0}d_{1}\varphi^{2}_{x}-(b_{1}(x)-\delta_{1}(\phi_{v*}+\varepsilon))\varphi^{2},\int^{h_{0}}_{0}\varphi^{2}=1\right\}.$$ Using (iii) of Lemma \[the case about d\], for any fixed $h_{0}$, there exists $d_{1}^{*}$ such that $$\lambda_{1}(d_{1})<0\text{ for all }0<d_{1}<d_{1}^{*}, ~\lambda_{1}(d_{1})=0\text{ for }d_{1}=d_{1}^{*},\text{ and }\lambda_{1}(d_{1})>0 \text{ for }d_{1}>d_{1}^{*}.$$
In this theorem, we have $0<d_{1}<d_{1}^{*}.$ Let us set $\underline{u}=\delta\varphi_{1}(x)$, for $t\geq T$ and $x\in[0,h_{0}]$ (here $\varphi_{1}(x)$ is the corresponding eigenfunction of $\lambda_{1}$). Choose $\delta>0$, small enough, so that $$\delta\varphi_{1}(x)\leq\min\left\{ -\frac{\lambda_{1}}{\delta_{1}}, u(T,x)\right\} \text{ for }x\in[0,h_{0}].$$ A straightforward calculation leads to
$$\left\{\begin{array}{l}\label{bbb}
\displaystyle{\frac{\partial\underline{u}}{\partial t}-d_{1}\underline{u}_{xx}-\underline{u}(b_{1}(x)-\delta_{1}(\phi_{v*}+\varepsilon)-\delta_{1}\underline{u})}\vspace{7 pt}\\
=\delta\varphi_{1}(x)(\lambda_{1}+\delta_{1}\delta\varphi_{1}(x))\leq0~\text{ for }t>T, ~ 0<x<h_{0},\vspace{7 pt}\\
\underline{u}_{x}(t,0)=0,~t>T,\vspace{7 pt}\\
\underline{u}(t,h_{0})=0,~t>T,\vspace{7 pt}\\
\underline{u}(0,x)=\delta\varphi_{1}\leq u(T,x),~0\leq x\leq h_{0}.
\end{array}\right.$$
By the comparison principle, we have $u\geq\underline{u}$, for $t\geq T$ and $x\in[0,h_{0}]$. Thus, $$\liminf_{t\rightarrow\infty}\|u(t,\cdot)\|_{C[0,h_{0}]}\geq\delta\varphi_{1}(0)>0.$$ By Theorem \[similarly with th4.2\], we have $h_{\infty}=+\infty$. Therefore, spreading occurs.
\[the-spreading-about-h\] Suppose that $b_{1}(x)-\delta_{1}\phi_{v*}(x)$ satisfies and $b_{2}(x)$ satisfies the hypotheses of Lemma \[the long time behavior\]. If $h_{0}>h^{*}$, then $h_{\infty}=+\infty$ (i.e. the species $u$ spreads eventually).
Similarly, we consider the following equation $$\left\{\begin{array}{ll}\label{be similarly with aaa}
\displaystyle{\frac{\partial \bar{v}}{\partial t}=d_{2}\bar{v}_{xx}+\bar{v}(b_{2}(x)-\delta_{2}\bar{v}),}&t>0, ~~ x>0,\vspace{7 pt}\\
\bar{v}_{x}(t,0)=0,&t>0,\vspace{7 pt}\\
\bar{v}(0,x)=v_{0}(x).
\end{array}\right.$$ Since $b_{2}(x)$ satisfies the hypotheses of Lemma \[the long time behavior\], all solutions of (\[be similarly with aaa\]) with nontrivial and nonnegative initial conditions converge to $\phi_{v*}$ as $t\rightarrow \infty$.
It follows from the comparison principle that $v\leq\overline{v}$ for $t>0$, $x>0$. Since $\displaystyle{\limsup_{t\rightarrow+\infty} \overline{v}(t,x)= \phi_{v*}}$ uniformly in any compact subset of $[0,\infty)$. So for any $\varepsilon>0$, there exists $T>0$ such that $ v(t,x)\leq \phi_{v*}+\varepsilon$ for $t\geq T$.
Consider the following eigenvalue problem: $$\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
d_{1}\varphi_{xx}+\varphi(b_{1}(x)-\delta_{1}(\phi_{v*}+\varepsilon))+\lambda\varphi=0,~x\in(0,h_{0}),\vspace{7 pt}\\
\varphi_{x}(0)=\varphi(h_{0})=0.
\end{array}\right.$$ The principal eigenvalue $\lambda_{1}$ is characterized by $$\lambda_{1}=\inf_{\varphi\in H^{1}(0,h_{0})}\left\{\int^{h_{0}}_{0}d_{1}\varphi^{2}_{x}-(b_{1}(x)-\delta_{1}(\phi_{v*}+\varepsilon))\varphi^{2},\int^{h_{0}}_{0}\varphi^{2}=1\right\}.$$ Since $b_{1}(x)-\delta_{1}\phi_{v*}$ satisfies the hypotheses of (\[B4\]). Then by Lemma \[the case about l\], for any fixed $d_{1}$, there exists $h^{*}$ such that $\lambda_{1}(h_{0})<0$ for all $h_{0}>h^{*}$, $\lambda_{1}(h_{0})=0$ for $h_{0}=h^{*}$, and $\lambda_{1}(h_{0})>0$ for $h_{0}<h^{*}$.
If $h_{0}>h^{*}$, then we set $\underline{u}=\delta\varphi_{1}(x)$, for $t\geq T$, $x\in[0,h_{0}]$ (here $\varphi_{1}(x)$ is the corresponding eigenfunction of $\lambda_{1}$). Choose $\delta>0$ small enough so that $\delta\varphi_{1}(x)\leq\min\{ -\frac{\lambda_{1}}{\delta_{1}}, u(T,x) \}$ for $x\in[0,h_{0}]$. After a straightforward calculation, we obtain $$\left\{\begin{array}{ll}\label{bbb-about-h}
\displaystyle{\frac{\partial\underline{u}}{\partial t}-d_{1}\frac{\partial^{2} \underline{u}}{\partial x^{2}}-\underline{u}(b_{1}(x)-\delta_{1}(\phi_{v*}+\varepsilon)-\delta_{1}\underline{u})}\vspace{7 pt}\\
=\delta\varphi_{1}(x)(\lambda_{1}+\delta_{1}\delta\varphi_{1}(x))\leq0,&t>T, ~~ 0<x<h_{0},\vspace{7 pt}\\
\partial_{x}\underline{u}(t,0)=0,&t>T,\vspace{7 pt}\\
\underline{u}(t,h_{0})=0,&t>T,\vspace{7 pt}\\
\underline{u}(0,x)=\delta\varphi_{1}\leq u(T,x),&0\leq x\leq h_{0}.
\end{array}\right.$$ By the comparison principle, we have $u\geq\underline{u}$ for $t\geq T$, $x\in[0,h_{0}]$. Hence, $$\liminf_{t\rightarrow\infty}\|u(t,\cdot)\|_{C[0,h_{0}]}\geq\delta\varphi_{1}(0)>0.$$ Similarly, we have $h_{\infty}=+\infty$; hence, spreading occurs.
\[the general case Vanishing\] If $d_{1}>d_{1}^{*}$ and $u_{0}$ is small enough, then “vanishing” occurs.
We consider the following problem as an auxiliary to the first equation of : $$\label{Eq_the auxiliary problem}
\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle{\frac{\partial u}{\partial t}= d_{1}u_{xx}+u(b_{1}(x)-\delta_{1}u)},&t>0, ~~ 0<x<h_{0}, \\
\\
u_{x}(t,0)=u(t,h_{0})=0,&t>0,\\
\\
u(0,x)=u_{0}(x),& x\in[0,h_{0}].
\end{array}\right.$$ Denote the principal eigenvalue $\lambda_{1}$ and the corresponding positive eigenfunction $\phi_{1}$ satisfy $$\label{Eq_the auxiliary principal eigenvalue problem}
\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
d_{1}\phi_{xx}+\phi b_{1}(x)+\lambda\phi=0,& 0<x<h_{0}, \\
\\
\phi_{x}(0)=\phi(h_{0})=0.
\end{array}\right.$$ One can verify that there exists $d_{1}^{*}$ such that $\lambda_{1}>0$, when $d_{1}>d_{1}^{*}$. Furthermore, it follows, from Theorem 4.2 in [@zhouxiaowenzi], that there exists a constant $\mathcal{B}$ such that $\phi'_{1}(x)\leq 2h_{0}\mathcal{B}\phi_{1}(x)$ for all $x\in[0,h_{0}]$. Now, we can use the following auxiliary functions, which were constructed in [@zhouxiaowenzi]. Let $$\overline{h}(t)=h_{0}(1+\alpha-\frac{\alpha}{2}e^{-\alpha t}),~ \text{ for }~ t\geq0 ~\text{ and }$$ $$\overline{u}(t,x)=\beta e^{-\alpha t}\phi_{1}\left(\frac{xh_{0}}{\overline{h}(t)}\right), ~\text{ for } ~t\geq0~\text{ and }~0\leq x\leq \overline{h}(t).$$ The conditions on $\alpha$ and $\beta$ will be determined later. If we let $0<\alpha\leq1$, direct calculations show that $$\begin{aligned}
\left|\frac{h^{2}_{0}}{\bar{h}^{2}(t)}b_{1}(\frac{xh_{0}}{\bar{h}(t)})-b_{1}(x)\right|
&\leq&\frac{h^{2}_{0}}{\bar{h}^{2}(t)}|b_{1}(\frac{xh_{0}}{\bar{h}(t)})-b_{1}(x)|+\left|(\frac{h^{2}_{0}}{\bar{h}^{2}(t)}-1)b_{1}(x)\right|\vspace{7 pt}\\
&\leq&\left|b_{1}(\frac{xh_{0}}{\bar{h}(t)})-b_{1}(x)\right|+\|b_{1}\|_{C([0,2h_{0}])}\left|\frac{h^{2}_{0}}{\bar{h}^{2}(t)}-1\right|\vspace{7 pt}\\
&\leq&2\left[h_{0}\|b_{1}\|_{C^{1}([0,2h_{0}])}+\|b_{1}\|_{C([0,2h_{0}])}\right]\left|\frac{h_{0}}{\overline{h}(t)}-1\right|.\end{aligned}$$ Since $\overline{h}(t)\rightarrow h_{0}$ as $\alpha\rightarrow0$, we can find sufficiently small $\alpha_{1}$, such that $$\left|\frac{h^{2}_{0}}{\bar{h}^{2}(t)}b_{1}(\frac{xh_{0}}{\bar{h}(t)})-b_{1}(x)\right|\leq\frac{\lambda_{1}}{4}~\text{ for }~\alpha\leq\alpha_{1}.$$ Moreover, there exists $\alpha_{2}>0$, small enough, such that $$2h^2_{0}\mathcal{B}\alpha\leq\frac{1}{4}\lambda_{1}~\text{ and }~\frac{1}{(1+\alpha)^{2}}\geq\frac{3}{4}, \text{ for $\alpha\leq\alpha_{2}$.}$$ Let $\alpha=\min\left\{1, \frac{\lambda_{1}}{4},\alpha_{1}, \alpha_{2} \right\}$. Direct calculation leads to $$\begin{aligned}
\overline{u}_{t}-d_{1}\overline{u}_{xx}-b_{1}(x)\overline{u}&=&-\alpha\overline{u}-\beta e^{-\alpha t}\phi'_{1}\left(\frac{xh_{0}}{\overline{h}}\right)\frac{xh_{0}\overline{h}'(t)}{\overline{h}^{2}(t)}\vspace{7 pt}\\
&-&\beta e^{-\alpha t} d_{1}\phi''_{1}\left(\frac{xh_{0}}{\overline{h}(t)}\right)\frac{h^{2}_{0}}{\overline{h}^{2}(t)}-b_{1}(x)\overline{u}\vspace{7 pt}\\
&=& -\alpha\overline{u}-\beta e^{-\alpha t}\phi'_{1}\left(\frac{xh_{0}}{\overline{h}}\right)\frac{xh_{0}\overline{h}'(t)}{\overline{h}^{2}(t)}\vspace{7 pt}\\
&+&\left[ \frac{h^{2}_{0}}{\overline{h}^{2}(t)}b_{1}\left(\frac{xh_{0}}{\overline{h}(t)}\right)-b_{1}(x)\right]\overline{u}+\frac{h^{2}_{0}}{\overline{h}^{2}(t)}\lambda_{1}\overline{u}\vspace{7 pt}\\
&\geq&-\alpha\overline{u}-2h^{2}_{0}\mathcal{B}\alpha^{2}\overline{u}-\frac{\lambda_{1}\overline{u}}{4}+\frac{\lambda_{1}\overline{u}}{(1+\alpha)^{2}}\vspace{7 pt}\\
&\geq&\overline{u}(\frac{-\lambda_{1}}{4}+\frac{-\lambda_{1}}{4}+\frac{-\lambda_{1}}{4}+\frac{3\lambda_{1}}{4})=0.\end{aligned}$$ Furthermore, we choose $\displaystyle{0<\beta\leq-\frac{h_{0}\alpha^{2}}{2\mu\phi'_{1}(h_{0})}}$. Then,
$$\begin{aligned}
-\mu\overline{u}_{x}(t,\overline{h}(t))&=&-\beta\mu e^{-\alpha t}\phi'_{1}(h_{0})\frac{h_{0}}{\overline{h}(t)}\\
&\leq& -\beta\mu e^{-\alpha t}\phi'_{1}(h_{0})\\
&\leq&\frac{h_{0}\alpha^{2}}{2}e^{-\alpha t}=\overline{h}'(t).\end{aligned}$$
In order to apply the comparison principle, we choose $u_{0}$ small enough such that $$u_{0}(x)\leq\beta\phi_{1}\left(\frac{x}{1+\frac{\alpha}{2}}\right),~\text{for}~ x\in[0,h_{0}].$$ Thus, we have $$\label{Eq_the vanishing compare}
\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle{\frac{\partial \overline{u}}{\partial t}- d_{1}\overline{u}_{xx}-\overline{u}(b_{1}(x)-\delta_{1}\overline{u})\geq0,}&t>0, ~~ 0<x<\overline{h}(t),\vspace{7 pt}
\\
\overline{u}_{x}(t,0)=\overline{u}(t,h(t))=0,&t>0,\vspace{7 pt}\\
\overline{h}'(t)\geq-\mu\overline{u}_{x}(t,\overline{h}(t)), &t>0,\vspace{7 pt}\\
\overline{u}(0,x)=\beta\phi_{1}\left(\frac{x}{1+\frac{\alpha}{2}}\right)\geq u_{0}(x), &x\in[0,h_{0}],\vspace{7 pt}\\
\overline{h}(0)=h_{0}(1+\frac{\alpha}{2})>h_{0}.
\end{array}\right.$$ Form the comparison principle, we have $h(t)\leq\overline{h}(t)$ for $t>0$ and $$u(t,x)\leq\overline{u}(x,t)~\text{for~$t>0$ and $x\in[0,h(t)]$}.$$ So, $\displaystyle{h_{\infty}\leq\lim_{t\rightarrow+\infty}\overline{h}(t)=h_{0}(1+\alpha)<+\infty}.$ This implies that vanishing occurs.
Moreover, we can derive vanishing criteria in terms of the coefficient $\mu$ when $d_{1}>d_{1}^{*}$.
\[the general case Vanishing 2\] Suppose that $d_{1}>d_{1}^{*}$. For any given $u_{0}$, there exists $\mu_{*}$ depending on $u_{0}$ and $h_{0}$, such that vanishing occurs whenever $\mu\leq\mu_{*}$.
As in the proof of the Theorem \[the general case Vanishing\], let $\lambda_{1}$ and $\phi_{1}$ satisfy equation . We still define $\overline{u}$, $\overline{h}(t)$ as follows $$\overline{u}(t,x)=\beta_{1} e^{-\alpha t}\phi_{1}\left(\frac{xh_{0}}{\overline{h}(t)}\right), ~\text{ for }~t\geq0,~0\leq x\leq \overline{h}(t).$$ $$\overline{h}(t)=h_{0}(1+\alpha-\frac{\alpha}{2}e^{-\alpha t}),~\text{ for }~t\geq0.$$ Here, we also let $\alpha=\min\left\{1, \frac{1}{4}\lambda_{1},\alpha_{1}, \alpha_{2} \right\}$ and choose $\beta_{1}>0$ large enough such that $$u_{0}(x)\leq\beta_{1}\phi_{1}\left(\frac{x}{1+\frac{\alpha}{2}}\right),~\text{ for }~x\in[0,h_{0}].$$ For this fixed $\beta_{1}$, we choose $$0<\mu\leq-\frac{h_{0}\alpha^{2}}{2\beta_{1}\phi'_{1}(h_{0})}=:\mu_{*}$$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
-\mu\overline{u}_{x}(t,\overline{h}(t))&=&-\beta_{1}\mu e^{-\alpha t}\phi'_{1}(h_{0})\frac{h_{0}}{\overline{h}(t)}\\
&\leq& -\beta_{1}\mu e^{-\alpha t}\phi'_{1}(h_{0})\\
&\leq&\frac{h_{0}\alpha^{2}}{2}e^{-\alpha t}=\overline{h}'(t).\end{aligned}$$ Then, we have $$\label{Eq_the vanishing compare about mu}
\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle{\frac{\partial \overline{u}}{\partial t}- d_{1}\overline{u}_{xx}-\overline{u}(b_{1}(x)-\delta_{1}\overline{u})\geq0,}&t>0, ~~ 0<x<\overline{h}(t),\\
\\
\overline{u}_{x}(t,0)=\overline{u}(t,h(t))=0,&t>0,\\
\\
\overline{h}'(t)\geq-\mu\overline{u}_{x}(t,\overline{h}(t)), &t>0,\\
\\
\overline{u}(0,x)=\beta_{1}\phi_{1}\left(\frac{x}{1+\frac{\alpha}{2}}\right)\geq u_{0}(x), &x\in[0,h_{0}],\\
\\
\overline{h}(0)=h_{0}(1+\frac{\alpha}{2})>h_{0}.
\end{array}\right.$$ Form the comparison principle, we have $h(t)\leq\overline{h}(t)$, for $t>0,$ and $$u(t,x)\leq\overline{u}(x,t),\text{ for }t>0\text{ and }x\in[0,h(t)].$$ Thus, $$\displaystyle{h_{\infty}\leq\lim_{t\rightarrow+\infty}\overline{h}(t)=h_{0}(1+\alpha)<+\infty}.$$ This implies that vanishing occurs.
Next, we will prove the following conclusions.
\[the-vanishing-about-h\] Assume that $b_{1}(x)$ satisfies , where $B(x)$ is replaced by $b_1(x)$. If $h_{\infty}\leq h_{*}$, then the species $u$ vanishes eventually.
Choose $l\in[h_{\infty},h_{*}]$. Consider the following equation: $$\label{Eq_the vanishing compare about-L}
\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle{\frac{\partial \bar{u}}{\partial t}- d_{1}\bar{u}_{xx}+\bar{u}(b_{1}(x)-\delta_{1}\bar{u})=0,}&t>0,~~ 0<x<l,\\
\\
\bar{u}_{x}(t,0)=\bar{u}(t,l)=0,&t>0,\\
\\
\bar{u}(0,x)=u_{0}(x), &x\in[0,h_{0}],\\
\\
\bar{u}(0,x)=0, &x\in[h_{0},l].
\end{array}\right.$$ It follows from the comparison principle that $0\leq u\leq\bar{u}$ for $t>0$ and $x\in(0,l)$. Since $\displaystyle{l\leq\frac{\pi}{2}\sqrt{\frac{d_{1}}{\displaystyle{\max_{x\in[0,+\infty)}b_{1}(x)}}}=:h_{*}}$, Proposition 3.1 of [@GUOLAOSHI] yields that $$\displaystyle{\lim_{t\rightarrow+\infty}\|\bar{u}(t,\cdot)\|_{C[0,l]}=0}.$$ Consequently, $\displaystyle{\lim_{t\rightarrow+\infty}\|u(t,\cdot)\|_{C[0,l]}=0}$.
Under some assumptions, stated below, we can obtain the asymptotic spreading speed from Theorem 3.6 of [@duandguo2011].
\[the-speed-about-b1\] Assume that $b_{1}(x)$ satisfies , where $B(x)$ is replaced by $b_1(x)$. If $h_{\infty}=+\infty$, then $$\limsup_{t\rightarrow+\infty}\frac{h(t)}{t}\leq \beta_{0}(\mu,\max_{x\in[0,+\infty)}b_{1}(x),\delta_{1},d_{1}).$$ Furthermore, if $b_{1}(x)-\delta_{1}\phi_{v*}$ satisfies , then $$\liminf_{t\rightarrow+\infty}\frac{h(t)}{t}\geq \beta_{0}(\mu,\min_{x\in[0,+\infty)}(b_{1}(x)-\delta_{1}\phi_{v*}),\delta_{1},d_{1}).$$
Summary and conclusions
=======================
We studied a reaction-diffusion model with a free boundary in one-dimensional environment. The model is developed to better understand the dynamics of [*Wolbachia*]{} infection under the assumptions supported by recent experiments such as perfect maternal transmission and complete CI.
In the special case of constant birth rates, we only considered the fitness benefit case. For the fitness benefit case, where the environment is more favorable for infected mosquitoes, our results show that the spreading of [*Wolbachia*]{} infection occurs if either the size of the initial habitat of infected population $h_0$ is large enough, say $h_0\geq h_0^*$ (Theorem \[th4.3\]), or the boundary moving coefficient $\mu$ is sufficiently large ($\mu\geq\bar{\mu}$) in case of $h_0<h_0^*$ (Theorem \[th4.4\]). A rough estimate on the spreading speed of $h(t)$ is also provided. Moreover, if $h_0<\frac{\pi}{2}\sqrt{\frac{d_{1}}{b_{1}}}<h_0^*$ and $\mu\leq \underline{\mu}$, then the infection cannot spread and $h_{\infty}<+\infty$.
The case of inhomogeneous (spatially dependent) birth rates is treated in Section \[Section4\]. Detailed criteria for spreading and vanishing are derived in Subsection \[inhom\_criteria\] with the aid of spectral properties of relevant eigenvalue problems.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
Y. Liu and Z. Guo were supported by National Science Foundation of China (No. 11371107, 11771104), Program for Chang Jiang Scholars and Innovative Research Team in University (IRT-16R16). Y. Liu was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant No.11271093 and the Innovation Research for the Postgraduates of Guangzhou University under Grant No.2017GDJC-D05.
M. El Smaily and L. Wang acknowledge partial support received through NSERC-Discovery grants from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC).
[99]{}
G. Bian, Y. Xu, P. Lu, Y. Xie and Z. Xi, The endosymbiotic bacterium wolbachia induces resistance to dengue virus in aedes aegypti, , [**6**]{} (2010): e1000833.
G. Bunting, Y. Du and K. Krakowski, Spreading speed revisited: Analysis of a free boundary model, , [**7**]{} (2012) 583–603.
R. Cantrell and C. Cosner, . , (2003).
J. Cao, W. Li and M. Zhao, A nonlocal diffusion model with free boundaries in spatial heterogeneous environment, , [**449**]{} (2017) 1015–1035.
W. Ding, Y. Du and X. Liang, Spreading in space-time periodic media governed by a monostable equation with free boundaries, Part 1: Continuous initial functions, , [**262**]{} (2017) 4988–5021.
W. Ding, R. Peng and L. Wei, The diffusive logistic model with a free boundary in a heterogeneous time-periodic environment, , [**263**]{} (2017) 2736–2779.
N.C. Dom, A.H Ahmad, R. Ismail, Habitat characterization of Aedes Sp. breeding in Urban Hotspot area, Procedia, 85(2013) 100–109.
Y. Du and Z. Guo, Spreading-vanishing dichotomy in a diffusive logistic model with a free boundary II, , [**250**]{} (2011) 4336–4366.
Y. Du and Z. Lin, Spreading-vanishing dichotomy in the diffusive logistic model with a free boundary, , [**42**]{} (2010) 377–405.
Y. Du and Z. Lin, The diffusive competition model with a free boundary: Invasion of a superior or inferior competitor, , [**19**]{} (2014) 3105–3132.
J. Guo and C. Wu, On a free boundary problem for a two-species weak competition system, , [**24**]{} (2012) 873–895.
A. Hoffmann and M. Turelli, Cytoplasmic incompatibility in insects, , (1997) 42–80.
M. Huang, M. Tang, and J. Yu, Wolbachia infection dynamics by reaction-diffusion equations, , [**58**]{} (2015) 77–96.
M. Huang, J. Yu, L. Hu and B. Zheng, Qualitative analysis for a wolbachia infection model with diffusion, , [**59**]{} (2016) 1249–1266.
M. Huang, J. Luo, L. Hu, B. Zheng, J. Yu, Assessing the efficiency of [*Wolbachia*]{} driven aedes mosquito suppression by delay differential equations, , (2018), 1–11.
I. Iturbe-Ormaetxe, T. Walker and S. LO$'$Neill, Wolbachia and the biological control of mosquito-borne disease, , [**12**]{} (2011) 508–518.
H. Laven, Cytoplasmic inheritance in culex, , [**177**]{} (1956) 141–142.
F. Li, X. Liang and W. Shen, Diffusive KPP equations with free boundaries in time almost periodic environments: II. Spreading speeds and semi-wave solutions, , [**261**]{} (2016) 2403–2445.
Z. Lin, A free boundary problem for a predator-prey model, , [**20**]{} (2007) 1883–1892.
Z. Lin and H. Zhu, Spatial spreading model and dynamics of West Nile virus in birds and mosquitoes with free boundary, , (2017) 1–29.
A. Lunardi, Schauder theorems for linear elliptic and parabolic problems with unbounded coefficients in ${\mathbb{R}}^N$, 128 (1998), no. 2, 171–198.
E. Marris, Bacteria could be key to freeing South Pacific of mosquitoes (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-017-02179-0)
C. McMeniman, R. Lane, B. Cass, A. Fong et al, Stable introduction of a life-shortening wolbachia infection into the mosquito aedes aegypti, , [**323**]{} (2009) 141–144.
H. Monobe and C. Wu, On a free boundary problem for a reaction-diffusion-advection logistic model in heterogeneous environment, , [**261**]{} (2016) 6144–6177.
http://fortune.com/2017/07/14/google-verily-zika-mosquitoes/
H. Ninomiya, Separatrices of competition-diffusion equations. , [**35**]{} (1995) 539–567.
H. Smith, Monotone Dynamical Systems, (1995). L. Song, China Focus: China’s mosquito warriors fight global epidemic, <http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2017-06/29/c_136403687.htm>
C. Tian and S. Ruan, A free boundary problem for aedes aegypti mosquito invasion, , [**46**]{} (2017) 203–217.
J. Wang, The selection for dispersal: a diffusive competition model with a free boundary, , [**66**]{} (2015) 2143–2160.
M. Wang, On some free boundary problems of the prey-predator model, , [**256**]{} (2014) 3365–3394.
L. Wei, G. Zhang and M. Zhou, Long time behavior for solutions of the diffusive logistic equation with advection and free boundary, , [**55**]{} (2016) 1–34.
Z. Xi, J. Dean, C. Khoo and S. Dobson, Generation of a novel wolbachia infection in aedes albopictus (asian tiger mosquito) via embryonic microinjection, , [**35**]{} (2005) 903–910.
Z. Xi and S. Dobson, Characterization of wolbachia transfection efficiency by using microinjection of embryonic cytoplasm and embryo homogenate, , [**71**]{} (2005) 3199–3204.
Z. Xi, C. Khoo and S. Dobson, Wolbachia establishment and invasion in an aedes aegypti laboratory population, , [**310**]{} (2005) 326–328.
Z. Xi, C. Khoo and S. Dobson, Interspecific transfer of wolbachia into the mosquito disease vector aedes albopictus, , [**273**]{} (2006) 1317–1322.
J. Yu, Modeling mosquito population suppression based on delay differential equations, , (2018), 3168–3187.
J. Yu and B. Zheng, Modeling Wolbachia infection in mosquito population via discrete dynamical model, , https://doi.org/10.1080/10236198.2019.1669578, 2019.
Y. Zhang and M. Wang, A free boundary problem of the ratio-dependent prey-predator model, , [**94**]{} (2015) 2147–2167.
B. Zheng, M. Tang and J. Yu, Modeling wolbachia spread in mosquitoes through delay differential equations, , [**74**]{} (2014) 743–770.
B. Zheng and J. Yu, Characterization of Wolbachia enhancing domain in mosquitoes with imperfect maternal transmission, , [**12**]{} (2018) 596–610.
L. Zhou, S. Zhang and Z. Liu, An evolutional free-boundary problem of a reaction-diffusion-advection system, , [**147**]{} (2017) 615–648.
L. Zhou, S. Zhang and Z. Liu, Pattern formations for a strong interacting free boundary problem, , [**148**]{} (2017) 121–142.
P. Zhou and D. Xiao, The diffusive logistic model with a free boundary in heterogeneous environment, , [**256**]{} (2014) 1927–1954.
[^1]: School of Mathematics and Information Sciences, Guangzhou University, Guangzhou, 510006, PR China
[^2]: Z. Guo. Email: [[email protected]]([email protected]). School of Mathematics and Information Sciences, Guangzhou University, Guangzhou, 510006, PR China
[^3]: M. El Smaily. Email: [[email protected]]([email protected]). Department of Mathematics & Statistics, University of Northern British Columbia, Prince George, BC, V2N 4Z9, Canada
[^4]: L. Wang. Email: [[email protected]]([email protected]). Department of Mathematics & Statistics, University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, NB, E3B5A3, Canada.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
In the Standard Model of particle physics, lepton flavour and lepton number are conserved quantities although no fundamental symmetry demands their conservation. I present recent results of searches for lepton flavour and lepton number violating hadron decays measured at the $\PB$ factories and LHCb.
In addition, the LHCb collaboration has recently performed a search for the lepton flavour violating decay $\Ptauon\to\Pmuon\Pmuon\APmuon$. The obtained upper exclusion limit, that has been presented in this talk for the first time, is of the same order of magnitude as those observed at the $\PB$ factories. This is the first search for a lepton flavour violating $\Ptau$ decay at a hadron collider.
author:
- 'P. Seyfert on behalf of the LHCb Collaboration'
title: Searches for Lepton Flavour Violation and Lepton Number Violation in Hadron Decays
---
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Wind energy is becoming a top contributor to the renewable energy mix, which raises potential reliability issues for the grid due to the fluctuating nature of its source. To achieve adequate reserve commitment and to promote market participation, it is necessary to provide models that can capture daily patterns in wind power production. This paper presents a cyclic inhomogeneous Markov process, which is based on a three-dimensional state-space (wind power, speed and direction). Each time-dependent transition probability is expressed as a Bernstein polynomial. The model parameters are estimated by solving a constrained optimization problem: The objective function combines two maximum likelihood estimators, one to ensure that the Markov process long-term behavior reproduces the data accurately and another to capture daily fluctuations. A convex formulation for the overall optimization problem is presented and its applicability demonstrated through the analysis of a case-study. The proposed model is capable of reproducing the diurnal patterns of a three-year dataset collected from a wind turbine located in a mountainous region in Portugal. In addition, it is shown how to compute persistence statistics directly from the Markov process transition matrices. Based on the case-study, the power production persistence through the daily cycle is analysed and discussed.'
address: 'LNEG, National Laboratory for Energy and Geology, Estrada do Paço do Lumiar, 22, 1649-038, Lisboa, Portugal'
author:
- Teresa Scholz
- 'Vitor V. Lopes'
- Ana Estanqueiro
bibliography:
- 'windbib.bib'
title: 'A cyclic time-dependent Markov process to model daily patterns in wind turbine power production'
---
Cyclic Markov process ,wind power ,persistence ,diurnal pattern
Introduction {#Introduction}
============
The EC European Parliament objective to achieve 20% of the consumed energy from the renewable energy sector by 2020 introduced a serious challenge to the planning and operating of power systems. Wind energy is becoming a top contributor to the renewable energy mix due to rather high capacities and generation costs that are becoming competitive with conventional energy sources [@Wen2009]. However, wind energy systems suffer from a major drawback, the fluctuating nature of their source, which affects the grid security, the power system operation and market economics. There are several tools to deal with these issues, such as the knowledge of wind power persistence and wind speed or power simulation. Persistence is related to stability properties and can provide useful information for bidding on the electricity market or to maintain reliability, e.g. by setting reserve capacity.
Wind power or speed simulation can be used to study the impact of wind generation on the power system. For this task, a sufficiently long time series of the power output from the wind plants should be used. However, real data records are commonly of short length and thus synthetic time series are generated by stochastic simulation techniques to model wind activity [@Papaefthymiou2008]. @Shamshad2005 used first and second-order Markov chain models for the generation of hourly wind speed time series. They found that a model with 12 wind speed states (1 m/s size) can capture the shape of the probability density function and preserve the properties of the observed time series. Additionally, they concluded that a second-order Markov chain produces better results. @Nfaoui2004 compared the limiting behavior of their Markov chain model with the data histograms gotten from hourly averaged wind speed and showed that the statistical characteristics were faithfully reproduced. @Sahin2001 reported the use of a first-order Markov chain approach to simulate the wind speed, where: a) both transitions between consecutive times and within state wind speeds are sampled using an uniform distribution; and, b) extreme states are sampled with an exponential distribution. They showed that statistical parameters were preserved to a significant extent; however, second-order Markov chain models could yield improved results.
Although wind power can be computed from synthetic wind speed time series, @Papaefthymiou2008 show that a stochastic model using wind power leads to a reduced number of states and a lower Markov chain model order. They compared a Markov chain based method for the direct generation of wind power time series with the transformed generated wind speed. Both the autocorrelation and the probability density function of the simulated data showed a good fit. Thus, they concluded that it is better to generate wind power time series. @Chen2009 also modeled wind power by using different discrete Markov chain models: the basic Markov model; the Bayesian Markov model, which considers the transition matrix uncertainty; and, the birth-and-death Markov model, which only allows state transitions between immediately adjacent states. After comparing the wind power autocorrelation function, the authors find the Bayesian Markov model best. @Lopes2012 proposed a Markov chain model using states that combine information about wind speed, direction and power. From the transition matrix, they compute statistics, such as the stationary power distribution and persistence of power production, which show a close agreement with their empirical analogues. The model was then used for the two-dimensional stochastic modeling of wind dynamics by @Raischel2012. They aim at studying the interactions between wind velocity, turbine aerodynamics and controller action using a system of coupled stochastic equations describing the co-evolution of wind power and speed. They showed that both the deterministic and stochastic terms of the equations can be extracted directly from the Markov chain model.
The knowledge of wind power production persistence provides useful information to run a wind park and to bid on the electricity market, since it provides information about the expected power steadiness. It can be seen as the average time that a system remains in a given state or a subset of states. Existent literature focuses mainly on wind speed persistence, which is used for assessing the wind power potential of a region. Persistence can be determined directly from the data [@Pryor2002; @Poje1992]; however, the presence of missing data leads to an underestimate of actual persistence. Alternative methods are based on wind speed duration curves [@Masseran2012; @Koccak2002], the autocorrelation function or conditional probabilities. @Koccak2008 and @Cancino-Solorzano2010 compare these techniques, and both conclude that wind speed duration curve yields the best results, i.e. results that follow the geographical and climatic conditions of the analyzed sites. Moreover, @Cancino-Solorzano2010 analyze the concept of “useful persistence”, which is the time schedule series where the wind speed is between the turbine cut-in and cut-out speed. The results gotten from this analysis coincide with the persistence classification obtained using the speed duration curves. In addition, @Koccak2009 suggests a detrended fluctuation analysis to detect long-term correlations and analyze the persistence properties of wind speed records. @Sigl1978 [@Corotis1978] and @Poje1992 proposed an approach based on the use of a power law or exponential probability distributions for the persistence of wind speed above and below a reference value. A Markov chain based method to derive the distribution of persistence is introduced by @Anastasiou1996, who show its capability on wind speed data.
Most methods in literature of wind speed and power synthesis fail to represent diurnal patterns in the artificial data. However, these are relevant for energy system modeling and design, since their knowledge allows to plan and schedule better. For instance, a power production behavior that best matches demand needs smaller reserve capacity. Recently, @Suomalainen2012 [@Suomalainen2013] introduced a method for synthetic generation of wind speed scenarios that include daily wind patterns by sampling a probability distribution matrix based on five selected daily patterns and the mean speed of each day. @Carapellucci2013 adopt a physical-statistical approach to synthesize wind speed data and evaluate the influence of the diurnal wind speed profile on the cross-correlation between produced energy and electrical loads. The parameters of their model, such as diurnal pattern strength or peak hour of wind speed are determined through a multi-objective optimization, carried out using a genetic algorithm.
This paper introduces a cyclic time-variant Markov model of wind power, speed and direction designed to consider the daily patterns observed in the data. The model can be used to synthesize data for the three variables and is capable of reproducing the daily patterns. Moreover, it allows to compute persistence statistics depending on the time of the day. The paper is organized as follows: Section \[Theory\] introduces the proposed model as an extension of the “regular” Markov chain model, which is then used for comparison. Furthermore it is shown, how to compute the time-of-the-day dependent persistence statistics directly from the Markov model transition matrices. In section \[ParameterEstimation\] the constrained convex optimization problem to get the model parameters is introduced and explained. It is applied to the analysis of a case-study based on real dataset, section \[Example\]. Since the model describes the joint statistics for wind power, speed and direction, Section \[Simulation\] explains how to create synthetic time-series for these variables. Section [\[Results\]]{} compares the synthesized data of both the time-variant and the time-invariant versions of the model. Moreover, it is shown how the persistence of power production varies through the daily cycle.
{#section .unnumbered}
Initial state distribution at time step $t = 0$
Coefficients of the Bernstein polynomial modeling the transition probability $p_{i,j}(t)$
unit column vector of the same size as subset $\mathcal{A}$
$P_0 \cdot \dotso \cdot P_{T-1}$
Subset of the state space, containing the states of interest for persistence
Set of observed state transitions
Set of transitions observed in the data together with the scaled time of the day $z$ at which they are observed
Weight of the extra transitions added to the objective function
Stationary distribution of a time-invariant Markov chain
$\lim_{t \to \infty} \mathbf{P}^t$
Stationary distribution at time $r$ of a time-variant cyclic Markov process
Stationary probability, of state $j$ at time of the day $r$
Vector whose elements are the stationary probabilities of the states in the set $\mathcal{A}$ at time of the day $r$
Persistence
Time-dependent persistence in a cyclic Markov process
$\mu$-th Bernstein basis polynomial of order $k$
Expected value operator
$t$-th step transition matrix of a Markov process
$t$-th step transition probability of a Markov process
Daily average probability of transition from state $s_i$ to $s_j$
Remainder of time step $t$ modulo $T$
Markov process state space
$i$-th state of a Markov process
Period of a cyclic Markov process
Time step of a Markov process
Markov process
Scaled time of the day
Stationary probability distribution of the states in subset $\mathcal{A}$
time of the day
Time-inhomogeneous Markov model {#Theory}
===============================
Definition
----------
A discrete finite Markov process $\{X_t \in S, t \geq 0\}$ is a stochastic process on a discrete finite state space $S = \{s_0, s_1, ..., s_n\}$, $n \in \mathbb{N}$, whose future evolution depends only on its current state [@Kemeny1976]. This Markov property is expressed mathematically by
$$Pr\{X_{t+1} = s_j \mid X_{t} = s_i \land X_l \in S \quad \forall l = 0, ..., t-1\} = Pr\{X_{t+1} = s_j\mid X_{t} = s_i\}.$$
$Pr\{X_{t+1} = s_j\mid X_{t} = s_i\}$ describes the probability of the Markov process moving to state $s_j$ at time step $t+1$ given that it is in state $s_i$ and is called the $t$-th step transition probability, denoted as $p_{i,j}(t)$. Thus, for each time step $t$ the Markov process has an associated transition probability matrix $P_t$, a $n$ by $n$ matrix with entries $[P_t]_{i,j} = p_{i,j}(t)$ for all $i,j \in \lbrace 0,\ldots, n\rbrace$. Each $P_t$ satisfies the following properties: $p_{i,j}(t) \geq 0$ and $\sum_{j}{p_{i,j}(t)} = 1$ $\forall i,j \in \lbrace 0,\ldots, n\rbrace$, $\forall t$. A Markov process is called cyclic with period $T \in \mathbb{N}$, if $T$ is the smallest number, such that $p_{i,j}(mT + r) = p_{i,j}(r)$ for all $m$ in $\mathbb{N}$, $0 \leq r < T$ [@Platis1998]. Thus, a cyclic Markov process is described by $T$ transition matrices $P_r$, $r = 0,...,T-1$. The remainder of time step $t$ modulo $T$ will be denoted as $r_t$ and thus $r_t$ = $r_{t+mT}$ $\forall t, m \in \mathbb{N}$.\
If the transition probabilities are time-independent, i.e. $p_{i,j}(t) = p_{i,j}$, the process is called a (time-homogeneous) Markov chain and its probability matrix $P \in \mathbb{R}^{n+1 \times n+1}$ is given by $[P]_{i,j} = p_{i,j}$. By analogy to the time-dependent case it holds that $p_{i,j} \geq 0$ and $\sum_{j}{p_{i,j}} = 1$ $\forall i,j \in \lbrace 0,\ldots, n\rbrace$.\
Communication classes and irreducibility
----------------------------------------
### Time-invariant Markov chain
The probability of reaching a state $s_j$ from a state $s_i$ in $l$ time steps is given by $P^l(i,j)$, i.e. the $l$-th power of the transition matrix $P$. If a state $s_j$ can be reached from a state $s_i$ in a finite number of time steps and vice versa, i.e. $\exists l \in \mathbb{N}$ $P^l(i,j) \geq 0 \land P^l(j,i) \geq 0$, the states $s_i$ and $s_j$ communicate. All states that communicate with each other are said to be in the same communication class. If all states of a state space are in the same communication class, i.e. if it is possible to reach every state from any other state in a finite number of time steps, the corresponding transition matrix $P$ is called irreducible.
### Cyclic time-variant Markov process
A cyclic Markov process with period $T$ is described by $T$ transition matrices $P_r$, one for each time of the day $r = 0, ..., T-1$. The probability of the process reaching state $s_j$ from state $s_i$ in $l$ time steps at time $t = 0$ is given as $(P_0 \cdot \dotso \cdot P_{T-1})^m \cdot P_0 \cdot \dotso \cdot P_{r_l}(i,j)$ with $l = mT + r_l$. For an arbitrary time-step $t$, the formula must be multiplied from the left with the term $P_{r_t} \cdot \dotso \cdot P_{T-1}$. Thus, the Markov process is irreducible, if the matrix $\mathbf{P} = P_0 \cdot \dotso \cdot P_{T-1}$ is irreducible, i.e. if $\exists l \in \mathbb{N}$ $\mathbf{P}^l(i,j) \geq 0$ $\forall i,j$.
The stationary distribution
---------------------------
If a Markov chain is irreducible and aperiodic then the long-term statistics of a Markov chain are described by the stationary probability distribution: $\pi = \lim_{t \to \infty} \alpha_0 P^t$. The distribution is independent of the initial distribution $\alpha_0$ and satisfies the balance equation $\pi = \pi P$. By the Perron-Frobenius theorem it can be computed as the normalized eigenvector corresponding to the eigenvalue $1$ of the transition matrix [@Pillai2005].\
In the case of the cyclic time-inhomogeneous Markov process there is also a stationary distribution $\pi_r$, for all $r < T$. It can be interpreted as the limiting distribution of the Markov process considering only the datapoints sampled at time of the day $r$. If the matrix $\mathbf{P}$ is irreducible, i.e. if $\exists \pi^{\ast}$, such that $\pi^{\ast} = \lim_{t \to \infty} \alpha_0 \cdot \mathbf{P}^t$ and the process is aperiodic, the stationary distribution $\pi_r$ exists and is given by $\pi^{\ast}\cdot P_0 \cdot \dotso \cdot P_{r-1}$, since it satisfies the balance equation \[balanceeq\]: $$\begin{aligned}
\pi_r &= \pi^{\ast} \cdot P_0 \cdot \dotso \cdot P_{r-1} \notag\\
\pi_r &= \pi^{\ast} \cdot \mathbf{P} \cdot P_0 \cdot \dotso \cdot P_{r-1} \notag\\
\pi_r &= \pi^{\ast} \cdot P_0 \cdot \dotso \cdot P_{r-1} \cdot P_r \cdot P_{r+1} \cdot \dotso \cdot P_{T-1} \cdot P_0 \cdot \dotso \cdot P_{r-1} \notag \\
\pi_r &= \pi_r \cdot (P_{r} \cdot P_{r+1} \cdot \dotso \cdot P_{T-1} \cdot P_0 \cdot P_1 \cdot \dotso \cdot P_{r-1}). \label{balanceeq}\end{aligned}$$
Persistence
-----------
The persistence of a given state $s_i$ is related with the number of steps the system consecutively remains in this state. In the time-homogeneous case, it follows a geometric distribution with expected value $(1-p_{i,i})^{-1}$ and is denoted by $\tau$. @Anastasiou1996 showed that it is possible to determine the expected time that a Markov chain stays consecutively inside a given subset of states using a simple closed-form expression. For example, in wind power applications, a typical subset of interest could contain all states corresponding to power production above a given threshold. To compute this estimate, the states are renumbered, s.th. they can be partitioned into two disjoint subsets: $\mathcal{A} = \{s_{\nu},...,s_{n}\}$ containing the states of interest; and $\overline{\mathcal{A}} = \{s_0,...,s_{\nu-1}\}$, its complement. Then, the transition matrix is rearranged into the following block structure:
$$P =
\begin{pmatrix}
A & {B} \\
{C} & {D}
\end{pmatrix}
=
\begin{pmat}[{..|}]
p_{0,0} & \cdots & p_{0, \nu-1} & p_{0, \nu} & \cdots & p_{0, n} \cr
\vdots & & \vdots & \vdots & & \vdots \cr
p_{\nu-1,0} & \cdots & p_{\nu-1, \nu-1} & p_{\nu-1, \nu} & \cdots & p_{\nu-1, n} \cr\-
p_{\nu,0} & \cdots & p_{\nu, \nu-1} & p_{\nu, \nu} & \cdots & p_{\nu, n} \cr
\vdots & & \vdots & \vdots & & \vdots \cr
p_{n,0} & \cdots & p_{n, \nu-1} & p_{n, \nu} & \cdots & p_{n, n} \cr
\end{pmat},
\label{rearrangecont}$$
where the first and last block of rows and columns correspond to the states in subset $\overline{\mathcal{A}}$ and $\mathcal{A}$, respectively. The expected value of persistence, i.e. the expected number of time steps the Markov process consecutively remains in the subset $\mathcal{A}$ once it is entered, is given by:
$$E\lbrace \tau \rbrace = \frac{\pi_{\mathcal{A}} \mathbf{1}_\mathcal{A}}{{\pi}_{\mathcal{A}} {C} \mathbf{1}_{\mathcal{B}}},
\label{eq_persistence}$$
where ${\pi}_{\mathcal{A}}$ is the stationary probability distribution of the states in subset $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathbf{1}_\mathcal{A}$ is the unit column vector of size $(n - \nu + 1) \times 1$ [@Anastasiou1996].\
For the time-inhomogeneous case, persistence $\tau_t$ is defined as the number of time steps the Markov process is expected to remain in a state (set of states), once it is entered at time $t$. For a cyclic Markov process, the persistence $\tau_t$ is equal for all $t$ that are congruent modulo $T$. Thus, it is only necessary to compute the persistence for $\tau_r$, $r = 0,...,T-1$. This can be achieved by adapting the derivation of equation \[eq\_persistence\], provided by @Anastasiou1996, to time-variant cyclic Markov processes.\
After renaming, s.th. the subset of interest is $\mathcal{A} = \{s_{\nu},...,s_{n}\}$, the states of each transition matrix $P_r$ are rearranged as in equation \[rearrangecont\].
$$P_r =
\begin{pmatrix}
{A_r} & {B_r} \\
{C_r} & {D_r}
\end{pmatrix}
=
\begin{pmat}[{..|}]
p_{0,0}(r) & \cdots & p_{0, \nu-1}(r) & p_{0, \nu}(r) & \cdots & p_{0, n}(r) \cr
\vdots & & \vdots & \vdots & & \vdots \cr
p_{\nu-1,0}(r) & \cdots & p_{\nu-1, \nu-1}(r) & p_{\nu-1, \nu}(r) & \cdots & p_{\nu-1, n}(r) \cr\-
p_{\nu,0}(r) & \cdots & p_{\nu, \nu-1}(r) & p_{\nu, \nu}(r) & \cdots & p_{\nu, n}(r) \cr
\vdots & & \vdots & \vdots & & \vdots \cr
p_{n,0}(r) & \cdots & p_{n, \nu-1}(r) & p_{n, \nu}(r) & \cdots & p_{n, n}(r) \cr
\end{pmat},$$
The probability of $\tau_r$ to be equal to $l$ is given as:
$$\begin{aligned}
Pr(\tau_r = l) &= Pr(X_r \in \mathcal{A},...,X_{r + l} \in \mathcal{A},X_{r+l+1}\notin \mathcal{A} \mid X_r \in \mathcal{A}, X_{r-1} \notin \mathcal{A}) \notag\\
&= \sum_{i \in \mathcal{A}}Pr(X_r = i \mid X_r \in \mathcal{A}, X_{r-1} \notin \mathcal{A}) \cdot Pr(X_s \in \mathcal{A}, r < s \leq l, X_{r+l+1} \notin \mathcal{A} \mid X_r = i)\notag\\
&= \sum_{i \in \mathcal{A}}\sum_{k \notin \mathcal{A}} \sum_{j \in \mathcal{A}} \tilde{\pi}_r(i) \cdot \mathcal{P}_{i,j}(r, l-1, \mathcal{A}) \cdot p_{j,k}(r+l)\label{probpersistence}\end{aligned}$$
with
$$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{P}_{i,j}(r, l, \mathcal{A}) &=Pr(X_{r+l} = j, X_{k} \in \mathcal{A}, 0 < k < l \mid X_r = i)\\
&= D_{r} \cdot \dotso \cdot D_{r + l - 1} \cdot C_{r + l} \cdot \mathbf{1}_{\overline{\mathcal{A}}} \end{aligned}$$
and
$$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{\pi}_r(i) &= Pr(X_r = i \mid X_r \in \mathcal{A}, X_{r-1} \notin \mathcal{A}) \notag \\
&= \frac{\sum_{j \notin \mathcal{A}}Pr(X_r = i \mid X_{r-1} = j) \cdot Pr(X_{r-1} = j)}{\sum_{i \in \mathcal{A}} \sum_{j \notin \mathcal{A}} Pr(X_r = i \mid X_{r-1} = j) \cdot Pr(X_{r-1} = j)} \notag \\
&= \frac{\sum_{j \notin \mathcal{A}} \pi_{r-1}(j)p_{j,i}(r-1)}{\sum_{k \in \mathcal{A}} \sum_{j \notin \mathcal{A}} \pi_{r-1}(j)p_{j,k}(r-1)}, \quad i \in \mathcal{A},
\label{eq_stat}\end{aligned}$$
where $\pi_r(j)$ is the long term probability of occurrence (stationary probability) of state $j$ at time of the day $r$; also note that $\pi_t(j) = \pi_r(j)$ for $t=mr$, $\forall m \in \mathbb{N}$. Equation \[eq\_stat\] can be rewritten in the matrix form to include all states in the subset $\mathcal{A}$:
$$\tilde{\pi}_r(\mathcal{A}) = \frac{\pi_{r-1}({\overline{\mathcal{A}}}) \cdot B_{r-1}}{\pi_{r-1}(\overline{\mathcal{A}}) \cdot B_{r-1} \cdot \mathbf{1}_{\mathcal{A}}},$$
where $\mathbf{1}_{\mathcal{A}}$ is a unit vector of dimension $(n - \nu + 1) \times 1$ and $\pi_{r-1}(\overline{\mathcal{A}})$ is a vector of dimensions $1 \times \nu$, whose elements are the stationary probabilities of the states in the set $\overline{\mathcal{A}}$ at time of the day $r-1$.
Thus, equation \[probpersistence\] can be rewritten as:
$$\begin{aligned}
Pr(\tau_r = l) &= \tilde{\pi}_r({\mathcal{A}}) \cdot D_{r} \cdot \dotso \cdot D_{r + l - 1} \cdot C_{r + l} \cdot \mathbf{1}_{\overline{\mathcal{A}}}\\
&= \frac{\pi_{r-1}({\overline{\mathcal{A}}}) \cdot B_{r-1}}{\pi_{r-1}({\overline{\mathcal{A}}}) \cdot B_{r-1} \cdot \mathbf{1}_{\mathcal{A}}} \cdot D_{r} \cdot \dotso \cdot D_{r + l - 1} \cdot C_{r + l} \cdot \mathbf{1}_{\overline{\mathcal{A}}}.\end{aligned}$$
The expected value of persistence at time $r$ can then be derived as:
$$E(\tau_r) = \sum_{l = 1}^{\infty} l \cdot \frac{\pi_{r-1}({\overline{\mathcal{A}}}) \cdot B_{r-1}}{\pi_{r-1}({\overline{\mathcal{A}}}) \cdot B_{r-1} \cdot \mathbf{1}_{\mathcal{A}}} \cdot D_{r} \cdot \dotso \cdot D_{r + l - 1} \cdot C_{r + l} \cdot \mathbf{1}_{\overline{\mathcal{A}}}\\$$
Making use of the cyclicity of the Markov process, this can be expressed as:
$$E(\tau_r) = \sum_{l = 1}^{\infty} l \cdot \frac{\pi_{r-1}({\overline{\mathcal{A}}}) \cdot B_{r-1}}{\pi_{r-1}({\overline{\mathcal{A}}}) \cdot B_{r-1} \cdot \mathbf{1}_{\mathcal{A}}} \cdot \mathcal{D}^{m} \cdot D_{r} \cdot \dotso \cdot D_{r + r_l - 1} \cdot C_{r + r_l} \cdot \mathbf{1}_{\overline{\mathcal{A}}}$$
where $\mathcal{D} = D_{r} \cdot \dotso \cdot D_T \cdot D_{T+1} \cdot \dotso \cdot D_{r-1}$ and $l = mT + r_l$.\
It can be seen that the sum converges after splitting it into $T$ partial sums, one for each time of the day $r$. For each partial sum, the only term not constant is the matrix power $\mathcal{D}^m$, which converges because all $\mathcal{D}$ eigenvalues are smaller than $1$. The infinite sum for the expected value of persistence at time $r$ can be approximated to an arbitrary degree of accuracy $\epsilon$ by defining
$$f_l = l \cdot \frac{\pi_{r-1}({\overline{\mathcal{A}}}) \cdot B_{r-1}}{\pi_{r-1}({\overline{\mathcal{A}}}) \cdot B_{r-1} \cdot \mathbf{1}_{\mathcal{A}}} \cdot \mathcal{D}^{m} \cdot D_{r} \cdot \dotso \cdot D_{r + r_l - 1} \cdot C_{r + r_l} \cdot \mathbf{1}_{\overline{\mathcal{A}}}.$$
and successively adding $f_l$, $l = 0,1,...,L$ until the difference between two consecutive sums is smaller than $\epsilon$, i.e. until $\mid f_L \mid < \epsilon$.
Parameter estimation {#ParameterEstimation}
====================
Time-homogeneous Markov chain {#timehomogeneous}
-----------------------------
The common approach to estimate the Markov chain transition matrix $P$ is through the optimization of a constrained maximum likelihood function, which describes the realization probability of a given dataset [@Anderson1957]. For a sequence of $M$ states $\lbrace X_0 = s_{i_0}, ... , X_M = s_{i_M} \rbrace$ with $s_{i_0}, ..., s_{i_M} \in S$ and $i_0, ..., i_M \in \{0,...,n\}$, its probability can be computed as $Pr\{X_0 = s_{i_0}\}p_{i_0,i_1} p_{i_1,i_2} \cdot \ldots \cdot p_{i_{M-1},i_M}$. Since the term $Pr\{X_0 = s_{i_0}\}$ is constant, given a set of observed state transitions $\mathcal{S}$, it is possible to estimate ${P}$ by maximizing the likelihood
$$OF_1 = \prod_{(i,j)\in \mathcal{S}} p_{i,j},
\label{OF1}$$
where a transition is described by an ordered pair $(i,j)$ indicating the origin and the destination of the transition. In practice, instead of maximizing $OF_1$ with respect to the $p_{i,j}$ variables it is preferable to minimize the negative log-likelihood function, i.e. $- \log(OF_1)$, since it transforms the original mathematical programming problem into an equivalent one that is convex and, thus, has a unique solution [@Boyd2004]. The overall optimization problem is formulated as follows:
$$\begin{aligned}
& \text{min}
& & - \sum_{(i,j)\in \mathcal{S}} \log(p_{i,j})\\
& \text{subject to}
& & p_{i,j} \geq 0 \quad \forall i,j = 0,...,n\\
& & & \sum_{j}{p_{i,j}} = 1 \quad \forall i = 0,...,n\end{aligned}$$
The constraints ensure non-negativity of the transition probabilities and that they sum up to $1$ for each row of the transition matrix.
Cyclic time-variant Markov process {#timevariant}
----------------------------------
The goal of this time-variant Markov process is to get a model that accurately reproduces the long-term behavior while considering the daily patterns observed in the data. Thus, the proposed objective function combines two maximum likelihood estimators: the first term maximizes the likelihood of the cycle-average probability; and, the second term maximizes the likelihood of the time-dependent probability. The final optimization problem is transformed into a convex one using the negative logarithm of the objective function. This section provides a detailed description of the objective function, the parametrization of the time-variant probability functions, and the constraints that must be added to the optimization problem to ensure its Markov properties.
### Objective function
The transition probabilities are considered to be time-variant and cyclic with a period of $T$, i.e. for each time of the day $r$ ($=0,...,T-1$) there is a different transition matrix ${P_r}$. In this paper, the time-dependent transition probabilities $p_{i,j}(r)$ are modeled by Bernstein polynomials. This has several advantages: a) a polynomial representation of the transition probabilities leads to a convex objective function and constraints, i.e. the optimization problem has a unique solution; b) a polynomial representation allows to decrease the number of variables in the optimization problem: for each transition, instead of $T$ variables only $k+1$ are needed for a $k$ order polynomial; c) Bernstein polynomials are non-negative, which simplifies probability modeling, when compared to other polynomial bases; and d) they have the convex hull property, which, combined with de Casteljau algorithm, allows to easily write probability boundary conditions.\
Bernstein polynomials are linear combinations of Bernstein basis polynomials $b_{\mu, k}(z)$, $z \in [0,1]$. The $k + 1$ Bernstein basis polynomials of order $k$ are defined as:
$$b_{\mu, k}(z) = \left(\! \begin{array}{c} k \\ \mu \end{array} \!\right) z^{\mu} (1-z)^{k - \mu}$$
with $\mu = 0, ..., k$ and $\left(\! \begin{array}{c} k \\ \mu \end{array} \!\right)$ the binomial coefficient. Thus, the transition probabilities $p_{i,j}(z)$ are described by
$$p_{i,j}(z) = \sum_{\mu = 0}^k \beta_{\mu}^{i,j}b_{\mu,k}(z),$$
with $\beta_{\mu}^{i,j} \in \mathbb{R}$ and $z = \frac{r}{T}$, since the polynomial variable has to be scaled, s.th. it is between 0 and 1.\
Hence, to maximize the likelihood of the time-dependent transition probabilities given the data, the objective function must consider the time of the day $z$ when the transition happens. Therefore, the objective function introduced in (\[OF1\]) becomes $\sum_{(i,j)_z\in \mathcal{S}_z} \log(p_{i,j}(z))$, where $\mathcal{S}_z$ is the set of observed transitions together with the time $z$ when they happens. This objective function allows to compute the intra-cycle transition probability functions, and thus to represent the daily patterns present in the data.
A second term is added to this function, namely $\sum_{(i,j)\in \mathcal{S}} \log(p^{avg}_{i,j})$, where $\mathcal{S}$ is the set of transitions observed in the data as defined in section \[timehomogeneous\] and $p_{i,j}^{avg}$ is the cycle-average (daily) probability of transition from state $s_i$ to $s_j$. It can be computed as follows:
$$\begin{aligned}
p_{i,j}^{avg} &= \frac{1}{1-0}\int_0^1p_{ij}(z)dz = \int_0^1\sum_{\mu = 0}^k\beta^{i,j}_kb_{\mu,k}(z)dz\\
&= \sum_{\mu = 0}^k \beta^{i,j}_k \int_0^1b_{\mu,k}(z)dz = \frac{1}{k + 1} \sum_{\mu = 0}^k \beta^{i,j}_k\end{aligned}$$
This second term is the maximum likelihood estimator for the daily average probability and its addition to the objective function increases the consistency of the long-term behavior of the Markov process with the data. Therefore, the overall objective function $OF_2$ is given by:
$$\begin{aligned}
OF_2 &= %\underset{(i,j)_t\in \mathcal{S}_t}{\Pi} p_{i,j}(t) \cdot \underset{(i,j)\in \mathcal{S}}{\Pi} p^{avg}_{i,j}\\
- \sum_{(i,j)\in \mathcal{S}} \log(p^{avg}_{i,j}) - \sum_{(i,j)_z\in \mathcal{S}_z} \log(p_{i,j}(z))\\
&= - \sum_{(i,j)\in \mathcal{S}} \log(\frac{1}{k + 1} \sum_{\mu = 0}^k \beta^{i,j}_k) - \sum_{(i,j)_z\in \mathcal{S}_z} \log(\sum_{\mu = 0}^k \beta_{\mu}^{i,j}b_{\mu,k}(z))\end{aligned}$$
and minimization is performed with respect to the coefficients $\beta^{i,j}_{\mu}$ (model parameters).
### Constraints
The estimation of the model parameters requires the transition probability functions to comply with several constraints, to ensure:
- $\mathcal{C}^0$- and $\mathcal{C}^1$-continuity at $z = 0$,
- row-stochasticity of the transition matrices at every time of the day $z$ and
- that the transition probability functions are non-negative and bounded by 1.
Thus, to complete the specification of the optimization problem this section explains all the necessary constraints required for the model parameters to describe a cyclic Markov process.
*Periodicity*
The transition probability functions are modeled using Bernstein polynomials, which are smooth, i.e. $\mathcal{C}^{\infty}$-continuous functions. In general, the values at both ends of their domain ($0$ and $1$) need not be equal. Thus, to avoid sudden changes in the value and slope of each probability function between the cycles, two constraints are added to ensure $\mathcal{C}^0$ and $\mathcal{C}^1$-continuity. Another reason is the arbitrariness of the cycle starting position, which affects the position of the discontinuity if these conditions are not used.
The first constraint is $p_{i,j}(0) = p_{i,j}(1)$. Since $b_{\mu, k}(0) = \delta_{\mu, 0}$ and $b_{\mu, k}(1) = \delta_{\mu, k}$ the constraint can be reformulated as $\beta_0^{i,j} = \beta_k^{i,j}$, where $\delta$ is the Kronecker delta. The second constraint is added to ensure $\mathcal{C}^1$-continuity, i.e. $\frac{d p_{i,j}}{dz}(0) = \frac{d p_{i,j}}{dz}(1)$. The first derivative of a Bernstein basis polynomial can be written as a combination of two polynomials of lower degree:
$$\frac{d b_{\mu, k}}{dz}(z) = k(b_{\mu - 1, k - 1}(z) - b_{\mu, k - 1}(z))$$
Thus, the first derivative of a transition probability $p_{i,j}(z)$ is given by:
$$\frac{d p_{i,j}}{dz}(z) = k (\sum_{\mu = 1}^k (\beta_{\mu}^{i,j} - \beta_{\mu - 1}^{i,j}) b_{\mu -1, k-1}(z) - \beta_k^{i,j} b_{k, k-1}(z))$$
Hence, using $b_{\mu, k}(0) = \delta_{\mu, 0}$ and $b_{\mu, k}(1) = \delta_{\mu, k}$ as well as the first constraint $\beta_0^{i,j} = \beta_k^{i,j}$ $\forall i,j = 0,...,n$, the constraint $\frac{d p_{i,j}}{dz}(0) = \frac{d p_{i,j}}{dz}(1)$ reduces to the following linear constraint:
$$\beta_{k}^{i,j} = \beta_{0}^{i,j} = 0.5(\beta_{1}^{i,j} + \beta_{k-1}^{i,j})$$
*Row stochasticity of transition matrices*
To ensure row stochasticity of the time-variant transition matrices, it is necessary to ensure that $\sum_{j} p_{i,j}(z) = 1$ for all $i$ and $z$. Since the Bernstein basis polynomials of order $k$ form a partition of unity, i.e.
$$\sum_{\mu = 0}^k b_{\mu, k}(z) = 1$$
the constraint can be re-written as a linear combination of the polynomial coefficients:
$$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{j} p_{i,j}(z) = 1 & \Leftrightarrow \sum_{j} \sum_{\mu = 0}^k \beta_{\mu}^{i,j}b_{\mu,k}(z) = 1\\
& \Leftrightarrow \sum_{j} \beta_{\mu}^{i,j} = 1\\\end{aligned}$$
*Non-negative transition probabilities are bounded by 1*
The most straightforward way to implement this constraint is to add two inequalities for each time of the day and each transition probability $p_{i,j}$, i.e.
$$\begin{aligned}
p_{i,j}(z) &\geq 0 \quad \forall i,j,z\\
p_{i,j}(z) &\leq 1 \quad \forall i,j,z
\label{bound_constraint_original}
\end{aligned}$$
However, this constraint significantly increases the problem size, since it requires $2 \cdot T \cdot n^2$ inequalities. An alternative constraint can be formulated by using the convex hull property of the Bernstein polynomials. This constraint makes the overall optimization problem size smaller, but is more restrictive.
Every Bernstein polynomial $\sum_{\mu = 0}^k \beta_{\mu}b_{\mu,k}(z)$ always lies in the convex hull defined by its control points $ (\frac{k}{\mu}, \beta_{\mu})$, $\mu = 0,...,k$. Thus the constraint
$$\label{probconstraint}
0 \leq p_{i,j}(z) \leq 1 \quad \forall i,j = 0,...,n$$
can be reformulated in terms of the polynomial coefficients as
$$\label{coeffconstraint}
0 \leq \beta_{\mu}^{i,j} \leq 1 \quad \forall \mu = 0,...,k$$
Since constraint \[coeffconstraint\] is a sufficient but not necessary condition for constraint \[bound\_constraint\_original\], the reformulation leads to a more restrictive overall minimization problem, i.e. the optimum objective function value is always higher or equal when compared with the problem with original constraint \[bound\_constraint\_original\]. The convex hull bound of Berstein polynomials can be tightened by subdivision, i.e. by subdividing the domain in two regions and finding new control points $\beta^{i,j}_0(1),...,\beta_k^{i,j}(1)$ and ${\beta^{i,j}_{k+1}}(1),...,\beta^{i,j}_{2k}(1)$ such that the function output remains unchanged. With each subdivision, the control points form a tighter bound around the polynomial and thus the polynomial coefficients can assume values in a wider range. The new control points represent the polynomial restricted to the two sub-intervals $[0, z^{\ast}]$ and $[z^{\ast}, 1]$, where $z^{\ast} \in [0,1]$ is the cutting point of the division. For simplicity, $z^{\ast}$ is fixed to 0.5 in all transition probabilities. The new control points can be determined by linear combinations of the original control points $\beta^{i,j}_0,...,\beta^{i,j}_k$. This can be performed efficiently using de Casteljau algorithm, which in matrix form is given as:
$$\begin{pmatrix}
\beta^{i,j}_0(1)\\
\vdots \\
\beta^{i,j}_k(1)
\end{pmatrix}
=
\begin{pmatrix}
b_{0,0}(z^{\ast}) & 0 & \cdots & 0 \\
b_{0,1}(z^{\ast}) & b_{1,1}(z^{\ast}) & \cdots & 0 \\
\vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
b_{0,k}(z^{\ast}) & b_{1,k}(z^{\ast}) & \cdots & b_{k,k}(z^{\ast})
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
\beta^{i,j}_0\\
\vdots \\
\beta^{i,j}_k
\end{pmatrix}
= C_l
\begin{pmatrix}
\beta^{i,j}_0\\
\vdots \\
\beta^{i,j}_k
\end{pmatrix}
= C_l \cdot \beta^{ij}
\label{Casteljauleft}$$
and
$$\begin{pmatrix}
\beta^{i,j}_{k+1}(1)\\
\vdots \\
\beta^{i,j}_{2k}(1)
\end{pmatrix}
=
\begin{pmatrix}
b_{0,k}(z^{\ast}) & b_{1,k}(z^{\ast}) & \cdots & b_{k,k}(z^{\ast}) \\
0 & b_{0,k-1}(z^{\ast}) & \cdots & b_{k-1,k-1}(z^{\ast}) \\
\vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
0 & \cdots & 0 & b_{0,0}(z^{\ast}) \\
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
\beta^{i,j}_0\\
\vdots \\
\beta^{i,j}_k
\end{pmatrix}
= C_r
\begin{pmatrix}
\beta^{i,j}_0\\
\vdots \\
\beta^{i,j}_k
\end{pmatrix}
= C_r \cdot \beta^{ij}
\label{Casteljauright}$$
The subdivision can be applied recursively to further improve the convex bound around the polynomial. The corresponding coefficients are computed by applying equations \[Casteljauleft\] and \[Casteljauright\] to the left and right coefficient vectors. Defining $C = (C_l, C_r)^T$ and $I_z$ as the identity matrix of dimension $z \times z$, the coefficients $\beta^{i,j}(w) = (\beta^{i,j}_0(w),...,\beta^{ij}_{2^{w}k}(w))$ after $w$ subdivisions can be obtained by:
$$\beta^{i,j}(w) = (C \otimes I_{2^{w-1}}) \cdot (C \otimes I_{2^{w-2}}) \cdot \dotso \cdot (C \otimes I_{2}) \cdot (C \otimes I_1) \cdot \beta^{i,j}$$
where $\otimes$ denotes the Kronecker product. The number of inequalities needed for the implementation of this constraint is $(k + 1) \cdot 2^{\omega + 1} \cdot n^2$. Thus, its use only makes sense if it decreases the problem size, i.e. for a number of subdivisions $\omega$ such that $(k + 1) \cdot 2^{\omega + 1} \leq T$.
### Problem formulation
The overall optimization problem to be solved for the estimation of the transition probability coefficients $\beta_{\mu}^{i,j}$ can be written as:
$$\begin{aligned}
& \min_{\beta_{\mu}^{i,j}}
\label{objectivefunction}
& & - \sum_{(i,j)\in \mathcal{S}} \log(\frac{1}{k + 1} \sum_{\mu = 0}^k \beta^{i,j}_{\mu}) - \sum_{(i,j)_z\in \mathcal{S}_z} \log(\sum_{\mu = 0}^k \beta_{\mu}^{i,j}b_{\mu,k}(z))\\
& \text{subject to}
\label{c0}
& & \beta_0^{i,j} = \beta_k^{i,j} \quad \forall i,j = 1,...,n\\
\label{c1}
& & & \beta_{0}^{i,j} = 0.5(\beta_{1}^{i,j} + \beta_{k-1}^{i,j}) \quad \forall i,j = 0,...,n\\
\label{rowstochasticity}
& & & \sum_{j} \beta_{\mu}^{i,j} = 1 \quad \forall i = 0,...,n; \forall \mu = 0,...,k\\
\label{bounds1}
& & & \beta^{i,j}(w) \leq 1 \quad \forall i,j = 0,...,n\\
\label{bounds2}
& & & 0 \leq \beta^{i,j}(w) \quad \forall i,j = 0,...,n\end{aligned}$$
where $w$ is the number of subdivisions and $k$ is the order of the Bernstein polynomials, which have to be specified. The objective function (\[objectivefunction\]) is a combination of two negative log-likelihood functions to ensure the Markov process captures both the daily patterns and the long-term behavior of the original data. The optimization is performed with respect to several constraints: constraints (\[c0\]) and (\[c1\]) ensure $\mathcal{C}^0$- and $\mathcal{C}^1$-continuity at $z = 0$. The row-stochasticity of the transition matrix is ensured by constraint (\[rowstochasticity\]). The last two constraints (\[bounds1\]) and (\[bounds2\]) bound the transition probabilities between $0$ and $1$.
It is expected that the objective function decreases with the polynomial order and the number of subdivisions. The parameters of the Markov chain model $\beta_{\mu}^{i,j}$ are estimated by solving the optimization problem using a rigorous numerical solver. The model was formulated making use of the casadi computation framework [@Andersson2010] and the optimization was performed by ipopt, a nonlinear interior-point solver [@Wachter2006], which ensures convergence to the global optimum in the case of convex optimization problems.
Application of the cyclic Markov process to wind turbine modeling {#Example}
=================================================================
The data
--------
The data for this study was obtained from a wind power turbine in a wind park located in a mountainous region in Portugal. The time series consists of a three-year period (2009-2011) of historical data gotten from the turbine data logger. The sampling time of 10 minutes leads to 144 samples each day. The data-set comprises three variables, wind power, speed and direction (nacelle orientation). The wind speed information was collected from the anemometer placed in the wind turbine hub. Due to confidentiality, wind power and speed data values are reported as a fraction of the rated power and the cut-out speed, respectively.
Markov chain state definition {#Statedefinition}
-----------------------------
Discrete Markov chain models require the definition of the states when applied to describe continuous variables. This work proposes to characterize the wind turbine states using three different variables: wind power, speed and direction. As such, each state is defined by all the points inside a polyhedron in three-dimensional space.
[0.5]{}
[0.5]{}
Fig. \[fig1\] presents all data observations and the state partitions projected into: a) the wind direction and speed plane; and, b) the wind power and speed plane. As expected, the observations projected into the wind power and speed plane define the characteristic power curve of the wind turbine. It shows the three operational regions of a wind turbine: a) below the cut-in speed no power is produced; b) between cut-in and rated wind speed the power increases proportionally to the cube of wind speed; c) at wind speeds between the rated and the cut-out wind speed, the turbine control system limits the power output to a constant value. In the wind direction and speed plane, data is widely scattered and shows the dominant wind patterns at the site. Three accumulation regions can be identified: one for low wind speeds, centered on $0.25$, which is the mode of the wind speed, and two defining the dominant wind directions around 100$^\circ$ and 300$^\circ$.
The data space is discretized unevenly to get a good resolution of the high-slope region of the power curve. In a previous work [@Lopes2012], this partition was used in a time-homogeneous Markov chain and proved to lead to an accurate representation of the original data. The wind direction and power are divided by an equally spaced grid leading to 12 ($\{d_1,...,d_{12}\}$) and 20 ($\{p_1,...,p_{20}\}$) classes, respectively. The wind speed is divided as follows: values below the cut-in speed define one class $sp_1$; between the cut-in and rated wind speed the discretization is narrowed by selecting 10 classes ({$sp_2,...,sp_{11}\}$); and between the rated and cut-out wind speed discretization is widened and 4 classes ($\{sp_{12},...,sp_{15}\}$) are defined. Data points with wind speed above the cut-out wind speed are discarded. The complete state set is constructed by listing all possible combinations of the classes of each variable. Due to physical constraints between the variables, most of the states are empty (fig. \[fig1\](left)) and can are discarded. This reduces the number of states from 3840 to 778, for this turbine.
Additional transitions to promote a single communication class
--------------------------------------------------------------
The solution of the optimization problem described in section \[ParameterEstimation\] comprises a set of transition matrices $P_r$, $r \in \{0,...,143\}$. However, the constraints in the optimization problem definition do not force the matrix $\mathbf{P} = P_0 \cdot \dotso \cdot P_{143}$ to be irreducible and thus the Markov process to have a single communication class. So, during data synthesis, the Markov process can get “trapped” within a communication class. To induce the Markov process to have a single communication class, additional transition counts are introduced into the data. The goal is to add a small set of transitions to promote state connectivity without distorting the original data. Thus, the set is composed of transitions that connect neighboring states in the state space, since those are the ones most likely to occur.\
For a state $s_i = (p_l, sp_p, d_q)$, its neighborhood $V$ is defined as
[$$V(s_i) := \{(p_{ll}, sp_{pp}, d_{qq}): ll \in \{l-1, l, l+1\}, pp \in \{p-1, p, p+1\}, qq \in \{q-1, q, q+1\}\} \setminus s_i.$$ ]{}
It should be noted that, unlike power and speed, direction is a circular variable, e.g. states $d_0$ and $d_{11}$ are considered neighbors. If a neighbor state $s_j \in V(s_i)$ is present in the dataset, a transition $(i,j)$ is added to the set of extra transitions $\mathcal{S}_E$. For this dataset, originally consisting of 150601 transitions, 13610 transitions are added.\
The extra transitions must be considered to happen at an unknown time of the day $z$. Thus, they can only be accounted for in the objective function term without time information, i.e. only in the time-variant part of the objective function. This directly affects the values for $p_{i,j}^{avg}$ and, indirectly, the model parameters. Since the aim is to cause a minimal impact on the transition probabilities, the additional term is weighed by a factor $\omega < 1$ to directly control its influence. In this work it is fixed to 0.05. Thus, the following term is added to the objective function:
$$- \omega \cdot \sum_{(i,j)\in \mathcal{S}_E} \log(p^{avg}_{i,j}) = - \omega \cdot \sum_{(i,j)\in \mathcal{S}_E} \log(\frac{1}{k + 1} \sum_{\mu = 0}^k \beta^{i,j}_k)$$
Although the use of the extra transition set does not ensure the time-variant Markov process to have a single communication class, results show a decrease of the number of communication classes from 13 to 1 in this dataset.
Simulation of wind power, speed and direction time series {#Simulation}
=========================================================
To simulate wind power, speed and direction time series the method described by @Sahin2001 is adapted to the cyclic time-variant Markov model as follows. First, the cumulative probability transition matrices $P^{cum}_r$ with $P^{cum}_r(i, j) = \sum_{k = 0}^{j}p_{i,k}(r)$ are computed. Then an initial state $s_{i}$, i.e. $X_0 = s_i$, is randomly selected. A new datapoint $X_{t+1}$ is generated by uniformly selecting a random number $\epsilon$ between zero and one. The corresponding state $s_{new}$ ($X_{t+1} = s_{new}$) is chosen such that the probability of reaching it from the current state $s_i$ is bigger than $\epsilon$, i.e. such that $P_{r_t}^{cum}(i, {new}) \geq \epsilon$.\
Based on this discrete state sequence, a real value for the wind power/speed/direction variables is generated by sampling each state partition uniformly.
Results and discussion {#Results}
======================
Daily patterns in the data {#dailypatterns}
--------------------------
The wind power, speed and direction time-series clearly show a daily time-dependent behavior.
[0.45]{}
[0.45]{}
[0.45]{}
[0.45]{}
Figure \[fig2\] shows that, on average, the turbine does not produce power between 10 am and 3 pm. In this time interval, low wind speeds (0.1 - 0.25) are the most likely events. There are two dominant wind directions: around 100$^{\circ}$ and 300$^{\circ}$. Moreover, they occur at specific times of the day; between 5 and 10am, the wind typically blows from the 100$^{\circ}$ direction, the rest of the day from 300$^{\circ}$.
To assess whether these two dominant directions might be due to summer/winter seasonality, the dataset was divided in two subsets, one covering the period from April to September and the other from October to March. The histogram analysis shows that both, summer and winter subset, have the same two dominant directions (figures not shown). Thus, it was concluded that the time-dependent pattern is not induced by this seasonality.
Figure \[fig2\] bottom-right plot shows the p-values of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test applied to the wind speed distributions at different times of the day. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test is a nonparametric test for the equality of continuous one-dimensional probability distributions. Thus, the high p-values around the diagonal illustrates that wind speed distributions for consecutive times of the day are similar. The same holds for wind speeds in the morning and evening, i.e. before 9am and after 4:30pm. The wind speed distribution between 10am and 3pm is clearly different.
Choice of polynomial order and number of subdivisions
-----------------------------------------------------
The model introduced in section \[timevariant\] has two parameters that need to be defined: $k$, the order of the Bernstein polynomials used to model the transition probabilities; and $w$, the number of subdivisions used to tighten the convex hull that bounds the polynomials. To choose proper values for these parameters, different models were computed by varying $k=4...10$ and $w=0...3$. For each model, synthetic data was generated following the procedure described in section \[Simulation\] and compared with the real dataset.
[0.45]{}
[0.45]{}
[0.45]{}
[0.45]{}
Figure \[fig3\] shows bar plots comparing the different models using four criteria: the objective function value, the daily average Jensen-Shannon distance between original and synthesized wind direction data, the number of inequalities in the problem formulation and the CPU time spent in IPOPT solving the optimization problem. The Jensen-Shannon distance is the square root of the Jensen-Shannon divergence $d_{js}$, which, for two discrete probability distributions $q_1$ and $q_2$ is defined as:
$$d_{js} = \frac{1}{2} \sum_i \frac{q_1(i)}{q_2(i)}\cdot q_1(i) + \frac{1}{2}\sum_i \frac{q_2(i)}{q_1(i)}\cdot q_1(i).$$
Comparing the models using the objective function value (figure \[fig3\] top left) shows a decrease of the objective function as the model order and the number of subdivisions increase. It can be seen that the impact of the number of subdivisions is higher for models with higher polynomial order. Moreover, the first subdivision has the highest impact since it leads to the highest decrease of the objective function value. The daily average of the Jensen-Shannon distance (figure \[fig3\] top right) decreases with the polynomial order until sixth order. The same behavior can be observed for the number of subdivisions: until the sixth order, the Jensen-Shannon distance decreases with the number of subdivisions. The number of inequality constraints in the optimization problem as well as the number of CPU seconds spent in the solver show the expected behavior (figure \[fig3\] bottom). They increase linearly with the polynomial order and exponentially with the number of subdivisions. Based on these observations, a basis order of 6 with 2 subdivisions was chosen as the best trade-off between an accurate representation of the average daily patterns and computational costs.
Capturing long-term statistics
------------------------------
This section compares the main statistical properties derived from the original data with the ones derived from the data generated by the time-variant Markov model.
[0.32]{}
[0.32]{}
[0.32]{}
Figure \[fig4\] compares the wind power (left), speed (middle) and direction (right) distribution of the original with the synthetic data generated using the Markov model. In general, the distributions are in close agreement. The wind power distribution is bimodal, with the modes located at the minimum and maximum power. It shows that the intermediary power levels are rather rare, for instance, the states corresponding to a power production between 0.4 and 0.9 have a low probability. The wind speed distribution follows the expected behavior, a single mode distribution with a long tail for the high wind speeds (Weibull distribution). The wind direction distribution is bimodal with the two modes at 100 and 300 degrees, which are the prevailing wind directions at the turbine site (figure \[fig2\]).\
[0.49]{}
[0.49]{}
Figure \[fig5\] shows two plots: on the left, the empirical 2D distribution of the wind power and direction computed from the data and, on the right, the same distribution computed using the data generated by the Markov model. Its comparison shows that the model captures the joint statistics for the wind power and direction from the data. It is possible to see the two dominant directions associated with high wind power production, namely the sectors from 100 to 120 and from 290 to 320 degree. Figures \[fig2\] and \[fig5\] clearly demonstrate the capability of this Markov model to capture the combined characteristics of the wind power, speed and direction. The long-term behavior of the model is close to what is observed in the dataset.
Capturing time-dependent behavior
---------------------------------
As shown in section \[dailypatterns\], the original data clearly exhibits a time-dependent behavior. To test, if the time-dependent Markov model can capture it, synthetic data was generated and the histograms compared to the ones of the original data. Moreover, to obtain a comparison with the “regular” way of data synthesis with Markov models, data was also generated from the time-invariant Markov chain.
[0.45]{}
[0.45]{}
\
[0.45]{}
[0.45]{}
\
[0.45]{}
[0.45]{}
The comparison of figures \[fig2\] and \[fig6\](first column) shows, that the time-variant Markov model is capable of reproducing the time-variant behavior of the data. Figure \[fig6\](second column) presents the results of using a time-invariant Markov chain model, i.e. by using constant transition probability functions. As expected, each variable statistic distribution remains constant during the daily cycle.
Time-dependent persistence of production
----------------------------------------
The time-dependent Markov model allows to compute the persistence of power-production depending on the time of the day. Figure \[fig6\] shows the time-dependent persistence of power production for different power levels ($i \cdot 0.05 \cdot p_{max}$, for $i = 1,...,19$). The persistence analysis is presented for two power production levels: a) persistence of useful power production (PUPP) defined as above $0.15 \cdot p_{max}$, i.e. the power level corresponding to the wind speed mode at the turbine site; and, persistence for high power production (PHPP), i.e. above $>0.7 \cdot p_{max}$. It can be seen, that the higher the power level, the lower the persistence. Moreover, for all power levels, persistence is minimal between 5 and 10 am. PHPP is fairly constant throughout the day (dark line), the maximal differences are between 10 and 30 minutes, whereas PUPP reaches a maximum at around 5 pm (white line).
Since the data shows two different dominant directions (figure \[fig4\]), figure \[fig8\] presents the persistence of power production conditioned to each dominant direction, i.e. for the direction sectors from $90^{\circ}$ to $180^{\circ}$ and $270^{\circ}$ to $360^{\circ}$.
[0.48]{}
[0.48]{}
As expected, the persistence in both direction sectors is lower than the unconditioned persistence. For wind directions in the sector $90^{\circ}$-$180^{\circ}$, all levels of power production have a minimum persistence between 80 and 100 minutes at around 1 pm. Maximum persistence is around midnight varying between 220 minutes (PUPP) and 140 minutes (PHPP). It can be seen that for power levels below 50% of maximum production the time of day dependency of persistence is very similar. For power levels above 50% persistence decreases as power production increases. However, the persistence variability with the power level is rather low, for example, maximum persistence at a level of 75% is almost 180 minutes whereas for a level above 0.05% is 200 minutes.\
For wind directions in the sector $270^{\circ}$-$360^{\circ}$, it shows that, for all power levels, the curves for both PUPP and PHPP are similar, i.e. their minima and maxima are located around the same time of the day. For instance, maximal persistence of production is reached at around midday. However, for this direction sector, the higher the power production level, the lower the persistence. For power production above 0.05% of maximum power the persistence is 250 minutes, persistence of production above 75% of maximum power is only 100 minutes.\
Comparing with the other dominant direction, it can be seen, that they have very different persistence behavior. The maxima and minima are at different times of the day for every power level. The persistence increases as power production decreases, for all power levels in the case of the $270^{\circ}$-$360^{\circ}$ sector. For the $90^{\circ}$-$180^{\circ}$ sector it decreases only until 50% of maximum power production. Below that, it remains approximately constant.
Conclusions {#Conclusions}
===========
This paper presents an inhomogeneous Markov process to model wind power production. It is developed using states, which combine information about the wind speed, direction and power variables, using real data recorded by a wind turbine in Portugal. The joint partition of the three-dimensional variable space allows to decrease the number of the model states and, simultaneously, encodes the wind power curve into the Markov chain model. The transition probabilities are considered to be functions that depend on the time of the day and modeled as Bernstein polynomials. The estimation of the transition matrices is performed by solving a constrained convex optimization problem. Its objective function combines two log-likelihood functions with the purpose to accurately represent both the long-term behavior and the daily fluctuations seen in the original data. To evaluate the statistical properties of the estimated Markov model, synthetic time-series are generated and compared with the original data statistics. Results demonstrate that the proposed Markov model can reproduce the diurnal patterns in the data. Moreover it is demonstrated how the persistence of power production throughout the time of the day can be estimated from the Markov process transition matrices.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
The authors thank the Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia for financial support (SFRH/BD/86934/2012, FCOMP-01-0124-FEDER-016080 (PTDC/SENENR/1141718/2009)) and GENERG, SA.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- Srikar Kasi and Kyle Jamieson
bibliography:
- 'reference.bib'
title: Towards Quantum Belief Propagation for LDPC Decoding in Wireless Networks
---
<ccs2012> <concept> <concept\_id>10003033.10003058.10003065</concept\_id> <concept\_desc>Networks Wireless access points, base stations and infrastructure</concept\_desc> <concept\_significance>500</concept\_significance> </concept> <concept> <concept\_id>10010583.10010786.10010813.10011726</concept\_id> <concept\_desc>Hardware Quantum computation</concept\_desc> <concept\_significance>500</concept\_significance> </concept> </ccs2012>
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'Th. Roudier, M. Švanda, N. Meunier, S. Keil, M. Rieutord, J.M. Malherbe, S. Rondi, G. Molodij, V. Bommier , B. Schmieder.'
date: 'Received / Submitted '
subtitle: 'III. Effects on filament destabilization'
title: 'Large-scale horizontal flows in the solar photosphere'
---
Introduction
============
Dynamic processes on the Sun are linked to the evolution of the magnetic field as it is influenced by the different layers from the convection zone to the solar atmosphere. In the photosphere, magnetic fields are subject to diffusion due to supergranular flows and to the large-scale motions of differential rotation and meridional circulation. The action of these surface motions on magnetic fields plays an important role in the formation of large-scale filaments (Mackay and Gaizauskas 2003). In particular, the magnetic fields that are transported across the solar surface can be sheared by dynamic surface motions, which in turn result in shearing of the coronal field. This corresponds to the formation of coronal flux ropes in models, which can be compared with H$\alpha$ filament observations (Mackay and van Ballegooijen 2006b). Many theoretical models try to reproduce the basic structure and the stability of filaments by taking surface motions into account, as quoted above. These models predict that magnetic flux ropes involved in solar filament formation may be stable for many days and then suddenly become unstable, resulting in filament eruption. Observations show that twisting motions are a very common characteristic of eruptive prominences (see for example Patsourakos and Vial 2002). However, it is still unknown whether the magnetic flux ropes emerge already twisted or if it is only the photospheric motion that drives the twisting of the filament magnetic field. The destabilization of the filament can also be linked to oscillations (Pouget 2006). Therefore, it remains uncertain as to the mechanisms that drive filament disappearance. Destabilization can come from the interior of the structure or by means of an outside flare.
In a previous paper (Rondi et al. 2007, hence forth Paper I), local horizontal photospheric flows were measured at high spatial resolution (0.5) in the vicinity of and beneath a filament before and during the filament’s eruptive phases (the international JOP178 campaign). It was shown that the disappearance of the filament originates in a filament gap. Both parasitic and normal magnetic polarities were continuously swept into the gap by the diverging supergranular flow. We also observed the interaction of opposite polarities in the same region, which could be a candidate for initiating the destabilization of the filament by causing a reorganization of the magnetic field.
In this paper we investigate the large-scale photospheric flows at moderate spatial resolution (2) beneath and in the vicinity of the same eruptive filament. The observation and coalignment between data from various instruments are explained in Section 2. In Section 3, we describe the different methods of determining the flow field on the Sun surface. The large-scale flows associated with the filament are shown Section 4. The properties of these flows before and after the filament eruption are described in Section 5. In Section 6, we investigate the topology of horizontal flows in the filament area over the 3 days around the filament eruption. A discussion of the results and general conclusions can be found in Section 7.
Observations
============
During three consecutive days of the JOP 178 campaign, Oct 6, 7, and 8, 2004 (http://gaia.bagn.obs-mip.fr/jop178/index.html), we observed the evolution of a filament that was close to the central meridian. We also observed the photospheric flows directly below the filament and in its immediate vicinity. The filament extends from $-$5 to $-$30 in latitude. A filament eruption was observed on October 7, 2004, at 16:30 UT at multiple wavelengths from ground and space instruments. The eruption produced a coronal mass ejection (CME) at approximately 19:00 UT that was observed with LASCO-2/SOHO and two ribbon flares observed with the SOHO/EIT. MDI/SOHO longitudinal magnetic field and Doppler velocity were recorded with a cadence of one minute during the 3 days (see Table 1). The Air Force O-SPAN telescope located at the National Solar Observatory/Sacramento Peak provided a full-disc H$\alpha$ image every minute. The pixel sizes were 1.96 for MDI magnetograms and Dopplergrams and 1.077 for O-SPAN H$\alpha$ images. Table 1 summarises the characteristics of all the observations of JOP 178 used in our analysis.
[cccccc]{} Telescope & Datatype & Field of view & Pixel size & Cadence & Time U.T.\
ISOON & $H\alpha$ & full-disc & $1.077\arcsec$ & 1 min & 14:05–22:35 October 6\
& & & & & 13:30–20:31 October 7\
& & & & & 13:37–22:35 October 8\
\
MDI/SOHO & magnetogram & full-disc & $1.96\arcsec$ & 1 min & 20:49–23:49 October 6\
& Doppler velocity & & & & 9:44–22:50 October 7\
& & & & 1 min & 6:56–12:52 October 8\
& & & & 1 min & 16:09–19:33 October 8\
\
We coaligned all the data obtained by the different instruments (see Paper I for a complete description of the co-alignment procedure). Our primary goal was to derive the horizontal flow field below and around the filament. Co-alignment between SOHO/MDI magnetograms and O-SPAN data was accomplished by adjusting the chromospheric network visible in H$\alpha$ (O-SPAN) and the amplitude of longitudinal MDI magnetograms to an accuracy of one pixel (1.96).
The general magnetic context before and after the filament eruption is shown Fig. \[context8\].
Determination of the photospheric flows
========================================
Horizontal flows on the solar surface may be measured through the proper motion of the plasma or by the effects of the plasma on the magnetic structures.
Dopplergram processing
----------------------
In order to map the horizontal component of the large-scale photospheric plasma velocity fields, we applied local correlation tracking (LCT; November 1986) to a set of full-disc Dopplergrams obtained by the MDI instrument onboard SoHO. The aim of this method is to track the proper motion of supergranules that are clearly detectable on Dopplergrams everywhere except for the disk centre. The Dopplergrams were processed following the procedure described in Švanda et al. (2006) with slight modifications for our data. Hereafter we refer to this method as *LCT-Doppler*. Initially we suppress the solar $p$-mode oscillations. Using a weighted temporal average (see Hathaway 1988) described by the formula: $$w(\Delta t)= \exp\left[{\frac{b^2}{2a^2}}\right] \left(1+\frac{b^2-(\Delta t)^2}{2a^2}\right) - \exp\left[{\frac{(\Delta t)^2}{2a^2}}\right]$$ where $\Delta t$ is the time interval between a given frame and the central one (in minutes), $b=16$ min and $a=8$ min. The normalized version of this function has been applied to the data. This filter reduces the amplitudes of the solar oscillations in the 2–4 mHz frequency band by a factor of more than five hundred. The oscillations in each frame were reduced using a window of 31 successive frames. The different time series were tracked using the Carrington rotation rate (with an angular velocity of 13.2 degrees per day), so that all the frames have the same heliographic longitude of the central meridian ($l_0=62.24\,^\circ$). The tracked data were remapped into a sinusoidal pseudocylindrical coordinate system (also know as Sanson-Flamsteed grid) to reduce the distortion of structures in the Dopplergrams caused by the geometrical projection to the disc. The sinusoidal projection is suitable to describe the behaviour on the large scales. Tracked and remapped time series then undergo a $k$–$\omega$ filtering with cut-off velocity of 1500 ms$^{-1}$ to suppress the noise coming from the groups of granules and the change of contrast of supergranular structures due to the solar rotation. The individual frames were apodized by 10% using a smooth function, the same apodization took place in the temporal domain. The resulting data series of tracked, remapped and filtered frames were then ready for tracking.
The LCT method applied to full-disc Dopplergrams is characterised by a Gaussian correlation window ($FWHM=60^{\prime\prime}$) and a time lag between correlated frames of 1 hour (basically 60 frames). In all cases, one half of the intervals were before the eruption and the second half after the eruption. All the pairs of correlated frames in the studied intervals were averaged to increase the signal to numerical noise ratio.
Magnetogram processing
----------------------
The second method by which we determine motions on the solar surface used the full-disc magnetograms obtained by MDI/SoHO. To reduce the distortion of structures seen in the magnetograms caused by the geometrical projection to the disc, we applied Sanson-Flamsteed grid projection. To measure the differential motions of features on the solar surface, the data were aligned on a band along the equator. Due to the numerous magnetic structures to be tracked manually, the field of view was limited to $-$35 to 20 in longitude and $-$3 to $-$30 in latitude. The displacement of the longitudinal magnetic structures visible on the magnetograms (both positive and negative) was determined with two different methods:
1. The first approach, hereafter named *manu-B*, was to manually locate each magnetic structure in each magnetogram to determine its trajectory and its horizontal velocity. Once the velocities in the field of view were determined, as the magnetic structures do not sample the field of view unifomly, we applied a reconstruction of the velocity field based on multi-resolution analysis described by Rieutord et al. (2007), which allows us to limit the effects of the noise and error propagation.
2. The second approach, named *LCT-B*, was to apply the LCT on magnetic structures with absolute values greater than 25 Gauss to reduce the noise. The LCT method applied to these magnetograms used a Gaussian correlation window ($FWHM=60^{\prime\prime}$) and a time lag between correlated frames of 1 hour.
The horizontal flow field measured using the plasma (Dopplergrams) differs from that measured using magnetic features. This results because the magnetic field structures are not actually passive scalars; they can interact with the plasma and are also constrained by their interactions in the upper atmosphere. It is therefore not surprising to observe small differences in the velocity fields derived from the various tracers (Dopplergram or magnetic structures).
Photospheric flow pattern below and around the filament
=======================================================
\
\
In this Section we describe the flows associated with the filament eruption, with particular emphasis on the filament evolution and properties of the the mean East-West (zonal) velocities.
Flow fields
-----------
The flow fields in the vicinity of the filament obtained from 13-hour averages of velocities found using the three different methods described above are shown in Fig. \[context3\]. Inspection of these maps shows that all three methods provide similar large-scale velocity patterns. The amplitudes of the flows are given in Table 2. The LCT method applied to magnetic structures with amplitude greater than 25 Gauss appears to underestimate the amplitude of the flows obtained from the two other methods. This is partially because of to the large window ($FWHM=60^{\prime\prime}$) used in the LCT method, combined with the uneven distribution of the magnetic structures in the field of view. The correlation between zonal component, $v_x$, between the three methods is between 0.48 and 0.40, while the correlation for meridian component, $v_y$, is between 0.21 and 0.11. The low correlation coefficients for the meridian component probably occurs because the main direction of the flows in our field of view is zonal and theamplitude of the meridian component is small. We estimate that the directional error in our measurements of the velocities is about $\pm$5. A small error in determining the direction of the flow, for example 10, can affect the amplitude of the meridian component by a factor two. This error would greatly decrease the correlation in the meridian component of the flow. However, as seen in Fig. \[context3\], the general trend is similar in the velocity fields resulting from the three different methods. In particular, the north–south stream that disturbs the differential rotation around $-$25 is easily visible, and most of the large-scale features of the vector orientations can be identified. We note that the lowest correlation coefficient is found between *LCT-B* and the other methods *manu-B*, *LCT-Doppler*. This results when the *LCT-B* method clearly underestimates the amplitude flows. In agreement with the previous results of Schuck (2006), we conclude that this method is probably not suitable for accurately estimating horizontal velocities of magnetic footpoints.
The correlation is higher in the longitudinal region between heliographic coordinates of $-$5 and 20 where it is between 0.58 and 0.41 for $v_x$ and between 0.34 and 0.17 for $v_y$. In this region, the large-scale flows are well-structured and show both converging and diverging velocity patterns. We observe in particular a large-scale stream in the north–south direction parallel to the filament located about 10 to the east and between $-$20 and $-$30 in latitude and 58and 47 in longitude. This flow stream is clearly visible in Fig. \[context3\] (upper and middle panels), and its dynamics can be seen at http://gaia.bagn.obs-mip.fr/jop178/oct7/mdi/7oct-mdi.htm. Around $-$20 in latitude, the velocities of the differential rotation amplitude appears to dominate. However, in both measurements we observe that the north–south large-scale stream on the eastern edge of the filament disturbs the regular differential rotation. The north–south stream is located close to where the filament eruption begins (longitude $l=56^\circ$, latitude $b=-26^\circ$ in Carrington coordinates). In the *manu-B* and *LCT-B* methods, the stream appears closer to the filament. The amplitudes of the southward motions are *manu-B* 31.2 ms$^{-1}$, *LCT-Doppler* 40 ms$^{-1}$, and *LCT-B* 13 ms$^{-1}$ which are close to the mean observed flows (see Table 2). Below the latitude of $-$20, the combination of differential rotation and the north–south stream cause opposite polarities to move closer together, which strongly increases the tension in the magnetic field very close to the starting point of the filament eruption. Our measurements show a good agreement between the *manu-B* and *LCT-Doppler* methods.
Filament evolution
------------------
The filament’s evolution can be seen in Fig. \[context13\]. The north–south stream flow visible in Fig. \[context6\] (left) crosses over the part of the filament labeled A. The arrow on Fig. \[context13\] indicates the same fixed point (325,167) in all of the subframes. We observe a general southward motion of both the A and B segments of the filament. More precisely, we measure a tilt of these two filament segments at the point of their separation. Between 16:07 UT and 16:58 UT, the long axis of segment A rotates by an angle of 12 (clockwise) relative to its western end, and the long axis of segment B of the filament rotates by an angle of 5.5 (clockwise) relative to its western end. These rotations are compatible with the surface flow shown in Fig. \[context6\] (left) and in particular the north–south stream flow. We did not find a singular pivot point where differential rotation did not displace the filament with respect to the flare location (Mouradian 2007) for the present filament. The southern segment of the filament does not reform after the eruption. This sudden disappearance shows there was an important change in the sun and not only in the solar atmosphere (Mouradian 2007).
[cccc]{} & *manu-B & *LCT-Doppler & *LCT-B\
***
mean velocity & 43.6 & 28.7 & 10.6\
maximum velocity & 111.1 & 87.0 & 32.5\
minimum velocity & 0.9 & 0.26 & 0.04\
\
Mean zonal velocities
---------------------
Figure \[context4\] show plots of the mean zonal velocities resulting from the three different velocity determination methods as functions of latitude. The mean zonal velocities from the *manu-B* method clearly show the differential rotation profile with a plateau around $-$25, which corresponds to the effects of the north–south stream discussed above. A similar profile, but with a lower amplitude, is visible in the mean zonal velocities obtained from the *LCT-B* method. These two methods measure the displacement of the magnetic structures on the Sun’s surface. The *LCT-Doppler* method, which measures the motion of the photospheric plasma, shows a mean zonal velocity profile in which differential rotation is clearly visible, along with a strong secondary maximum visible at $-$23 of latitude. The secondary maximum indicates a decrease in the amplitude of the $v_x$ component because the flows in that region are oriented more in the north–south direction. That is partly due to the presence of the north–south stream described above and to the local organisation of the flow. In particular, converging and diverging flows in this region seem to have a North–South orientation.
To distinguish the effects of the north–south stream from differential rotation, we computed the mean zonal velocities from $-$25 to $-$17 in longitude centred on the region where the north-south stream is present and from 0 to 20 in longitude where, differential rotation dominates, with respect to the disc centre velocity. The mean zonal velocities in the longitudinal belt, where the north–south stream is visible, clearly exhibits a secondary maximum (Fig. \[context14\]) indicating that the solar rotation rate at this location is closer to that of the equator. The mean zonal velocities computed in the standard differential rotation belt show the classic latitude profile with a constant decrease down to the low latitudes. As a consequence, the plasma in the north–south stream, which transports magnetic structures, rotates faster at about $-$23latitude than do the magnetic structure located in the belt of longitude between 0 to 20. The combination of these different surface motions (stream and differential rotation) tends to bring together fields with opposite polarities, and this in turn constrains the magnetic field lines.
We noted that the location of the starting point of the filament eruption is around $-$26 in latitude, which is very close to the secondary maximum in the mean zonal velocity. Thus surface motions that bring opposite polarities together may play a role in triggering the filament eruption.
Flow fields before and after the eruption
=========================================
\
\
In this section we discuss the properties of the flow field just before and after the filament eruption, which occurred at about 16:30 UT. Due to the length of the sequence and because it is easier to accurately track the flow using Doppler images than it is to track the small number of magnetic features above 25 Gauss, only the measurements obtained with the *LCT-Doppler* are used in this section.
At the point where the filament eruption begins ($l=56^\circ$, $b=-26^\circ$ in Carrington coordinates), we detected a steepening of the gradient in the differential rotation curve. During the eruption, the gradient flattens out and a dip forms. While differential rotation curves describe mean zonal velocities over most of the disc, their change in gradient signifies a change in the stretching forces influencing the magnetic field loops over the area under study. We can express the surface rotation as an even power of $ \sin\phi$ : $R=A + B \sin^2\phi+ C \sin^4\phi$, where $A$ is the angular velocity rate of the equatorial rotation and $\phi$ the heliographic latitude. From the data we find that the constant values (with their errors in parentheses) are before the eruption $A=13.375(0.010)$, $B=-1.46(0.10)$, $C=-1.42(0.20)$ and after the eruption $A=13.404(0.010)$, $B=-1.78(0.10)$, $C=-1.24(0.20)$. All of the rates are synodical in degday$^{-1}$. The full-disc profiles did not change significantly from before to after the eruption. For example, for a latitude of $-$30 the zonal velocity has values of 12.92 (resp. 12.88) degday$^{-1}$ ($-$34 ms$^{-1}$, resp. $-$39 ms$^{-1}$ in the Carrington coordinate system), for a latitude of $-$20 the values are 13.18 ($-$2 ms$^{-1}$), resp. 13.18 ($-$3 ms$^{-1}$), degday$^{-1}$. Although the parameters of the smooth fitted curve did not change too much, the local residual with respect to the smooth curve changed at the latitude where the filament eruption starts.
Figure \[context6\] displays the horizontal flows over a wide field of view measured using the *LCT-Doppler* method and then averaging the resulting velocities over 3 hours, before and after the filament eruption. Before the eruption we can clearly see the north–south stream parallel to and about 10 east of the filament. This stream disturbs differential rotation and brings plasma and magnetic structures to the south. Although differential rotation tends to spread the magnetic lines to the east, the observed north–south stream tends to shear the magnetic lines. After the eruption, only a northern segment of the filament is visible and the north–south stream has disappeared.
To quantify the evolution of the horizontal flow before and after the filament eruption, we computed the change in the direction of the velocity vectors. The noise discussed in sect. 4.1, which can affect the direction of small magnitude vectors, tends to reduce the correlation between flows. In order to mitigate this error, we computed the magnitude weighted cosine of the direction difference (as in Švanda et al., 2007), which is robust to the presence of noise. This quantity is given by the formula:
$$\rho_{\rm W} = \frac{\sum |{\mathbf a}| \frac{|{\mathbf a} \cdot {\mathbf b}|}
{|{\mathbf a}||{\mathbf b}|}}{\sum |{\mathbf a}|},$$
where $\mathbf a$ and $\mathbf b$ are vector fields, ${\mathbf a} \cdot
{\mathbf b}$ is a scalar multiplication and $|{\mathbf a}|$ is the magnitude. The closer this quantity is to 1, the better the alignment between two vector fields.
Figure \[context61\] displays the magnitude-weighted cosine map computed between flows before and after the eruption of the filament shown in Fig. \[context6\]. This map was computed by using a sliding window with a size of 8.8on a side (41.2being the side of the data plot). The magnitude weighted cosine map (Fig. \[context61\]) reveals that changes in the vicinity of the north–south velocity stream are significant, while the horizontal flow field in the remainder of the field of view is more stable. Although variations in the flow field were expected to be more or less random over the field of view, we observe in that particular case that most of the variations between before and after of the filament eruption are located in the north–south stream. The disappearance of the north–south stream after the eruption could be linked to the eruption or to a natural evolution of the photospheric flows.
\
Figure \[context9\] shows the flow field in more detail at the site where the eruption starts. The shear in the zonal component at the point where the eruption starts ($l=56^\circ$, $b=-26^\circ$ in Carrington coordinates) is clearly visible and exits before and after the eruption, although the shape of the apparent vorticity has changed. This location corresponds to the area of upflow observed in the Meudon H$\alpha$ Dopplergram (Fig. 8 in Paper I).
We defined the shear as a difference between the mean zonal component $v_x$ in the area just North and just South of the point at which the eruption appeared to start. We obtained the mean zonal flow by averaging over boxes 2.3 on a side located 2.9 North and South of this point. The evolution in the shear velocity computed as the difference between the mean flow in the two boxes as a function of time is shown in Fig. \[context11\]. Six 2-hour averages of the flow fields were used to create this figure. The error bars come from estimating the noise measured on the basis of synthetic data from Švanda et al. (2006). One can see that the shear velocity increased before the eruption and decreased after the eruption. One hour before the eruption, the shear reached the value of (120$\pm$15) ms$^{-1}$ over a distance of 5.2 (62000 km in the photosphere). After the filament eruption, we observed the restoration of ordinary differential rotation below 30 south.
Evolution over 6, 7, and 8 October, 2004
========================================
\
In Fig. \[context12\] we compare the flow field in the filament region on the day of the eruption (October 7, 2004), with the flow fields on the preceding and following days. We see that the topology of the flows in this region changed over the three days: the daily evolution of the mean zonal profiles is shown in Fig. \[context12\] (bottom right). The dashed line with triangles is the mean zonal velocity for 6 October, 2004. This profile is relatively flat probably due to the short time sequence as only 3 hours of data were available. The differential rotation profile for October 7 shows a secondary maximum around $-$23 in latitude, as discussed in Sect. 4. The October 8 profile exhibits similar trend, but with a smaller amplitude and an eastward velocity for latitudes greater than 10. The secondary maximum appears strongly reduced, indicating restoration to a more regular differential rotation pattern in that zone.
One day before the eruption, shear began to form at the site where the filament eruption is triggered ($l=56^\circ$, $b=-26^\circ$ in Carrington coordinates). The north–south stream is also visible. Both phenomena may store free energy in the coronal magnetic field configuration. The topology of the flow and the stream are different a day after the filament eruption suggesting that, after the disappearance of the southern part of the filament the conditions in the photosphere below, the filament became more relaxed. This may suggest the mutual coupling of the photospheric flow and the configuration of the coronal magnetic field. To confirm this idea, high-cadence high-resolution images and magnetograms covering the eruption time would be needed.
Discussion and conclusion
=========================
Filaments or prominences are important complex structures of the solar atmosphere because they are linked to CMEs, which can influence the Earth’s atmosphere and near-space environment. Surface motions acting on pre-existing coronal fields play a critical role in the formation of filaments. They appear to reconfigure existing coronal fields, by twisting and stretching them, thereby depositing energy in the topology of the coronal magnetic field. Photospheric motions can also initiate coronal magnetic field disruption. Surface motions play an important role in forming Type B filament that are located between young and old dipoles and have a long, stable structure. This class of filaments (Type B) requires surface motions to gradually reconfigure preexisting coronal fields.
In a previous study (Paper I), we removed all the large-scale flows in order to focus on smaller scale flow, such as mesogranulation and supergranulation. In this paper we have retained the large-scale flows in order to study their influence on the triggering of a filament eruption.
The three different methods used to estimate horizontal flows, while exhibiting small differences, provided a consistent picture of the general trends of the flow patterns. The *LCT-B* method gave smaller velocity amplitudes but the flow directions agreed quite well with the other methods. The smaller amplitude occurs because of the small number of the small isolated magnetic elements and the smoothing effect of the spatial window used by this method. This leads to smoothing the results of the *LCT-B* method by approximately a factor of two. This agrees with the previous results of Schuck (2006), who shows that this method is not suitable for determining accurately estimating of the magnetic footpoint velocities. Correlation coefficients comparing velocities from the *manu-B* and *LCT-Doppler* methods are positive and significant. General trends are very similar; however, we see many local discrepancies in the measured flow fields due to the noise. This implies that magnetic elements (detected by the *LCT-B* and *manu-B* methods) do not necessary follow the plasma flow (detected by the *LCT-Doppler* method).
The filament eruption started at about 16:30 UT at the latitude around $-$25 where the measurements of the horizontal flows based on Dopplergram tracking show a modification of the slope in the differential rotation of the plasma. This behaviour is not observed in the curves obtained by tracking the longitudinal magnetic field; both methods show a continuous slope in the differential rotation in the same place. This seems to be a consequence of the presence of a north–south stream along the filament position, which is easily measured by tracing Doppler structures and is only slightly visible in maps obtained by tracking of magnetic elements.
The observed north–south stream has an amplitude of 30–40 ms$^{-1}$. In the sequence of H$\alpha$ image that record the filament’s evolution, the part of the filament, which is in the north–south stream, is rotated in a direction compatible with the flow direction of the stream. This behaviour suggests that the foot-points of the filament are carried by the surface flows. The influence of the stream is strengthened by differential rotation. We should keep in mind that the filament extends from $-$5 to $-$30 in latitude and that the northern part of the filament is subjected to a larger rotation than the southern part.
The north–south stream, along with contribution from differential rotation causes the stretching of the coronal magnetic field in the filament and therefore contributes to destabilizing the filament. The topology of the north–south stream changed after the filament eruption, nearly vanishing.
We have measured an increase in the zonal shear at the site where the filaments eruption begins, before and its sudden decrease after the eruption. This result suggests that the shear in the zonal component of the flow field is the most important component of the surface flow affecting the stability of the coronal magnetic field, and it can lead to its eruption, which in turn can drive active phenomena such as ribbon flares and CMEs. This evolution of the shear in the flow field is probably related to the re-orientation by 70 (or 110) of the transverse field after the eruption seen in the daily vector magnetograms obtained with THEMIS (Paper I)).
All of the features observed in the topology of the horizontal velocity fields at the starting-point site could contribute to destabilizing the filament, resulting in its eruption. The present study has only examined the flows in the vincinity of a single filament. From our data, we propose that the stability and evolution of the filament are influenced by surface flows that carry the footpoints of the filament. In addition, Dudǐk et al. (2007) constructed a linear magnetohydrostatic model of the northern part of the filament. His models show that the shape of the dipped field lines of the central part of the filament footpoints closely resemble the shape of the underlying, nearby polarities. This suggests a reconnection could be taking place between the flux of the incoming parasitic polarity and the “native” flux of the weak polarities dominant in that part of the filament channel.
Filaments, or prominences, are important complex structures of the solar atmosphere. Several mechanisms are probably involved in the filament eruptions: the action of surface motions to create or increase the helicity of the flux rope (van Driel-Gesztelyi 2005, Romano 2005), reconnecting field lines in the corona (Mackay and van Ballegooijen, 2006a), the chilarity evolution of the barbs (Su et al. 2005), and oscillations of the filament (Pouget 2006), etc. The coronal magnetic field is generally thought to be anchored in the photosphere, and flux transport on the solar surface (Wang et al. 1989) is the natural mechanism to explain the evolution of filament. Recent models of the large-scale coronal structure (Mackay and van Ballegooijen, 2006a) consider the action of the large-scale surface motions, such as differential rotation, meridional flow, and surface diffusion (supergranular). Recent analysis of the near-surface flows computed from Doppler imaging, provided by the MDI/SOHO instrument, reveals the shearing flow aligned with the neutral line (Hindman et al. 2006). Our present observation indicates that large-scale surface flows are structured (not uniform), showing areas of divergence or stream flows that should be taken into account in the numerical simulations.
A better understanding of the mechanisms that lead to filament eruptions requires simultaneous multi-wavelength and multi-spatial resolution observations (both high resolution of the filament and low resolution of the full sun) over a wide range of latitudes. Indeed, our previous works showed that different phenomena are observed at high resolution, such as magnetic reconnection close to the starting location of the filament eruption (Paper I). In this paper, observing a larger area at lower resolution, we showed that, at the same location where the filament first begins to erupt, there is a steep gradient in differential rotation, a north-south stream, and a shear in the zonal component.
The next step in our study of the filament eruptions will be to examine the evolution of the extrapolated coronal field from photospheric longitudinal magnetograms to determine whether the effects of surface motions on coronal fields play a critical role in causing filament eruptions.
This work was supported by the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (C.N.R.S., UMR 5572, and UMR 8109), by the Programme National Soleil Terre (P.N.S.T.), by the Czech Science Foundation under grant 205/04/2129, and by ESA-PECS under grant No. 8030. SOHO is a mission of international cooperation between the ESA and NASA. This work was supported by the European commission through the RTN programme (HPRN-CT-2002-00313). We wish to thank ISOON/O-SPAN, SOHO/MDI, SOHO/EIT teams for their technical help.
Dudǐk, J., Aulanier, G., Schmieder, B., Bommier, V., and Roudier, Th. 2007 submited to Sol.Phys.
Hathaway, D. H. 1988, Sol. Phys., 117, 1
Hindmann, B. W., Haber, D. A., Toomre, J. 2006 ApJ 653, 725
Mackay, D.H., and Gaizauskas, V. 2003 Sol.Phys. 216, 121
Mackay, D.H., van Ballegooijen, A. A. 2006a ApJ 641, 577
Mackay, D.H., and van Ballegooijen, A.A. 2006b ApJ 642, 1193
Mouradian 2007 Private communication
November, L.J. 1986, Appl. Opt. 25, 392
Patsourakos, S. and Vial, J.C. 2002 Sol. Phys. 208,253
Pouget, G. 2006 PhD Thesis, Université Paris XI Orsay
Rieutord, M., Roques, S., Roudier, Th., and Ducottet, C. 2007 A&A in press.
Romano, P., Contarino, L., Zuccarello, F.2005 A&A 433, 683
Rondi, S., Roudier, Th., Molodij, G., Bommier, V., Keil, S., Sütterlin, P., Malherbe, J.M., Meunier, N., Schmieder, B., Maloney, P. 2007 A&A 467, 1289
Schuck,P.W. 2006 ApJ 646, 1358
Su, J. T., Liu, Y., Zhang, H. Q., Kurokawa, H., Yurchyshyn, V., Shibata, K., Bao, X. M., Wang, G. P., Li, C. 2005 ApJ 630L.101
Švanda, M., Klvaňa, M., and Sobotka, M. 2006 A&A 458, 301
Švanda, M., Zhao, J. ; Kosovichev, A. G. , 2007, Sol.Phys. 241, 27
van Driel-Gesztelyi, L.2005 Astron. and Astrophys. Space Science Library, vol. 320, Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2005., p.57-85
Wang Y.-M., Nash, A. G., Sheeley, N. R. 1989 Science 245, 712
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
Today, the vocabulary size for language models in large vocabulary speech recognition is typically several hundreds of thousands of words. While this is already sufficient in some applications, the out-of-vocabulary words are still limiting the usability in others. In agglutinative languages the vocabulary for conversational speech should include millions of word forms to cover the spelling variations due to colloquial pronunciations, in addition to the word compounding and inflections. Very large vocabularies are also needed, for example, when the recognition of rare proper names is important.
Previously, very large vocabularies have been efficiently modeled in conventional n-gram language models either by splitting words into subword units or by clustering words into classes. While vocabulary size is not as critical anymore in modern speech recognition systems, training time and memory consumption become an issue when state-of-the-art neural network language models are used. In this paper we investigate techniques that address the vocabulary size issue by reducing the effective vocabulary size and by processing large vocabularies more efficiently.
The experimental results in conversational Finnish and Estonian speech recognition indicate that properly defined word classes improve recognition accuracy. Subword n-gram models are not better on evaluation data than word n-gram models constructed from a vocabulary that includes all the words in the training corpus. However, when recurrent neural network (RNN) language models are used, their ability to utilize long contexts gives a larger gain to subword-based modeling. Our best results are from RNN language models that are based on statistical morphs. We show that the suitable size for a subword vocabulary depends on the language. Using time delay neural network (TDNN) acoustic models, we were able to achieve new state of the art in Finnish and Estonian conversational speech recognition, 27.1 % word error rate in the Finnish task and 21.9 % in the Estonian task.
author:
- 'Seppo Enarvi, Peter Smit, Sami Virpioja, and Mikko Kurimo, [^1][^2][^3]'
bibliography:
- 'IEEEabrv.bib'
- 'references.bib'
title: Automatic Speech Recognition with Very Large Conversational Finnish and Estonian Vocabularies
---
[Enarvi : ASR with Very Large Conversational Finnish and Estonian Vocabularies]{}
language modeling, word classes, subword units, artificial neural networks, automatic speech recognition
Introduction
============
and Estonian are agglutinative languages, meaning that words are formed by concatenating smaller linguistic units, and a great deal of grammatical information is conveyed by inflection. Modeling these inflected words correctly is important for automatic speech recognition, to produce understandable transcripts. Recognizing a suffix correctly can also help to predict the other words in the sentence. By collecting enough training data, we can get a good coverage of the words in one form or another—perhaps names and numbers being an exception—but we are far from having enough training data to find examples of all the inflected word forms.
Another common feature of Finnish and Estonian is that the orthography is phonemic. Consequently, the spelling of a word can be altered according to the pronunciation changes in conversational language. Especially Finnish conversations are written down preserving the variation that happens in colloquial pronunciation [@Enarvi:2013]. Modeling such languages as a sequence of complete word forms becomes difficult, as most of the forms are very rare. In our data sets, most of the word forms appear only once in the training data.
Agglutination has a far more limited impact on the vocabulary size in English. Nevertheless, the vocabularies used in English language have grown as larger corpora are used and computers are able to store larger language models in memory. Moreover, as speech technology improves, we start to demand better recognition of e.g. proper names that do not appear in the training data.
Modern automatic speech recognition (ASR) systems can handle vocabularies as large as millions of words with simple n-gram language models, but a second recognition pass with a neural network language model (NNLM) is now necessary for achieving state-of-the-art performance. Vocabulary size is much more critical in NNLMs, as neural networks take a long time to train, and training and inference times depend heavily on the vocabulary size. While computational efficiency is the most important reason for finding alternatives to word-based modeling, words may not be the best choice of language modeling unit with regard to model performance either, especially when modeling agglutinative languages.
Subword models have been successfully used in Finnish ASR for more than a decade [@Hirsimaki:2006]. In addition to reducing the complexity of the language model, subword models bring the benefit that even words that do not occur in the training data can be predicted. However, subwords have not been used for modeling *conversational* Finnish or Estonian before. Our earlier attempts to use subwords for conversational Finnish ASR failed to improve over word models. In this paper, we show how subword models can be used in the FST-based Kaldi speech recognition toolkit and obtain the best results to date by rescoring subword lattices using subword NNLMs, 27.1 % WER for spontaneous Finnish conversations, and 21.9 % WER for spontaneous Estonian conversations. This is the first published evaluation of subwords in conversational Finnish and Estonian speech recognition tasks.
Our conclusions are slightly different from those earlier published on standard Finnish and Estonian tasks, where n-gram models based on statistical morphs have provided a large improvement to speech recognition accuracy [@Siivola:2003; @Hirsimaki:2006; @Kurimo:2006]. An important reason is that we are able to use very large vocabularies (around two million words) in the word-based n-gram models. Recently it has been noticed that the gap between subword and word models becomes quite small when such a large word vocabulary is used [@Varjokallio:2016]. In our conversational Finnish and Estonian experiments, word and subword n-gram models performed quite similarly in terms of evaluation set word error rate. Our new observation is that neural networks are especially beneficial for modeling subwords—subword NNLMs are clearly better than word NNLMs trained using the full vocabulary.
Another approach for very large vocabulary speech recognition is using word classes in the language models. We evaluate different algorithms for clustering words into classes. Recent comparisons have shown an advantage in perplexity for the exchange algorithm over Brown clustering, while clusterings created from distributed word representations have not worked as well [@Botros:2015; @Dehdari:2016; @Song:2017]. We present additionally a novel rule-based algorithm that clusters colloquial Finnish word forms, and also evaluate word error rate. Surprisingly, class-based n-gram models perform better than word models in terms of perplexity and speech recognition accuracy in conversational Finnish and Estonian.
Word classes and subword units are especially attractive in NNLMs, because the vocabulary size has a great impact on the memory consumption and computational complexity. The size of the input layer projection matrix and the output layer weight matrix, as well as the time required to normalize the output probabilities using softmax, have a linear dependency on the vocabulary size. The output normalization can also be made more efficient by using one of the several methods that try to approximate the full softmax, either by modifying the network structure or the training objective. So far the only comparison of these approximations for large-vocabulary NNLMs that we are aware of is in [@Chen:2016]. They found hierarchical softmax to perform best in terms of perplexity with a vocabulary of 800,000 words and a feedforward network.
We compare hierarchical softmax, sampling-based softmax, class-based models, and subword models in speech recognition on languages that are known for very large vocabularies. Both data sets contain around two million unique word forms. In our experiments where the training time was limited to 15 days, class-based NNLMs clearly exceeded the performance of word-based NNLMs in terms of perplexity and recognition accuracy. The best results were from subword models. In the Estonian task, the best subword vocabularies were quite large, and the best result was from a class-based subword model. We also test two methods for weighting separate language modeling data sets: weighted sampling, which has already been introduced in [@Schwenk:2005] and update weighting, which is a novel method.
All the neural network language modeling techniques presented in this paper have been implemented in the open-source toolkit TheanoLM [@Enarvi:2016], which we hope to lower the threshold of using neural network language models in speech recognition research.[^4] We implemented hierarchical softmax [@Goodman:2001], noise-contrastive estimation [@Gutmann:2010], and BlackOut [@Ji:2016] training criteria, and a lattice decoder that takes advantage of parallel computation using a GPU.
We use a fairly complex recurrent model consisting of an LSTM layer and a highway network to obtain state-of-the-art results, and run the experiments on a high-end GPU. Our experiments show that class and subword models are more attractive than word models for several reasons. They are efficient computationally and in terms of memory consumption, and they can achieve better performance than word models. Usually subword vocabularies include all the individual letters, meaning that any word that uses the same letters can be constructed. Class models are restricted to a certain vocabulary, but the efficiency is not limited by the vocabulary size, so very large vocabularies can be used.
To summarize, this is the first time Finnish and Estonian subword models have outperformed word models in conversational speech recognition, even without limiting the word vocabulary size. We compare word clustering techniques and show that class-based models outperform full-vocabulary word models in these tasks. We also present the first comparison of word, class, and subword NNLMs trained using different softmax approximations, applied to speech recognition. Finally, we test a novel method for weighting NNLM training corpora.
Class-Based Language Models
===========================
Finnish and Estonian are highly agglutinative languages, so the number of different word forms that appear in training corpora is huge. The pronunciation variation in colloquial Finnish is also written down, making it very difficult to reliably estimate the probability of the rare words in new contexts. If we can cluster word forms into classes based on in which contexts they appear, we can get more reliable estimates for the class n-gram probabilities. In a class-based language model, the probability of a word within its class is usually modeled simply as the unigram probability of the word in the training data [@Brown:1992]:
$$\label{eq:class-ngram}
\begin{split}
&P(w_t \mid w_{t-n+1} \ldots w_{t-1}) = \\
&P(c(w_t) \mid c(w_{t-n+1}) \ldots c(w_{t-1})) P(w_t \mid c(w_t)),
\end{split}$$
where $c(w)$ is a function that maps a word to a class. This is also the model that we use in this article.
Statistical Methods for Clustering Words into Classes
-----------------------------------------------------
A common cost function for learning the word classes is the perplexity of a class bigram model, which is equivalent to using the log probability objective:
$$\label{eq:class-bigram}
\mathcal{L} = \sum_t [\log P(c(w_t) \mid c(w_{t-1})) + \log P(w_t \mid c(w_t))]$$
Finding the optimal clustering is computationally very challenging. Evaluating the cost involves summation over all adjacent classes in the training data [@Brown:1992]. The algorithms that have been proposed are suboptimal. Another approach that can be taken is to use knowledge about the language to group words that have a similar function.
Brown et al. [@Brown:1992] start by assigning each word to a distinct class, and then merge classes in a greedy fashion. A naive algorithm would evaluate the objective function for each pair of classes. One iteration of the naive algorithm would on average run in $\mathcal{O}(N_V^4)$ time, where $N_V$ is the size of the vocabulary. This involves a lot of redundant computation that can be eliminated by storing some statistics between iterations, reducing the time required to run one iteration to $\mathcal{O}(N_V^2)$.
To further reduce the computational complexity, they propose an approximation where, at any given iteration, only a subset of the vocabulary is considered. Starting from the most frequent words, $N_C$ words are assigned to distinct classes. On each iteration, the next word is considered for merging to one of the classes. The running time of one iteration is $\mathcal{O}(N_C^2)$. The algorithm stops after $N_V - N_C$ iterations, and results in all the words being in one of the $N_C$ classes.
The exchange algorithm proposed by Kneser and Ney [@Kneser:1993] starts from some initial clustering that assigns every word to one of $N_C$ classes. The algorithm iterates through all the words in the vocabulary, and evaluates how much the objective function would change by moving the word to each class. If there are moves that would improve the objective function, the word is moved to the class that provides the largest improvement.
By storing word and class bigram statistics, the evaluation of the objective function can be done in $\mathcal{O}(N_C)$, and thus one word iterated in $\mathcal{O}(N_C^2)$ time [@Martin:1995]. The number of words that will be iterated is not limited by a fixed bound. Even though we did not perform the experiments in such a way that we could get a fair comparison of the training times, we noticed that our exchange implementation needed less time to converge than what the Brown clustering needed to finish.[^5]
These algorithms perform a lot of computation of statistics and evaluations over pairs of adjacent classes and words. In practice the running times are better than the worst case estimates, because all classes and words do not follow each other. The algorithms can also be parallelized using multiple CPUs, on the expense of memory requirements. Parallelization using a GPU would be difficult, because that would involve sparse matrices.
The exchange algorithm is greedy so the order in which the words are iterated may affect the result. The initialization may also affect whether the optimization will get stuck in a local optimum, and how fast it will converge. We use the exchange[^6] tool, which by default initializes the classes by sorting the words by frequency and assigning word $w_i$ to class $i \mod N_C$, where $i$ is the sorted index. We compare this to initialization from other clustering methods.
Clustering Based on Distributed Representation of Words
-------------------------------------------------------
Neural networks that process words need to represent them using real-valued vectors. The networks learn the word embeddings automatically. These *distributed representations* are interesting on their own, because the network tends to learn similar representation for semantically similar words [@Mikolov:2013:NAACL]. An interesting alternative to statistical clustering of words is to cluster words based on their vector representations using traditional clustering methods.
Distributed word representations can be created quickly using shallow networks, such as the Continuous Bag-of-Words (CBOW) model [@Mikolov:2013:ICLR]. We use word2vec[^7] to cluster words by creating word embeddings using the CBOW model and clustering them using k-means.
A Rule-Based Method for Clustering Finnish Words
------------------------------------------------
Much of the vocabulary in conversational Finnish text is due to colloquial Finnish pronunciations being written down phonetically. There are often several ways to write the same word depending on how colloquial the writing style is. Phonological processes such as reductions (“miksi” $\rightarrow$ “miks” \[*why*\]) and even word-internal sandhi (“menenpä” $\rightarrow$ “menempä” \[*I will go*\]) are often visible in written form. Intuitively grouping these different phonetic representations of the same word together would provide a good clustering. While the extent to which a text is colloquial does provide some clues for predicting the next word, in many cases these word forms serve exactly the same function.
This is closely related to normalization of imperfect text, a task which is common in all areas of language technology. Traditionally text normalization is based on hand-crafted rules and lookup tables. In the case that annotated data is available, supervised methods can be used for example to expand abbreviations [@Sproat:2001]. When annotations are not available, candidate expansions for a non-standard word can be found by comparing its lexical or phonemic form to standard words [@Han:2011]. The correct expansion often depends on the context. A language model can be incorporated to disambiguate between the alternative candidates when normalizing text. We are aware of one earlier work where colloquial Finnish has been translated to standard Finnish using both rule-based normalization and statistical machine translation [@Listenmaa:2015].
Two constraints makes our task different from text normalization: A word needs to be classified in the same way regardless of the context, and a word cannot be mapped to a word sequence. Our last clustering method, *Rules*, is based on a set of rules that describe the usual reductions and alternations in colloquial words. We iterate over a standard Finnish vocabulary and compare the standard Finnish word with every word in a colloquial Finnish vocabulary. If the colloquial word appears to be a reduced pronunciation of the standard word, these words are merged into a class. Because all the words can appear in at most one class, multiple standard words can be merged into one class, but this is rare. Thus, there will be only a handful of words in each class. Larger classes can be created by merging the classes produced by this algorithm using some other clustering technique.
Subword Language Models
=======================
Subword modeling is another effective technique to reduce vocabulary size. We use the Morfessor method [@Creutz:2002; @Creutz:2007:1], which has been successfully applied in speech recognition of many agglutinative languages [@Kurimo:2006; @Creutz:2007:2]. Morfessor is an unsupervised method that uses a statistical model to split words into smaller fragments. As these fragments often resemble the surface forms of morphemes, the smallest information-bearing units of a language, we will use the term “morph” for them.
Morfessor has three components: a model, a cost function, and the training and decoding algorithm. The model consists of a lexicon and a grammar. The lexicon contains the properties of the morphs, such as their written forms and frequencies. The grammar contains information of how the morphs can be combined into words. The Morfessor cost function is derived from MAP estimation with the goal of finding the optimal parameters $\theta$ given the observed training data $D_W$:
$$\begin{aligned}
\theta_{MAP} &= \operatorname*{arg\,max}_{\theta}P(\theta \mid D_W) \\
&= \operatorname*{arg\,max}_{\theta}P(\theta)P(D_W \mid \theta)
\end{aligned}$$
The objective function to be maximized is the logarithm of the product $P(\theta)P(D_W \mid \theta)$. In a semisupervised setting, it is useful to add a hyperparameter to control the weight of the data likelihood [@Kohonen:2010]:
$$\mathcal{L}(\theta, D_W) = \log P(\theta) + \alpha \log P(D_W \mid \theta)$$
We use the hyperparameter $\alpha$ to control the degree of segmentation in a heuristic manner. This allows for optimizing the segmentation, either for optimal perplexity or speech recognition accuracy or to obtain a specific size lexicon. A greedy search algorithm is used to find the optimal segmentation of morphs, given the training data. When the best model is found, it is used to segment the language model training corpus using the Viterbi algorithm.
We apply the Morfessor 2.0 implementation[^8] of the Morfessor Baseline algorithm with the hyperparameter extension [@Virpioja:2013]. In the output segmentation, we prepend and append the in-word boundaries of the morph surface forms by a “+” character. For example the compound word “luentokalvoja” is segmented into “luento kalvo ja” and then transformed to “luento+ +kalvo+ +ja” \[*lecture+ +slide+ +s*\] before language model training. All four different variants of a subword (e.g. “kalvo”, “kalvo+”, “+kalvo”, and “+kalvo+”) are treated as separate tokens in language model training. As high-order n-grams are required to provide enough context information for subword-based modeling, we use variable-length n-gram models trained using the VariKN toolkit[^9] that implements the Kneser-Ney growing and revised Kneser pruning algorithms [@Siivola:2007].
In the speech recognition framework based on weighted finite-state transducers (FSTs), we restrict the lexicon FST in such a way that only legal sequences (meaning that a morph can start with “+” if and only if the previous morph ends with a “+”) are allowed [@Smit:2017]. After decoding the ASR results, the morphs are joined together to form words for scoring.
Neural Network Language Models
==============================
Recurrent neural networks are known to work well for modeling language, as they can capture the long-term dependencies neglected by n-gram models [@Mikolov:2010]. Especially the subword-based approach should benefit from this capability of modeling long contexts. In this article we experiment with language models that are based on LSTMs and highway networks. These are layer types that use *sigmoid gates* to control information flow. The gates are optimized along with the rest of the neural network parameters, and learn to pass the relevant activations over long distances.
LSTM [@Hochreiter:1997] is a recurrent layer type. Each gate can be seen as an RNN layer with two weight matrices, $W$ and $U$, a bias vector $b$, and sigmoid activation. The output of a gate at time step $t$ is
$$g(x_t, h_{t-1}) = \sigma(W x_t + U h_{t-1} + b),$$
where $x_t$ is the output vector of the previous layer and $h_{t-1}$ is the LSTM layer state vector from the previous time step. When a signal is multiplied by the output of a sigmoid gate, the system learns to discard unimportant elements of the vector depending on the gate’s input.
An LSTM layer uses three gates to select what information to pass from the previous time step to the next time step unmodified, and what information to modify. The same idea can be used to select what information to pass to the next layer. Highway networks [@Srivastava:2015] use gates to facilitate information flow across many layers. At its simplest, only one gate is needed. In the feedforward case, there is only one input, $x_t$, and the gate needs only one weight matrix, $W_\sigma$. The gate learns to select between the layer’s input and its activation:
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:highway-network}
g(x_t) &= \sigma(W_\sigma x_t + b_\sigma) \\
y_t &= g(x_t) \odot \tanh(W x_t + b) + (1 - g(x_t)) \odot x_t
\end{aligned}$$
While LSTM helps propagation of activations and gradients in recurrent networks, deep networks benefit from highway connections. We did not notice much improvement by stacking multiple LSTM layers on top of each other. While we did not have the possibility to systematically explore different network architectures, one LSTM layer followed by a highway network seemed to perform well. The architecture used in this article is depicted in Figure \[fig:network-architecture\]. Every layer was followed by Dropout [@Srivastava:2014] at rate $0.2$.
;
(x0) – (projection0); (x1) – (projection1); (x2) – (projection2);
(projection0) – (hidden00); (projection1) – (hidden01); (projection2) – (hidden02);
(hidden00) – node\[midway,above\] [$C_0$]{} (hidden01); (hidden01) – node\[midway,above\] [$C_1$]{} (hidden02); (hidden02) – node\[midway,above\] [$C_2$]{} (hidden03);
(h0) -| node\[near start,above\] [$h_0$]{} (hidden01.145); (h1) -| node\[near start,above\] [$h_1$]{} (hidden02.145); (h2) – node\[midway,above\] [$h_2$]{} (h3);
(hidden00) – (hidden10); (hidden01) – (hidden11); (hidden02) – (hidden12);
(hidden10) – (hidden20); (hidden11) – (hidden21); (hidden12) – (hidden22);
(hidden20) – (hidden30); (hidden21) – (hidden31); (hidden22) – (hidden32);
(hidden30) – (hidden40); (hidden31) – (hidden41); (hidden32) – (hidden42);
(hidden40) – (output0); (hidden41) – (output1); (hidden42) – (output2);
(output0) – (y0); (output1) – (y1); (output2) – (y2);
The input of the network at time step $t$ is $w_t$, an index that identifies the vocabulary element. The output contains the predicted probabilities for every vocabulary element, but only the output corresponding to the target word is used. The vocabulary can consist of words, word classes, subwords, or subword classes. The choice of vocabulary does not make any difference with regard to the neural network training, except that large vocabularies require more memory and are slower to train.
Usually word vocabularies are limited to a *shortlist* of the most frequent words. A special token such as [`<unk>` ]{}can be used in place of any out-of-shortlist (OOS) words, which is necessary with RNN language models in particular. The NNLM can be combined with a large-vocabulary n-gram model to obtain a probability for every training word. The [`<unk>` ]{}probability represents the total probability mass of all OOS words, which can be distributed according to n-gram language model probabilities. An n-gram language model is convenient to integrate with a feedforward NNLM, which is a particular kind of n-gram model itself, but less trivial in our RNN decoder. It also becomes computationally demanding to normalize the resulting probability distribution correctly using a large n-gram model [@Park:2010].
In our baseline shortlist NNLMs we distribute the OOS probability according to a unigram model. When rescoring lattices, the output does not have to be a proper probability distribution. Assuming that the probability mass that the NNLM and n-gram models allocate to the OOS words are close to each other, a reasonable approximation is to replace the OOS probabilities with n-gram probabilities [@Park:2010]. We tried this, but did not get good results because the assumption was too far from the truth. Our class NNLMs are similar to Equation \[eq:class-ngram\], except that RNNs do not fix the context to $n$ previous words—the length of the history used to predict the next word is limited only by the mini-batch size.
Memory consumption becomes a problem when using GPUs for training, since current GPU boards typically have no more than 12 GB of memory. Each layer learns a weight matrix whose dimensionality is input size by output size. For example, an NNLM with one hidden layer of size 1,000 and a vocabulary of size 100,000 requires a 1,000 by 100,000 matrix on the input and output layer. Assuming 32-bit floats are used, such a matrix uses 400 MB of memory. In addition, temporary matrices are needed when propagating the data through the network. Memory required to store the weight matrices can be reduced by using a small projection layer and a small layer before the output layer, or factorizing a large weight into the product of two smaller matrices [@Sainath:2013]. Another possibility is to divide weight matrices to multiple GPUs. The size of the temporary data depends also on the mini-batch size.
We did the experiments with quite a complex model to see how good speech recognition accuracy we are able to achieve in these tasks. The projection layer maps words to 500-dimensional embeddings. Both the LSTM and highway network layers have 1500 outputs. With vocabularies larger than 100,000 elements we added a 500-unit feedforward layer before the output layer to reduce memory consumption. With class models mini-batches were 32 sequences and with other models 24 sequences of length 25. We also explored the possibility of training models with larger vocabularies using hierarchical softmax and sampling-based softmax. These approximations are explained in more detail in the following sections.
Output Normalization
--------------------
The final layer normalizes the output to provide a valid probability distribution over the output classes. Normally the softmax function is used:
$$\label{eq:softmax}
y_{t,i} = \frac{\exp(x_{t,i})}{\sum_j \exp(x_{t,j})}$$
At each time step $t$, the cross-entropy cost function requires computing the conditional probability of the target word only, $P(w_{t+1} \mid w_0 \ldots w_t)
= y_{t,w_{t+1}}$. Still all the activations $x_{t,j}$ are needed to explicitly normalize the probability distribution. This becomes computationally expensive, because vocabularies can be very large, and the cost of computing the normalization term scales linearly with the vocabulary size.
There has been a great deal of research on improving the speed of the softmax function by various approximations. Hierarchical NNLM is a class-based model that consists of a neural network that predicts the class and separate neural networks that predict the word inside a class [@Kuo:2012]. This can reduce training time of feedforward networks considerably, because different n-grams are used to train each word prediction model. Hierarchical softmax is a single model that factors the output probabilities into the product of multiple softmax functions. The idea has originally been used in maximum entropy training [@Goodman:2001], but exactly the same idea can be applied to neural networks [@Morin:2005]. SOUL combines a shortlist for the most frequent words with hierarchical softmax for the out-of-shortlist words [@Le:2011]. Adaptive softmax [@Grave:2016] is a similar approach that optimizes the word cluster sizes to minimize computational cost on GPUs.
Another group of methods do not modify the model, but use sampling during training to approximate the expensive softmax normalization. These methods speed up training, but use normal softmax during evaluation. Importance sampling is a Monte Carlo method that samples words from a distribution that should be close to the network output distribution [@Bengio:2003:AISTATS]. Noise-contrastive estimation (NCE) samples random words, but instead of optimizing the cross-entropy cost directly, it uses an auxiliary cost that learns to classify a word as a training word or a noise word [@Gutmann:2010]. This allows it to treat the normalization term as a parameter of the network. BlackOut continues this line of research, using a stochastic version of softmax that explicitly discriminates the target word from the noise words [@Ji:2016].
Variance regularization modifies the training objective to encourage the network to learn an output distribution that is close to a real probability distribution even without explicit normalization [@Shi:2014]. This is useful for example in one-pass speech recognition, where evaluation speed is important but the output does not have to be a valid probability distribution. The model can also be modified to predict the normalization term along with the word probabilities [@Sethy:2015]. NCE objective also encourages the network to learn an approximately normalized distribution, and can also be used without softmax e.g. for speech recognition [@Chen:2015].
Hierarchical Softmax {#sec:hierarchical-softmax}
--------------------
Hierarchical softmax factors the output probabilities into the product of multiple softmax functions. At one extreme, the hierarchy can be a balanced binary tree that is $log_2(N)$ levels deep, where $N$ is the vocabulary size. Each level would differentiate between two classes, and in total the hierarchical softmax would take logarithmic time. [@Morin:2005]
We used a two-level hierarchy, because it is simple to implement, and it does not require a hierarchical clustering of the vocabulary. The first level performs a softmax between $\sqrt{N}$ word classes and the second level performs a softmax between $\sqrt{N}$ words inside the correct class:
$$\label{eq:hierarchical-softmax}
\begin{split}
&P(w_t \mid w_0 \ldots w_{t-1}) = \\
&P(c(w_t) \mid w_0 \ldots w_{t-1}) P(w_t \mid w_0 \ldots w_{t-1}, c(w_t))
\end{split}$$
This already reduces the time complexity of the output layer to the square root of the vocabulary size.
The clustering affects the performance of the resulting model, but it is not clear what kind of clustering is optimal for this kind of models. In earlier work, clusterings have been created from word frequencies [@Mikolov:2011:ICASSP], by clustering distributed word representations [@Mnih:2009], and using expert knowledge [@Morin:2005].
Ideally all class sizes would be equal, as the matrix product that produces the preactivations can be computed efficiently on a GPU when the weight matrix is dense. We use the same word classes in the hierarchical softmax layer that we use in class-based models, but we force equal class sizes; after running the clustering algorithm, we sort the vocabulary by class and split it into partitions of size $\sqrt{N}$. This may split some classes unnecessarily into two, which is not optimal. On the other hand it is easy to implement and even as simple methods as frequency binning seem to work [@Mikolov:2011:ICASSP].
An advantage of hierarchical softmax compared to sampling based output layers is that hierarchical softmax speeds up evaluation as well, while sampling is used only during training and the output is properly normalized using softmax during inference.
Sampling-Based Approximations of Softmax
----------------------------------------
Noise-contrastive estimation [@Gutmann:2010] turns the problem from classification between $N$ words into binary classification. For each training word, a set of noise words (one in the original paper) is sampled from some simple distribution. The network learns to discriminate between training words and noise words. The binary-valued class label $C_w$ is used to indicate whether the word $w$ is a training or noise word. The authors derive the probability that an arbitrary word comes from either class, $P(C_w \mid w)$, given the probability distributions of both classes. The objective function is the cross entropy of the binary classifier:
$$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L} = &\sum_w [C_w \log P(C_w=1 \mid w) \\
&+ (1 - C_w) \log P(C_w=0 \mid w)]
\end{aligned}$$
The expensive softmax normalization can be avoided by making the normalization term a network parameter that is learned along the weights during training. In a language model, the parameter would be dependent on the context words, but it turns out that it can be fixed to a context-independent constant without harming the performance of the resulting model [@Mnih:2012]. In the beginning of the training the cost will be high and the optimization may be unstable, unless the normalization is close to correct. We use one as the normalization constant and initialize the output layer bias to the logarithmic unigram distribution, so that in the beginning the network corresponds to the maximum likelihood unigram distribution.
BlackOut [@Ji:2016] is also based on sampling a set of noise words, and motivated by the discriminative loss of NCE, but the objective function directly discriminates between the training word $w_T$ and noise words $w_N$:
$$\mathcal{L} = \sum_{w_T} [\log P(w_T) + \sum_{w_N} \log (1 - P(w_N))]$$
Although not explicitly shown, the probabilities $P(w)$ are conditioned on the network state. They are computed using a weighted softmax that is normalized only on the set of training and noise words. In addition to reducing the computation, this effectively performs regularization in the output layer similarly to how the Dropout [@Srivastava:2014] technique works in the hidden layers.
Often the noise words are sampled from the uniform distribution, or from the unigram distribution of the words in the training data [@Mnih:2012]. Our experiments confirmed that the choice of *proposal distribution* is indeed important. Using uniform distribution, the neural network optimization will not find as good parameters. With unigram distribution the problem is that some words may be sampled very rarely. Mikolov et al. [@Mikolov:2013:NIPS] use the unigram distribution raised to the power of $\beta$. Ji et al. [@Ji:2016] make $\beta$ a tunable parameter. They also exclude the correct target words from the noise distribution.
We used the power distribution with $\beta = 0.5$ for both BlackOut and NCE. We did not modify the distribution based on the target words, however, as that would introduce additional memory transfers by the Theano computation library used by TheanoLM. We observed also that random sampling from a multinomial distribution in Theano does not work as efficiently as possible with a GPU. We used 500 noise words, shared across the mini-batch. These values were selected after noting the speed of convergence with a few values. Small $\beta$ values flatten the distribution too much and the optimal model is not reached. Higher values approach the unigram distribution, causing the network to not learn enough about the rare words. Using more noise words makes mini-batch updates slower, while using only 100 noise words we noticed that the training was barely converging.
These methods seem to suffer from some disadvantages. Properly optimizing the $\beta$ parameter can take a considerable amount of time. A large enough set of noise words has to be drawn for the training to be stable, diminishing the speed advantage in our GPU implementation. While we did try a number of different parameter combinations, BlackOut never finished training on these data sets without numerical errors.
Decoding Lattices with RNN Language Models
------------------------------------------
While improving training speed is the motivation behind the various softmax approximations, inference is also slow on large networks. Methods that modify the network structure, such as hierarchical softmax, improve inference speed as well. Nevertheless, using an RNN language model in the first pass of large-vocabulary speech recognition is unrealistic. It is possible to create a list of $n$ best hypothesis, or a word lattice, during the first pass, and rescore them using an NNLM in a second pass. We have implemented a word lattice decoder in TheanoLM that produces better results than rescoring n-best lists.
Conceptually, the decoder propagates tokens through the lattice. Each token stores a network state and the probability of the partial path. At first one token is created at the start node with the initial network state. The algorithm iterates by propagating tokens to the outgoing links of a node, creating new copies of the tokens for each link. Evaluating a single word probability at a time would be inefficient, so the decoder combines the state from all the tokens in the node into a matrix, and the input words into another matrix. Then the network is used to simultaneously compute the probability of the target word in all of these contexts.
Rescoring a word lattice using an RNN language model is equivalent to rescoring a huge n-best list, unless some approximation is used to limit the dependency of a probability on the earlier context. We apply three types of pruning, before propagation, to the tokens in the node [@Sundermeyer:2014:LatticeDecoding]:
- **n-gram recombination**. If there are multiple tokens, whose last $n$ context words match, keep only the best. We use $n = 22$.
- **cardinality pruning**. Keep at most $c$ best tokens. We use $c = 62$.
- **beam pruning**. Prune tokens whose probability is low, compared to the best token. The best token is searched from all nodes that appear at the same time instance, or in the future. (Tokens in the past have a higher probability because they correspond to a shorter time period.) We prune tokens if the difference in log probability is larger than 650.
We performed a few tests with different pruning parameters and chose large enough $n$ and $c$ so that their effect in the results was negligible. Using a larger beam would have improved the results, but the gain would have been small compared to the increase in decoding time.
Experiments
===========
Data Sets
---------
We evaluate the methods on difficult spontaneous Finnish and Estonian conversations. The data sets were created in a similar manner for both languages. For training acoustic models we combined spontaneous speech corpora with other less spontaneous language that benefits acoustic modeling. For training language models we combined transcribed conversations with web data that has been filtered to match the conversational speaking style [@Kurimo:2016].
For the Finnish acoustic models we used 85 hours of training data from three sources. The first is the complete Finnish SPEECON [@Iskra:2002] corpus. This corpus includes 550 speakers in different noise conditions that all have read 30 sentences and 30 words, numbers, or dates, and spoken 10 spontaneous sentences. Two smaller data sets of better matching spontaneous conversations were used: DSPCON [@Aalto:2017] corpus, which consists of short conversations between Aalto University students, and FinDialogue part of the FinINTAS [@Lennes:2009] corpus, which contains longer spontaneous conversations. For language modeling we used 61,000 words from DSPCON and 76 million words of web data. We did not differentiate between upper and lower case. This resulted in 2.4 million unique words.
For the Estonian acoustic models we used 164 hours of training data, including 142 hours of broadcast conversations, news, and lectures collected at Tallinn University of Technology [@Meister:2012], and 23 hours of spontaneous conversations collected at the University of Tartu[^10]. These transcripts contain 1.3 million words. For language modeling we used additionally 82 million words of web data. The language model training data contained 1.8 million unique words, differentiating between upper and lower case. One reason why the Estonian vocabulary is smaller than the Finnish vocabulary, even though the Estonian data set is larger, is that colloquial Estonian is written in a more systematic way. Also standard Estonian vocabulary is smaller than standard Finnish vocabulary [@Creutz:2007:2], probably because standard Finnish uses more inflected word forms.
Vocabulary Size Finnish Estonian
------------------------- --------- ----------
100,000 6.67 3.89
500,000 3.36 1.59
2.4M (Fin) / 1.8M (Est) 2.31 1.01
: [*Out-of-vocabulary word rates (%) of the evaluation sets, excluding start and end of sentence tokens. The last row is the full training set vocabulary, which applies also for the class models.*]{}[]{data-label="tab:oov-rates"}
We use only spontaneous conversations as development and evaluation data. As mentioned earlier, Finnish words can be written down in as many different ways as they can be pronounced in colloquial speech. When calculating Finnish word error rates we accept the different forms of the same word as correct, as long as they could be used in the particular context. Compound words are accepted even if they are written as separate words. However, we compute perplexities on transcripts that contain the phonetically verbatim word forms, excluding out-of-vocabulary (OOV) words. The perplexities from n-gram and neural network word and class models are all comparable to one another, because they model the same vocabulary consisting of all the training set words. Subwords can model also unseen words, so the perplexities in subword experiments are higher. OOV word rates of the evaluation sets are reported in Table \[tab:oov-rates\] for different vocabulary sizes.
The Estonian web data is the filtered data from [@Kurimo:2016]. The same transcribed data is also used, except that we removed from the acoustic training set three speakers that appear in the evaluation set. The evaluation data is still 1236 sentences or 2.9 hours. The Finnish data is what we used in [@Enarvi:2016], augmented with 2016 data of DSPCON and read speech from SPEECON. While we now have more than doubled the amount of acoustic training data, we have only a few more hours of spontaneous conversations. The switch to neural network acoustic models had a far greater impact on the results than the additional training data. We still use the same Finnish evaluation set of 541 sentences or 44 minutes. The Finnish development and evaluation sets and reference transcripts that contain the alternative forms are included in the latest DSPCON release, without a few sentences that we could not license.
Models
------
The word based n-gram models were 4-grams, trained using the Modified Kneser-Ney implementation of SRILM toolkit [@Stolcke:2002]. Class-based models did not use Kneser-Ney smoothing, because the class n-gram statistics were not suitable for computing the Modified Kneser-Ney discount parameters. The quality of our web data is very different from the transcribed conversations, and simply pooling all the training data together would cause the larger web data to dominate the model. Instead we created separate models from different data sets, and combined them by interpolating the probabilities of the observed n-grams from the component models using weights that were optimized on the development data. In the Finnish task we created a mixture from two models, a web data model and a transcribed data model. In the Estonian task we created a mixture from three models, separating the transcribed spontaneous conversations from the broadcast conversations.
The mixture weights were optimized independently for each language model on the development data, using expectation maximization (EM). In the Finnish experiments this gave the transcribed data a weight slightly less than 0.5. In the Estonian experiments the weights of the spontaneous conversations and the web data were typically around 0.4, while the broadcasts were given a weight less than 0.2. Morph models were similarly combined from component models, but the EM optimization failed to give good weights. We used initially those optimized for the word-based models, and after the other parameters were fixed, we optimized the mixture weights for development set perplexity using a grid search with steps of $0.05$.
The word clustering algorithms do not support training data weighting, so we simply concatenated the data sets. There are many parameters that can be tweaked when creating distributed word representations with word2vec. We tried clustering words using a few different parameters, and report only the best n-gram model for each class vocabulary size. Within the set of values that we tried, the best performance was obtained with continuous bag of words (CBOW), window size 8, and layer size 300 to 500.
For the subword language models, we trained Morfessor on a word list combined from all training corpora; the difference to other options such as token-based training was negligible. For each language, four segmentations were trained with $\alpha$-values 0.05, 0.2, 0.5, and 1.0. This resulted in respective vocabulary sizes of 42.5k, 133k, 265k, and 468k for Finnish, and 33.2k, 103k, 212k, and 403k for Estonian. The sizes include the different morph variants with “+” prefix and affix. When training the subword n-gram models with the VariKN toolkit, the growing threshold was optimized on the development set, while keeping the pruning threshold twice as large as the growing threshold.
Word-based neural network models were trained on two shortlist sizes: 100k and 500k words. With 500k words we added a normal 500-unit layer with hyperbolic tangent activation before the output layer, which reduced memory consumption and speeded up training. The neural networks were trained using Adagrad [@Duchi:2011] optimizer until convergence or until the maximum time limit of 15 days was reached. All neural network models were trained on a single NVIDIA Tesla K80 GPU and the training times were recorded.
We tried two different approaches for weighting the different data sets during neural network training: by randomly sampling a subset of every data set in the beginning of each epoch [@Schwenk:2005], and by weighting the parameter updates depending on from which corpus each sentence comes from. In the latter approach, the gradient is scaled by both the learning rate and a constant that is larger for higher-quality data, before updating the parameters. We are not aware that this kind of update weighting would have been used before.
Optimizing the weights for neural network training is more difficult than for the n-gram mixture models. As we do not have a computational method for optimizing the weights, we tried a few values, observing the development set perplexity during training. Sampling 20 % of the web data on each iteration, or weighting the web data by a factor of 0.4 seemed to work reasonably well. We used a slightly higher learning rate when weighting the web data to compensate for the fact that the updates are smaller on average. More systematic tests were performed using these weights with the five vocabularies in Table \[tab:subset-processing-results\].
It would be possible to train separate neural network models from each data set, but there are no methods for merging several neural networks in the similar fashion that we combine the n-gram models. Often the best possible NNLM results are obtained by interpolating probabilities from multiple models, but that kind of system is cumbersome in practice, requiring multiple models to be trained and used for inference. The layer sizes and other parameters would have to be optimized for each model separately.
We combined the NNLMs with the nonclass word or subword n-gram model by log-linear interpolation. We did not notice much difference to linear interpolation, so we chose to do the interpolation in logarithmic space, because the word probabilities may be smaller than what can be represented using 64-bit floats. We noticed that optimization of the interpolation parameters was quite difficult with our development data, so we gave equal weight to both models. In some cases it could have been beneficial to give a larger weight to the neural network model. Development data was used to select a weight for combining language model and acoustic scores from four different values.
Speech Recognition System
-------------------------
We use the Kaldi [@Povey:2011] speech recognition system for training our acoustic models and for first-pass decoding. The TDNN acoustic models were trained on a pure sequence criterion using Maximum Mutual Information (MMI) [@Povey:2016]. The data sets were cleaned and filtered using a Gaussian Mixture Model recognizer and augmented through speed and volume perturbation [@Ko:2015]. The number of layers and parameters of the TDNN were optimized to maximize development set accuracy on the word model. First-pass decoding was very fast with real-time factor less than $0.5$. The accuracy of the first-pass recognition exceeded our earlier results on both data sets [@Enarvi:2016; @Kurimo:2016], due to the new neural network acoustic models.
Kaldi does not, at this moment, directly support class-based decoding. Instead we created lattices using regular n-gram models, and rescored them with class n-gram and neural network models. Using the methods described in [@Allauzen:2003] it is possible to construct a word FST that represents the probabilities of a class-based language model and use this in first-pass decoding or rescoring, without explicitly using the classes. Kaldi does not have any restrictions on vocabulary size, but compiling the FST-based decoding graph from the language model, pronunciation dictionary, context dependency information, and HMM structure did consume around 60 GB of memory. The memory requirement can be lowered by reducing the number of contexts in the first-pass n-gram model.
Results
-------
[lccc]{} Classes & Perplexity & WER & +Nonclass\
\
Nonclass & 736 & 30.5 &\
Brown 2k & 705 & 29.9 & 29.0\
CBOW 2k & 1017 & 33.2 & 30.2\
Exchange 2k & 698 & 29.7 & 29.1\
Brown+Exchange 2k & 701 & 30.0 & 29.0\
CBOW+Exchange 2k & 695 & 29.8 & 29.3\
Rules+Exchange 2k & 700 & **29.3 & **28.9\
Brown 5k & 694 & 29.9 & 29.3\
CBOW 5k & 861 & 31.4 & 29.8\
Exchange 5k & **683 & 29.9 & 29.3\
Brown+Exchange 5k & 688 & 29.8 & 29.2\
CBOW+Exchange 5k & 684 & 29.8 & 29.3\
Rules+Exchange 5k & 688 & 29.8 & 29.4\
CBOW 10k & 801 & 31.1 & 29.9\
Exchange 10k & 691 & 29.9 & 29.4\
CBOW+Exchange 10k & 691 & 29.9 & 29.5\
Rules+Exchange 10k & 690 & 29.9 & 29.4\
\
Nonclass & 1127 & 29.9 &\
Exchange 5k & 1433 & 31.2 & 29.8\
\
Nonclass & 1135 & 30.1 &\
Exchange 5k & 1412 & 31.4 & 30.2\
\
Nonclass & 1128 & 30.2 &\
Exchange 5k & 1334 & 30.6 & 29.2\
\
Nonclass & 1100 & 30.0 &\
Exchange 5k & 1252 & 30.2 & 29.1\
\
Nonclass & 447 & 23.4 &\
Brown 2k & 438 & 22.8 & **22.5\
Exchange 2k & 439 & 22.9 & 22.6\
Brown+Exchange 2k & 438 & **22.6 & **22.5\
Brown 5k & 432 & 22.7 & **22.5\
Exchange 5k & 432 & 23.0 & 22.6\
Brown+Exchange 5k & **430 & 22.8 & 22.7\
\
Nonclass & 591 & 23.4 &\
Exchange 5k & 707 & 24.3 & 23.9\
\
Nonclass & 582 & 23.7 &\
Exchange 5k & 689 & 24.1 & 23.5\
\
Nonclass & 577 & 23.1 &\
Exchange 5k & 659 & 23.6 & 23.2\
\
Nonclass & 582 & 23.4 &\
Exchange 5k & 644 & 23.4 & 23.0\
****************
Table \[tab:ngram-dev-results\] lists perplexities and word error rates given by n-gram language models on the development data. The baseline word model performance, 30.5 % on Finnish and 23,4 % on Estonian can be compared to the various word class and subword models. We have also included results from subword classes created using the exchange algorithm for reference. The word error rates were obtained by rescoring lattices that were created using the nonclass word or subword model.
In the Finnish task, 2,000, 5,000, and 10,000 class vocabularies were compared. The worst case running times of the exchange and Brown algorithms have quadratic dependency on the number of classes. With 10,000 classes, even using 20 CPUs Brown did not finish in 20 days, so the experiment was not continued. The exchange algorithm can be stopped any time, so there is no upper limit on the number of classes that can be trained, but the quality of the clustering may suffer if it is stopped early. However, with 5,000 classes and using only 5 CPUs, it seemed to converge in 5 days. Increasing the number of threads increases memory consumption. Training even 40,000 classes was possible in 15 days, but the results did not improve, so they are not reported. The most promising models were evaluated also in the Estonian task.
CBOW is clearly the fastest algorithm, which is probably why it has gained some popularity. These results show, however, that the clusters formed by k-means from distributed word representations are not good for n-gram language models. CBOW does improve, compared to the other clusterings, when the number of classes is increased. Other than that, the differences between different classification methods are mostly insignificant, but class-based models outperform word models on both languages. This result suggests that class-based softmax may be a viable alternative to other softmax approximations in neural networks. The performance of the Estonian subword models is close to that of the word model, and the Finnish subword models are better than the word model. Subword classes do not work as well, but the difference to nonclass subword models gets smaller when the size of the subword vocabulary increases.
Mostly the differences between the different initializations of the exchange algorithm seemed insignificant. However, our rule-based clustering algorithm followed by running the exchange algorithm to create 2,000 classes (Rules+Exchange 2k) gave the best word error rate on Finnish. In the NNLM experiments we did not explore with different clusterings, but used the ones that gave the smallest development set perplexity in the n-gram experiments. For Finnish the 5,000 classes created using the exchange algorithm was selected (Exchange 5k). On Estonian, initialization using Brown classes gave slightly better perplexity (Brown+Exchange 5k) and was selected for neural network models.
[lcccc]{} Subset & Training\
Processing & Time & Perplexity & WER & +NGram\
\
Uniform & 143 h & 511 & 26.0 & 25.6\
Sampling & 128 h & 505 & 26.2 & 25.6\
Weighting & 101 h & 521 & 26.4 & 25.5\
\
Uniform & 360 h & 679 & 25.2 & **24.6\
Sampling & 360 h & 671 & 25.5 & 25.0\
Weighting & 360 h & 672 & **25.1 & **24.6\
\
Uniform & 141 h & 790 & 26.0 & 25.0\
Sampling & 119 h & 761 & 25.9 & 25.1\
\
Uniform & 86 h & 339 & **19.8 & 19.9\
Sampling & 87 h & 311 & 20.2 & 19.9\
Weighting & 105 h & 335 & 20.0 & **19.6\
\
Uniform & 187 h & 424 & 20.0 & 19.7\
Sampling & 130 h & 397 & 20.0 & 19.8\
Weighting & 187 h & 409 & 19.9 & **19.6\
************
Table \[tab:subset-processing-results\] compares training time, perplexity, and word error rate in NNLM training, when different processing is applied to the large web data set. *Uniform* means that the web data is processed just like other data sets, *sampling* means that a subset of web data is randomly sampled before each epoch, and *weighting* means that the parameter updates are given a smaller weight when the mini-batch contains web sentences. Sampling seems to improve perplexity, but not word error rate. Because sampling usually speeds up training considerably and our computational resources were limited, the rest of the experiments were done using sampling.
[l@[0.3cm]{}l@[0.3cm]{}c@[0.3cm]{}c@[0.3cm]{} c@[0.3cm]{}c@[0.1cm]{}c]{} Network & & & Training\
Output & Vocabulary & Parameters & Time & PPL & WER & +NGram\
\
HSoftmax & 100k short & 231M & 360 h & 535 & 26.9 & 25.9\
NCE & 100k short & 230M & 360 h & 531 & 26.8 & 25.7\
HSoftmax & 500k short & 532M & 360 h & 686 & 28.4 & 27.0\
Softmax & 5k classes & 40M & 128 h & 505 & 26.2 & 25.6\
\
Softmax & 42.5k full & 115M & 360 h & 671 & **25.5 & **25.0\
HSoftmax & 42.5k full & 116M & 360 h & 700 & 25.7 & **25.0\
Softmax & 5k classes & 40M & 146 h & 857 & 26.2 & 25.5\
\
HSoftmax & 133k full & 164M & 360 h & 742 & 26.5 & 25.4\
Softmax & 5k classes & 40M & 190 h & 811 & 26.1 & 25.4\
\
HSoftmax & 265k full & 296M & 360 h & 849 & 27.0 & 25.6\
Softmax & 5k classes & 40M & 133 h & 813 & 26.2 & 25.3\
\
HSoftmax & 468k full & 500M & 360 h & 1026 & 28.6 & 26.9\
Softmax & 5k classes & 40M & 119 h & 761 & 25.9 & 25.1\
\
HSoftmax & 100k short & 231M & 360 h & 321 & 20.6 & 19.9\
NCE & 100k short & 230M & 142 h & 384 & 22.4 & 21.4\
HSoftmax & 500k short & 532M & 360 h & 380 & 21.0 & 20.2\
Softmax & 5k classes & 40M & 87 h & 311 & 20.2 & 19.9\
\
Softmax & 33.2k full & 97M & 360 h & 357 & 20.4 & 20.2\
HSoftmax & 33.2k full & 97M & 293 h & 370 & 20.7 & 20.2\
Softmax & 5k classes & 40M & 116 h & 418 & 20.9 & 20.2\
\
HSoftmax & 103k full & 134M & 306 h & 393 & 20.8 & 20.2\
Softmax & 5k classes & 40M & 126 h & 410 & 20.5 & 19.9\
\
HSoftmax & 212k full & 243M & 360 h & 411 & 20.9 & 20.2\
Softmax & 5k classes & 40M & 130 h & 397 & **20.0 & 19.8\
\
HSoftmax & 403k full & 434M & 360 h & 463 & 21.4 & 20.7\
Softmax & 5k classes & 40M & 124 h & 395 & 20.3 & **19.6\
**********
Table \[tab:nn-dev-results\] lists perplexities and word error rates given by neural network models on the development data. The word error rates were obtained by rescoring the same lattices as in Table \[tab:ngram-dev-results\]. The shortlist and word class models can predict all training set words, so the perplexities can be compared. Subword models can predict also new words, so their perplexities cannot be compared with word models. The percentage of evaluation set words that are not in the shortlist and words that are not in the training set can be found in Table \[tab:oov-rates\].
The class-based models were clearly the fastest to converge, 5 to 8 days on Finnish data and 4 to 6 days on Estonian data. The experiments include shortlists of 100k and 500k words. Other shortlist models, except the Estonian 100k-word NCE, did not finish before the 360 hour limit. Consequently, improvement was not seen from using a larger 500k-word shortlist.
Our NCE implementation required more GPU memory than hierarchical softmax and we were unable to run it with the larger shortlist. With the smaller shortlist NCE was better on Finnish and hierarchical softmax was better on Estonian. We experienced issues with numerical stability using NCE with subwords, and decided to use only hierarchical softmax in the subword experiments. BlackOut training was slightly faster than NCE, but even less stable, and we were unable to finish the training without numerical errors. With hierarchical softmax we used the same classes that were used in the class-based models, but the classes were rearranged to have equal sizes as described in Section \[sec:hierarchical-softmax\]. This kind of class arrangement did not seem to improve from simple frequency binning, however.
In terms of word error rate and perplexity, class-based word models performed somewhat better than the shortlist models. The best results were from subword models. On both languages it can be seen that class-based subword models improve compared to the nonclass subword models when the vocabulary size grows. In the Finnish task, the smallest 42.5k-subword vocabulary worked well, which is small enough to use normal softmax without classes. In the Estonian task, larger subword vocabularies performed better, provided that the subwords were clustered into classes. The best result was obtained by clustering 403k subwords into 5,000 classes using the exchange algorithm.
------------- ----- ------------------------------------------------------------ ----------- ----- ------ --------
Vocabulary PPL WER +Nonclass PPL WER +NGram
**Finnish**
Word 785 31.7 618 28.1 27.9
\[1mm\]
Class 760 **31.4 & **31.1 & 589 & 29.2 & 27.9\
& &\
Subword & 1313 & 31.7 & & 846 & **27.3 & **27.1\
& &\
Subword Class & 1499 & 32.1 & 31.3 & 942 & 28.2 & 27.4\
**Estonian** & &\
Word & 483 & 26.1 & & 344 & 23.1 & 22.6\
& &\
Class & 465 & **25.3 & **25.2 & 324 & 22.2 & 22.2\
& &\
Subword & 628 & 26.0 & & 377 & 22.7 & 22.6\
& &\
Subword Class & 682 & 25.8 & 25.5 & 403 & **22.1 & **21.9\
****************
------------- ----- ------------------------------------------------------------ ----------- ----- ------ --------
: [*Performance of best n-gram and NNLM models on evaluation data. All NNLMs except the shortlist models were using softmax output. Includes perplexity, word error rate (%), and word error rate after interpolation with the nonclass or n-gram model. Perplexities from word and subword models are not comparable.*]{}[]{data-label="tab:results-summary"}
Table \[tab:results-summary\] compares the best models on evaluation data. The best word, class, subword, and subword class n-gram and NNLM models were selected based on development set word error rate. The evaluation set results show that the advantage that the Finnish subword n-gram models had on the development set was due to the optimization of the morph segmentations on development data. Word classes are the best choice for n-gram modeling. However, neural networks seem to benefit especially subword modeling, because the overall best results are from subword NNLMs. Classes work well also in NNLMs, although the best Finnish shortlist model, 100k-word NCE, performed exceptionally well in speech recognition. Interpolation with the n-gram model gives a small but consistent improvement.
Conclusions
===========
Our experiments show that class-based models are very attractive for conversational Finnish and Estonian speech recognition. When the vocabulary contains millions of words, class-based n-gram models perform better than normal word models. A class-based NNLM can be trained in less than a week and when the training time is limited, often performs better than word-shortlist models.
In previous work, class-based models did not outperform word-based models in recognizing standard Finnish and Estonian, such as broadcast news [@Varjokallio:2016]. Improvement was made only when interpolating word and class models. One reason why word classes are especially beneficial in the conversational tasks may be that in the absence of large conversational corpora, most of our training data is from the Internet. Web data is noisy and there are many ways to write the same word.
One would expect less to be gained from using subword models, when a word model is trained from full vocabulary of millions of words. This seems to be the case, but RNNs are good at learning the structure of the language from a text that has been segmented into subwords. Subwords can also solve the vocabulary size problem with neural network models. In the Finnish task, the best results were from an NNLM trained on a relatively small 42.5k-subword vocabulary with full softmax output. In the Estonian task, the best results are from a large 403k-subword vocabulary that was clustered into 5,000 classes.
We explored the possibility of using NCE, BlackOut, or hierarchical softmax to overcome the problem of training neural networks with large output dimensionality. Generally they were slower than class-based training, and did not converge to as good a model in the 15-day time constraint, but Finnish 100k-word NCE training gave good results on the evaluation set. The mixed results could mean that some details have been overlooked in our implementation of sampling-based softmax.
In both tasks we obtained the best word error rates from a subword NNLM interpolated with a subword n-gram model. In the Finnish task the best result was 27.1 %, which is a 14.5 % relative improvement from the 31.7 % WER given by our baseline 4-gram model. The best result in the Estonian task, 21.9 %, is a 16.1 % relative improvement from our 26.1 % baseline WER. These are the best results achieved in these tasks, and better than our previously best results by a large margin. The best previously published results are 48.4 % WER in the Finnish task [@Enarvi:2016] and 52.7 % WER in the Estonian task [@Kurimo:2016].
The corpus weighting methods that we used in NNLM training showed potential for improvement, but more thorough research should be done on how to select optimal weights.
Acknowledgements
================
Computational resources were provided by the Aalto Science-IT project.
\[[{width="1in" height="1.25in"}]{}\] [Seppo Enarvi]{} received the Lic.Sc. in technology degree in computer and information science from Aalto University, Espoo, Finland, in 2012. He pursues to finish his Ph.D. on conversational Finnish speech recognition during 2017. His research interests are in machine learning, currently focusing on language modeling using neural networks.
\[[{width="1in" height="1.25in"}]{}\] [Peter Smit]{} received the M.Sc. in technology degree in computer science from Aalto University, Espoo, Finland, in 2011. He is currently a doctoral student in the Department of Signal Processing and Acoustics at Aalto University. His research interests are in machine learning and speech recognition and his current focus is subword-modeling techniques and automatic speech recognition for underresourced languages.
\[[{width="1in" height="1.25in"}]{}\] [Sami Virpioja]{} received the D.Sc. in technology degree in computer and information science from Aalto University, Espoo, Finland, in 2012. Between 2013 and 2017 was a research scientist at Lingsoft Inc., Helsinki, Finland. Currently he is a senior data scientist at Utopia Analytics Oy, Helsinki, Finland, and a postdoctoral researcher in the Department of Signal Processing and Acoustics at Aalto University. His research interests are in machine learning and natural language processing.
\[[{width="1in" height="1.25in"}]{}\] [Mikko Kurimo]{} (SM’07) received the D.Sc. (Ph.D.) in technology degree in computer science from the Helsinki University of Technology, Espoo, Finland, in 1997. He is currently an associate professor in the Department of Signal Processing and Acoustics at Aalto University, Finland. His research interests are in speech recognition, machine learning and natural language processing.
Erratum {#erratum .unnumbered}
=======
A highway network layer uses a separate bias for its gate, distinguished by the index $\sigma$ in Equation \[eq:highway-network\]. The index was missing in the published paper.
[^1]: Manuscript received January 31, 2017; revised July 7, 2017; accepted August 7, 2017. This work was financially supported by the Academy of Finland under the grant numbers 251170 and 274075, and by Kone Foundation.
[^2]: The authors work in the Department of Signal Processing and Acoustics at Aalto University, Espoo, Finland. (e-mail: [email protected])
[^3]: Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TASLP.2017.2743344
[^4]: <https://github.com/senarvi/theanolm>
[^5]: We are using a multithreaded exchange implementation and stop the training when the cost stops decreasing. Our observation that an optimized exchange implementation can be faster than Brown clustering is in line with an earlier comparison [@Botros:2015].
[^6]: <https://github.com/aalto-speech/exchange>
[^7]: <https://code.google.com/archive/p/word2vec/>
[^8]: <https://github.com/aalto-speech/morfessor>
[^9]: <https://github.com/vsiivola/variKN>
[^10]: Phonetic Corpus of Estonian Spontaneous Speech. For information on distribution, see <http://www.keel.ut.ee/et/foneetikakorpus>.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We investigate the effect of entanglement between two causally separated open charts in de Sitter space on the spectrum of vacuum fluctuations. We consider a free massive scalar field, and construct the reduced density matrix by tracing out the vacuum state for one of the open charts, as recently derived by Maldacena and Pimentel. We formulate the mean-square vacuum fluctuations by using the reduced density matrix and show that the scale invariant spectrum of massless scalar field is realized on small scales. On the other hand, we find that the quantum entanglement affects the shape of the spectrum on large scales comparable to or greater than the curvature radius.'
---
= 1mm
QGASLAB-14-04
Sugumi Kanno
[*Laboratory for Quantum Gravity & Strings and Astrophysics, Cosmology & Gravity Center, Department of Mathematics & Applied Mathematics, University of Cape Town,\
Private Bag, Rondebosch 7701, South Africa*]{}
Introduction
============
Quantum entanglement is one of the most fundamental and fascinating features of quantum mechanics. The most mysterious aspect of quantum entanglement would be to affect the outcome of local measurements instantaneously beyond the lightcone once a local measurement is performed. There are many phenomena in which quantum entanglement may play a role, including the bubble nucleation [@Coleman:1980aw]. Recent studies of the bubble nucleation problem infer that observer frames will be strongly correlated to each other when they observe the nucleation frame [@Garriga:2012qp; @Garriga:2013pga; @Frob:2014zka].
The entanglement entropy as a suitable measure of entanglement of a quantum system has been developed in condensed matter physics, quantum information and high energy physics. Especially, the entanglement entropy has now been established as a useful tool in quantum field theory to characterize the nature of long range correlations.
Even so, however, the explicit calculation of the entanglement entropy in quantum field theories had not been an easy task until Ryu and Takayanagi proposed a method of calculating the entanglement entropy of a strongly coupled quantum field theory with its gravity dual using holographic techniques [@Ryu:2006bv]. Their formula has passed many consistency checks and proven to be extremely powerful [@Takayanagi:2012kg].
Following a great deal of attention paid to the success, Maldacena and Pimentel developed an explicit method to calculate the entanglement entropy in a quantum field theory in the Bunch-Davies vacuum of de Sitter space and discussed the gravitational dual of this theory and its holographic interpretation [@Maldacena:2012xp]. The method is also extended to $\alpha$-vacua in [@Kanno:2014lma; @Iizuka:2014rua]
Based on these developments that enable us to calculate long range correlations explicitly, it would be interesting to apply this to cosmology now. We expect that the entanglement could exist beyond the Hubble horizon because de Sitter expansion eventually separates off a pair of particles created within a causally connected, Hubble horizon size region. It may be possible to investigate whether a universe entangled with our own universe exists within the multiverse framework. Such a scenario may be observable through the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB).
In this paper, we investigate the effect of quantum entanglement on the spectrum of vacuum fluctuations in de Sitter space by using a reduced density matrix in the open chart derived by Maldacena and Pimentel as a first step of application to cosmology. It is known that the inside of a nucleated bubble looks like an open universe [@Coleman:1980aw], so this formulation will be suitable for the multiverse framework and also for open inflation directly. The open inflation models are discussed extensively in [@Sasaki:1994yt; @Bucher:1994gb; @Linde:1995xm; @Linde:1995rv; @Garriga:1997wz; @Garriga:1998he].
The paper is organized as follows. In section \[s2\], we review the spectrum of quantum fluctuations in the open chart. In section \[s3\], we review the method to derive the reduced density matrix developed by Maldacena and Pimentel with some comments relevant to its application to cosmology. Then we discuss the spectrum of quantum fluctuations using the reduced density matrix. We show the scale invariant spectrum is realized. In section \[s4\], we find the effect of the entanglement appears in the spectrum at large wavelengths comparable to the curvature radius. Our results are summarized and discussed in section \[s5\].
Spectrum of quantum fluctuations in the open chart {#s2}
==================================================
In this section, we review the spectrum of vacuum fluctuations in the open chart as a preparation for later sections. The Penrose diagram of the open chart is given in Figure \[fig1\], where the two time slices $A$ and $B$ represent, respectively, a time slice in each open chart $R$ and $L$ at sufficiently late time in future.
![De Sitter space and the Penrose diagram.[]{data-label="fig1"}](ee.pdf){height="11cm"}
Mode functions in the open chart {#s2.1}
--------------------------------
The open de Sitter space is studied in detail in [@Sasaki:1994yt]. In Figure \[fig1\], the de Sitter space and the Penrose diagram is depicted[^1]. We consider a free scalar field of mass $m$ in de Sitter space with the action given by $$\begin{aligned}
S=\int d^4 x \sqrt{-g} \left[\, -\frac{1}{2}\,g^{\mu\nu}\partial_\mu\phi\,\partial_\nu \phi
-\frac{m^2}{2}\phi^2\,\right]\,.\end{aligned}$$ The metric in each region $R$ and $L$ may be obtained by analytic continuation from an Eulidean four-sphere metric and expressed, respectively, as $$\begin{aligned}
ds^2_R&=&H^{-2}\left[-dt^2_R+\sinh^2t_R\left(dr^2_R+\sinh^2r_R\,d\Omega^2\right)
\right]\,,\nonumber\\
ds^2_L&=&H^{-2}\left[-dt^2_L+\sinh^2t_L\left(dr^2_L+\sinh^2r_L\,d\Omega^2\right)
\right]\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $d\Omega^2$ is the metric on the two-sphere. Since the $R$ and $L$ regions are completely symmetric, if we perform the separation of variables $$\begin{aligned}
\phi= \frac{H}{\sinh t}\, \chi_p (t) \,Y_{p\ell m}(r,\Omega)\,,\end{aligned}$$ the equations of motion for $\chi_p$ and $Y_{p\ell m}$ in the $R$ or $L$ regions are found to be in common $$\begin{aligned}
&&\left[\,\frac{\partial^2}{\partial t^2}+3\coth t\,\frac{\partial}{\partial t}
+\frac{1+p^2}{\sinh^2t}+\frac{m^2}{H^2}\right]\chi_p(t)=0\,,
\label{eom}\\
&&\left[\,\frac{\partial^2}{\partial r^2}+2\coth r\,\frac{\partial}{\partial r}
-\frac{1}{\sinh^2r}\,\rm\bf L^2\,\right]Y_{p\ell m}(r,\Omega)=-(1+p^2)Y_{p\ell m}(r,\Omega)\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $(t,r)=(t_R, r_R)$ or $(t_L, r_L)$, $\rm\bf L^2$ is the Laplacian operator on the unit two-sphere, and $Y_{p\ell m}$ are harmonic functions on the three-dimensional hyperbolic space. We consider the positive frequency mode functions corresponding to the Euclidean vacuum (the Bunch-Davies vacuum [@Bunch:1978yq; @Chernikov:1968zm; @Hartle:1983ai]), because it is natural that the initial state is the de Sitter invariant vacuum. They are found explicitly in [@Sasaki:1994yt] and the time dependent part of $\chi_p(t)$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\chi_{p,\sigma}(t)=\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\frac{1}{2\sinh\pi p}\left(\frac{e^{\pi p}-i\sigma e^{-i\pi\nu}}{\Gamma(\nu+ip+1/2)}P_{\nu-1/2}^{ip}(\cosh t_R)
-\frac{e^{-\pi p}-i\sigma e^{-i\pi\nu}}{\Gamma(\nu-ip+1/2)}P_{\nu-1/2}^{-ip}(\cosh t_R)
\right)\,,\\
\\
\frac{\sigma}{2\sinh\pi p}\left(\frac{e^{\pi p}-i\sigma e^{-i\pi\nu}}{\Gamma(\nu+ip+1/2)}P_{\nu-1/2}^{ip}(\cosh t_L)
-\frac{e^{-\pi p}-i\sigma e^{-i\pi\nu}}{\Gamma(\nu-ip+1/2)}P_{\nu-1/2}^{-ip}(\cosh t_L)
\right)\,,\\
\end{array}
\right.
\label{chi1}\end{aligned}$$ where $P^{\pm ip}_{\nu-\frac{1}{2}}$ are the associated Legendre functions, and the index $\sigma$ takes the values $\pm 1$ and distinguishes two independent solutions for each region. We have defined a parameter $$\begin{aligned}
\nu=\sqrt{\frac{9}{4}-\frac{m^2}{H^2}}\,.\end{aligned}$$ The above is a solution supported both on the $R$ and $L$ regions. The factor $e^{-\pi p}$ in the above solutions comes from the requirement of analyticity in the Euclidean hemisphere which selects the Bunch-Davies vacuum.
We expand the field in terms of the creation and anihilation operators, $$\begin{aligned}
\hat\phi(t,r,\Omega) = \int dp \sum_{\sigma,\ell,m}
\left[\,a_{\sigma p\ell m}\,u_{\sigma p\ell m}(t,r,\Omega)
+a_{\sigma p\ell m}^\dagger\,u^*_{\sigma p\ell m}(t,r,\Omega)\,\right]\,,
\label{phi1}\end{aligned}$$ where $a_{\sigma p\ell m}$ satisfies $a_{\sigma p\ell m}|{\rm BD}\rangle=0$. The mode function $u_{\sigma p\ell m}(t,r,\Omega)$ representing the Bunch-Davies vacuum is $$\begin{aligned}
u_{\sigma p\ell m} = \frac{H}{\sinh t}\,
\chi_{p,\sigma}(t)\,Y_{p\ell m} (r, \Omega)\,.
\label{mf}\end{aligned}$$
Without loss of generality, we assume the normalization of $Y_{p\ell m}$ is such that $Y_{p\ell m}^*=Y_{p\ell-m}$. Then Eq. (\[phi1\]) may be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\hat\phi(t,r,\Omega) &=& \frac{H}{\sinh t}\int dp \sum_{\sigma,\ell,m}
\left[\,a_{\sigma p\ell m}\,\chi_{p,\sigma}(t)
+a_{\sigma p\ell -m}^\dagger\,\chi^*_{p,\sigma}(t)\,\right]Y_{p\ell m}(r,\Omega)
\nonumber\\
&=&\int dp \sum_{\ell,m}\phi_{p\ell m}(t)Y_{p\ell m}(r,\Omega)
\,,
\label{phi1-1}\end{aligned}$$ where we introduced a Fourier mode field operator $$\begin{aligned}
\phi_{p\ell m}(t)\equiv\frac{H}{\sinh t}\sum_{\sigma}
\left[\,a_{\sigma p\ell m}\,\chi_{p,\sigma}(t)
+a_{\sigma p\ell -m}^\dagger\,\chi^*_{p,\sigma}(t)\,\right]\,.
\label{phi1t}\end{aligned}$$
For convenience, we write the associated Legendre functions of the $R$ and $L$ regions in a simple form $P^{R, L}\equiv P_{\nu-1/2}^{ip}(\cosh t_{R,L})\,,\,P^{R*, L*}\equiv P_{\nu-1/2}^{-ip}(\cosh t_{R,L})$, then the two lines of Eq. (\[chi1\]) may be expressed in one line as $$\begin{aligned}
\chi^{\sigma} = N_p^{-1} \sum_{q=R,L} \left[\,
\alpha^\sigma{}_{\!q}\,P^{q} + \beta^\sigma{}_{\!q}\,P^{q*}
\,\right]\,,
\label{chi2}\end{aligned}$$ where the index $p$ of $\chi_{p,\sigma}$ is omitted and we defined $$\begin{aligned}
&&\alpha^\sigma{}_{\!R} = \frac{e^{\pi p} -i\sigma e^{-i\pi \nu}}{\Gamma (\nu+ip +\frac{1}{2})}\,,\hspace{1.1cm}
\beta^\sigma{}_{\!R} =-\frac{e^{-\pi p} -i\sigma e^{-i\pi \nu}}{\Gamma (\nu-ip +\frac{1}{2})} \,\,,\\
&&\alpha^\sigma{}_{\!L} =\sigma\,\frac{e^{\pi p} -i\sigma e^{-i\pi \nu}}{\Gamma (\nu+ip +\frac{1}{2})}
\,,\qquad
\beta^\sigma{}_{\!L} =-\sigma\,\frac{e^{-\pi p} -i\sigma e^{-i\pi \nu}}{\Gamma (\nu-ip +\frac{1}{2})} \,\,,\end{aligned}$$ and $N_p$ is a normalization factor including the $1/(2\sinh\pi p)$ in Eq. (\[chi1\]), given by $$\begin{aligned}
N_{p}=\frac{4\sinh\pi p\,\sqrt{\cosh\pi p-\sigma\sin\pi\nu}}{\sqrt{\pi}\,|\Gamma(\nu+ip+1/2)|}\,.
\label{norm}\end{aligned}$$ In the above and in what follows, it is understood that the function $P^{q}$ ($q=R$ or $L$) defined only in the $q$ region is associated with a step function which is unity in the $q$ region and which vanishes in the opposite region. The complex conjugate of Eq. (\[chi2\]) which is necessary in Eq. (\[phi1-1\]) is $$\begin{aligned}
\chi^{\sigma*}=N_p^{-1}\sum_{q=R,L} \left[\,
\beta^{\sigma*}{}_{\!\!\!\!q}\,P^q + \alpha^{\sigma*}{}_{\!\!\!\!q}\,P^{q*}
\,\right]\,.
\label{cmpxchi2}\end{aligned}$$ If we introduce a $4\times 4$ matrix $$\begin{aligned}
\chi^I=\left(
\begin{array}{l}
\chi^\sigma\\
\chi^{\sigma*}
\end{array}\right)\,,\qquad
M^I{}_J=\left(
\begin{array}{ll}
\alpha^\sigma{}_{\!q} &~ \beta^\sigma{}_{\!q} \vspace{3mm}\\
\beta^{\sigma*}{}_{\!\!\!q} &~ \alpha^{\sigma*}{}_{\!\!\!q} \\
\end{array}\right)\,,\qquad
P^J=\left(
\begin{array}{l}
P^q\\
P^{q*}
\end{array}\right)\,,
\label{M}\end{aligned}$$ where $\sigma=\pm 1$, $q=(R, L)$ and the summation is understood when a pair of the same indices appear upstairs and downstairs, then both of Eqs. (\[chi2\]) and (\[cmpxchi2\]) can be accommodated into the simple matrix form, $$\begin{aligned}
\chi^I=N_p^{-1}\,M^I{}_J\,P^J\,,
\label{chiI}\end{aligned}$$ where the capital indices $(I,J)$ run from 1 to 4. The Fourier mode field operator Eq. (\[phi1t\]) is then expanded as $$\begin{aligned}
\phi_{p\ell m}(t)\equiv\phi(t)=\frac{H}{\sinh t}\,a_{I}\,\chi^{I}
=\frac{1}{N_p}\frac{H}{\sinh t}\,a_{I}\,M^{I}{}_{J}\,P^{J}\,,\qquad\quad
a_{I}=\left(\,a_\sigma\,,\,a_\sigma^\dagger\,\right)\,,
\label{phit}\end{aligned}$$ where $t$ stands for a time slice given by $t=t_R$ in the $R$ region and $t=t_L$ in the $L$ region, and in the following the indices $p,\ell, m$ of $\phi_{p\ell m}(t)$ are omitted for simplicity unless there may be any confusion.
Spectrum in the $L$ region {#s2.2}
--------------------------
Let us calculate the power spectrum, say, in the $L$ region because the $R$ and $L$ regions are completely symmetric. As it is unnecessary to consider the $R$ region, the mode function $\chi^I$ given by Eq. (\[chiI\]) may be restricted to the $L$ region. This reduces the $4\times4$ matrix $M^I{}_J$ to the $4\times 2$ matrix $M^{I}{}_{\cal J}$, where the calligraphic indice ${\cal J}$ runs from 1 to 2, and the solution on the $L$ region in Eq. (\[chi1\]) is expressed as $$\begin{aligned}
\chi^{I}=N_p^{-1}\,M^{I}{}_{\cal J}\,P^{\cal J}\,,
\label{chi3}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\chi^{I}=\left(
\begin{array}{l}
\chi^\sigma\\
\chi^{\sigma*}
\end{array}\right)\,,\quad
M^{I}{}_{\cal J}=\left(
\begin{array}{ll}
\alpha^\sigma{}_{\!L} &~ \beta^\sigma{}_{\!L} \vspace{3mm}\\
\beta^{\sigma*}{}_{\!\!\!\!L} &~ \alpha^{\sigma*}{}_{\!\!\!\!L} \\
\end{array}\right)\,,\quad
P^{\cal J}=\left(
\begin{array}{l}
P^L\\
P^{L*}
\end{array}\right)\,.
\label{M2}\end{aligned}$$ The Fourier mode field operator in Eq. (\[phit\]) is now expressed as $$\begin{aligned}
\phi(t_L)=\frac{H}{\sinh t_L}\,a_{I}\,\chi^{I}
=\frac{1}{N_p}\frac{H}{\sinh t_L}\,a_{I}\,M^{I}{}_{\cal J}\,P^{\cal J}\,,\qquad\quad
a_{I}=\left(\,a_\sigma\,,\,a_\sigma^\dagger\,\right)\,,
\label{phi2}\end{aligned}$$ where we used Eq. (\[chi3\]).
If we focus on a single mode with indices $p,\ell, m$, the mean-square vacuum fluctuation is then computed by using Eq. (\[phit\]) as $$\begin{aligned}
\langle{\rm BD}|\,\phi_{p\ell m}(t_L)\,\phi_{p'\ell'm'}^\dagger(t_L)\,|{\rm BD}\rangle
&=&
\frac{H^2}{\sinh^2t_L}
\langle{\rm BD}|\,a_{I}\chi^{I}\,\left(a_{J}\chi^{J}\right)^\dagger\,|{\rm BD}\rangle
\nonumber\\
&=&
\frac{H^2}{\sinh^2t_L}\sum_{\sigma=\pm1}|\chi^\sigma|^2\,
\delta(p-p')\delta_{\ell\ell'}\delta_{mm'}
\nonumber\\
&\equiv&
S(p,t_L)\,\delta(p-p')\delta_{\ell\ell'}\delta_{mm'}\,.
\label{ev1}\end{aligned}$$ Then the normalized spectrum per unit logarithmic interval of $p$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal P}(p,t_L)=\frac{p^3}{2\pi^2}S(p,t_L)
=\frac{p^3}{2\pi^2}\frac{H^2}{\sinh^2t_L}\sum_{\sigma=\pm1}|\chi^\sigma|^2\,,
\label{def:P1}\end{aligned}$$ where $\chi^\sigma=\chi_{p,\sigma}(t_L)$.
Vacuum fluctuations after horizon exit {#s2.3}
--------------------------------------
In this subsection, we make sure that the amplitude of the vacuum fluctuation is frozen out at the epoch of horizon exit. The time dependence of $\chi^\sigma$ in Eq. (\[chi3\]) comes from the associated Legendre functions. So if we write $$\begin{aligned}
\chi^{I}=\left(
\begin{array}{l}
\chi^\sigma\\
\chi^{\sigma*}
\end{array}\right)
=\left(
\begin{array}{l}
A^\sigma{}_{\!L}\,P^L+B^\sigma{}_{\!L}\, P^{L*}\\
B^{\sigma*}{}_{\!\!\!\!L}\,P^L+A^{\sigma*}{}_{\!\!\!\!L}\,P^{L*}
\end{array}\right)\,,\qquad
A^\sigma{}_{\!L}\equiv\frac{\alpha^\sigma{}_{\!L}}{N_p}\,,\qquad
B^\sigma{}_{\!L}\equiv\frac{\beta^\sigma{}_{\!L}}{N_p}\,,
\label{AB1}\end{aligned}$$ then $|\chi^\sigma|^2$ in the normalized spectrum in Eq. (\[def:P1\]) is expressed as $$\begin{aligned}
|\chi^\sigma|^2=A^\sigma{}_{\!L} B^{\sigma*}{}_{\!\!\!\!L}\left(P^L\right)^2
+\left(|A^\sigma{}_{\!L}|^2+|B^\sigma{}_{\!L}|^2\right)P^LP^{L*}
+A^{\sigma*}{}_{\!\!\!\!L}B^\sigma{}_{\!L}\left(P^{L*}\right)^2\,.
\label{chisquared1}\end{aligned}$$ Since the Legendre functions on superhorizon scale behave as $$\begin{aligned}
P_{\nu-1/2}^{\pm ip}(\cosh t)\xrightarrow{t\gg 1}
\frac{2^{\nu-1/2}\Gamma(\nu)}{\sqrt{\pi}\,\Gamma(\nu\mp ip+1/2)}
\left(\cosh t\right)^{\nu-\frac{1}{2}}\,,
\label{legendre2}\end{aligned}$$ we find the time dependence of each combination of the associated Legendre functions in Eq. (\[chisquared1\]) is the same. Then $\sum_{\sigma=\pm1}|\chi^\sigma|^2$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
&&\hspace{-7mm}
\sum_{\sigma=\pm1}|\chi^\sigma|^2\xrightarrow{t_L\gg 1}
\frac{2^{2\nu-1}\Gamma(\nu)^2}{\pi}\sum_{\sigma=\pm1}
\left[\frac{A^\sigma{}_{\!L} B^{\sigma*}{}_{\!\!\!\!L}}{\Gamma(\nu-ip+1/2)^2}
+\frac{|A^\sigma{}_{\!L}|^2+|B^\sigma{}_{\!L}|^2}{|\Gamma(\nu+ip+1/2)|^2}
+\frac{A^{\sigma*}{}_{\!\!\!\!L}B^\sigma{}_{\!L}}{\Gamma(\nu+ip+1/2)^2}
\right]
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{2.3cm}
\times\left(\cosh t_L\right)^{2\nu-1}\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{2.3cm}\equiv Z\left(\cosh t_L\right)^{2\nu-1}\,,
\label{z1}\end{aligned}$$ where we defined the time independent part of $\sum_{\sigma=\pm1}|\chi^\sigma|^2$ by $Z$.
Plugging Eq. (\[z1\]) into Eq. (\[def:P1\]), we find the spectrum approaches $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal P}(p,t_L)=\frac{H^2}{\sinh^2t_L}\sum_{\sigma=\pm1}|\chi^\sigma|^2\,\frac{p^3}{2\pi^2}\,
\xrightarrow{t_L\gg 1}
H^2Z\,\frac{p^3}{2\pi^2}\,\frac{\left(\cosh t_L\right)^{2\nu-1}}{\sinh^2t_L}\,.
\label{time1}\end{aligned}$$ For massless case $\nu=3/2$, we find the time dependent part becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\left(\cosh t_L\right)^{2\nu-1}}{\sinh^2t_L}\xrightarrow{t_L\gg 1}1\,.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, the vacuum fluctuation gets frozen out after horizon exit.
Wavenumber dependence {#s2.4}
---------------------
We also need to check the behavior of the spectrum at short wavelengths ($p\gg 1$). The spectrum should be the same as the case of a specially flat universe. For the massless scalar field ($\nu=3/2$), the dominant term in $Z$ of Eq. (\[z1\]) for large $p$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{\sigma=\pm1}\frac{|A^\sigma{}_{\!L}|^2}{|\Gamma(\nu+ip+1/2)|^2}
=\sum_{\sigma=\pm1}\frac{|\alpha^\sigma{}_{\!L}|^2/|N_p|^2}{|\Gamma(\nu+ip+1/2)|^2}
\xrightarrow{p\gg 1}
\frac{2\pi^2e^{-2\pi p}}{p^5|\Gamma(i p)|^4}\,.
\label{dominant1}\end{aligned}$$ Then the time independent part of $Z$ at short wavelengths ($p\gg 1$) becomes $$\begin{aligned}
Z\xrightarrow{p\gg 1}
\frac{2^2\Gamma(3/2)^2}{\pi}\frac{2\pi^2e^{-2\pi p}}{p^5|\Gamma(i p)|^4}
\sim\frac{1}{2p^3}\,.\end{aligned}$$ Thus the spectrum of the massless scalar field after horizon exit is evaluated as $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal P}(p)=H^2Z\,\frac{p^3}{2\pi^2}\,\xrightarrow{p\gg 1}
\left(\frac{H}{2\pi}\right)^2\,.
\label{sg1}\end{aligned}$$ This is the well-known result for vacuum fluctuations after horizon exit. The spectrum as a function of $p$ is plotted in Figure \[fig2\].
![The spectrum of vacuum fluctuations for a massless scalar field as a function of $p$.[]{data-label="fig2"}](plot.pdf){height="10cm"}
Spectrum of quantum fluctuations using the reduced density matrix {#s3}
=================================================================
In previous section, we discussed the spectrum of vacuum fluctuations by using the field operator expanded in terms of the mode functions defined for the Bunch-Davies vacuum. We next want to explore the spectrum of vacuum fluctuations by using the reduced density matrix derived by Maldacena and Pimentel in [@Maldacena:2012xp]. In this section, we first review the formalism to obtain the reduced density matrix and then discuss the spectrum of vacuum fluctuations.
A review on the reduced density matrix {#s3.1}
--------------------------------------
In order to derive the reduced density matrix in the region $L$, we need to trace over the degrees of freedom of the region $R$. To make this procedure practically possible, the reduced density matrix has to be diagonalized. The following is a review on the derivation of the reduced density matrix given in [@Maldacena:2012xp].
As we see in Eq. (\[phit\]), the mode function $\chi^I$ corresponding to the Bunch-Davies vacuum is a linear combination of the Legendre functions $P^{R,L}=P^{ip}_{\nu-1/2}(\cosh t_{R,L})$, which are proportional to the positive frequency modes in the past in each $R$ or $L$ region. Setting $\tau=\cosh t$, the Legendre functions are known to be normalized as $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\tau^2-1\right)\left(\frac{dP^{q*}}{d\tau}P^q-\frac{dP^q}{d\tau}P^{q*}\right)
=\frac{2ip}{|\Gamma(1+ip)|^2}\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $q=R$ or $L$. Thus, the properly normalized positive frequency functions in each $R$ or $L$ region are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\varphi^q=N_b^{-1}P^q\,,\qquad N_b=\frac{\sqrt{2p}}{|\Gamma(1+ip)|}\,.
\label{norm1}\end{aligned}$$ Let us introduce $\varphi^I$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\varphi^I=\left(
\begin{array}{l}
\varphi^{q}\\
\varphi^{q*}
\end{array}\right)\,.\end{aligned}$$ Then this procedure of changing the mode functions from $\chi^I$ to $\varphi^I$ is a Bogoliubov transformation. The Bogoliubov coefficients are then expressed in terms of $\alpha$ and $\beta$ in the matrix $M$ in Eq. (\[M\]). So let us introduce new creation and anihilation operators $b_I$ defined such that $b_R|R\rangle=0$ and $b_L|L\rangle=0$. Now, with the proper normalization in Eq. (\[norm1\]), the original field operator in Eq. (\[phit\]) is expanded in terms of the new operators $b_J$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\phi(t)=\frac{H}{\sinh t}\,a_I\,\chi^I
=\frac{H}{\sinh t}\,b_J\,\varphi^J\,,\qquad
b_J=\left(\,b_{q}\,,\,b_{q}^\dagger\,\right)\,,
\label{phi3}\end{aligned}$$ where again the capital indices $(I,J)$ run from 1 to 4, $q=(R,L)$, and the repeated indices are summed over. By comparing Eqs. (\[phit\]) and (\[phi3\]), the relation between the operators $a_I$ and $b_I$ has to be $$\begin{aligned}
a_J=N_p\,N_b^{-1}\,b_I\left(M^{-1}\right)^I{}_J\,,\qquad
\left(M^{-1}\right)^I{}_J=\left(
\begin{array}{ll}
\xi^q{}_{\sigma} &~ \delta^q{}_{\sigma} \vspace{3mm}\\
\delta^{q*}{}_{\!\!\sigma} &~ \xi^{q*}{}_{\!\!\sigma} \\
\end{array}\right)\,,\qquad
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\xi=
\left(\alpha-\beta\,\alpha^{*\,-1}\beta^*\right)^{-1}\,,\vspace{3mm}\\
\delta=-\alpha^{-1}\beta\,\xi^*\,.
\end{array}
\right.
\label{ab}\end{aligned}$$ Note that $M^{-1}$ is not normalized but its determinant is $\left(|\xi|^2-|\delta|^2\right)^{-1/2}=\left(|\alpha|^2-|\beta|^2\right)^{1/2}$, which corresponds to $N_p\,N_b^{-1}$ in Eq. (\[ab\]). Thus, the Bunch-Davies vacuum can be regarded as a Bogoliubov transformation of the $R,L$-vacua as $$\begin{aligned}
|{\rm BD}\rangle\propto\exp\left(\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i,j=R,L}m_{ij}\,b_i^\dagger\, b_j^\dagger\right) |R\rangle|L\rangle\,,
\label{bogoliubov1}\end{aligned}$$ where $m_{ij}$ is a symmetric matrix and the operators $b_i$ satisfy the commutation relation $[b_i,b_j^\dagger]=\delta_{ij}$. Note that the normalization of the Bogoliubov transformation is omitted here for simplicity because it is unnecessary for the derivation of the reduced density matrix, which will be given in Eq. (\[dm\]).
Here we mention a subtlety associated with the fact that the $p$-mode spectrum is continuous. Since the commutation relation between the $p$-mode annihilation operator and the $p'$-mode creation operator is proportional to $\delta(p-p')$, that between the same spectral index $p=p'$ would diverge. To avoid this divergence, we discretize the $p$-mode spectrum with a width $\Delta p$ and take the limit $\Delta p\to0$ only at the end of computation. This means, for example, we rescale the operators $b_i$ as $b_i\to b_i=\sqrt{\Delta p}\,b_i^{\rm cont}$, where the index ‘cont’ denotes the operator with the original, continuous spectrum, and the operators $b_i$ and $b_j$ appearing in Eq. (\[bogoliubov1\]) should be understood as the rescaled ones.
The condition $a_\sigma|{\rm BD}\rangle=0$ determines $m_{ij}$: $$\begin{aligned}
m_{ij}=-\delta_{i\sigma}^*\left(\xi^{-1}\right)_{\sigma j}
=e^{i\theta}\frac{\sqrt{2}\,e^{-p\pi}}{\sqrt{\cosh 2\pi p+\cos 2\pi\nu}}
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\cos \pi\nu & i\sinh p\pi \vspace{1mm}\\
i\sinh p\pi & \cos \pi\nu \\
\end{array}
\right)\,,
\label{mij}\end{aligned}$$ where $e^{i\theta}$ contains all unimportant phase factors for $\nu^2>0$.
When the state is written in the form of Eq. (\[bogoliubov1\]), it is still difficult to trace over the $R$ degrees of freedom because the density matrix $\rho=|{\rm BD}\rangle\langle{\rm BD}|$ is not diagonal in the $|R\rangle|L\rangle$ basis. Thus, we perform another Bogoliubov transformation further by introducing new operators $c_R$ and $c_L$ $$\begin{aligned}
c_R = u\,b_R + v\,b_R^\dagger \,,\qquad\quad
c_L = \bar{u}\,b_L + \bar{v}\,b_L^\dagger\,,
\label{bc0}\end{aligned}$$ to obtain the relation $$\begin{aligned}
|{\rm BD}\rangle = N_{\gamma_p}^{-1}
\exp\left(\gamma_p\,c_R^\dagger\,c_L^\dagger\,\right)|R'\rangle|L'\rangle\,.
\label{bogoliubov2}\end{aligned}$$ Here, the normalizaion $|u|^2-|v|^2=1$ and $|\bar{u}|^2-|\bar{v}|^2=1$ are assumed so that the new operators satisfy the commutation relation $[c_i,c_j^\dagger]=\delta_{ij}$. The normalization factor $N_{\gamma_p}$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
N_{\gamma_p}^2
=\left|\exp\left(\gamma_p\,c_R^\dagger\,c_L^\dagger\,\right)|R'\rangle|L'\rangle
\right|^2
=\frac{1}{1-|\gamma_p|^2}\,,
\label{norm2}\end{aligned}$$ where $|\gamma_p|<1$ is imposed. Eq. (\[bc0\]) is a linear transformation between $c_q$ and $b_q$, so this Bogoliubov transformation does not mix $R$ and $L$ Hilbert spaces, but the basis vacuum changes from $|R\rangle|L\rangle$ to $|R^\prime\rangle|L^\prime\rangle$.
For later convenience, we introduce a $4\times4$ matrix form of Eq. (\[bc0\]), $$\begin{aligned}
c_J=b_I\,G^I{}_J\,,\qquad
G^I{}_J=\left(
\begin{array}{ll}
U_{q} &~ V_{q}^* \\
V_{q} &~ U_{q}^* \\
\end{array}\right)\,,\qquad
c_J=(c_{q}\,,c_{q}^\dagger)\,,
\label{bc}\end{aligned}$$ where $U_{q}\equiv{\rm diag}(u,\bar{u})$, $V_{q}\equiv{\rm diag}(v,\bar{v})$.
The consistency conditions for Eq. (\[bogoliubov2\]) are $$\begin{aligned}
c_R\,|{\rm BD}\rangle= \gamma_p\,c_L^\dagger\,|{\rm BD}\rangle \,,\qquad
c_L\,|{\rm BD}\rangle = \gamma_p\,c_R^\dagger\,|{\rm BD}\rangle\,.
\label{consistency}\end{aligned}$$ If we write $m_{RR} = m_{LL}\equiv \omega$ and $m_{LR}=m_{RL}\equiv \zeta$ in Eq. (\[mij\]), we see that $\omega$ is real and $\zeta$ is pure imaginary for positive $\nu^2$. Then inserting Eqs. (\[bogoliubov1\]) and (\[bc0\]) into Eq. (\[consistency\]), we find a system of four homogeneous equations $$\begin{aligned}
&&\omega\,u + v -\gamma_p\,\zeta\,\bar{v}^* =0 \ , \qquad
\zeta\,u - \gamma_p\,\bar{u}^* - \gamma_p\,\omega\,\bar{v}^* =0\,,
\label{system1}\\
&&\omega\,\bar{u} + \bar{v} -\gamma_p\,\zeta\,v^* =0 \ , \qquad
\zeta\,\bar{u} - \gamma_p\,u^* - \gamma_p\,\omega\,v^* =0\,,
\label{system2}\end{aligned}$$ where $\omega^*=\omega$ and $\zeta^*=-\zeta$. We see that setting $v^* =\bar{v}$ and $u^* =\bar{u}$ is possible if $\gamma_p$ is pure imaginary $\gamma_p^*=-\gamma_p$. This is always possible by adjusting the phase of $c_q$. Then Eq. (\[system2\]) becomes identical with Eq. (\[system1\]) and the system is reduced to that of two homogeneous equations. We look for such $\gamma_p$, keeping the normalization condition $|u|^2-|v|^2=1$ satisfied.
In order to have a non-trivial solution in the system of equations (\[system1\]), $\gamma_p$ must be $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma_p=\frac{1}{2\zeta}\left[-\omega^2+\zeta^2+1-\sqrt{\left(\omega^2-\zeta^2-1\right)^2-4\zeta^2}\,\right]\,,
\label{gammap}\end{aligned}$$ where we took a minus sign in front of the square root term to satisfy $|\gamma_p|<1$. Note that $\gamma_p$ is pure imaginary. Putting the $\omega$ and $\zeta$ defined in Eq. (\[mij\]) into Eq. (\[gammap\]), we get $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma_p = i\frac{\sqrt{2}}{\sqrt{\cosh 2\pi p + \cos 2\pi \nu}
+ \sqrt{\cosh 2\pi p + \cos 2\pi \nu +2 }}\,.
\label{gammap2}\end{aligned}$$
Now we have the density matrix which enables us to trace over the $R$ degrees of freedom easily. By using Eqs. (\[bogoliubov2\]) and (\[norm2\]), the reduced density matrix is then found to be diagonalized as $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_L ={\rm Tr}_{R}\,|{\rm BD}\rangle\langle{\rm BD}|
=\left(1-|\gamma_p|^2\,\right)\sum_{n=0}^\infty
|\gamma_p |^{2n}\,|n;p\ell m\rangle\langle n;p\ell m|\,,
\label{dm} \end{aligned}$$ where we defined $|n;p\ell m\rangle=1/\sqrt{n!}\,(c_L^\dagger)^n\,|L'\rangle$. Note that this density matrix is for each mode labeled by $p,\ell, m$.
Spectrum of vacuum fluctuations {#s3.2}
-------------------------------
Now we calculate the mean-square vacuum fluctuations by using the reduced density matrix obtained in Eq. (\[dm\]). Since we traced out the degrees of freedom of the $R$ region, the corresponding field operator has to be defined only in the $L$ region. Also the field operator should act only on $|L'\rangle$ conforming with the reduced density matrix. Then, the Fourier mode field operator should be defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\phi_{L p\ell m}(t_L)
\equiv\phi_{L}(t_L)
&=&\frac{1}{N_b}\frac{H}{\sinh t_L}\,b_{\cal J}\,P^{\cal J}
=\frac{1}{N_b}\frac{H}{\sinh t_L}\,c_{\cal I}\left(G^{-1}\right)^{\cal I}{}_{\cal J}\,P^{\cal J}\nonumber\\
&\equiv&\frac{H}{\sinh t_L}\,c_{\cal I}\,\psi^{\cal I}\,,\qquad
\psi^{\cal I}=\left(
\begin{array}{l}
\psi^{L}\\
\psi^{L*}
\end{array}\right)\,,
\label{phi4}\end{aligned}$$ where the calligraphic indices $({\cal I, J})$ run from 1 to 2, and the matrix is reduced to a $2\times2$ form: $$\begin{aligned}
\left(G^{-1}\right)^{\cal I}{}_{\cal J}
=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\bar{u}^* & -\bar{v}^* \\
-\bar{v} & \bar{u} \\
\end{array}\right)
\,,\qquad
|\bar{u}|^2-|\bar{v}|^2=1\,.\end{aligned}$$ Note that we transformed the field operator expanded by $b_J$ in Eq. (\[phi3\]) into $c_I$ by using Eq. (\[bc\])[^2].
Focusing on a single mode with indices $p,\ell,m$, the mean-square vacuum fluctuations are then calculated as $$\begin{aligned}
{\rm Tr}_L\rho_L\,\phi_{L}\,\phi_{L}^\dagger
&=&\left(1-|\gamma_p|^2\,\right)\sum_{n=0}^\infty |\gamma_p |^{2n}
\langle n;p\ell m|\,\phi_{L}\,\phi_{L}^\dagger\,|n;p\ell m\rangle\,,
\label{ev2}\end{aligned}$$ where $\phi_L=\phi_{Lp\ell m}(t_L)$.
Spectrum in the $L$ region {#s3.3}
--------------------------
We calculate the power spectrum in the $L$ region. The mode function given in Eq. (\[phi4\]) is written as $$\begin{aligned}
\psi^{\cal I}=N_b^{-1}\left(G^{-1}\right)^{\cal I}{}_{\cal J}\,P^{\cal J}
=\left(
\begin{array}{l}
{\cal A}_{L}P^L+{\cal B}_LP^{L*}\\
{\cal B}^*_{L}P^L+{\cal A}^*_LP^{L*}
\end{array}\right)\,,
\label{psi}\end{aligned}$$ where we defined $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal A}_{L}=\frac{\bar{u}^*}{N_b}\,,\qquad
{\cal B}_{L}=-\frac{\bar{v}^*}{N_b}\,.\end{aligned}$$ Here, $\bar{u}$, $\bar{v}$ are obtained by solving Eq. (\[system1\]) with the solution Eq. (\[gammap2\]) and imposing the normalization condition $|\bar{u}|^2-|\bar{v}|^2=1$: $$\begin{aligned}
\bar{u}=\frac{1-\gamma_p\zeta}{\sqrt{|1-\gamma_p\zeta|^2-|\omega|^2}}
\,,\qquad
\bar{v}=\frac{\omega}{\sqrt{|1-\gamma_p\zeta|^2-|\omega|^2}}\,.\end{aligned}$$ Here, $\omega=m_{RR} = m_{LL}$ and $\zeta=m_{LR}=m_{RL}$ in Eq. (\[mij\]). Using these we can compute the expectation value for each $n$-particle state in Eq. (\[ev2\]), $$\begin{aligned}
\langle n;p\ell m|\,\phi_{L}\,\phi_{L}^\dagger\,|n;p\ell m\rangle
&=&\frac{1}{n!}\,\langle L'|(c_L)^n\,{\phi}_{L}\,{\phi}_{L}^\dagger\,(c_L^\dagger)^n|L'\rangle
\nonumber\\
&=&
\frac{H^2}{\sinh^2t_L}\,\frac{1}{n!}\,
\langle L'|(c_L)^n\, c_{\cal I}\,\psi^{\cal I}\,\left(c_{\cal J}\,\psi^{\cal J}\right)^\dagger\,(c_L^\dagger)^n|L'\rangle
\nonumber\\
&=&\frac{H^2}{\sinh^2t_L}|\psi^L|^2\left(2n+1\right)\,,
\label{ev2-1}\end{aligned}$$ where from the second line to the third line we used $$\begin{aligned}
&&\langle L'|(c_L)^n\,
c_{\cal I}\,\psi^{\cal I}\,\left(c_{\cal J}\,\psi^{\cal J}\right)^\dagger\,(c_L^\dagger)^n|L'\rangle\nonumber\\
&&\qquad=|\psi^L|^2\,n!\,\langle n;p\ell m|n;p\ell m\rangle
+2|\psi^L|^2\,n^2(n-1)!\,\langle n-1;p\ell m|n-1;p\ell m\rangle
\nonumber\\
&&\qquad=(2n+1)\,n!\,|\psi^L|^2\,.\end{aligned}$$ Putting Eq. (\[ev2-1\]) into Eq. (\[ev2\]), the mean-square vacuum fluctuations for each mode is given by $$\begin{aligned}
{\rm Tr}_L\rho_L\,\phi_{L}\,\phi_{L}^\dagger&=&
\frac{H^2}{\sinh^2t_L}|\psi^L|^2\left(1-|\gamma_{p}|^2\,\right)
\sum_{n=0}^\infty |\gamma_{p}|^{2n}(2n+1)
\nonumber\\
&=&\frac{H^2}{\sinh^2t_L}\,|\psi^L|^2\,
\frac{1+|\gamma_{p}|^2}{1-|\gamma_{p}|^2}\,.
\label{ev3}\end{aligned}$$ Note that by comparing with Eq. (\[ev1\]), we see the main effect of tracing out the degrees of freedom of the region $R$ seems to come in with the form of $(1+|\gamma_p|^2)/(1-|\gamma_p|^2)$. Since $|\gamma_p|\rightarrow 1$ as $p\rightarrow 0$ (for $m=0$), this extra term enhances the mean-square vacuum fluctuations at long wavelengths ($p\ll 1$). Note also that the mode functions are changed from $$\begin{aligned}
\chi^{I}=N_p^{-1}\,M^{I}{}_{\cal J}\,P^{\cal J}\,\longrightarrow\,
\psi^{\cal I}=N_b^{-1}\left(G^{-1}\right)^{\cal I}{}_{\cal J}\,P^{\cal J}\,,
\label{chipsi}\end{aligned}$$ due to the change from the Bunch-Davies vacuum to $L'$-vacuum which diagonalized the reduced density matrix as obtained in Eq. (\[dm\]).
Vacuum fluctuations after horizon exit {#s3.4}
--------------------------------------
As we did in subsection \[s2.3\], let us check the time dependence of $\psi^{\cal I}$ in Eq. (\[phi5\]). From Eq. (\[psi\]), the $|\psi^{\cal I}|^2$ in the mean-square vacuum fluctuations in Eq. (\[ev3\]) is expressed as $$\begin{aligned}
|\psi^L|^2={\cal A}_L{\cal B}_L^*\left(P^L\right)^2
+\left(|{\cal A}_L|^2+|{\cal B}_L|^2\right)P^LP^{L*}
+{\cal A}_L^*{\cal B}_L\left(P^{L*}\right)^2\,.
\label{psi2}\end{aligned}$$ Since the Legendre functions on superhorizon scale is the same as in Eq. (\[legendre2\]), we find the time dependence of this case is the same as Eq. (\[z1\]) and expressed as $$\begin{aligned}
&&|\psi^L|^2\xrightarrow{t_L\gg 1}
\frac{2^{2\nu-1}\Gamma(\nu)^2}{\pi}
\left[\frac{{\cal A}_L{\cal B}_L^*}{\Gamma(\nu-ip+1/2)^2}
+\frac{|{\cal A}_L|^2+|{\cal B}_L|^2}{|\Gamma(\nu+ip+1/2)|^2}
+\frac{{\cal A}_L^*{\cal B}_L}{\Gamma(\nu+ip+1/2)^2}
\right]
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{2cm}\times\left(\cosh t_L\right)^{2\nu-1}\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{2cm}\equiv {\cal Z}\left(\cosh t_L\right)^{2\nu-1}\,,
\label{z2}\end{aligned}$$ where we defined ${\cal Z}$ corresponding to $Z$ in Eq. (\[z1\]) for comparison. The spectrum of the vacuum fluctuations corresponding to Eq. (\[def:P1\]) is now given by $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal P}(p, t_L)=\frac{p^3}{2\pi^2}\,
{\rm Tr}_L\rho_L\,\phi_{L}\,\phi_{L}\,.\end{aligned}$$ Plugging Eqs. (\[ev3\]) and (\[z2\]) into above, we find the spectrum is found to be $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal P}(p, t_L)=\frac{H^2}{\sinh^2t_L}\,|\psi^L|^2\,\frac{1+|\gamma_p|^2}{1-|\gamma_p|^2}
\,\frac{p^3}{2\pi^2}\,
\xrightarrow{t_L\gg 1}
H^2{\cal Z}\,\frac{1+|\gamma_p|^2}{1-|\gamma_p|^2}
\,\frac{p^3}{2\pi^2}\,
\frac{(\cosh t_L)^{2\nu-1}}{\sinh^2t_L}\,.
\label{time2}\end{aligned}$$ We see the time dependent part is completely identical with Eq. (\[time1\]). Thus, for massless case ($\nu=3/2$), the vacuum fluctuation gets frozen after horizon exit in the case of the spectrum using the reduced density matrix as well.
Wavenumber dependence {#s3.5}
---------------------
Next, let us see the behavior of the power spectrum at short wavelengths ($p\gg 1$) as we did in subsection \[s2.4\]. For a massless scalar field ($\nu=3/2$), the dominant term in ${\cal Z}$ of Eq. (\[z2\]) for large $p$ is found to be $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{|{\cal A}_L|^2}{|\Gamma(\nu+ip+1/2)|^2}
=\frac{|\bar{u}|^2/|N_b|^2}{|\Gamma(\nu+ip+1/2)|^2}
\xrightarrow{p\gg 1}
\frac{\pi e^{-\pi p}}{2p^4|\Gamma(i p)|^2}\,.
\label{dominant2}\end{aligned}$$ The corresponding case of the Bunch-Davies vacuum is Eq. (\[dominant1\]). We see the $\alpha_L^\sigma/N_p$ is simply replaced by $\bar{u}/N_b$, and find that the behavior of ${\cal Z}$ is the same as that of $Z$, $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal Z}\xrightarrow{p\gg 1}
\frac{2^2\Gamma(3/2)^2}{\pi}\frac{\pi e^{-\pi p}}{2p^4|\Gamma(i p)|^2}
\sim\frac{1}{2p^3}\,.\end{aligned}$$ Thus the spectrum of a massless scalar field after horizon exit is evaluated as $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal P}(p)=H^2{\cal Z}\,\frac{1+|\gamma_p|^2}{1-|\gamma_p|^2}\left(\frac{p^3}{2\pi^2}\right)
\xrightarrow{p\gg 1}\left(\frac{H}{2\pi}\right)^2\,.
\label{sg2}\end{aligned}$$ We find that the scale invariant spectrum is realized for $p\gg1$ even after tracing out the degrees of freedom of the region $R$. We plot the spectrum of the massless scalar field in Eq. (\[sg2\]) as a function of $p$ in Figure \[fig3\]. It is almost identical to Figure \[fig2\].
![The spectrum as a function of $p$.[]{data-label="fig3"}](plot2.pdf){height="10cm"}
Possible observable signatures {#s4}
==============================
So far, we discussed two different spectra given in terms of $\chi^I$ and $\psi^{\cal I}$. The former correspond to the mode functions for the [*entangled*]{} Bunch-Davies vacuum, and the latter to those that diagonalize the reduced density matrix obtained from the Bunch-Davies vacuum by tracing out the degrees of freedom of the $R$ region. The corresponding states are given by the density matrix $\rho_{\rm BD}=|{\rm BD}\rangle\langle{\rm BD}|$ and the reduced density matrix $\rho_L={\rm Tr}_{R}\,\rho_{\rm BD}$, respectively.
The difference between these two states is the observer’s point of view when taking the mean-square vacuum fluctuations. For $\rho_{\rm BD}$, we are supposed to know the entangled state in the region $R$. On the other hand, for $\rho_L$, we are supposed to be completely ignorant about the state in the $R$ region. In order to distinguish them, we call $\rho_{\rm BD}$ the “entangled state”, and $\rho_L$ the “mixed state (obtained from the entangled state)”, or just denote them by their relevant mode functions $\chi^I$ and $\psi^{\cal I}$ in the following.
Non-entangled state {#s4.1}
-------------------
In the subsections \[s2.4\] and \[s3.5\], we showed that both of the entangled state and the mixed state realize the scale invariant spectrum for a massless scalar field at short wavelengths ($p\gg 1$). Now we wonder what would happen to the spectrum if we assume the $L$ region were the whole universe and use the mode function $\varphi^{\cal I}$ which is defined only in the $L$ region. We call it “non-entangled state", and denote it by $\varphi^{\cal I}$.
The relevant mode function for the non-entangled case should be given by Eq. (\[norm1\]). That is $$\begin{aligned}
\varphi^{\cal I}=\left(
\begin{array}{l}
\varphi^{L}\\
\varphi^{L*}
\end{array}\right)
=\frac{1}{N_b}
\left(
\begin{array}{l}
P^L\\
P^{L*}
\end{array}\right)\,.\end{aligned}$$ The spectrum is then defined by $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal P}(p, t_L)=\frac{p^3}{2\pi^2}\,\langle L|\,\varphi^L\varphi^L\,|L\rangle\,,\end{aligned}$$ where the Fourier mode field operator is $$\begin{aligned}
\varphi^L(t_L)&=&\frac{H}{\sinh t}\,
b_{\cal I}\,\varphi^{\cal I}(t_L)\,,
\label{phi5}\end{aligned}$$ and we find the mean-square vacuum fluctuations for each mode $$\begin{aligned}
\langle L|\,\varphi^L\varphi^L\,|L\rangle
=\frac{H^2}{\sinh^2t_L}|\varphi^L|^2\,\delta(p-p')\delta_{\ell\ell'}\delta_{mm'}\,.\end{aligned}$$ The $|\varphi^L|^2$ becomes a simple form $$\begin{aligned}
&&|\varphi^L|^2=\frac{1}{2p}\left|\Gamma(1+ip)\right|^2P^LP^{*L}
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{1cm}\xrightarrow{t_L\gg 1}
\frac{2^{2\nu-1}\Gamma(\nu)^2}{\pi}
\frac{|\Gamma(1+ip)|^2}{|\Gamma(\nu+ip+1/2)|^2}\frac{1}{2p}
\left(\cosh t_L\right)^{2\nu-1}\equiv \tilde{\cal Z}\left(\cosh t_L\right)^{2\nu-1}\,.
\label{time3}\end{aligned}$$ Here, time independent part of $\tilde{\cal Z}$ at short wavelengths ($p\gg 1$) is evaluated as $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{\cal Z}\xrightarrow{p\gg 1}
\frac{2^2\Gamma(3/2)^2}{\pi}\frac{|\Gamma(1+ip)|^2}{|\Gamma(2+i p)|^2}\frac{1}{2p}
\sim\frac{1}{2p^3}\,.\end{aligned}$$ The power spectrum becomes $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal P}(p)=H^2\tilde{\cal Z}\,\frac{p^3}{2\pi^2}\,
\xrightarrow{p\gg 1}\left(\frac{H}{2\pi}\right)^2\,.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, for $p\gg1$, we get the flat spectrum of vacuum fluctuations for a massless scalar field even for the non-entangled state. This means that we cannot distinguish which state is valid for our universe as far as we focus on the short wavelength region of the spectrum. So let us examine the behavior at long wavelengths after the horizon exit.
Spectra at long wavelengths {#s4.2}
---------------------------
In order to see the behavior at long wavelengths, we take the limit $p\ll1$ and expand the expressions for the spectra in $p$. For $\varphi^{\cal I}$ and $\chi^I$, we expand $\tilde{\cal Z}$ in Eq. (\[time3\]) and $Z$ in Eq. (\[z1\]), respectively. Then we find the $p$ dependence at leading order is given by $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal P}(p)\xrightarrow[p\ll 1]{t_L\gg 1}\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
2^{2\nu-1}\Gamma(\nu)^2\pi^{-1}|\Gamma(\nu+1/2)|^{-2}
\left(\frac{H}{2\pi}\right)^2p^2\hspace{1.4cm}
{\rm for}\quad\varphi^{\cal I}\,,\\\\
2^{2\nu-1}\Gamma(\nu)^2|\Gamma(\nu+1/2)|^{-2}
\left(\frac{H}{2\pi}\right)^2p^3
\,\hspace{2cm} {\rm for}\quad\chi^I\,.
\end{array}
\right.
\label{smallp1}\end{aligned}$$ In the case of $\psi^{\cal I}$, we expand $\cal Z$ in Eq. (\[z2\]) to obtain $$\begin{aligned}
&&\hspace{-0.5cm}{\cal P}(p)\xrightarrow[p\ll 1]{t_L\gg 1}
2^{2\nu-1}\Gamma(\nu)^2\,\sqrt{2}\,\pi^{-2}\,|\Gamma(\nu+1/2)|^{-2}\,|\cos\pi\nu|
\left(\sqrt{1+\cos2\pi\nu}+\sqrt{3+\cos2\pi\nu}\right)
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{2cm}\times\frac{(\sqrt{1+\cos2\pi\nu}+\sqrt{3+\cos2\pi\nu})^2+2}{(\sqrt{1+\cos2\pi\nu}+\sqrt{3+\cos2\pi\nu})^2-2}
\left(\frac{H}{2\pi}\right)^2p\,\hspace{1.5cm} {\rm for}\quad
\psi^{\cal I}\,.
\label{smallp2}\end{aligned}$$ We are interested in the case of small mass ($|\nu-3/2|\ll 1$). Taking this limit, we see that the spectrum for $\psi^{\cal I}$ decreases most slowly as $p\rightarrow 0$. The spectra at long wavelengths are plotted in Figure \[fig4\], where we take $m^2=H^2/10$. The spectra for the entangled state ($\chi^I$) and the mixed state ($\psi^{\cal I}$) are the blue line and the red line, respectively. The green line is the spectrum for the non-entangled state ($\varphi^{\cal I}$). The non-entangled state seems to give the most suppressed spectrum at $p\ll1$. But if we use the logarithmic plots (right panel) we find the result is consistent with the analysis of the $p$ dependence in Eqs. (\[smallp1\]) and (\[smallp2\]).
Around the curvature scale of the open universe $(p\sim1)$, we find that the green line starts to deviate from other two lines as $p\rightarrow 0$. This point tells us if the regions $R$ and $L$ are entangled or not. Around $5$ times of the curvature scale of the open universe $(p\sim0.2)$, the red and blue lines start to bifurcate. This tells us which state among the entangled state and the mixed state is appropriate for our universe.
![The spectrum at long wavelengths (Left) and the logarithmic plot at very long wavelengths (Right). The red line is for $\psi^{\cal I}$, the blue line is for $\chi^I$, and the green is for $\varphi^{\cal I}$. []{data-label="fig4"}](plot3.pdf){height="7cm"}
![The spectrum at long wavelengths (Left) and the logarithmic plot at very long wavelengths (Right). The red line is for $\psi^{\cal I}$, the blue line is for $\chi^I$, and the green is for $\varphi^{\cal I}$. []{data-label="fig4"}](plot4.pdf){height="7cm"}
Summary and discussion {#s5}
======================
We investigated the spectrum of vacuum fluctuations with quantum entanglement in de Sitter space by using the reduced density matrix obtained by Maldacena and Pimentel in [@Maldacena:2012xp]. We formulated the mean-square vacuum fluctuations by introducing the two open charts, $L$ and $R$, which are entangled. We found that the effect of tracing out the degrees of freedom of the $R$ region comes in to the mean-square of vacuum fluctuations and enhances it on scales larger than the curvature radius. On the other hand, on small scales, the spectrum of vacuum fluctuations of a massless scalar field is found to be scale invariant, and completely indistinguishable from the pure Bunch-Davies (hence highly entangled) case.
We also considered a fictitious case in which we assume the $L$ region were the whole universe. In this case, with respect to a natural vacuum state defined in the $L$ region, the scale invariant spectrum is also realized on small scales. Thus it turned out that we cannot distinguish which state is valid for our universe among the entangled state ($\chi^I$), the mixed state from the entangled state ($\psi^{\cal I}$) and non-entangled state ($\varphi^{\cal I}$), as long as we focus on the spectrum on small scales.
On the other hand, the spectrum for each of these three cases is found to be different from each other on large scales comparable to or greater than the curvature radius.
We found that the spectra for the entangled and mixed states tend to be enhanced compared to the non-entangled state on scales comparable to the curvature radius. If we go further to scales much larger than the curvature radius, there appears a difference between the entangled state and mixed state. The spectrum for the mixed state is enhanced substantially relative to the entangled state. Since we can use these differences to distinguish those three states, they seem to be relevant (and hopefully observationally testable) in the context of open inflation.
Now let us consider why the difference appeared in the spectra between the entangled and mixed states. In general, if we consider two subsystems $A$ and $B$ that form a state $|\Psi\rangle$, the expectation value of a physical quantity ${\cal O}$ is expressed by using the density matrix $\rho=|\Psi\rangle\langle\Psi|$ as $$\begin{aligned}
{\rm Tr}\rho\,{\cal O}=\sum_{\alpha,\beta}\langle\alpha,\beta|\Psi\rangle\langle\Psi
|{\cal O}|\alpha,\beta\rangle
=\langle\Psi|{\cal O}|\Psi\rangle\,.
\label{general:ev2}\end{aligned}$$ If ${\cal O}$ depends only on $A$, that is, ${\cal O}_A$ : $$\begin{aligned}
\langle\alpha',\beta'|{\cal O}|\alpha,\beta\rangle=\langle\alpha|{\cal O}_A|\alpha'\rangle
\delta_{\beta\beta'}\,,\end{aligned}$$ then Eq. (\[general:ev2\]) becomes $$\begin{aligned}
{\rm Tr}\rho\,{\cal O}_A&=&\sum_{\alpha,\beta}\sum_{\alpha',\beta'}
\langle\alpha,\beta|\Psi\rangle
\langle\Psi|\alpha',\beta'\rangle\langle\alpha',\beta'|
{\cal O}_A|\alpha,\beta\rangle
=\sum_{\alpha,\beta}\sum_{\alpha'}
\langle\alpha,\beta|\Psi\rangle\langle\Psi|\alpha',\beta\rangle
\langle\alpha'|{\cal O}_A|\alpha\rangle\nonumber\\
&=&{\rm Tr}\rho_A\,{\cal O}_A\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_A\equiv{\rm Tr}_B\rho=\sum_{\alpha,\alpha'}|\alpha\rangle\left(\sum_\beta\langle\alpha,\beta|\Psi\rangle\langle\Psi|\alpha',\beta\rangle\right)\langle\alpha'|\,.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, the expectation value ${\rm Tr}\rho\,{\cal O}$ is equal to ${\rm Tr}\rho_A\,{\cal O}_A$ if ${\cal O}$ does not depend on $B$. In other words, for an operator with the property ${\cal O}={\cal O}_A$, the expectation value should agree with each other.
Based on this general argument, we may understand the reason why the spectra for the entangled state and the mixed state from the entangled state become different on large scale $(p\rightarrow 0)$. We see that the creation and anihilation operators $a_J$ include the operators on both sides, $b_J=(b_q,b_q^\dag)$ ($q=R,L$), as in Eq. (\[ab\]). This means that the field operator $\phi(t)$ naturally involves operators on both sides even if the time slice $t$ is restricted to the $L$ region. On the other hand, after tracing out the degrees of freedom of the $R$ region, the mixed state $(\psi^{\cal I})$ is described by the creation and anihilation operators defined only in the $L$ region. That is, the field operator $\phi_L(t)$ is defined only in the $L$ region. Thus apparently $\phi(t)\neq\phi_L(t)$, implying that the above general argument does not hold because ${\cal O}\neq{\cal O}_A$.
Finally, we mention that it would be easy to extend our analysis to the case of gravitons. Another direction is to consider interactions. The formalism we developed in this paper is at tree level. It would be interesting to consider the loop corrections and see how they affect the result. They might enhance the effect of the entanglement on small scales because of the coupling between long and short wavelengths [@Tanaka:2013caa].
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
I would like to thank Jiro Soda and Misao Sasaki for fruitful discussions, and for helpful suggestions and comments. I would also like to thank Alex Vilenkin and Jaume Garriga for careful reading of the draft, and for very useful suggestions and comments. This work was supported in part by funding from the University Research Council of the University of Cape Town.
[99]{}
S. R. Coleman and F. De Luccia, Phys. Rev. D [**21**]{}, 3305 (1980). J. Garriga, S. Kanno, M. Sasaki, J. Soda and A. Vilenkin, JCAP [**1212**]{}, 006 (2012) \[arXiv:1208.1335 \[hep-th\]\]. J. Garriga, S. Kanno and T. Tanaka, JCAP [**1306**]{}, 034 (2013) \[arXiv:1304.6681 \[hep-th\]\]. M. B. Fröb, J. Garriga, S. Kanno, M. Sasaki, J. Soda, T. Tanaka and A. Vilenkin, JCAP [**1404**]{}, 009 (2014) \[arXiv:1401.4137 \[hep-th\]\]. S. Ryu and T. Takayanagi, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**96**]{}, 181602 (2006) \[hep-th/0603001\]. T. Takayanagi, Class. Quant. Grav. [**29**]{}, 153001 (2012) \[arXiv:1204.2450 \[gr-qc\]\]. J. Maldacena and G. L. Pimentel, JHEP [**1302**]{}, 038 (2013) \[arXiv:1210.7244 \[hep-th\]\]. S. Kanno, J. Murugan, J. P. Shock and J. Soda, arXiv:1404.6815 \[hep-th\]. N. Iizuka, T. Noumi and N. Ogawa, arXiv:1404.7487 \[hep-th\]. M. Sasaki, T. Tanaka and K. Yamamoto, Phys. Rev. D [**51**]{}, 2979 (1995) \[gr-qc/9412025\]. M. Bucher, A. S. Goldhaber and N. Turok, Phys. Rev. D [**52**]{}, 3314 (1995) \[hep-ph/9411206\]. A. D. Linde, Phys. Lett. B [**351**]{}, 99 (1995) \[hep-th/9503097\]. A. D. Linde and A. Mezhlumian, Phys. Rev. D [**52**]{}, 6789 (1995) \[astro-ph/9506017\]. J. Garriga, X. Montes, M. Sasaki and T. Tanaka, Nucl. Phys. B [**513**]{}, 343 (1998) \[astro-ph/9706229\]. J. Garriga, X. Montes, M. Sasaki and T. Tanaka, Nucl. Phys. B [**551**]{}, 317 (1999) \[astro-ph/9811257\]. T. S. Bunch and P. C. W. Davies, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A [**360**]{}, 117 (1978). N. A. Chernikov and E. A. Tagirov, Annales Poincare Phys. Theor. A [**9**]{}, 109 (1968). J. B. Hartle and S. W. Hawking, Phys. Rev. D [**28**]{}, 2960 (1983). T. Tanaka and Y. Urakawa, Class. Quant. Grav. [**30**]{}, 233001 (2013) \[arXiv:1306.4461 \[hep-th\]\].
[^1]: The point between $L$ and $R$ regions is a part of the timelike infinity where infinite volume exits. This gives rise to the presence of the supercurvature modes for a scalar field with sufficiently small mass [@Sasaki:1994yt]. In this paper, we do not consider the supercuvature modes.
[^2]: The Fourier mode field operator $\phi_{L}$ is rescaled in accordance with the discretization of the $p$-mode spectrum as explained below Eq. (\[bogoliubov1\]).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Many scientific and engineering problems require to perform Bayesian inferences for unknowns of infinite dimension. In such problems, many standard Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) algorithms become arbitrary slow under the mesh refinement, which is referred to as being dimension dependent. To this end, a family of dimensional independent MCMC algorithms, known as the preconditioned Crank-Nicolson (pCN) methods, were proposed to sample the infinite dimensional parameters. In this work we develop an adaptive version of the pCN algorithm, where the covariance operator of the proposal distribution is adjusted based on sampling history to improve the simulation efficiency. We show that the proposed algorithm satisfies an important ergodicity condition under some mild assumptions. Finally we provide numerical examples to demonstrate the performance of the proposed method.'
address:
- 'Department of Mathematics, Zhiyuan College, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200240, China.'
- 'Institute of Natural Sciences, Department of Mathematics, and MOE Key Laboratory of Scientific and Engineering Computing, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200240, China. (Corresponding author)'
author:
- Zixi Hu
- Zhewei Yao
- Jinglai Li
bibliography:
- 'apcn.bib'
title: 'On an adaptive preconditioned Crank-Nicolson MCMC algorithm for infinite dimensional Bayesian inferences'
---
Bayesian inference, infinite dimensional inverse problems, adaptive Markov Chain Monte Carlo.
Introduction
============
In many real-world inverse problems, the unknowns that one wants to estimate are functions of space and/or time. Solving such problems with the Bayesian approaches [@kaipio2005statistical; @stuart2010inverse], often require to perform Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) simulations in function spaces. Namely one first represents the unknown function with a finite-dimensional parametrization, for example, by discretizing the function on a pre-determined mesh grid, and then performs MCMC simulations in the resulting finite dimensional space. It has been known that standard MCMC algorithms, such as the random walk Metropolis-Hastings (RWMH), can become arbitrarily slow as the discretization mesh of the unknown is refined [@roberts1997weak; @roberts2001optimal; @beskos2009optimal; @mattingly2012diffusion]. That is, the mixing time of an algorithm can increase to infinity as the dimension of the discretized parameter approaches to infinity, and in this case the algorithm is said to be *dimension-dependent*. To this end, a very interesting line of research is to develop *dimension-independent* MCMC algorithms by requiring the algorithms to be well-defined in the function spaces. In particular, a family of dimension-independent MCMC algorithms, known as the preconditioned Crank Nicolson (pCN) algorithms, were presented in [@cotter2013mcmc] by constructing a Crank-Nicolson discretization of a stochastic partial differential equation (SPDE) that preserves the reference measure.
The sampling efficiency of the pCN algorithm can be improved by incorporating the data information in the proposal design, and a popular way to achieve this goal is the adaptive MCMC methods. Simply speaking, the adaptive MCMC algorithms improve the proposal based on the sampling history from the targeting distribution (c.f. [@andrieu2008tutorial; @atchade2009adaptive; @roberts2009examples] and the references therein) as the iterations proceed. A major advantage of the adaptive methods is that they only require the ability to evaluate the likelihood functions, which makes them particularly convenient for problems with black-box models. In a recent work [@feng2015adaptive], we develop an adaptive independence sampler MCMC algorithm for the infinite dimensional problems. A main difficulty of independence sampler MCMC algorithms is that the efficiency of such algorithms depends critically on the ability of the chosen proposal, often in a parametrized form, to approximate the posterior in the entire state space, and the algorithm may perform very poorly if the proposal can not well approximate the posterior distribution. In this respect, random walk based algorithms may be more convenient to use, as they do not require such a “global proposal”. In this work, we present an adaptive random walk MCMC based on the preconditioned Crank-Nicolson (pCN) algorithm in [@cotter2013mcmc]. Specifically, we adaptively adjust the covariance operator of the proposal to improve the sampling efficiency. We parametrize the covariance operator in a specific form that has been used in [@pinski2015algorithms; @feng2015adaptive], and we provide an algorithm that can efficiently update the parameter values as the iteration proceeds. By design, the acceptance probability of our algorithm is well defined and thus the algorithm is dimension independent. Moreover, we can show that the algorithm satisfies some important ergodicity conditions in the infinite dimensional setting. Note that, another existing adaptive MCMC algorithm for infinite dimensional problems is the dimension independent adaptive Metropolis (DIAM) proposed in [@chen2015accelerated]. The DIAM is also based on the pCN algorithm, but our method preserves an important feature of the standard pCN algorithm, i.e., the acceptance probability being independent on the proposal distribution, while the DIAM method does not.
We note that, an alternative class of methods improve the sampling efficiency by guiding the proposal with the local derivative information of the likelihood function. Such derivative based methods include: the stochastic Newton MCMC [@martin2012stochastic; @petra2014computational], the Riemann manifold Hamiltonian MC [@bui2014solving], the operator-weighted proposal method [@law2014proposals], the dimension-independent likelihood-informed MCMC [@cui2016dimension], the generalized pCN algorithm [@rudolf2015generalization], and so on. We reinstate that in this work we are focused on the type of problems where the derivative information is difficult to obtain, and thus those derivative based methods are not in our scope.
The rest of the paper is organized as the following. In section \[sec:method\] we describe the setup of infinite dimensional inference problems and present our adaptive algorithm in detail. In section \[sec:examples\] we provide several numerical examples to demonstrate the performance of the proposed algorithm. Finally we offer some concluding remarks in section \[sec:conclusion\].
The adaptive pCN algorithm {#sec:method}
==========================
Bayesian inferences in function spaces
--------------------------------------
We present the standard setup of the Bayesian inverse problem following [@stuart2010inverse]. We consider a separable [Hilbert]{} space $X$ with inner product $\<\cdot,\cdot\>_X$. Our goal is to estimate the unknown $u\in X$ from data $y\in Y$ where $Y$ is the data space and $y$ is related to $u$ via a likelihood function $\exp(-\Phi^y(u))$. In the Bayesian inference we assume that the prior $\mu_0$ of $u$, is a (without loss of generality) zero-mean Gaussian measure defined on $X$ with covariance operator $\@C_0$, i.e. $\mu_0 = N(0,\@C_0)$. Note that $\@C_0$ is symmetric positive and of trace class. The range of $\@C_0^{\frac12}$, $$E = \{u = \@C_0^{\frac12} x\, |\, x\in X\}\subset X,$$ which is a Hilbert space equipped with inner product [@da2006introduction], $$\<\cdot,\cdot\>_E = \<\@C_0^{-\frac12}\cdot,\@C_0^{-\frac12}\cdot\>_X ,$$ is called the Cameron-Martin space of measure $\mu_0$. In this setting, the posterior measure $\mu^y$ of $u$ conditional on data $y$ is provided by the Radon-Nikodym derivative: $$\frac{d\mu^y}{d\mu_{0}}(u) =\frac1Z\exp(-\Phi^y(u)),
\label{e:bayes}$$ with $Z$ being a normalization constant, which can be interpreted as the Bayes’ rule in the infinite dimensional setting. In what follows, without causing any ambiguity, we shall drop the superscript $y$ in $\Phi^y$ and $\mu^y$ for simplicity, while keeping in mind that these items depend on the data $y$. For the inference problem to be well-posed, one typically requires the functional $\Phi$ to satisfy the Assumptions (6.1) in [@cotter2013mcmc]. It is known that there exists a complete orthonormal basis $\{e_j\}_{j\in\N}$ on $X$ and a sequence of non-negative numbers $\{\alpha_j\}_{j\in\N}$ such that ${\@C_0} e_j = \alpha_j e_j$ and $\sum_{j=1}^\infty \alpha_j <\infty$, i.e., $\{e_j\}_{k\in\N}$ and $\{\alpha_j\}_{k\in\N}$ being the eigenfunctions and eigenvalues of $\@C_0$ respectively ([@da2006introduction], Chapter 1). For convenience’s sake, we assume that the eigenvalues are in a descending order: $\alpha_j\geq\alpha_{j+1}$ for any $j\in\N$. $\{e_j\}_{j=1}^\infty$ are known as the Karhunen-Loève (KL) modes associated with $\@N(0,\@C_0)$.
The Crank-Nicolson algorithms
-----------------------------
We start by briefly reviewing the family of Crank-Nicolson (CN) algorithms for infinite dimensional Bayesian inferences, developed in [@cotter2013mcmc]. Simply speaking the algorithms are based on the stochastic partial differential equation (SPDE) $$\frac{du}{ds}=-\mathcal{K}\mathcal{L}u+\sqrt{2\mathcal{K}}\frac{db}{ds},\label{e:spde}$$ where $\@L=\@C_0^{-1}$ is the precision operator for $\mu_0$, $\@K$ is a positive operator, and $b$ is a Brownian motion in $X$ with covariance operator the identity. The proposal is then derived by applying the CN discretization to the SPDE , yielding, $$v=u-\frac12\delta\mathcal{K}\mathcal{L}(u+v)+\sqrt{2\mathcal{K}\delta}\xi_0, \label{e:prop}$$ for a white noise $\xi_0$ and $\delta\in(0,2)$. In [@cotter2013mcmc], two choices of $\@K$ are proposed, resulting in two different algorithms. First, one can choose $\@K=\@I$, the identity, obtaining: $$(2\@C+\delta \@I)v=(2\@C-\delta \@I)u+\sqrt{8\delta}w,$$ where $w\sim \@N(0,\@C_0)$, which is known as the plain CN algorithm. Alternatively one can choose $\@K=\@C_0$, resulting in the pCN proposal: $$v=(1-\beta^2)^{\frac12}u+ \beta w, \label{e:pcn}$$ where $$\beta = \frac{\sqrt{8\delta}}{2+\delta}.$$ It is easy to see that $\beta\in[0,1]$. In both CN and pCN algorithms, the acceptance probability is $$a(v,u) = \min\{1, \exp{\Phi(u)-\Phi(v)}\}. \label{e:acc}$$
The adaptive algorithm {#pr:acc}
----------------------
To derive the new algorithm, we rewrite the proposal Eq. as $$v=\frac{(I-\frac12\delta\mathcal{K}\mathcal{L})}{(I+\frac12\delta\@K\@L)}u
+\frac{\sqrt{2\delta\@K}}{(I+\frac12\delta\mathcal{K}\mathcal{L})}\xi_0, \label{e:prop2}$$ Now we do a substitution. Namely we let $$\frac{\sqrt{2\delta\@K}}{(I+\frac12\delta\mathcal{K}\mathcal{L})} = \beta \sqrt{\@B}, \label{e:sub1}$$ and by some simply calculation, we can verify that $$\frac{(I-\frac12\delta\mathcal{K}\mathcal{L})}{(I+\frac12\delta\@K\@L)} = \sqrt{(\@I-\beta^2 \@B\@L)}.\label{e:sub2}$$ Substitute Eqs. and into Eq. , and we obtain a new proposal: $$v = {(\@I-\beta^2 \@B\@L)^{\frac12}}u+ \beta w \label{e:propnew}$$ where $w\sim \@N(0,\@B)$. This proposal can be understood as a special case of the generalized pCN or the operator weighted proposal. The major difference is that in those two methods, the operator is determined by the derivative information of the likelihood function, while in our algorithm, it is determined with an adaptive method. Before discussing the details of how to determine the operator $\@B$, we first show that under mild conditions, the proposal results in well-defined acceptance probability in a function space:
Suppose operator $\@B$ is symmetric positive and of trace class. Let $q(u,\cdot)$ be the proposal distribution associated to Eq. . Define measures $\eta(du,dv)=q(u,dv)\mu(du)$ and $\eta^\bot(du,dv)=q(v,du)\mu(dv)$ on $X\times X$. If $\@B$ commutes with $\@C_0$, $\eta^\bot$ is absolutely continuous with respect to $\eta$, and $$\frac{d\eta^\bot}{d\eta}(u,v)= \exp(\Phi(u)-\Phi(v)).$$
Define $\eta_0(du,dv)=q(u,dv)\mu_0(du)$. The measure $\eta_0$ is Gaussian. From $\@B$ and $\@C_0$ are commutable, we have $$\E^{\eta_0}v\otimes v=(\@I-\beta^2\@B\mathcal{L})\@C_0+\beta^2\@B=\@C_0=\E^{\eta_0}u\otimes u.$$ Then $\eta_0$ is symmetric in $u,v$. Now $$\eta(du,dv)=q(u,dv)\mu(du),\quad
\eta_0(du,dv)=q(u,dv)\mu_0(du),$$ and $\mu$,$\mu_0$ are equivalent. It follows that $\eta$ and $\eta_0$ are equivalent and $$\frac{d\eta}{d\eta_0}(u,v)=\frac{d\mu}{d\mu_0}(u)= \frac1{Z}\exp(-\Phi(u)).$$ Since $\eta_0$ is symmetric in $u,v$ we also have that $\eta^\bot$ and $\eta_0$ are equivalent and that $$\frac{d\eta^\bot}{d\eta_0}(u,v)= \frac1Z\exp(-\Phi(v)).$$ Since equivalence of measures is transitive if follows that $\eta$ and $\eta^\bot$ are equivalent and $$\frac{d\eta^\bot}{d\eta}(u,v)= \exp[{\Phi(u)}-{\Phi(v)}].$$
It follows immediately from the detailed balance condition that the associated acceptance probability of proposal is also given by Eq. .
Now we discuss how to specify the operator $\@B$, and we start with assuming $\@B$ an appropriate parametrized form. Note that an essential condition in Proposition \[pr:acc\] is that $\@B$ must commute with $\@C_0$. To satisfy this condition, it is convenient to design a $\@B$ that has common eigenfunctions with $\@C_0$. Namely, we write $\@B$ in the form of $$\label{e:B}
\@B \,\cdot = \sum_{j=1}^\infty \lambda_{j}\<e_j,\cdot\>e_j,$$ with $\lambda_{j}$ being the coefficients. It is easy to see that $\@B$ is a symmetric operator with eigenvalue-eigenfunction pair $\{\lambda_j,e_j\}_{j=1}^\infty$, which implies that $\@B$ and $\@C_0$ commute.
A well-adopted rule in designing efficient MCMC algorithms is that the proposal covariance should be close to the covariance operator of the posterior [@roberts2001optimal; @haario2001adaptive]. Now suppose the posterior covariance is $\@C$, and one can determine the proposal covariance $\@B$ by solving $$\min_{\{\lambda_j\}_{\lambda=1}^\infty}\|\@B-\@C\|_{HS}, \label{e:minhs}$$ where $\|\cdot\|_{HS}$ is the Hilbert-Schmidt norm defined as $\|\@A\|^2_{HS}=\mathrm{Tr}(\@A^* \@A)$ where $\@A$ is any bounded operator on $X$ and $\@A^*$ is the adjoint of $\@A$. By some basic algebra, we can show that the optimal solution of Eq is $$\lambda_j = \< \@C e_j,e_j\>^{-1}$$ for $j=1...\infty$. Since $\@C$ is the posterior covariance, for any $v$ and $v' \in X$, we have [@da2006introduction], $$\<\@C v, v'\> =\int \<v,u-m\>\<v',u-m\> \mu(du), \label{e:cov}$$ where $m$ is the mean of $\mu$. Using Eq. , we can derive that $$ \lambda_j =\int(x_{j}-u_j)^2\mu(du), \label{e:lambda_j}$$ where $x_j=\<m,e_j\>$ and $u_j = \<u,e_j\>$ for $j = 1...\infty$.
In practice, the posterior covariance $\@C$ is not directly available, and so here we determine the operator $\@B$ with an adaptive MCMC algorithm. Simply speaking, the adaptive algorithm starts with an initial guess of $\@B$ and then adaptively updates the $\@B$ based on the sample history. Estimating all eigenvalues from the sample history is not practical due to the finite sample size. Here we make a finite-dimension reduction: namely, only the first $J$ eigenvalues are given in the form of Eq. which is further estimated from the sample history and the rest of them are taken to be fixed. In particular we let $$\label{e:lambda2}
\lambda_j= \begin{cases} \int(x_{j}-u_j)^2\mu(du) &\mbox{for } j \leq J \\
\alpha_j & \mbox{for } j >J. \end{cases}$$ The argument that we compute $\lambda_j$ as is in Eq. may become more clear if we look at the projections of the proposal onto each eigenmodes: $$\label{e:projection}
\<v,e_j\> =\begin{cases} (1-\beta^2 \lambda_i/\alpha_i )^{\frac12}u_j+\beta w_j \quad \mbox{where} \,\,w_j\sim \@N(0,\lambda_j) &\mbox{for } j \leq J \\
(1-\beta^2)^{\frac12}u_j+\beta w_j \quad \mbox{where} \,\,w_j\sim \@N(0,\alpha_j)& \mbox{for } j >J. \end{cases}$$ Eq. shows the basic scheme of the algorithm: it performs an adaptive pCN for the KL modes $j\leq J$ with the proposal covariance adapted to approximate that of the posterior, and a standard pCN for all $j>J$. The intuition behind our algorithm is based on the assumption that the (finite-resolution) data is only informative about a finite number of KL modes of the prior. In particular, the data can not provide information about the modes that are highly oscillating (associated with small eigenvalues) and for those modes, the posterior is approximately the prior. In this case, for the modes that are informed by the data, we shall adjust the eigenvalues to approximate the posterior covariance; for those that are not, the best strategy is to simply use the covariance of the prior (which is also the posterior). Now we discuss how to update the values of $\lambda_j$ from posterior samples for $i=1...J$. To this end, suppose we have a set of posterior samples $\{u^n\}_{i=0}^n$, and the values of parameters $\lambda_j$ are estimated using the sample average approximation of Eq. :
\[e:h\_j2\] $$\begin{gathered}
x^n_{j} = \frac1{n+1}\sum_{i=0}^n \<u^{i},e_j\>,\\
s^{n}_j = \sum_{i=0}^n (u_j^{n})^2,\\
\lambda^n_j ={\frac1{n+1} \sum_{i=0}^n(x^n_{j}-u^i_j)^2+\epsilon^2},
\end{gathered}$$
for $j=1...J$. Here $\epsilon$ is a small constant, introduced to ensure the stability of the algorithm, i.e., to keep $\lambda^n_j$ from becoming arbitrarily small. For efficiency’s sake, we can rewrite Eq in a recursive form
\[e:h\_j3\] $$\begin{gathered}
x^{n}_{j} = \frac{n}{n+1}x_j^{n-1}+ \frac1{n+1} \<u^{n},e_j\>,\\
s^{n}_j = s_j^{n-1}+(u_j^{n})^2,\\
\lambda_j^{n} ={\frac1{n+1} s_j^n-(x_j^n)^2} ,
\end{gathered}$$
for $j=1...J$ and $n>0$. Note here that, in principle the estimated $\lambda_j^n$ from samples can be arbitrarily large, which causes issues as $(\@I-\beta^2\@B\@L)$ must not be negative. Thus we let $\lambda^n_j = \min\{\lambda^n_j,\alpha_j\}$ for $j=1...J$, and as a result $\lambda_j\leq \alpha_j$ for $j=1...J$. It is easy to see that the operator $\@B$ resulting from $\{\lambda_j^n\}_{j=1}^J$ is symmetric positive and of trace class. Finally we note that, it is not robust to estimate the parameter values with a very small number of samples, and to address the issue, we first draw a certain number of samples with a standard pCN algorithm before starting the adaptation. We describe the complete adaptive pCN (ApCN) algorithm in Algorithm \[al:apcn\].
Initialize $u^0\in S $;
Propose $v$ using Eq ; Draw $\theta\sim U[0,1]$ Let $a: = \min\{1, \exp[{\Phi(u^n)}-{\Phi(v)}]\}$;
$u^{n+1}=v$; $u^{n+1}=u^{n}$;
Compute $\{x_j^{N'},s_j^{N'},\lambda_j^{N'}\}_{j=1}^J$ using Eq. and samples $\{u^i\}_{i=1}^{N'}$; $\lambda_j=\min\{\lambda_j,\alpha_j\}$; Compute $\@B$ from Eqs. with $\{\lambda_j^{n}\}_{j=1}^J$; Propose $v$ using Eq ; Draw $\theta\sim U[0,1]$ Let $a: = \min\{1, \exp[{\Phi(u^n)}-{\Phi(v)}]\}$;
$u^{n+1}=v$; $u^{n+1}=u^{n}$; Compute $\{x_j^{n+1},s_j^{n+1},\lambda_j^{n+1}\}_{j=1}^J$ using Eqs. ;
Finally an important issue in the implementation is to determine the number of adapted eigenvalues $J$. Here we propose to let $J =\min\{j\in \N\}$ such that, $$\frac{\sum_{i=1}^j{\alpha_j}}{\sum_{i=1}^\infty{\alpha_i}}>\rho,$$ where $0<\rho<1$ is a prescribed number (e.g. $\rho=0.99$).
Ergodicity analysis
-------------------
It is well known that, the adaptation may destroy the ergodicity of the algorithm, and as a result the chain constructed may not converge to the target distribution. It has been suggested by Roberts and Rosenthal [@roberts2009examples] that, an adaptive MCMC algorithm has the correct asymptotic convergence, provided that it satisfies the Diminishing Adaptation (DA) condition, which, loosely speaking, requires the transition probabilities to converge as the iteration proceeds, and the Containment condition. As the latter is regarded as merely a technical condition which is satisfied for virtually all reasonable adaptive schemes [@roberts2009examples], it often suffices to prove an adaptive algorithm satisfies the DA condition. Next we show that the proposed ApCN algorithm satisfies the DA condition under a minor modification. Namely, we change Eq. to be $$\frac{d\mu^y}{d\mu_{0}}(u) =
\begin{cases}
\frac1Z\exp(-\Phi(z)), &\|u\|_X\leq R\cr
0,&\|u\|_X> R,
\end{cases}
\label{e:lh_mod}$$ where $R$ is a prescribed positive constant. We want emphasize here that, just like the work [@haario2001adaptive], the purpose of the modification is to simplify our proof here, and practically speaking, its impact on the inference results should be negligible, provided that $R$ is taken to be sufficiently large.
Let us now set up some notations. Assume that $\@B_n(u_0,u_1,\cdots,u_{n-2},u)$ is the operator $\@B$ at iteration $n$ computed with $u_0, u_1, \cdots, u_{n-2}, u$ through Algorithm 1. For simplicity, we define $$\@B_{n,\zeta_{n-2}}(u)=\@B_n(u_0,u_1,\cdots,u_{n-2},u), \quad \mathrm{where}\quad\zeta_{n-2}=(u_0,u_1,\cdots,u_{n-2}),$$ and let $\{\lambda_{n,i}\}_{i=1}^\infty$ be the eigenvalues of $\@B_{n,\zeta_{n-2}}(u)$. We define $q_{n,\zeta_{n-2}}(u;dv)$ to be the proposal distribution associated to $$v = {(\@I-\beta^2 \@B_{n}(\zeta_{n-2},u)\@L)^{\frac12}}u+ \beta w$$ where $w\sim N(0,\@B_{n,\zeta_{n-2}}(u))$, and $$Q_{n,\zeta_{n-2}}(u,dv)=a(u,v)q_{n,\zeta_{n-2}}(u,dv)+\delta_u(dv)(1-\int a(u,z)q_{n,\zeta_{n-2}}(u,dz))$$ where $a(\cdot,\cdot)$ is given by Eq. . It can be verified that $$\sigma_{n,i}=(1-\beta^2\frac{\lambda_{n,i}}{\alpha_{i}})^{\frac12},
\label{e:sigma}$$ are the eigenvalues of $(\@I-\beta^2 \@B_{n,\zeta_{n-2}}(u)\@L)^{\frac12}$. We then have the following theorem:
\[th:da\] There is a fixed positive constant $\gamma$ such that $$\sup_{u\in X}\|Q_{n,\zeta_{n-2}}(u,\cdot)-Q_{n+1,\zeta_{n-1}}(u,\cdot)\|\leq\frac{\gamma}{n}$$ for any $\zeta_{n-1}$ and $\zeta_{n-2}$ such that $\zeta_{n-1}$ is a direct continuation of $\zeta_{n-2}$. Here $\|\cdot\|$ is the total variation norm.
We provide the proof of the theorem in the Appendix.
Numerical examples {#sec:examples}
==================
An ODE example
--------------
Our first example is a simple inverse problem where the forward model is governed by an ordinary differential equation (ODE): $$\frac{\partial x(t)}{\partial t} = -u(t)x(t)$$ with a prescribed initial condition. Suppose that we observe the solution $x(t)$ several times in the interval $[0,T]$, and we want to infer the unknown coefficient $u(t)$ from the observed data.
In our numerical experiments, we let the initial condition be $x(0) = 1$ and $T = 1$. Now suppose that the solution is measured every $T/100$ time unit from $0$ to $T$ and the error in each measurement is assumed to be an independent Gaussian $N(0,0.1^2)$. The prior is taken to be a zero mean Gaussian with Matérn covariance [@rasmussen2006gaussian]: $$K(t_1,t_2) = \sigma^2 \frac{2^{1-\nu}}{\Gamma(\nu)}(\sqrt{2\nu}\frac{d}{l})^\nu B_\nu(\sqrt{2\nu}\frac{d}{l}),$$ where $d=|t_1-t_2|$, $\Gamma(\cdot)$ is the Gamma function, and $B_\nu(\cdot)$ is the modified Bessel function. A random function with the Matérn covariance is $[\nu-1]$ mean square (MS) differentiable. Several authors suggest that the Matérn covariances can often provide a better model for many real-world physical processes than the popular squared exponential covariances [@rasmussen2006gaussian]. In this example, we choose $l=1$, $\sigma=1$, and $\nu=5$ implying second order MS differentiability. In the numerical tests, we represent the unknown with $501$ grid points. We use synthetic data that is generated by applying the forward model to a true coefficient $u$ and then adding noise to the result. The true coefficient is randomly drawn from the prior distribution. Both the truth and the simulated data are shown in Fig. \[f:data\_ode\]. We perform the proposed adaptive pCN algorithm with $1\times10^6$ samples and another $5\times10^4$ pCN samples are used in the pre-run. We set the stepsize $\beta = 1/5$, and we choose $\rho=0.99$ resulting in $J=14$, i.e., $14$ eigenvalues being adapted.
We show the simulation results in Figs. \[f:mean\_ode\]: in the left figure, we show 10 randomly chosen MCMC samples from the posterior, and in the right figure, we plot the posterior mean, as well as the $95\%$ confidence interval, both computed with the MCMC samples. To illustrate the diminishing of the adaption, we plot the 1st and the 14th eigenvalues against the iterations in Fig. \[f:eigs\], and the plots indicate that both parameters tend to converge to certain fixed values as the iterations proceed. For comparison, we also draw $1.05\times10^6$ samples from the posterior with a standard pCN algorithm where the step size is again taken to be $\beta=1/5$. In Figs. \[f:acf\_ode\], we compare the autocorrelation function (ACF) of the samples drawn by the two methods at $t=0.4$ (left) and $t=0.8$ (right), and the ACF results show that the adaptive pCN method performs better than standard pCN. We then compute the ACF of lag $1000$ at all the grid points, and show the results in Fig. \[f:acf1000-ess-ode\] (left), and we can see that, the ACF of the chain generated by the ApCN is clearly lower than that of the standard pCN at all the grid points. The effective sample size (ESS) is another popular measure of the sampling efficiency of MCMC [@Kass1998]. ESS is computed by $$\mathrm{ESS} = \frac{N}{1+2\tau},$$ where $\tau$ is the integrated autocorrelation time and $N$ is the total sample size, and it gives an estimate of the number of effectively independent draws in the chain. We compute the ESS of the unknown $u$ at each grid point and show the results in Fig. \[f:acf1000-ess-ode\] (right). The results show that the ApCN algorithm produces much more effectively independent samples than the standard pCN.
![(for the ODE example) The truth (Left) and the data simulated with it (Right).[]{data-label="f:data_ode"}](figs/truth_ode "fig:"){width=".49\textwidth"} ![(for the ODE example) The truth (Left) and the data simulated with it (Right).[]{data-label="f:data_ode"}](figs/data_ode "fig:"){width=".49\textwidth"}
![(for the ODE example) Left: 10 randomly drawn samples from the posterior. Right: the posterior mean and the $95\%$ confidence interval.[]{data-label="f:mean_ode"}](figs/samples_ode "fig:"){width=".49\textwidth"} ![(for the ODE example) Left: 10 randomly drawn samples from the posterior. Right: the posterior mean and the $95\%$ confidence interval.[]{data-label="f:mean_ode"}](figs/mean_ode "fig:"){width=".49\textwidth"}
![(for the ODE example) The eigenvalues $\lambda_1$ (Left) and $\lambda_{14}$ (Right) plotted against the number of iterations.[]{data-label="f:eigs"}](figs/eig1 "fig:"){width=".49\textwidth"} ![(for the ODE example) The eigenvalues $\lambda_1$ (Left) and $\lambda_{14}$ (Right) plotted against the number of iterations.[]{data-label="f:eigs"}](figs/eig14 "fig:"){width=".49\textwidth"}
![(for the ODE example) Autocorrelation functions (ACF) for the pCN and the ApCN methods at $t=0.2$ and $t=0.8$.[]{data-label="f:acf_ode"}](figs/ACF04_ode "fig:"){width=".49\textwidth"} ![(for the ODE example) Autocorrelation functions (ACF) for the pCN and the ApCN methods at $t=0.2$ and $t=0.8$.[]{data-label="f:acf_ode"}](figs/ACF08_ode "fig:"){width=".49\textwidth"}
![(for the ODE example) Left: ACF (lag 100) at each grid point. Right: ESS at each grid point.[]{data-label="f:acf1000-ess-ode"}](figs/ACF100_ode "fig:"){width=".49\textwidth"} ![(for the ODE example) Left: ACF (lag 100) at each grid point. Right: ESS at each grid point.[]{data-label="f:acf1000-ess-ode"}](figs/ESS_ode "fig:"){width=".49\textwidth"}
Estimating the Robin coefficient
--------------------------------
In the second example, we consider a one-dimensional heat conduction equation in the region $x\in [0,L]$ ,
\[e:heat\] $$\begin{aligned}
&\frac{\partial u}{\partial t}(x,t) = \frac{\partial^2 u}{\partial x^2}(x,t), \\
&u(x,0)=g(x), \end{aligned}$$ with the following Robin boundary conditions: $$\begin{aligned}
&-\frac{\partial u}{\partial x}(0,t) + \rho(t) u(0,t) = h_0(t),\\
&-\frac{\partial u}{\partial x}(L,t) + \rho(t) u(L,t) = h_1(t).\end{aligned}$$
Suppose the functions $g(x)$, $h_0(x)$ and $h_1(x)$ are all known, and we want to estimate the unknown Robin coefficient $\rho(t)$ from certain measurements of the temperature $u(x,t)$. This example is studied in [@yao2015tv]. Here we choose $L=1$, $T=1$ and the functions to be $$g(x)=x^2+1,\quad h_0 =t(2t+1),\quad h_1=2+t(2t+2).$$ The solution is measured every $T/200$ time unit from $0$ to $T$ and the error in each measurement is assumed to be an independent Gaussian $N(0,0.1^2)$. In the computation, $501$ equally spaced grid points are used to represent the unknown. Moreover, the prior is the same as that used in the ODE example.
The data is generated the same as the first example, with the true Robin coefficient randomly drawn from the prior distribution. Both the truth and the simulated data are shown in Fig. \[f:data\_pde\]. We implement the adaptive pCN algorithm, where we choose $\beta = 1/5$, and $\rho=0.99$ resulting in $J=14$. With the algorithm, we draw $5.5\times10^5$ samples from the posterior, including $5\times10^4$ pCN samples in the pre-run, and the average acceptance probability is around $20\%$. In the left plot of Figs. \[f:mean\_robin\], we show 10 randomly chosen MCMC samples from the posterior, and in the right plot, we show the posterior mean and the $95\%$ confidence interval, both computed with the MCMC samples. Once again, we sample the posterior with standard pCN algorithm for comparison, and in particular we run pCN with two different stepsizes: first we use $\beta=1/5$ which is the same as that used the ApCN algorithm; we then use $\beta=1/300$, yielding higher acceptance probability. In each case, we draw $5.5\times 10^5$ samples, and the average acceptance probability for $\beta=1/5$ is around $0.3\%$, and that for $\beta=1/300$ is around $20\%$, which matches that of the ApCN algorithm. In Figs. \[f:acf\_pde\], we compare the ACF of the samples drawn by the two methods at $t=0.1$ (left) and $t=0.9$ (right). One can see from the figures that, the ACF of the chain generated by the pCN with $\beta=1/300$ decreases slightly faster than that with $\beta=1/20$, thanks to the higher acceptance probability, while the result of the ApCN is significantly better than both of them. We then compute the ACF of lag $1000$ as well as the ESS at all the grid points, and show the results in Figs. \[f:acf1000-ess-pde\]. Once again, both the ACF and the ESS results suggest that the sampling efficiency of the ApCN is significantly higher than that of the standard pCN algorithm.
![(for the Robin example) The truth (Left) and the data simulated with it (Right).[]{data-label="f:data_pde"}](figs/truth_robin "fig:"){width=".49\textwidth"} ![(for the Robin example) The truth (Left) and the data simulated with it (Right).[]{data-label="f:data_pde"}](figs/data_robin "fig:"){width=".49\textwidth"}
![(for the Robin example) Left: 10 randomly drawn samples from the posterior. Right: the posterior mean and the $95\%$ confidence interval.[]{data-label="f:mean_robin"}](figs/samples_robin "fig:"){width=".49\textwidth"} ![(for the Robin example) Left: 10 randomly drawn samples from the posterior. Right: the posterior mean and the $95\%$ confidence interval.[]{data-label="f:mean_robin"}](figs/mean_robin "fig:"){width=".49\textwidth"}
![(for the Robin example) ACF for the pCN and the ApCN methods at $t=0.1$ and $t=0.9$.[]{data-label="f:acf_pde"}](figs/ACF_t01 "fig:"){width=".49\textwidth"} ![(for the Robin example) ACF for the pCN and the ApCN methods at $t=0.1$ and $t=0.9$.[]{data-label="f:acf_pde"}](figs/ACF_t09 "fig:"){width=".49\textwidth"}
![(for the Robin example) Left: ACF (lag 1000) at each grid point. Right: the ESS at each grid point. []{data-label="f:acf1000-ess-pde"}](figs/ACF1000_pde.eps "fig:"){width=".49\textwidth"} ![(for the Robin example) Left: ACF (lag 1000) at each grid point. Right: the ESS at each grid point. []{data-label="f:acf1000-ess-pde"}](figs/ESS_pde.eps "fig:"){width=".49\textwidth"}
Conclusions {#sec:conclusion}
===========
In summary, we consider MCMC simulations for Bayesian inferences in function spaces. In particular, we develop an adaptive variant of the pCN algorithm to improve the sampling efficiency. The implementation of the ApCN algorithm is rather simple, without requiring any information of the underlying models, and during the iteration the proposal can be efficiently updated with explicit formulas. We also show that the adaptive pCN algorithm satisfies certain ergodicity condition. Finally we demonstrate the effectiveness and efficiency of the ApCN algorithm with several numerical examples. We expect the algorithm can be of use in many practical problems, especially in those involving blackbox models.
Finally we note that, a major limitation of the ApCN algorithm (and of the standard pCN as well) is that the stepsize $\beta$ is ultimately restricted to be less than $1$, while in many problems, larger step-sizes may be needed so that the resulting acceptance probability is in a favorable range. As a result, the ApCN algorithm in its present form may yield undesirably high acceptance probability. We plan to address the issue by making improvements on the present algorithm in a future work.
Proof of Theorem \[th:da\] {#sec:proof}
==========================
We provide a proof of Theorem 2 in this appendix, which largely follows the proof for the finite dimensional adaptive Metropolis algorithm given in [@haario2001adaptive]. We start with the following inequality: $$\begin{array}{ll}
&|Q_{n,\zeta_{n-2}}(u,A)-Q_{n+1,\zeta_{n-1}}(u,A)|\\
&=|\int_A a(u,v)q_{n,\zeta_{n-2}}(u,dv)+\delta_A(u)(1-\int_{X}{q_{n,\zeta_{n-2}}(u,dz)a(u,z)})\\
&-\int_A a(u,v)q_{n+1,\zeta_{n-1}}(u,dv)+\delta_A(u)(1-\int_{X}{q_{n+1,\zeta_{n-1}}(u,dz)a(u,z)})|\\
&\leq 2\int_X a(u,v)|\frac{dq_{n,\zeta_{n-2}}(u,\cdot)}{d\mu_0}(v)-\frac{dq_{n+1,\zeta_{n-1}}(u,\cdot)}{d\mu_0}(v)|\mu_0(dv)\\
&\leq 2\int_X |\frac{dq_{n,\zeta_{n-2}}(u,\cdot)}{d\mu_0}(v)-\frac{dq_{n+1,\zeta_{n-1}}(u,\cdot)}{d\mu_0}(v)|\mu_0(dv)\\
&\leq 2\int_X |\frac{dq_{n,\zeta_{n-2}}(u,\cdot)}{d\mu_0}(v)-\frac{d\widetilde{q}}{d\mu_0}(v)|\mu_0(dv)+2\int_X |\frac{d\widetilde{q}}{d\mu_0}(v)-\frac{dq_{n+1,\zeta_{n-1}}(u,\cdot)}{d\mu_0}(v)|\mu_0(dv),
\end{array}$$ where $\widetilde{q}$ is the Gaussian measure that has the same mean with $q_{n,\zeta_{n-2}}(u,\cdot)$ and has the same covariance operator with $q_{n+1,\zeta_{n-1}}(u,\cdot)$. It should be clear that $\widetilde{q}$ is equivalent to $\mu_0$. Now let $$I_1=\int_X |\frac{dq_{n,\zeta_{n-2}}(u,\cdot)}{d\mu_0}(v)-\frac{d\widetilde{q}}{d\mu_0}(v)|\mu_0(dv)$$ and $$I_2=\int_X |\frac{d\widetilde{q}}{d\mu_0}(v)-\frac{dq_{n+1,\zeta_{n-1}}(u,\cdot)}{d\mu_0}(v)|\mu_0(dv).$$ First we consider $I_1$. Since $q_{n,\zeta_{n-2}}(u,\cdot)$ and $\widetilde{q}$ are both Gaussian measures with same mean, and their covariance operators have the same eigenfunctions and at most $J$ different eigenvalues, we can show that, $$I_1 =\int_{\R^J}|\prod_{i=1}^J\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi\beta^2\lambda_{n,i}}}\exp(-\frac{x_i^2}{2\beta^2\lambda_{n,i}})-\prod_{i=1}^J\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi\beta^2\lambda_{n+1,i}}}\exp(-\frac{x_i^2}{2\beta^2\lambda_{n+1,i}})|dx_1\cdots dx_J.\label{e:I1}
$$ Thanks to the modified likelihood function , it is easy to see that there exist constants $C_1,\,C_2>0$ such that $$|\lambda_{n,i}-\lambda_{n+1,i}|\leq \frac{C_1}{n}, \quad\mathrm{and}\quad \lambda_{n+1,i}\geq C_2, \label{e:c1c2}$$ for $i=1...J$. Using these results, and by some elementary calculus, one can derive that $I_1< C_3/n$ for some constant $C_3>0$.
We now consider $I_2$. Let $$\Delta m=(\@I-\beta^2 \@B_{n,\zeta_{n-2}}(u)\@L)^{\frac12}u-(\@I-\beta^2 \@B_{n+1,\zeta_{n-1}}(u)\@L)^{\frac12}u.$$ and it can be seen that $\<\Delta m,\,e_i\>=0$ for $\forall i>J$. We re-write $I_2$ as $$I_2=\int_X |1-\frac{dq_{n+1,\zeta_{n-1}}(u,\cdot)}{d\widetilde{q}}(v)|\widetilde{q}(dv),$$ where $$\frac{dq_{n+1,\zeta_{n-1}}(u,\cdot)}{d\widetilde{q}}(v)=\exp(-\frac12\Vert(\beta^2 \@B_{n,\zeta_{n-2}}(u))^{-\frac12}\Delta m\Vert^2+\langle v,(\beta^2 \@B_{n,\zeta_{n-2}}(u))^{-1}\Delta m\rangle).
$$ Similar to $I_1$, we can also write $I_2$ as a finite dimensional integral: $$\begin{gathered}
I_2=\int_{\R^J} |\prod_{i=1}^J\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi\beta^2\lambda_{n+1,i}}}\exp(-\frac{(x_i-\langle\Delta m,e_i\rangle)^2}{2\beta^2\lambda_{n+1,i}}\\
-\prod_{i=1}^J\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi\beta^2\lambda_{n+1,i}}}\exp(-\frac{x_i^2}{2\beta^2\lambda_{n+1,i}})|dx_1\cdots dx_J.\end{gathered}$$ It then follows from Eqs. and that there exist constants $C_4,\,C_5>0$ such that $$|\sigma_{n,i}-\sigma_{n+1,i}|\leq \frac{C_4}{n},
\quad\mathrm{and}\quad\sigma_{n,i},\sigma_{n+1,i}\geq C_5, \label{e:c4c5}$$ for $i=1...J$. We thus have, $$|\langle \Delta m,e_i\rangle|=|\sigma_{n,i}-\sigma_{n+1,i}|\cdot|\langle u,e_i\rangle|\leq\frac{C_6}{n},$$ for some constant $C_6>0$. Once again, by some elementary calculus, we can obtain $I_2\leq \frac{C_7}{n}$ for some constant $C_7>0$, which completes the proof.
Acknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered}
==============
The work was partially supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under grant number 11301337. ZH and ZY contribute equally to the work.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We present the results of a feasibility study using *shared, existing* network-accessible infrastructure for repository replication. Our goal is not to “hijack” other sites’ storage, but to take advantage of protocols which have persisted through many generations and which are likely to be supported well into the future. We utilize the SMTP and NNTP protocols to replicate both the metadata and the content of a digital library, using OAI-PMH and the related Apache web server module, mod\_oai, to facilitate management of the replication process. We investigate how dissemination of repository contents can be piggybacked on top of existing email and Usenet traffic. Long-term persistence of the replicated repository may be achieved thanks to current policies and procedures which ensure that email messages and news posts are retrievable for evidentiary and other legal purposes for many years after the creation date. While the preservation issues of migration and emulation are not addressed with this approach, it does provide a simple method of refreshing content with various partners for smaller digital repositories that do not have the administrative resources for more sophisticated solutions.'
author:
- |
Joan A. Smith, Martin Klein, Michael L. Nelson\
Old Dominion University, Department of Computer Science\
Norfolk, VA 23529 USA
title: Repository Replication Using NNTP and SMTP
---
{jsmit, mklein, mln}@cs.odu.edu
Introduction
============
We propose and evaluate two repository replication models that rely on *shared, existing* network-accessible infrastructure. Our goal is not to “hijack” other sites’ storage, but to take advantage of protocols which have persisted through many generations and which are likely to be supported well into the future. The premise is that if archiving can be accomplished within a widely-used, already deployed infrastructure whose operational burden is shared among many partners, the resulting system will have only an incremental cost and be tolerant of dynamic participation. With this in mind, we examine the feasibility of repository replication using Usenet news (NNTP, [@rfc:977]) and email (SMTP, [@rfc:821]).
There are reasons to believe that both email and Usenet could function as persistent, if diffuse, archives. NNTP provides well-understood methods for content distribution and duplicate deletion (deduping) while supporting a distributed and dynamic membership. The long-term persistence of news messages is evident in “Google Groups,” a Usenet archive with posts dating from May 1981 to the present [@google:usenet1]. Even though blogs and forums have supplanted Usenet in recent years, many communities still actively use moderated news groups for discussion and awareness. Although email is not usually publicly archivable, it is ubiquitous and frequent. For example, our departmental SMTP email server alone averaged over 16,000 daily outbound emails to more than 4000 unique recipient servers during a 30-day test period. Given enough time, attaching repository contents to outbound emails may prove to be an effective way to disseminate contents to previously unknown locations. Open source products for news (“INN”) and email (“sendmail” and “Postfix”) are widely installed, so including a preservation function would not impose a significant additional administrative burden.
These approaches do not address the more complex aspects of preservation such as format migration and emulation, but they do provide alternative methods for refreshing the repository contents to a variety of recipients, known and unknown. There may be quicker and more direct methods of synchronization for some repositories, but the proposed methods have the advantage of working with firewall-inhibited organizations and repositories without public, machine-readable interfaces. For example, many organizations have web servers which are accessible only through a VPN, yet email and news messages can freely travel between these servers and other sites without compromising the VPN. Piggybacking on mature software implementations of these other, widely deployed Internet protocols may prove to be an easy and potentially more sustainable approach to preservation.
Related Work
============
Digital preservation solutions often require sophisticated system administrator participation, dedicated archiving personnel, significant funding outlays, or some combination of these. Some approaches, for example Intermemory [@goldberg:intermemory], Freenet [@clark:freenet1], and Free Haven [@dingledine:freehaven], require personal sacrifice for public good in the form of donated storage space. However, there is little incentive for users to incur such near-term costs for the long-term benefit of a larger, anonymous group. In contrast, LOCKSS [@maniatis:lockss] provides a collection of cooperative, deliberately slow-moving caches operated by participating libraries and publishers to provide an electronic “inter-library loan” for any participant that loses files. Because it is designed to service the publisher-library relationship, it assumes a level of at least initial out-of-band coordination between the parties involved. Its main technical disadvantage is that the protocol is not resilient to changing storage infrastructures. The rsync program [@tridgell:rsync] has been used to coordinate the contents of digital library mirrors such as the arXiv eprint server but it is based on file system semantics and cannot easily be abstracted to other storage systems. Peer-to-peer services have been studied as a basis for the creation of an archiving cooperative among digital repositories [@cooper:peertrading]. The concept is promising but their simulations indicated scalability is problematic for this model. The Usenet implementation [@eternity:phrack] of the Eternity Service [@eternity:pragocrypt] is the closest to the methods we propose. However, the Eternity Service focuses on non-censorable anonymous publishing, not preservation per se.
The Prototype Environment
=========================
We began by creating and instrumenting a prototype system using popular, open source products: Fedora Core (Red Hat Linux) operating system; an NNTP news server (INN version 2.3.5); two SMTP email servers, Postfix (version 2.1.5) and sendmail (version 8.13.1); and an Apache web server (version 2.0.49) with the mod\_oai module installed [@nelson:modoai]. Figure \[archpic\] illustrates the prototype environment we installed. No server was dedicated to news or mail; they also provided services to other users, including project development environments, operational software, and web services. *mod\_oai* is an Apache module that provides Open Archives Protocol for Metadata Harvesting (OAI-PMH) [@lagoze:oaipmh] access to a web server. Unlike most OAI-PMH implementations, mod\_oai does not just provide metadata about resources, it can encode the entire web resource itself in MPEG-21 Digital Item Declaration Language [@bekaert:didl] and export it through OAI-PMH.
![The prototype environment[]{data-label="archpic"}](images/prototype_env){width="6in"}
There are many kinds of digital libraries and a wide variety of repository file formats in use today. Web access to library content is becoming more common, keeping pace with Internet growth and facilitated by the many tools which convert hitherto proprietary content to HTML, PDF, or other web-compatible formats. In keeping with this trend toward Internet accessibility, we created a small repository of web resources consisting of 72 files in HTML, PDF and various image (GIF, JPEG, and PNG) formats. We used our own synthetic web site creation tool, building small HTML pages containing a table, some random text, and a few images as well as links to other pages in the web site. The PDF files were simple text pages. The files were organized into a few subdirectories with file sizes ranging from less than 1 kilobyte up to 1.5 megabytes, and the total web site size was approximately 30 MB.
For the NNTP part of the experiment, we configured the INN news server with common default parameters: messages could be text or binary; maximum message life was 14 days; and direct news posting was allowed. For email, we did not impose restrictions on the size of outgoing attachments and messages. We created the archive messages within the Postfix environment and sent/received the messages using sendmail. Using custom NNTP and SMTP tools written mainly in Perl and which were operated from remote clients, we harvested the entire repository over 100 times with each tool.
We took advantage of OAI-PMH and the flexibility of email and news to embed the URL of each record as an X-Header within each message. X-Headers are searchable and human-readable, so their contents give a clue to the reader about the purpose and origin of the message. Since we encoded the resource itself in base64, this small detail can be helpful in a forensic context. If the URL still exists, then the X-Headers could be used to re-discover the original resource. Table \[xhead\] is a set of actual X-Headers added to an archival message, to facilitate discovery and recovery of the replicated record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
X-Harvest\_Time: 2006-2-15T18:34:51Z
X-baseURL: http://beatitude.cs.odu.edu:8080/modoai/
X-OAI-PMH\_verb: GetRecord
X-OAI-PMH\_metadataPrefix: oai\_didl
X-OAI-PMH\_Identifier: http://beatitude.cs.odu.edu:8080/1000/pg1000-1.pdf
X-sourceURL: http://beatitude.cs.odu.edu:8080/modoai/?verb=GetRecord
&identifier=http://beatitude.cs.odu.edu:8080/1000/pg1000-1.pdf
&metadataPrefix=oai\_didl
X-HTTP-Header: HTTP/1.1 200 OK
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
: Example of human-readable X-headers added to archival messages
\[xhead\]
Both the NNTP and SMTP repository harvesting methods use the following algorithm:
-- -- ---------------------------- --
`read repository record r`
`format r (mail or news)`
`r = base64(r)`
`r = r + X-headers`
`transmit r`
-- -- ---------------------------- --
\[steps\]
Figure \[archpic\] graphically illustrates the process for each replication method. In sections \[newsProto\] and \[emailProto\] we discuss the specific details of, and differences between, using news and email for repository replication.
The News Prototype {#newsProto}
------------------
A testament to Internet diversity, Usenet groups exist in many formats. For our experiment, we created a *moderated* newsgroup which means that postings must be authorized by the newsgroup owner. This is one way newsgroups keep spam from proliferating on the news servers. We also restricted posts to selected IP addresses and users, further reducing the “spam window” and ensuring our live experiment would not be compromised by external news agents and Usenet enthusiasts. Since the news server was running on a live system used by many people not participating in the project, controlling access was important. For the experiment, we named our newsgroup “repository.odu.test1,” but groups can have any naming scheme that makes sense to the members. For example, a DNS-based scheme that used “repository.edu.cornell.cs” or “repository.uk.ac.soton.psy” would be a reasonable naming convention.
Using the algorithm outlined , we created a news message for each record in the repository (Cf. Appendix). We also collected statistics on (a) original record size vs. posted news message size; (b) time to harvest, convert and post a message; and (c) the impact of line length limits in news posts. Our experiment showed high reliability for replicating using NNTP. 100% of the records arrived intact on the target news server, “beatitude.” In addition, 100% of the records were almost instantaneously mirrored on a subscribing news server (“beaufort”). A network outage during one of the experiments temporarily prevented communication between the two news servers, but the records were replicated as soon as connectivity was restored. Retrieving messages was as simple as pointing a news reader to the news server, and subscribing to the “repository.odu.test1” news group.
The Email Prototype {#emailProto}
-------------------
The mechanics of taking an email message from the email queue, attaching the archive content, and reinserting it into the queue are depicted in Figure \[fig:outbound-a\]. The corresponding extraction of the archive attachment can be seen in Figure \[fig:inbound-b\]. We ran live tests, using Postfix mail servers and a test archive to gather our data. Note the OAI-PMH style X-headers that are a part of the email message; these are similar to the X-headers of the news-method messages. The few differences are due to the specific header limitations and requirements of each protocol.
![Email distribution by domain follows a power law[]{data-label="fig:emaildis"}](images/email_dis_loglog_color)
Archiving records by piggybacking on normal email traffic requires sufficient volume to support the effort. Analysis of outbound email traffic from our department during a 30-day period showed 505,987 outgoing messages to 4,493 unique hosts, with a daily mean frequency of 16,866 emails and a standard deviation of 5,147. In Figure \[fig:emaildis\], the total number of emails sent to each domain is shown, along with a curve fit. A typical power law relationship was evident between the domain’s rank and email volume sent to that domain.
$$V_\kappa=c(\kappa^{-b})
\label{equ:powerlaw1}$$
Using the curve fit shown in Figure \[fig:emaildis\], $b=1.6$. Please see the Appendix for the list of the top 50 domains and volume of email sent to each. For further discussion it becomes necessary to calculate the amount of emails that are actually sent to a certain domain per day. The Euler zeta function:
$$\zeta(b)=\displaystyle\sum_{n=1}^\infty\frac{1}{n^b}
\label{1Euler}$$
can be used to derive the constant $c$ regarding the overall email traffic volume $V$: $$\displaystyle c = \frac{V}{\zeta(b)}
\label{equ:1cval}$$
There are a number of processing parameters which can be tweaked while running the prototype. One factor is what we call “granularity” ($G$ in Table \[simVars\]). This factor is in our prototype by definition always unequal to zero. The “normal” case would be $G=1$ which means every single email is selected to get an attachment of an harvested object. G can be less than zero in which case only every $G^{th}$ email is attached with an replication object. If, for example, $G=0.5$ only every other email is selected. On the other hand G can be greater than one, e.g. $G=3$ in which case three objects would be attached to every single email. Granularity $G$ consequently either functions as a damping or accelerating factor considering the pace of repository replication. The effect of $G < 1$ on the average time to deliver one email is shown in Figure \[fig:gran\]. With a lower G (less emails selected for an attachment) the average delivery time decreases.
![Effect of granularity on average delivery time of one email[]{data-label="fig:gran"}](images/filter_effect)
The prototype is further able to maintain a history list (pointer) for each destination site. Once this feature enabled, it guarantees that one destination domain does not receive duplicate records. The concept of a history pointer is further explained in section \[emailDeriv\].
Prototype Results
-----------------
Having created tools for harvesting the records from our sample digital library, and having used them to replicate the repository, we were able to measure the results. How fast is each prototype and what penalties are incurred?
Using our NNTP prototype replication tool, we tested posting messages in a variety of sizes. The live experiment was run more than 20 times during a course of 6 months. The total time ($T_{news}$) to harvest a record, encode it in base64, transmit it, and post it to the news server ranged from 0.5 seconds (12 <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">kb</span>) to 26.4 seconds (4.9MB). Of course, the total time to complete a baseline harvest of the repository varied with the bandwidth available during each experiment, ranging from 22.7 minutes to 30.9 minutes with a mean time of 23.8 minutes, standard deviation of 2.6 minutes, and median time of 22.9 minutes.
In our email experiment, we measured approximately a 1 second delay in processing email attachments of sizes up to 5MB (see Figure \[fig:filterpen\]). Since the repository consisted of only 72 files and each file was less than 5MB $T_{email}$, the time to complete a baseline harvest using email, is rapid: Only 72 emails need to be generated locally, which is a small fraction of the normal email traffic generated by the department.
![Penalty on average delivery time of one email[]{data-label="fig:filterpen"}](images/filter_penalty)
Besides the trivial linear relationship between repository size and replication time, we found that even very detailed X-Headers do not add a significant burden to the process. Not only are they small relative to record size (a few bytes vs. kilobytes or more), but they are also quickly generated (less than 0.001 seconds per record) and incorporated into the archival message. Both NNTP and SMTP protocols are robust, with most products (like INN or sendmail) automatically handling occasional network outages or temporary unavailability of the destination host. Our experimental results formed the basis of a series of simulations using email and Usenet to replicate a repository.
Simulating The Archiving Process
================================
When transitioning from live, instrumented systems to simulations, there are a number of variables that must be taken into consideration in order to arrive at realistic figures (Table \[simVars\]). Repositories vary greatly in size, rate of updates and additions, and number of records. Regardless of the archiving method, a repository will have specific policies (“Sender Policies”) covering the number of copies replicated; how often each copy is refreshed; whether intermediate updates are sent between full backups; and other institutional-specific requirements such as geographic location of archives and “sleep time” (delay) between the end of one completed archive task and the start of another. The receiving agent will have its own “Receiver Policies” such as limits on individual message size, length of time messages live on the server, and whether messages are processed by batch or individually at the time of arrival.
[l l l]{}\
& $R$ & Number of records in repository\
& $R_{\overline{s}}$ & Mean size of records\
& $R_a$ & Number of records added per day\
& $R_u$ & Number of records updated per day\
& $N_{ttl}$ & News post time-to-live\
& $S$ & “Sleep” time between baseline harvests\
& $Q_{news}$ & Records postable per day via news\
& $T_{news}$ & Time in days to complete a baseline using news\
& $TR_{news}$ & Total number of records replicated using news\
& $G$ & Granularity (records per email)\
& $Q_{email}$ & Records postable per day via email\
& $TR_{email}$ & Total number of records replicated using email\
& $\kappa$ & Rank of receiving domain\
& $c$ & Constant derived from Euler Zeta function\
& $b$ & Power law exponent\
& $h$ & History pointer\
& &\
\[simVars\]
A key difference between news-based and email-based replication is the active-vs-passive nature of the two approaches. This difference is reflected in the policies and how they impact the archiving process under each method. A “baseline,” refers to making a complete snapshot of a repository. A “cyclic baseline” is the process of repeating the snapshot over and over again ($S=0$), which may result in the receiver storing more than one copy of the repository. Of course, most repositories are not static. Repeating baselines will capture new additions ($R_a$) and updates ($R_u$) with each new baseline. The process could also “sleep” between baselines ($S>0$), sending only changed content during the interim, or none at all. In short, the changing nature of the repository can be accounted for when defining its replication policies.
Archiving Using NNTP
--------------------
The time to complete a baseline using news is obviously constrained not only by its modification rate ($R_a$ and $R_u$), but also by the size of the repository and the speed of the network. Consider Figure \[newsTimeline\] which illustrates the generalized replication timeline for three different sender policies. Baseline replication is only successful when the news server message life ($N_{ttl}$) is larger than $T_{news}$. Figure \[varyNttl\] shows how different message life limits can impact the feasibility of archiving the repository on a news server under different sender policies.
\[fig:nttl\]
The red line (marked “X”) shows a message life that is not long enough for a single baseline to complete - i.e., that $T_{news}$ is too large for the target news server. Line “Y” (the green line) represents a longer message life than line X, but there is still not enough time for the server to “sleep” between baseline archives. If the harvest restarts immediately on completion of the first baseline, a full copy can be maintained on the news server despite its message deletion rate. Repository growth could quickly outpace this balance. Finally, line “Z” (the blue line) is long enough to allow two complete baselines (copies) to be sent, with a short sleep period between the baselines. A successful NNTP-based replication strategy will balance $N_{ttl}$, $T_{news}$, and the repository’s modification rate ($R_{a} + R_{u}$).
Working with the variables from Table \[simVars\], we can develop a general formula to estimate the total number of records harvested from the repository and posted as news articles during $D$ days. These equations capture only discrete values and not transmissions in progress: $$TR_{news} = \displaystyle\left(\sum_{n=1}^{Max K} {W_k}\right)\leq{D}
\label{equ:recSum}$$ $$W_k = \displaystyle\left(1+\frac{(R_a + R_u)}{Q_{news}}\right)W_{(k-1)}
\label{equ:wk}$$ $$W_{1} = \frac{R}{Q_{news}} + S
\label{equ:w1}$$ For the sleep cycle, $S$, the value varies by sender policy: $$S\: =\: 0\: \Longrightarrow{\textnormal{continuous baseline}}
\label{equ:continuous}$$ $$S\: =\: D\: \Longrightarrow{\textnormal{cyclic baseline every $D$ days with updates}}
\label{equ:cyclic}$$ $$S\: =\: \infty\: \Longrightarrow{\textnormal{single baseline only}}
\label{equ:baseline}$$ The total number of records currently replicated at a particular news server $N$ on a given day $D$ takes into account the life time ($N_{ttl}$) of news messages on that server: $${TR_{news}\:at\:server\:N} = TR_{news}(D) - TR_{news}(D-N_{ttl})
\label{equ:tot_rec}$$
Nearly all repositories will have daily updates and new additions that need to be accounted for when determining $T_{news}$. Even “static” repositories which do not accept new entries are likely to have a certain amount of periodic record modification as errors, for example, are found and corrected. A larger time gap between baseline harvest completion and news message expiration will give the harvesting repository more “room to grow” before the two timelines collide.
NNTP is an older protocol, with limits on line length and content which impact building the news messages. Converting binary content to base64 overcomes such restrictions but at the cost of increased file size (one-third) and replication time. Even though storage costs continue to decline, a complete baseline harvest with its associated metadata and base64 encoding could prove too large for a news server to support. On the other hand, the web infrastructure has a number of participants (Google Groups, for example) which are interested in maintaining cached versions of even very large sites. In this case, a single baseline with updates could prove to be an acceptable strategy for a repository.
Archiving Using SMTP
--------------------
One major difference in using email as the replication tool instead of news is that email is passive, not active: the email approach relies on *existing* traffic between the host site and one or more target destination sites. Fortunately, the prototype is able to attach files automatically with just a small processing delay penalty of less than 1 second. As it turns out though, maintaining a replication list (history pointer) for each destination site is critical if a baseline harvest is to be completed.
Using the variables defined in Table \[simVars\], we can develop a general formula to estimate the total number of records harvested in $D$ days to a specific destination: $$TR_{email} = \displaystyle\sum_{n=1}^{D}Q_{email} \times h({\textsc{d}})
\label{equ:email}$$ $$Q_{email} =\displaystyle \left(\frac{c}{\kappa^{1.6}}\right)\times G$$\[equ:qmail\] $$0 < h({\textsc{d}}) < 1 \Longrightarrow {\textnormal{no record history pointer maintained}}$$\[equ:h0\] $$h({\textsc{d}}) = 1 \Longrightarrow {\textnormal{record history maintainted}}$$\[equ:h1\] If the history list is maintained for every receiver domain, then the pointer value is equal to 1, as indicated in Equation \[equ:h1\]; but if the history pointer is *not* maintained, then the value varies between 0 and 1 (zero and one) as shown in Equation \[equ:h0\]. The value of $h({\textsc{d}})$ is derived in Equation \[probnewemail\]. Unlike news, which is *time* oriented, the email approach is *destination* oriented. Granularity ($G$) and history-pointer values ($h$) are important factors when calculating the replication estimate. Completing a baseline using email is subject to the same constraints as news - repository size, number of records, etc. - but is particularly sensitive to changes in email volume. For example, holidays are often used for administrative tasks since they are typically “slow” periods, but there is little email generated during holidays so repository replication would be slowed rather than accelerated. On the other hand, the large number of unique destination hosts means that email is well adapted to repository discovery through advertising. In a single day, information about the repository can be disseminated to thousands of potential preservation partners.
Simulation Results
==================
In addition to an instrumented prototype, we simulated a repository profile similar to some of the largest publicly harvestable OAI-PMH repositories. The simulation assumed a 100 gigabyte repository with 100,000 items ($R=100000$, $R_{\overline{s}}~=1MB$); a low-end bandwidth of 1.5 megabits per second; an average daily update rate of 0.4% ($R_{u}=400$); an average daily new-content rate of 0.1% ($R_{a}=100$); and a news-server posting life ($N_{ttl}$) of 30 days. For simulating email replication, our estimates were based on the results of our email experiments: Granularity $G=1$, an average of 16866 total outgoing emails per day, and the power-law factor applied to the ranks of receiving hosts. We ran the NNTP and SMTP simulations for the equivalent of 2000 days (5.5 years).
Policy Impact on NNTP-Based Archiving
-------------------------------------
News-based replication is constrained primarily by network capacity and limits imposed by the receiving news server. Except for inter-party agreements or some other trans-organizational coordination, the receiver’s policies, even when they are known, are usually unconfigurable by the sender. A local news server can influence remote servers by establishing its own $N_{ttl}$, size limits, content type, etc. A news server may adopt some of the policies of the source server it is replicating, allowing posts to expire *earlier* than the local server’s $N_{ttl}$, but usually not allowing the posts to live *longer*. Ultimately, the archivist must consider the balance between the repository’s capacity to replicate via NNTP and the news server’s ability to support replication.
As Figure \[fig:nttl\] illustrated, successful replication depends on $T_{news}$ being smaller than $N_{ttl}$. We can estimate $T_{news}$ using the average record size in the repository ($R_{\overline{s}}$) times the total number of records ($R$) and the base64 encapsulation factor ($\frac{4}{3}$), divided by the net available bandwidth ($\nu$):
$$T_{news} = \frac{R\times R_{\overline{s}} \times \frac{4}{3}}{\nu}
\label{equ:T_news}$$
If the lifetime of a posting is shorter than the baseline harvesting time of the repository ($N_{ttl} < T_{news}$), then that news server will never hold a complete copy of the repository on any given day.
Another potential issue is that the sheer size of the repository may make full-content replication to a news server impractical because of limits in available processing time or host storage capacity, for example. In such a situation the repository could adopt a “By-Reference” archiving policy. This approach is fast and efficient, since it stores only the metadata for each repository record rather than the content of the record. Using Equation \[equ:T\_news\], we see that a repository with $R=500,000$ records and per-record metadata of 1 Kilobyte can be archived in less than 1 day (ignoring updates and additions) at speeds as slow as a dial-up modem (0.125 Mbps): $$0.37 Days = \frac{500,000 Records\times1 \textsc{kb}}{0.125\textsc{Mbps}}$$ For very large and/or very active repositories, this kind of “advertising” may be the optimum solution.
In general, the probability of a given repository record being currently replicated on a specific news server $N$ on day $D$ is a function of the number of records posted each day to the news server ($Q_{news}$), the growth of the repository ($R_a$) during those $D$ days, and the lifetime of the record on the server ($N_{ttl}$): $$P(r) = \displaystyle\frac{(Q_{news} \times D)- Q_{news}\times(D-N_{ttl})}{R +(D\times R_{a})}$$
Figure \[fig:newsPolicies\] illustrates how a sufficient grace period ($N_{ttl}$ = 30) can support different repository replication (sender) policies. In one scenario, continuous baselines are transmitted. New and/or modified records are queued as they occur. Both the “Cyclic Baseline with Updates” and the “Repeating Baseline” approaches eventually result in a steady-state amount of data existing on the news server. This amount is approximately equal to the bandwidth available between the repository and the news server, and is a gradually declining percentage of the repository as it continues to grow and modify records.
For the “Cyclic Baseline with Updates” line in Figure \[fig:newsPolicies\], we simulated a 6-week repeating cycle with certain “sender policies”: The entire repository is replicated twice, followed by updates only, then the cycle is repeated. With this approach, the news server maintains between one and 2 full copies of the repository, at least for the first few years.
The worst replication performance can be seen in the “single baseline with updates” line of Figure \[fig:newsPolicies\]. In this third approach, the policy is to make a single baseline copy i.e., a one-time event, which is followed by only record updates and new additions. Even these are eventually removed from the news server as they reach the limit of $N_{ttl}$. The result is a rapidly decreasing percentage of repository replication over time. Eventually, only 30-days’ worth of new data exists on the server, since $N_{ttl}=30$. Usually, this would be a very small portion of the repository compared with the other two policies, which can maintain up to $N_{ttl}\times Q_{news}$ versus $N_{ttl} \times (R_a + R_u)$, for example.
It is obvious that as a repository grows and other factors such as bandwidth and news posting time remain constant, the news server eventually contains less than 100% of the library’s content, even with a policy of continuous updates. Nonetheless, a significant portion of the repository remains replicated for many years if the news server has a sufficient $N_{ttl}$.
Policy Impact on SMTP-Based Archiving {#emailDeriv}
-------------------------------------
SMTP-based replication is constrained not only by the frequency of outbound emails, but also by the policies adopted by the repository. Consider the following two sender policies: The first policy maintains just one queue where items of the repository are being attached to every $G^{th}$ email regardless of the receiver domain. This policy also randomly assigns a record, without maintaining a history pointer of records which have already been replicated. This is the easiest policy to implement since no history pointers are maintained, but it will take much longer for a particular domain to receive all records since many duplicate records will likely be sent while unsent record remain. In the second policy, we have more than one queue where we keep a pointer for every receiver domain and attach items to every $G^{th}$ email going out to these particular domains. Thus, domain X will receive a new record in each attachment. Duplicates will only begin once a baseline to that domain has completed. The second policy allows each receiving domain to converge on 100% coverage much faster. However, this efficiency comes at the expense of the sending repository tracking separate queues for each receiving domain.
The impact of email’s power law distribution is readily seen when comparing the coverage of higher-frequency ranks (1 through 5, for example) with lower-frequency ranks. Receiver domains ranked 2 and 3 achieve 100% repository coverage fairly soon but Rank 20 takes significantly longer (2000 days with a history pointer), reaching only 60% if no history pointer is maintained. Figure \[fig:cvrg-a\] shows the time it takes for a domain to receive all files of a repository without the history pointer and Figure \[fig:cvrg-b\] shows the same setup with a history pointer. In both graphs, the $1^{st}$ ranked receiver domain is left out because it represents internal email traffic.
Figure \[fig:cvrg-a\] clearly shows the impact of failing to maintain a record history. Since there is a decreasing statistical likelihood of a new record being selected from the remaining records as the process progresses, it becomes less and less likely that a baseline harvest can be reached. Thus, feasibility of replication via email $Q_{email}$ is a function of the receiver’s rank ($\kappa$), the granularity ($G$), and probability based on use of a history pointer ($h$). Working with the values obtained from our experiments where $b=1.6$ and total email volume per day = 16866, and Equation \[equ:1cval\], we find that the value of the constant $c$ is 7378.7 ; this value can now be used to determine the number of emails sent per day for each receiver domain by rank $\kappa$: $$Q_{email}=\frac{7378}{\kappa^{1.6}}\times G
\label{equ:qEmail}$$ A rank of 3, for example, would mean 1,272 emails per day to that host. The total number of records replicated on day $D$ is: $$\displaystyle\sum_{n=1}^{D}Q_{email}\times h(D)
\label{equ:2probEmail}$$
To give us a good opportunity to complete a baseline, we can set $h = 1$ and $G = 1$. In other words, we maintain a history pointer, and we do not skip any emails. This ensures that we do not send duplicate records before a baseline of the entire repository has been completed, and that we take full advantage of email traffic to that domain. It is obvious that increasing G would shift the graphs of both Figures \[fig:cvrg-a\] and \[fig:cvrg-b\] up and decreasing it would just shift them down. Using these values, we can calculate the probability that a record has been replicated via email: $$P(r) = \displaystyle\frac{(Q_{email} \times D)}{R +(D\times R_{a})}$$
What if no history pointer is maintained? In that case, we need to include the probability that a new record is attached to a given email, meaning $h(D)$ is no longer one. The equation for $h$ is is a recursive calculation since it needs to account for the number of records already sent compared with the number of remaining, unsent records i.e., non-duplicates. For simplicity, we assume that no duplicates are sent on the first day (Equation \[equ:h\_D1\]). $$h(D)=\displaystyle \frac{[R+((R_u+R_a)\times D)]-Q_{email}}{[R+((R_u+R_a)\times D)]}\times h(D-1)
\label{probnewemail}$$
$$h(1) = 1
\label{equ:h_D1}$$
In summary, one can argue that email may not be a practical solution for repository replication since the lower ranked domains will not get a full replication of a good sized repository in a reasonable time. The email approach does have a unique advantage: it offers a large number of hosts where the repository can be advertised.
Other Repository Scenarios
==========================
The scenarios we have described so far in this paper involve an unusually active repository, one which experiences a high rate of change in the form of new additions and updates to existing records. Our hypothetical repository doubles in size in only 1000 days (just under 3 years). We also used a relatively slow average network speed (most institutions and even home users will have much higher average bandwidth), and further added an average 25% daily network down time. In other words, we stacked the deck against the NNTP and SMTP replication methods. Despite these obstacles, the repository continues to be fully replicated on the news server for over 2 years.
Email as a replication tool poses several problems such as the passive nature of the process (waiting for emails to be generated), and uncertainty about the persistence of the record on the receiving host. On the other hand, the large number of domains that receive emails make this approach very compatible with a strategy of preservation-by-advertising: The greater the number of sites that are aware of a repository, the greater the likelihood that the repository will be found by interested users and - perhaps - replicated.
How would these approaches work with other repository scenarios? If the archive were substantially smaller (10,000 records with a total size of 15 <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">gb</span>), the time to upload a complete baseline would also be proportionately smaller since, as we noted earlier, the replication time is linear with respect to the repository’s size for both the news and email methods of replication. The news approach actively traverses the repository, creating its own news posts, and is therefore constrained primarily by bandwidth to the news server or limits on posts imposed by the news server. Email, on the other hand, passively waits for existing email traffic and then “hitches a ride” to the destination host. The SMTP approach is dependent on the site’s daily email traffic to the host, and a reduction in the number of records has a bigger impact if the repository uses the email solution because fewer emails will be needed to complete a baseline harvest of the repository.
A Mature Repository
-------------------
Consider a mature repository with an initial size of 1 million records averaging 100<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">kb</span> each (totaling 95 <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">gb</span> of data). If the repository experiences a relatively low level of activity (10 new records (0.001<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">gb</span>) and 5 modifications (0.0005<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">gb</span>)), the sender can maintain at least 3 copies of the repository, including changes, for over 5 years using the NNTP method. As before, we simulate a fairly low bandwidth (10 <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">gb</span> per day max capacity). The column “Mature” in Table \[simCombo\] lists the repository values and the policy factors for both sender and receiver.
[l l c c c ]{}\
& &Active& Mature & New\
& $R$ & 100,000 & 1,000,000 & 1,000\
& $R_{\overline{s}}$ & 1 <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">mb</span>& 100 <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">kb</span>& 100 <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">kb</span>\
& $R_a$ & 100 & 10 & 100\
& $R_u$ & 400 & 5 & 20\
& $N_{ttl}$ & [30 <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">days</span>]{} & [30 <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">days</span>]{} & [30 <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">days</span>]{}\
& $S$ & [3 <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">days</span>]{} & [5 <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">days</span>]{}& [5 <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">days</span>]{}\
& $c$ & 7378 & 7378 & 7378\
& $b$ & $-1.6$ & $-1.6$ & $-1.6$\
& $G$ & 1 & 1 & 1\
& $h({\textsc{d}})$ & 1 & 1 & 1\
\[simCombo\]
Figure \[fig:mature2K\] illustrates a simulation using these values sent to a news server with the usual 30-day expiration time. The single baseline policy drops off because of the deletion of records from the news server every 30 days, but the cyclic and repeating baselines easily keep up with the deletion process throughout the 2000-day simulation. As Table \[simCombo\] notes, the replication target for the repeating baseline is 3 copies, and for the cyclic baseline it is 2 copies.
Figure \[fig:mature200\] gives a more detailed look at the first 200 days. Notice that the cyclic baseline requires a few cycles before it settles down to maintaining about 2 copies on the news server. The peaks occur because record modifications are replicated as new posts, since previous news messages cannot be modified directly. The total volume sent to the news server is thus the combined sum of records and the changes to those records.
Results for the same mature repository using the SMTP method are shown in Figure \[fig:email\_mature\]. We can clearly see the impact of maintaining a pointer (Figure \[fig:email\_matureptr\]) versus without tracking the history (Figure \[fig:email\_maturenoptr\]).
A New, Growing Repository
-------------------------
The web, of course, is full of new repositories that are fairly active in terms of adding new content and making routine updates every day. The column labeled “New” in Table \[simCombo\] lists values for a hypothetical new repository. It starts out fairly small (only 1000 records (0.1 <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">gb</span>)), but adds new records at a higher rate than the mature repository (100 records ($\sim10MB$) per day). Similarly, modifications to the new repository happen at a similarly higher rate (20 records ($\sim2MB$) per day) than they do in the mature repository. Although it would be reasonable to expect the high rate of change to slow over time as the repository matures, we maintained this high activity level throughout the 2000 days of the simulation.
Figure \[fig:growing2k\] shows the impact of sender policies on maintaining replicated baselines at the news server. Despite the high activity rate, both the cyclic baseline and the continuous baseline policies manage to keep up with the job of replication for the entire simulation period. Although the news server can no longer maintain 3 full copies of the repository with the continuous baseline strategy toward the end of the period, the news server retains at least one full copy of the repository for the entire time frame.
Figure \[fig:growing200\] gives a closer look at the first 200 days of the simulation. The graph clearly shows the impact of “sleeping” between the cyclic baselines: During the sleep period, many new records and updates are created, and records that were replicated earlier reach their $N_{ttl}$. This stabilizes eventually, since even such a low bandwidth can push 10 <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">gb</span> per day to the news server. In other words, the repository can make up for lost time during the next “awake” cycle.
Compare these figures with performance for the same growing repository using the SMTP method, as shown in Figure \[fig:email\_growing\]. Again, the impact of maintaining a pointer (Figure \[fig:email\_growingptr\]) versus without tracking the history (Figure \[fig:email\_growingnoptr\]) is obvious.
Advertising the Repository
--------------------------
One problem that repositories often face is how to improve their general visibility to other sites and potential clients. Buried beneath a host of other, competing resources, repositories can become like the Dead Sea Scrolls, hidden for digital decades. Both the news and the email methods of replication can help solve this problem using features unique to OAI-PMH: Email, by virtue of disseminating information about the repository to a wide number of hosts; news, thanks to the wide-ranging accessibility of Usenet. The OAI-PMH “Identify” response could be effectively used to advertise the existence of a repository regardless of the replication approach or policies. After the repository was discovered, it could be harvested via normal means. This method can advertise even very large repositories, since only metadata is replicated. A simple OAI-PMH “Identify” record is very small (a few kilobytes at most) and would successfully publish the repository’s existence in almost zero time regardless of the replication approach that was used.
Future Work
===========
Through prototypes and simulation, we have studied the feasibility of replicating repository contents using the installed NNTP and SMTP infrastructure. Our initial results are promising and suggest areas for future study. In particular, we must explore the trade-off between implementation simplicity and increased repository coverage. For the SMTP approach, this could involve the receiving email domains informing the sender (via email) that they are receiving and processing attachments. This would allow the sender to adjust its policies to favor those sites. For NNTP, we would like to test varying the sending policies over time as well as dynamically altering the time between baseline harvests and transmission of update and additions. Furthermore, we plan to revisit the structure of the objects that are transmitted, including taking advantage of the evolving research in preparing complex digital objects for preservation [@bekaert:pvdidl] [@vandesompel:harvest].
Conclusions
===========
It is unlikely that a single, superior method for digital preservation will emerge. Several concurrent, low-cost approaches are more likely to increase the chances of preserving content into the future. We believe the piggyback methods we have explored here can be either a simple approach to preservation, or a complement to existing methods such as LOCKSS, especially for content unencumbered by restrictive intellectual property rights. Even if NNTP and SMTP are not used for resource transport, they can be effectively used for repository awareness. We have not explored what the receiving sites do with the content once it has been received. In most cases, it is presumably unpacked from its NNTP or SMTP representation and ingested into a local repository. On the other hand, sites with apparently infinite storage capacity such as Google Groups could function as long-term archives for the encoded repository contents.
Acknowledgments
===============
This work was supported by NSF Grant ISS 0455997. We would also like to thank B. Danette Allen, who contributed to the numerical analysis.
[10]{}
Brian Kantor and Phil Lapsley. Network news transfer protocol, [I]{}nternet [RFC-977]{}, February 1986.
Jonathan B. Postel. Simple mail transfer protocol, [I]{}nternet [RFC-821]{}, August 1982.
20 year archive on [G]{}oogle groups. [ http://www.google.com/googlegroups/archive\_announce\_20.html]( http://www.google.com/googlegroups/archive_announce_20.html).
Andrew V. Goldberg and Peter N. Yianilos. Towards an archival intermemory. In [*Proceedings of [IEEE]{} Advances in Digital Libraries, [ADL]{} 98*]{}, pages 147–156, April 1998.
Ian Clark, Oskar Sandberg, Brandon Wiley, and Theodore W. Hong. Freenet: a distributed anonymous information storage and retrieval system. In [*International Workshop on Designing Privacy Enhancing Technologies*]{}, volume 2009, pages 46–66, Berlin/Heidelberg, July 2001. Springer-Verlag.
Roger Dingledine, Michael J. Freedman, and David Molnar. The free haven project: Distributed anonymous storage service. In [*International Workshop on Designing Privacy Enhancing Technologies*]{}, volume 2009, pages 67–95. Springer-Verlag, 2001.
Petros Maniatis, Mema Roussopoulos, T.J.Giuli, David S. H. Rosenthal, and Mary Baker. The [LOCKSS]{} peer-to-peer digital preservation system. , 23:2 – 50, February 2005.
Andrew Tridgell and Paul Mackerras. The rsync algorithm. Technical Report TR-CS-96-05, The Australian National University, 1996. <http://cs.anu.edu.au/techreports/1996/TR-CS-96-05.pdf>.
Brian F. Cooper and Hector Garcia-Molina. Peer-to-peer data trading to preserve information. , 20(2):133 – 170, 2002.
Adam Back. The eternity service. , 7(51), 1997.
Ross J. Anderson. The eternity service. In [*1st International Conference on the Theory and Applications of Cryptology (Pragocrypt ’96)*]{}, pages 242–252, 1996.
Michael L. Nelson, Herbert Van de Sompel, Xiaoming Liu, and Terry L. Harrison. mod\_oai: An apache module for metadata harvesting. Technical report, Old Dominion University, 2005. ar[X]{}iv cs.DL/0503069.
Carl Lagoze, Herbert Van de Sompel, Michael L. Nelson, and Simeon Warner. The [O]{}pen [A]{}rchives [I]{}nitiative [P]{}rotocol for [M]{}etadata [H]{}arvesting. <http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/openarchivesprotocol.html>.
Jeroen Bekaert, Patrick Hochstenbach, and Herbert [Van de Sompel]{}. Using [MPEG-21 DIDL]{} to represent complex digital objects in the [L]{}os [A]{}lamos [N]{}ational [L]{}aboratory digital library. , 9(11), November 2003. .
Jeroen Bekaert, Xiaoming Liu, and Herbert [Van de Sompel]{}. Representing digital assets for long-term preservation using [MPEG-21 DID]{}. In [*Ensuring Long-term Preservation and Adding Value to Scientific and Technical data (PV 2005)*]{}, 2005. ar[X]{}iv cs.DL/0509084.
Herbert Van de Sompel, Michael L. Nelson, Carl Lagoze, and Simeon Warner. Resource harvesting within the [OAI-PMH]{} framework. , 10(12), December 2004. .
J. Postel and J. Reynolds. Telnet option specifications, May 1983. <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc855.txt>.
Appendices {#appendices .unnumbered}
==========
Including OAI-PMH Headers in Email and News
===========================================
Headers in News Messages
------------------------
The actual text of the news message is formed and transmitted according to the specification RFC 855[@rfc:855]. Here are the headers from an actual message, followed by a snippet of the base64 encoded resource (a JPEG in this case):
Subject:http://beatitude.cs.odu.edu:8080/modoai/10/::1155219621.6635
From:DigLib Mgr <[email protected]>
Date:Thu, 10 Aug 2006 14:03:45 +0000 (UTC)
Newsgroups:repository.odu.test1
Path:beatitude.cs.odu.edu!beaufort.cs.odu.edu!not-for-mail
Newsgroups:repository.odu.test1
Organization:ODU DLib
Lines:382
Message-ID:<[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host:ip70-161-100-170.hr.hr.cox.net
X-Trace:beaufort.cs.odu.edu 1155218625 28001 70.161.100.170 (10 Aug 2006 14:03:45 GMT)
X-Complaints-To:[email protected]
NNTP-Posting-Date:Thu, 10 Aug 2006 14:03:45 +0000 (UTC)
X-Harvest_Time:2006-8-10T14:20:24Z
X-baseURL:http://beatitude.cs.odu.edu:8080/modoai/10/
X-OAI-PMH_verb:GetRecord
X-OAI-PMH_metadataPrefix:oai_didl
X-OAI-PMH_Identifier:http://beatitude.cs.odu.edu:8080/j_image.jpg
X-sourceURL:http://beatitude.cs.odu.edu:8080/modoai/10/?verb=GetRecord&i
X-sourceURL-1:dentifier=http%3A%2F%2Fbeatitude.cs.odu.edu%3A8080%2Fj_image
X-sourceURL-2:.jpg&metadataPrefix=oai_didl
X-HTTP-Header:HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Xref:beatitude.cs.odu.edu repository.odu.test1:9434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[...]
The final section is the base64-encoded resource. We have copied only a few lines of that portion of the message (ending with “\[…\]”) since it is very long and not human-readable.
Headers in Email Messages
-------------------------
The raw text of an email message with an appended repository record is shown below.
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 13:09:10 -0400 (EDT)
From: martin klein <[email protected]>
To: test address on then <[email protected]>
Subject: test
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="737000039-3138878811-3085330315=:7234"
This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text,
while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools.
Send mail to [email protected] for more info.
X-Harvest_Time: 2006-8-15T17:9:12Z
X-baseURL: http://beatitude.cs.odu.edu:8080/modoai/
X-OAI-PMH_verb: GetRecord
X-OAI-PMH_metadataPrefix: oai_didl
X-OAI-PMH_Identifier: http://beatitude.cs.odu.edu:8080/10/pg10-8.pdf
X-sourceURL: http://beatitude.cs.odu.edu:8080/modoai/?verb=GetRecord&//
identifier=http://beatitude.cs.odu.edu:8080/10/pg10-8.pdf&metadataPrefix=oai_didl
X-HTTP-Header: HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 17:04:47 GMT
Server: Apache/2.0.49 (Fedora)
Content-Length: 6745
Connection: close
Content-Type: text/xml
--737000039-3138878811-3085330315=:7234
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
this is a test msg
martin
perl -l -e 'print join "", reverse split //, "!nuf evah"'
--737000039-3138878811-3085330315=:7234
Content-Type: x-application/myxml; charset=US-ASCII;//
name="http://beatitude.cs.odu.edu:8080/10/pg10-8.pdf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: BASE64
Content-Description: application/xml
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="e247c91802a684f8fe11ccc4eab74978.xml"
PD94bWwgdmVyc2lvbj0iMS4wIiBlbmNvZGluZz0iVVRGLTgiPz4K
PE9BSS1QTUggeG1sbnM9Imh0dHA6Ly93d3cub3BlbmFyY2hpdmVzLm9yZy9PQUkvMi4wLyIgeG1s
bnM6eHNpPSJodHRwOi8vd3d3LnczLm9yZy8yMDAxL1hNTFNjaGVtYS1pbnN0YW5jZSIgeHNpOnNj
aGVtYUxvY2F0aW9uPSJodHRwOi8vd3d3Lm9wZW5hcmNoaXZlcy5vcmcvT0FJLzIuMC8gaHR0cDov
L3d3dy5vcGVuYXJjaGl2ZXMub3JnL09BSS8yLjAvT0FJLVBNSC54c2QiPgo=
PHJlc3BvbnNlRGF0ZT4yMDA2LTA4LTE1VDE3OjA0OjQ3WjwvcmVzcG9uc2VEYXRlPgo=
PHJlcXVlc3QgdmVyYj0iR2V0UmVjb3JkIiBpZGVudGlmaWVyPSJodHRwOi8vYmVhdGl0dWRlLmNz
[...]
--737000039-3138878811-3085330315=:7234--
As with the news message sample, the base64-encoded portion of the message is only partially shown in this email.
Email Traffic Data {#app:email}
==================
In section \[emailProto\] we analyzed the outgoing email traffic of the Computer Science Department at Old Dominion University over a period of 30 days (January $29^{th}$ 2006 through February $27^{th}$ 2006). Figures \[fig:cumulative\_new\_dom\] and \[fig:diff\_rec\_dom\] depict the department’s outbound email traffic. Note that Figure \[fig:cumulative\_new\_dom\] shows a nearly linear relationship between the cumulative amount of new receiver domains (scaled on the left y-axis) and the cumulative amount of emails (the right y-axis) sent within the observed time frame. In figure \[fig:diff\_rec\_dom\] we can see the amount of different receiver domains per day (left y-axis) compared to the amount of emails (right y-axis) sent per day. In both figures day one represents January $29^{th}$ and day 30 February $27^{th}$.
In Figure \[fig:diff\_rec\_dom\] two dramatic decreases in the amount of emails sent as well as in the amount of new receiver domains are visible. Although we do not have a plausible explanation for the second low point on Thursday, February $9^{th}$ with just 5271 outbound emails, there is a good reason for the first, even more dramatic low point of just 828 outbound emails on February $5^{th}$: it was Super Bowl Sunday. These two distinctive points are also visible in Figure \[fig:cumulative\_new\_dom\], where the cumulative value for emails is close to zero compared to all other days.
Table \[top\_dom\] shows the top 50 ranked receiver domains. The internal email traffic is dominant followed by famous email providers like Yahoo! and Gmail. Ignoring internal emails (i.e., odu.edu), only 5 universities appear in the top 50, with the highest ranking university at rank 33. These points support the argument that email might rather be applicable for repository advertisement than efficient repository replication.
[|l|l|l|]{}\
**[Rank]{} & **[Emails]{} & **[Domain]{}\
1 & 220582 & ODU.EDU\
2 & 36508 & YAHOO.COM\
3 & 30955 & GMAIL.COM\
4 & 14045 & COX.NET\
5 & 9960 & PRADELLA.BIZ\
6 & 8094 & VERIZON.NET\
7 & 3946 & COMCAST.NET\
8 & 3478 & HOTMAIL.COM\
9 & 3238 & POBOX.COM\
10 & 3178 & BOUNCE.NITENIGHTPROMO.COM\
11 & 3164 & 0733.COM\
12 & 3009 & ACM.ORG\
13 & 2897 & BOUNCE.CHARISMADIRINC.COM\
14 & 2702 & BOUNCE.BLAYWAY.COM\
15 & 2673 & INTERNATIONALCSPEDITION.COM\
16 & 2617 & BOUNCE.DIRECTGAUGEBLUE.COM\
17 & 2555 & TAKLAM.COM\
18 & 2289 & LARC.NASA.GOV\
19 & 2042 & SPEAKEASY.NET\
20 & 1987 & SYSABEND.ORG.\
21 & 1983 & QUALCOMM.COM\
22 & 1968 & GLAVES.ORG\
23 & 1866 & BOUNCE.BLUEWATERSKY.COM\
24 & 1838 & CW.NET\
25 & 1828 & BOUNCE.TICKYTRACKY.COM\
26 & 1804 & CABLE.WANADOO.NL\
27 & 1765 & ABSOLUTEMOTION.COM\
28 & 1699 & NAXS.NET\
29 & 1643 & E-STANDARD.BIZ\
30 & 1642 & BOUNCE.DODGEROCKBALL.COM\
31 & 1633 & FUSEMAIL.COM\
32 & 1502 & JASONONTHE.NET\
33 & 1501 & CL.CAM.AC.UK\
34 & 1459 & COMCONNECTION.NET\
35 & 1441 & ABDATOS.COM\
36 & 1423 & AUERBACH.COM\
37 & 1418 & BOUNCE.SKYBEACHTIE.COM\
38 & 1394 & CHRISTENSENARMS.COM\
39 & 1358 & NCSI.IISC.ERNET.IN\
40 & 1347 & CWU.EDU\
41 & 1304 & BILLINGHAM-SL.COM\
42 & 1216 & BARR-MULLIN.COM\
43 & 1211 & EXODUS.NET\
44 & 1175 & IGETSMART.COM\
45 & 1134 & MATHS.ANU.EDU.AU\
46 & 1122 & BOUNCE.TUNETIMELAP.COM\
47 & 1098 & VIRTUA.COM.BR\
48 & 950 & NSWC.NAVY.MIL\
49 & 938 & KOLACHE.CS.TAMU.EDU\
50 & 936 & LIMITED-ONLINEOFFERS.COM\
******
\[top\_dom\]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The behavior of several nuclear properties with temperature is analyzed within the framework of the Finite Temperature Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov (FTHFB) theory with the Gogny force and large configuration spaces. Thermal shape fluctuations in the quadrupole degree of freedom, around the mean field solution, are taken into account with the Landau prescription. As representative examples the nuclei $^{164}$Er, $^{152}$Dy and $^{192}$Hg are studied. Numerical results for the superfluid to normal and deformed to spherical shape transitions are presented. We found a substantial effect of the fluctuations on the average value of several observables. In particular, we get a decrease in the critical temperature ($T_c$) for the shape transition as compared with the plain FTHFB prediction as well as a washing out of the shape transition signatures. The new values of $T_c$ are closer to the ones found in Strutinsky calculations and with the Pairing Plus Quadrupole model Hamiltonian.'
author:
- 'V. Martin'
- 'J.L. Egido'
- 'L.M. Robledo'
bibliography:
- 'fluc.bib'
title: Thermal shape fluctuation effects in the description of hot nuclei
---
Introduction {#introduction .unnumbered}
============
Since the advent of the new generation of $ 4\pi $ gamma ray detectors and the improved accuracy in the channel selection new possibilities have opened up in the study of nuclear structure. Besides this, the availability of faster computers has made possible to perform realistic theoretical investigations with large configuration spaces. The high excitation energy is specially interesting since new features may take place. For example, in the quasicontinuum, the high level density gives rise to the unexpected phenomenon of the damping of the rotational motion. In the limit of high excitation energies (or temperature $T$) quantum effects become less relevant or may even disappear. Thus one expects that in a heated nucleus physical effects like superfluidity or shape deformations are washed out when $T$ increases. This expectation can be easily understood in terms of the shell model since, by increasing $T$, one promotes particles from levels below the Fermi surface to levels above it. In the case of pairing correlations, blocking levels amounts to destroying Cooper pairs. In the case of shape deformation, by depopulating the deformation driving levels (intruders) one gets on the average less deformation. Experimental information about nuclear shape changes can be obtained by means of the Giant Dipole Resonance (GDR) built on excited states. Exclusive experiments studying the GDR strength at a given excitation energy (or $T$) of the nucleus have been carried out in refs. [@AGH.90; @NBH.92; @NBH.99; @HBB.03]. The understanding of these phenomena is relevant because it affects important features like the fission barriers and the stability of the nucleus itself. For a recent review on hot nuclei see ref. [@ER.93].
The shape transitions have been object of many studies, most of them with [*schematic models*]{}, separable forces, and [*small configuration spaces*]{} [@Mo.73; @Goo.81; @ERM.86; @Goo.86; @RR.94]. The theoretical approaches used in the calculations are based on the mean field approximation, mainly the Finite Temperature Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov theory (FTHFB). The mean field approximations predict sharp shape transitions, whereas for finite systems, however, one expects washed out transitions instead. The fact that the predicted critical temperatures are rather high (around 2-3 MeV) indicates that not only the most probable deformation is relevant but that there is a finite (in some cases very large) probability for the system to have other shapes which should be taken into account. Calculations beyond mean field including thermal fluctuations have confirmed the expectation of washed out transitions [@EDR.86; @8].
Theoretical studies with [*effective forces*]{} and [*large configuration spaces*]{} have been performed at the FTHFB level with density dependent forces, Skyrme [@BQ.74a; @BQ.74b; @QF.78] and recently with the Gogny [@EMR.00] force. Additional calculations have been done in the relativistic mean field (RMF) approximation [@AT.00; @GML.00]. Calculations including thermal fluctuations in conjunction with large configurations spaces and effective forces have been performed only very recently [@AT.00; @MER.03].
From these studies a discrepancy has emerged since, while the [*mean field approaches*]{} (FTHFB) with [*effective forces*]{} (like Skyrme, the Gogny force or the relativistic approaches), provide the view of a sharp shape transition at a relatively high critical temperature ($T_c \approx 2.7$ MeV for $^{164}$Er), schematic models (like the Pairing plus Quadrupole) and Strutinsky calculations provide also a sharp transition though at a much lower critical temperature ($T_c \approx 1.7$ MeV for $^{164}$Er). Furthermore, the discordant point of a “sharp” transition for a small system, like the nucleus, predicted by both approaches requires further investigation. Earlier calculations with the Pairing plus Quadrupole Hamiltonian [@ERI.85; @EDR.86] have pointed out the relevance of including fluctuations in mean field approaches at finite temperature as a step forward to clarify some aspects of these problems. It is the aim of this paper to investigate the problems just mentioned as well as other related high excitation energy topics, level densities, etc., within a beyond mean field theory. Towards this end, the FTHFB calculations of ref. [@EMR.00] with the Gogny force and large configuration spaces will be generalized to include fluctuations in the quadrupole moment degree of freedom.
The finite range density dependent Gogny force has the advantage of providing the particle-hole (Hartree-Fock) and the particle-particle (pairing) matrix elements from the same interaction, at variance with relativistic theories and most Skyrme calculations. In the fitting of the D1S [@1] parametrization no excited states or spin dependent data was used, however, it has produced good results in the description of nuclear properties not only at zero [@2; @3] but also at large spin [@254NoSpin] and, more recently [@EMR.00], in calculations at high excitation energy. Since our purpose is to study the behavior of shell effects and fluctuations with temperature, we have selected both theoretically and experimentally well known nuclei that display a variety of shapes in the ground state: strongly deformed ($ ^{164} $Er), oblate ($ ^{192} $Hg ) and rather soft ($ ^{152} $Dy).
Theory {#theory .unnumbered}
======
To study the behavior of nuclei with increasing temperature we use the D1S [@1] parametrization of the finite range density dependent Gogny force [@2; @3] in the FTHFB framework [@12; @Goo.81]. The Gogny force, at variance with most of the Skyrme parametrizations and the relativistic models, allows full selfconsistent calculations since it provides the particle-hole and pairing fields from the same force.
At finite temperature, as at temperature zero, the basic approximation is the mean field theory. Its most sophisticated version, the FTHFB, has been developed in refs. [@6a; @Goo.81; @ERM.86]. For convenience we will give here a short outline.
For a system at constant temperature $T$ and with chemical potential $\mu$, the equilibrium state can be obtained from the variational principle over the grand canonical potential $$\Omega =E-TS-\mu N.
\label{gcp}$$ The energy, $E$, entropy, $S$, and particle number, $N$, are thermal averages defined by $$\begin{array}{lllll}
E & \equiv & \left\langle \hat{H}\right\rangle_T & = & Tr(\hat{D}\hat{H}),\\
S & \equiv & \left\langle -k\ln \hat{D}\right\rangle_T & = & -k \,Tr(\hat{D}\ln \hat{D}),\\
N & \equiv & \left\langle \hat{N}\right\rangle_T & = & Tr(\hat{D}\hat{N}),
\end{array}$$ with $ Z $ the grand partition function and $ \hat{D} $ the density operator given by $$\begin{array}{ccc}
Z & = & Tr[\exp (-\beta (\hat{H}-\mu \hat{N}))],\\
\hat{D} & = & Z^{-1}\exp (-\beta (\hat{H}-\mu \hat{N})),
\end{array}$$ with $ \beta =1/kT $.
In the FTHFB approach the density operator is approximated by $$\hat D_0~=~{ {e^{\hat{\cal H}/T}} \over Z_0},
\label{E2.8}$$ where $\hat{\cal H}$ is the most general Hermitian single particle operator, to be determined by the variational principle and $Z_0$ is the partition function. It can be shown [@ER.93] that ${\cal H}$ is given by $${\cal H}~=~\left(\begin{array}{cc}h&\Delta\\-
\Delta^*&-h^*\end{array}\right),$$ with $ \Delta $ the pair potential and $ h $ the HF hamiltonian. $ h $ is given in terms of the kinetic energy $ t $, the HF field, $ \Gamma $, and the chemical potential, $ \mu $, $$\begin{array}{ccc}
h & = & t +\Gamma -\mu, \\
\Gamma _{ij} & = & \sum _{kl}v_{ikjl}\rho _{lk},\\
\Delta _{ij} & = & \frac{1}{2}\sum _{kl}v_{ijkl}\kappa _{kl}.
\end{array}$$ The density matrix, $ \rho $, and the pairing tensor, $ \kappa $, are given by $$\begin{array}{ccc}
\rho & = & UfU^{+}+V^{*}(1-f)V^{t},\\
\kappa & = & UfV^{+}+V^{*}(1-f)U^{t},
\end{array}$$ and $$f_{i}=\frac{1}{1+e^{\beta E_{i}}}.$$ The matrices $(U,V)$ provide the relation between the quasiparticle and the single particle basis : $$\alpha^+_m~=~\sum_k U^{}_{km} c^+_k + V_{km} c^{}_k.$$ They are determined, together with the quasiparticle energies, $ E_{i} $, by the FTHFB equation $$\label{hfbeq}
\begin{array}{lllll}
\left( \begin{array}{cc}
h & \Delta \\
-\Delta ^{*} & -h^{*}
\end{array}\right) & \left( \begin{array}{c}
U_{k}\\
V_{k}
\end{array}\right) & = & \left( \begin{array}{c}
U_{k}\\
V_{k}
\end{array}\right) & E_{k}.
\end{array}$$
The solution of this equations provides us with the configuration that minimizes the grand canonical potential. With $U, V$ and $f$ known one can determine the density operator $\hat{D}_0$ and calculate any expectation value. For density dependent forces like Skyrme or Gogny, the formalism remains unchanged except in the evaluation of the one body Hamiltonian $h$. Due to the dependence on the density of the interaction, $h$ gets [@MER.03] an extra term, $\partial \Gamma$, which is usually referred to as the ”rearrangement potential” and is given by $$\partial \Gamma_{m m'} = \left< \frac{\partial H}{\partial \rho_{m'm}}
\right>_T.$$
The FTHFB solution gives us the most probable shapes, quadrupole, hexadecupole, etc, as well as the most probable gap parameters and so on. At finite temperatures, however, we have statistical (or thermal) fluctuations around this solution. In principle one could consider fluctuations in the most relevant degrees of freedom. For nuclei, at high excitation energy, the most important one is the quadrupole deformation, and we therefore shall consider only the fluctuations in the quadrupole moment $\langle {\hat Q}_{20} \rangle $ in this paper. To generate the solutions with different shapes we solve the grand canonical potential, Eq. (\[gcp\]), with an additional constraint on the quadrupole moment, i.e., we minimize $ \Omega = E - T S - \mu N - \lambda_{Q_{20}} q$. The Lagrange multiplier $\lambda_{Q_{20}}$ is adjusted in such a way that the thermal expectation value $\langle \hat{Q}_{20} \rangle = Tr(\hat{D}\hat{Q}_{20})$, has the required value $q$. According to Landau [@LL.59] the probability $ P(q)$ to obtain a certain value $q$ of the deformation is characterized by the free energy $F(q)= E(q) - T S(q)$ of the system with deformation $q$ $$P(q)~\propto~e^{-F(q)/T}.
\label{probq}$$ Using classical statistics, therefore, for the ensemble average of an observable $\hat{\cal O}$ one obtains the expression $$\label{averages}
\overline{\cal O} =\frac{\int {\cal O}(q)\exp (-F(q)/T)dq}
{\int \exp (-F(q)/T)dq},$$ where ${\cal O}(q)$ is the thermal expectation value of the operator $ \hat{\cal O}$ calculated for the system with the deformation $q$, and $dq$ is the volume element in deformation space. In our case the set $ q $ corresponds to the quadrupole deformation $q_{20}$, thus $dq = dq_{20}$, with metric equal to one. The limits in the thermal average integrals, see Eq. (\[averages\]), are chosen to span the full $\beta_2$ region in which the probability of having one of these values, given by Eq. (\[probq\]), is not negligible. This covers both prolate and oblate regions.
High temperature calculations require large configuration spaces. In order to maintain the computational burden within reasonable limits we restrict ourselves to axial symmetry. We are aware that for soft nuclei and/or high temperature, triaxiality may play an important role. In the calculations we use an axially deformed harmonic oscillator (HO) basis with a size defined by the condition $$2b_{\rho} n_{\rho} + b_z n_z < N_0,$$ where $ n_{\rho} $ and $ n_{z} $ are the HO axial quantum numbers, $b_{\rho}=q^{1/3} $ and $ b_{z}=q^{-2/3} $ with $ q=R_{z}/R_{\rho}, $ the nuclear axis ratio. In our case we have used $ q=1.5 $ and $ N_{0}=15 $ which allows for deformations big enough to reach the fission barrier and provides room enough for the temperature induced excitations. However, as an additional check, we have also used $ N_{0}=17 $ for some selected calculations. Reflection asymmetry is allowed in the calculations, i.e. the nuclei may develop octupole deformations.
In order to compare our Gogny force results with the ones, more conventional and popular, of the schematic Pairing plus Quadrupole model (PPQ), we have also performed calculations with this force. The configuration space (the spherical oscillator shells $N = 5, 6$ for neutrons and $N = 4, 5$ for protons) and the force parameters used are the one of Baranger-Kumar [@ppq]. The calculations have been performed in exactly the same way as in ref. [@8]
Results {#results .unnumbered}
=======
We have performed FTHFB calculations with the D1S parameter set of the Gogny force in several nuclei to study the evolution of shell effects with temperature. Nuclei with different ground state deformations have been selected to illustrate their different behavior. As an example of a nucleus with a strongly prolate deformed ground state we used the thoroughly studied $^{164}$Er. The soft $^{152}$Dy$_{86}$ is a transitional nucleus between the clearly spherical Dysprosium isotopes with $N \leq 84 $ and the well deformed ones with $N \geq 88$. This nucleus was selected for its rich shell structure and shape coexistence. The heavier $ ^{192} $Hg has been chosen due to its oblate ground state shape. The maximum temperature studied has been kept below 3 MeV, such that continuum contributions can be safely disregarded [@18; @18b].
The thermal fluctuations are represented through averages calculated according to Eq. (\[averages\]). The deviations around the mean values can be studied by the standard deviation value $$\sigma ({\cal O}) = \sqrt{\; \overline{ {\hat {\cal O}}^2} -
\left[ \; {\overline{\hat {\cal O}}} \; \right]^2}.
\label{sig}$$ This quantity is presented in some cases for further clarification of the results obtained.
Before entering in the discussion of the shape and pairing phase transitions we will start by presenting first a general view. In Fig. \[Fig:free\] we present the free energy, $F(\beta_2)$, and the quantity $ P(\beta_2)~\propto~\exp (-F(\beta_2)/T) $ versus the quadrupole deformation, $\beta_2$, at different temperatures. $ P(\beta_2)$ provides the weight of a given shape $\beta_2$ in the evaluation of thermal average values. The results for $^{164}$Er are displayed in the left column, for $^{152}$Dy in the middle one and for $^{192}$Hg in the right one. For the rare earth nuclei $^{164}$Er and $^{152}$Dy, where calculations within the two shells configuration space mentioned above are feasible, we also present results with the PPQ model. Results with the Gogny force are displayed by continuous lines and those with the PPQ force by dashed ones (thick lines represent $F(\beta_2)$ and thin ones $ P(\beta_2)$). The well depths are measured from the point with $\beta_2=0$ and $ P(\beta_2)$ has been normalized is such a way that the most probable deformation takes the value of unity.
Let us discuss first the low temperature calculations ($T = 0.3 $ MeV ) where we can observe the intrinsic shapes of the ground states. In the Gogny calculations for $^{164}$Er there is a deep prolate minimum at $\beta_2 \approx 0.3$ and about 4.5 MeV higher an oblate one. With the PPQ model the same gross features are observed, though the minima are not so deep. The probability distribution $ P(\beta_2)$, however, is similar in both calculations. For the nucleus $^{152}$Dy, in the Gogny case, the prolate minimum is at $\beta_2 \approx 0.15$ and a bit higher in energy the oblate one. The PPQ model, for this nucleus, provides a broad minimum around the spherical shape. $ P(\beta_2)$, in contrast with $^{164}$Er, looks quite different in the Gogny case than in the PPQ one. In both nuclei the free energy surfaces are broader with the Gogny force than with the PPQ one. For $^{192}$Hg, we find the minimum at an oblate deformation of $\beta_2 \approx -0.15$ and about 1.7 MeV higher a small prolate minimum.
At higher temperatures the expected disappearance of shell effects becomes clear, in particular the vanishing of the barriers when several minima are available and the development of only one spherical minimum. Further finite temperature effects like the widening of the free energy curve and the more important role of fluctuations with increasing temperature appear in the Gogny calculations but not in the PPQ ones. In the PPQ case the free energy surfaces, with increasing temperatures, become flatter but not broader. They even become narrower! This unphysical effect has to do, obviously, with the size of the configuration space (two shells). As we can see already at ($T = 0.3 $ MeV ), at large deformations $F(\beta_2)$ increases very steeply because there are no orbitals with high-$j$ (deformation driving ) coming down. The mechanism to soften the free energy surface at high temperature by enhancing the probability to occupy high-lying orbitals (among them the high-$j$ ones) works only with large configuration spaces. The anomalous behavior of $ P(\beta_2)$ in $^{152}$Dy, in the PPQ approach, at $T = 0.6 $ MeV as compared with $T = 0.3 $ MeV is due to the fact that at $T = 0.6 $ the neutron pairing gap vanishes and the ground state becomes slightly prolate.
Figures \[Fig:164ErAll\], \[Fig:152DyAll\] and \[Fig:192HgAll\] show the detailed calculations for all three nuclei. These figures include both, the results at the FTHFB level and with shape fluctuations calculated as described above. Dashed lines and open symbols indicate the FTHFB results. Solid lines and filled symbols are used for averaged, fluctuations including, calculations. Figs. \[Fig:152DyAll\] and \[Fig:192HgAll\] show only Gogny results.
The nucleus $^{164}Er$
----------------------
In Fig. \[Fig:164ErAll\] we display the results of the calculations for the nucleus $ ^{164} $Er with the Gogny force and with the PPQ model Hamiltonian. In panel (a) we show the selfconsistent FTHFB (i.e., calculated with the solution of Eq. \[hfbeq\]) and the averaged results (i.e., calculated according to Eq. \[averages\]) for the $\beta_2, \beta_4$ and $\beta_6$ deformation parameters as a function of the temperature with the Gogny interaction. Let us first discuss the deformation parameter $\beta_2$. For temperatures $0<T<1.0$ MeV, both predictions behave similarly, as one would expect for a nucleus with a well pronounced minimum. For temperatures $1.0<T<2.0$ MeV, the FTHFB $\beta_2$-values decrease rather smoothly while the averaged ones undergo a strong reduction. For $T>2.0$ MeV the selfconsistent values decrease very steeply and collapse, finally, to zero deformation at $T=2.7$ MeV. The averaged values, on the contrary, change tendency decreasing very smoothly in such a way that an almost constant value of $\beta_2$ is eventually obtained. The behavior of $\beta_4$ and $\beta_6$ is similar to the one of $\beta_2$ though not that spectacular. The same plot for $\beta_2$ but with the PPQ interaction is represented in panel (b). Quantitatively the main differences with the Gogny results are the faster collapse of the selfconsistent value, at $T\approx 1.8$ MeV, and the reduction of the temperature interval where the averaged values are smaller than the selfconsistent ones. Looking at the probability distribution in Fig. \[Fig:free\] one can easily understand these differences. The temperature value at which the [*mean field*]{} (mf) deformation parameter collapses, which we will denote $T^{mf}_{c}$, has often been used in earlier mean field studies to signal a shape phase transition. It is obvious from panels (a) and (b) that in theories [*beyond mean field*]{} things look quite different and that definition of the critical temperature must be carefully considered. The big difference in $T^{mf}_{c}$ as predicted by effective forces, like the Gogny force, and the PPQ is also known from calculations with Skyrme forces [@BQ.74a; @BQ.74b] and the relativistic mean field approximation [@AT.00; @10b].
The standard deviation in the deformation parameter $\beta_2$, $\sigma(\beta_2)$, calculated according to Eq. \[sig\], is presented in panel (c). One can distinguish three well defined zones : in the first one at low temperature, when pairing is still strong, the deformation is kept almost constant and fluctuations raise slowly. The Gogny and PPQ calculations predict about the same equilibrium shape in this zone. For temperatures higher than the one corresponding to the pairing collapse, $\sigma(\beta_2)$ increases rapidly up to a maximum value, remaining more or less at this value at higher temperatures. This step behavior is characteristic of a shape phase transition region. In fact, one could define the shape transition temperature as the one at which $\sigma(\beta_2)$ has a maximum. With this criterion one obtains $T=1.4$ MeV for the PPQ result and $T=1.7$ MeV in the Gogny case. Note the large difference in $\sigma(\beta_2)$ between the Gogny and PPQ results at high temperature. In this comparison, however, one must keep in mind that the PPQ model hamiltonian is restricted to a configuration space of two oscillator shells which strongly constraints the ability to produce fluctuations. This is clearly seen in Fig. \[Fig:free\] : the PPQ results rapidly develop a narrow parabolic shape with increasing temperature. This lack of fluctuations was already identified as partially responsible for the low multiplicity seen in the collective E2 quasicontinuum spectra in gamma decay calculations when compared to experiment [@16; @16b].
An additional confirmation of the importance of the fluctuations in calculations with the Gogny interaction as compared to the PPQ case is provided by the different behavior of the averaged deformation parameters with respect to the mean field within the same model, see panels a) and b). The value of the average $\beta_2$ parameter [*at high temperatures*]{} illustrates the deviation of the free energy surface from a parabolic behavior. A value close to zero is expected for a parabola, e.g., in the PPQ case, while a larger one, as in the Gogny case, indicates the softness of the prolate side as compared with the oblate one. One should nevertheless keep in mind that only axially symmetric deformed shapes are allowed in the calculations.
In panel d) of Fig. \[Fig:164ErAll\], the proton and neutron pairing energies are displayed for the Gogny force. Up to $T \approx 0.2 $ MeV the pairing energies are rather constant but for higher $T$ values they decrease in absolute value very fast up to $T = 0.7$ MeV where they vanish. Thermal shape fluctuations, as expected in the low temperature regime, have little effect on the pairing correlations. Pairing fluctuations which would be more relevant [@ERI.85] are not considered in this work.
It is interesting to take a look at the internal excitation energy, $E^*$, and also analyze it through the behavior of its derivative, the specific heat $C_V(T)=\partial E^*/\partial T$, since the appearance of peaks in this quantity is customarily interpreted as a signature in the search for phase transitions.
The evolution of $E^*$ with temperature for both the FTHFB, $E^*$, and the average, $\overline{E^*}$, calculations, is presented in panels e) (Gogny force) and f) (PPQ force) of Fig. \[Fig:164ErAll\]. With the Gogny force and in the low temperature regime, we can see the pairing collapse which is visible as a change in the slope of $E^*$. At higher temperatures a fairly quadratic behavior is observed in the excitation energy, which is slightly modified when the transition to the spherical phase takes place at high temperature around $T \sim 2.7$ MeV. There, a weaker change in the slope, hardly seen in the scale of the plot, is found. The change is more abrupt in $E^*$ than in $\overline{E^*}$, again as expected in the picture of a thermally faded transition. The same facts are observed in the PPQ plot, where one can additionally observe that at high temperature the energy behaves more linear than quadratic as a function of T.
The different behavior of $E^*$ and $\overline{E^*}$ is also interesting : a) At temperatures below 0.8 MeV, both energy values coincide, b) between 0.8 MeV and the corresponding $T^{mf}_{c}$ (around 2.7 MeV for Gogny and 1.8 MeV for PPQ), $E^*$ is always below $\overline{E^*}$, c) at the critical temperature both energies do coincide and d) at higher temperatures they are rather similar. This behavior has a simple explanation if one considers the entropy as a function of the deformation at fixed temperature, see Fig. \[Fig:Entro\], and the fact that in general $F \leq \overline{F} $ [^1], with $F$ the selfconsistent FTHFB free energy at the given $T$. At low temperatures ($\leq 0.8$ MeV) and at temperatures above $T^{mf}_{c}$, the entropy is almost shape independent, i.e., $\overline{S}
\approx S $ (with $S$ the selfconsistent FTHFB entropy at the given $T$), and the free energy behaves like a parabola, $ \overline{F}\approx F $, consequently $ \overline{E^*} \approx E^*$. At temperatures $0.8 \leq T \leq T^{mf}_{c} $, $F < \overline{F}$ and $S < \overline{S}$, see Figs. \[Fig:free\] and \[Fig:Entro\], and consequently, since $\overline{F}= \overline{E} - T \overline{S}$, $E^* < \overline{E^*}$.
The change in slope in $\overline{E^*}$ as compared with $E^*$ indicates that the corresponding specific heats, $ \partial \overline{E^*} / \partial T$ and $\partial E^* / \partial T$, will be rather different. This can be seen in Fig. \[Fig:Cv\] where we observe two peaks in the selfconsistent results, both in the PPQ and in the Gogny calculations [^2]. In between we find the typical linear behavior for a Fermi gas ($ C_V = 2aT $). The low temperature peak is associated with the superfluid to normal transition and the high temperature one with the deformed to spherical shape transition. The low temperature peak remains nearly unaffected by the inclusion of fluctuations. At the mean field level this transition takes place at a temperature low enough such that shape fluctuations are irrelevant.
Comparing the FTHFB results with the PPQ force with those obtained with the Gogny interaction for the shape transition, we find again the different temperature predictions. Using as critical temperature, $T_{c}$, the temperature where $C_V$ changes curvature, the same values are obtained as when the $\beta_2=0$ rule was used (1.8 MeV for PPQ [*vs.*]{} 2.7 MeV for Gogny). However, when fluctuations are taken into account, the difference in the predicted $T_{c}$ by Gogny and PPQ gets smaller and the sharpness of the peaks reduced, indicating a less abrupt transition as is expected in a mesoscopic system. This is more evident in the Gogny results, where the peak becomes a broad bump, providing another clue of the greater importance of fluctuations in the Gogny case. By contrast, the PPQ peak, although broader than in the mean field case, is still sharp. Furthermore the PPQ specific heat levels off, showing how the limited configuration space available is a clear disadvantage of this model. If we now look for the changes in curvature we find $T_{c}=1.4$ MeV in the PPQ and $T_{c}=1.7$ MeV with the Gogny interaction. It is interesting to notice that these values agree very well with the ones obtained looking at $\sigma(\beta_2)$.
The nucleus $^{152}Dy$
----------------------
As we have seen in Fig. \[Fig:free\], $^{152}Dy$ displays a potential energy surface with energetically close prolate and oblate minima. It could illustrate a nucleus with shape coexistence, that means, already at temperatures near to zero there is a finite probability of populating more than one minimum. For this nucleus we will not perform a discussion as exhaustive as for $^{164}Er$ but we will consider the most relevant facts.
In Fig. \[Fig:152DyAll\] the results of the calculations for the Gogny force are displayed. In panel a) the mean field and the averaged values of the pairing energies are plotted. The pairing energy of the neutron (proton) system collapses at $T \approx 0.5$ ($T \approx 1.0$) MeV. The averaged values, as expected, almost coincide with the mean field ones. In panel b) the $\beta$-deformation parameters are shown. As we can observe in the behavior of the $\beta_2$ parameter the effect of the shape fluctuations in this case is already noticeable at very small temperatures. This is due to the fact that, in the ground state $^{152}Dy$ is a much less deformed nucleus than $ ^{164}$Er and that the energy difference between the oblate and prolate minimum is small, amounting to only $\sim 0.55$ MeV for $T<0.5$ MeV. Hence the averaging formula assigns finite weights to the oblate side already at small $T$’s causing the observed steep decrease in the average $\beta_2$ value. Although the FTHFB, searching for the strict minimum, provides a deformed ground state for $^{152}$Dy, we see how even at the lowest temperatures the average deformation is very small, in agreement with the experimental data. At the high temperature limit we observe that above 1.4 MeV, the average deformation stays rather constant, or slightly increases, up to 0.04. This anomalous behavior is due to the fact that the superdeformation driving orbitals are being occupied at this temperature range. The $ \beta _{4} $ and $ \beta _{6} $ deformation parameters follow closely the $\beta_2$ behavior. In particular, in the FTHFB description they become zero at the same temperature as $\beta_2$.
In panel c) the excitation energy is depicted. In the FTHFB approach the changes in slope at temperatures of 0.5, 1.0 and 1.4 MeV are due to the neutron and proton pairing collapse and to the shape transition. The behavior of $\overline{E^*}$ can be understood in terms of the entropy plots as explained for the $^{164}$Er nucleus. The changes in slope in the energy plots are magnified in the specific heat versus temperature plot depicted in panel d). In the mean field approach we find a broad composite peak, corresponding to the proton and neutron pairing collapse, showing substructures around $T\approx 0.5$ and 1.0 MeV. Furthermore, one sees a second peak at 1.4 MeV corresponding to the FTHFB shape transition. If shape fluctuations are included in the calculations we obtain only one broad peak. The small peak at 1.4 MeV, however, is not there anymore indicating that it has been shifted to the pairing transition bump or simply washed out. In fact, the almost identical broad energy mean field peak and the single one obtained with fluctuations could be seen as a clue that the shape transition in this soft nucleus is inexistent, since there is no higher temperature peak but only a small modification of the “pairing” one. To check this hypothesis we have also performed calculations with the particle-particle channel of the Gogny force set to zero, i.e. plain FTHF. In this way we obtain $C_V$ curves without the pairing transition peaks. The results are plotted, superimposed to the standard FTHFB calculations, using square symbols in panel d) of Fig. \[Fig:152DyAll\]. Again, open squares are for the FTHF calculations and full ones for averaged ones. As it was expected, the FTHF curves for $C_V$ show no peak for the pairing transition and the only peak present is the one corresponding to the shape transition at 1.4 MeV, which coincides with the one obtained with the full FTHFB calculations, since at these temperatures pairing is already zero. The thermal averaging results show a broad shoulder approximately in the same temperature region in which the pairing transition was located. This rather soft bump is a clear indication of the above mentioned situation, i.e., at small temperatures no clearly predominant minimum exists and at high temperatures the nucleus does not become exactly spherical.
The nucleus $^{192}$Hg
----------------------
As we have seen in Fig. \[Fig:free\] at very small temperatures this nucleus presents an oblate deformed ground state and about 1.7 MeV above a prolate minimum. The results for the nucleus $^{192}$Hg are shown in Fig. \[Fig:192HgAll\]. The pairing energies are displayed in panel a). The proximity of the $Z=82$ shell closure causes the vanishing of the proton pairing energies for all temperatures. The neutron system, on the contrary, has a large pairing energy at $T=0$ MeV, which vanishes at $T=0.8$ MeV. As before, the shape fluctuations have almost no effect on the pairing energies.
In panel b) the behavior of the deformation parameters with increasing temperature is plotted. For $^{192}$Hg, in the mean field approximation, we obtain an oblate ground state deformation of $\beta_2 = -0.135 $ which gets more oblate for increasing temperatures as the pairing energies go to zero. For larger $T$ values the deformation decreases and around $T \approx 1.4$ MeV the nucleus becomes spherical. As before, the effect of the shape fluctuations is mainly characterized by the the prolate-oblate ground state energy difference, see Fig. \[Fig:free\], which in this case amounts to 1.7 MeV at zero temperature and only above $T=0.5$ MeV start to diminish. Around this temperature the deformation gets smaller and around 1.4 MeV the average deformation is zero. Interestingly, the average $\beta_2$ and $\beta_4$ deformation parameters become positive in the limit of high temperatures due to the fact that at these temperatures the $F(T)$ curves are softer in the prolate than in the oblate side.
In panel c) the excitation energies in both approximations, in the mean field and with shape fluctuations, are plotted versus the temperature. In the mean field calculations we find slope changes at $T=0.8$ MeV and $T=1.4$ MeV associated with the pairing collapse and the oblate-spherical shape transition. The inclusion of shape fluctuations affects mainly the region between $0.8 \leq T \leq 1.4$ MeV. The general behavior of both curves can be easily understood in the same terms as for $^{164}$Er. In panel d) the corresponding specific heats are represented. In the mean field approximation the expected peaks are clearly visible. The inclusion of the shape fluctuations produces a single, broader bump extending above the critical temperature for the pairing collapse. As in the $^{152}$Dy case this peak might be a superposition of the pairing and the shape transition peaks. To isolate the shape transition peak we have performed again calculations with the particle-particle channel of the Gogny force set to zero. The results of the calculations, without (empty squares) and with (filled squares) shape fluctuations, are represented in the same panel. In both approximations the results above $T=0.9$ MeV are obviously the same as before. Below this temperature and in the mean field approximation, as expected, the pairing peak is gone. However, in the calculations with the shape fluctuations we find a broad peak extending from $T=0.4$ MeV up to $T=1.0$ MeV with a change in curvature around $T=0.9$ MeV. Looking at the standard deviation $\sigma(\beta_2)$ of this nucleus (not shown here) we find a maximum at $T=0.9$ MeV, an additional indication of the shape transition.
Level densities and nuclear radii
---------------------------------
Level densities, $\rho(E^*)$, can be microscopically evaluated in the saddle point approximation, see for example eq. (2B-14) of ref. [@BM.75]. In Fig. \[Fig:lden\] the total level densities for the three nuclei under study are displayed against the excitation energy in the mean field approximation and on average, i.e., with the inclusion of shape fluctuations. In both cases we observe the overall expected exponential dependence and the well known abnormal behavior at very small excitation energies.
For $^{164}$Er and up to 10 MeV excitation energy ($T \approx 0.8$ MeV) we find a good agreement between both predictions. Then, up to 70 MeV ($T \approx 2.3$ MeV), we observe an increase in the level density in the average description as compared with the mean field one. In particular, around 20 to 30 MeV excitation energy, the average prescription provides almost two orders of magnitude larger densities than the mean field one. This behavior can be easily understood looking at Figs. \[Fig:free\] and \[Fig:Entro\] and taking into account that the level density is proportional to the exponential of the entropy. At low ($T < 0.7 $ MeV) and high excitation energies ($T > 2.5 $ MeV) the entropy is rather shape independent, that means, the average value of the level density is very close to the one in the selfconsistent minimum. Consider now $T=1.4$ MeV. In this case the selfconsistent minimum is prolate ($\beta_2 \approx 0.3$), and the entropy at this shape and $T$ is smaller than for all the other shapes at this temperature. That means, since $\rho(\beta_2) \propto e^{S(\beta_2)}$, the average level density will always be larger than the selfconsistent one. Similar arguments apply to understand the behavior of the level densities of $^{152}$Dy and $^{192}$Hg. The fact that in these nuclei we do not find a larger difference between both descriptions is obviously due to the smoother behavior of the entropy with the deformation at the relevant temperatures.
In Fig. \[Fig:msr\] the root mean squared (rms) radii of the three nuclei are plotted versus the temperature. In general we find that the rms radii are rather constant up to a given temperature, 2 MeV for $^{164}$Er and 1 MeV for $^{152}$Dy and $^{192}$Hg, and that in this temperature range the average values are rather similar to the FTHFB ones. From this temperature on the average values are larger than the FTHFB ones due to the fact that, at these temperatures, the probability for a given shape peaks at the spherical shape and that for a given volume the spherical shape corresponds to the one with the smallest rms radii. That means, fluctuations around the spherical minimum provide always larger rms radii. We also observe, at the highest temperatures, the expected increase of the rms radii.
Discussion and conclusions {#discussion-and-conclusions .unnumbered}
==========================
We have seen in the previous section that, in calculating average properties, the behavior of the entropy with the deformation parameter $\beta_2$ plays a major role. This behavior is by itself, indeed, quite interesting. The general behavior, see Fig. \[Fig:Entro\], is the following : In the high $T$ limit where the temperature effects dominate, we find, as expected, small shape dependence. At very low $T$, where the temperature effects are very small, we observe that to increase the entropy by 5 units we have to increase $T$ by 0.5 MeV and that the entropy is rather independent of the shape of the nucleus. Of course, in this region where pairing correlations are present it is difficult to make more precise statements. However, at moderate temperatures, which are however high enough to allow for significant quasiparticle occupation numbers but not too high in order that shell effects are still present, one can find a large dependence of the entropy on the nuclear shape. In this region spherical shapes, as expected, have larger entropy than axially deformed ones. Since the maxima of the entropy are associated with the minima of the grand potential a correspondence between Fig. \[Fig:free\] and Fig. \[Fig:Entro\] does not necessarily exist.
One of the main outcomes of our research is the finding that shape fluctuations have a large effect on the description of shape transitions. In fact, the [*mean field approach*]{} (FTHFB) with effective forces (like Skyrme, the Gogny force or the relativistic approaches), provides the view of a sharp shape transition at a relatively high critical temperature ($T_c \approx 2.7$ MeV for $^{164}$Er). On the other hand, Strutinsky calculations or schematic models (like the Pairing plus Quadrupole) provide also a sharp transition though at a much lower critical temperature ($T_c \approx 1.7$ MeV for $^{164}$Er). It has been argued [@GML.00] that the different predictions for the critical temperature are due to the small effective mass obtained in the mean field approach with effective forces ($m^*/m \approx 0.7$, with $m$ the nucleon bare mass ) as compared to the Strutinsky or the PPQ model ($m^*/m \approx 1.0$). This argument is obviously restricted to the mean field approach. In theories beyond mean field it does not apply anymore because with increasing correlations the effective mass eventually becomes the bare mass. In calculations at finite temperatures two kinds of correlations have to be considered, on one hand the quantum ones and on the other the statistical or classical ones. Their relevance depends obviously on the excitation energy (or temperature), at low $T$’s the former are very important and at high $T$’s, the latter ones. At the temperatures where the shape transition is predicted to take place in the mean field approach, the probability of having a shape different to the selfconsistent one is very large. Therefore, it is obvious that, first, shape fluctuations must be included and second that the characterization of the shape transition must be considered more carefully. In the mean field approach a criterion for shape transition is just to look at the temperature at which the nucleus becomes spherical or alternatively to look for a peak at the specific heat as a function of the temperature. In theories beyond mean field, usually the second one is used because the average deformation can become very small but not zero. As we have seen, the inclusion of shape fluctuations provides a specific heat rather different from the mean field one, because a) it is not a sharp peak what we obtain but a rather broad bump (this is consistent with the fact that it is a very small system) and b) it appears at temperatures much lower than the ones predicted by the mean field approximation in agreement with the Strutinsky calculations. It is also interesting to notice that the predictions based on the specific heat analysis coincide with the ones of the standard deviation $\sigma(\beta_2)$.
Of course one could ask about the effect of considering quantum correlations in our predictions. Canosa, Rossignoli and Ring [@CRR.99] have shown in model calculations based on the static path plus random phase approximation that at finite temperature quantum effects are observable dependent. In particular, they find that the specific heat remains practically unaffected when quantum correlations are taken into account. One could conclude therefore that the prediction of the shape transition by the inclusion of thermal shape fluctuations with effective forces is reliable.
In conclusion, we have performed extensive calculations with the Gogny force and a large configuration space for three representative nuclei in the FTHFB framework. We have further studied the effect of thermal shape fluctuations and found that they strongly affect, among others, the traditional shape transition “view” of the FTHFB approach. They do it in two aspects, first the critical temperature for the transition is very much lowered and second, the specific heat peaks are not sharp but rather broad. Besides this, the peaks showing up in FTHFB calculations of the specific heat in soft nuclei, like $^{152}$Dy, are (almost) completely washed out when thermal shape fluctuations are taken into account indicating the absence of any shape transition. However, in strongly deformed nuclei, like $^{164}$Er, the shape fluctuations reconfirm the presence of a shape transition though of a different character. We also find a strong enhancement in the level density in the presence of a shape transition. The superfluid to normal phase transition is not affected by the inclusion of shape fluctuations.
This work has been supported in part by DGI, Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnología, Spain, under Project BFM2001-0184.
[^1]: The equal sign is valid only in the case that the free energy is a parabolic function of the deformation.
[^2]: The results displayed in this figure have been calculated by evaluating numerically the derivative of the energy. In ref. [@EMR.00] the expression $ C_V = T \partial S/\partial T $ was used instead and $S $ was calculated analytically in the mean field approach.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Associative polymers with sticker-and-spacer architectures undergo phase transitions that combine phase separation and bond percolation. Here, we generalize mean-field models for bond percolation and extract effective sticker interaction strengths from experimental data for specific proteins. We use graph-based Monte Carlo simulations to evaluate effects ignored by mean-field models. These include bond cooperativity defined as changes to strengths of new bonds (physical crosslinks) given the presence of a prior bond. We find that bond cooperativity fundamentally alters phase behavior, especially in sub-stoichiometric regimes for valencies of complementary stickers.'
author:
- 'Jeong-Mo Choi'
- 'Anthony A. Hyman'
- 'Rohit V. Pappu'
bibliography:
- 'references.bib'
title: Generalized models for bond percolation transitions of associative polymers
---
Multivalent proteins and nucleic acids with multiple attractive groups (stickers) are biological instantiations of associative polymers [@rubinstein1997] that can be modeled using a *stickers-and-spacers framework* [@doi:10.1021/ma970616h; @doi:10.1021/acs.macromol.8b00661]. This framework has been used to explain, model, and design *phase-separation* aided *bond percolation* (PSBP) transitions of linear multivalent proteins [@WANG2018688; @Martin694; @doi:10.1146/annurev-biophys-121219-081629] that drive the formation of network-fluid-like condensates in living cells [@Shineaaf4382; @doi:10.1146/annurev-genet-112618-043527]. Bond percolation in associative polymers is enabled by reversible physical crosslinks among stickers. This gives rise to system-specific percolation threshold concentrations ($c_{\text{perc}}$) that are governed by the valence (number) of stickers and sticker-sticker interaction strengths [@rubinstein1997; @doi:10.1021/ma970616h]. The excluded volumes of spacers and weaker sticker-spacer as well as spacer-spacer attractions determine whether or not percolation is enabled by phase separation [@10.7554/eLife.30294]. In a binary mixture comprising associative polymers and solvent molecules, phase separation occurs above a saturation concentration ($c_{\text{sat}}$) where the system separates into dense, polymer-rich condensates that coexist with a solvent-rich dilute phase giving rise to a condensate-spanning percolated network [@10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007028]. In multivalent proteins, phase separation and percolation are likely to be strongly coupled and one can use $c_{\text{perc}}$ as a proxy for $c_{\text{sat}}$ [@rubinstein1997; @doi:10.1021/ma970616h; @10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007028]
Here, we assess how the interplay between homotypic and heterotypic sticker-sticker interactions influences $c_{\text{perc}}$ for associative polymers with more than two types of stickers. To do so, we generalize previous mean-field models to systems with arbitrary numbers of sticker types. Additionally, we use graph-based Monte Carlo simulations to show that the entropic cost associated with the incorporation of polymers into a growing network and the inclusion of bond cooperativity cause quantitative and testable departures from predictions based on mean-field calculations.
A generalized mean-field model and its application
==================================================
A volume $V$ consists of $N$ associative polymers, each of which contains $n_i$ stickers of type $i$. A physical crosslink between sticker pairs of type $i$ and type $j$ leads to an energy gain of $\epsilon_{ij}$ and this interaction constrains the sticker pairs to a volume $v_{ij}$, which is the bond volume of the $i$-$j$ pair. Generalization of our previous approach [@WANG2018688] provides an expression for the percolation threshold [^1]: $$\label{eq:MFT}
c_{\text{perc}} = \frac{N}{V} \approx \frac{1}{\sum_i \lambda_{ii} n_i^2 + 2 \sum_{i, j > i} \lambda_{ij} n_i n_j},$$ where $\lambda_{ij} = v_{ij} e^{-\beta \epsilon_{ij}}$ and $\beta = 1/(k_{\text{B}}T)$ is the inverse temperature. **Equation \[eq:MFT\]** helps quantify the relative contributions of different types of stickers, including the interplay between homotypic and heterotypic interactions to $c_{\text{perc}}$.
Wang *et al.* investigated PSBP transitions of several multivalent proteins including the protein FUS that has an intrinsically disordered N-terminal prion-like domain (PLD) and C-terminal RNA binding domains (RBD) [@WANG2018688]. Saturation concentrations were found to be governed by the numbers of tyrosine (Tyr) residues in PLDs and arginine (Arg) residues in RBDs. Experiments show that the $c_{\text{sat}}$ for full-length FUS (FL-FUS) is 2 $\mu$M at 75 mM KCl, while its PLD as an independent module has an estimated $c_{\text{sat}}$ that is at least 120 $\mu$M [@BURKE2015231; @WANG2018688]. The numbers of Tyr and Arg residues in FL-FUS are 33 and 36, respectively, and while the FUS PLD contains 27 Tyr residues, it has zero Arg residues. Based on our generalized mean-field model, the ratio of saturation concentrations for FL FUS and FUS PLD can be approximated as $$\label{eq:ratio}
\frac{c_{\text{sat}}\text{(FL FUS)}}{c_{\text{sat}}\text{(FUS PLD)}} \approx \frac{(n_{\text{Y}}^{\text{PLD}})^2}{(n_{\text{Y}}^{\text{FL}})^2 + 2 (\lambda_{\text{YR}}/\lambda_{\text{YY}}) n_{\text{Y}}^{\text{FL}} n_{\text{R}}^{\text{FL}}},$$ where $n_{\text{Y}}^{\text{PLD}}$, $n_{\text{Y}}^{\text{FL}}$, and $n_{\text{R}}^{\text{FL}}$ refer to the numbers of Tyr residues in FUS PLD, Tyr residues in FL FUS, and Arg residues in FL FUS, respectively. Assuming the bond volumes to be identical, our analysis of the relative saturation concentrations shows that an interaction energy difference of $\epsilon_{\text{YY}} - \epsilon_{\text{YR}} = 0.11 k_{\text{B}} T$ between the Tyr-Tyr pair and the Tyr-Arg pair combined with multivalence is sufficient to account for the 100-fold increase of the saturation concentration of the PLD vis-á-vis FL FUS.
Going beyond mean-field models
==============================
The mean-field model assumes that each bond of type $i$-$j$ has an equivalent energy $\epsilon_{ij}$ and entropy $\log (v_{ij}/V)$. This ignores the fact that networks grow toward and past the percolation threshold by forming *clusters* [@de1979scaling], where a cluster is defined as a set of stickers that belong to the same polymer or distinct polymers among which physical crosslinks have formed via pairing of stickers. The overall entropy loss that accounts for *intra*-cluster sticker-sticker interactions can be much smaller than the mean-field estimate [@Stanley1982]. Additionally, *bond cooperativity*, defined as increases or decreases in the effective strengths of inter-sticker interactions that are influenced by the presence of a prior interaction, is ignored in mean-field models. We use graph-based Monte Carlo (MC) simulations of networks formed by stickers to incorporate the effects of intra-cluster interactions and model the effects due to bond cooperativity. In these simulations, stickers are nodes on a graph and the reversible physical crosslinks (bonds) are dynamic edges between nodes that engender network formation (**Figure \[fig:cartoon\]**).
![\[fig:cartoon\] Schematic representation of the graph-based simulation model. Each circle represents a sticker on an associative polymer. Black vs. white circles correspond to two different sticker types. Covalent bonds are indicated by solid lines whereas reversible physical crosslinks are shown using blue dotted lines. The schematic shows (a) an inter-chain crosslink between white and black stickers, (b) an inter-chain crosslink between two white stickers, and (c) an intra-chain crosslink between white and black stickers. The red asterisk indicates a sticker involved in three-body interactions, which is how we model bond cooperativity.](fig1)
The simulation system consists of $N$ associative polymers (here $N = 100$), and each polymer contains $n_{\text{A}}$ A-type stickers and $n_{\text{B}}$ B-type stickers. The model is readily generalizable to include more than two types of stickers. Simulations are initiated from an un-networked system, and bonds between stickers are stochastically formed or broken using a Metropolis MC algorithm. In each MC step, a bond can form between a randomly chosen pair of stickers, or a randomly chosen bond can be broken. For the case of two sticker types, ignoring cooperativity, bonds of the types A-A, B-B, and A-B can form, and the interaction energy per bond is designated as $\epsilon_{ij}$ for a bond that forms between stickers $i$ and $j$. Likewise, bond breaking between stickers of type $i$ and $j$ causes a loss of energy $\epsilon_{ij}$.
Cooperativity in bond formation can be incorporated by including an energy gain (*positive cooperativity*) or loss (*negative cooperativity*) designated as $\epsilon_{ij|k}$. A negative value signifies positive cooperativity whereas a positive value indicates negative cooperativity associated with forming an $i$-$j$ bond given the presence of an $i$-$k$ or $j$-$k$ bond. The coordination number $\nu$ controls the maximum number of bonds each sticker can make; in the current formalism, $\nu=1$ or $\nu=2$. Cooperativity in bond formation is only realizable for $\nu>1$. In many multivalent proteins, stickers are often $\pi$-systems that include six-membered benzene rings and planar moieties such as the guanidinium group of Arg [@10.7554/eLife.31486]. Planar moieties can have interaction partners above or below the plane, and additional interactions are unlikely due to steric hindrance. Therefore, we set $\nu \leq 2$.
To distinguish intra-cluster vs. inter-cluster interactions, we check if a newly formed bond links two stickers that are already part of the same cluster. If they are in the same cluster, the bond is an *intra*-cluster bond, and its loss in entropy ($\Delta s_{\text{intra}}$) is smaller than entropy loss for an *inter*-cluster bond ($\Delta s_{\text{inter}}$); for clarity, inter-cluster bonds form between pairs of stickers from two different clusters. The losses in entropy are computed as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta s_{\text{intra}} &=& \log \left(v_0/V_{\text{cluster}}\right), \\
\Delta s_{\text{inter}} &=& \log \left(v_0/V\right).\end{aligned}$$ Here, $v_0$ is the bond volume, $V_{\text{cluster}}$ is the volume to which a sticker is confined within its cluster, and $V$ is the total volume of the system. For simplicity, we assume identical values of $v_0$ for all bond types and identical values of $V_{\text{cluster}}$ for all clusters.
The free energy associated with each configuration is calculated as $E - T\Delta S$, where $E$ is the summation over all energetic contributions, $\Delta S$ is the summation over all entropic contributions from the change of translational degree of freedom, and $T$ is the simulation temperature (set to 1 in this work). In each MC step, we calculate the system free energy and employ the Metropolis criterion to determine whether a proposed move (*i.e.*, bond formation or destruction) will be accepted or rejected.
Based on recent work [@10.7554/eLife.30294; @10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007028], we use the fraction of polymers in the largest cluster ($\phi_{\text{c}}$) as the order parameter to quantify bond percolation, and change the reduced system volume $V/v_0$ to control the polymer concentration $c = N(V/v_0)^{-1}$ for fixed $N$. To ensure statistical robustness of our results, we performed 100 independent simulations to obtain the average value of $\phi_{\text{c}}$ for each polymer concentration. A typical profile for $\phi_{\text{c}}$ as a function of $c$ is shown in **Figure \[fig:SRmodel\](a)**. These data can be fit to a curve described by an implicit equation $1-y(x) = e^{-xy(x)}$, which quantifies the size of the giant component ($y$) as a function of the mean degree ($x$) in an Erdös-Rényi random graph [@janson2011random; @latora2017complex]. The concentration threshold at which the largest component emerges ($x = 1$) is used as a proxy for the percolation threshold $c_{\text{perc}}$. Note that clusters of non-negligible sizes can form even for $x < 1$. These may be thought of as *proto*-condensates that grow into networked condensates, a feature that has recently been highlighted for multivalent proteins that drive pyrenoid formation [@Xu:2020aa].
![\[fig:SRmodel\] (a) Fraction of polymers in the largest cluster ($\phi_{\text{c}}$) as a function of the concentration $c$. Here, $N = 100$, $n_{\text{A}} = 20$, $n_{\text{B}} = 20$, $\epsilon_{\text{AA}} = 10$, $\epsilon_{\text{BB}} = 10$, $\epsilon_{\text{AB}} = -3$, $\Delta s_{\text{intra}} = -20$, $k_{\text{B}}T = 1$. Error bars indicate the standard deviation across 100 independent simulations. The red line shows the curve determined by an implicit equation $1-y = e^{-xy}$, and $R^2$ is Pearson’s correlation coefficient between the simulation data and the fit generated using the implicit equation. (b) Correlation between $1/(n_{\text{A}}n_{\text{B}})$ and $c_{\text{perc}}$ for the simple model where only heterotypic, inter-sticker interactions are possible. The blue crosses indicate the data points for different numbers of $n_{\text{A}}$ and $n_{\text{B}}$, and the red line shows the line of best fit $y = kx$. $R^2$ is Pearson’s correlation coefficient.](fig2){width="86mm"}
We tested the accuracy of the graph-based MC simulations by assessing the ability to reproduce mean-field predictions (**Equation \[eq:MFT\]**) for the case where only heterotypic inter-chain interactions are allowed: $\epsilon_{\text{AA}} = 10$, $\epsilon_{\text{BB}} = 10$, and $\epsilon_{\text{AB}} = -3$. Also, the intra-cluster interactions are prohibited by setting $\Delta s_{\text{intra}} = -20$. To eliminate bond cooperativity, $\nu$ is set to 1. We tested all possible combinations of $n_{\text{A}} = 4, 8, 12, 16, 20$ and $n_{\text{B}} = 4, 8, 12, 16, 20$, and the values we obtain for $c_{\text{perc}}$ from the simulations correlate well with $1/(n_{\text{A}}n_{\text{B}})$ in accordance with the mean-field model (**Figure \[fig:SRmodel\](b)**).
Effects of intra-cluster interactions and bond cooperativity
============================================================
We deployed the graph-based MC simulations to understand how a polymer made up of two types of stickers might give rise to the observation that $c_{\text{sat}}$ of full-length FUS ends up being two orders of magnitude lower than the N-terminal PLD. For this, we compare percolation thresholds of two systems, $\text{A}_{10}$ and $\text{A}_{10} \text{B}_{10}$, which we use as phenomenological mimics of the FUS PLD and the FL FUS, respectively. Differences due to intra-cluster interactions are accounted for by setting $\Delta s_{\text{intra}} = -1$. We also query the effects of bond cooperativity by setting $\nu$ to two. We investigate the space spanned by two parameters, $\epsilon_{\text{AB}}$ and $\epsilon_{\text{AA}|\text{B}}$, while $\epsilon_{\text{AA}} = -2$, $\epsilon_{\text{BB}} = 5$, and all other terms are set to zero. As before, we use $\Delta s_{\text{inter}} = \log (v_0 / V)$ to titrate polymer concentration.
![\[fig:params\] Comparison of the variation of $r$ with $\epsilon'$. (a) Mean-field theory (MFT) and two different graph-based simulations (GBS) with $\nu = 1$ and 2. $\epsilon_{\text{AA}|\text{B}} = 0$ for all three cases. (b) Graph-based simulations with $\nu = 2$ and distinct values of $\epsilon_{\text{AA}|\text{B}}$ (legend).](fig3){width="86mm"}
We define $r$ as a measure of the relative percolation threshold, $r = c_{\text{perc}}(\text{A}_{10} \text{B}_{10}) / c_{\text{perc}}(\text{A}_{10})$, and $\epsilon'$ as the relative energetic advantage of heterotypic interactions compared to homotypic interactions, $\epsilon' = \epsilon_{\text{AB}}/\epsilon_{\text{AA}}$. **Figure \[fig:params\](a)** shows how $r$ varies with $\epsilon'$ when $\epsilon_{\text{AA}|\text{B}} = 0$. In the mean-field model, the $\text{A}_{10}\text{B}_{10}$ system cannot have a higher percolation threshold than $\text{A}_{10}$, irrespective of the value of $\epsilon'$. In direct contrast, inclusion of intra-cluster interactions allows for $r >1$ for small $\epsilon'$. Even though A-B interactions do not make significant energetic contributions for small $\epsilon'$, B stickers consume A stickers via intra-cluster interactions. This is an entropically driven process and reduces the effective number of available A stickers for inter-cluster interactions. Hence, for weak A-B interactions ($\epsilon' < 1$), intra-cluster interactions are favored over inter-cluster interactions, causing a clear deviation from the mean-field model. For $\epsilon' > 1$, stronger interactions between A-B stickers cause a shift between intra- and inter-cluster interactions, leading to lower values of $r$ vis-á-vis the mean-field model. **Figure \[fig:params\](a)** also quantifies the effect of setting $\nu=2$ for $\epsilon_{\text{AA}|\text{B}} = 0$. Although this allows more crosslinks among different chains and contributes to lowered percolation thresholds (**Figure S1**), the qualitative trends for the variation of $r$ with $\epsilon'$ are similar to the case of $\nu=1$. Overall, the graph-based simulations show that *intra-cluster* interactions change the effective number of available stickers for inter-cluster interactions. The extent of this change is determined by relative sticker strengths.
Next, we tested the effects of *bond cooperativity* on the variation of $r$ with $\epsilon'$. This analysis is motivated by solubility data for amino acids [@AUTON2007397]. These data suggest that Tyr-Tyr interactions are orders of magnitude stronger than Arg-Arg interactions. It is also known that cations can enhance $\pi$-$\pi$ interactions [@Mahadevi:2016aa]. Accordingly, we propose that the formation of an Arg-Tyr interaction can impact the likelihood of incorporating an additional Tyr into the network via a Tyr-Tyr crosslink to a Tyr-Arg pair. How might such effects alter bond percolation transitions of model associative polymers with A and B stickers? To answer this question, we queried the effects of changing $\epsilon_{\text{AA}|\text{B}}$. In this scenario, A-A bond formation is aided by pre-existing A-B bonds, and the strengths of these interactions are governed by the magnitude of $\epsilon_{\text{AA}|\text{B}}$. A reference value of $r=10^{-2}$ is achieved for $\epsilon' > 1$ when $\epsilon_{\text{AA}|\text{B}} = 0$; however, increasing positive bond cooperativity causes a significant lowering of $r$ (**Figure \[fig:params\](b)**). As an illustration, for $\epsilon_{\text{AA}|\text{B}} = -5$, the $\epsilon'$ required to achieve $r = 10^{-2}$ is almost zero, indicating that A-B bonds are no longer used for inter-cluster interactions, but instead they serve the sole purpose of strengthening A-A bonds. Positive bond cooperativity shifts the balance toward inter-cluster interactions, leading to a lowering of the percolation threshold for the $\text{A}_{10}\text{B}_{10}$ system when compared to the $\text{A}_{10}$ system.
In the context of our model, there are many combinations of $\epsilon_{\text{AB}}$ and $\epsilon'$ that lower the percolation threshold of $\text{A}_{10}\text{B}_{10}$ versus $\text{A}_{10}$. At one extreme, B stickers directly interact with A stickers ($\epsilon_{\text{AB}} \approx -3$ and $\epsilon_{\text{AA}|\text{B}} = 0$); and at the other extreme, their only role is to be enhancers of A-A interactions ($\epsilon_{\text{AB}} = 0$ and $\epsilon_{\text{AA}|\text{B}} \approx -5$). Accordingly, we quantify the impact of changing the sticker valence $n_{\text{A}}$ and $n_{\text{B}}$ for different interaction paradigms. We investigated four sets of parameters: $\{\epsilon_{\text{AB}}, \epsilon_{\text{AA}|\text{B}}\} = \{-3, 0\}, \{-2, -2.5\}, \{-1, -4\}, \{0, -5\}$ because these parameter sets lead to $r \approx 10^{-2}$ (**Figure \[fig:params\](b)**).
![\[fig:stickerno\] Sticker numbers and percolation concentrations. (a) Variation of $c_{\text{perc}}$ as a function of valence for the symmetric system where $n_{\text{A}} = n_{\text{B}}$. Each curve corresponds to a different combination of $\epsilon_{\text{AB}}$ and $\epsilon_{\text{AA}|\text{B}}$ (see legend). (b) Variation of $c_{\text{perc}}$ as a function of $n_{\text{B}}$ for systems with different $n_{\text{A}}$ (see legend). For all systems, $\epsilon_{\text{AB}} = -1$ and $\epsilon_{\text{AA}|\text{B}} = -4$.](fig4){width="86mm"}
The mean-field model (**Equation \[eq:MFT\]**) predicts that $c_{\text{perc}}$ decreases when either $n_{\text{A}}$ or $n_{\text{B}}$ increases. This behavior is preserved in graph-based simulations when $n_{\text{A}}$ and $n_{\text{B}}$ simultaneously increase (**Figure \[fig:stickerno\](a)**). However, for fixed $n_{\text{A}}$, the absence or weakening of heterotypic A-B interactions leads to an increase in the percolation threshold by an order of magnitude as $n_{\text{B}}$ increases, and this cannot be compensated by increasing bond cooperativity. Further, the inclusion of bond cooperativity leads to changes in how $c_{\text{perc}}$ varies with $n_{\text{B}}$ for fixed $n_{\text{A}}$. These are analyzed for $\epsilon' = 0.5$ ($\epsilon_{\text{AB}} = -1$) and $\epsilon_{\text{AA}|\text{B}} = -4$ (**Figure S2** shows other cases). As shown in **Figure \[fig:stickerno\](b)**, $c_{\text{perc}}$ increases with increasing $n_{\text{B}}$ for $n_{\text{A}} = 4$; this derives from the paucity of A stickers. A surprising result is that $c_{\text{perc}}$ can also vary non-monotonically with increasing $n_{\text{B}}$ as is illustrated for $n_{\text{A}} = 8$ and $n_{\text{A}} = 12$. Specifically, as $n_{\text{B}}$ increases beyond $n_{\text{A}}$, the decrease of $c_{\text{perc}}$ is replaced by an increase of $c_{\text{perc}}$ as $n_{\text{B}}$ increases. These results arise because A-A interactions as opposed to A-B interactions are required for strong bond cooperativity. However, when $n_{\text{B}} > n_{\text{A}}$, more of the A stickers are consumed in entropically favored intra-cluster interactions with B stickers. This hinders inter-cluster interactions thereby inhibiting growth of the network and causing an increase in $c_{\text{perc}}$ vis-á-vis the situation where bond cooperativity is ignored. The implication is that positive bond cooperativity will enhance bond percolation when $n_{\text{B}} < n_{\text{A}}$ and weaken bond percolation when $n_{\text{B}} > n_{\text{A}}$.
Summary
=======
We have generalized extant mean-field models for bond percolation to quantify the effects of arbitrary numbers of sticker types and capture the interplay between homotypic and heterotypic sticker-sticker interactions. Using this model, we show that the joint valence of Tyr and Arg stickers combined with a small energetic advantage in Tyr-Arg interactions over Tyr-Tyr interactions is sufficient to explain experimental observations for proteins such as FUS.
Mean-field models overestimate the entropic cost associated with forming crosslinks when clusters are already present. Improved estimates for the entropic cost, generated using graph-based MC simulations, shows that the percolation threshold for the $\text{A}_{10}$ system can actually be lower than of the $\text{A}_{10}\text{B}_{10}$ system, especially when the strengths of A-B interactions are lower than those of A-A interactions.
We define positive bond cooperativity as the increased likelihood of forming a new $\text{A}_i$-$\text{A}_j$ bond given the prior formation of either an $\text{A}_i$-$\text{B}_k$ or $\text{A}_j$-$\text{B}_k$ bond. Strong positive bond cooperativity can fundamentally alter the dependence of $n_{\text{perc}}$ on sticker valence. In the regime where $n_{\text{B}} < n_{\text{A}}$, we predict that $c_{\text{perc}}$ decreases with increasing $n_{\text{B}}$. This behavior derives from the synergistic effects of A-B bond formation and bond cooperativity that enhances A-A interactions. However, in the regime where $n_{\text{B}} > n_{\text{A}}$, $c_{\text{perc}}$ increases with increasing $n_{\text{B}}$. In this scenario, strong positive bond cooperativity becomes refractory to bond percolation because these interactions trap the B stickers in small clusters that inhibit growth of the network.
The effects of bond cooperativity can be unmasked by engineering mismatches between the valence of aromatic stickers in PLDs and cationic stickers in RBDs in systems such as FUS. It is also noteworthy that previous analysis of disordered proteins across the human proteome shows that $n_{\text{Arg}} \gtrsim n_{\text{Tyr}}$ [@WANG2018688] in most sequences. Investigating how $c_{\text{perc}}$ or $c_{\text{sat}}$ changes across disordered proteins that have similar values of $n_{\text{Tyr}}$ and differences in $n_{\text{Arg}}$ should help unmask the contributions from bond cooperativity.
This work was supported by the Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea funded by the Ministry of Education (grant 2019R1A6A1A10073887 to JMC), the National Institutes of Health (grant 5R01NS056114 to RVP) and the St. Jude Research Collaborative on membraneless organelles (RVP). We thank Hyunkyu Choi, Stephan Grill, Alex Holehouse, and Christoph Zechner for helpful discussions.
[^1]: Details of the main derivation are in the **Supplemental Material**
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We investigate the response of the star formation efficiency (SFE) to the main parameters of simulations of molecular cloud formation by the collision of warm diffuse medium (WNM) cylindrical streams, neglecting stellar feedback and magnetic fields. The parameters we vary are the Mach number of the inflow velocity of the streams, ${M_{\rm s,inf}}$, the rms Mach number, ${M_{\rm s,bgd}}$ of the initial background turbulence in the WNM, and the total mass contained in the colliding gas streams, ${{\cal M}_{\rm inf}}$. Because the SFE is a function of time, we define two estimators for it, the “absolute” SFE, measured at $t = 25$ Myr into the simulation’s evolution ([SFE$_{\rm abs,25}$]{}), and the “relative” SFE, measured 5 Myr after the onset of star formation in each simulation ([SFE$_{\rm rel,5}$]{}). The latter is close to the “star formation rate per free-fall time” for gas at $ n = 100 {{\rm ~cm}^{-3}}$. We find that both estimators decrease with increasing ${{\cal M}_{\rm inf}}$, although by no more than a factor of 2 as ${M_{\rm s,inf}}$ increases from 1.25 to 3.5. Increasing levels of background turbulence (injected at scales comparable to the streams’ transverse radius) similarly reduce the SFE, because the turbulence disrupts the coherence of the colliding streams, fragmenting the cloud, and producing small-scale clumps scattered through the numerical box, which have low SFEs. Finally, the SFE is very sensitive to the mass of the inflows (at roughly constant density and temperature), with [SFE$_{\rm rel,5}$]{} decreasing from $\sim 0.4$ to $\sim 0.04$ as the mass in the colliding streams decreases from $\sim 2.3 \times 10^4 {M_\odot}$ to $\sim
600 {M_\odot}$ or, equivalently, the virial parameter $\alpha$ increases from $\sim 0.15$ to $\sim 1.5$. This trend is in partial agreement with the prediction by @KM05, since the latter lies within the same range as the observed efficiencies, but with a significantly shallower slope. We conclude that the observed variability of the SFE is a highly sensitive function of the parameters of the cloud formation process, and may be the cause of significant scatter in observational determinations.
author:
- |
Yetli Rosas-Guevara$^{1}$ [^1], Enrique [Vázquez-Semadeni]{}$^{1}$ [^2], Gilberto C. Gómez$^1$ [^3], and A.-Katharina Jappsen$^2$ [^4]\
$^{1}$Centro de Radioastronomía y Astrofísica, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Apdo. Postal 3-72, Morelia, 58089, México\
$^2$School of Physics & Astronomy, Cardiff University, Queens Buildings, The Parade, Cardiff CF24 3AA, UK
title: Dependence of the Star Formation Efficiency on the Parameters of Molecular Cloud Formation Simulations
---
\[firstpage\]
interstellar matter – stars: formation – turbulence
Introduction {#sec:Intro}
============
The control of the star formation efficiency (SFE) by turbulence is a central issue in our present understanding of star formation, and currently a topic of intense study [see, e.g., the reviews by @MK04; @MO07]. In recent years, several groups have studied the SFE of molecular clouds (MCs) using numerical simulations of isothermal turbulence, in which the entire numerical box represents the interior of a molecular cloud [see, e.g., the reviews by @MK04; @BP_etal07; @VS07]. One confusing issue is that simulations of [*driven*]{} turbulence seem to indicate that the SFE [*decreases*]{} as the turbulent rms Mach number ${M_{\rm s}}$ increases [e.g., @KHM00; @VBK03; @VKB05], while simulations of [*decaying*]{} turbulence suggest that the SFE [*increases*]{} with increasing ${M_{\rm s}}$ [@NL05]. This has prompted the question of how does turbulence actually originate and behave in real MCs. To answer this question, it has become necessary to investigate the entire evolutionary process of MCs.
The formation of MCs by collisions of warm neutral medium (WNM) streams has been intensely studied in recent years. A vast body of numerical simulations has shown that moderate, transonic compressions in the WNM can nonlinearly trigger a phase transition to the cold neutral medium (CNM) [e.g., @HP99; @KI00; @KI02; @WF00], and that the dense gas produced by this mechanism is overpressured with respect to the mean WNM thermal pressure [@VS_etal06] and turbulent, due to the combined action of Kelvin-Helmholz, thermal [@Field65] and nonlinear thin-shell [@Vishniac94] instabilities [@Heitsch_etal05; @Heitsch_etal06]. The turbulence produced by this mechanism is continually driven for as long as the compression lasts.
The physical scenario of MC evolution was outlined by @HBB01, who estimated the column densities necessary for the cloud to become self-gravitating, molecular, and magnetically supercritical, finding them to be comparable. The one-dimensional physical conditions in the dense gas were calculated analytically by @HP99 and @VS_etal06. A recent review of the subject has been presented by @HMV08.
More recently, simulations including self-gravity and “sink particles”, which represent gravitationally collapsed objects (stars or stellar clusters), and using finite-duration compressions in the WNM, although lacking stellar feedback and magnetic fields, have been used to study the evolution of the turbulent motions and of the SFE in a self-consistent manner [@VS_etal07 hereafter Paper I]. Concerning the velocity dispersion in the clouds, these authors found that the turbulence is intermediate between driven and decaying, since what decays is the driving rate of the turbulence as the inflows weaken with time. However, they also found that the random motions are gradually replaced by global infall motions, as the cloud begins to contract gravitationally. Concerning the SFE, Paper I measured the masses of dense gas ${{\cal M}_{\rm dense}}$ and of the collapsed stellar objects ${{\cal M}_{\rm stars}}$ in the simulations, allowing a measurement of the SFE, defined as $$\hbox{SFE} = \frac{{{\cal M}_{\rm stars}}}{{{\cal M}_{\rm dense}}+ {{\cal M}_{\rm stars}}}.
\label{eq:SFE_def}$$ The resulting SFE was however too high, reaching $\sim 50$% roughly 6 Myr after the time at which star formation (SF) had begun (denoted ${t_{\rm SF}}$), although this excessive SFE can possibly be attributed to the neglect of stellar feedback in that simulation. Indeed, Paper I estimated, using a prescription by @FST94 and a standard IMF [@Kroupa01], that by 3 Myr after ${t_{\rm SF}}$, enough massive stars would have formed as to be able to destroy the cloud by ionization. At that point, the SFE was $\sim 15$%, closer to the typical values $\la 5$% reported observationally for full MC complexes [@Myers_etal86].
One obvious possible reason for the relatively high values of the SFE obtained in this type of simulations is the neglect of stellar feedback and magnetic fields. However, it is also of interest to perform a more systematic investigation of the degree of variability that the SFE could exhibit within the scenario of Paper I, simply by varying the parameters of the WNM compressions triggering the formation of the cloud complex. In this paper we undertake a first approach to such task, by varying three parameters of the WNM stream collisions modeled in the simulations. First, we consider the inflow speed ${v_{\rm inf}}$ and the velocity dispersion of the background turbulence initially present in the medium, both measured by their respective Mach numbers, ${M_{\rm s,inf}}$ and ${M_{\rm s,bgd}}$, with respect to the unperturbed WNM. Subsequently, we consider the mass in the colliding streams ${{\cal M}_{\rm inf}}$, as determined by their radius ${R_{\rm inf}}$ and length ${l_{\rm inf}}$. Since the parameter space covered by these three parameters is already quite large, in this work we do not consider variations in the collision angle of the streams, instead having them collide head-on in all cases.
The paper is organized as follows. In §\[sec:the\_model\] we describe the numerical model and experiments. In §\[sec:results\] we present our results, and in §\[sec:conclusions\] we present a summary and our conclusions.
Numerical model and experiments {#sec:the_model}
===============================
For the numerical simulations, we use the same numerical setup as that used in Paper I, except that we now use the smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH) + $N$-body code Gadget-2 [@Springel05] (in Paper I we used the previous version of the code, Gadget), modified to include random turbulence driving and sink particles according to the prescription of @Jappsen_etal05, and including parameterized heating and cooling, as applied in Paper I, using the fit of @KI02 to a variety of atomic and molecular cooling processes. This cooling function causes the gas to be thermally unstable, under the isobaric mode, in the density range $ 1 \la n
\la 10 {{\rm ~cm}^{-3}}$. We assume that the gas is all atomic[^5], with a mean atomic weight of 1.27. The numerical box is periodic, with size ${L_{\rm box}}$. In all cases, we use $118^3 = 1.64 \times 10^6$ particles, and set the mean number of particles within a smoothing volume to 40. According to the criterion of @BB97, the mass resolution is twice the number of particles within a smoothing volume, or $\sim 80$ times the mass per particle. The critical density for sink formation is set at $3.2
\times 10^7 {{\rm ~cm}^{-3}}$, and the outer sink accretion radius is set at 0.04 pc.
An initial turbulent velocity field of one-dimensional velocity dispersion, characterized by its rms Mach number ${M_{\rm s,bgd}}$ and applied at scales between 1/4 and 1/8 of the box size, is added to the inflow velocity field, in order to trigger the instabilities that render the cloud turbulent. Note that this added turbulent velocity field is applied by turning on the random driver for the first few timesteps of the simulation’s evolution, and that what we actually control is the energy injection rate parameter. Thus, simulations intended to have the same turbulence strength do so only approximately, as the flow’s response is slightly different in every realization.
The initial conditions consist of a uniform medium at $n = 1 {{\rm ~cm}^{-3}}$ and $T = 5000$ K, in which two cylinders of length ${l_{\rm inf}}$ along the $x$ direction and radius ${R_{\rm inf}}$ are set to collide head-on at the $x =
{L_{\rm box}}/2$ plane of the simulation (refer to Fig. 1 of Paper I). Note that the cylindrical inflows are entirely contained within the numerical box, since the boundaries are periodic. The length ${l_{\rm inf}}$ is measured from the central collision plane, and is always shorter than the half-length of the box, implying that a small region between the edge of the inflows and the box boundaries is not given any velocity. This region is partially evacuated during the subsequent evolution of the simulations, as the gas within it tends to fill the void left by the inflows.
Table \[tab:run\_params\] shows the various runs we performed for the present study, indicating the relevant parameters for each one. In addition to the inflow length, radius, and velocity, defined above, Table \[tab:run\_params\] gives the Mach number ${M_{\rm s,inf}}$ corresponding to ${v_{\rm inf}}$ at the initial temperature of the gas, for which the adiabatic sound speed is $7.54 {{\rm ~km~s}^{-1}}$, the one-dimensional rms Mach number of the initial turbulent motions, ${M_{\rm s,bgd}}$, the total mass contained in the simulation box, ${{\cal M}_{\rm box}}$, the mass contained in the two inflows, ${{\cal M}_{\rm inf}}$, and the mass per SPH particle, ${\cal M}_{\rm
part}$. The runs are labeled mnemonically, with their names giving, in that orded, the inflow Mach number ${M_{\rm s,inf}}$, the background Mach number ${M_{\rm s,bgd}}$, and the inflow mass, ${{\cal M}_{\rm inf}}$.
Note that run Mi1-Mb.02-Ma2e4 has the same parameters as run L256$\Delta v$0.17 from Paper I, and we take these as the “fiducial” set of parameters. Note, however, that these two runs are not identical because they were performed with different codes. Gadget-2 differs in many ways from Gadget, and in particular it takes longer timesteps, implying that the initial forcing (used to trigger the instabilities in the dense layer) is applied at different time intervals, and with different random seeds. Thus, the two runs are similar only in a statistical sense, but are not identical. For reference, in Fig. \[fig:run4\_img\] we show a face-on view of Mi1-Mb.02-Ma2e4 at the time when it is beginning to form stars, showing that the general morphology it develops is similar to that of run L256$\Delta v$0.17 from Paper I (compare to Fig. 4 of that paper, noting that the linear scales shown are different in each figure).
![Face-on image in projection of run Mi1-Mb.02-Ma2e4 at the time it is beginning to form stars. Note the central ring and the radial filaments, charactristic of this type of runs (Paper I).[]{data-label="fig:run4_img"}](fig1.eps){width="1.\hsize"}
We report the SFE as defined by eq. (\[eq:SFE\_def\]), with the “dense” gas defined as that with number density $n \ge 100
{{\rm ~cm}^{-3}}$. However, because the SFE is actually a function of time, and sink formation begins at different times in different runs, in order to report a [*number*]{} for the SFE, we estimate it in two different ways. One is to measure the “absolute” SFE 25 Myr after the start of the simulation, which we denote as [SFE$_{\rm abs,25}$]{}. The other is to measure the “relative” SFE, which we define as the SFE 5 Myr after the onset of star formation in the simulation, and which we denote as [SFE$_{\rm rel,5}$]{}. This is actually close to the “star formation rate per free-fall time”, SFR$_{\rm ff}$ (after SF has begun), as defined by @KM05, since the free-fall time for gas at $n \sim 100 {{\rm ~cm}^{-3}}$ is $\sim 4.6$ Myr.
Results {#sec:results}
=======
SFE vs. inflow velocity {#sec:SFE_vs_vinf}
-----------------------
In this section, we consider the dependence of the SFE on the inflow velocity of the colliding streams, ${v_{\rm inf}}$. Figure \[fig:Mg\_Ms\_of\_t\_vs\_vinf\] shows the evolution of the dense gas mass ([*top panel*]{}) and the sink mass ([*bottom panel*]{}) for runs Mi1-Mb.02-Ma2e4, Mi2-Mb.02-Ma2e4, and Mi3-Mb.02-Ma2e4. These runs have all parameters equal, except for the speed of the inflows (cf. Table \[tab:run\_params\]), which are varied from ${M_{\rm s,inf}}= 1.25$ in Mi1-Mb.02-Ma2e4 to ${M_{\rm s,inf}}= 3.5$ in Mi3-Mb.02-Ma2e4. Note that the time at which the runs begin to form sinks, ${t_{\rm SF}}$, is different in each case. The [*top panels*]{} of Fig.\[fig:SFE\_of\_t\_vs\_vinf\] then show the SFE, defined as in eq.(\[eq:SFE\_def\]). The [*top left panel*]{} shows [SFE$_{\rm abs,25}$]{}, i.e., starting from the beginning of the simulation, and up to a total time of 25 Myr. The [*top right panel*]{} shows the SFE starting from the time at which sink formation begins in each run, allowing one to read off [SFE$_{\rm rel,5}$]{}.
![Evolution of the dense gas mass ([*left panel*]{}) and sink mass ([*right panel*]{}) for runs Mi1-Mb.02-Ma2e4, Mi2-Mb.02-Ma2e4, and Mi3-Mb.02-Ma2e4, which differ only by the Mach number of the inflows (indicated by the “Mi\#” entry in the run’s name), having ${M_{\rm s,inf}}= 1.25$, 2.5 and 3.5 respectively.[]{data-label="fig:Mg_Ms_of_t_vs_vinf"}](fig2a.eps "fig:"){width="0.45\hsize"} ![Evolution of the dense gas mass ([*left panel*]{}) and sink mass ([*right panel*]{}) for runs Mi1-Mb.02-Ma2e4, Mi2-Mb.02-Ma2e4, and Mi3-Mb.02-Ma2e4, which differ only by the Mach number of the inflows (indicated by the “Mi\#” entry in the run’s name), having ${M_{\rm s,inf}}= 1.25$, 2.5 and 3.5 respectively.[]{data-label="fig:Mg_Ms_of_t_vs_vinf"}](fig2b.eps "fig:"){width="0.45\hsize"}
![[*Top panels:*]{} Evolution of the “absolute” SFE ([SFE$_{\rm abs,25}$]{}, [*left*]{}), shown out to 25 Myr after the start of the runs, and the “relative” SFE ([*right*]{}), shown from the onset of sink formation, for runs Mi1-Mb.02-Ma2e4, Mi2-Mb.02-Ma2e4, and Mi3-Mb.02-Ma2e4. [SFE$_{\rm rel,5}$]{} is the value of this curve at a relative time of 5 Myr. [*Bottom panel:*]{} Evolution of the one-dimensional velocity dispersion perpendicular to the direction of the inflows for the same three runs.[]{data-label="fig:SFE_of_t_vs_vinf"}](fig3a.eps "fig:"){width="0.5\hsize"} ![[*Top panels:*]{} Evolution of the “absolute” SFE ([SFE$_{\rm abs,25}$]{}, [*left*]{}), shown out to 25 Myr after the start of the runs, and the “relative” SFE ([*right*]{}), shown from the onset of sink formation, for runs Mi1-Mb.02-Ma2e4, Mi2-Mb.02-Ma2e4, and Mi3-Mb.02-Ma2e4. [SFE$_{\rm rel,5}$]{} is the value of this curve at a relative time of 5 Myr. [*Bottom panel:*]{} Evolution of the one-dimensional velocity dispersion perpendicular to the direction of the inflows for the same three runs.[]{data-label="fig:SFE_of_t_vs_vinf"}](fig3b.eps "fig:"){width="0.5\hsize"} ![[*Top panels:*]{} Evolution of the “absolute” SFE ([SFE$_{\rm abs,25}$]{}, [*left*]{}), shown out to 25 Myr after the start of the runs, and the “relative” SFE ([*right*]{}), shown from the onset of sink formation, for runs Mi1-Mb.02-Ma2e4, Mi2-Mb.02-Ma2e4, and Mi3-Mb.02-Ma2e4. [SFE$_{\rm rel,5}$]{} is the value of this curve at a relative time of 5 Myr. [*Bottom panel:*]{} Evolution of the one-dimensional velocity dispersion perpendicular to the direction of the inflows for the same three runs.[]{data-label="fig:SFE_of_t_vs_vinf"}](fig3c.eps "fig:"){width="0.5\hsize"}
From the [*top right panel*]{} of Fig. \[fig:SFE\_of\_t\_vs\_vinf\] we see that the mean slope of the curve SFE$(t)$, denoted [$\langle\dot{\rm SFE}\rangle$]{}, decreases, although moderately, with increasing ${M_{\rm s,inf}}$. It is interesting, however, that all three runs form stars at roughly the same rate (i.e., the slopes of the curves in the [*right panel*]{} of Fig. \[fig:Mg\_Ms\_of\_t\_vs\_vinf\], which give the mass accretion rate onto the sinks, and which we identify with the star formation rate, SFR, are all similar).[^6] The decrease in [$\langle\dot{\rm SFE}\rangle$]{} is thus due to the larger mass growth rate of the cloud induced by the larger inflow velocities (Fig.\[fig:Mg\_Ms\_of\_t\_vs\_vinf\], [*top*]{}), not to a smaller SFR.
The larger-mass clouds appear to be incapable of forming stars at a proportionally larger rate because the larger inflow velocity produces larger turbulent velocity dispersions ${v_{\rm rms}}$ in the clouds,[^7] which have been shown to reduce the SFR in simulations of driven turbulence [e.g., @KHM00; @VBK03; @MK04; @VKB05]. This is illustrated in the [*bottom*]{} panel of Fig. \[fig:SFE\_of\_t\_vs\_vinf\], which shows the evolution of the one-dimensional ${v_{\rm rms}}$ perpendicular to the direction of the inflows for the same three runs.[^8] The trends of [SFE$_{\rm abs,25}$]{}, [SFE$_{\rm rel,5}$]{}, and ${v_{\rm rms}}$ with the inflow speed are summarized in Fig.\[fig:sfe\_vs\_vinf\]. In this figure, ${v_{\rm rms}}$ is measured for Run Mi1-Mb.02-Ma2e4 at the time when it exhibits a minimum in the [*bottom*]{} panel of Fig. \[fig:SFE\_of\_t\_vs\_vinf\], i.e., $t=8$ Myr. This is equivalent to $\sim 2/3~{t_{\rm cros}}$, where ${t_{\rm cros}}\equiv {l_{\rm inf}}/{v_{\rm inf}}$ is the [*inflow crossing time*]{}, the time taken by the tail of the inflowing cylinders to reach the collision plane. We do this in an attempt to capture the true velocity dispersion in the cloud after the initial transients have ended, but before global collapse sets in. The latter is indicated by the smooth rise in ${v_{\rm rms}}$ for this run during the time interval $9 \la t \la 23$ Myr. Then, for consistency, we measure ${v_{\rm rms}}$ for the other two runs also at 2/3 of their own ${t_{\rm cros}}$.
![Dependence of [SFE$_{\rm abs,25}$]{} and [SFE$_{\rm rel,5}$]{} on the inflow speed for runs Mi1-Mb.02-Ma2e4, Mi2-Mb.02-Ma2e4, and Mi3-Mb.02-Ma2e4. Both SFEs are seen to decrease with increasing ${v_{\rm inf}}$, apparently due to an increase of the turbulent velocity dispersion ${v_{\rm rms}}$ as the inflow speed increases, which in turn reduces the SFR.[]{data-label="fig:sfe_vs_vinf"}](fig4.eps){width="1.\hsize"}
SFE vs. background turbulence strength {#sec:SFE_vs_Mrms}
--------------------------------------
We now consider the response of the SFE to the amplitude of the initial turbulent velocity field. Note that this field was not originally intended to produce density condensations on its own, but just to sufficiently disorganize the inflow velocity field as to trigger the instabilities that render the cloud turbulent. However, in the cases of stronger turbulence, we do observe clump formation everywhere in the box as a result of the initial background turbulence, and not just at the collision site of the inflows.
Figure \[fig:SFEt\_vs\_vrms\] shows the evolution of the SFE for runs Mi1-Mb.11-Ma2e4, Mi1-Mb.27-Ma2e4, Mi1-Mb.02-Ma2e4 and Mi0-Mb.10-Ma2e4. The first three runs differ only in the strength of the initial turbulence, measured by ${M_{\rm s,bgd}}$ (cf. Table \[tab:run\_params\]). The last run has nearly the same value of ${M_{\rm s,bgd}}$ as Mi1-Mb.11-Ma2e4, but with no inflow velocity, in order to assess the amount of star formation induced solely by the turbulent field, in the absence of colliding streams.
![Evolution of the “absolute” SFE ([SFE$_{\rm abs,25}$]{}, [*left panel*]{}) and the “relative” SFE ([*right panel*]{}) for four runs, characterized by various values of the initial background turbulent Mach number ${M_{\rm s,bgd}}$, indicated by the entry “Mb.\#\#” in the runs’ names. Three of the runs have the same inflow Mach number, ${{\cal M}_{\rm inf}}= 1.25$, while the fourth run has no inflows (${{\cal M}_{\rm inf}}= 0$), in order to assess the SFE due exclusively to the initial background turbulence.[]{data-label="fig:SFEt_vs_vrms"}](fig5a.eps "fig:"){width="0.5\hsize"} ![Evolution of the “absolute” SFE ([SFE$_{\rm abs,25}$]{}, [*left panel*]{}) and the “relative” SFE ([*right panel*]{}) for four runs, characterized by various values of the initial background turbulent Mach number ${M_{\rm s,bgd}}$, indicated by the entry “Mb.\#\#” in the runs’ names. Three of the runs have the same inflow Mach number, ${{\cal M}_{\rm inf}}= 1.25$, while the fourth run has no inflows (${{\cal M}_{\rm inf}}= 0$), in order to assess the SFE due exclusively to the initial background turbulence.[]{data-label="fig:SFEt_vs_vrms"}](fig5b.eps "fig:"){width="0.5\hsize"}
From these figures, we see that ${t_{\rm SF}}$ becomes longer and [$\langle\dot{\rm SFE}\rangle$]{}becomes smaller as larger values of ${M_{\rm s,bgd}}$ are considered. This appears to be due to the stronger fragmentation induced by the turbulent velocity field, which in the extreme case of Mi1-Mb.27-Ma2e4 almost obliterates the inflows, and produces scattered clumps througout the simulation box, with very little remaining of the cloud formed by the inflows, as illustrated in Fig.\[fig:runs3\_11\_img\], [*left panel*]{}.
It is also worth noting that run Mi0-Mb.10-Ma2e4, which has no inflows, has a much larger ${t_{\rm SF}}$ and a lower [$\langle\dot{\rm SFE}\rangle$]{} than run Mi1-Mb.11-Ma2e4, which differs from the former only in the presence of the inflows. As shown in Fig. \[fig:runs3\_11\_img\], this run also produces scattered clumps throughout the numerical box, although not as profusely as Mi1-Mb.27-Ma2e4. So, we conclude that sink formation is still dominated by the colliding streams in Mi1-Mb.11-Ma2e4, although a small fraction of the sinks is contributed by the global turbulence.
Figure \[fig:sfe\_vs\_Mrms\] summarises the results of this section. A clear trend of a decreasing SFE (seen in both [SFE$_{\rm abs,25}$]{} and [SFE$_{\rm rel,5}$]{}) with increasing ${M_{\rm s,bgd}}$ is seen, which we interpret as a result of the reduction of the fragment mass with increasing turbulence strength [at constant total mass; @BP_etal06], and of the fact that smaller-mass fragments tend to have smaller SFEs (§\[sec:SFE\_vs\_Rinf\]).
![Face-on images (in projection) of Mi1-Mb.27-Ma2e4 ([*left panel*]{}) and Mi0-Mb.10-Ma2e4 ([*right panel*]{}) at the time each one is beginning to form stars. Note the scattered structure, due to the turbulence forming clumps throughout the numerical box. In run Mi1-Mb.27-Ma2e4, in which the colliding streams are present, the turbulence almost completely obliterates the “main” cloud formed by the streams.[]{data-label="fig:runs3_11_img"}](fig6a.eps "fig:"){width="0.45\hsize"} ![Face-on images (in projection) of Mi1-Mb.27-Ma2e4 ([*left panel*]{}) and Mi0-Mb.10-Ma2e4 ([*right panel*]{}) at the time each one is beginning to form stars. Note the scattered structure, due to the turbulence forming clumps throughout the numerical box. In run Mi1-Mb.27-Ma2e4, in which the colliding streams are present, the turbulence almost completely obliterates the “main” cloud formed by the streams.[]{data-label="fig:runs3_11_img"}](fig6b.eps "fig:"){width="0.45\hsize"}
![Dependence of [SFE$_{\rm abs,25}$]{} and [SFE$_{\rm rel,5}$]{} on the rms Mach number, ${M_{\rm s,bgd}}$, of the initial (background) turbulent velocity perturbations. Both indicators are seen to decrease with increasing ${M_{\rm s,bgd}}$ as a consequence of the progressively stronger fragmentation induced by the turbulence.[]{data-label="fig:sfe_vs_Mrms"}](fig7.eps){width="1.\hsize"}
SFE vs. inflow mass {#sec:SFE_vs_Rinf}
-------------------
The last dependence of the SFE we analyse is on the mass content of the colliding inflows. So, we consider inflows of various radii. However, since a very narrow inflow is necessarily more poorly resolved, we consider smaller simulation boxes in two of the cases, in order to better resolve the resulting clouds. Specifically, as shown in Table \[tab:run\_params\], ${R_{\rm inf}}$ in run Mi1-Mb.02-Ma5e3 is half that in Mi1-Mb.02-Ma2e4. Run Mi1-Mb.06-Ma2e3 has ${R_{\rm inf}}$ equal to that of Mi1-Mb.02-Ma5e3, but half the length, since the numerical box size of the former is half that of the latter. Finally, Mi1-Mb.06-Ma6e2 has ${R_{\rm inf}}$ equal to half that of Mi1-Mb.06-Ma2e3. So, the total mass contained in the inflows of runs Mi1-Mb.02-Ma2e4, Mi1-Mb.02-Ma5e3, Mi1-Mb.06-Ma2e3 and Mi1-Mb.06-Ma6e2 is, respectively, $2.26 \times
10^4$, $5.64 \times 10^3$, $2.42 \times 10^3$, and $6.04 \times 10^2
{M_\odot}$.
Figure \[fig:SFEt\_vs\_rcyl\] shows the evolution of [SFE$_{\rm abs,25}$]{} and [SFE$_{\rm rel,5}$]{} for these runs. We see that there is a general trend for the SFE, in both its forms, to increase with the total mass involved in the stream collision. There is only a reversal to this trend in the relative SFE between runs Mi1-Mb.02-Ma2e4 and Mi1-Mb.02-Ma5e3 because the latter has a large early maximum of [SFE$_{\rm rel,5}$]{}, although later it decreases, in a period of mass accumulation in the cloud at low SFR. Other than that, the trend is general, as shown in Fig. \[fig:sfe\_vs\_Mcyl\].
It is important to note that for all runs in this series we used the same energy injection rate of the turbulence driver. However, runs Mi1-Mb.06-Ma6e2 and Mi1-Mb.06-Ma2e3, performed in a smaller computational box, have an initial, background rms turbulent Mach number that is roughly 2.5 times larger than that of runs Mi1-Mb.02-Ma2e4 and Mi1-Mb.02-Ma5e3. This may additionally reduce the SFE because of the additional fragmentation it produces, but we see that the trend of the SFE to decrease with decreasing inflow mass holds generally even at the same physical box size, so the result appears robust.
![Evolution of the “absolute” SFE ([SFE$_{\rm abs,25}$]{}, [*left panel*]{}) and the “relative” SFE ([*right panel*]{}) for runs Mi1-Mb.02-Ma2e4, Mi1-Mb.02-Ma5e3, Mi1-Mb.06-Ma2e3, and Mi1-Mb.06-Ma6e2. The radius of the cylindrical inflows for these runs is respectively 32, 16, 16, and 8 pc. Runs Mi1-Mb.02-Ma2e4 and Mi1-Mb.02-Ma5e3 are performed in a 256-pc box, with inflow length 112 pc, while runs Mi1-Mb.06-Ma6e2 and Mi1-Mb.06-Ma2e3 are performed in a 128-pc box with the same number of SPH particles (thus being better resolved) and a 48-pc inflow length.[]{data-label="fig:SFEt_vs_rcyl"}](fig8a.eps "fig:"){width="0.5\hsize"}![Evolution of the “absolute” SFE ([SFE$_{\rm abs,25}$]{}, [*left panel*]{}) and the “relative” SFE ([*right panel*]{}) for runs Mi1-Mb.02-Ma2e4, Mi1-Mb.02-Ma5e3, Mi1-Mb.06-Ma2e3, and Mi1-Mb.06-Ma6e2. The radius of the cylindrical inflows for these runs is respectively 32, 16, 16, and 8 pc. Runs Mi1-Mb.02-Ma2e4 and Mi1-Mb.02-Ma5e3 are performed in a 256-pc box, with inflow length 112 pc, while runs Mi1-Mb.06-Ma6e2 and Mi1-Mb.06-Ma2e3 are performed in a 128-pc box with the same number of SPH particles (thus being better resolved) and a 48-pc inflow length.[]{data-label="fig:SFEt_vs_rcyl"}](fig8b.eps "fig:"){width="0.5\hsize"}
![Dependence of [SFE$_{\rm abs,25}$]{} and [SFE$_{\rm rel,5}$]{} on the inflows’ mass. A general trend for the SFE to increase with inflow mass is observed.[]{data-label="fig:sfe_vs_Mcyl"}](fig9.eps){width="1.\hsize"}
The trend discused above can be put in the context of the theory of @KM05 [hereafter KM05] for the [SFR$_{\rm ff}$]{}. This theory predicts a dependence of the [SFR$_{\rm ff}$]{} on the virial parameter $\alpha$ and the rms Mach number ${M_{\rm s}}$. Here, $$\alpha \equiv 2 {E_{\rm kin}}/|{E_{\rm grav}}|,
\label{eq:alpha_def}$$ where ${E_{\rm kin}}= {\cal M} \Delta v^2/2$ is the cloud’s kinetic energy, ${\cal M}$ is the cloud’s mass, $\Delta v$ is its rms turbulent velocity dispersion, and ${E_{\rm grav}}$ is the cloud’s gravitational energy.
For our flattened clouds, we compute the gravitational energy assuming they can be approximated as infinitely thin, uniform disks of radius $R$, and write $${E_{\rm grav}}= \int_A \Sigma \phi~d^2 x = 2 \pi \Sigma \int_0^R r \phi(r) dr,
\label{eq:Eg_def}$$ where $A$ is the area of the disk, $\Sigma$ is the (uniform) surface density, and $\phi$ is the gravitational potential. In our case, the latter is given by [@WM42; @BH04] $$\phi(r) = -4 G \Sigma R E(r/R),
\label{eq:pot}$$ where $E$ is the second complete elliptic integral. Thus, the gravitational energy is $$\begin{aligned}
{E_{\rm grav}}&=& - 8 \pi G \Sigma^2 R \int_0^R r E(r/R) dr = -8 \pi G \Sigma^2 R^3
\int_0^1 x E(x) dx \nonumber \\
&=& - 8 \pi \left(\frac{28}{45}\right) G \Sigma^2 R^3.
\label{eq:Eg_calc}\end{aligned}$$
To compute the kinetic energy of the clouds, we note that the relevant velocity dispersion is the one produced in the clouds as a consequence of the inflow collision [@Heitsch_etal05; @VS_etal06], rather than the initial background turbulent velocity, which is much smaller. Since all four simulations analysed in this section have the same ${v_{\rm inf}}$, we use the value of ${v_{\rm rms}}$ measured for Run Mi1-Mb.02-Ma2e4 in §\[sec:SFE\_vs\_vinf\] (Fig. \[fig:sfe\_vs\_vinf\]) for all of them, namely ${v_{\rm rms}}=0.5 {{\rm ~km~s}^{-1}}$. Noting that this value is a one-dimensional velocity dispersion, we take $\Delta v = \sqrt{3}~{v_{\rm rms}}$.
We finally obtain, from equations (\[eq:alpha\_def\]) and (\[eq:Eg\_calc\]), $$\alpha = \frac{224 \pi R \Delta v^2}{45 G M}.
\label{eq:alpha_calc}$$ Figure \[fig:sfe\_vs\_alpha\] shows the results of this exercise. The [*solid*]{} line shows the simulation data, while the straight [*dotted*]{} line shows a least squares fit to them. The [*dashed*]{} line shows the result from @KM05, given by $$\hbox{{SFR$_{\rm ff}$}} \approx 0.014 \left(\frac{\alpha}{1.3} \right)^{-0.68} \left(
\frac{{M_{\rm s}}}{100} \right)^{-0.32},
\label{eq:SFE_KM05}$$ where we have taken ${M_{\rm s}}= \Delta v/{c_{\rm s}}$. We see that the prediction by KM05, although being numerically within the same range as the data, exhibits a significantly shallower slope. Specifically, the fit to our data has a slope $-1.12 \pm 0.37$, where the uncertainty is the $1\sigma$ error of the fit, while the slope of the KM05 prediction, $-0.68$, lies beyond this error. We discuss this result further in §\[sec:conclusions\].
![Dependence of [SFE$_{\rm rel,5}$]{} on the virial parameter $\alpha$. The straight [*dotted*]{} line shows a least squares fit to the simulation data, with slope $-1.12$, while the [*dashed*]{} line shows the result from @KM05, with slope $-0.68$.[]{data-label="fig:sfe_vs_alpha"}](fig10.eps){width="1.\hsize"}
Summary and discussion {#sec:conclusions}
======================
In this paper, we have considered the scenario of molecular cloud formation by WNM stream collisions, and investigated the dependence of the SFE on three parameters of this scenario, namely the inflow speed, the rms Mach number of the background medium, and the total mass contained in the inflows. Since the SFE, defined as in eq.(\[eq:SFE\_def\]), is a time-dependent function because the cloud continues to accrete mass from the WNM while it forms stars, we have considered two estimators of its time integral, namely the absolute SFE after 25 Myr from the start of the simulation, [SFE$_{\rm abs,25}$]{}, and the “relative” SFE, 5 Myr after the onset of SF in the cloud, denoted [SFE$_{\rm rel,5}$]{}.
We have found a wide range of values of these estimators as we vary the parameters of the simulations. In general, the SFE decreases, although moderately, with increasing inflow velocity. In particular, [SFE$_{\rm rel,5}$]{}decreases from $\sim 0.4$ to $\sim 0.2$ as ${M_{\rm s,inf}}$ increases from 1.25 to 3.5. Note that the runs in this case have similar SFRs, and the decrease in the SFE and [$\langle\dot{\rm SFE}\rangle$]{} is due to the faster increase in cloud mass rather than to a decrease in the SFR. That the SFR is similar in all three runs, in spite of the larger gas mass is probably due to the larger turbulent velocity dispersion in the dense gas caused by the larger inflow speed, which tends to inhibit the SFR, thus compensating the tendency to have a larger SFR due to the larger cloud masses.
Similarly, the SFE decreases with increasing background turbulence strength, as the latter progressively takes a dominant role in the production of the dense gas but, due to the relatively small scales at which the turbulence is excited, the clouds and clumps formed by it are significantly smaller than the cloud formed by the coherent stream collision. In this case, [SFE$_{\rm rel,5}$]{} decreases from $\sim 0.4$ to $\sim
0.03$ as the rms Mach number of the background turbulence increases from $\sim 0.02$ to $\sim 0.3$.
Finally, the SFE in general decreases with decreasing mass of the inflows (at constant ${v_{\rm inf}}$). This may be a consequence of the fact that clouds formed by the collision of our inflows always have roughly the same density, temperature, and velocity dispersion, so smaller clouds are more weakly gravitationally bound, a condition known to decrease the SFE [@Clark_etal05]. The end result is that [SFE$_{\rm rel,5}$]{} decreases from $\sim 0.4$ to $\sim 0.03$ as the mass in the colliding streams decreases from $\sim 2.3 \times 10^4 {M_\odot}$ to $\sim
600 {M_\odot}$. It is important to stress that this result is not at odds with the well known fact that the SFE [*increases*]{} as the object mass decreases from the mass scale of a giant molecular cloud (${\cal M} \sim
10^4$ – $10^6 {M_\odot}$, SFE $\sim 0.02$; Myers et al. 1986) to that of a cluster-forming core (${\cal M} \sim 10^3 {M_\odot}$; SFE $\sim 0.3$ – 0.5, Lada & Lada 2003), because in this case the cores’ mean densities are much larger than those of the GMCs, while in our case the mean densities of the various clouds are always comparable. Thus, our clouds do not conform to Larson’s (1981) density-size scaling.
The latter results, expressed in terms of the virial parameter $\alpha$, exhibit partial agreement with the prediction by KM05 for the dependence of the SFE after a free-fall time (what those authors called the star formation rate per free-fall time, or [SFR$_{\rm ff}$]{}), which is directly comparable to our [SFE$_{\rm rel,5}$]{}. Although their prediction, without any rescaling, lies in the same range of values as our observed efficiencies, it contains a much shallower dependence on $\alpha$ than we observe. This may be due to the fact that those authors assumed that the clouds were supported by turbulent pressure, possibly provided by stellar feedback, while our simulations lack such support. However, the notion of turbulent support has been questioned recently by @VS_etal08, and the low observed efficiency may be the result of the [*dispersal*]{} (rather than support) of the parent cloud by its stellar products [@HBB01]. More work is needed to determine the causes of the discrepancy. However, it is noteworthy that Run Mi1-Mb.06-Ma2e3, which has a value of $\alpha$ closest to unity, has a reasonably realistic value of [SFE$_{\rm rel,5}$]{}$ \sim 4$%.
We conclude that the SFE, even in the absence of further agents such as magnetic fields and stellar feedback, is a highly sensitive function of the parameters of the cloud formation process, and may be responsible for significant intrinsic scatter in observational determinations of the SFE.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
The numerical simulations were performed in the cluster at CRyA-UNAM acquired with CONACYT grants 36571-E and 47366-F to E.V.-S. G.C.G.acknowledges financial support from grants IN106809 (UNAM-PAPIIT) and J50402-F (CONACYT). A.-K.J. acknowledges support by the Human Resources and Mobility Programme of the European Community under the contract MEIF-CT-2006-039569.
[99]{}
Ballesteros-Paredes, J., Gazol, A., Kim, J., Klessen, R. S., Jappsen, A.-K., & Tejero, E. 2006, ApJ, 637, 384
Ballesteros-Paredes, J., Klessen, R. S., Mac Low, M.-M., & Vazquez-Semadeni, E. 2007, Protostars and Planets V, 63
Bate, M. R., & Burkert, A. 1997, MNRAS, 288, 1060
Burkert, A., & Hartmann, L.2004, ApJ, 616, 288
Clark, P. C., Bonnell, I. A., Zinnecker, H., & Bate, M. R. 2005, MNRAS, 359, 809
Field, G. B., 1965, ApJ, 142, 531
Franco, J. Shore, S. N., & Tenorio-Tagle, G. 1994, ApJ, 436, 795
Hartmann, L., Ballesteros-Paredes, J., & Bergin, E. A. 2001, ApJ, 562, 852
Heitsch, F., Burkert, A., Hartmann, L., Slyz, A. D. & Devriendt, J. E. G. 2005, ApJ, 633, L113
Heitsch, F., Slyz, A., Devriendt, J., Hartmann, L., & Burkert, A. 2006, ApJ, 648, 1052
F., [Hartmann]{} L. W., [Slyz]{} A. D., [Devriendt]{} J. E. G., [Burkert]{} A., 2008, ApJ, 674, 316
Hennebelle, P., Pérault, M., 1999, A&A, 351, 309
P., [Banerjee]{} R., [Vázquez-Semadeni]{} E., [Klessen]{} R., [Audit]{} E., 2008, A&A, 486, L43
Hennebelle, P., Mac Low, M.-M., & [Vázquez-Semadeni]{} 2007, in Structure Formation in the Universe: Galaxies, Stars, Planets, ed. G. Chabrier (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), in press (arXiv:0711.2417)
Jappsen, A.-K., Klessen, R. S., Larson, R. B., Li, Y., and Mac Low, M.-M. 2005, A&A, 435, 611
Klessen, R. S., Heitsch, F., & MacLow, M. M. 2000, ApJ, 535, 887
Koyama, H. & Inutsuka, S.-I. 2000, ApJ, 532, 980
Koyama, H. & Inutsuka, S.-I. 2002, ApJ, 564, L97
Kroupa, P. 2001, MNRAS, 322, 231
Krumholz, M. R., & McKee, C. F. 2005, ApJ, 630, 250 (KM05)
Heitsch, F., & Hartmann, L. 2008, ApJ, 689, 290
Lada, C. J., & Lada, E. A. 2003, ARAA, 41, 57
Larson, R. B. 1981, MNRAS, 194, 809
Mac Low, M.-M., & Klessen, R. S. 2004, Rev. Mod. Phys., 76, 125
McKee, C. F., & Ostriker, E. C. 2007, ARAA, 45, 565
Myers, P. C., Dame, T. M., Thaddeus, P., Cohen, R. S., Silverberg, R. F., Dwek, E. & Hauser, M. G. 1986, ApJ, 301, 398
Nakamura, F., & Li, Z.-Y. 2005, ApJ, 631, 411
Springel, V. 2005, MNRAS, 364, 1105
Vázquez-Semadeni, E. 2007, in Triggered Star Formation in a Turbulent ISM, eds. B. G. Elmegreen & J. Palous (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press), 292
Vázquez-Semadeni, E., Ballesteros-Paredes, J. & Klessen, R. 2003, ApJ, 585, L131
[Vázquez-Semadeni]{}, E., Kim, J. & [Ballesteros-Paredes]{}, J. 2005, ApJ, 630, L49
Vázquez-Semadeni, E., Ryu, D., Passot, T., González, R. F., & Gazol, A.., 2006, ApJ, 643, 245
[Vázquez-Semadeni]{}, E., Gómez, G. C., Jappsen, A. K., Ballesteros-Paredes, J., González, R. F., & Klessen, R. S. 2007, ApJ, 657, 870 (Paper I)
V[á]{}zquez-Semadeni, E., Gonz[á]{}lez, R. F., Ballesteros-Paredes, J., Gazol, A., & Kim, J. 2008, MNRAS, 390, 769
Vishniac, E. T. 1994, ApJ, 428, 186
Walder, R. & Folini, D. 2000, ApSS, 274, 343
Wyse, A. B., & Mayall, N. U.1942, ApJ, 95, 24
-------- ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- ------------------------ ------------------- ------------------- ----------------- ------------------------ ------------------------ -----------------------
Run Run ${L_{\rm box}}$ ${l_{\rm inf}}$ ${v_{\rm inf}}$ ${M_{\rm s,inf}}$ ${M_{\rm s,bgd}}$ ${R_{\rm inf}}$ ${{\cal M}_{\rm box}}$ ${{\cal M}_{\rm inf}}$ ${\cal M}_{\rm part}$
number name \[pc\] \[pc\] $[{{\rm ~km~s}^{-1}}]$ \[pc\] $[{M_\odot}]$ $[{M_\odot}]$ $[{M_\odot}]$
1 Mi1-Mb.11-Ma2e4 256 112 9.20 1.25 0.11 32 $5.25\times10^5$ $2.26 \times 10^4$ $0.32$
2 Mi2-Mb.11-Ma2e4 256 112 18.41 2.50 0.11 32 $5.25\times10^5$ $2.26 \times 10^4$ $0.32$
3 Mi1-Mb.27-Ma2e4 256 112 9.20 1.25 0.27 32 $5.25\times10^5$ $2.26 \times 10^4$ $0.32$
4 Mi1-Mb.02-Ma2e4 256 112 9.20 1.25 0.021 32 $5.25\times10^5$ $2.26 \times 10^4$ $0.32$
5 Mi2-Mb.02-Ma2e4 256 112 18.41 2.50 0.024 32 $5.25\times10^5$ $2.26 \times 10^4$ $0.32$
6 Mi3-Mb.02-Ma2e4 256 112 25.77 3.50 0.025 32 $5.25\times10^5$ $2.26 \times 10^4$ $0.32$
8 Mi1-Mb.02-Ma5e3 256 112 9.20 1.25 0.020 16 $5.25\times10^5$ $5.64 \times 10^3$ $0.32$
10 Mi1-Mb.06-Ma6e2 128 48 9.20 1.25 0.057 8 $6.57\times10^4$ $6.04 \times 10^2$ $0.04$
11 Mi0-Mb.10-Ma2e4 256 112 0. 0. 0.10 32 $5.25\times10^5$ $2.26 \times 10^4$ $0.32$
12 Mi1-Mb.06-Ma2e3 128 48 9.20 1.25 0.058 16 $6.57\times10^4$ $2.42 \times 10^3$ $0.04$
-------- ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- ------------------------ ------------------- ------------------- ----------------- ------------------------ ------------------------ -----------------------
: Run parameters[]{data-label="tab:run_params"}
\[lastpage\]
[^1]: E-mail: [email protected]
[^2]: E-mail: [email protected]
[^3]: E-mail: [email protected]
[^4]: E-mail:[email protected]
[^5]: Our “molecular clouds” are thus only so in the sense of density and temperature, but not of chemical composition.
[^6]: Note that, because the cloud’s mass is in general not constant in time, eq. (\[eq:SFE\_def\]) implies that ${{\cal M}_{\rm dense}}\times$[$\langle\dot{\rm SFE}\rangle$]{}$ \neq$ SFR.
[^7]: Note that this velocity dispersion, which is the [*response*]{} of the flow in its dense regions to the collision of the inflows, is different from the [*initial*]{} background turbulent velocity dispersion applied to the runs, measured by the parameter ${M_{\rm s,bgd}}$.
[^8]: Note that the velocity dispersions in this figure are significantly smaller than those reported in Figs. 5 (bottom panel) and 9 of Paper I. In that paper, those figures suffered from a typographical error, having the velocities erroneously multiplied by one too many factors of the velocity unit, $v_0 = 7.362
{{\rm ~km~s}^{-1}}$. Thus, the correct velocities in those figures are obtained by dividing by this factor.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The existence of static, spherically symmetric, self-gravitating scalar field solutions in the context of Born-Infeld gravity is explored. Upon a combination of analytical approximations and numerical methods, the equations for a free scalar field (without a potential term) are solved, verifying that the solutions recover the predictions of General Relativity far from the center but finding important new effects in the central regions. We find two classes of objects depending on the ratio between the Schwarzschild radius and a length scale associated to the Born-Infeld theory: massive solutions have a wormhole structure, with their throat at $r\approx 2M$, while for the lighter configurations the topology is Euclidean. The total energy density of these solutions exhibits a solitonic profile with a maximum peaked away from the center, and located at the throat whenever a wormhole exists. The geodesic structure and curvature invariants are analyzed for the various configurations considered.'
author:
- 'V. I. Afonso'
- 'Gonzalo J. Olmo'
- 'D. Rubiera-Garcia'
title: 'Scalar geons in Born-Infeld gravity'
---
Introduction
============
The notion of regular, self-gravitating fields in the context of gravitation has been at debate in the literature for decades, in particular grounded by the notion of *geon* (gravitational-electromagnetic entity) introduced by J. A. Wheeler in 1955 [@Wheeler; @LobosBook]. On its first version, geons were conjectured to exist as *balls of light*, namely, as electromagnetic beams with such a high intensity that they would be held together for very long times due to their own gravitational self-interaction. Equipped with the additional ingredient of non-trivial topologies, Misner and Wheeler initiated a pioneering approach where classical electric charges, masses and other particle-like properties would be explained as purely geometric phenomena [@MW]. They went forward to coin the *charge-without-charge* and *mass-without-mass* mechanisms, by which charge and mass would emerge as properties resulting from a sourceless flux trapped into the non-trivial topology of a wormhole.
In a broader sense, geons can be seen as solutions representing localized and non-dispersing lumps of energy held together by their own gravitational attraction, regardless of their staticity/dynamics [@Louko:2004ej], topology [@Olmo:2017qab], asymptotic structure [@Martinon:2017uyo], or presence/lack of horizons [@Olmo:2015bha]. The notion of geon thus bears a close resemblance to that of *soliton*, namely, non-perturbative configurations of field theory where non-linear and dissipative effects balance each other so as to allow for the existence of long-lived excitations of the fields (see [@SolBooks] for some books on the topic). Typically, solitons present a localized profile for their energy density and a non-trivial vacuum structure supporting different topological charges [@Topo-Sol] (though non-topological solitons exist as well, see for instance [@NTopo-Sol]), which provide a stabilizing mechanism, at least against weak perturbations. However, a number of theorems have been established forbidding the existence of soliton solutions in a large number of field theories [@TheoSol], though several approaches to circumvent them have also been developed, such as the introduction of non-canonical kinetic terms [@Non-canonical]. One of those theorems makes it impossible for such solitons to be supported by free gauge fields in four spacetime dimensions. Thus, it came as a big surprise when Bartnik and McKinnon [@BM] found particle-like solutions in the context of a Yang-Mills theory coupled to General Relativity (GR). Consequently, the discovery that gravity might stabilize solitons triggered a great deal of research on gravitational configurations with soliton-like features –see, for instance [@GravSol].
Scalar fields constitute another system that has been extensively discussed in the context of gravitating configurations (for a pioneering work, see [@Fisher]). In GR, most of the research in that direction has been devoted to seeking hairy black holes, namely, black holes with hair supported by scalar fields with different types of self-interactions [@HBS] (see also [@VolkovReview] for some recent reviews on such configurations). These objects represent extensions of the Kerr-Newman solution in the sense that, in addition to mass, charge, and angular momentum (the three quantities that emerge out of the uniqueness theorems and no-hair conjecture [@NH]), they are surrounded by a cloud of scalar matter whose precise characterization is required in order to accurately describe their properties [@KNhair]. In particular, its presence allows for the existence of new phenomena such as superradiance [@Superradiance], which may trigger a “black hole bomb" instability [@BBB]). In addition to hairy black holes, “solitonic" configurations supported by scalar fields, such as boson stars [@Liebling], gravitating skyrmions [@GS], long-lived, quasi-stationary configurations around black holes [@NSG], as well as other types of scalar solutions [@Sol-other] have also been considered. Moreover, the investigation on this kind of scalar field structures may be able to reveal deviations from GR [@fs], for instance via scalar-tensor theories [@st].
In the present work we shall follow a different route and explore the possibility of finding geon-type configurations in modified theories of gravity coupled to *free* scalar fields. More specifically, the gravitational sector is taken to be an extension of GR dubbed Born-Infeld gravity [@BIg], which has attracted a great deal of attention in the last few years due to its many applications in astrophysics, black hole physics, and cosmology [@BIg-app] (for a recent review, see [@bhor17]). Interestingly, this theory has shown the ability to resolve spacetime singularities in a number of black hole [@ors1] and cosmological [@oor14] scenarios. Regarding the former, it has been found that when Born-Infeld gravity is coupled to (static and spherically symmetric) electromagnetic fields, an explicit realization of Wheeler’s geon arises [@OlmoRub]. This result is related to the emergence of a wormhole structure replacing the GR point-like singularity of the Reissner-Nordström solution of the Einstein-Maxwell field equations, a feature overlooked in preliminary analyses of this setting [@BF] and with deep physical consequences. Despite the generic existence of curvature divergences at the wormhole throat, an in-depth analysis has revealed that the above mentioned geonic geometries are geodesically complete [@ors15a], that is, physical observers are not unavoidably destroyed during their transit through the divergent curvature region [@ors2], and the scattering of scalar waves off the wormhole is well posed [@ors1], thus representing non-singular solutions[^1].
It is worth pointing out that the above results follow from formulating Born-Infeld gravity in the Palatini approach, where no a priori constraint between metric and connection is introduced (see [*e.g.*]{} [@Zanelli] for a pedagogical discussion). This is needed in order to ensure the second-order and ghost-free character of the resulting field equations, which is indeed a generic feature of the Palatini formulation of modified theories of gravity [@Franca]. This is opposed to the higher-order field equations that generically arise within the standard metric formulation, where the metric is forced to be compatible with the connection (see [*e.g.*]{} [@ReviewsPal] for some discussion on this issue). Following the finding of electromagnetic geons described above in the context of Born-Infeld gravity, the main aim of this work is to investigate the potential existence of *scalar geons*, namely, static, spherically symmetric scalar fields *without* a potential term, in order to stick ourselves to the original spirit of geons as free, regular, self-gravitating configurations. This research is further motivated by the possibility of finding (horizonless) compact objects as alternatives to black holes, which could have an impact on the study of gravitational waves echoes [@GWe; @GWeb] following the observational results of LIGO [@LIGO], or as sources of dark matter different from fundamental particles [@Lobo:2013prg; @or13]. We will indeed show that, depending on a typical scale determined by the interplay between the Schwarzschild mass and the Born-Infeld parameter, two classes of configurations are found: the massive ones have a wormhole structure with a minimum nonzero area, while for the lighter ones the radial coordinate extends all the way down to $r=0$. Nonetheless, in both cases a solitonic energy density profile is found, resulting from the computation of total energy made up of the gravitational and scalar field contributions. The implications of the wormhole/non-wormhole structure for the regularity of the corresponding objects will be investigated making use of both curvature scalar and the completeness of geodesics.
This paper is organized as follows: in Sec.\[sec:II\] we introduce the action and conventions, obtain the field equations and cast them into a suitable form for their resolution in Sec.\[sec:III\]. Analytical approximations in the limits of interest are performed in Sec.\[sec:IV\] to understand the structure of the field equations, while in Sec.\[sec:V\] numerical methods are used to solve them. The solitonic character of the solutions is analyzed in Sec.\[sec:VI\], while a different branch of solutions is characterized in Sec.\[sec:VII-B\]. Gathering all these results, in Sec.\[sec:VII\] we discuss in detail the geodesic structure of both branches of solutions. We conclude in Sec.\[sec:VIII\] with a summary and a discussion on the interpretation of the results found.
Born-Infeld gravity coupled to a scalar field {#sec:II}
=============================================
Action and basic field equations
--------------------------------
The action of the Born-Infeld gravity theory with matter can be written as
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:action}
S &=& \frac{1}{\epsilon\kappa^2} \int d^4x \left[ \sqrt{-|g_{\mu\nu}+\epsilon R_{(\mu\nu)}| } - \lambda \sqrt{-g } \right] \nonumber \\
&&+ S_m(g_{\mu\nu},\psi_m),\end{aligned}$$
with the following definitions and conventions: $\kappa^2 \equiv 8\pi G/c^4$ is Einstein’s constant; $\epsilon$ is a parameter with dimensions of length squared; $g$ is the determinant of the spacetime metric $g_{\mu\nu}$ (and vertical bars will also denote determinants); the Ricci tensor (parenthesis denote the symmetric part) is defined from the Riemman tensor as $R_{\mu\nu}(\Gamma) \equiv {R^\rho}_{\mu\rho\nu}(\Gamma)$ where ${R^\alpha}_{\beta\mu\nu}(\Gamma)=\partial_{\mu}\Gamma^{\alpha}_{\nu\beta}-\partial_{\nu}\Gamma^{\alpha}_{\mu\beta}+\Gamma^{\alpha}_{\mu\lambda}\Gamma^{\lambda}_{\nu\beta}
-\Gamma^{\alpha}_{\nu\lambda}\Gamma^{\lambda}_{\mu\beta}$ is a function solely of the affine connection $\Gamma_{\mu\nu}^{\lambda}$ (assumed symmetric for simplicity[^2]), which is [*a priori*]{} independent of the metric $g_{\mu\nu}$ (Palatini or metric-affine formalism); the parameter $\lambda$ is related to the cosmological constant as $\lambda=1+\epsilon \Lambda_{eff}$ (this follows from expansion of the action (\[eq:action\]) in series of $|\epsilon| \ll 1$), and $S_m$ is the matter action with $\psi_m$ denoting collectively the matter fields. For notational convenience, we will denote the object inside the first square root as $q_{\mu\nu}\equiv g_{\mu\nu} + \epsilon R_{(\mu\nu)}(\Gamma)$, which is symmetric by construction.
Variation of the action (\[eq:action\]) with respect to metric and connection leads to the two systems of equations
$$\begin{aligned}
\sqrt{-q} q^{\mu\nu}- \sqrt{-g} \lambda g^{\mu\nu}&=&-\kappa^2 \epsilon \sqrt{-g} T^{\mu\nu}\,, \label{eq:metric} \\
\nabla_{\alpha} \left(\sqrt{-q} q^{\mu\nu} \right)&=&0. \label{eq:connection}\end{aligned}$$
where $q$ is the determinant of the *auxiliary* metric $q_{\mu\nu}$, $T^{\mu\nu}\equiv \frac{2}{\sqrt{-g}} \frac{\delta S_m}{\delta g_{\mu\nu}}$ is the stress-energy tensor of the matter, and covariant derivatives are taken with respect to the independent connection $\Gamma_{\mu\nu}^{\lambda}$. To solve these equations one first notes that Eq.(\[eq:connection\]), which is fully equivalent to $\nabla_{\alpha}\,q_{\mu\nu}=0$, simply expresses the compatibility between the independent connection $\Gamma_{\mu\nu}^{\lambda}$ and the metric $q_{\mu\nu}$, [*i.e.*]{} the former is given by the Christoffel symbols of the latter, that is
$$\Gamma^\lambda_{\mu\nu}= \frac{1}{2}q^{\lambda\alpha}\left(\partial_\mu q_{\alpha\nu}+\partial_\nu q_{\alpha\mu}-\partial_\alpha q_{\mu\nu}\right) \ .$$
From the definition $q_{\mu\nu}\equiv g_{\mu\nu} + \epsilon R_{(\mu\nu)}(\Gamma)$, one can introduce a [*deformation matrix*]{} $\,{\Omega^\alpha}_\nu$ by writing
$$\label{eq:qg}
q_{\mu\nu} = g_{\mu\alpha}{\Omega^\alpha}_\nu \ ,$$
which, according to (\[eq:metric\]), satisfies the algebraic equation
$$\label{eq:veromega}
|\Omega|^{1/2}{(\Omega^{-1})^\mu}_\nu=\lambda {\delta^{\mu}}_{\nu} -\epsilon\kappa^2{T^\mu}_\nu \ ,$$
where $|\Omega| \equiv \det{\Omega^\mu}_{\nu}$, for a more compact notation. It is important to realize that solving this equation provides a relation ${\Omega^\mu}_{\nu}={\Omega^\mu}_{\nu}({T^\alpha}_{\beta})$, which means that the deformation matrix ${\Omega^\alpha}_{\nu}$ that relates the two metrics in Eq.(\[eq:qg\]) can be solely expressed as a function of the matter sources and the metric $g_{\mu\nu}$.
Now, to write the field equations (\[eq:metric\]) in amenable form for calculations, we contract them with the metric $g_{\alpha\nu}$ and, using Eq.(\[eq:qg\]), we obtain the result $$\label{eq:Rmunuq}
{R^\mu}_{\nu}(q)=\frac{\kappa^2}{| \Omega |^{1/2}} \left(\mathcal{L}_G {\delta^\mu}_{\nu} + {T^\mu}_{\nu} \right) \ ,$$ where ${R^\mu}_{\nu}(q) \equiv q^{\mu\alpha}R_{(\alpha \nu)}$, and $\mathcal{L}_G$ denotes the Born-Infeld gravity Lagrangian, which can be written as
$$\mathcal{L}_G=\frac{ | \Omega |^{1/2} - \lambda}{\epsilon \kappa^2} \ .$$
The system of equations (\[eq:Rmunuq\]) has several appealing features. First, as all the terms on the right-hand-side are just functions of the matter fields, they represent a system of Einstein-like second-order field equations for the metric $q_{\mu\nu}$, with all the sources representing a modified stress-energy tensor. Since the physical metric $g_{\mu\nu}$ is related to the auxiliary one $q_{\mu\nu}$ via the matter-dependent matrix ${\Omega^\alpha}_{\nu}$ appearing in the transformation (\[eq:qg\]), the field equations for $g_{\mu\nu}$ will be second-order as well. Second, one finds that in vacuum, ${T^\mu}_{\nu}=0$, the field equations (\[eq:Rmunuq\]) recover GR plus a cosmological constant term, which implies the absence of extra propagating degrees of freedom. These two properties seem to be a generic feature of the Palatini formulation of classical theories of gravity [@Jimenez:2015caa; @Bazeia:2015zpa; @Franca].
Scalar matter
-------------
As the matter sector of our theory we take a scalar field described by the standard action
$$\label{eq:matteraction}
\mathcal{S}_m=-\frac{1}{2}\int d^4x \sqrt{-g} {\mathcal{L}}_m=-\frac{1}{2}\int d^4x \sqrt{-g} (X+2V(\phi))$$
where $X\equiv g^{\mu\nu}\partial_\mu\phi\partial_\nu\phi$ is the kinetic term and $V(\phi)$ the potential. In this work we shall assume a static spherically symmetric spacetime, whose line element can be conveniently written as
$$\label{eq:metricg}
ds^2=-A(x)dt^2+r^2(x)d\Omega^2+\frac{1}{B(x)}dx^2 \ ,$$
where $d \Omega^2=d \theta^2 + \sin^2(\theta) d\varphi^2$ is the angular sector, while $A(x)$, $B(x)$ and $r(x)$ are three independent functions to be determined via the gravitational plus matter field equations. The latter follow from variation of the matter action (\[eq:matteraction\]) with respect to the scalar field $\phi$, which yields
$$\label{eq:phi}
\Box \phi-V_\phi= \frac{1}{r^2\sqrt{A/B}}\partial_x\left(r^2\sqrt{A B}\phi_x\right)-V_\phi=0 \ ,$$
with the notation $\phi_x \equiv \frac{d\phi}{dx}$ and $V_\phi \equiv \frac{dV}{d\phi}$, while the stress-energy tensor reads
$$\label{eq:tmunus}
{T^\mu}_{\nu}=g^{\mu\alpha}\partial_{\alpha}\phi\partial_{\nu}\phi-\frac{{\mathcal{L}}_m}{2}{\delta^\mu}_{\nu} = \left(\begin{array}{lr} -\frac{{\mathcal{L}}_m}{2} I_{3\times3} & 0 \\ 0 & B\phi_x^2-\frac{{\mathcal{L}}_m}{2} \end{array}\right) \ .$$
The identity $I_{3\times 3}$ matrix represents the $(t,\theta,\varphi)$ sector, while the remaining component of the stress-energy tensor in (\[eq:tmunus\]) can be written as ${T^x}_x=B\phi_x^2-\frac{{\mathcal{L}}_m}{2}=\frac{1}{2} B\phi_x^2-V$. Consistently with the structure of the stress-energy tensor (\[eq:tmunus\]) we assume for ${\Omega^\mu}_\nu$ an ansatz of the form $${\Omega^\mu}_\nu=\left(\begin{array}{lr} \Omega_+ I_{3\times3} & 0 \\ 0 & \Omega_- \end{array}\right) \ ,$$ From the definition (\[eq:veromega\]) and the expression (\[eq:tmunus\]) it follows that the two components of this ansatz read
$$\begin{aligned}
\Omega_+\!&=& \!\left(\lambda+\epsilon \kappa^2V+\tfrac{\epsilon\kappa^2}{2}B\phi_x^2\right)^{1/2}\!\!
\left(\lambda+\epsilon \kappa^2V-\tfrac{\epsilon\kappa^2}{2}B\phi_x^2\right)^{1/2} \;\label{eq:omp}\\
{\Omega_-}\!&=&\! {\left(\lambda+\epsilon \kappa^2V+\tfrac{\epsilon\kappa^2}{2}B\phi_x^2\right)^{3/2}}\!
{\left(\lambda+\epsilon \kappa^2V-\tfrac{\epsilon\kappa^2}{2}B\phi_x^2\right)^{1/2}}\;\; \label{eq:omm} \ .\end{aligned}$$
Inserting these results into Eq.(\[eq:Rmunuq\]), the field equations for this scalar matter source become:
$$\label{eq:BIscalar}
\epsilon {R^\mu}_\nu (q)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{|\Omega|}}\left(\begin{array}{lr} \left(\sqrt{|\Omega|}-\lambda-\frac{\epsilon\kappa^2}{2}\left[B\phi_x^2+2V\right]\right)I_{3\times 3} & 0 \\ 0 & \sqrt{|\Omega|}-\lambda+\frac{\epsilon\kappa^2}{2}(B\phi_x^2 -2V) \end{array}\right) \ ,$$
where $|\Omega|=\Omega_{+}^3\Omega_{-}$.
To further specify our setup we recall that we are looking for geonic solutions, [*i.e.*]{}, self-gravitating *free* fields, which means that they are not supported by any degeneracy on the vacuum solutions of the potential (like, for instance, in the case of solitonic solutions supported by topologically non-trivial configurations in a flat spacetime [@Topo-Sol]), and thus we take $V(\phi)=0$. This way the scalar field equation (\[eq:phi\]) can be simply integrated as
$$\label{eq:scalarfield}
r^2\sqrt{AB}\phi_x=C \ ,$$
where $C$ is an integration constant. Therefore, the form of the scalar field is completely specified by the metric functions, [*i.e.*]{}, the geometry determines the form of the scalar field. We thus find that the function $X=B\phi_x^2$ that appears in the scalar field Lagrangian ${\mathcal{L}}_m$ and on its field equations can be written as $X=\frac{C^2}{r^4 A}$, which has an interesting formal similarity with the solution corresponding to an electric field found in [@OlmoRub], where $F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}\propto \frac{q^2}{r^4}$ for a spherical charge distribution. With the above assumptions and defining $X_\epsilon\equiv \frac{\epsilon \kappa^2}{2} X = \frac{\epsilon \kappa^2 C^2}{2\,r^4A}$, then Eqs.(\[eq:omp\]) and (\[eq:omm\]) become
$$\label{eq:omegas}
\Omega_+ = {(\lambda^2 - X_\epsilon^2)^{\frac12}}
\hspace{0.1cm};\hspace{0.2cm}
\Omega_- = {(\lambda + X_\epsilon)^{\frac32}}{(\lambda - X_\epsilon)^{-\frac12}} \ ,$$
and the field equations (\[eq:BIscalar\]) can be written under the compact form
$$\label{eq:RTBI}
\epsilon {R^\mu}_\nu (q)=\left(\begin{array}{lr} \left(1-\frac{(\lambda+X_\epsilon)}{\sqrt{|\Omega|}}\right)I_{3\times 3} & 0 \\ 0 & 1-\frac{(\lambda-X_\epsilon)}{\sqrt{|\Omega|}} \end{array}\right) \ ,$$
with $|\Omega|=\Omega_{+}^3\Omega_{-}= (\lambda + X_\epsilon)^{3} (\lambda - X_\epsilon) $. The equations are now ready for working out their solutions.
Explicit form of the field equations {#sec:III}
====================================
To solve the field equations (\[eq:RTBI\]), in this section we shall closely follow Wyman’s approach [@Wyman], corresponding to the problem of a gravitating scalar field in GR (see also [@Janis:1968zz] for previous relevant results on self-gravitating, free scalar fields). On this approach one employs the scalar field as a radial coordinate, [*i.e.*]{}, we take $\phi_x$ to be a constant, $\phi_x=v_0$. This allows to write the following two line elements for the spacetime and auxiliary metrics, suitably adapted to our problem (see Appendix \[sec:App1\] for full details on the justification of this choice): $$\begin{aligned}
d{s}^2&=&-e^{{\nu}}dt^2+\frac{1}{C_0^2 {W}^4 e^{-\nu}}dx^2+\frac{1}{{W}^2}d\Omega^2 \ ,\label{ds}\\
d\tilde{s}^2&=&-e^{\tilde{\nu}}dt^2+\frac{1}{C_0^2 \tilde{W}^4 e^{-\tilde{\nu}}}dy^2+\frac{1}{\tilde{W}^2}d\Omega^2 \ ,\label{dst}\end{aligned}$$ where the constant $C_0=C/v_0$ while the relation between the metric coefficients $\nu, \tilde{\nu}, W, \tilde{W}$, and the radial coordinates $x$ and $y$ follows from the transformations (\[eq:qg\]) as
$$\begin{aligned}
e^{\tilde{\nu}}&=&\Omega_+e^{\nu} \hspace{0.1cm};\hspace{0.5cm}
\tilde{W}^2=W^2/\Omega_+ \label{change} \\
dy&=& \frac{\Omega_-}{\vert \Omega \vert^{1/2}} dx= |\lambda-X_\epsilon|^{-1} dx \ . \label{eq:dydx}\end{aligned}$$
With the above line elements, one readily verifies that the scalar field equation is just $\phi_{xx}=0$, which implies $\phi=v_0 x +\phi_0$, where $\phi_0$ is an integration constant. Now, the components of the Ricci tensor for the metric $q_{\mu\nu}$ in Eq.(\[ds\]) become
$$\begin{aligned}
{R^t}_t &=& -\tfrac{1}{2} C_0^2\tilde{W}^4 e^{-\tilde{\nu}} \tilde{\nu}_{yy}\\
{R^y}_y &=& -\tfrac{1}{2} C_0^2\tilde{W}^3 e^{-\tilde{\nu}} \left(4\tilde{W}_y\tilde{\nu}_y-4\tilde{W}_{yy}+\tilde{W}\tilde{\nu}_{yy}\right) \\
{R^\theta}_\theta &=& \tilde{W}^2\left(1+C_0^2e^{-\tilde{\nu}}[\tilde{W}\tilde{W}_{yy}-\tilde{W}_y^2]\right) \ ,\end{aligned}$$
which are needed to solve the field equations (\[eq:RTBI\]). Now, since the right-hand side of such equations can be read as a modified stress-energy tensor ${\tau^\mu}_{\nu}$, from the combinations ${R^t}_t={\tau^t}_t$, ${R^y}_y-{R^t}_t={\tau^y}_y-{\tau^t}_t$, and ${R^\theta}_\theta={\tau^\theta}_\theta$, the field equations (\[eq:RTBI\]) can be expressed as
$$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{\nu}_{yy}&=&-\frac{\kappa_0^2 \Omega_+^3}{X_\epsilon}\left(1-\tfrac{\lambda+X_\epsilon}{\Omega^{1/2}}\right) \label{fulleq1}\\
0&=& \tilde{W}_{yy}-\tilde{\nu}_y\tilde{W}_y- \frac{ \kappa_0^2\Omega_+^3}{2\Omega^{1/2}}\tilde{W} \label{fulleq2}\\
\tilde{W}\tilde{W}_{yy}-\tilde{W^2_y}&=& -\frac{e^{\tilde{\nu}}}{C_0^2}+ \frac{\kappa_0^2 \Omega_+^3}{2X_\epsilon} \left(1-\tfrac{\lambda+X_\epsilon}{\Omega^{1/2}}\right)\tilde{W}^2 \ , \label{fulleq3}\end{aligned}$$
where $\kappa_0^2\equiv \kappa^2 v_0^2$ has dimensions of length$^{-2}$, while $C_0^2$ has dimensions of length$^4$. Our problem thus boils down to solving these equations for $\tilde{\nu}$ and $\tilde{W}$ and then use the relation between $g_{\mu\nu}$ and $q_{\mu\nu}$ to completely determine the line element generated by the scalar field. It should be noted that Eq.(\[fulleq3\]) is a constraint that the solutions to (\[fulleq1\]) and (\[fulleq2\]) must satisfy. As will be seen later, this constraint will introduce a relation between the two integration constants that characterize the function $\tilde{W}$ \[see Eq.(\[eq:constraintGR\]), (\[eq:Winf\]) and (\[eq:Wep2\])\] .
Given the strongly nonlinear character of Eqs.(\[fulleq1\]), (\[fulleq2\]) and (\[fulleq3\]), numerical methods will be necessary to find solutions. It must be noted, however, that there is still an algebraic part we must take care of before being able to integrate these equations numerically. The difficulty lies on the fact that the variable $X_\epsilon=(\epsilon \kappa_0^2/2) C^2 W^4 e^{-\nu}$ is referred to the variables $W$ and $\nu$, while our equations involve derivatives of $\tilde{W}$ and $\tilde{\nu}$. In order to rewrite $X_\epsilon$ in terms of the variables $\tilde{W}$ and $\tilde{\nu}$, let us define $\theta \equiv (\epsilon \kappa_0^2/2) C^2\tilde{W}^4 e^{-\tilde{\nu}}$ so we have $$X_\epsilon=\frac{\epsilon \kappa_0^2}{2} C^2 W^4 e^{-\nu}= \Omega_+^3\theta =(\lambda^2-X_\epsilon^2)^{3/2}\,\theta\ .$$ The square of this equation can be straightforwardly solved and leads to the relation $$\label{eq:solX2}
X_\epsilon^2(\theta) =\lambda^2 + \frac {1} {18^{1/3} |\theta|} [K (\theta)- 12^{1/3}/ K(\theta)]\,,$$ with $K(\theta)=\left(-(9\lambda^2|\theta|) + \sqrt {12 + (9\lambda^2|\theta|)^2}\right)^{1/3}$.
By definition, $X_\epsilon$ is linear in $\epsilon$. In the following we will take the negative branch of $\epsilon$ as it directly leads to nonsingular bouncing solutions in cosmological models [@oor14] and nonsingular black hole spacetimes in electrovacuum configurations [@ors1; @ors2]. Therefore, we shall keep the negative branch of the square root in . In Sec.\[sec:VII-B\] we will consider the $\epsilon>0$ case for completeness. The field equations are now almost ready for their analysis but, first, we need to precise a bit more the notation that will be employed hereafter.
Comments on the notation
------------------------
Before proceeding further, it should be noted that $X_\epsilon$ is a dimensionless quantity, which can be used to introduce some useful notation in dimensionless form. In particular, introducing the length-squared scales $\epsilon\equiv-2l_\epsilon^2$ and $r_C^2\equiv \kappa_0^2 C^2$, the fact that $W$ has dimensions of inverse length allows us to define $\hat W\equiv r_\epsilon W $ such that $r_\epsilon^4= l_\epsilon^2 r_C^2$. This turns $X_\epsilon$ into $X_\epsilon= -\hat W^4 e^{-\nu}$. Similarly, one can write $\theta=-\hat{\tilde{W}}^4 e^{-\tilde{\nu}}$. With this notation, Eqs.(\[fulleq1\])-(\[fulleq3\]) can be regarded as dimensionless, with the variable $y$ replaced by $\hat y=y/r_\epsilon$, $\tilde{W}$ by $\hat{\tilde{W}}$, $\kappa_0^2$ by $\hat\kappa^2_0\equiv \kappa_0^2r_{\epsilon}^2$ (dimensionless), and $C_0^2$ by $\hat C_0^2\equiv C_0^2/r_\epsilon^4$. The line element $d\tilde{s}^2$ in (\[dst\]) should thus be seen as the dimensionless quantity $d\tilde{s}^2/r_\epsilon^2$, with $dt\to d\hat t$ and $dy\to d\hat y$ also dimensionless (or measured in units of $r_\epsilon$, which is the natural scale of the problem). From now on we will use this dimensionless form of the field equations but omitting the [*hats*]{} to avoid unnecessary redefinitions. Nonetheless, to be fully consistent, we will also use the notation $z\equiv r/r_\epsilon$ and $\tilde{z}\equiv \tilde{r}/r_\epsilon$ for the radial coordinates.
Analytic approximations {#sec:IV}
=======================
GR limit (asymptotic behavior, $\theta\to 0$) {#sec:GRlimit}
---------------------------------------------
According to the redefinitions that lead from the line element (\[eq:ds2rt\]) to (\[dst\]) and the above notation, it is clear that $\tilde{W}= 1/\tilde{z}$. This implies that the limit $\theta\to 0$ represents the asymptotic far region, whereas $\theta\to \infty$ must be seen as the internal region (this point will be verified numerically later). When $\theta\to 0$ one gets $X_\epsilon\approx \theta=- |\theta|$ (recall that $\theta\equiv (\epsilon \kappa_0^2/2) C^2\tilde{W}^4 e^{-\tilde{\nu}} < 0$).
With the dimensionless notation introduced in the last section we have $\theta\equiv -\tilde{W}^4 e^{-\tilde{\nu}}$. Then, in the asymptotic limit $\theta\to 0$ ($z\gg 1$ and $e^{-\nu}\to 1$), and setting $\lambda=1+\epsilon \Lambda_{eff}\to 1$ for simplicity, we find
$$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{\nu}_{yy}&\simeq &- \frac{\kappa_0^2}{2}|\theta| \\
0&\simeq&\tilde{W}_{yy}-\tilde{\nu}_y\tilde{W}_y- \frac{\kappa^2_0}{2}(1 + |\theta|)\tilde{W} \\
\tilde{W}\tilde{W}_{yy}-\tilde{W_y}^2&\simeq& -\frac{e^{\tilde{\nu}}}{C_0^2} + \frac{\kappa_0^2 }{4}|\theta| \tilde{W}^2 \,.\end{aligned}$$
As the function $|\theta|$ assumes very small values, the GR equations [@Wyman] are nicely recovered. Indeed, in that limit, the above equations become
$$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{\nu}_{yy}&=&0 \label{Wy1}\\
\tilde{W}_{yy}-\tilde{\nu}_{y}\tilde{W}_{y}- \frac{\kappa_0^2}{2} \tilde{W}&=&0 \label{Wy2}\\
\tilde{W}\tilde{W}_{yy}-\tilde{W_{y}}^2&=& - \frac{e^{\tilde{\nu}}}{C_0^2} \ , \label{Wy3}\end{aligned}$$
which can be readily integrated as
$$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{\nu}_{Far}&=& \alpha y+\beta \label{Wynu} \\
\tilde{W}_{Far}&=&a e^{m_+ y}+ b e^{m_- y} \label{WyW1} \\
m_{\pm} &=&\tfrac{1}{2} \left(\alpha \pm \sqrt{\alpha^2 + 2\kappa_0^2}\right) \\
0&=&\frac{e^\beta}{C_0^2}+a b (\alpha^2+2\kappa_0^2) \ . \label{eq:constraintGR}\end{aligned}$$
where $\alpha, \beta, a, b$ are integration constants. In GR, asymptotically flat solutions require $a=-b$ [@Wyman] and then $a^2=e^\beta/(C_0^2 ({\alpha^2+2\kappa_0^2}))$. Since we are interested in the modifications induced by the Born-Infeld dynamics near the center, this is the set of asymptotic boundary conditions we will use in our problem. To be more explicit and better visualize the above exact solutions, it is useful to write them in terms of the radial coordinate $\tilde{z}$. From the solution [@Wyman]
$$\tilde{W}_{Asympt.}=\frac{e^{\frac{\beta+\alpha y}{2}}}{C_0} (\sinh (\gamma y)/\gamma)\ ,$$
where $\gamma=\sqrt{\alpha^2+2\kappa^2}/2$, the line element in the GR limit thus takes the form
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:GRds2}
\frac{ds^2_{GR}}{r_\epsilon^2}&=&-e^{\beta+\alpha y}dt^2+C_0^2{e^{-(\beta+\alpha y)} (\sinh\gamma y/\gamma)^{-4}}dy^2 \nonumber \\
&&+C_0^2{e^{-(\beta+\alpha y)} (\sinh\gamma y/\gamma)^{-2}}d\Omega^2 \ .\end{aligned}$$
In the asymptotic far region ($y\to 0$ or $\tilde{z}\to \infty$), this line element turns into
$$\frac{d{s}^2_{GR}}{r_\epsilon^2}\approx -e^{\beta+\alpha/\tilde{z}}dt^2+\frac{C_0^2}{e^\beta}e^{-\alpha/\tilde{z}}\left(d\tilde{z}^2+\tilde{z}^2d\Omega^2\right) \ ,$$
with $e^{\pm \alpha/\tilde{z}}\approx (1\pm\alpha/\tilde{z})$, thus confirming its asymptotic flatness. From the spatial sector of the metric, ${e^\beta}/{C_0^2}=1$ appears as a natural choice for $\beta$. The remaining $e^\beta$ term in the time component can be absorbed into a redefinition of the time coordinate. In this way, the resulting metric coincides with the far limit of the Schwarzschild solution if we take $\alpha=-2M/r_\epsilon$. Recalling the relation between $\tilde{z}$ and $\tilde{r}=r_\epsilon \tilde{z}$ and given that in the asymptotically far region $r\approx \tilde{r}$, the term $\alpha/\tilde{z}$ becomes $-2M/r$, as one would expect.
Internal region ($|\theta|\to \infty$)
--------------------------------------
The internal region corresponds to the limit when $|\theta|\to \infty$. Here we find that $X_\epsilon\approx -1+1/(2|\theta|^{2/3})$, $\Omega_+\approx |\theta|^{-1/3}$, and Eqs.(\[fulleq1\])-(\[fulleq3\]) reduce to
$$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{\nu}_{yy}&\simeq & -\kappa_0^2 |\theta|^{-2/3} \approx 0\\
\tilde{W}_{yy}-\tilde{\nu}_y\tilde{W}_y&\simeq& \kappa_0^2(1 - \tfrac{1}{4} |\theta|^{-2/3})\tilde{W} \approx \kappa_0^2 \tilde{W} \\
\tilde{W}\tilde{W}_{yy}-\tilde{W_y}^2&\simeq& -\frac{e^{\tilde{\nu}}}{C_0^2}+\frac{ \kappa_0^2 }{2}|\theta|^{-2/3} \tilde{W}^2
\approx -\frac{e^{\tilde{\nu}}}{C_0^2} \ . \label{eq:constr}\end{aligned}$$
From the above limit, we see that in the central region the field equations behave exactly like in the asymptotic (GR) limit up to a redefinition of constants \[compare to Eqs.(\[Wy1\])-(\[Wy3\])\]. In this limit the field equations can also be analytically integrated yielding
$$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{\nu}_{Center}(y)&=& l_1+l_2 y \label{eq:nuinf}\\
\tilde{W}_{Center}(y)&=& - \frac{e^{l_1}}{C_0^2 D_2 l_\kappa^2} e^{\frac{1}{2} (l_2 - l_\kappa) y}+D_2 e^{\frac{1}{2} (l_2 + l_\kappa) y}\,, \label{eq:Winf}\quad\end{aligned}$$
where $l_1$ and $l_2$ are integration constants while we have defined $l_{\kappa} =\sqrt{4 \kappa_0^2+l_2^2}$ and the condition $0=\frac{e^{l_1}}{C_0^2}+D_1 D_2 l_{\kappa}^2$ that follows from (\[eq:constr\]) has been used. We note that given that $l_\kappa>|l_2|$, in the limit $y\to \infty$ only the second term in $\tilde{W}_{center}(y)$ survives. As $\kappa_0$ is a fixed quantity, the numerical integration will allow us to adjust the coefficients $l_1, l_2$ and $D_2$ once initial conditions are given in the asymptotic far region ($y\to 0$).
Before getting into the numerics, let us discuss analytically the asymptotic behavior of these solutions. It is easy to verify that in the limit $|\theta|\to \infty$, the physical line element takes the form $$\label{eq:ds2thetainf0}
\frac{ds^2}{r_\epsilon^2}\approx-\left(\tilde{W}^2e^{\tilde{\nu}}\right)^{2/3}dt^2+\frac{1}{C_0^2}dx^2+\left(\tilde{W}^2e^{\tilde{\nu}}\right)^{-1/3}d\Omega^2 \ ,$$ Given that $z^2(y)\approx\left(\tilde{W}^2e^{\tilde{\nu}}\right)^{-\frac{1}{3}}$ and, for $\epsilon<0$, $\lim_{|\theta|\to \infty}dx^2\approx 4 dy^2$, (\[eq:ds2thetainf0\]) can be written as $$\label{eq:ds2thetainf1}
\frac{ds^2}{r_\epsilon^2}\approx-\frac{1}{z^4(y)}dt^2+\frac{4}{C_0^2}dy^2+z^2(y)d\Omega^2 \ .$$ Using the explicit relation between $z$ and $y$ specified by $z^2(y)$ and Eqs.(\[eq:nuinf\]) and (\[eq:Winf\]), *i.e.*, $z^2=\frac{e^{-\frac{1}{3}(2l_2+l_k)y}}{D_2^{2/3}e^{l_1/3}}$, we get $$\frac{ds^2}{r_\epsilon^2}=-\frac{1}{{z}^4}dt^2+\frac{4\sigma^2}{C_0^2}\frac{d{z}^2}{{z}^2}+z^2d\Omega^2 \ ,\label{eq:ds2center}$$ where $\sigma^2\equiv \frac{6^2}{(2l_2+l_\kappa)^2}$. For comparison, in the GR case the line element in the $y\to \infty$ limit behaves as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:ds2yGR}
\frac{ds^2_{GR}}{r_\epsilon^2}&=&-e^{\alpha y}dt^2+{16\gamma^4}e^{-2(\alpha+m_+)y}dy^2 \nonumber \\
&&+{4\gamma^2}e^{-2m_+y}d\Omega^2 \ ,\end{aligned}$$ which is equivalent to $$\frac{ds^2_{GR}}{r_\epsilon^2}=-\left(\frac{\gamma}{z}\right)^{\frac{\alpha}{m_+}}dt^2+\left(\frac{\gamma}{z}\right)^{\frac{\alpha}{m_+}-2}\frac{\gamma^2dz^2}{m_+^2}+z^2d\Omega^2 \ .\label{eq:ds2centerGR}$$ It is worth noting that the line element in the GR case is very sensitive to the value of $\alpha$. Since $\alpha$ is related to the asymptotic Newtonian mass as $\alpha=-2M/r_\epsilon$ (see Sec. \[sec:GRlimit\] above) and the quotient $\kappa_0^2/\alpha^2 \sim 0$ in physically reasonable situations[^3], thus $\gamma =(| \alpha| /2) \sqrt{1+2\kappa_0^2/\alpha^2}
\sim |\alpha|/2$ and the ratio $\alpha/m_+ \approx -2\alpha^2/\kappa_0^2$ is expected to be negative and very large. The behavior of (\[eq:ds2center\]) instead is more [*universal*]{}, being the exponents of the radial dependence of the metric components independent of the values of the parameters that characterize those solutions. On the other hand, one can verify that, despite differences, the two line elements above lead to a Ricci tensor with vanishing components except for $r_\epsilon^2R_{rr}=-2(m_{-}/ m_{+}\!) \,z^{-2} ,\, R_{\theta\theta}=1, \, R_{\varphi\varphi}=\sin^2\theta$ in the GR case, and $r_\epsilon^2R_{rr}=-6\, z^{-2}, \, R_{\theta\theta}=1, \, R_{\varphi\varphi}=\sin^2\theta$ in the Born-Infeld case, both having an $1/z^2$ dependence in this region. With additional calculations, one finds that in the Born-Infeld case the Kretschmann and Ricci scalars have a universal power-law behavior (independent of the parameters that characterize the solution) given by $$\begin{aligned}
r_\epsilon^4{R^\alpha}_{\beta\mu\nu}{R_\alpha}^{\beta\mu\nu} &\approx & \frac{4}{z^4} -\frac{2C_0^2}{\sigma^2 z^2}+\frac{27C_0^4}{4\sigma^4} \label{eq:scalars} \\
r_\epsilon^2R&\approx&\frac{2}{z^2} -\frac{3 C_0^2}{2\sigma^2} \ , \nonumber \\ \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ whereas in the GR case the power-law is very dependent on the details of the far solution $$\begin{aligned}
r_\epsilon^4({R^\alpha}_{\beta\mu\nu}{R_\alpha}^{\beta\mu\nu})_{GR} &\approx&
\left(\frac{\gamma}{z}\right)^{-\frac{2\alpha}{m_+}} \\
&&\times \frac{4m_+^2(3m_+^2-2m_+ \alpha+2\alpha^2)}{z^8} \nonumber \\
r_\epsilon^2 R_{GR} &\approx& -\left(\frac{\gamma}{z}\right)^{-\frac{\alpha}{m_+}}\frac{(\alpha^2+\kappa^2)}{z^4}\end{aligned}$$ (recall that $\alpha<0$ and $m_+>0$). This puts forward that the Born-Infeld gravity dynamics has been able to soften and universalize the amplitude of curvature scalars in the interior region. Later we will study the implications of these results for the regularity of the corresponding spacetimes.
Numerical analysis {#sec:V}
==================
We will next find numerical solutions for the set of equations (\[fulleq1\])-(\[fulleq3\]) subject to the asymptotically flat initial conditions given in Sec.\[sec:GRlimit\]. Taking advantage of the fact that in the two asymptotic regions (far and interior) an analytical expression for the solutions is known, we will also obtain functional fittings for $\tilde{\nu}$ and $\tilde{W}$. The unknown coefficients of the analytical approximations will thus be obtained by comparison with the functions fitting the numerical solutions. This way we obtain (“Fit" stands for fitting solutions)
$$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{\nu}_{Fit}&=&C_\nu+ \left(\alpha - A_\nu \tanh(a_\nu y_c + f)\right) y
- \frac{A_\nu}{a_\nu} \log[\cosh( a_\nu (y-y_c) + f ) ] \label{eq:nufit}\\
(\tilde{W})_{Fit}&=&
8 \beta e^{\frac{1}{8\beta}y}
+\frac14 P_1 e^{\Delta_1 (y-y_c)+\Delta_2+\Delta} \left\{ \frac{12}{\Delta_1}-\frac{1}{2 \beta} \tanh\left(\frac{\Delta_1}{2\beta} y_c \right) +\right.\label{eq:Wfit}\\
&&\left. \frac{1}{1+e^{\frac{\Delta_1}{\beta} y_c}}
\left[ \frac{e^{\frac{\Delta_1}{\beta} y}}{(1+\beta)} \, _2F_1\left(1,\beta +1\,;(\beta+1)+1\,; -e^{\frac{\Delta_1}{\beta} (y-y_c)}\right)
- \frac{1}{ \beta} \, _2F_1\left(1,\beta\,; \beta +1\,; -e^{\frac{\Delta_1}{\beta} (y-y_c)} \right) \right]\right\} \notag\qquad\end{aligned}$$
where $\Delta_1=\log[\tilde{W}(y_{\infty})/\tilde{W}(y_c)]/(y_{\infty} - y_c)$, $\Delta_2 =\log[\tilde{W}(y_c)]$, $\Delta=\log[\tilde{W}(y_{\infty})/\tilde{W}'(y_{\infty})]$ and $\beta=1/(8\alpha)$; $y_\infty$ is the largest value assigned for the radial coordinate $y$ and the $y_c$ values correspond to the center of the energy density distribution (determined numerically) for each value of $\alpha$ (see Sec. \[sec:VI\]). For the sake of illustration, in Table \[tab:I\] we show the values of the fitting parameters for some representative values of $\alpha$, obtained on the support $[y_0, y_\infty] = [.001, 30]$[^4]
----------------- --------- --------- --------- -----------------
$\alpha$ -50 -10 -1 -0.8
\[1mm\] $y_c$ 0.5943 2.2867 6.5159 6.4491\[lpfit\]
\[1mm\] $C_\nu$ 0.0060 0.1107 1.0619 1.0542
$A_\nu$ 0.0100 0.0483 0.1684 0.1691
$a_\nu$ 20.7348 4.2920 1.2488 1.2437
$f$ -0.4663 -0.4082 -0.2776 -0.2744
\[1mm\] $P_1$ 0.2547 0.2497 0.2666 0.2718
----------------- --------- --------- --------- -----------------
: Some examples of the fitting parameters in Eqs.(\[eq:nufit\]) and (\[eq:Wfit\]) resulting from the numerical computations for four representative values of $\alpha$ .[]{data-label="tab:I"}
The results of the numerical integration and the fitting functions $\tilde{\nu}_{Fit}(y)$ and $ \tilde{W}_{Fit}(y)$ are plotted in Figs. \[fig:1\] and \[fig:2\], respectively, where the deviations with respect to the GR behavior for $\theta \rightarrow \infty$ ($y \rightarrow \infty $) are manifest. In such region both $\tilde{\nu}(y)$ and $\log \tilde{W}(y)$ present a linear behavior, which can be explicitly fitted to $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{\nu}(y)|_{y \rightarrow \infty} &=& l_1 +l_2 \,y \label{eq:nufit} \\
\log \tilde{W}(y)|_{y \rightarrow \infty} &=& l_3 + l_4 \,y \label{eq:lwfit}\\
\tilde{W}|_{y \rightarrow \infty} & \approx &D_2 \,e^{\frac12 (l_2 + l_\kappa) y}\ , \label{eq:wfit}\end{aligned}$$ where $l_4 = \frac{1}{2} (l_ 2 + l_{\kappa})$ with $l_{\kappa}= \sqrt{4\kappa_ 0^2 + l_ 2^2}$. The values of the unknown coefficients $l_1, l_2, l_3$ in the equations above are numerically fitted for some representative values of $\alpha$, and displayed in Table \[table:II\], where we also include the value of $D_2=\exp(l_3)$, which is directly connected to Eqs.(\[eq:nuinf\]) and (\[eq:Winf\]).
--------------- ---------- ---------- --------- ---------
$\alpha$ -50 -10 -1 -0.8
\[1mm\] $l_1$ 0.0121 0.2269 2.2305 2.2170
$l_2$ -50.0200 -10.0967 -1.3368 -1.1382
$l_3$ -3.9185 -2.4259 -1.6647 -1.5941
$D_2$ 0.0199 0.0884 0.1893 0.2031
--------------- ---------- ---------- --------- ---------
: Some examples of the values fitted numerically corresponding to the coefficients $l_1, l_2, l_3, D_2$ in Eqs.(\[eq:nufit\]), (\[eq:lwfit\]) and (\[eq:wfit\]), for several values of $\alpha$. []{data-label="table:II"}
![The function $ \tilde\nu(y)$ for the numerical integration (solid orange curve), and the analytical fitting of Eq.(\[eq:nufit\]) (dashed black) for integration constant $\alpha=-10$ and Born-Infeld length $l_{\epsilon}=10^{-3}$. The dotted blue curve represents the GR behavior ($l_{\epsilon} \rightarrow 0$), to which the curves converge as $y \rightarrow 0$. \[fig:1\]](fig1.eps){width="40.00000%"}
![The function $\tilde{W}(y)$ with the same notation and parameters as in Fig. \[fig:1\]. The analytical fitting corresponds to Eq.(\[eq:Wfit\]). \[fig:2\]](fig2.eps){width="40.00000%"}
In terms of the above fitting solutions one can compute the metric components of and (\[dst\]) and then analyze the scalar field configuration in the full range.
Spherical sector {#sec:secSS}
----------------
From the exact GR solution presented in Eq.(\[eq:GRds2\]) one finds that the radial function $z^2=1/W^2(y)$ approaches $z\to 0$ exponentially fast in the limit $y\to \infty$, [*i.e.*]{}, $z^2\approx 4C_0^2 e^{-\beta}\gamma^2 e^{-2m_+y}$, where $m_+=\frac{1}{2} (\alpha+ \sqrt{\alpha^2 + 2\kappa^2}) >0$. In the Born-Infeld gravity case under study, we also find an exponential behavior, $z^2\approx D_2^{-2/3}e^{-l_1/3} e^{-\frac{1}{3}(2l_2+l_k)y}$, though the sign of the constants in the exponential cannot be guessed [*a priori*]{}. However, from the numerical analysis (see Table \[table:II\] above), we see that the value of $l_2$ is very close to the value of the constant $\alpha$, where for each studied case we have that $l_2<0$. In fact, $l_2$ can be put in linear relation with $\alpha$, as shown in Fig. \[fig:l2\] below.
![Linear fitting of $l_2$ for the lightest values of $\alpha$ studied.[]{data-label="fig:l2"}](fig3.eps){width="45.00000%"}
Now, recalling that $l_k=\sqrt{4\kappa_0^2+l_2^2}$, it is easy to see that for $l_2>-2\kappa_0/\sqrt{3}$ the combination $2l_2+l_k$ in the exponential is positive, thus implying that $z^2$ goes to zero as $y\to \infty$, like in the GR case. However, for any $l_2<-2\kappa_0/\sqrt{3}$, the exponential changes sign and grows unboundedly as $y\to \infty$. The behavior of the solutions can thus be classified in two types depending on whether they represent massive objects, [*i.e.*]{}, $|l_2|\sim |\alpha|$ being large as compared to $2\kappa_0/\sqrt{3}$; or light objects, $|l_2|$ small as compared to $2\kappa_0/\sqrt{3}$. Furthermore, for massive objects the radial function $z(y)$ reaches a minimum and bounces off, which can be naturally interpreted as a signal of the presence of a wormhole[^5], namely, a topologically non-trivial configuration connecting two regions [@Visser], with that minimum representing its throat. For lighter configurations such a minimum (and thus the wormhole structure) disappears and the radial function extends all the way down to $r=0$.
![Radial function $z=1/( \Omega_{+} \tilde{W}(y))$ (where $y=\phi^{-1}(x)$) for different values of the parameter $\alpha$, where the minimum attained by the radial function $z(y)$ is observed, corresponding to the throat of the wormhole solutions. The inset tracks the disappearance of this minimum, leading to the transition between wormhole/non-wormhole configurations.[]{data-label="fig:radii"}](fig4.eps){width="8.0cm" height="7.0cm"}
![Linear relation between the location of the wormhole throat and the parameter $|\alpha|=2M/r_\epsilon$ in the case $\epsilon<0$. []{data-label="fig:rminalpha"}](fig5.eps){width="47.00000%"}
More explicitly, Fig. \[fig:radii\] shows, in parameterized form, the evolution of the radial function $z(y)=1/(\Omega_{+} \tilde{W}(y))$ for different values of $\alpha$. The existence of a minimum radius is evident for $|\alpha| \gtrsim 0.8$. A numerical analysis puts forward a linear relation between the wormhole throat radius ($z_{th} = z_{min}$) and the value of $\alpha$ (see Fig. \[fig:rminalpha\]). With an appropriate constant rescaling of units in the line element, this linear relation can be brought into the more suggestive expression $r_{th}\approx |\alpha|r_\epsilon=2M$, which is valid for all $|\alpha| \gtrsim 0.8$. The coincidence of this value with the location of the event horizon in Schwarzschild black holes of mass $M$ is certainly remarkable and could not have been anticipated before the numerical analysis.
For lighter configurations, we can use an approximated linear form for $l_2$ as a function of $\alpha$, in order to determine the critical value, $\alpha_c$, for which the change of wormhole/non-wormhole regime occurs. Thus, for $|\alpha| \leq 1$, the fitting of the numerical results, see Fig. \[fig:l2\], gives $l_ 2 = -0.330976 + 1.00735\, \alpha$, which leads to the critical value $\alpha_c \approx -0.82$. A rough estimate of the corresponding critical Schwarzschild mass gives the result $M_c= -\frac{1}{2} r_\epsilon \alpha_c \approx 0.41 r_\epsilon \approx 0.013$.
Scalar sector
-------------
It is time now to study the behavior of the scalar field. Let us recall that we have identified the radial coordinate with the scalar field, $x \leftrightarrow \phi(x)$. Therefore, from the change of variables , suitably expressed as $dx = J_{xy}\, dy=|1 - X_\epsilon|\, dy = (1 - X_\epsilon)\,dy$, we can write $\phi(y)=\int (1 - X_\epsilon) dy$. This way, an analytical function fitting the numerical solution for $J_{xy}$ can be found as
$$(J_{xy})_{Fit} = 1 + \tfrac{1}{2} \left(1 + \tanh[\alpha\, m_J (y - y_c)]\right) \ . \label{eq:Jxy}$$
In Fig. \[fig:3\] we observe that $(J_{xy})_{Fit}$ fits well the numerically integrated function $J_{xy}$ with the parameters depicted in Table \[table:III\]. This allows us to integrate the approximating function $(J_{xy})_{Fit}$ so as to obtain the approximated field profile $\phi_A(y)$ as
$$\label{eq:phiAy}
\phi_A(y)= \phi_0 + \tfrac{3}{2} y + \frac{1}{\alpha\, m_J} \log [ \cosh(\tfrac12 \alpha\, m_J (y - y_c))] \ ,$$
shown in Fig. \[fig:4\], along with its inverse $y(x)=\phi_A^{-1}(x)$.
--------------- --------- --------- --------- ---------
$\alpha$ -50 -10 -1 -0.8
\[1mm\] $m_J$ -0.9593 -0.9844 -2.6970 -3.3552
--------------- --------- --------- --------- ---------
: Fitting values of the parameter $m_J$ in the approximation (\[eq:phiAy\]) for different values of $\alpha$.[]{data-label="table:III"}
![Scalar field $\phi_A(y)$ from integration of the approximated function $(J_{xy})_{Fit}$ in Eq.(\[eq:phiAy\]) (solid) and its inverse (dashed), for the case $\alpha=-10$ and with the integration constant $\phi_0$ set to $0$ for simplicity.[]{data-label="fig:4"}](fig6.eps){width="45.00000%"}
![Scalar field $\phi_A(y)$ from integration of the approximated function $(J_{xy})_{Fit}$ in Eq.(\[eq:phiAy\]) (solid) and its inverse (dashed), for the case $\alpha=-10$ and with the integration constant $\phi_0$ set to $0$ for simplicity.[]{data-label="fig:4"}](fig7.eps){width="45.00000%"}
We will see in the next section that, despite its innocent appearance, the presence of the scalar field gives rise to a remarkable rich and interesting structure.
Solitonic behavior {#sec:VI}
==================
When Eq. was presented, it was mentioned that the free scalar field is completely determined by the geometry. However, the geometry is also specified by the scalar field and, therefore, the final solution is the result of a nonlinear interaction of the scalar field with itself through the metric it generates. As a consequence, in the discussion of the energy associated to this type of solutions one should take into account not only the energy of the scalar field but also the energy stored in the gravitational field generated by the scalar field. In this sense, the scalar field energy density can be read from the $T_{00}$ component of its stress-energy tensor in Eq.(\[eq:tmunus\]), which gives $T_{00}=-\frac{1}{2}g^{xx} \phi_x^2 g_{00}=-\frac{1}{2}g^{xx} g_{00}$, in the representation $\phi_x=1$. Then, using the relations
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{rels}
X_\epsilon&=&\frac{\epsilon\kappa^2}{2} C^2 W^4 e^{-\nu} \hspace{0.1cm};\hspace{0.1cm} \sqrt{-g}=C \sin\theta g_{xx} \nonumber \\
&\Rightarrow& \;g_{xx}=\frac{1}{C^2 W^4 e^{-\nu}} =\frac{\epsilon\kappa^2}{2 X_\epsilon} \ ,\end{aligned}$$
the energy density of the scalar field becomes
$$\label{eq:T00scalar}
T_{00}= \frac{-e^{\tilde{\nu}}}{\epsilon\kappa^2} \frac{\left(1- \sqrt{\Omega_+ \Omega_-}\right)}{\Omega_+}
= \frac{-e^{\tilde{\nu}}}{\epsilon\kappa^2} \frac{\left(1- |\lambda+X_\epsilon|\right)}{(\lambda^2- X_\epsilon^2)^{1/2}} \ .$$
Using the numerical solution obtained in Eq.(\[eq:phiAy\]), it turns out that the scalar field energy density per unit time is divergent as it approaches the center (corresponding to $y \rightarrow \infty$ and $X_\epsilon\approx -\lambda+\frac{1}{2} |\theta|^{-2/3}$).
An alternative measure of the total energy density, which has been used previously in the context of Born-Infeld gravity coupled to electromagnetic fields with interesting results [@or13], is the spatial part of the integrand of the action functional calculated on the solutions. This quantity can be seen as associated to the energy of the scalar field plus a gravitational binding energy. In the case of a scalar field coupled to GR, this quantity is proportional to the scalar field potential and, therefore, vanishes for free fields. In the Born-Infeld theory, however, the total action of the theory evaluated on the solutions takes the form
$$\label{SBIS}
S_{BI+\phi} = \frac{1}{\kappa^2 \epsilon}\int d^4x \left[\sqrt{-q} - \lambda \sqrt{-g}\right] - \frac{1}{2} \int d^4x \sqrt{-g} X \ ,$$
(recall that $X\equiv g^{\mu\nu} \partial_\mu\phi\partial_\nu\phi$) and can be rewritten in terms of the deformation matrix ${\Omega^\mu}_{\nu}$ and the relation (\[rels\]) as
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:energydef}
S_{BI+\phi} &=& \frac{1}{\kappa^2 \epsilon}\int d^4x \sqrt{-g} \left[ (|\Omega|^{1/2}-\lambda) - X_\epsilon\right] \nonumber \\
&=& \int d^4x \frac{C \sin\theta}{2 X_\epsilon} \left[ |\Omega|^{1/2}- (\lambda + X_\epsilon)\right] \\
&=&{2\pi C} \int dt \int dy \frac{ |\lambda^2- X_\epsilon^2|}{X_\epsilon} \left[ (\lambda^2- X_\epsilon^2)^{1/2} - 1 \right] \ , \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
where we have used the coordinate change (\[eq:dydx\]). As we are considering free fields, the energy density defined by the Lagrangian density becomes
$$\label{eq:energysoliton}
\varepsilon_{BI+\phi}(y) \propto |{X_\epsilon}|^{-1} |\lambda^2- X_\epsilon^2|\left[ (\lambda^2- X_\epsilon^2)^{1/2} - 1\right] \ ,$$
whose behavior can be studied using the analytical and numerical results of previous sections. In this sense, as depicted in Fig. \[fig:7\], for any value of the integration constant $\alpha$ in Eq.(\[eq:nufit\]) the total energy density presents a characteristic profile made up of a *lump* of energy localized in a finite region of space, while it vanishes both in the asymptotic limit, $\theta \rightarrow 0$, and in the central region, $\theta \rightarrow \infty$. As already discussed in the introduction, the localization of the energy density (scalar plus gravitational in this case) in a finite region of space is a characteristic feature of solitonic configurations. Note that the variation of the integration constant $\alpha$ makes the localization of the lump of energy density to be shifted and its width to be changed, though both the localized nature and the amplitude of the lump remain unchanged.
Comparing the calculations made with $l_{\epsilon}=10^{-3}$ and $l_{\epsilon}=10^{-1}$ in Figs. \[fig:7\] and \[fig:7b\], respectively, we see that the effect of increasing the relative strength of the gravitational Born-Infeld corrections, encoded in $l_{\epsilon}$, is to shift the location of the maximum of the energy density farther from the center of the solution (located at $y \rightarrow \infty$) and to increase its width, while its height remains unchanged. None of these solitonic features is found for the GR counterpart (corresponding to $l_{\epsilon} \rightarrow 0$).
![Same notation as in Fig. \[fig:7\], now with $l_{\epsilon}=10^{-1}$. As compared to the previous plot, now the solutions are localized farther from the center ($y \rightarrow \infty$).[]{data-label="fig:7b"}](fig8.EPS){width="42.00000%"}
![Same notation as in Fig. \[fig:7\], now with $l_{\epsilon}=10^{-1}$. As compared to the previous plot, now the solutions are localized farther from the center ($y \rightarrow \infty$).[]{data-label="fig:7b"}](fig9.EPS){width="42.00000%"}
To get further into this interpretation we can take a glance at the behavior of the curvature scalars. As depicted in Figs. \[fig:Rsy\], \[fig:Rsz\], \[fig:scalarsy\] and \[fig:scalarsz\], there is indeed a correlation between the lump of energy and such scalars, as the latter take their maximum value approximately at the center of the lump. This result strongly deviates from the GR case, where nothing in the curvature scalars tells us about the existence of scalar solitonic structures. A glance at Fig. \[fig:zWHzpeak\] shows that the peak of the lump is localized at the wormhole throat. It must be noted that also in the cases without wormhole the lump localizes on a thick shell away from the center.
![Normalized Ricci scalar of the spacetime metric $g_{\mu\nu}$ in both Born-Infeld gravity (solid black) and GR (dotted blue) cases. The (total) energy density distribution of the gravitational and scalar field sectors (dashed red) defines the region where the curvature evolves from a negative constant value in the internal region ($y \rightarrow\infty$) to zero in the asymptotically flat region ($y \rightarrow 0$).[]{data-label="fig:Rsy"}](fig10.EPS){width="45.00000%"}
![Parametric plot of the normalized Ricci scalar of the physical metric $g_{\mu\nu}$ against the radial function $z$ comparing Born-Infeld gravity (solid black) and GR (dotted blue) cases. The energy density distribution (dashed red) defines the region of curvature change from zero (flat) at the minimum of the radial function, to a negative constant value in the internal region. The minimum of the radial function occurs at $z\sim 300$ for $\alpha=-10$, as can be seen from Fig. \[fig:radii\].[]{data-label="fig:Rsz"}](fig11.EPS){width="45.00000%"}
![Curvature scalars for the Born-Infeld gravity model: Ricci scalar (solid), squared Ricci tensor (dashed) and squared Riemann tensor (dotted) showing the change in the curvature scalars in the region of energy density localization.[]{data-label="fig:scalarsy"}](fig12.EPS){width="45.00000%"}
![Parametric plot of the normalized curvature scalars for the Born-Infeld gravity model: Ricci scalar (solid), squared Ricci tensor (dashed) and squared Riemann tensor (dotted). The energy density (dashed red) localization region signals the curvature change from zero (flat) at the minimum of the radial function, to constant values in the internal region.[]{data-label="fig:scalarsz"}](fig13.EPS){width="45.00000%"}
![Linear relation between the location of the wormhole throat and the location of the peak of the total energy density for $\epsilon<0$. Within the numerical accuracy, they are coincident.[]{data-label="fig:zWHzpeak"}](fig14.EPS){width="42.00000%"}
Case with $\epsilon>0$ {#sec:VII-B}
======================
In sections \[sec:V\] and \[sec:VI\] above, we have solved the field equations (\[fulleq1\]), (\[fulleq2\]) and (\[fulleq3\]) under the assumption $\epsilon=-2l_{\epsilon}^2<0$ and discussed the physical properties of the solutions. For completeness, in this section we shall study the branch $\epsilon>0$ and compare the results of both cases. Let us first consider the two regions of interest. In this sense, in the asymptotic limit, $ \vert \theta \vert \rightarrow 0$, we find that these equations boil down to
$$\begin{aligned}
X_\epsilon &\simeq& |\theta| \approx 0 \ , \\
\tilde{\nu}_{yy} &\simeq & \frac{\kappa_0^2}{2} |\theta| \approx 0 \ , \\
\tilde{W}_{yy}-\tilde{\nu}_y\tilde{W}_y &\simeq& \frac{\kappa_0^2}{2} (1 - |\theta|) \tilde{W} \approx \frac{\kappa_0^2}{2} \tilde{W} \ , \\
\tilde{W}\tilde{W}_{yy}-\tilde{W^2_y}+\frac{e^{\tilde{\nu}}}{C_0^2} &\simeq& \frac{\kappa_0^2}{4} |\theta| \, \tilde{W}^2 \approx 0 \ .\end{aligned}$$
which recover the GR behavior there, like in the $\epsilon <0$ case, see Eqs.(\[Wy1\]), (\[Wy2\]) and (\[Wy3\]). In the central region, $\vert \theta \vert \rightarrow \infty$, we find instead
$$\begin{aligned}
X_\epsilon&\simeq & (1 - \tfrac{1}{2} |\theta|^{-2/3}) \approx 1 \ , \\
\tilde{\nu}_{yy}&\simeq& \kappa_0^2 \,|\theta|^{-2/3} \approx 0 \ , \\
\tilde{W}_{yy}-\tilde{\nu}_y\tilde{W}_y & \simeq & \frac{\kappa_0^2}{4} \tilde{W} |\theta|^{-2/3} \approx 0 \ , \label{eq:Wsp} \\
\tilde{W}\tilde{W}_{yy}-\tilde{W^2_y}+\frac{e^{\tilde{\nu}}}{C_0^2} &\simeq & - \frac{1}{2} \kappa_0^2 |\theta|^{-2/3} \tilde{W}^2
\approx 0 \ .\end{aligned}$$
It is immediately seen that the equation (\[eq:Wsp\]) for $\tilde{W}$ gets simplified as compared to the case $\epsilon<0$, see Eq.(\[fulleq2\]), which in turn modifies the inner behavior of the solutions. Indeed, now it is possible to analytically integrate the equations at the center of the solutions as
$$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{\nu}_{Center}(y)&=& L_1+ L_2\, y \ ,\\
\tilde{W}_{Center}(y)&=&\frac{e^{L_1}}{L_2 D_1 C_0^2} e^{L_2\,y} -\frac{D_1}{L_2} \label{eq:Wep2} \ ,\end{aligned}$$
where $L_1$ and $L_2$ are integration constants to be determined by means of the numerical computation, and we have defined $D_1=\tilde W'(y) - L_2 \, \tilde W(y)$. Using the asymptotic limits above we have implemented a similar numerical strategy as in the $\epsilon<0$ case. As the most relevant results, we find again evidence of existence of wormhole structures, again for $\alpha \lesssim -0.8$, see Fig. \[fig:WHen\], for which the radial function $z(y)$ bounces off to $z \rightarrow \infty$ after reaching a minimum (the throat). As in the case with $\epsilon<0$, for $\epsilon>0$ the location of the throat is also determined by the mass of the object (see Fig. \[fig:rminalphaEpsP\]). Such structures disappear for objects with lighter masses ($\alpha$ closer to zero), which is a similar result as in the $\epsilon <0$ case.
Attending to the relation $z^2(y)\approx\left(\tilde{W}^2e^{\tilde{\nu}}\right)^{-\frac{1}{3}}$ that arises in the $|\theta|\to \infty$ limit, the existence of wormhole/non-wormhole structures is justified by a change of sign in the parameter $L_2$ around $\alpha \simeq -0.8$. In fact, for $\alpha <-0.8$ we observe $L_2<0$ as $y\to\infty$, which leads to a minimal $2$-sphere or radius $\tilde{z}_{min}=\lim_{y\to \infty}1/\tilde{W}=-L_2/D_1$ for the auxiliary metric. Consequently, $z^2(y)\propto e^{-L_2y/3}$ grows with increasing $y$, corresponding to a wormhole. On the other hand, when $L_2>0$ one finds that $\tilde{z}\propto e^{-L_2 y}$ goes to zero as $y$ grows. In this case, $L_2>0$ implies that $z^2(y)\propto e^{-L_2 y}\to 0$ as $y\to \infty$.
In the present case, computation of the total energy density made up of the gravitational and scalar field contributions, Eq.(\[eq:energydef\]), for wormhole and non-wormhole configurations, yields again a localized profile at a finite distance, but now it represents a *well* instead of a lump, as such an energy density is negative \[see Fig. \[fig:wall\] and the definition of total energy density in Eq.(\[eq:energydef\])\]. Unlike in that case, the location of the peak is not related to extrema of the curvature scalars, see Fig. \[fig:csen\], though it coincides with the wormhole throat when it exists.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![Radial function $z=1/(r_\epsilon \Omega_{+} \tilde{W}(y))$, and the total energy density $\vert \varepsilon_{BI+\phi} \vert$, as a function of the coordinate $y$ for different values of the parameter $\alpha$. The limits $\vert \theta \vert \rightarrow 0$ and $\vert \theta \vert \rightarrow \infty$ determine the asymptotic (GR-like) and central regions, respectively. For $\alpha \lesssim -0.8$ a minimum in the radial function is found, which signals the presence of a wormhole structure. \[fig:WHen\]](fig15a.EPS "fig:"){width="4.0cm" height="3.5cm"} ![Radial function $z=1/(r_\epsilon \Omega_{+} \tilde{W}(y))$, and the total energy density $\vert \varepsilon_{BI+\phi} \vert$, as a function of the coordinate $y$ for different values of the parameter $\alpha$. The limits $\vert \theta \vert \rightarrow 0$ and $\vert \theta \vert \rightarrow \infty$ determine the asymptotic (GR-like) and central regions, respectively. For $\alpha \lesssim -0.8$ a minimum in the radial function is found, which signals the presence of a wormhole structure. \[fig:WHen\]](fig15b.EPS "fig:"){width="4.0cm" height="3.5cm"}
![Radial function $z=1/(r_\epsilon \Omega_{+} \tilde{W}(y))$, and the total energy density $\vert \varepsilon_{BI+\phi} \vert$, as a function of the coordinate $y$ for different values of the parameter $\alpha$. The limits $\vert \theta \vert \rightarrow 0$ and $\vert \theta \vert \rightarrow \infty$ determine the asymptotic (GR-like) and central regions, respectively. For $\alpha \lesssim -0.8$ a minimum in the radial function is found, which signals the presence of a wormhole structure. \[fig:WHen\]](fig15c.EPS "fig:"){width="4.0cm" height="3.5cm"} ![Radial function $z=1/(r_\epsilon \Omega_{+} \tilde{W}(y))$, and the total energy density $\vert \varepsilon_{BI+\phi} \vert$, as a function of the coordinate $y$ for different values of the parameter $\alpha$. The limits $\vert \theta \vert \rightarrow 0$ and $\vert \theta \vert \rightarrow \infty$ determine the asymptotic (GR-like) and central regions, respectively. For $\alpha \lesssim -0.8$ a minimum in the radial function is found, which signals the presence of a wormhole structure. \[fig:WHen\]](fig15d.EPS "fig:"){width="4.0cm" height="3.5cm"}
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![Linear relation between the location of the wormhole throat and the parameter $\alpha=-2M/r_\epsilon$ in the case $\epsilon>0$. []{data-label="fig:rminalphaEpsP"}](fig16.eps){width="45.00000%"}
![The total energy density for the combined system gravity + matter, $\varepsilon_{BI+\phi}(y)$ in Eq.(\[eq:energysoliton\]), with Born-Infeld parameter $l_{\epsilon}=10^{-3}$, for several values of the parameter $\alpha$. When a wormhole exists, the minimum of the curve coincides with the location of the throat. \[fig:wall\]](fig17.EPS){width="45.00000%"}
![Behavior of the curvature scalars for $\epsilon>0$, compared to the total energy density. \[fig:csen\]](fig18.eps){width="45.00000%"}
Curvature scalars can be indeed computed using the generic form (\[eq:ds2thetainf0\]) obtained for the line element when $|\theta|\to\infty$ but taking into account that for $\epsilon>0$ we have $\lim_{|\theta|\to \infty}dx^2\approx dy^2/(4|\theta|^{4/3})$. As a result, the line element takes the form $$\label{eq:ds2epplusz}
\frac{ds^2}{r_\epsilon^2}=-\frac{1}{z^4}dt^2+\frac{\sigma^2L_2^2}{4C_0^2D_1^2}\frac{dz^2}{z^{10}}+z^2d\Omega^2 \ ,$$ with curvature scalars given by $$\begin{aligned}
r_\epsilon^4{R^\alpha}_{\beta\mu\nu}{R_\alpha}^{\beta\mu\nu} &\approx & \frac{4}{z^4} -\left( \frac{4C_0^2D_1^2}{\sigma^2L_2^2}\right)8z^6 \\
&&+\left(\frac{4C_0^2D_1^2}{\sigma^2L_2^2}\right)^2 300 z^{16}\nonumber \\
r_\epsilon^2R&\approx&\frac{2}{z^2} -\left( \frac{4C_0^2D_1^2}{\sigma^2L_2^2}\right)6 z^8 \ , \label{eq:scalarsepsp}\end{aligned}$$ which are divergent both in the $z\to0$ and $z\to \infty$ limits.
Geodesics {#sec:VII}
=========
Given that in the cases studied above the geometry far from where the scalar field is localized is asymptotically flat and recovers that of GR, the discussion of geodesics is only relevant in the interior region ($y\to \infty$). For this reason, in this section we consider the analytical approximations obtained so far to discuss their properties in both GR and the Born-Infeld gravity cases. This will also allow us to discuss the regularity of these spacetimes attending to the criterion of geodesic completeness, namely, whether any geodesic curve can be extended to arbitrarily large values of their affine parameter, and which plays a fundamental role in the singularity theorems [@Theorems; @SG15]. This captures the intuitive notion that in a physically consistent spacetime neither information nor physical observers (idealized as null and time-like geodesics, respectively) should be allowed to suddenly disappear or emerge from nowhere.
We point out that, in application of Einstein’s equivalence principle, which dictates that test particles follow geodesics of the spacetime metric $g_{\mu\nu}$, in the action (\[SBIS\]) describing our theory the matter does not couple directly to the connection (this is obvious for scalar fields). For this reason, we will focus on the geodesics of the metric $g_{\mu\nu}$. In general, should an explicit dependence on the connection in the matter sector be allowed, then one would be led to consider the geodesics associated to the independent connection as physically meaningful (see [@LecOlmo] for an extended discussion on geodesics in metric-affine spaces).
The above discussion implies that a geodesic curve $\gamma^{\mu}=x^{\mu}(u)$, where $u$ is the affine parameter, extremizes the functional [@Wald; @Chandra]
$$\mathcal{S}=\frac{1}{2} \int du \sqrt{g_{\mu\nu} \frac{dx^{\mu}}{du}\frac{dx^{\nu}}{du}} \ .$$
This means that $x^{\mu}(u)$ must satisfy the equation
$$\frac{d^2 x^\mu}{d u^2}+\Gamma^\mu_{\alpha\beta}(g) \frac{d x^\alpha}{d u}\frac{d x^\beta}{d u}=0 \ ,$$
where $\Gamma^\mu_{\alpha\beta}(g)$ are the Christoffel symbols associated to the spacetime metric $g_{\mu\nu}$. In the case of a spherically symmetric metric of the form $ds^2=-C(x) dt^2+D(x)^{-1} dx^2+r^2(x)d\Omega^2$ the geodesic equation takes the form [@LecOlmo]
$$\label{eq:geoeqo}
\frac{C(x)}{D(x)} \left(\frac{dx}{du}\right)^2= E^2 -C(x) \left(\frac{L^2}{r^2(x)} -k \right),$$
where the parameter $k=1,0,-1$ corresponds to space-like, null and time-like geodesics, respectively. For time-like geodesics, the conserved quantities $E=\sqrt{DC} dt/du$ and $L=r^2(x)d\varphi/du$ (due to staticity and spherical symmetry) have the interpretation of the total energy per unit mass and angular momentum per unit mass, respectively, around an axis normal to a plane (which can be chosen to be $\theta=\pi/2$ without loss of generality). For null geodesics this interpretation cannot be sustained, but the quotient $L/E$ can be identified instead as an apparent impact parameter from asymptotic infinity [@Chandra].
Using the line elements (\[eq:ds2center\]) and (\[eq:ds2epplusz\]), the above expression (\[eq:geoeqo\]) yields $$\label{eq:geoeqo3}
\frac{a_\epsilon^2}{z^{4+2n_\epsilon}} \left(\frac{dz}{du}\right)^2= E^2 -\frac{1}{z^4} \left(\frac{L^2}{z^2} -k \right) ,$$ where $a_\epsilon$ and $n_\epsilon$ are defined as $$(a_\epsilon,n_\epsilon)=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\left(\tfrac{1}{12}C_0(2l_2+l_\kappa),1\right) & \text{ if } \epsilon<0 \\
\left(C_0D_1,5\right) & \text{ if } \epsilon>0 \ , L_2>0 \\
\left(\tfrac{1}{3}C_0D_1,5\right) & \text{ if } \epsilon>0 \ , L_2<0
\end{array}\right. \\$$ To proceed with the discussion of geodesics, we must now distinguish between wormhole and non-wormhole configurations.
Non-wormhole case
-----------------
In the non-wormhole case, in which $z\to 0$ as $y\to\infty$, it is easy to see that for geodesics with angular momentum $L\neq 0$ (and any value of $k$), the right-hand side of must necessarily vanish at some finite and small radius as $z$ approaches zero. This means that such geodesics attain a minimum and then bounce to increasing values of the radial coordinate. This way they, evidently, never reach the center.
When $L=0$, time-like geodesics also bounce. On the other hand, for radial null geodesics ($L=0=k$), Eq. can be easily integrated leading to
$$\label{eq:null_rad_BI}
\frac{a_\epsilon}{1+n_\epsilon}\left(\frac{1}{z_0^{1+n_\epsilon}}-\frac{1}{z^{1+n_\epsilon}}\right)=\pm E(u-u_0) \ ,$$
where $u_0$ is an integration constant, and the $\pm$ sign represents outgoing/ingoing geodesics, respectively. It is easy to see that ingoing geodesics take an infinite affine time to reach the origin. Similarly, the initial condition at the center for outgoing geodesics must be set at $u\to -\infty$. This result puts forward that these spacetimes are geodesically complete, with the center located beyond the reach of geodesic observers and light rays. The curvature divergences that arise at $z\to 0$ \[see Eqs.(\[eq:scalars\]) and (\[eq:scalarsepsp\])\] are thus inaccessible. This situation is reminiscent of that found in some recently studied Palatini $f(R)$ theories sourced by anisotropic fluids [@fRani] or electromagnetic fields [@fRem], with the interesting result that the GR point-like singularity is generically replaced by a finite-size wormhole structure. Though curvature divergences appear at the wormhole throat, this structure lies on the future (or past) boundary of the spacetime and cannot be reached in finite affine time. Note also that for spatial geodesics (with $L=0$), the geodesic equation leads to $u\propto \ln z$ when $\epsilon<0$ and to $u\propto 1/z^4$ for $\epsilon>0$ . This implies that $z\to 0$ is at an infinite affine distance and confirms that also spatial geodesics are complete.
In order to facilitate the comparison with GR, we note that in the limit $y\to\infty$ the geodesic equation takes the form
$$\label{eq:geodesicsGR}
\left(\frac{\gamma}{m_+}\left(\frac{\gamma}{z}\right)^{\frac{\alpha}{m_+}-1}\right)^2\left(\frac{dz}{du}\right)^2=
E^2-\left(\frac{\gamma}{z}\right)^{\frac{\alpha}{m_+}}\left(\frac{L^2}{z^2}-k\right) \ .$$
Given that to get the correct weak field limit we need $\alpha=-2M/r_\epsilon<0$ and that $m_+>0$, we see that the factor $\left(\frac{\gamma}{z}\right)^{\frac{\alpha}{m_+}}$ on the right-hand side goes to zero as $z\to 0$. Moreover, for sufficiently massive objects one has $|\alpha|/m_+ \approx \gamma/m_+ \gg 1$, which implies that time-like and $L\neq 0$ geodesics behave like radial null geodesics near the origin. For radial null geodesics in the approximation above[^6], equation can be integrated to get
$$\gamma^{-\frac{2\gamma}{m_+}}\left({z}^{\frac{2\gamma}{m_+}}-z_0^{\frac{2\gamma}{m_+}}\right)=\pm 2E (u-u_0) \ .$$
It is clear from this expression that nothing prevents these GR geodesics from reaching the curvature divergence at the origin in a finite affine time. The contrast with the Born-Infeld gravity case is thus remarkable.
Wormhole case {#sec:WHcase}
-------------
In the wormhole case, the function $z(y)$ diverges as $y\to \infty$. This means that, regardless of the values of $k$ and $L$, Eq.(\[eq:geoeqo3\]) tends to the case of radial null geodesics of Eq.(\[eq:null\_rad\_BI\]) but with $z\to \infty$ instead of $z\to 0$. The difference is significant, as now all geodesics can reach the asymptotic infinity in a finite amount of (affine) time. The wormhole, therefore, gives rise to a completely different scenario. It is worth noting that the property of reaching the boundary $z\to \infty$ in a finite affine time is independent of the behavior of curvature invariants. In fact, for $\epsilon<0$ this region has finite invariants, whereas for $\epsilon>0$ they are divergent. The lack of correlation between curvature scalars and geodesic structure seems to be quite generic in theories beyond GR [@fRani].
Numerical analysis and effective potentials
-------------------------------------------
In the previous subsections we have studied the asymptotic behavior of geodesics in the internal region according to approximate analytical expressions obtained before. The matching of these asymptotic curves with their GR limit in the external region can be obtained numerically. In Fig. \[fig:10\], for instance, the trajectory of a radial null geodesic that goes from the GR region through the wormhole is shown. Non-radial null geodesics in wormhole configurations may go through the wormhole or bounce, depending on their initial energy. In order to quickly visualize the many situations one may encounter, it is useful to plot the effective potentials associated to various configurations. The effective potential we are referring to appears on the right-hand side of (\[eq:geoeqo\]) and can be written as $$\label{eq:poteppgen0}
V_{eff}=e^{\tilde \nu} \left( L^2 \tilde W^2 -\frac{k}{\Omega_+} \right) \ .$$
![Affine parameter for radial null geodesics ($\epsilon<0$, $l_{\epsilon}=10^{-3}\,; \alpha=-1$), superimposed to the total energy density distribution (dashed red). The location of the energy density peak determines also the position of the throat of the Born-Infeld gravity wormhole structure (solid black), absent in the GR case (dotted blue). The bounce in the trajectory actually represents the crossing of the wormhole throat. []{data-label="fig:10"}](fig19.eps){width="45.00000%"}
For null geodesics ($k=0$) the above potential simply reads $$V_{eff}^{rad}
=\left\{\begin{array}{ccl}
0 & &\ L=0 \,\text{(radial)}\\ L^2 {e^{\tilde\nu}} {\tilde W}^2& & \hspace{0.1cm} L\neq0 \end{array}\right. \ ,$$ which presents similar profiles for all non-radial cases. Moreover, it can be verified that these profiles are qualitatively similar in the $\epsilon>0$ and $\epsilon<0$ branches. To illustrate the general behavior, the case with $L=10$ is shown in Fig. \[fig:VeffEposL10null\]. There we observe again the transition between the wormhole ($\vert \alpha \vert$ large) and non-wormhole ($\vert \alpha \vert$ small) cases, such that in the former case those geodesics with enough energy to overcome the maximum of the potential barrier will be able to go through the wormhole throat and reach $y \rightarrow \infty$ in finite affine time (this was shown above analytically), while in the non-wormhole case any geodesic will bounce at some finite distance from the center due to the growing barrier as $y\to\infty$, thus corresponding to geodesically complete solutions.
![Effective potential for non-radial null geodesics, with $L=10$, in the $\epsilon<0$ case. Qualitatively, this shape is the same for the cases $\epsilon>0$ and $\epsilon<0$. \[fig:VeffEposL10null\]](fig20.EPS){width="41.00000%"}
For time-like geodesics ($k=-1$) the shape of the potential (\[eq:poteppgen0\]) is depicted in Fig. \[fig:vtimeep\] for different values of the angular momentum $L$. The difference between wormhole and non-wormhole configurations is evident from the plots, with the latter exhibiting a growing trend as $y\to\infty$. For $L\neq 0$, the non-wormhole potentials may lead to minima in which particles could remain stable against radial perturbations. For the wormhole configurations, if the particle has enough energy to surpass the potential barrier near the throat, the interior region offers no resistance at all to its propagation, as $V_{eff}\to 0$ rapidly as $y$ grows. If the particle has not enough energy, then it will bounce before reaching the wormhole and remain in the GR external region.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![Effective potential for time-like geodesics ($k=-1$) with different values of $L$ for $\epsilon>0$. Like in the case of null geodesics, these plots are qualitatively similar to those obtained for $\epsilon<0$. In the radial case (left upper panel) we also show the GR behavior (dotted blue lines) for comparison. \[fig:vtimeep\]](fig21a.eps "fig:"){width="4.2cm" height="3.8cm"} ![Effective potential for time-like geodesics ($k=-1$) with different values of $L$ for $\epsilon>0$. Like in the case of null geodesics, these plots are qualitatively similar to those obtained for $\epsilon<0$. In the radial case (left upper panel) we also show the GR behavior (dotted blue lines) for comparison. \[fig:vtimeep\]](fig21b.eps "fig:"){width="4.2cm" height="3.8cm"}
![Effective potential for time-like geodesics ($k=-1$) with different values of $L$ for $\epsilon>0$. Like in the case of null geodesics, these plots are qualitatively similar to those obtained for $\epsilon<0$. In the radial case (left upper panel) we also show the GR behavior (dotted blue lines) for comparison. \[fig:vtimeep\]](fig21c.eps "fig:"){width="4.2cm" height="3.8cm"} ![Effective potential for time-like geodesics ($k=-1$) with different values of $L$ for $\epsilon>0$. Like in the case of null geodesics, these plots are qualitatively similar to those obtained for $\epsilon<0$. In the radial case (left upper panel) we also show the GR behavior (dotted blue lines) for comparison. \[fig:vtimeep\]](fig21d.eps "fig:"){width="4.2cm" height="3.8cm"}
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusions and discussion {#sec:VIII}
==========================
In this work we have investigated the existence of scalar geonic configurations, namely, self-gravitating solutions supported by a massless, free scalar field. For this purpose we have considered a well motivated extension of GR, dubbed Born-Infeld gravity, characterized by a single length-squared parameter, and which recovers the dynamics and solutions of GR in the low energy-density limit.
After working out the field equations in suitable form for its analysis, we have used a combination of analytical approximations and numerical computations to solve them for the gravitational sector and the scalar field. Two relevant features have emerged out of this analysis. The first one is the existence of two different kinds of structures depending on the value of the constant $\alpha=-2M/r_{\epsilon}$ (which measures the relative size between the scale of the Born-Infeld gravity corrections, $r_{\epsilon}$, and the Schwarzschild radius associated to the particular solution considered). In this sense, for $\alpha \lesssim -0.8$, a wormhole structure with a finite minimum area (corresponding to the throat) arises, whereas for $\alpha \gtrsim -0.8$ the topology remains Euclidean and the solutions represent a kind of spherical condensate. These results hold true in both the $\epsilon <0$ and $\epsilon >0$ cases.
Despite having curvature divergences at the center, $r\to 0$, the non-wormhole structure turns out to be geodesically complete due to the fact that the center of the solutions, $r=0$, lies on the future (or past) boundary of the spacetime, as it cannot be reached in finite affine time by geodesic observers or radiation (this is similar to recent results obtained in some Palatini $f(R)$ theories containing wormhole solutions [@fRani; @fRem]). On the other hand, in the wormhole cases the throat can be reached and crossed by light rays and particles with energy above the maximum of the effective potential barrier. Once crossed, the internal asymptotic infinity is always reached in a finite affine time, putting forward the geodesic incompleteness of these configurations regardless of the behavior of curvature scalars as $y\to \infty$.
An interesting feature of the obtained solutions is related to the total energy density associated to the gravity plus scalar sectors. A solitonic profile has been found representing a lump/well of energy concentrated on a finite region of space around the wormhole throat, while vanishing away from it, which is a typical property of soliton configurations on a flat spacetime. Non-wormhole configurations also exhibit this shell-like distribution of energy, whose maximum is not localized at the center of the solutions. This feature was checked to exist for different values of the Born-Infeld length parameter and different values of the integration constants of the problem.
Remarkably, the location of the wormhole throat is linearly related with the parameter $|\alpha|$, having enough freedom in the choice of parameters and units to make it coincide with the corresponding Schwarzschild radius of a black hole with the same mass, [*i.e.*]{}, $r_{th}=2M$. This intriguing property arises as a result of the analytical and numerical analysis and by no means could have been anticipated from the field equations before their numerical integration or designed [*a priori*]{} in an attempt to replace event horizons by wormhole throats.
Whether these objects could have any astrophysical significance is a matter that will be explored in detail elsewhere given the importance of discriminating between black holes and other compact objects, as pointed out recently in the context of gravitational wave emission by Cardoso et al. [@GWe; @Cardoso:2016rao], using traversable wormholes (and other horizonless compact candidates) disguised as black holes. In the case of scalar geons considered here, the lack of an event horizon together with the incompleteness of geodesics in the wormhole configurations indicates that they are some kind of naked singularity, but with bounded total energy density (and curvature scalars as well in the case of $\epsilon<0$). On the other hand, the fact that they can be smoothly connected with geodesically complete solutions (those with Euclidean topology) suggests that the wormhole configurations could be unstable or represent transients, and that they might dynamically decay into lighter, more stable forms. The dynamical process of going from Euclidean topology configurations to non-Euclidean ones is likely to represent critical phenomena [@Gundlach:2007gc] and is interesting on its own, as is the process of quantum particle creation in those rapidly changing backgrounds [@Parker:2009uva; @Fabbri:2005mw]. Research in these directions is currently underway.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
V.I.A. is supported by the postdoctoral fellowship CNPq-Brasil/PDE No. 234432/2014-4 and by Federal University of Campina Grande (Brazil). G.J.O. is supported by a Ramon y Cajal contract and the Spanish grant FIS2014-57387-C3-1-P from MINECO. D.R.G. is funded by the Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT, Portugal) postdoctoral fellowship No. SFRH/BPD/102958/2014 and the FCT research grant UID/FIS/04434/2013. This work has also been supported by the i-COOPB20105 grant of the Spanish Research Council (CSIC), the Consolider Program CPANPHY-1205388, the Severo Ochoa grant SEV-2014-0398 (Spain), and the CNPq (Brazilian agency) project No.301137/2014-5. V.I.A. and D.R.G. thank the Department of Physics of the University of Valencia for their hospitality during the elaboration of this work. This article is based upon work from COST Action CA15117, supported by COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology).
Appendix {#sec:App1 .unnumbered}
========
In this appendix we provide the main elements justifying the suitability of the choice (\[ds\]) and (\[dst\]) for the line elements of the auxiliary and spacetime geometries, respectively. To start with one can introduce two line elements, suitably adapted to the symmetries and the two-metric structure of our problem, as
$$\begin{aligned}
ds^2=-B(x)e^{2\Phi(x)}dt^2+\frac{1}{B(x)}dx^2+r^2(x)d\Omega^2 \ , \label{eq:ds2} \\
d\tilde{s}^2=-\tilde{B}(x)e^{2\tilde{\Phi}(x)}dt^2+\frac{1}{\tilde{B}(x)}dx^2+\tilde{r}^2(x)d\Omega^2 \ , \label{eq:dst2}\end{aligned}$$
for the spacetime metric $g_{\mu\nu}$ and the auxiliary $q_{\mu\nu}$ metric, respectively. In these line elements, $B(x)$, $\Phi(x)$, $r(x)$, $\tilde{B}(x)$, $\tilde{\Phi}(x)$ and $\tilde{r}(x)$ are functions to be determined through the resolution of the field equations, and which are related to each other via the transformation (\[eq:qg\]) or, explicitly, by
$$\label{eq:relqg}
e^{2\tilde{\Phi}}=\Omega_+\Omega_- e^{2{\Phi}} \hspace{0.1cm};\hspace{0.2cm} B=\Omega_-\tilde{B} \hspace{0.1cm};\hspace{0.2cm} \tilde{r}^2=\Omega_+ r^2 \ .$$
With these definitions the first integral of the scalar field equations (\[eq:scalarfield\]) reads
$$\label{eq:scanew}
r^2 e^\Phi B \phi_x=C \ .$$
Next we follow Wyman’s approach, whose trick lies on employing the scalar field as radial coordinate, [*i.e.*]{} or, in other words, to make $\phi_x$ to be a constant, $\phi_x=v_0$. Then one can write Eq.(\[eq:scanew\]) using (\[eq:relqg\]) as $\tilde{B}=\frac{C_0 e^{-\tilde{\Phi}}}{\tilde{r}^2}\frac{\Omega^{1/2}}{\Omega_-}$, where $C_0=C/v_0$. Inserting this expression into the line element for $q_{\mu\nu}$, Eq.(\[eq:dst2\]), we obtain
$$\begin{aligned}
d\tilde{s}^2&=&-\left(\tfrac{C_0 e^{\tilde{\Phi}}}{\tilde{r}^2}\tfrac{\Omega^{1/2}}{\Omega_-}\right)dt^2+\left(\tfrac{C_0 e^{\tilde{\Phi}}}{\tilde{r}^2}\tfrac{\Omega^{1/2}}{\Omega_-}\right)\tfrac{\tilde{r}^4}{C_0^2}\left(\tfrac{\Omega_-}{\Omega^{1/2}}dx\right)^2+ \nonumber \\
&&+\tilde{r}^2d\Omega^2 \ . \label{eq:ds2rt}\end{aligned}$$
The final step is just to use this form of the line element to motivate the introduction of the ansätze given by Eqs.(\[ds\]) and (\[dst\]), which simplify many calculations.
[100]{}
J. A. Wheeler, Phys. Rev. **97**, 511 (1955). F. S. N. Lobo (Ed), [*Wormholes, Warp Drives and Energy Conditions*]{}, Springer Int. Publishing (2017 to appear), doi:10.1007/978-3-319-55182-1. C. W. Misner and J. A. Wheeler, Ann. Phys. **2**, 525 (1957). J. Louko, R. B. Mann and D. Marolf, Class. Quant. Grav. [**22**]{}, 1451 (2005). G. J. Olmo and D. Rubiera-Garcia, Fundam. Theor. Phys. [**189**]{}, 161 (2017). G. Martinon, G. Fodor, P. Grandclément and P. Forgàcs, Class. Quant. Grav. [**34**]{}, 125012 (2017) G. J. Olmo and D. Rubiera-Garcia, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D [**24**]{}, 1542013 (2015). R. Rajaraman, *Solitons and Instantons* (North-Holland, 1982); N. Manton and P. Sutcliffe, *Topological solitons* (Cambridge University Press, 2004); A. Vilenkin and E. P. S. Shellard, *Cosmic strings and other topological defects* (Cambridge University Press, 1994). T. H. R. Skyrme, Proc. Roy. Soc. A **260**, 127 (1961); H. Nielsen and P. Olesen, Nucl. Phys. B **61**, 1064 (1973); R. Jackiw and E. J. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. **64**, 2234 (1990); D. Bazeia, M. J. dos Santos, and R. F. Ribeiro, Phys. Lett. A [**208**]{}, 84 (1995); E. Babichev, Phys. Rev. D **74**, 085004 (2006); **77**, 065021 (2008). R. Friedberg and T. D. Lee, Phys. Rev. D, **15**, 1694 (1977); **16**, 1096 (1977); T. D. Lee and Y. Pang, Phys. Rept. **221**, 251 (1992); S. Coleman, Nucl. Phys. B **262**, 263 (1985); D. Bazeia, L. Losano, M. A. Marques, R. Menezes, and R. da Rocha, Phys. Lett. B [**758**]{}, 146 (2016); D. Bazeia, L. Losano, M. A. Marques, and R. Menezes, Phys. Lett. B [**765**]{}, 359 (2017). G. H. Derrick, J. Math. Phys **5**, 1252 (1964); S. Coleman, Comm. Math. Phys. **55**, 113 (1977); S. Coleman and L. Smarr, Comm. Math. Phys. **56**, 1 (1977). D. Bazeia, E. da Hora, R. Menezes, H. P. de Oliveira, and C. dos Santos, Phys. Rev. D **81**, 125016 (2010); C. Adam, J. Sanchez-Guillen, and A. Wereszczynski, Phys. Rev. D **82**, 085015 (2010); P. P. Avelino, D. Bazeia, and R. Menezes, Eur. Phys. J. C **71**, 1683 (2011); R. Casana, M. M. Ferreira, E. da Hora, and C. dos Santos, Phys. Lett. B **722**, 193 (2013). R. Bartnik and J. McKinnon, Phys. Rev. Lett. **61**, 141 (1988). M. S. Volkov and D. V. Gal’tsov, Phys. Rept. **319**, 1 (1999); D. Gal’tsov and R. Kerner, Phys. Rev. Lett. **84**, 5955 (2000); S. Hod, Phys. Lett. B **661**, 175 (2008). I. Z. Fisher, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. [**18**]{}, 636 (1948) \[arXiv:gr-qc/9911008\]. C. A. R. Herdeiro and E. Radu, Phys. Rev. Lett. **112**, 221101 (2014); Class. Quant. Grav. **32**, 144001 (2015); G. Dvali and A. Gußmann, Nucl. Phys. B [**913**]{}, 1001 (2016). C. A. R. Herdeiro and E. Radu, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D [**24**]{}, 1542014 (2015); M. S. Volkov, arXiv:1601.08230 \[gr-qc\]. W. Israel, Commun. Math. Phys. **8**, 245 (1968); B. Carter, Phys. Rev. Lett. **26**, 331 (1971). J. F. M. Delgado, C. A. R. Herdeiro, E. Radu, and H. Runarsson, Phys. Lett. B [**761**]{}, 234 (2016); Y. Ni, M. Zhou, A. Cardenas-Avendano, C. Bambi, C. A. R. Herdeiro, and E. Radu, JCAP [**1607**]{}, 049 (2016); C. L. Benone, L. C. B. Crispino, C. Herdeiro, and E. Radu, Phys. Rev. D [**90**]{}, 104024 (2014). R. Brito, V. Cardoso, and P. Pani, Lect. Notes Phys. **906** (2015). V. Cardoso, O. J. C. Dias, J. P. S. Lemos, and S. Yoshida, Phys. Rev. D **70**, 044039 (2004); 049903 (2004); V. Cardoso and O. J. C. Dias, Phys. Rev. D **70**, 084011 (2004); N. Sanchis-Gual, J. C. Degollado, P. J. Montero, J. A. Font, and C. Herdeiro, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**116**]{}, 141101 (2016); N. Sanchis-Gual, J. C. Degollado, P. Izquierdo, J. A. Font, and P. J. Montero, Phys. Rev. D [**94**]{}, 043004 (2016); 044061 (2016). S. L. Liebling and C. Palenzuela, Living Rev. Rel. **15**, 6 (2012). F. Canfora and H. Maeda, Phys. Rev. D [**87**]{}, 084049 (2013); S. B. Gudnason, M. Nitta, and N. Sawado, JHEP [**1512**]{}, 013 (2015); E. Ayon-Beato, F. Canfora, and J. Zanelli, Phys. Lett. B [**752**]{}, 201 (2016). N. Sanchis-Gual, J. C. Degollado, P. J. Montero, and J. A. Font, Phys. Rev. D [**91**]{}, 043005 (2015); N. Sanchis-Gual, J. C. Degollado, P. J. Montero, J. A. Font, and V. Mewes, Phys. Rev. D [**92**]{}, 083001 (2015); S. Ponglertsakul, E. Winstanley, and S. R. Dolan, Phys. Rev. D [**94**]{}, 024031 (2016); A. Escorihuela-Tomàs, N. Sanchis-Gual, J. C. Degollado and J. A. Font, arXiv:1704.08023 \[gr-qc\]. U. Nucamendi and M. Salgado, Phys. Rev. D [**68**]{}, 044026 (2003); C. Herdeiro, E. Radu, and H. Runarsson, Class. Quant. Grav. [**33**]{}, 154001 (2016); S. Hod, Phys. Lett. B [**763**]{}, 275 (2016); E. Babichev, C. Charmousis, and M. Hassaine, JHEP [**1705**]{} 114 (2017); W. E. East and F. Pretorius, arXiv:1704.04791 \[gr-qc\]. V. Cardoso, S. Chakrabarti, P. Pani, E. Berti, and L. Gualtieri, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**107**]{}, 241101 (2011). V. Cardoso, I. P. Carucci, P. Pani, and T. P. Sotiriou, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**111**]{}, 111101 (2013); E. Berti, V. Cardoso, L. Gualtieri, M. Horbatsch, and U. Sperhake, Phys. Rev. D [**87**]{}, 124020 (2013); Y. Brihaye and B. Hartmann, arXiv:1704.04655 \[gr-qc\]. S. Deser and G. W. Gibbons, Class. Quant. Grav. [**15**]{}, L35 (1998). M. Bañados, Phys. Rev. D **77**, 123534 (2008); M. Bañados, P. G. Ferreira, and C. Skordis, Phys. Rev. D **79**, 063511 (2009); P. Pani, V. Cardoso, and T. Delsate, Phys. Rev. Lett. **107**, 031101 (2011); P. P. Avelino and R. Z. Ferreira, Phys. Rev. D **86**, 041501 (2012); T. Delsate and J. Steinhoff, Phys. Rev. Lett. **105**, 011101 (2012); P. Pani, T. Delsate, and V. Cardoso, Phys. Rev. D **85**, 084020 (2012); F. Fiorini, Phys. Rev. Lett. **111**, 011101 (2013); M. Bouhmadi-Lopez, C. Y. Chen, and P. Chen, Eur. Phys. J. C [**74**]{}, 2802 (2014); [**75**]{}, 90 (2015); Phys. Rev. D [**90**]{}, 123518 (2014); S. Jana and S. Kar, Phys. Rev. D [**92**]{}, 084004 (2015); R. Shaikh, Phys. Rev. D [**92**]{}, 024015 (2015); C. Y. Chen, M. Bouhmadi-Lopez, and P. Chen, Eur. Phys. J. C [**76**]{}, 40 (2016); P. P. Avelino, Phys. Rev. D [**93**]{}, 044067 (2016); 104054 (2016); S. Jana and S. Kar, arXiv:1706.03209 \[gr-qc\]; K. Yang, Y. X. Liu, B. Guo and X. L. Du, arXiv:1706.04818 \[hep-th\]; S. L. Li and H. Wei, arXiv:1705.06819 \[gr-qc\]. J. Beltran Jimenez, L. Heisenberg, G. J. Olmo and D. Rubiera-Garcia, arXiv:1704.03351 \[gr-qc\]. G. J. Olmo, D. Rubiera-Garcia, and A. Sanchez-Puente, Eur. Phys. J. C **76**, 143 (2016). S. D. Odintsov, G. J. Olmo, and D. Rubiera-Garcia, Phys. Rev. D **90**, 044003 (2014). G. J. Olmo, D. Rubiera-Garcia, and H. Sanchis-Alepuz, Eur. Phys. J. C **74**, 2804 (2014). M. Bañados and P. G. Ferreira, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**105**]{}, 011101 (2010). G. J. Olmo, D. Rubiera-Garcia, and A. Sanchez-Puente, Phys. Rev. D **92**, 044047 (2015). G. J. Olmo, D. Rubiera-Garcia, and A. Sanchez-Puente, Class. Quant. Grav. **33**, 115007 (2016). M. A. Melvin, Phys. Lett. **8**, 65 (1964). C. Bambi, G. J. Olmo, and D. Rubiera-Garcia, Phys. Rev. D **91**, 104010 (2015). J. Zanelli, arXiv:hep-th/0502193. M. Ferraris, M. Francaviglia, and I. Volovich, Class. Quant. Grav. **11**, 1505 (1994); A. Borowiec, M. Ferraris, M. Francaviglia, and I. Volovich, Class. Quant. Grav. **15**, 43 (1998). S. Capozziello and M. De Laurentis, Phys. Rep. **509**, 167 (2011); S. Nojiri and S. D. Odintsov, Phys. Rep. **505**, 59 (2011). V. Cardoso, S. Hopper, C. F. B. Macedo, C. Palenzuela, and P. Pani, Phys. Rev. D [**94**]{}, 084031 (2016). J. Abedi, H. Dykaar, and N. Afshordi, arXiv:1612.00266 \[gr-qc\]; C. Barceló, R. Carballo-Rubio and L. J. Garay, JHEP [**1705**]{} 054 (2017). B. P. Abbott [*et al.*]{} \[LIGO Scientific and Virgo Collaborations\], Phys. Rev. X [**6**]{}, 041015 (2016). F. S. N. Lobo, G. J. Olmo and D. Rubiera-Garcia, JCAP [**1307**]{}, 011 (2013); J. Khoury, Phys. Rev. D [**91**]{}, 024022 (2015); S. Clesse and J. García-Bellido, Phys. Rev. D [**92**]{}, 023524 (2015); J. Garcia-Bellido and E. Ruiz Morales, arXiv:1702.03901 \[astro-ph.CO\]; J. García-Bellido, arXiv:1702.08275 \[astro-ph.CO\]. G. J. Olmo and D. Rubiera-Garcia, JCAP **1402**, 010 (2014). G. J. Olmo and D. Rubiera-Garcia, Phys. Rev. D **88**, 084030 (2013). J. Beltran Jimenez, L. Heisenberg, and G. J. Olmo, JCAP [**1506**]{}, 026 (2015). D. Bazeia, L. Losano, R. Menezes, G. J. Olmo, and D. Rubiera-Garcia, Class. Quant. Grav. [**32**]{}, 215011 (2015). M. Wyman, Phys. Rev. D **24**, 839 (1981). A. I. Janis, E. T. Newman and J. Winicour, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**20**]{}, 878 (1968). M. Visser, *Lorentzian wormholes* (Springer-Verlag, New York, 1995). R. Penrose, Phys. Rev. Lett. **14**, 57 (1965); Riv. Nuovo Cim. Numero Speciale **1**, 252 (1969); Gen. Relativ. Gravit. **34**, 1141 (2002); S. W. Hawking, Phys. Rev. Lett. **17**, 444 (1966). J. M. M. Senovilla and D. Garfinkle, Class. Quant. Grav. [**32**]{}, 124008 (2015). G. J. Olmo, Springer Proc. Phys. [**176**]{}, 183 (2016) \[arXiv:1607.06670 \[hep-th\]\]. R. M. Wald, *General Relativity* (University Press, Chicago, 1984) S. Chandrasekhar, *The Mathematical Theory of Black Holes* (Oxford University Press, New York, 1992). G. J. Olmo and D. Rubiera-Garcia, Universe **2015**, 173; C. Bejarano, G. J. Olmo, and D. Rubiera-Garcia, Phys. Rev. D [**95**]{}, 064043 (2017). C. Bambi, A. Cardenas-Avendano, G. J. Olmo, and D. Rubiera-Garcia, Phys. Rev. D **93**, 064016 (2016). V. Cardoso, E. Franzin, and P. Pani, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**116**]{}, 171101 (2016); Erratum: Phys. Rev. Lett. [**117**]{}, 089902 (2016). C. Gundlach and J. M. Martin-Garcia, Living Rev. Rel. [**10**]{}, 5 (2007). L. E. Parker and D. Toms, *Quantum Field Theory in Curved Spacetime: Quantized Field and Gravity* (Cambridge University Press, 2009). A. Fabbri and J. Navarro-Salas, *Modeling black hole evaporation* (Imp. Coll. Pr., London, UK, 2005).
[^1]: Let us note that regular geometries supported by electromagnetic fields exist in GR under the form of a bundle of magnetic flux lines in static equilibrium held together by their own gravitational interaction, so-called Melvin Universe [@Melvin]. Such solutions also exist in the Born-Infeld gravity setup, see [@Melvin-cor].
[^2]: See [@Torsion] for a discussion of the field equations in Palatini theories of gravity with torsion.
[^3]: Recall that $\kappa_0^2$ actually represents the dimensionless quantity $\kappa^2 v_0^2 r_\epsilon^2$, where $\kappa^2 v_0^2$ is an inverse squared length scale associated to the amplitude of the scalar field, $\phi=v_0 x$. Given that $r_\epsilon=\sqrt{l_\epsilon r_C}$ is the natural scale of the problem, we can assume $l_\phi^2=1/\kappa^2 v_0^2$ to be bigger than $r_\epsilon^2$ or, at least, of the same order of magnitude, which implies $\kappa^2 v_0^2 r_\epsilon^2\leq1$.
[^4]: All numerical values and plots are based on calculations taking $\kappa=1$ and in all tables we show just four digits precision for simplicity.
[^5]: Let us stress that, as stated in the introduction, similar wormholes configurations are also found in the context of Born-Infeld gravity when electromagnetic fields are considered [@OlmoRub].
[^6]: For radial null geodesics in GR, an exact analytical expression with the form $y=y(\lambda)$ is possible.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Cosmic ray (CR) protons are an important component in many astrophysical systems. Processes like CR injection, cooling, adiabatic changes as well as active CR transport through the medium strongly modify the CR momentum distribution and have to be taken into account in hydrodynamical simulations. We present an efficient novel numerical scheme to accurately compute the evolution of the particle distribution function by solving the Fokker-Planck equation with a low number of spectral bins ($10 - 20$), which is required to include a full spectrum for every computational fluid element. The distribution function is represented by piecewise power laws and is not forced to be continuous, which enables an optimal representation of the spectrum. The Fokker-Planck equation is solved with a two-moment approach evolving the CR number and energy density. The low numerical diffusion of the scheme reduces the numerical errors by orders of magnitude in comparison to classical schemes with piecewise constant spectral representations. With this method not only the spectral evolution of CRs can be computed accurately in magnetohydrodynamic simulations but also their dynamical impact as well as CR ionisation. This allows for more accurate models for astrophysical plasmas, like the interstellar medium, and direct comparisons with observations.'
author:
- |
Philipp Girichidis$^{1}$[^1], Christoph Pfrommer$^{1}$, Micha[ł]{} Hanasz$^{2}$, Thorsten Naab$^{3}$\
$^1$Leibniz-Institut für Astrophysik Potsdam (AIP), An der Sternwarte 16, 14482 Potsdam, Germany\
$^2$Centre for Astronomy, Nicolaus Copernicus University, Faculty of Physics, Astronomy and Informatics, Grudziadzka 5, PL-87100 Toruń, Poland\
$^3$Max-Planck-Institut für Astrophysik, Karl-Schwarzschild-Str. 1, 85741 Garching, Germany
bibliography:
- 'astro.bib'
- 'girichidis.bib'
date: 'Accepted XXX. Received YYY; in original form ZZZ'
title: 'Spectrally resolved cosmic ray hydrodynamics – I. Spectral scheme'
---
\[firstpage\]
cosmic rays – methods: numerical – MHD – plasmas – astroparticle physics
Introduction
============
CRs are an important energy component in many astrophysical systems from proto-planetary discs, to the interstellar medium in galaxies, and to galaxy clusters [@StrongMoskalenkoPtuskin2007; @GrenierBlackStrong2015]. Of particular importance are CR protons in galaxies because their energy densities are comparable to magnetic, thermal and kinetic energy densities and because of their resulting dynamical and chemical impact on the gas. Early theoretical models [@Krymskii1977; @AxfordLeerSkadron1977; @Bell1978; @BlandfordOstriker1978] highlight the acceleration of CRs at strong shocks via diffusive shock acceleration, which has been successfully modelled numerically [@CaprioliSpitkovsky2014a]. For Galactic CRs the most abundant shocks are supernova remnants with evidence of hadronic particle acceleration [@ZirakashviliAharonian2010; @MorlinoCaprioli2012; @AckermannEtAl2013], see also @Blasi2013 and @Amato2014.
The coupling of CRs to the gas is mediated via the generation of Alfvén waves and the resulting scattering. The simplest way to describe CRs as a fluid is the one-moment approach in the scattering angle $\mu$ under the assumption that the particle distribution function is isotropic [see, e.g. @Zweibel2013]. A further simplification for numerical models is a grey approach, in which the distribution function times the kinetic energy per particle is integrated over momentum space and the resulting CR energy density is evolved in time and space. Recently, @JiangOh2018 and @ThomasPfrommer2019 extended the traditional one-moment schemes in the scattering angle to two-moment descriptions that include a more self-consistent coupling of CRs to the plasma and captures streaming and diffusion relative to the gas rest frame.
Previous studies have modelled the dynamical impact of CR protons in the galactic ISM by including them as a relativistic fluid with an effective adiabatic index, see e.g. @NaabOstriker2017. The first dynamical coupling was performed by @HanaszLesch2003 studying the Parker instability. A prominent application of CR hydrodynamics is their role in driving galactic outflows [@Ipavich1975; @Breitschwerdt1991; @Breitschwerdt1993; @PtuskinEtAl1997; @Everett2008; @SocratesDavisRamirezRuiz2008; @SamuiSubramanianSrianand2010; @DorfiBreitschwerdt2012; @RecchiaBlasiMorlino2016], but see also applications in galaxy clusters [@BlasiColafrancesco1999; @RuszkowskiYangReynolds2017; @EhlertEtAl2018]. Previous hydrodynamical simulations used global disc setups [@JubelgasEtAl2008; @UhligEtAl2012; @HanaszEtAl2013; @BoothEtAl2013; @SalemBryan2014; @PakmorEtAl2016; @PfrommerEtAl2017; @JacobEtAl2018] with a focus on the large-scale dynamics as well as stratified boxes of a representative fractions of the ISM [@GirichidisEtAl2016a; @SimpsonEtAl2016; @FarberEtAl2018; @GirichidisEtAl2018a] with a focus on the chemical evolution, the detailed CR coupling and the relative importance between CRs and SNe as a driver.
All of the previous studies reveal that CRs can provide relevant pressures and accelerations of the gas. However, to what extent they provide a main contribution to the dynamical evolution depends on the system under consideration and the details of the CR parameters. In particular the combination of CR losses and their spatial transport might be important in determining the global impact. Both processes are strong functions of the spectral energy distribution of CRs, which is not resolved in current CR-MHD simulations but only integrated to yield a total CR energy [with the notable exception of the simplified spectral treatment of @PfrommerEtAl2006; @EnsslinEtAl2007; @JubelgasEtAl2008].
The dynamical work of CRs on the gas – and vice versa – results in adiabatic changes that are connected with compression and expansion of the gas. In addition low-energy CRs lose energy via Coulomb collisions with the thermal particles of the gas. Collisions of high-energy CRs at energies above GeV with the gas result in catastrophic hadronic losses via the production of neutral pions and their decay into $\gamma$-ray photons. Strong shocks further accelerate CRs. All together the CR energy and the spectral distribution is constantly changing.
In the interstellar medium the efficient coupling of CRs with the gas via magnetic fields results in a non-negligible effective CR pressure that thickens the galactic disc and launches outflows from the galaxies [e.g. @GirichidisEtAl2016a; @SimpsonEtAl2016; @FarberEtAl2018]. This direct dynamical impact is mainly due to CRs with momenta of a few GeV/$c$. Low-energy CRs suffer from strong Coulomb losses, which reduces their energy density and results in a negligible impact via their pressure. However, a perceptible increase of the cross section of MeV-to-GeV CRs with the thermal gas causes efficient ionisation of the gas [@Dalgarno2006; @Padovani2009; @IvlevEtAl2018; @PhanMorlinoGabici2018]. As CRs can penetrate deeply into dense molecular clouds, they influence the formation of stars and the observational signatures.
Above a total energy of $E_\mathrm{thr}=1.22\,\mathrm{GeV}$ CRs are energetic enough to produce pions, which in turn decay into $\gamma$-ray photons, secondary electrons and neutrinos. The secondary electrons can emit radio synchrotron emission in ubiquitous magnetic fields and Compton upscatter ambient radiation fields into the X-ray to gamma-ray regime. A predictive modelling of the resulting non-thermal emission processes calls for self-consistent spectral modelling of the CR spectrum in time and space. While the CR spectrum, its composition, and the non-thermal radiative signatures are modelled in CR propagation codes [@StrongMoskalenko1998; @Kissmann2014; @EvoliEtAl2017], such approaches assume the Galaxy to be static and adopt observationally inferred distributions of the gas density, magnetic fields, and CR sources that are not necessarily emerging from a self-consistent simulation of a dynamically evolving galaxy.
As CRs have a dynamical impact it is thus favourable to follow the spectrum together with the hydrodynamical evolution, i.e. to compute a full spectrum for every computational cell. This poses strong constraints on the numerical scheme. We would like to follow a large dynamical range in CR energy from below MeV to above TeV. The CR spectrum itself is very steep, i.e. covers a large dynamical range in amplitude. Nonetheless we can only represent the spectrum with a low number of spectral bins ($\sim10-30$), which requires a relatively complex numerical scheme compared to standard methods with orders of magnitude larger spectral resolution.
In a series of papers we introduce a novel implementation of the spectral CR energy distribution, which allows a dynamical coupling of CRs with the gas as well as an accurate evolution of the CR spectrum for the relevant mechanism by only using a low number of spectral bins compared to classical spectral approaches. In Section \[sec:background\] we present the theoretical background and present analytical solution to idealised cases. In Section \[sec:spectral-discretisation\] we outline the spectral discretisation of the particle distribution function. In Section \[sec:derivation\] we derive a numerical scheme for the time evolution of the CR spectrum and show one-zone tests of it in Section \[sec:one-zone\]. We present a one-dimensional test of energy dependent spatial diffusion in Section \[sec:diffusion\] and conclude in Section \[sec:conclusions\].
Evolution of CRs {#sec:background}
================
Before presenting the discretisation scheme and the numerical algorithms, we review the time evolution of CRs including the individual loss processes as well as the combined solutions of freely cooling and the steady state spectrum for continuous injection, which we will use to compare and scrutinise our numerical simulations.
Theoretical background
----------------------
Cosmic rays are charged particles and therefore interact with the magnetic field. Quasi-linear theory in the frequent scattering limit leads to the Fokker-Planck equation for the phase space particle distribution function [@Schlickeiser1989; @Miniati2001]. Throughout the paper we use the three-dimensional form of the distribution function, $f=f^{(3)}$. Other studies [@EnsslinEtAl2007; @WinnerEtAl2019] use the equivalent one-dimensional form $f^{(1)}$, where $f^{(1)} = 4\pi p^2 f$. The Fokker-Planck equation then reads $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial f}{\partial t} = & \underbrace{-{\bm{\mathit{u}}}{\bm{\cdot}}{\bm{\nabla}}f}_{\text{advection}} + \underbrace{{\bm{\nabla}}{\bm{\cdot}}{\left({\bm{\mathsf{D}}}_{xx}{\bm{\cdot}}{\bm{\nabla}}f\right)}}_{\text{diffusion}} + \underbrace{\frac 1 3 {\left({\bm{\nabla}}{\bm{\cdot}}{\bm{\mathit{u}}}\right)}p\frac{\partial f}{\partial p}}_{\text{adiabatic process}}\nonumber\\
& + \underbrace{\frac{1}{p^2}\frac{\partial}{\partial p}{\left[p^2{\left(b_l f + D_{pp}\frac{\partial f}{\partial p}\right)}\right]}}_{\text{other losses and Fermi II acceleration}} + \underbrace{j}_{\text{sources}}\label{eq:FP},\end{aligned}$$ where $f = f({\bm{\mathit{x}}},{\bm{\mathit{p}}},t)$ is the isotropic part of the distribution function and ${\bm{\mathsf{D}}}_{xx}$ and $D_{pp}$ are the spatial diffusion tensor and the momentum space diffusion coefficient, respectively. The losses are described as $b_l({\bm{\mathit{x}}},{\bm{\mathit{p}}},t)={\rmn{d}}p/{\rmn{d}}t$. We note that formally only continuous losses can be cast into this form but not impulsive losses like, e.g. hadronic losses because they do not conserve the number of particles [@Schlickeiser2002]. However, we will be taking moments of equation , which implies integrating over the distribution function that consists of a large population of individual particles. It is therefore justified to take the continuous limit of the collection of these interactions. The term $j({\bm{\mathit{x}}},{\bm{\mathit{p}}},t)$ describes CR sources. Here, we neglect CR streaming for simplicity [see @JiangOh2018; @ThomasPfrommer2019 for including this process in a grey approach]. Because second-order Fermi acceleration is a slow process that only mildly shifts the CR spectrum toward larger momenta, we postpone a treatment of turbulent reacceleration to future work and set $D_{pp}=0$. For the remainder of the paper we therefore only discuss spatial diffusion (${\bm{\mathsf{D}}}_{xx}$) and omit the subscript $xx$. Generally, the distribution function and all its components depend on the position in space, ${\bm{\mathit{x}}}$ and time, $t$. In order to simplify the equations, we omit these dependencies unless explicitly needed.
The number density $n$ and energy density $e$ are then given by the appropriate moments of $f$, $$\begin{aligned}
n_\mathrm{CR} &= \int_0^\infty 4\pi p^2 f(p) \,{\rmn{d}}p\\
e_\mathrm{CR} &= \int_0^\infty 4\pi p^2 f(p) T(p)\,{\rmn{d}}p.\end{aligned}$$ Here, $T(p)$ is the kinetic energy of the CRs, $$\begin{aligned}
T(p) =& \sqrt{p^2c^2 + m_\mathrm{p}^2c^4} - m_\mathrm{p} c^2,\end{aligned}$$ where $m_\mathrm{p}$ is the proton mass and $c$ is the speed of light. The CR pressure is given by $$\begin{aligned}
P_\mathrm{CR} &= \int_{0}^{\infty} \frac{4\pi}{3}\, c\,p^3 \beta(p) f(p) {\rmn{d}}p\notag\\
&= \int_{0}^{\infty} \frac{4\pi}{3}\, \frac{ f(p)\,p^4c^2}{\sqrt{m^2c^4+p^2c^2}}{\rmn{d}}p\end{aligned}$$ where $\beta(p) = p/\sqrt{p^2+(m_\mathrm{p}c)^2}$.
Adiabatic changes
-----------------
We start with the simplest process, which is the adiabatic one, $$\label{eq:ad-process}
{\left(\frac{\partial f}{\partial t}\right)}_{\mathrm{ad}} = -{\left(\frac{1}{3}{\bm{\nabla}}{\bm{\cdot}}{\bm{\mathit{u}}}\right)}\,\frac{\partial f}{\partial \ln p}.$$ The divergence of the velocity field ${\bm{\nabla}}{\bm{\cdot}}{\bm{\mathit{u}}}$ is constant over a spectral time integration because we apply operator splitting for the hydrodynamics and the spectral evolution. We note that the adiabatic process is simply equivalent to an advection in logarithmic space with the advection speed $-1/3\,{\bm{\nabla}}{\bm{\cdot}}{\bm{\mathit{u}}}$. This means that the local slope in a comoving frame ${\bm{\nabla}}{\bm{\cdot}}{\bm{\mathit{u}}}$ does not change. Using $$\frac{\partial f}{\partial t} = \frac{\partial f}{\partial p}\,\frac{{\rmn{d}}p}{{\rmn{d}}t}$$ in equation (\[eq:ad-process\]) we find $$\label{eq:adiabatic-compression-0}
\frac{{\rmn{d}}p}{{\rmn{d}}t} = - {\left(\frac{1}{3}{\bm{\nabla}}{\bm{\cdot}}{\bm{\mathit{u}}}\right)} p.$$ Separation of variables and integrating from $p (t_0)$ to $p(t)$, which corresponds to the temporal evolution from $t_0$ to $t=t_0+\Delta t$, yields $$\label{eq:adiabatic-compression}
p(t) = p(t_0) \,\exp{\left[-\int_{t_0}^{t_0+\Delta t}{\left(\frac{1}{3}{\bm{\nabla}}{\bm{\cdot}}{\bm{\mathit{u}}}\right)}\,{\rmn{d}}t\right]}.$$
Coulomb losses
--------------
![Coulomb and hadronic losses as a function of momentum for different target densities, where $n_\mathrm{e}$ and $n_\mathrm{N}$ are the electron and nucleon densities. Coulomb losses dominate at low CR momenta with a scaling close to $p^{-1.9}$. Hadronic losses start at the threshold momentum or pion production of $p_\mathrm{thr}\approx0.78\,\mathrm{GeV}/c$ and scale linearly with $p$.[]{data-label="fig:coulomb-hadronic-losses"}](Fig1.pdf){width="8cm"}
![Cooling time as a function of the initial momentum for different electron densities. For low CR momenta the Coulomb cooling times are significantly shorter than typical hydrodynamical times. At momenta above $\sim1\,\mathrm{GeV}/c$ the hadronic time-scales are shorter than the Coulomb cooling times but larger than typical hydrodynamical time steps.[]{data-label="fig:cooling-times"}](Fig2.pdf){width="8cm"}
The total energy loss per proton is [@Gould1972] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:coulomb-losses}
-\left[\frac {{\rmn{d}}T(p)}{{\rmn{d}}t}\right]_\rmn{C} &= \frac{\omega_\mathrm{pl}^2 e^2}{\beta c}\left[ \ln\left( \frac{2m_\mathrm{e} c^2\beta p}{\hbar \omega_\mathrm{pl} m_\mathrm{p}c}\right) - \frac{\beta^2}{2}\right],\end{aligned}$$ where $\omega_\mathrm{pl}=\sqrt{4\pi e^2 n_\mathrm{e}/m_\mathrm{e}\,}$ is the plasma frequency and $n_\mathrm{e}$ is the electron number density. Coulomb and hadronic losses are shown as a function of momentum for different electron densities in Fig. \[fig:coulomb-hadronic-losses\]. We note that the weak scaling with $n_e$ in the logarithmic term can be neglected in comparison to the linear scaling of the Coulomb loss term ($\propto\omega_\mathrm{pl}$). To illustrate the scaling we can express the losses as a function of $p$ instead of $T$ and can use the simplified approximation $$\begin{aligned}
b_\mathrm{C} &\equiv \left[\frac{{\rmn{d}}p}{{\rmn{d}}t}\right]_\mathrm{C}\\
\label{eq:coulomb-loss-approximate}
&\approx -10^{-18}\,\mathrm{erg\,cm^3\,s^{-1}}\frac{n_\mathrm{e}}{c}\left[1+\left(\frac{p}{\mathrm{GeV}/c}\right)^{-1.9}\right],\end{aligned}$$ which is accurate to $17\%$ over the range shown. The scaling with $p^{-1.9}$ for low momenta leads to a finite cooling time, at which the momentum reaches zero. The cooling times to $p=0$ are plotted as a function of initial momentum in Fig. \[fig:cooling-times\] for different electron densities. Typical hydrodynamical time steps ($\Delta t_\mathrm{hydro}$) are indicated by the grey area, which illustrates that for momenta below $1\,\mathrm{GeV}/c$ the hydrodynamical time step might be larger than the cooling time. For $t_\mathrm{cool}\lesssim \Delta t_\mathrm{hydro}$ we can use the numerical cooling scheme. If cooling occurs on much shorter time-scales compared to the simulation time step we can directly evaluate the steady state solution without intensive numerical integration. For the tests in this paper we can set the time steps independently of any hydrodynamical simulation and therefore use the fully numerical solution.
Hadronic losses {#sec:hadronic-losses}
---------------
Hadronic losses occur as a result of inelastic reactions of CRs with the gas. The interactions mainly result in the production of pions if the CR energy exceeds the threshold momentum, $p_\mathrm{thr}\approx0.78\,\mathrm{GeV}/c$. The loss rate of kinetic energy is given by $$\begin{aligned}
-{\left(\frac{{\rmn{d}}T}{{\rmn{d}}t}\right)} &= c\,n_\mathrm{N}\sigma_\mathrm{pp}K_\mathrm{p}T(p)\theta(p-p_\mathrm{thr}).\end{aligned}$$ Here, $n_\mathrm{N}$ is the target nucleon density of the ISM, $\sigma_\mathrm{pp}$ is the total pion cross section and $K_\mathrm{p}\approx 1/2$ is the inelasticity of the reaction [@MannheimSchlickeiser1994]. The CR momentum losses are shown in Fig. \[fig:coulomb-hadronic-losses\]. The cooling times for hadronic losses are shown in Fig. \[fig:cooling-times\]. We note that the typical cooling times for hadronic losses are long compared to typical hydrodynamical time steps. We note that the losses scale with the kinetic energy, $T(p)$, which asymptotes to a linear scaling in momentum, $p$, for relativistic CRs. As a consequence, the spectral changes due to hadronic losses in the relativistic case are $$\begin{aligned}
{\left(\frac{\partial f}{\partial t}\right)}_\mathrm{hadr} &\propto \frac{1}{p^2}\,\frac{\partial}{\partial p} \big(p^2 b_\mathrm{hadr}f\big),\end{aligned}$$ where $$b_\mathrm{hadr} = \frac{{\rmn{d}}p}{{\rmn{d}}T}\,\left(\frac{{\rmn{d}}T}{{\rmn{d}}t}\right)_\mathrm{hadr}.$$ If $f$ is a power-law in $p$, we note that the hadronic losses have the same scaling with momentum as $f$, $$\begin{aligned}
{\left(\frac{\partial f}{\partial t}\right)}_\mathrm{hadr} &\propto f,\end{aligned}$$ which leaves the slope of the particle distribution function unchanged.
Fermi-I acceleration
--------------------
Fermi-I or diffusive shock acceleration is an important gain process of energy, in which thermal particles can be accelerated to super-thermal energies by means of adiabatic compression and expansion together with spatial diffusion at shocks [@Bell1978; @Drury1983; @BlandfordEichler1987]. In principle both processes are included in the Fokker-Planck equation, so that Fermi-I acceleration can be accounted for analytically. However, a numerical solution requires resolutions of the kinetic physics, in particular the scattering of particles due to the non-resonant hybrid instability on small spatial scales around the shock front [@Bell2004], which is impossible to resolve in our applications of astrophysical fluid dynamics. We therefore need to treat the acceleration of CRs as a subgrid model and effectively describe it as an injection of CR energy in regions of strong shocks. Given the shock compression ratio $r=\rho_\mathrm{post}/\rho_\mathrm{pre}$, with the pre and post-shock densities $\rho_\mathrm{pre}$ and $\rho_\mathrm{post}$, we expect injection with a spectral index $${q}_\mathrm{acc} = \frac{3r}{r-1}.$$ The effective Fermi-I acceleration is thus encoded in the sources $j$ with $$j_\mathrm{acc} = A_\mathrm{acc} p^{-{q}_\mathrm{acc}}\exp(-p/p_\mathrm{acc}),$$ where the acceleration efficiency and thus $A_\mathrm{acc}$ and the maximum momentum $p_\mathrm{acc}$ depends on the local shock conditions [@Bell2013], see also @MarcowithEtAl2016.
Free cooling {#sec:free-cooling}
------------
### General theoretical considerations for the spectral behaviour
We can investigate the expected spectral changes by assuming conservation of the total CR number density in the same volume, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:particle-number-conservation}
n(t_1) &= n(t_0),\\
\label{eq:particle-number-conservation-diff}
4\pi\int_{p_1}^{\infty}p^2\,f(p,t_1){\rmn{d}}p &= 4\pi\int_{p_0}^{\infty}p'^2\,f(p',t_0){\rmn{d}}p'.\end{aligned}$$ Here, $p_0$ and $p_1$ are related via the change in momentum over time, which we address below. Assuming that $f(\infty)$ vanishes, i.e. the number density of CRs is finite, we can assume conservation of the number density in an infinitesimal momentum interval to find $$\begin{aligned}
f(p_1,t_1) &= f(p_0,t_0)\,\frac{p_0^2}{p_1^2}\,\frac{{\rmn{d}}p_0}{{\rmn{d}}p_1}\label{eq:distr-function-time-evol},\end{aligned}$$ where the differential changes in $p$, ${\rmn{d}}p$, depend on the momentum and thus on the time, such that we can write $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{{\rmn{d}}p_0}{{\rmn{d}}p_1} &= \frac{{\rmn{d}}p}{{\rmn{d}}t}(p_0) {\left[\frac{{\rmn{d}}p}{{\rmn{d}}t}(p_1)\right]}^{-1}.\end{aligned}$$ The changes in momentum are described by the generalised loss term $$\begin{aligned}
{\left[\frac{{\rmn{d}}p}{{\rmn{d}}t}\right]}_\mathrm{X} &= b_\mathrm{X}.\end{aligned}$$ where we assume a simple power-law scaling with momentum $p$ $$\begin{aligned}
{\left[\frac{{\rmn{d}}p}{{\rmn{d}}t}\right]}_\mathrm{X} &= b_\mathrm{X,0} p^h,\quad h\neq-1 \quad\text{for simplicity}.\end{aligned}$$ We solve the differential equation by separation of variables and integration $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{p_0}^{p_1}\,\frac{{\rmn{d}}p'}{b_\mathrm{X}(p)} &= (t_1-t_0)
$$ and we can solve for the momentum $p_1$ $$\begin{aligned}
p_1 = {\left[p_0^{1-h} + (1-h)b_\mathrm{X,0}(t_1-t_0)\right]}^{1/(1-h)}. \end{aligned}$$ For losses $b_\mathrm{X,0} < 0$, $p_1<p_0$ and depending on $h$ the momentum will cool to $p_1=0$ within a finite time. Inserting the momentum as well as the loss rates into equation (\[eq:distr-function-time-evol\]) yields $$\begin{aligned}
f(p_1,t_1) &= f(p_0,t_0)\,\frac{p_0^2}{p_1^2}\,\frac{p_0^h}{p_1^h}.\end{aligned}$$
### Application to approximate Coulomb cooling
Coulomb cooling for low momenta scales as $p^{-1.9}$, i.e. $h=-1.9$. Hence, we find $$\begin{aligned}
f(p_1,t_1) &= f(p_0,t_0)\,p_0^{0.1}p_1^{-0.1}\notag\\
&=f(p_0,t_0)\,p_0^{0.1}{\left[p_0^{2.9} + 2.9\,b_\mathrm{C,0}(t_1-t_0)\right]}^{-0.1/2.9}.\end{aligned}$$ As long as we do not cool the momentum to zero we can assume that $p_0^{2.9} > 2.9\,b_\mathrm{C,0}(t_1-t_0)$. For $p_0^{2.9} \gg 2.9\,b_\mathrm{C,0}(t_1-t_0)$ we can neglect the second term in the sum and find again $$\begin{aligned}
f(p_1,t_1) &= f(p_0,t_0),\end{aligned}$$ a vanishing scaling with $p$, i.e. a flat slope.
Steady state spectrum {#sec:steady-state}
---------------------
Here we focus on the steady state solution resulting from cooling and continuous CR injection. The left-hand side of Equation (\[eq:FP\]) thus vanishes and the resulting equation reads $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial f}{\partial t} & = 0 = \frac{1}{p^2}\frac{\partial}{\partial p}{\left[p^2 b_l(p) f(p)\right]} + j(p),\end{aligned}$$ which can be rewritten to yield $$\begin{aligned}
f(p) &= -\frac{1}{p^2 b_l(p)}\int_{p}^{\infty}p^2 j(p) {\rmn{d}}p.\end{aligned}$$ The losses include hadronic and Coulomb interactions $$\begin{aligned}
b_l(p) & = {\left(\frac{{\rmn{d}}p}{{\rmn{d}}t}\right)}_\mathrm{tot} = {\left[{\left(\frac{{\rmn{d}}p}{{\rmn{d}}t}\right)}_\mathrm{hadr}+{\left(\frac{{\rmn{d}}p}{{\rmn{d}}t}\right)}_\mathrm{Coul}\right]}.\end{aligned}$$ The injection $j(p)$ is modelled as a power-law spectrum with $$\begin{aligned}
j(p) &= Ap^{-{q}}.\end{aligned}$$ The steady state solution converges for ${q}>3$ and the steady state solution reads $$\begin{aligned}
f(p) &= \frac{A\,p^{-{q}+1}}{({q}-3)\,b_l(p)}
\label{eq:steady-state}\end{aligned}$$
Spectral discretisation of the particle distribution function {#sec:spectral-discretisation}
=============================================================
![Illustration of the spectral discretisation. We use a piecewise power-law representation of the CR spectrum with local amplitudes $f_{i-1/2}$ and slopes ${q}_i$ (blue lines), which is more accurate than a piecewise constant representation, in particular for a low number of momentum bins and steep spectra. The spectrum is not forced to be continuous. At the low and high momentum end of the spectrum we use a larger buffer bin.[]{data-label="fig:spectral-grid-sketch"}](Fig3.pdf){width="8cm"}
Discretization in momentum
--------------------------
In principle we can evolve the Fokker-Planck equation using $f$ directly, similar to previous approaches as in <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">GALPROP</span> [@StrongMoskalenko1998], <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">PICARD</span> [@Kissmann2014], <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">DRAGON2</span> [@EvoliEtAl2017] or <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">CREST</span> [@WinnerEtAl2019]. However, a standard discretisation with piecewise constant values for $f$ requires relatively high spectral resolution in order to obtain accurate results [see discussion in @WinnerEtAl2019]. Reasonably low errors are achieved with approximately 50-100 bins per momentum decade, i.e. much more than a few hundred bins for a full spectrum ranging from $p\sim10^{-1}$ to $100\,\mathrm{GeV}/c$. This high number stems from the fact that we need to cover a large range in momentum and – due to the steep CR spectra – a large dynamical range of $f$.
For our CR module we focus on CR protons and their dynamical impact on the hydrodynamical evolution. This requires to solve the spectrum in every hydrodynamical cell and evolving hundreds of momentum bins is not feasible. Instead we aim for a relatively low number of spectral bins of order $10-20$. As a consequence, we need a numerical scheme, which can accurately treat the large dynamic range with only several cells and does not suffer from strong numerical diffusion. We therefore chose a logarithmic spacing for the spectral discretisation and describe the particle distribution function as piecewise power laws.
The spectral distribution in principle covers the entire momentum space. We restrict our computation to a finite range $p_\mathrm{min}<p<p_\mathrm{max}$. We discretise the spectral distribution with $N_\mathrm{bins}$ bins between $p_\mathrm{min}$ and $p_\mathrm{max}$ as illustrated in Fig. \[fig:spectral-grid-sketch\]. The logarithmically spaced bins include two buffer or boundary bins at the lower and the upper end of the spectrum, where the lower buffer bin ranges from $p_\mathrm{min}$ to $p_-$ and the upper one from $p_+$ to $p_\mathrm{max}$. The bins between $p_-$ and $p_+$ are equally spaced in $\log p$. We define cell centred quantities with index $i$ and corresponding left-hand cell-faced quantities with index $i-1/2$. We adopt a distribution function $f$ as a piecewise power-law $$f(p) = f_{i-1/2} {\left(\frac{p}{p_{i-1/2}}\right)}^{-{q}_i},$$ with the slopes ${q}_i$ (blue lines in Fig. \[fig:spectral-grid-sketch\]). We note that this functional approximation of $f$ has two degrees of freedom per bin, namely the amplitude $f_{i-1/2}$ and the slope ${q}_i$. We therefore also investigate two moments of $f$ per bin, i.e. number and energy density, which are given by $$\begin{aligned}
n_i &= \int_{p_{i-1/2}}^{p_{i+1/2}} 4\pi p^2 f(p) \,{\rmn{d}}p\\
e_i &= \int_{p_{i-1/2}}^{p_{i+1/2}} 4\pi p^2 f(p) T(p)\,{\rmn{d}}p.\end{aligned}$$
Motivation for a two-moment approach
------------------------------------
![Illustration of the problematic treatment of a continuous distribution function. The coloured lines show the evolution of a continuous spectrum during the injection of energy at low momenta. The continuous representation results in local changes in the slope across the entire spectrum. At the high-momentum part, which should effectively be unchanged, the spectrum alternates between a positive and negative curvature spectrum. Avoiding this alternating change in slope in a continuous spectrum after injection would require reshaping the entire spectrum. A discontinuous spectrum can cope with local spectral changes much better (black lines).[]{data-label="fig:sketch-continuous-problem"}](Fig4.pdf){width="8cm"}
Several methods have been proposed to solve the Fokker-Planck equation using a piecewise power law representation [@JunJones1999; @Miniati2001; @JonesKang2005; @YangRuszkowski2017]. If the numerical scheme is only based on one moment the two degrees of freedom per bin need a closure relation. A simple and intuitive assumption is to require a continuous function for $f$. This reduces the degrees of freedom for $N$ bins to $N+1$, i.e. there is only one additional condition that needs to be set. @JunJones1999 force the slopes in the first two bins to be equal. @Miniati2001 assumes the proton spectrum to be of constant curvature, i.e. ${q}_{i+1}-{q}_i = {q}_i -{q}_{i-1}$. However, there is a fundamental problem with a continuous description of $f$ in particular for a locally varying spectrum. Let us assume a steady state spectrum as shown in the blue curve in Fig \[fig:sketch-continuous-problem\]. This spectrum can nicely be represented by a continuous function of piecewise powerlaws. If we now inject energy at the three lowest bins and force the spectrum to be continuous after the injection (dark red curve), we force changes of the local slope across the entire spectrum. The final continuous representation then alternates between a concave and a convex spectrum. Avoiding this alternating behaviour would require to reshape also the high-energy part of the spectrum, which should effectively be unchanged if only low-energy CRs are injected. Without the restriction of a continuous distribution function we can still model the spectrum with a physically useful description (black lines). Even if for most physical applications (injection, cooling, diffusion) there are possibilities to keep a continuous spectrum, the discontinuous representation allows for more freedom and a more stable numerical treatment. The discontinuous modelling, however, requires to constrain two degrees of freedom, which we simply chose to be the two moments of the particle distribution function.
Moments of the distribution and their time evolution
----------------------------------------------------
Instead of evolving the momentum-integrated systems in time we need to solve for changes in each momentum bin separately. One special case is advection with the gas, which does not involve spectral changes, but simply advects the spectrum across all bins. We translate the time evolution of the Fokker-Planck equation to the evolution equation for the CR number and energy density in bin $i$. For clarity, we omit the subscript CR in the following two equations. The time evolution of $n_i$ reads $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial n_{i}}{\partial t} &= \frac{\partial n_{\mathrm{adv},i}}{\partial t} +\frac{\partial n_{\mathrm{diff},i}}{\partial t} + \frac{\partial n_{\mathrm{ad},i}}{\partial t} + \frac{\partial n_{\mathrm{l},i}}{\partial t} + j_{n,i}\\
&= -{\bm{\nabla}}{\bm{\cdot}}{\left({\bm{\mathit{u}}}n_{i}\right)} + {\bm{\nabla}}{\bm{\cdot}}{\left({\left\langle{\bm{\mathsf{D}}}_n\right\rangle}{\bm{\cdot}}{\bm{\nabla}}n_{i}\right)}\notag\\ &+{\left[{\left(\frac{1}{3}{\left({\bm{\nabla}}{\bm{\cdot}}{\bm{\mathit{u}}}\right)}p + b_{\mathrm{l}}(p)\right)} 4\pi\,p^2\,f\right]}_{p_{i-1/2}}^{p_{i+1/2}} + j_{n,i},\end{aligned}$$ where the individual terms describe advection (subscript adv), diffusion (diff), adiabatic changes (ad), and losses (l). Sources are indicated by $j$. The energy evolution is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial e_{i}}{\partial t} &= \frac{\partial e_{\mathrm{adv},i}}{\partial t} +\frac{\partial e_{\mathrm{diff},i}}{\partial t} + \frac{\partial e_{\mathrm{ad},i}}{\partial t} + \frac{\partial e_{\mathrm{l},i}}{\partial t} + j_{e,i}\\
\label{eq:time-evol-energy-density}&= -{\bm{\nabla}}{\bm{\cdot}}{\left({\bm{\mathit{u}}}e_{\mathrm{cr},i}\right)} + {\bm{\nabla}}{\bm{\cdot}}{\left({\left\langle{\bm{\mathsf{D}}}_e\right\rangle}{\bm{\cdot}}{\bm{\nabla}}e_{\mathrm{cr},i}\right)}\\
\label{eq:dedt_ad}&\qquad+ \frac{4\pi}{3}{\left({\bm{\nabla}}{\bm{\cdot}}{\bm{\mathit{u}}}\right)}\Bigg({\left[T(p)p^3f\right]}_{p_{i-1/2}}^{p_{i+1/2}} \Bigg.\\
&\qquad\qquad\qquad\Bigg.-\int_{p_{i-1/2}}^{p_{i+1/2}} f\frac{p^4c^2}{\sqrt{m^2c^4+p^2c^2}} {\rmn{d}}p\Bigg)\notag\\
\label{eq:dedt_loss}&\qquad+ 4\pi{\left[Tp^2b_{\mathrm{l}}(p)f\right]}_{p_{i-1/2}}^{p_{i+1/2}}\\
&\qquad-4\pi\int_{p_{i-1/2}}^{p_{i+1/2}} \frac{p^3c^2b_{\mathrm{l}}(p)f}{\sqrt{m^2c^4+p^2c^2}} {\rmn{d}}p + j_{e,i}\notag\end{aligned}$$ In both equations (for $n_i$ and $e_i$) we rewrote the diffusion term, such that it formally takes the form of a simple diffusion equation with modified diffusion tensors ${\left\langle{\bm{\mathsf{D}}}_n\right\rangle}$ and ${\left\langle{\bm{\mathsf{D}}}_e\right\rangle}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:ndiff2}
\frac{\partial n_{\mathrm{diff},i}}{\partial t} &=\int_{p_{i-1/2}}^{p_{i+1/2}} 4\pi{\bm{\nabla}}{\bm{\cdot}}({\bm{\mathsf{D}}}{\bm{\cdot}}{\bm{\nabla}}f)p^2\,{\rmn{d}}p\notag\\
&= {\bm{\nabla}}{\bm{\cdot}}{\left({\left\langle{\bm{\mathsf{D}}}_n\right\rangle}{\bm{\cdot}}{\bm{\nabla}}n_{i}\right)}\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:effective-diff-n}
{\left\langle{\bm{\mathsf{D}}}_n\right\rangle} = {\left({\bm{\nabla}}n_i\right)}^{-1} \int_{p_{i-1/2}}^{p_{i+1/2}} 4\pi {\bm{\mathsf{D}}}\,{\bm{\cdot}}{\bm{\nabla}}f\,p^2 {\rmn{d}}p\end{aligned}$$ and analogously for the energy equation, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:effective-diff-e}
{\left\langle{\bm{\mathsf{D}}}_e\right\rangle} = {\left({\bm{\nabla}}e_i\right)}^{-1} \int_{p_{i-1/2}}^{p_{i+1/2}} 4\pi {\bm{\mathsf{D}}}\,{\bm{\cdot}}{\bm{\nabla}}f\,p^2T(p){\rmn{d}}p.\end{aligned}$$ We note that the the inverse of the gradient needs to be computed for every individual component. We discuss the effective diffusion coefficient in more detail in Section \[sec:diffusion\].
Derivation of a numerical scheme for the time evolution {#sec:derivation}
=======================================================
Computing changes in number and energy density
----------------------------------------------
![Illustration of the spectral shift. A gain in momentum corresponds to a shift of the blue integral across the boundary at $p_{i+1/2}$ while cooling corresponds to shifting the red area to the left.[]{data-label="fig:sketch-shift-momentum"}](Fig5.pdf){width="8cm"}
![Illustration of the time evolution for a loss process before (top) and after the transport step (bottom). The number and energy density corresponding to the red and yellow area are shifted to the lower bins.[]{data-label="fig:sketch-shift-momentum-time-evol"}](Fig6.pdf){width="8cm"}
We use operator splitting for the individual parts of the time evolution of the Fokker-Planck equation, in particular the evolution in space and the spectral evolution. In this paper we focus on the spectral evolution and discuss the integration of the method into hydrodynamics in a subsequent paper. We describe the individual parts for the physical processes in terms of the discretised momentum bins with piecewise power laws following @Miniati2001. In general we convert the evolution in time into an evolution in momentum, $$\label{eq:gains-losses-general}
\frac{{\rmn{d}}p}{{\rmn{d}}t} = F(p, t, T(p), {\bm{\mathit{u}}}),$$ where $F$ is a function that depends on the individual physical processes. In particular we cover:
- adiabatic gains and losses,
- injection via diffusive shock acceleration,
- hadronic losses and Coulomb losses, and
- momentum-dependent diffusion.
For any given physical process and a given integration time step $\Delta t$ we can compute the change in momentum. Without loss of generality, we would like to illustrate this for a loss term, $b_\mathrm{l}$, $$\frac{{\rmn{d}}p}{{\rmn{d}}t} = b_\mathrm{l} < 0,$$ which we can rewrite as $$\label{eq:loss-momentum-time-step}
\int_{p_\mathrm{loss}}^{p_x}\frac{{\rmn{d}}p}{b_\mathrm{l}} = \int_{t_0}^{t_0+\Delta t} {\rmn{d}}t = \Delta t$$ if the loss process does not explicitly depend on time. The initial momentum $p_\mathrm{loss}$ cools during $\Delta t$ to $p_x$. For the adiabatic process Eqs. and explicitly show the closed formulation. We chose $p_x$ to be the momentum at the bin boundary, $p_x = p_{i+1/2}$, and compute the corresponding momentum $p_\mathrm{loss}$, which is illustrated in Fig. \[fig:sketch-shift-momentum\].
At this point we would like to discuss the constraints on the maximum integration time step. As in other explicit numerical methods that account for only the immediate neighbour cells, the flux of number and energy density can extend to at most one bin. For the gain and loss momentum in our setup this means that $p_{i+1/2}\le p_\mathrm{loss} < p_{i+3/2}$ and $p_{i-1/2}< p_\mathrm{gain} \le p_{i+1/2}$. Depending on the loss and gain process, the maximum time step is implicitly given via equation by limiting the maximum fraction of the bin that $p_\mathrm{gain}$ or $p_\mathrm{loss}$ should occupy. We find satisfactory results for $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{p_\mathrm{loss}}{p_{i+1/2}} &\le 0.4\left(\frac{p_{i+3/2}}{p_{i+1/2}}\right) \,\mathrm{and}\\
\frac{p_{i+1/2}}{p_\mathrm{gain}} &\le 0.4\left(\frac{p_{i+1/2}}{p_{i-1/2}}\right).\end{aligned}$$
The shift of momentum from $p_\mathrm{loss}$ to $p_{i+1/2}$ corresponds to a transport of particle and energy density across the spectral bin boundary $i+1/2$, $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta n_{i+1/2} &= 4\pi\int_{p_\mathrm{s,gain}}^{p_{i+1/2}} \, p^2 f(p) {\rmn{d}}p,\\
\Delta e'_{i+1/2} &= 4\pi\int_{p_\mathrm{s,gain}}^{p_{i+1/2}} \, p^2 f(p)\,T(p) {\rmn{d}}p,\end{aligned}$$ illustrated by the red area in Fig. \[fig:sketch-shift-momentum\]. This is the essential part of the time evolution of the new method. We evolve the number and energy density in bin $i+1$ as $$\begin{aligned}
n(t+\Delta t) &= n(t) - \Delta n_{i+1/2} + \Delta n_{i+3/2},\\
e'(t+\Delta t) &= e(t) - \Delta e'_{i+1/2} + \Delta e'_{i+3/2}.\end{aligned}$$ The transport of $\Delta n$ from bin $i+1$ to bin $i$ does not require any further correction. Contrary, for the energy term we need to take into account that the loss in momentum connects to a loss in energy, i.e. shifting the spectrum towards lower momenta, we need to additionally correct for that shift, $$\Delta e_{i+1/2} = \Delta e'_{i+1/2} \,\frac{T(p_{i+1/2})}{T(p_\mathrm{loss,1})}.$$ The transfer into and out of cell $i+1$ is illustrated in Fig. \[fig:sketch-shift-momentum-time-evol\]. We can compute the energy correction factors independently for $\Delta e$ at interface $p_{i+1/2}$ and $p_{i-1/2}$. In case of identical ratios of $p_\mathrm{loss,1}/p_{i+1/2}$ and $p_\mathrm{loss,2}/p_{1+3/2}$ the energy correction factors for $\Delta e'_{i+1/2}$ and $\Delta e'_{i+3/2}$ are similar. In the non-relativistic limit as well as in the relativistic limit, in which the particle energy has a simple scaling with the momentum ($\propto p^2$ and $\propto p$, respectively), the same ratio for $p_\mathrm{loss,1}/p_{i+1/2}$ and $p_\mathrm{loss,2}/p_{1+3/2}$ results in the same correction factor for the transfer into and out of cell $i+1$, i.e. $$e(t+\Delta t) = e'(t+\Delta t)\,\frac{T(p_{i+1/2})}{T(p_\mathrm{loss,1})}.$$ In the transition region between the classical and the relativistic energy, the factors differ. If the correction factors at the left and right boundary of the bin are not largely different, we can simply apply $\Delta e'_{i+1/2}$ and $\Delta e'_{i+3/2}$ and then correct the entire modified bin $i+1$ by an arithmetic average of the correction factors, $$e(t+\Delta t) = e'(t+\Delta t)\,\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{T(p_{i+1/2})}{T(p_\mathrm{loss,1})} + \frac{T(p_{i+3/2})}{T(p_\mathrm{loss,2})}\right).$$
Depending on the process the ratios $p_\mathrm{loss,1}/p_{i+1/2}$ and $p_\mathrm{loss,2}/p_{i+3/2}$ behave differently. For adiabatic expansion (and compression) both ratios are the same as well as for the hadronic losses as long as all momenta are above the threshold momentum for hadronic losses. In these cases, the energy correction factor for the bin is trivial. The case of Coulomb losses at sub-relativistic energies is more difficult to compute. As the loss rate scales with approximately $p^{-1.9}$, the loss rate at the lower momentum boundary can be significantly larger than at the high momentum boundary, in particular, if the bins span half an order of magnitude. In this regime we therefore compute the correction term numerically using a subgrid interpolation. We subdivide the bin in 10 logarithmically spaced sub-bins with momenta $p_j(t_0)$ and compute the momenta after $\Delta t$, $p_j'(t_0=\Delta t)$, using Eqs. and . We then average over the individual values $\langle p_j'(t_0+\Delta t)\rangle_j$.
In principle, we can compute a total shift for each bin for all terms in the Fokker-Planck equation. However, it is simpler to compute a separate shift momentum for the individual processes. The adiabatic process can also be used to analytically show that the method of discretisation yields correct results, which we demonstrate in appendix \[sec:adiabatic-analytic-proof\].
Reconstruction of the particle distribution function
----------------------------------------------------
![Scaling of $e/n$ as a function of spectral slope ${q}$. We multiply the curves by $p^2$ for better illustration. For all relevant slopes there is a one-to-one mapping between $e/n$ and ${q}$. This allows for an exact reconstruction of $f_{i-1/2}$ and ${q}_i$ after a change of $n$ and $e$.[]{data-label="fig:scaling-en-ratio-slope"}](Fig7.pdf){width="8cm"}
After computing the temporal changes we end up with a modified number and energy density in each bin. We now need to reconstruct the new amplitude and slope of the particle distribution function in every bin. We first compute the new slope by solving the ratio $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{e_i}{n_i} &= \frac{\int_{p_{i-1/2}}^{p_{i+1/2}}4\pi p^2 f(p) T(p)\,{\rmn{d}}p}{\int_{p_{i-1/2}}^{p_{i+1/2}}4\pi p^2 f(p) {\rmn{d}}p}\notag\\
&= \frac{\int_{p_{i-1/2}}^{p_{i+1/2}}4\pi p^2 f_{i-1/2}\,(p/p_{i-1/2})^{-{q}_i} \, T(p)\,{\rmn{d}}p}{\int_{p_{i-1/2}}^{p_{i+1/2}}4\pi p^2 f_{i-1/2}\,(p/p_{i-1/2})^{-{q}_i}\,{\rmn{d}}p}\end{aligned}$$ for the slope ${q}_i$ numerically using the Newton-Raphson method. The solution of ${q}_i$ is unique as long as number density and energy density scale differently as a function of the slope. In Fig. \[fig:scaling-en-ratio-slope\] we plot the ratio $e/n$ as a function of ${q}$ for different energies. For a physically relevant range of slopes there is a one-to-one mapping allowing a unique reconstruction. We tabulate values at the beginning of the simulation to speed up the computation. As the integral for the number density has a simple closed form, we can trivially solve for the amplitude $f_{i-1/2}$ analytically and compute it using the new slope ${q}_i$. We could also use the integral for the energy to find $f_{i-1/2}$, however, the integral in general cannot simply be solved for $f_{i-1/2}$ analytically.
Spectral boundary conditions
----------------------------
In order to conserve CR energy, one would need to apply closed boundaries. In case of losses the energy would accumulate in the lower buffer bin. Adiabatic gains due to strong compression would be stored in the upper buffer bin. Although this seems like a reasonable process for one step it bears difficulties over a longer simulation time. Let us assume a long-term cooling period followed by a strong compression as a simple gedanken experiment. The cooling period will result in an accumulation of significant CR energy in the lowest bin with a large amplitude $f_0$. Even if the CRs cooled entirely to $p=0$ (see Fig. \[fig:cooling-times\]) over that period, they would still be buffered in the lower buffer bin with effectively non-negligible momentum. The strong compression will then push this high-amplitude bin to larger momentum bins resulting in an artificially large population of CRs in bins $i$ that are affected by the compression, cf. equation .
We therefore effectively use different boundary conditions for the individual processes. We note that hadronic losses only occur for CR momenta above $p_\mathrm{thr}$, so for spectral configurations with $p_\mathrm{min}<p_\mathrm{thr}$ the hadronic losses do not interfere with the lower boundary. At the high-$p$ boundary we acknowledge that our numerical spectrum is only a small cut-out of the total CR spectrum, which extends as a power-law tail up to CR momenta of $p\sim10^{20}\,\mathrm{eV}/c$. We therefore use inflow boundary conditions, which reflect the continued spectrum towards higher momenta. In practice we simply keep the slope at the highest bin constant during the hadronic cooling step, i.e. it is determined by a combination of the injection spectrum from the previous time step and by the slope from the next lower momentum bin in case of adiabatic compression. We note that energy dependent spatial diffusion would also change the slope inside every bin. However, we currently only account for energy dependent diffusion of each independently, see Section \[sec:diffusion\]. For Coulomb losses, we apply outflow boundary conditions at small momenta, resulting in a loss of energy for CRs that cool below $p_\mathrm{min}$, which mimics the thermalisation process of these CRs. At the high-momentum boundary we follow the same reasoning as for the hadronic losses and compute an inflow of energy based on the continued spectrum outside of our spectral range. For the adiabatic process we assume that the slope in the inflowing buffer bin (lower buffer bin for compression and vice versa) does not change and we allow CRs to enter and leave the spectrum during compression and expansion.
One-zone tests {#sec:one-zone}
==============
{width="50.00000%"} {width="50.00000%"}
![Relative error of the number and energy density for a piecewise constant representation of $f$ (dashed lines) and our new scheme (solid lines) for the spectral setups shown in Figs. \[fig:adiabatic-losses-comparison\]. The error is shown as a function of time in units of periodic cycles with a momentum compression factor of $\approx2.2$. For the new method the error in the number density is again several orders of magnitude smaller (not shown). The conventional method using 1000 spectral bins still shows an error which is 3 orders of magnitude larger than the computation with the new method and only 12 bins.[]{data-label="fig:adiabatic-losses-error"}](Fig9.pdf){width="50.00000%"}
![Time evolution of the freely cooling spectrum performed with 10 spectral bins. The two dotted lines represent the asymptotic limits of the freely cooling CR distribution, which decays in amplitude over time. We adopt $n_\mathrm{e}=n_\mathrm{N}=10^{-2}\,\mathrm{cm}^{-3}$.[]{data-label="fig:free-cooling-time-evol"}](Fig10.pdf){width="8cm"}
![<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Top</span>: Time evolution of the spectrum following continuous injection and cooling. The initial spectrum increases at high energies and cools at low energies to reach the steady state after 10 Gyr. The computation is performed with 10 spectral bins. The theoretical curve derives from equation . We adopt $n_\mathrm{e}=n_\mathrm{N}=10^{-2}\,\mathrm{cm}^{-3}$. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Bottom</span>: Error of the numerical method compared to the analytic spectrum encoded in the $L^1$ norm as a function the number of spectral bins, $N_\mathrm{bin}$. The error scales approximately as $N_\mathrm{bin}^{-1.3}$.[]{data-label="fig:ss-time-evol"}](Fig11a.pdf "fig:"){width="8cm"}\
![<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Top</span>: Time evolution of the spectrum following continuous injection and cooling. The initial spectrum increases at high energies and cools at low energies to reach the steady state after 10 Gyr. The computation is performed with 10 spectral bins. The theoretical curve derives from equation . We adopt $n_\mathrm{e}=n_\mathrm{N}=10^{-2}\,\mathrm{cm}^{-3}$. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Bottom</span>: Error of the numerical method compared to the analytic spectrum encoded in the $L^1$ norm as a function the number of spectral bins, $N_\mathrm{bin}$. The error scales approximately as $N_\mathrm{bin}^{-1.3}$.[]{data-label="fig:ss-time-evol"}](Fig11b.pdf "fig:"){width="8cm"}
Test of the adiabatic process
-----------------------------
We would like to stress the importance of an accurate computation of the adiabatic process in hydrodynamical simulations. In compressive turbulent environments the gas cells frequently experience changes of short compression and expansion periods. Even without fully developed turbulence, pressure waves travelling through the simulation domain result in numerous small oscillations.
For this test we only consider adiabatic compression and expansion. Injection of CRs as well as other loss processes are switched off. We compare our new method with a standard finite volume method [e.g. @Toro2009] for the piecewise constant representation of the particle distribution function.
As initial condition we use a simple analytic function that mimics a steady state spectrum, i.e. a flat slope at low momenta and a scaling of $f\propto p^{-4.5}$ at high momenta, $$\label{eq:analytic-2-pl-spectrum}
f(t=0) = A_0\,\left[\left(\frac{p}{\mathrm{1GeV/}c}\right)^{-a/c} + \left(\frac{p}{\mathrm{1GeV/}c}\right)^{-b/c}\right]^{-c}.$$ The parameter $a$ is the approximate slope for low momenta ($p\rightarrow0$), which we set to $a=0$. Parameter $b$ is the high-momentum counterpart with a value of $-4.5$ and $c\equiv2$ determines the width of the transition region between the two powerlaw regimes. The overall amplitude of the spectrum, $A_0$, is set to unity.
Motivated by the strong dynamics in many astrophysical systems, we do not test the methods only for one compression or expansion step but rather for hundreds of periodic oscillations. The divergence of the velocity ${\bm{\nabla}}{\bm{\cdot}}{\bm{\mathit{u}}}$ is modelled as $$\label{eq:periodic-oscillations}
({\bm{\nabla}}{\bm{\cdot}}{\bm{\mathit{u}}})(t) = A_\mathrm{per}\cos\left(\frac{2\pi t}{T}\right).$$ We set $A_\mathrm{per}=7.35$ and $T=1.0$. Following equation we find $$\frac{{\rmn{d}}p}{p} = -\frac{A_\mathrm{per}}{3}\cos\left(\frac{2\pi t}{T}\right) {\rmn{d}}t,$$ which yields $$p(t) = p(t_0) \exp\left[-\frac{A_\mathrm{per}T}{6\pi}\left\{\sin\left(\frac{2\pi t}{T}\right)-\sin\left(\frac{2\pi t_0}{T}\right)\right\}\right],$$ where we set $t_0=0$. After the first quarter of the period, $t=0.25$, the momentum reduces to $68\%$ of the initial value. After three quarters of the period the maximum momentum is reached with an increase to $148\%$ with respect to the initial value. Over one period the ratio of maximum to minimum momentum $p_\mathrm{max}/p_\mathrm{min}\approx2.2$, which corresponds to a density compression factor of $(p_\mathrm{max}/p_\mathrm{min})^3\approx10$. We note that after a full compression and expansion cycle the spectrum needs to take again the initial shape.
Figure \[fig:adiabatic-losses-comparison\] shows the spectral evolution over 100 periodic cycles for the new method (left-hand panel) and a classical finite-volume method (right-hand panel) using a minmod limiter. The top panel shows the spectrum, the lower one indicates the slope. Colour-coded is the time in units of full cycles. For the classical method we plot every 10$^\mathrm{th}$ cycle. In the case of the new method the deviations are so small that we only plot the initial function with a thicker black line and the spectrum after 100 cycles. For the new method we use 12 spectral bins, for the conventional finite volume method we show an example with 500 bins. The flat part of the spectrum is accurately solved with the conventional finite volume method. However, at the transition to the high-momentum powerlaw numerical diffusion causes the spectrum to broaden towards higher momentum with an inaccurate representation of the slope.
In a more quantitative way, we investigate the relative error of the number and energy density as a function of periodic cycles, $N_\mathrm{cyc}$, with respect to the initial value, $$\delta_e = \left|\frac{e_\mathrm{CR}(N_\mathrm{cyc})-e_\mathrm{CR}(0)}{e_\mathrm{CR}(0)}\right|,$$ which is plotted in Fig. \[fig:adiabatic-losses-error\]. We vary the number of bins from 300 to 1000 for the piecewise constant representation of $f$. In order to reach a relative error of order unity the conventional method needs more than 1000 bins for a momentum ranging over 5 orders of magnitude. The relative error in energy for the new method is of order $10^{-3}$ for only 12 bins, which demonstrates the superior performance of the new scheme. The error in number density is again several orders of magnitude lower than the energy error and is not shown.
Hadronic and Coulomb losses are best tested in a freely cooling test and a steady state solution. In the case of free cooling we start the simulation with a powerlaw $f(p)=10^3(p/(m_\mathrm{p}c))^{-4.5}$ and let the spectrum cool including hadronic and Coulomb losses. We compute the spectrum using sub-cycling. Figure \[fig:free-cooling-time-evol\] shows the freely cooling spectrum for different times using 12 spectral bins including buffer bins. Also shown are the approximate slopes at large cooling times indicating the accuracy of the method. As expected (Section \[sec:free-cooling\]) in the case of hadronic cooling the cooled spectrum scales as the original spectrum. The Coulomb losses approach a flat spectrum for $f$, i.e. a spectral scaling with $p^{1.9}$ using the scaling in the plot. There is no analytic solution for the amplitude of the spectrum, so we need to focus on the accuracy of the slopes.
For the steady state spectrum we use again the same initial spectrum as in the case for free cooling, $f(p)=10^3(p/(m_\mathrm{p}c))^{-4.5}$. We then apply a constant injection $j(p)=2.58/\mathrm{Myr}(p/(m_\mathrm{p}c))^{-4.5}$, i.e. a fraction of $2.58\times10^{-3}$ of the energy of the initial spectrum. We use time steps of $\Delta t =2\,\mathrm{Myr}$ and in each time step we apply injection, Coulomb and hadronic losses using 12 bins including buffer bins. The spectrum is shown in the top panel of Fig. \[fig:ss-time-evol\] for different times. We overplot the numerical solution at $10\,\mathrm{Gyr}$ with the analytical steady state spectrum as in equation . The converged spectrum agrees well with the analytic solution. More quantitatively, the bottom panel shows the error of the numerical solution in comparison to the analytic result using the $L^1$ norm. We adopt a linear measure, $$L^1_\mathrm{lin} = N^{-1} \sum_i |f_{i,\mathrm{num}}(p_i)-f_{i,\mathrm{ana}}(p_i)|$$ as well as its logarithmic counterpart, $$L^1_\mathrm{log} = N^{-1} \sum_i |\log (f_{i,\mathrm{num}}(p_i)/f_{i,\mathrm{ana}}(p_i))|,$$ where in both cases we sample the spectrum with 250 data points per momentum decade, giving rise to $N=624$ sampling points. The error reduces with a scaling of approximately $L^1\propto N_\mathrm{bin}^{-1.3}$.
Spatial diffusion {#sec:diffusion}
=================
So far we have discussed the spectral evolution without investigating the connection to the spatial time evolution. For advection, this is only a problem of the hydrodynamical code, which is beyond the scope of this paper. Spatial diffusion in contrast reveals an interaction of spatial and spectral changes. As spatial diffusion is energy conserving, the diffusion step itself does not transfer CRs in momentum space, i.e., $\partial f/\partial p=0$. However, the amount of diffused number and energy density to neighbouring hydrodynamical cells will depend on the spatial derivatives of $f$ and the possible different diffusion speeds for $n$ and $e$ will result in changes of $f_{i-1/2}$ and ${q}_i$ within one bin. This in turn will affect the other processes in the following time step. We have to look at diffusion separately for number density and energy density.
Diffusion of number density
---------------------------
The spatial diffusion term of CRs in the momentum range $[p_1, p_2]$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:ndiff}
\partial_t n_\mathrm{diff} &= \int_{p_1}^{p_2} 4\pi{\bm{\nabla}}{\bm{\cdot}}({\bm{\mathsf{D}}}{\bm{\cdot}}{\bm{\nabla}}f)p^2\,{\rmn{d}}p\notag\\
&=4\pi{\bm{\nabla}}{\bm{\cdot}}{\left[\int_{p_1}^{p_2} p^2 {\bm{\mathsf{D}}}{\bm{\cdot}}{\bm{\nabla}}f\,{\rmn{d}}p\right]},\end{aligned}$$ where ${\bm{\mathsf{D}}}$ is the spatial CR diffusion tensor, $$\begin{aligned}
{\bm{\mathsf{D}}} &= {\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
D_{11} & D_{12} & D_{13}\\
D_{21} & D_{22} & D_{23}\\
D_{31} & D_{32} & D_{33}
\end{array}\right)}\end{aligned}$$ whose components reflect the orientation of the magnetic fields. Following @RyuEtAl2003, we set the components $$D_{ij} = D_{\perp}\delta_{ij} + (D_{\parallel} - D_{\perp})b_ib_j$$ with the normalised magnetic field components $b_i=B_i/|{\bm{\mathit{B}}}|$. The diffusion parameters depend on momentum, so $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:diff-coeff-scaling}
D_{\parallel}(p) &= D_{\parallel,10} {\left(\frac{p}{p_{10}}\right)}^{\alpha}\\
D_{\perp}(p) &= D_{\perp,10} {\left(\frac{p}{p_{10}}\right)}^{\alpha},\end{aligned}$$ where $p_{10} = 10\,\mathrm{GeV/c}$ and $D_{\parallel,10}$ and $D_{\perp,10}$ are diffusion coefficients parallel and perpendicular to the magnetic field line for momentum $p_{10}$. We can solve equation directly by replacing the individual components, which results in $$\begin{aligned}
&\partial_t n_\mathrm{diff} =\notag\\
&4\pi\,{\bm{\nabla}}{\bm{\cdot}}\,\int_{p_1}^{p_2}\,p^2\,{\left[\begin{array}{c}
D_{11}\partial_xf + D_{12}\partial_yf + D_{13}\partial_zf\\
D_{21}\partial_xf + D_{22}\partial_yf + D_{23}\partial_zf\\
D_{31}\partial_xf + D_{32}\partial_yf + D_{33}\partial_zf
\end{array}\right]}\,{\rmn{d}}p,\end{aligned}$$ where $\partial_k=\partial/\partial k$ is a shorthand notation for the partial derivative with $k\in\{x, y, z\}$. In order to solve this equation we need to compute the spatial derivatives of $f$. Alternatively, we can write the diffusion equation as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:ndiff_alt}
\frac{\partial n_\mathrm{diff}}{\partial t} &=\int_{p_1}^{p_2} 4\pi{\bm{\nabla}}{\bm{\cdot}}({\bm{\mathsf{D}}}_n{\bm{\cdot}}{\bm{\nabla}}f)p^2\,{\rmn{d}}p\notag\\
&= {\bm{\nabla}}{\bm{\cdot}}{\left({\left\langle{\bm{\mathsf{D}}}_n\right\rangle}{\bm{\cdot}}{\bm{\nabla}}n_{cr}\right)},\end{aligned}$$ such that it formally takes the form of a simple diffusion equation with modified diffusion tensor ${\left\langle{\bm{\mathsf{D}}}_n\right\rangle}$, see equations . We arrive at that equation in a simple intuitive way formally by multiplying with unity. The individual tensor components take the form $${\left\langleD_{n,ij}\right\rangle} = \frac{\int_{p_1}^{p_2} p^2\,D_{ij}\,\partial_j f\,{\rmn{d}}p}{\int_{p_1}^{p_2} p^2 \partial_j f\,{\rmn{d}}p}$$ Using $D_{ij}=D'_{ij}(p/p_{10})^\alpha$ we get $${\left\langleD_{n,ij}\right\rangle} = \frac{D'_{ij}}{p_{10}^\alpha}\,\frac{\int_{p_1}^{p_2} p^{2+\alpha}\partial_j f\,{\rmn{d}}p}{\int_{p_1}^{p_2} p^2 \partial_j f\,{\rmn{d}}p}$$
Diffusion of energy density
---------------------------
In a similar way the diffusion of CR energy density obeys $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:ediff}
\partial_t e_\mathrm{diff} &= \int_{p_1}^{p_2} 4\pi{\bm{\nabla}}{\bm{\cdot}}({\bm{\mathsf{D}}}{\bm{\cdot}}{\bm{\nabla}}f)p^2T(p)\,{\rmn{d}}p\notag\\
&=4\pi{\bm{\nabla}}{\bm{\cdot}}{\left[\int_{p_1}^{p_2} p^2T(p) {\bm{\mathsf{D}}}{\bm{\cdot}}{\bm{\nabla}}f\,{\rmn{d}}p\right]},\end{aligned}$$ Using equation we obtain modified diffusion coefficients for the energy $${\left\langleD_{e,ij}\right\rangle} = \frac{\int_{p_1}^{p_2} p^2T(p)\,D_{ij}\,\partial_j f\,{\rmn{d}}p}{\int_{p_1}^{p_2} p^2T(p) \partial_j f\,{\rmn{d}}p},$$ which can be connected to the scaling of the diffusion coefficients with the momentum to yield $${\left\langleD_{e,ij}\right\rangle} = \frac{D'_{ij}}{p_{10}^\alpha}\,\frac{\int_{p_1}^{p_2} p^{2+\alpha}T(p)\partial_j f\,{\rmn{d}}p}{\int_{p_1}^{p_2} p^2T(p) \partial_j f\,{\rmn{d}}p}.$$
Simplified bin-centred diffusion
--------------------------------
{width="\textwidth"}
{width="48.00000%"} {width="48.00000%"}
In principle, the correct diffusion can be computed using the previously derived coefficients. However, there are two disadvantages of the computations. One is the computational cost of the spatial derivative because it includes both the spatial derivative of the amplitude $f_{i-1/2}$ as well as the slope ${q}_i$. This expensive derivative has to be done for every cell and every momentum bin separately, which means that no part of the diffusion tensor can be reused for several spectral bins. A second complication is that the full spatial derivative of $f$ has a large dynamic range, in particular near CR sources where the spectrum can differ by orders of magnitude. The strong anisotropy with approximately two orders of magnitude larger parallel than perpendicular diffusion further increases the numerical demands. The derivatives and a stable numerical diffusion are therefore difficult to control in this case. For conserved quantities, slope limiters could be used for the fluxes.
Instead of computing the spatial derivatives of $f$ we can use a simplified approximation and consider the diffusion of number and energy density with the same momentum-dependent diffusion coefficients evaluated with diffusion coefficients for the bin centres of the momenta $p_i$. This equal treatment of $n$ and $e$ will result in a non-varying slope ${q}_i$ for the diffusion step. This is an approximation that is reasonably stable even in the case of strong shocks and strong CR injection combined with highly anisotropic diffusion.
A few conceptual properties of spatial momentum dependent diffusion can be illustrated in a one-dimensional toy model. We set up an initial Dirac $\delta$ distribution in CR number and energy density. We rescale the amplitude in every momentum bin to give a spectral power-law with index $-4.5$ corresponding to injection of shock-accelerated CRs with a shock of moderate strength. The CR are allowed to diffuse spatially as indicated in the left-hand panel of Fig. \[fig:spatial-diffusion-x\] for the spectral bin at $p=1\,\mathrm{GeV}/c$, where we applied an arbitrary renormalisation for better readability and use a diffusion coefficient of $D_{\parallel,10} = 10^{28}\,\mathrm{cm}^2\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}$ and a scaling of $\alpha=0.5$, cf equation . With this approximation all momentum bins follow the same spatial functional evolution over time, which is a Gaussian function. However, the different diffusion speeds result in faster diffusion for higher CR momenta. The initial power-law spectrum therefore changes its shape over time, which is shown in the right-hand panel of Fig. \[fig:spatial-diffusion-x\] for the position at $x=150\,\mathrm{pc}$. The spectrum is scaled with $p^{4.5}$, i.e. the initial power-law would be a horizontal line. At early times high-energy CRs can reach the position at $x=150\,\mathrm{pc}$ much faster, which results in larger amplitudes at high $p$. Over time, the amplitude of the low-energy CRs increases gradually, which reflects their longer diffusion times to the measurement position. At the same time the amplitude of the high-energy CRs starts to rapidly decrease because the high-energy component diffuses out of the domain and the total remaining high-energy component drops. Those two effects result in a temporal evolution of the spectrum that appears in a curved form with a maximum that shifts towards lower momenta. We note that locally in each bin the spectral slope remains the same as in the initial spectrum, ${q}=4.5$, because the diffusion coefficient scales with the momentum of the bin centre and we use the same diffusion coefficient for the number and the energy density. We would like to emphasise that the changes in the amplitudes of individual bins are solely due to the spatial diffusion. There is no transfer of number and energy density in momentum space, i.e. the spatial integral over each momentum bin is conserved separately. This also means that the diffusion of each momentum bin can be computed independently.
We additionally illustrate this effect in Fig. \[fig:spatial-diffusion-3D\] for two different times in a three-dimensional representation. The left-hand spectrum is measured after $10\,\mathrm{kyr}$, the right-hand counterpart after $100\,\mathrm{kyr}$. The red lines indicate the spectrum at $x=0$, the blue lines at $150\,\mathrm{pc}$. After $10\,\mathrm{kyr}$ the blue line clearly indicates that the spectrum is dominated by high-energy CRs – we note the large dynamic range in $z$. At the origin the spectrum still appears to be flat. The decrease of the amplitude at $p\gtrsim1000\,\mathrm{GeV}/c$ is not visible (cf. black line in right-hand panel of Fig \[fig:spatial-diffusion-x\]). After $10\,\mathrm{kyr}$ the significantly faster diffusion for high $p$ is visible in the spectrum. By that time the diffusion of low-energy CRs results in a shallower distribution along $x$, which in turn yields a spectrum that develops a stronger curvature at higher momenta.
Conclusions {#sec:conclusions}
===========
The spectral shape of CR protons is important to properly account for energy dependent losses, injection, spatial diffusion and CR ionisation and as a result an accurate modelling of the energetic impact of CR protons. Predictive comparisons to observations furthermore requires to follow the spectral shape of a CR population. As CR protons are dynamically relevant, we would like to model them with a full spectrum in every computational cell of a hydrodynamical simulation. This requires an efficient algorithm that adequately represents the CR proton spectrum spanning the relevant energy regime from low-energy CRs that cool via Coulomb losses up to high-energy CR that suffer hadronic losses with a minimum of spectral bins.
Here, we present a new method that solves the Fokker-Planck equation using a piecewise power-law representation of the particle distribution function. The implemented two-moment approach uses the number and energy density to compute the time evolution of the spectrum and does not rely on a continuous particle distribution function, which makes the code more versatile and stable. Because of the low number of spectral bins both the memory requirements and the computational cost are low in comparison to classical methods which require orders of magnitude more bins and adopt piecewise constant values. The method is therefore well suited to be coupled to hydrodynamics and solved together with the gas fluid dynamics in every cell of a three-dimensional hydrodynamical simulation.
For the adiabatic process the new scheme reveals orders of magnitude lower errors for the number and energy density and a very stable and accurate computation of the spectral slope. The combination of injection and cooling including Coulomb and hadronic losses shows very good agreement with theoretical steady state spectra. This method is also able to capture momentum-dependent CR diffusion, which causes a region outside the source to first see the highest-energy CRs before the low-energy CRs catch up.
Besides the dynamics a full spectral representation of CRs allows us to connect the CRs to observables like the chemical changes caused by low-energy CRs or the emission of $\gamma$-rays caused by hadronic interactions of high-energy CRs. In our follow-up paper, we explore the coupling of this new method to MHD to study the hydrodynamical impact of evolving the CR spectrum.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
The authors thank Andy Strong and Stefanie Walch for fruitful discussions. We also thank the anonymous referee for very constructive comments that helped to improve the manuscript. PG and TN acknowledge support from the DFG Priority Program 1573 *Physics of the Interstellar Medium*. PG and CP acknowledge funding from the European Research Council under ERC-CoG grant CRAGSMAN-646955. MH acknowledges support of the (Polish) National Science Centre through the grant No. 2015/19/ST9/02959. TN acknowledges support from the DFG cluster of excellence *ORIGINS*.
Proof for the adiabatic process {#sec:adiabatic-analytic-proof}
===============================
![Illustration of the momenta and transferred number and energy density for the analytic proof.[]{data-label="fig:adiabatic-compression-analytic-proof"}](Fig14.pdf){width="8cm"}
The adiabatic process is simply an advection in (logarithmic) momentum space plus a change in normalisation. The slope of a power-law distribution, ${q}$, does not change under the impact of an adiabatic process. For our numerical scheme this means that the ratio $e_i/n_i$ does not change during compression or expansion. We thus take $f$ to be continuous with local slopes ${q}\equiv {q}_{i-1}={q}_i={q}_{i+1}$ as illustrated in Fig. \[fig:adiabatic-compression-analytic-proof\]. We note that this simple mathematical proof does not work for discontinuous $f$. This implies that $f_{i+1/2} = f_{i-1/2}(p_{i+1/2}/p_{i-1/2})^{-{q}}$. We make a few assumptions without loss of generality:
- We use the relativistic regime, so $T(p)=pc$, but the results are similarly true for all other power laws.
- ${q}_i\neq4$ and ${q}\neq3$, so that we do not have to treat integrands scaling with $1/p$ separately.
- We look at a compression ($p_{\mathrm{s}-1/2} < p_{i-1/2}$) with $p_{\mathrm{s}-1/2}$ and $p_{\mathrm{s}+1/2}$ for the left and right edge of bin $i$ and note that the ratios of the shift momenta at both boundaries of the bin $i$ are equal, $$\frac{p_{\mathrm{s}-1/2}}{p_{i-1/2}}=\frac{p_{\mathrm{s}+1/2}}{p_{i+1/2}}.$$
- By construction of a piecewise power-law distribution function and a continuous function we can write $$f_{i+1/2} = f_{i-1/2}\left(\frac{p_{i+1/2}}{p_{i-1/2}}\right)^{-{q}}.$$
We then need to show that $$\frac{e_i(t+\Delta t)}{n_i(t+\Delta t)} = \frac{e_i(t)}{n_i(t)}.$$ The above simplifications give for the total number density in bin $i$ $$n_i = 4\pi f_{i-1/2} \frac{p_{i-1/2}^3}{-{q}+3}{\left[{\left(\frac{p_{i+1/2}}{p_{i-1/2}}\right)}^{-{q}+3}-1\right]}.$$ The integrated fluxes at $p_{i-1/2}$, $\Phi_n(p_{i-1/2})$, and at $p_{i+1/2}$, $\Phi_n(p_{i+1/2})$ lead to $\Delta n_{i-1/2}$ and $\Delta n_{i+1/2}$, which are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta n_{i-1/2} &= 4\pi f_{i-1/2} \frac{p_{i-1/2}^3}{-{q}+3}{\left[1-{\left(\frac{p_{s-1/2}}{p_{i-1/2}}\right)}^{-{q}+3}\right]}\\
\Delta n_{i+1/2} &= 4\pi f_{i+1/2} \frac{p_{i+1/2}^3}{-{q}+3}{\left[1-{\left(\frac{p_{s+1/2}}{p_{i+1/2}}\right)}^{-{q}+3}\right]}\\
&= 4\pi\,f_{i-1/2} {\left(\frac{p_{i+1/2}}{p_{i-1/2}}\right)}^{-{q}}\, \frac{p_{i+1/2}^3}{-{q}+3}\times\notag\\
&\qquad{\left[1-{\left(\frac{p_{s-1/2}}{p_{i-1/2}}\right)}^{-{q}+3}\right]}\notag\\
&= 4\pi\,f_{i-1/2} \frac{p_{i-1/2}^3}{-{q}+3}\,{\left(\frac{p_{i+1/2}}{p_{i-1/2}}\right)}^{-{q}+3}\times\notag\\
&\qquad{\left[1-{\left(\frac{p_{s-1/2}}{p_{i-1/2}}\right)}^{-{q}+3}\right]}\notag\end{aligned}$$ and finally the new number density after compression can be reduced to $$\begin{aligned}
n_i(t+\Delta t) &= n_i + \Delta n_{i-1/2} - \Delta n_{i+1/2}\\
&= n_i {\left(\frac{p_{s-1/2}}{p_{i-1/2}}\right)}^{-{q}+3}\end{aligned}$$ For the energy density we have the total energy in bin $i$ $$e_i = 4\pi c f_{i-1/2} \frac{p_{i-1/2}^4}{-{q}+4}{\left[{\left(\frac{p_{i+1/2}}{p_{i-1/2}}\right)}^{-{q}+4}-1\right]},$$ The total changes in the energy can be computed in two steps. The first is to compute the integrals over the distribution function from the shift momenta to the cell boundaries in the same way as for the number density. This is the part of the energy that is transferred between the bins. In a second step we need to consider that the total energy is shifted along the momentum axis and each particle with an energy density $e$ gains energy as $$\begin{aligned}
T&\rightarrow T\,\frac{p_{i-1/2}}{p_{s-1/2}},\end{aligned}$$ where we used the assumption that the particle has relativistic energies, i.e. $T=pc$. This applies to the entire energy bin. We therefore find the energy in bin $i$ as $$\begin{aligned}
e_i(t+\Delta t) &= \frac{p_{i-1/2}}{p_{s-1/2}} {\left(e_i + \Delta e_{i-1/2} - \Delta e_{i+1/2}\right)}\end{aligned}$$ For the first step we compute the integrals as $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta e_{i-1/2} &= \int_{p_{s-1/2}}^{p_{i-1/2}} 4\pi p^3 c f_{i-1/2}{\left(\frac{p}{p_{i-1/2}}\right)}^{-{q}} {\rmn{d}}p\\
&= 4\pi c f_{i-1/2} \frac{p_{i-1/2}^4}{-{q}+4}{\left[{\left(\frac{p}{p_{i-1/2}}\right)}^{-{q}+4}\right]}_{p_{s-1/2}}^{p_{i-1/2}}\notag\\
&= 4\pi c f_{i-1/2} \frac{p_{i-1/2}^4}{-{q}+4}{\left[1-{\left(\frac{p_{s-1/2}}{p_{i-1/2}}\right)}^{-{q}+4}\right]}\notag\end{aligned}$$ and for the integral at the upper bin boundary $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta e_{i+1/2} &= 4\pi c f_{i+1/2} \frac{p_{i+1/2}^4}{-{q}+4}{\left[1-{\left(\frac{p_{s+1/2}}{p_{i+1/2}}\right)}^{-{q}+4}\right]}\\
&= 4\pi c f_{i-1/2} {\left(\frac{p_{i+1/2}}{p_{i-1/2}}\right)}^{-{q}}\frac{p_{i+1/2}^4}{-{q}+4}\times\notag\\
&\qquad{\left[1-{\left(\frac{p_{s-1/2}}{p_{i-1/2}}\right)}^{-{q}+4}\right]}\notag\\
&= 4\pi c f_{i-1/2} {\left(\frac{p_{i+1/2}}{p_{i-1/2}}\right)}^{-{q}+4}\frac{p_{i-1/2}^4}{-{q}+4}\times\notag\\
&\qquad{\left[1-{\left(\frac{p_{s-1/2}}{p_{i-1/2}}\right)}^{-{q}+4}\right]}\notag\\
&= 4\pi c f_{i-1/2} \frac{p_{i-1/2}^4}{-{q}+4}{\left(\frac{p_{i+1/2}}{p_{i-1/2}}\right)}^{-{q}+4}\times\notag\\
&\qquad{\left[1-{\left(\frac{p_{s-1/2}}{p_{i-1/2}}\right)}^{-{q}+4}\right]}\notag\end{aligned}$$ where in the last equation we have used that $f_2 = f_1(p_2/p_1)^{-{q}}$ and $p_{s+1/2}/p_{i+1/2} = p_{s-1/2}/p_{i-1/2}$. The difference of those two terms gives $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta e_{i-1/2} - \Delta e_{i+1/2} &= e_i{\left[{\left(\frac{p_{s-1/2}}{p_{i-1/2}}\right)}^{-{q}+4}-1\right]}
$$ Taken together, we find $$\begin{aligned}
e_{i} + \Delta e_{i-1/2} - \Delta e_{i+1/2} &= e_i\,{\left(\frac{p_{s-1/2}}{p_{i-1/2}}\right)}^{-{q}+4}.\end{aligned}$$ and finally $$\begin{aligned}
e_i(t+\Delta t) &= e_i(t) \, {\left(\frac{p_{s-1/2}}{p_{i-1/2}}\right)}^{-{q}+3}\end{aligned}$$ with the same scaling as the number density compared to initial value $e(t)$. The ratio after an adiabatic compression thus remains the same as well as the slope, ${q}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{e_i(t+\Delta t)}{n_i(t+\Delta t)} = \frac{e_i(t)}{n_i(t)},\end{aligned}$$ which is required for an adiabatic change.
\[lastpage\]
[^1]: E-mail: [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We present an end-to-end learning method for chess, relying on deep neural networks. Without any a priori knowledge, in particular without any knowledge regarding the rules of chess, a deep neural network is trained using a combination of unsupervised pretraining and supervised training. The unsupervised training extracts high level features from a given position, and the supervised training learns to compare two chess positions and select the more favorable one. The training relies entirely on datasets of several million chess games, and no further domain specific knowledge is incorporated.
The experiments show that the resulting neural network (referred to as DeepChess) is on a par with state-of-the-art chess playing programs, which have been developed through many years of manual feature selection and tuning. DeepChess is the first end-to-end machine learning-based method that results in a grandmaster-level chess playing performance.
author:
- 'Eli (Omid) David'
- 'Nathan S. Netanyahu'
- Lior Wolf
title: |
DeepChess: End-to-End Deep Neural Network\
for Automatic Learning in Chess
---
[10in]{}(38mm, 10mm) [**Ref:** *International Conference on Artificial Neural Networks (ICANN)*, Springer LNCS, ]{}
[10in]{}(38mm, 15mm) [Vol. 9887, pp. 88–96, Barcelona, Spain, 2016.]{}
[10in]{}(64mm, 26mm)
Introduction
============
Top computer chess programs are based typically on manual feature selection and tuning of their evaluation function, usually through years of trial and error. While computer chess is one of the most researched fields within AI, machine learning has not been successful yet at producing grandmaster level players.
In this paper, we employ deep neural networks to learn an evaluation function *from scratch*, without incorporating the rules of the game and using no manually extracted features at all. Instead, the system is trained from end to end on a large dataset of chess positions.
Training is done in multiple phases. First, we use deep unsupervised neural networks for pretraining. We then train a supervised network to select a preferable position out of two input positions. This second network is incorporated into a new form of alpha-beta search. A third training phase is used to compress the network in order to allow rapid computation.
Our method obtains a grandmaster-level chess playing performance, on a par with top state-of-the-art chess programs. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first machine learning-based method that is capable of learning from scratch and obtains a grandmaster-level performance.
\[sec:learning\] Previous Work
==============================
Chess-playing programs have been improved significantly over the past several decades. While the first chess programs could not pose a challenge to even a novice player, the current advanced chess programs have been outperforming the strongest human players, as the recent man vs. machine matches clearly indicate. Despite these achievements, a glaring deficiency of today’s top chess programs is their severe lack of a learning capability (except in most negligible ways, e.g., “learning” not to play an opening that resulted in a loss, etc.).
During more than fifty years of research in the area of computer games, many learning methods have been employed in several games. *Reinforcement learning* has been successfully applied in backgammon [@tesauro92] and checkers [@schaeffer01]. Although reinforcement learning has also been applied to chess [@baxter00; @lai15], the resulting programs exhibit a playing strength at a human master level at best, which is substantially lower than the grandmaster-level state-of-the-art chess programs. These experimental results confirm Wiering’s [@wiering95] formal arguments for the failure of reinforcement learning in rather complex games such as chess. Very recently, a combination of a *Monte-Carlo search* and deep learning resulted in a huge improvement in the game of Go [@silver16]. However, Monte-Carlo search is not applicable to chess, since it is much more tactical than Go, e.g., in a certain position, all but one of the moves by the opponent may result in a favorable result, but one refutation is sufficient to render the position unfavorable.
In our previous works, we demonstrated how genetic algorithms (GA’s) could be applied successfully to the problem of automatic evaluation function tuning when the features are initialized randomly [@david08c; @david09a; @david11; @david14]. Although to the best of our knowledge, these works are the only successful automatic learning methods to have resulted in grandmaster-level performance in computer chess, they do not involve learning the features themselves from scratch. Rather, they rely on the existence of a manually created evaluation function, which consists already of all the required features (e.g., queen value, rook value, king safety, pawn structure evaluation, and many other hand crafted features). Thus, GAs are used in this context for *optimization* of the weights of existing features, rather than for *feature learning* from scratch.
\[sec:deepchess\] Learning to Compare Positions
===============================================
The evaluation function is the most important component of a chess program. It receives a chess position as an input, and provides a score as an output. This score represents how good the given position is (typically from White’s perspective). For example, a drawish position would have a score close to $0$, a position in which white has two pawns more than black would have a score of $+2$, and a position in which black has a rook more than white, would be scored around $-5$. A good evaluation function considers typically a large number (i.e., on the order of hundreds and even thousands) of properties in addition to various piece-related parameters, such as king safety, passed pawns, doubled pawns, piece centrality, etc. The resulting score is a linear combination of all the selected features. The more accurately these features and their associated values capture the inherent properties of the position, the stronger the corresponding chess program becomes.
In this paper, we are interested in developing such an evaluation function from scratch, i.e., with absolutely no a priori knowledge. As a result, we do not provide our evaluation function with any features, including any knowledge about the rules of chess. Thus, for our training purposes, we are limited to observing databases of chess games with access only to the results of the games (i.e., either a win for White or Black, or a draw).
Since the real objective of an evaluation function is to perform relative comparisons between positions, we propose a novel training method around this concept. The model receives two positions as input and learns to predict which position is better. During training, the input pair is selected as follows: One position is selected at random from a game which White eventually won and the other from a game which Black eventually won. This relies on the safe assumption that, on average, positions taken from games that White won are preferable (from White’s perspective) to those taken from games that White lost. Additionally, the proposed approach allows for the creation of a considerably larger training dataset. For example, if we have a million positions from games that White had won, and a million positions from games that White had lost, we can create $2 \times 10^{12}$ training pairs (multiplied by 2 because each pair can be used twice, as \[win, loss\] and \[loss, win\]).
Our approach consists of multiple stages. First, we train a deep autoencoder on a dataset of several million chess positions. This deep autoencoder functions as a nonlinear feature extractor. We refer to this component as *Pos2Vec*, since it converts a given chess position into a vector of values which represent the high level features. In the second phase, we use two copies of this pretrained Pos2Vec side by side, and add fully connected layers on top of them, with a 2-value softmax output layer. We refer to this structure as *DeepChess*. It is trained to predict which of the two positions results in a win. Note that similar to the most successful object detection methods [@fasterrcnn], we found a 2-value output to outperform one binary output. Figure \[fig:deepchess\] illustrates the neural network architecture.
![Architecture illustration of DeepChess.[]{data-label="fig:deepchess"}](network.jpg){height="2.9in" width="5in"}
[**Dataset:**]{} We employed the games dataset of CCRL ([www.computerchess.org.uk/ccrl](www.computerchess.org.uk/ccrl)), which contains 640,000 chess games, out of which White won 221,695 games and Black won 164,387 games, the remaining games ended in a draw. Our experiments show that the inclusion of games that ended in a draw is not beneficial, so we only use games which ended in a win.
From each game we randomly extracted ten positions, with the restriction that the selected position cannot be from one of the first five moves in the game, and that the actual move played in the selected position is not a capture. Capture moves are misleading as they mostly result in a transient advantage since the other side is likely to capture back right away. The dataset thus contains 2,216,950 positions from games which White won ($W$ positions), and 1,643,870 positions from games which White lost ($L$ positions), for a total of 3,860,820 positions.
Each position is converted to a binary bit-string of size 773. There are two sides (White and Black), 6 piece types (pawn, knight, bishop, rook, queen, and king), and 64 squares. Therefore, in order to represent a position as a binary bit-string, we would require $2 \times 6 \times 64 = 768$ bits (this is known as *bitboard* representation). There are an additional five bits that represent the side to move (1 for White and 0 for Black) and castling rights (White can castle kingside, White can castle queenside, Black can castle kingside, and Black can castle queenside).
[**Training Pos2Vec:**]{} We first trained a deep belief network (DBN) [@bengio07b], which would later serve as the initial weights for supervised training. The DBN is based on stacked autoencoders which are trained using layer-wise unsupervised training. The network consists of five fully connected layers of sizes: 773–600–400–200–100. We initially trained the first layer (i.e., a 3-layer (773–600–773) autoencoder), before fixing its weights and training the weights of a new (600–400–600) autoencoder, and so on.
We used a random subset of 2,000,000 chess positions for training the DBN, of which 1,000,000 were White win ($W$) positions and 1,000,000 were Black win ($L$) positions. The DBN uses a rectified linear unit (ReLU), i.e., $f(x)=max(0,x)$, and a learning rate that starts from 0.005 and is multiplied by 0.98 at the end of each epoch. No regularization is used. The DBN is trained for 200 epochs.
[**Training DeepChess:**]{} As described earlier, this Siamese network is the core component of our method. We used the previously trained Pos2Vec DBN as the initial weights for the supervised network. Placing two disjoint copies of Pos2Vec side by side, we added on top of them four fully connected layers of size 400, 200, 100, and 2, which are connected to both Pos2Vec components. The first five layers of Pos2Vec thus serve as high level feature extractors, and the last four layers compare the features of the positions to determine which one is better.
During the supervised training phase, the entire network including the Pos2Vec parts is modified. We tie the weights of the two Pos2Vec-based feature extraction components, i.e., we use shared weights.
We trained this network for 1000 epochs. In each epoch, we created 1,000,000 random input pairs, where each pair consists of one position selected at random from the 2,116,950 $W$ positions, and one position selected at random from the 1,543,870 $L$ positions. (we set aside 100,000 $W$ positions and 100,000 $L$ positions for validation). The pair is then randomly ordered as either ($W,L$) or ($L,W$). Since the number of potential training pairs is $6.5 \times 10^{12}$, virtually all training samples in each epoch are new, thus guaranteeing that no overfitting would take place. For this reason, we do not use any regularization term. The activation used in all layers is the ReLU function. The learning rate starts from 0.01, and is multiplied by 0.99 after each epoch. The cross entropy loss is used. The training and validation accuracies obtained were 98.2% and 98.0%, respectively. This is remarkable, considering that no a priori knowledge of chess, including the very rules of the games are provided.
[**Improving Inference Speed by Network Distillation:**]{} Before incorporating the trained network into a chess program and evaluating its performance, we first had to address the problem that the network is too computationally expensive in prediction (inference) mode, running markedly slower than a typical evaluation function in a chess program. Several previous works have demonstrated how a considerably smaller neural network could be trained to mimic the behavior of a much more complex neural network [@hinton14; @romero15]. These network compression or distilling approaches train the smaller network to produce the same output as the larger network (learning from soft targets).
We first trained a smaller four-layer network of 773–100–100–100 neurons to mimic the feature extraction part of DeepChess, which consists of the five layers 773–600–400–200–100. We then added three layers of 100–100–2 neurons (originally 400–200–100–2) and trained the entire network to mimic the entire DeepChess network..
Further optimization was achieved by realizing that while most of the weights are concentrated in the first layer of the two Pos2Vec components (733–100 layer), there are at most 32 chess pieces in a given position and less than 5% of the weights in the input layer would be activated. Thus the amount of floating point operations required to be performed during inference is much reduced.
Table \[tab:validation\] summarizes the validation results post compression. The distilled network is comparable to the full original network. When training from scratch using the smaller network size (with pretraining but without first training the larger network and then distilling it), the performance is much reduced.
A Comparison-Based Alpha-Beta Search
====================================
Chess engines typically use the alpha-beta search algorithm [@knuth75]. Alpha-beta is a depth-first search method that prunes unpromising branches of the search tree earlier, improving the search efficiency. A given position is the root of the search tree, and the legal moves for each side create the next layer nodes. The more time available, the deeper this search tree can be processed, which would result in a better overall playing strength. At leaf nodes, an evaluation function is applied.
In an alpha-beta search, two values are stored; $\alpha$ which represents the value of the current best option for the side to move, and $\beta$ which is the negative $\alpha$ of the other side. For each new position encountered if $value > \alpha$, this value would become the new $\alpha$, but if $value > \beta$, the search is stopped and the search tree is pruned, because $value > \beta$ means that the opponent would not have allowed the current position to be reached (better options are available, since $value > \beta$ is equivalent to $-value < \alpha$ for the other side). Given a branching factor of $B$ and search depth $D$, alpha-beta reduces the search complexity from $B^D$ for basic DFS, to $B^{D/2}$.
In order to incorporate DeepChess, we use a novel version of an alpha-beta algorithm that does not require any position scores for performing the search. Instead of $\alpha$ and $\beta$ values, we store positions $\alpha_{pos}$ and $\beta_{pos}$. For each new position, we compare it with the existing $\alpha_{pos}$ and $\beta_{pos}$ positions using DeepChess, and if the comparison shows that the new position is better than $\alpha_{pos}$, it would become the new $\alpha_{pos}$, and if the new position is better than $\beta_{pos}$, the current node is pruned. Note that since DeepChess always compares the positions from White’s perspective, when using it from Black’s perspective, the predictions should be reversed.
[**Position hashing:**]{} When searching a tree of possible moves and positions, many of the positions appear repeatedly in different parts of the search tree, since the same position can arise in different move orders. To reduce the required computation, we store a large hash table for positions and their corresponding feature extraction values. For each new position, we first query the hash table, and if the position has already been processed, we reuse the cached values. Since we use a symmetric feature extraction scheme, where the weights are shared, each position needs only be stored once.
Experiments
===========
We provide both quantitative and qualitative results.
Static Understanding of Chess Positions
---------------------------------------
In order to measure the chess understanding of DeepChess, we ran it on a manually generated dataset consisting of carefully designed inputs. Each input pair in this dataset contains two nearly identical positions, where one contains a certain feature and the other one does not. Starting from simple piece values (e.g., two identical positions where a piece is missing from one), to more complex imbalances (e.g., rook vs. knight and a bishop), the predictions of DeepChess show that it has easily learned all of the basic concepts regarding piece values. We then measured more subtle positional features, e.g., king safety, bishop pair, piece mobility, passed pawns, isolated pawns, doubled pawns, castling rights, etc. All of these features are also well understood by DeepChess.
More interestingly, DeepChess has learned to prefer positions with dynamic attacking opportunities even when it has less material. In many cases, it prefers a position with one or two fewer pawns, but one that offers non-material positional advantages. This property has been associated with human grandmasters, and has always been considered an area in which computer chess programs were lacking. While the scores of current evaluation functions in state-of-the-art chess programs are based on a linear combination of all the features present, DeepChess is a non-linear evaluator, and thus has a far higher potential for profound understanding of chess positions (also similar to human grandmaster analysis of positions). Figure \[fig:positions\] shows a few examples where this preference of DeepChess for non-materialistic advantages leads to favoring positional sacrifices, as played by human grandmasters.
[0.23]{} {width="\textwidth"}
[0.23]{} {width="\textwidth"}
[0.23]{} {width="\textwidth"}
[0.23]{} {width="\textwidth"}
\[fig:positions\]
Playing Strength vs. State-of-the-Art Competitors
-------------------------------------------------
We used the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Falcon</span> chess engine as a baseline for our experiments. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Falcon</span> is a grandmaster-level chess program, which has successfully participated in several World Computer Chess Championships (WCCCs); in particular, it won second place at the World Computer Speed Chess Championship in 2008. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Falcon</span>’s extensive evaluation function consists of more than 100 parameters, and its implementation contains several thousands of lines of code.
Despite all the computational improvements mentioned earlier for DeepChess, and numerous other implementation improvements which result in substantial additional computational speedup, DeepChess is still four times slower than <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Falcon</span>’s own evaluation function. Nevertheless, we incorporate DeepChess into <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Falcon</span>, completely replacing the evaluation function of the program.
To measure the performance of DeepChess, we conducted a series of matches against <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Falcon</span>, and also against the chess program <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Crafty</span>. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Crafty</span> has successfully participated in numerous WCCCs, and is a direct descendant of Cray Blitz, the WCCC winner of 1983 and 1986. It has been frequently used in the literature as a standard reference.
Each of the matches of DeepChess vs. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Falcon</span> and <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Crafty</span> consisted of 100 games under a time control of 30 minutes per game for each side. Table \[tab:search-matches\] provides the results. As can be seen, DeepChess is on a par with <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Falcon</span>. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Falcon</span> uses a manually tuned evaluation function developed over nearly ten years, containing more than a hundred parameters which grasp many subtle chess features. And yet, without any chess knowledge whatsoever (not even basic knowledge as the rules of chess), our DeepChess method managed to reach a level which is on a par with the manually tuned evaluation function of <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Falcon</span>. The results also show that DeepChess is over 60 Elo [@elo78] stronger than <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Crafty</span>, a program which has won two WCCCs and has been manually tuned for thirty years.
DeepChess performs on a par with <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Falcon</span> despite the fact that it is four times slower. We ran a separate experiment where we allowed DeepChess to use four times more time than <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Falcon</span> (2 hours vs 30 minutes). Running 100 such matches, DeepChess resoundingly defeated <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Falcon</span> with a result of 63.5 - 36.5, corresponding to a 96 Elo performance difference. This shows that DeepChess is actually not on par with <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Falcon</span>’s evaluation function, but is considerably superior to it. In order to utilize the full potential of this enhanced chess understanding, it is critical to decrease the runtime of the neural network in the inference mode.
\[sec:conclusions\]Concluding Remarks
=====================================
We presented the first successful end-to-end application of machine learning in computer chess. Similarly to human chess masters, DeepChess does not assign numeral evaluation values to different positions, but rather, *compares* different positions that may arise, and opts for the most promising continuation.
Having observed the playing style of DeepChess, we note that it plays very aggressively, often sacrificing pieces for long term positional gains (i.e., non-tactical gains). This playing style resembles very much the playing style of human grandmasters. While computer chess programs have long been criticized for being materialistic, DeepChess demonstrates the very opposite by exhibiting an adventurous playing style with frequent positional sacrifices.
[99]{}
J. Baxter, A. Tridgell, and L. Weaver. Learning to play chess using temporal-differences. *Machine Learning*, 40(3):243–263, 2000.
Y. Bengio, P. Lamblin, D. Popovici, and H. Larochelle. Greedy layer-wise training of deep networks. *NIPS*, 2007.
O.E. David, M. Koppel, and N.S. Netanyahu. Genetic Algorithms for Mentor-Assisted Evaluation Function Optimization. *GECCO*, 2008.
O.E. David, H.J. van den Herik, M. Koppel, and N.S. Netanyahu. Simulating human Grandmasters: Evolution and coevolution of evaluation functions. *GECCO*, 2009.
O.E. David, M. Koppel, and N.S. Netanyahu. Expert-driven genetic algorithms for simulating evaluation functions. *Genetic Programming and Evolvable Machines*, 12(1):5–22, 2011.
O.E. David, H.J. van den Herik, M. Koppel, and N.S. Netanyahu. Genetic Algorithms for Evolving Computer Chess Programs. *IEEE Trans. Evolutionary Computation*, 18(5):779–789, 2014.
A.E. Elo. *The rating of chessplayers, past and present*, Batsford, London, 1978.
G. Hinton, O. Vinyals, and J. Dean. Distilling knowledge in a neural network. *Deep Learning and Representation Learning Workshop, NIPS*, 2014.
D.E. Knuth and R.W. Moore. An analysis of alpha-beta pruning. *Artificial Intelligence*, 6(4):293–326, 1975.
M. Lai. *Giraffe: Using deep reinforcement learning to play chess.* Master’s Thesis, Imperial College London, 2015.
S. Ren, K. He, R. Girshick, and J. Sun. Faster R-CNN: Towards real-time object detection with region proposal networks. *NIPS*, 2015.
A. Romero, N. Ballas, S. Ebrahimi Kahou, A. Chassang, C. Gatta, and Y. Bengio. FitNets: Hints for thin deep nets. *ICLR*, 2015.
J. Schaeffer, M. Hlynka, and V. Jussila. Temporal difference learning applied to a high-performance game-playing program. *Joint Conf. Artificial Intelligence*, 2001.
J. Schaeffer, N. Burch, Y. Björnsson, A. Kishimoto, M. Müller, and R. Lake. Checkers is Solved. *Science*, 317:1518–1522, 2007.
D. Silver *et al*. Mastering the game of Go with deep neural networks and tree search. *Nature*, 529:484–489, 2016.
G. Tesauro. Practical issues in temporal difference learning. *Machine Learning*, 8(3-4):257–277, 1992.
M.A. Wiering. *TD learning of game evaluation functions with hierarchical neural architectures*. Master’s Thesis, University of Amsterdam, 1995.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'It is shown by computer simulations that superfluid [*para*]{}-hydrogen clusters of more than 22 molecules can be turned insulating and “solidlike" by the replacement of as few as one or two molecules, with ones of the heavier [*ortho*]{}-deuterium isotope. A much smaller effect is observed with substitutional [*ortho*]{}-hydrogen. Substitutional [*ortho*]{}-deuterium molecules prevalently sit in the inner part of the cluster, whereas [*ortho*]{}-hydrogen impurities reside primarily in the outer shell, near the surface. Implications on the superfluidity of pure [*para*]{}-hydrogen clusters are discussed.'
author:
- Fabio Mezzacapo and Massimo Boninsegni
title: Superfluidity of isotopically doped parahydrogen clusters
---
Clusters of molecular hydrogen are the subject of intense experimental investigation, especially after the claim of observation of superfluidity (SF) in clusters of $N$=14-16 [*p*]{}-H$_2$ molecules surrounding a linear carbonyl sulfide (OCS) impurity [@grebenev00]. Experimental data for pristine or isotopically mixed clusters are not yet available, but novel techniques based on Raman spectroscopy may soon be able to characterize their superfluid properties [@toennies04].
Quantitative information and physical insight in the properties of clusters of [*para*]{}-hydrogen ([*p*]{}-H$_2$) molecules, both pristine [@sindzingre; @guardiola06; @roy06; @noi06; @noi07; @buffoni] or doped [@kwon02_05; @saverio05; @paesani; @jiang; @sebastianelli], has been provided by microscopic calculations based on Quantum Monte Carlo (QMC) simulations, making use of accurate intermolecular potentials [@SG; @silvera; @buck84]. In particular, a significant superfluid response has been predicted at $T$ $\le$ 1 K for pristine clusters comprising as many as 27 [*p*]{}-H$_2$ molecules [@noi06; @noi07].
To an excellent approximation, [*p*]{}-H$_2$ molecules, as well as those of the heavier [*ortho*]{}-deuterium isotope ([*o*]{}-D$_2$) can be regarded as point particles of spin S=0, [*o*]{}-D$_2$ having twice the mass of [*p*]{}-H$_2$. A third isotope exists, namely [*ortho*]{}-hydrogen ([*o*]{}-H$_2$), which has the same mass of [*p*]{}-H$_2$, but different spin (S=1). Pair-wise interactions between molecules of the different isotopes are very nearly the same [@zoppi]; thus, a mixed cluster of these components provides a simple experimental realization of a mixture of isotopic bosons. A number of fundamental questions can therefore be addressed by studying these systems, e.g., [how does the presence of one component affect the superfluid properties of the other(s), or the structure of the cluster ?]{}
Classical binary Lennard-Jones (LJ) clusters have been extensively investigated; for example, it is known that, for equal concentrations of the two species, the one with the smaller depth of the pair potential well $\epsilon_{LJ}$ and/or with higher particle effective radius $\sigma_{LJ}$ will sit prevalently at the cluster surface [@clarke93; @clarke94]. Because in a mixture of, e.g., [*p*]{}-H$_2$ and [*o*]{}-D$_2$, $\epsilon_{LJ}$ and $\sigma_{LJ}$ are essentially the same for all pair-wise interactions, the physics of the system is dominated by quantum effects, at low temperature.
Path Integral Monte Carlo simulations of such mixed clusters have been carried out down to $T$=2.5 K, but without including quantum exchanges [@chakravarty95]. No theoretical predictions are presently available for the superfluid behavior of this system. Clearly, the sensitivity of the superfluid response of a finite cluster to its detailed isotopic composition, has a direct relevance to the design and interpretation of ongoing and future experiments.
In this paper, we present results of a microscopic study of [*p*]{}-H$_2$ clusters doped with isotopic impurities; specifically, we investigate the effect of the substitution of few ($N_D \le 4$) [*p*]{}-H$_2$ with [*o*]{}-D$_2$ (or, [*o*]{}-H$_2$) molecules, in ([*p*]{}-H$_2$)$_N$ clusters that are entirely (or, almost entirely) superfluid. For definiteness, we focus on clusters with $N\ge$ 16, at the two temperatures $T$=0.5 and 1 K.
The substitution of [*p*]{}-H$_2$ with [*o*]{}-D$_2$ molecules, generally causes pristine superfluid [*p*]{}-H$_2$ clusters to turn progressively solidlike, their structure increasingly mimicking that of pure [*o*]{}-D$_2$ clusters with the same numbers of molecules. For clusters comprising more than 20 molecules, however, the change from liquid to solidlike can occur abruptly. For instance, while the superfluid fraction of the pristine ([*p*]{}-H$_2$)$_{25}$ cluster at $T$=1 K is approximately 75%, substitution of a single [*p*]{}-H$_2$ molecule with an [*o*]{}-D$_2$ suppresses SF almost completely. Likewise, two such substitutional [*o*]{}-D$_2$ impurities suffice to suppress the superfluid response (close to 100%) of the same cluster at $T$=0.5 K.
A much smaller reduction of the superfluid response is observed if substitutional impurities are [*o*]{}-H$_2$ molecules. For example, ([*p*]{}-H$_2$)$_{24}$–([*o*]{}-H$_2$)$_1$ is largely liquidlike at $T$=1 K. A crucial observation is that few substitutional [*o*]{}-D$_2$ molecules sit in the inner part of the cluster, whereas [*o*]{}-H$_2$ impurities are primarily located near its surface. These findings underscore the prominent role played by long exchanges, especially involving molecules in different shells of the cluster, in stabilizing a liquidlike structure of large clusters at low $T$, in turn allowing for SF to occur.
We model our system of interest as a collection of $N_H$ [*p*]{}-H$_2$ and $N_D=N-N_H$ [*o*]{}-D$_2$ ([*o*]{}-H$_2$) molecules, regarded as Bose particles of spin S=0 (S=1), interacting via the Silvera-Goldman (SG) pair potential [@SG]. We study this system by QMC simulations, using the continuous-space Worm Algorithm [@MBworm; @worm2]; technical details of our simulations are the same as in Ref. [@noi07].
Figure \[ph2rhos\] shows the superfluid fraction $\rho_{S_{H}}$ of the [*p*]{}-H$_2$ component, as a function of the cluster size $N$ at $T$ = 1 K (lower panel) and $T$ = 0.5 K (upper panel). Different symbols refer to a different number of substitutional [*o*]{}-D$_2$ or [*o*]{}-H$_2$ molecules (see figure caption). When a single [*p*]{}-H$_2$ molecule is replaced by an [*o*]{}-D$_2$ one, $\rho_{S_{H}}$ is relatively little affected for $N <$ 22, with respect to a pristine [*p*]{}-H$_2$ cluster, but is depressed substantially in larger clusters, particularly at higher $T$. For example, the substitution of one [*o*]{}-D$_2$ in a ([*p*]{}-H$_2$)$_{25}$ cluster causes $\rho_{S_{H}}$ to drop from 75% to less than 20% at $T$=1 K, while at $T$ = 0.5 K an almost complete suppression of the superfluid fraction is observed, in the same cluster, when two [*p*]{}-H$_2$ molecules are replaced by [*o*]{}-D$_2$. It should also be noted that pristine [*p*]{}-H$_2$ clusters with more than 22 molecules, generally display solidlike behavior even when undoped, albeit in different degrees \[e.g., ([*p*]{}-H$_2)_{23}$ at $T$=1 K\] [@noi06; @noi07].
Figure \[radpal\] compares the radial density profile (at $T$=1 K) of the (largely superfluid) pristine ([*p*]{}-H$_2$)$_{25}$ cluster, with that of the (essentially insulating) cluster with the same number of molecules, but with one [*p*]{}-H$_2$ replaced by an [*o*]{}-D$_2$. Profiles are computed with respect to the geometrical center of the cluster [^1]. The main structural change arising from the substitution of a [*p*]{}-H$_2$ clearly occurs in the center of the cluster, where molecules are considerably more localized (hence, the higher peak). In the vicinity of the surface of the system, density profiles are, in fact, almost identical.
If the dopant is [*o*]{}-H$_2$, on the other hand, then the structure of the cluster and its superfluid properties are much less sensitive to the substitution (see Fig. \[ph2rhos\]). For example, the corresponding profile for the cluster doped with one [*o*]{}-H$_2$ molecule is indistinguishable from that of the pristine cluster, on the scale of Fig. \[radpal\].
An important observation is that a lone [*o*]{}-D$_2$ molecule sits in the central part of the cluster; this is something that we observe for all cluster studied, with up to four [*o*]{}-D$_2$ substitutional impurities, in agreement with previous work [@chakravarty95]. The lighter [*o*]{}-H$_2$ dopant, conversely, is considerably more delocalized, and indeed is found prevalently in the external part of the cluster, as shown in Fig. \[parort\].
![(Color online) Three-dimensional representations of the clusters ([*p*]{}-H$_2$)$_{16}$–([*o*]{}-D$_2$)$_{4}$ (A) and of ([*p*]{}-H$_2$)$_{20}$ (B). Darker color is used for impurity molecules.[]{data-label="ripallocchi"}](prova9)
The effect of cluster “crystallization," induced in relatively large clusters by one or two [*o*]{}-D$_2$ impurities (and the ensuing depression of [*p*]{}-H$_2$ SF) can also be observed in smaller systems, but a greater number of substitutions is needed. Figure \[ripallocchi\] shows the structures of the two clusters ([*p*]{}-H$_2$)$_{16}$–([*o*]{}-D$_2$)$_{4}$ (part A of the figure), and ([*p*]{}-H$_2$)$_{20}$ (part B); these pictures were obtained using the procedure outlined in Ref. [@saverio05]. The pristine cluster has a featureless structure, and is entirely superfluid at $T \le$ 1 K. On the other hand, $\rho_{S_{H}}$ is small in the doped cluster, whose solidlike structure is evident, with a central axis surrounded by rings of molecules. Two of the four [*o*]{}-D$_2$ molecules are placed on the axis, the other two on the central ring.
Numerical studies by other authors [@saverio05; @sebastianelli] had already yielded evidence of localization of [*p*]{}-H$_2$ molecules around a heavy impurity, rendering small, pristine clusters \[e.g., ([*p*]{}-H$_2$)$_{13}$\] significantly more rigid and solidlike. In all previous works, however, impurities were considered such as CO, or HF, not only significantly heavier, but, more importantly, featuring a stronger (more attractive) interaction with the [*p*]{}-H$_2$ molecules, than that between the molecules themselves.
The results presented here, offer insight in the microscopic mechanism of SF in quantum clusters. In order for SF to occur, clusters (either doped or pristine) must be essentially liquidlike in character, i.e., molecules must enjoy a high degree of mobility and delocalization. The most important structural difference between clusters that are insulating or superfluid at $T \le 1$ K, also based on the results for pristine clusters [@noi06; @noi07], is that the former feature a rigid, solidlike core, possibly with some loosely bound molecules on the surface; on the other hand, SF is enhanced in clusters whose inner region is floppy, with exchanges taking place between molecules in the inner and outer shells.
This is consistent with the notion of [*quantum melting*]{} of large clusters, at low $T$ [@noi06; @noi07], originating from permutational exchanges involving [*all*]{} molecules, including those located in the inner part of the cluster. These exchanges become increasingly important at low temperature, where clusters become increasingly liquidlike, and consequently superfluid.
Figure \[cicli\] displays the frequency with which exchange cycles of varying length (i.e., involving a different number $1 \le M \le N_H$ of [*p*]{}-H$_2$) occur (spikes from left to right) in a pristine ([*p*]{}-H$_2$)$_{25}$ cluster as well as in the mixtures ([*p*]{}-H$_2$)$_{24}$–([*o*]{}-H$_2$)$_{1}$ and ([*p*]{}-H$_2$)$_{24}$–([*o*]{}-D$_2$)$_{1}$ at $T$ = 1 K. All exchange cycles are clearly suppressed in the cluster doped with a single [*o*]{}-D$_2$, but the reduction is most dramatic for very long cycles. Conversely, when the cluster is doped with an [*o*]{}-H$_2$, exchanges (other than the very longest one) take place at almost the same frequency as in the pristine cluster.
Thus, a single substitutional [*o*]{}-D$_2$, which is located in the center of the cluster owing to its greater mass, has a strong inhibiting effect on long exchanges of [*p*]{}-H$_2$ molecules. As a result, the cluster turns solidlike, and SF is altogether depressed. Conversely, a single [*o*]{}-H$_2$ dopant molecule can effectively get out of the way, thereby allowing for a greater occurrence of long exchanges, including those involving [*p*]{}-H$_2$ molecules in the inner and the outer shell of the cluster. As a result, the doped ([*p*]{}-H$_2$)$_{24}$–([*o*]{}-H$_2$)$_{1}$ cluster remains largely liquidlike, with a value of $\rho_{S_{H}}$ close to 60 %.
The suggestion that SF is underlain, or strongly enhanced by the occurrence of exchange cycles involving also molecules located in the central region of the cluster is [not]{} (as one may naively think) in contradiction with the observation that the [superfluid density]{} is largest at the surface [@buffoni]. For, as discussed above the primary mechanism by which these exchanges promote SF is [not]{} by [*locally*]{} increasing the value of $\rho_{S_H}$, but by stabilizing an overall liquidlike phase of the whole cluster.
Summarizing, we have studied mixed hydrogen clusters of various sizes, down to $T$=0.5 K. To our knowledge, this is the first study of a mixed isotopic bosonic cluster including all quantum-mechanical effects, namely zero-point motion and permutations of identical particles. Gaining understanding of the effect of substitutional impurities, also affords insight into the microscopic origin of SF in pristine clusters of molecular hydrogen.
We find that the superfluid fraction $\rho_{S_{H}}$ of pure [*p*]{}-H$_2$ clusters is depressed by replacement of few [*p*]{}-H$_2$ by [*o*]{}-D$_2$ molecules. The depression is most dramatic for clusters with more than 22 molecules, which display incipient solidlike behavior even when pristine. The reduction of the superfluid fraction is considerably smaller in the presence of substitutional [*o*]{}-H$_2$ impurities. Lighter impurities, which are delocalized throughout the system, have less disruptive an effect on long exchanges than the heavier impurities, which sit in the inner part of the cluster. Our findings are consistent with the notion of melting of large clusters at low temperature as arising from purely quantum-mechanical effects, namely long exchanges of indistinguishable particles.
This work was supported by the Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada under research grant 121210893, and by the Informatics Circle of Research Excellence (iCORE). Simulations were performed on the Mammouth cluster at University of Sherbrooke (Québec, Canada). One of us (MB) gratefully acknowledges the hospitality of the Theoretical Physics Institute, ETH, Zürich.
[20]{} S. Grebenev, B. Sartakov, J. P. Toennies and A. F. Vilesov, [Science]{} [**289**]{}, 1532 (2000). G. Tejeda, J. M. Fernandez, S. Montero, D. Blume, and J. P. Toennies, [Phys. Rev. Lett.]{} [**92**]{}, 223401 (2004). P. Sindzingre, D. M. Ceperley and M. L. Klein, [Phys. Rev. Lett.]{} [**67**]{}, 1871 (1991). R. Guardiola and J. Navarro, [Phys. Rev. A ]{} [**74**]{}, 025201 (2006). J. E. Cuervo and P. N. Roy, [J. Chem. Phys.]{} [**125**]{}, [124314]{} (2006). F. Mezzacapo and M. Boninsegni, [Phys. Rev. Lett.]{} [**97**]{}, 045301 (2006) F. Mezzacapo and M. Boninsegni, [Phys. Rev. A]{} [**75**]{}, 033201 (2007). S. A. Khairallah, M. B. Sevryuk, D. M. Ceperley and P. Toennies, [Phys. Rev. Lett.]{} [**98**]{}, 183401 (2007) Y. Kwon and K. B. Whaley, [Phys. Rev. Lett.]{} [**89**]{}, 273401 (2002); [J. Low Temp. Phys.]{} [**140**]{}, 227 (2005). S. Baroni and S. Moroni, [Chem. Phys. Chem.]{} [**6**]{}, 1884 (2005). F. Paesani, R. E. Zillich, Y. Kwon, and K. B. Whaley, [J. Chem. Phys]{}. [**122**]{}, 181106 (2005). H. Jiang and Z. Bacic, J. Chem. Phys. [**122**]{}, 244306 (2005). F. Sebastianelli, Y. S. Elmatad, H. Jiang and Z. Bacic, [J. Chem. Phys]{}. [**125**]{}, 164313 (2006). I. F. Silvera and V. V. Goldman, [J. Chem. Phys.]{} [**69**]{}, 4209 (1978). I. Silvera, [Rev. Mod. Phys.]{} [**52**]{}, 393 (1980). M. J. Norman, R. O. Watts and U. Buck, [J. Chem. Phys.]{} [**81**]{}, 3500 (1984). See, for instance, M. Zoppi, J. Phys. CM [**15**]{}, 1047 (2003). A. S. Clarke, R. Kapral, B. Moore, G. Patey, and X. -G. Wu, [Phys. Rev. Lett.]{} [**70**]{}, 3283 (1993). A. S. Clarke, R. Kapral, G. Patey, [J. Chem. Phys.]{} [**101**]{}, 2432 (1994). C. Chakravarty, [Phys. Rev. Lett.]{} [**75**]{}, 1727 (1995). M. Boninsegni, N. V. Prokof’ev, and B. V. Svistunov, [Phys. Rev. Lett.]{} [**96**]{}, 070601 (2006). M. Boninsegni, N. V. Prokof’ev and B. V. Svistunov, [Phys. Rev. E]{} [**74**]{}, 036701 (2006).
[^1]: In the case of a mixed cluster, no distinction is made between molecules of different types.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'This paper presents a communication efficient distributed algorithm, $\mathcal{CIRFE}$ of the *consensus*+*innovations* type, to estimate a high-dimensional parameter in a multi-agent network, in which each agent is interested in reconstructing only a few components of the parameter. This problem arises for example when monitoring the high-dimensional distributed state of a large-scale infrastructure with a network of limited capability sensors and where each sensor is tasked with estimating some local components of the state. At each observation sampling epoch, each agent updates its local estimate of the parameter components in its interest set by simultaneously processing the latest locally sensed information (*innovations*) and the parameter estimates from agents (*consensus*) in its communication neighborhood given by a time-varying possibly sparse graph. Under minimal conditions on the inter-agent communication network and the sensing models, almost sure convergence of the estimate sequence at each agent to the components of the true parameter in its interest set is established. Furthermore, the paper establishes the performance of $\mathcal{CIRFE}$ in terms of asymptotic covariance of the estimate sequences and specifically characterizes the dependencies of the component wise asymptotic covariance in terms of the number of agents tasked with estimating it. Finally, simulation experiments demonstrate the efficacy of $\mathcal{CIRFE}$.'
author:
- 'Anit Kumar Sahu, , Dusan Jakovetic, and Soummya Kar, [^1]'
bibliography:
- 'CentralBib.bib'
- 'dsprt.bib'
- 'glrt.bib'
title: '$\mathcal{CIRFE}$: A Distributed Random Fields Estimator'
---
Distributed Estimation, Consensus Algorithms, Distributed Inference, Random Fields, Stochastic Approximation
INTRODUCTION
============
In this paper, we are interested in distributed inference of the parameterized state of the large-scale cyber physical systems (CPS) like sensor networks monitoring a spatially distributed field, or CPSs where physical entities with sensing capabilities are deployed over large areas. Relevant applications include, minimum cost flow problems (see, for example [@ahuja1988network]), distributed model predictive control (see, for example [@mota2015distributed; @halvgaard2016distributed]), distributed localization (see, for example [@Khan-DILAND-TSP-2010]). An important example of the systems of interest is the smart grid–a large network of generators and loads instrumented with, for example, phasor measurement units (PMUs)[@kekatos2013distributed; @de2010synchronized]. Our goal is to reconstruct the physical field or state of the CPS that is represented by a vector parameter. The structure of the physical layer is reflected through the coupling among the observation sequences across different nodes. Suppose, for the purpose of illustration, corresponding to each field location, there is a low-power inexpensive sensor monitoring the location. The noisy sensor measurement at a location in the field is possibly a function of its own component and *neighboring* field components. As an example, in the smart grid context, a sensor at a node (location) may obtain a measurement of the power flowing into that node, which in turn is a function of the field components (e.g., voltages, angles) at that node and neighboring nodes. This coupling among parameter components in the measurements will be referred to as the *physical coupling* in the sequel. However, due to possible lack of identifiability, in order to come up with a provably consistent estimates of the parameter components of interest, each agent exchanges information with its neighborhood which conforms to a pre-assigned inter-agent communication graph. The inter-agent communication graph forms the cyber layer of the system and is different from that of the physical layer, i.e., the coupling structure among the parameter components induced by the distributed measurement model. Due to the high-dimensionality of the field, reconstructing the entire field at each agent may be too taxing, and hence, agents may only be interested in estimating certain components of the parameter field locally; furthermore, the components of interest at a given agent, referred to as the *interest set* of the agent, varies from agent to agent. More concretely, the observation model we adopt in this paper is of the form, [$$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{y}_{n}(t) = \mathbf{H}_{n}\btheta^{\ast}+\mathbf{\gamma}_{n}(t),
\end{aligned}$$]{} where $\btheta^{\ast}\in\mathbb{R}^{N}$, and the dimension of $\btheta^{\ast}$ corresponds to the number of physical locations being monitored in the field, $\mathbf{H}_{n}$ is a (fat) matrix that abstracts the coupling in measurements for agent $n$ with the state values at other nodes and $\mathbf{\gamma}_{n}(t)$ represents the observation noise (to be specified later). Existing distributed estimation schemes, such as in [@kar2011convergence; @kar2013consensus+; @Mesbahi-parameter; @Giannakis-est; @Sayed-LMS; @Stankovic-parameter; @Giannakis-LMS; @Nedic-parameter; @sahu2016distributed], aim to reconstruct the entire parameter at each node of the networked setup, thus reflecting a homogeneous objective across all nodes. However, in this paper, we consider a distributed estimation scheme which allows agents to pursue a heterogeneous objectives, in which agents’ only estimate a few components of the parameter vector $\btheta^{\ast}$ corresponding to their *interest sets*. Accounting for heterogeneity is highly relevant in practice. The heterogeneous objectives across agents lets us extend the notion of *consensus* to *subspace consensus*, where the agents reach consensus with respect to entries of the parameter that lie in the intersection of their interest sets. The second level of heterogeneity in our proposed algorithm is exhibited in terms of heterogeneous agent sensing models and noise statistics. In practice, different types of devices (agents) in the network may have very different “sensing quality”. For instance, with state estimation in smart grids, phasor measurement units (PMUs) can have much smaller variance than standard sensing devices. Owing to the high-dimensionality of the state vector and limited storage and processing capabilities in the individual entities of a large-scale CPS, exchanging high-dimensional estimates may be undesirable. Hence, in this paper, we consider a distributed estimator where each agent only infers a fraction of the field, but through cooperation and under the appropriate conditions generates provably consistent estimates of this fraction of the field. In existing distributed estimation schemes such as in [@kar2011convergence; @kar2013consensus+; @Mesbahi-parameter; @Giannakis-est; @Sayed-LMS; @Stankovic-parameter; @Giannakis-LMS; @Nedic-parameter; @sahu2016distributed], the global model information in terms of the sensing models of all the agents are assumed to be inaccessible for any agent. However, the aforementioned setups subsume the knowledge of the dimension of the state vector to be estimated and hence adapt the storage requirements at each agent to cater to the exact dimension of the state vector. In contrast, in this paper, we present a distributed estimation algorithm of the $\emph{consensus}+\emph{innovations}$ form ([@kar2011convergence; @kar2013consensus+]), namely $\mathcal{CIRFE}$, *consensus+innovations* Random Fields Estimator, where each agent reconstructs only a subset of the field by simultaneously processing information obtained from its neighbors (*consensus*) and the latest sensed information (*innovation*). It is of particular interest, that the information about the state vector is constrained to neighborhoods; in that, an agent has only information about the components of the state vector which potentially affect its own measurements, alleviating storage and model knowledge requirements.\
Our main contributions are as follows:\
**Main Contribution 1:** We propose a scheme, namely $\mathcal{CIRFE}$, where each entity reconstructs only a subset of the components of the state modeled by a vector parameter, and thereby also reducing the dimension of messages being communicated among the agents. Under mild conditions of the connectivity of the network, we establish consistency of the estimate sequence at each agent with respect to the components of the parameters in its interest set. The proposed scheme allows heterogeneity in terms of agents’ objectives, while still allowing for inter-agent collaboration.
**Main Contribution 2:** Technically, the consensus+innovations type approach that we employ for state reconstruction in the current setting constitutes a mixed time-scale stochastic approximation procedure [@nevelson1973stochastic]. We explicitly evaluate the asymptotic covariance of the component wise estimate sequences at each agent. The obtained asymptotic covariance is heterogeneous in terms of scaling of the variances of the components of the parameter based on the number of agents interested in reconstructing a particular component. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first asymptotic covariance evaluation explicitly in terms of the number of agents interested in reconstructing entries of the state vector for distributed estimation of high-dimensional fields, i.e., when each node is interested only in a subset of the vector parameter.\
**Related Work:** Relevant distributed estimation literature can be classified primarily into two types. The first type includes schemes which involve single snapshot data collection followed by inter-agent fusion through consensus type protocols (see, for example,[@Mesbahi-parameter; @Giannakis-est; @Bertsekas-survey; @olfatisaberfaxmurray07; @jadbabailinmorse03]). The second type includes estimation schemes where the sensing and the processing of the information occur at the same rate and sequentially in time (see, for example [@Sayed-LMS; @Stankovic-parameter; @Giannakis-LMS; @Nedic-parameter; @nedic2015nonasymptotic; @jadbabaie2012non; @shahrampour2013exponentially; @mateos2009distributed; @mateos2012distributed; @weng2014efficient]). Representative approaches of this latter class are $\emph{consensus}+\emph{innovations}$ type ([@kar2011convergence; @sahu2016distributed]) and the *diffusion* type ([@cattivelli2010diffusion; @cattivelli2008diffusion]) algorithms. Distributed inference algorithms for random fields have been proposed in literature, see, for example [@Khan-Moura; @das2015distributed]. Reference [@Khan-Moura] considers the estimation of a time-varying random field pertaining to a linear observation model, where each agent reconstructs only a few components of the field. However, in contrast with [@Khan-Moura] where the incorporation of new sensed information is followed by multiple rounds of consensus, the proposed algorithm in this paper simultaneously fuses the neighborhood information and the current observation albeit for a static field. In contrast with [@das2015distributed], where each agent tries to reconstruct the entire time-varying random field, the proposed algorithm reconstructs only a subset of the components of the entire field at each agent and the information exchange entails a low dimensional vector instead of the entire parameter. Distributed estimation schemes involving objectives where agents reconstruct only a few entries of the parameter have also been studied in [@kekatos2013distributed; @bogdanovic2014distributed; @nassif2017diffusion]. In particular, as compared to [@kekatos2013distributed; @bogdanovic2014distributed; @nassif2017diffusion] which consider static connected communication graphs, in this paper we consider time-varying stochastic communication graphs that are connected on average. In [@nassif2017diffusion] so as to facilitate adaptation, the algorithm employs constant step sizes and the residual mean square error is characterized in terms of the step size only. However in comparison, the asymptotic variance of the estimator proposed in this paper reveals the scaling with respect to the number of agents interested in reconstructing a particular entry of the parameter. A field estimation scheme in a fully distributed setup of the type studied in this paper with arbitrary connected inter-agent communication topology where agents reconstruct only a subset of the physical field was also proposed in [@kar2010large] (Chapter 3). The current work is inspired by [@kar2010large] and generalizes the development in [@kar2010large] in several fronts to achieve better estimation performance. In [@kar2010large], a *single time-scale* consensus+innovations algorithm pertaining to a linear observation model was proposed and the consistency and asymptotic normality[^2] of the estimator was established. By, a *single time-scale* consensus+innovations algorithm, we mean algorithms where the consensus and innovation potentials are controlled by the same time-decaying sequence. The performance of the single time-scale version of the consensus+innovations distributed estimation algorithm in terms of asymptotic variance depends on the network topology and is thus affected when the connectivity of the network is relatively poor. In contrast with [@kar2010large], we propose a $\emph{consensus}+\emph{innovations}$ algorithm, where the *consensus* and *innovations* terms are weighed through different carefully crafted time-varying sequences. In this paper, we not only establish the consistency and asymptotic normality of the parameter estimate sequence but also, due to the employed mixed time-scale stochastic approximation obtain the asymptotic covariance of the estimate sequences to be independent of the particular communication network instance.\
**Paper Organization :** The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Spectral graph theory and notation are discussed next. The sensing model and the preliminaries are discussed in Section \[sec:sens\_prel\]. Section \[sec:cirfe\] presents the proposed distributed estimation algorithm, while Section \[sec:main\_res\] and Section \[sec:proof\_mainres\] concerns with the main results of the paper and the proof of the main results respectively. The simulation experiments for the proposed algorithm are presented in Section \[sec:sim\]. Finally, Section \[sec:conc\] concludes the paper.\
**Notation.** We denote by $\mathbb{R}$ the set of reals, and by $\mathbb{R}^{k}$ the $k$-dimensional Euclidean space. Vectors and matrices are in bold faces. We also denote by $\mathbf{A}_{ij}$ or $[\mathbf{A}]_{ij}$, the $(i,j)$-th entry of a matrix $\mathbf{A}$; $\mathbf{a}_{i}$ or $[\mathbf{a}]_{i}$ the $i$-th entry of a vector $\mathbf{a}$. The symbols $\mathbf{I}$ and $\mathbf{0}$ are the $k\times k$ identity matrix and the $k\times k$ zero matrix, respectively, the dimensions being clear from the context. The vector $\mathbf{e_{i}}$ is the $i$-th column of $\mathbf{I}$, also referred to as a canonical vector. The symbol $\top$ stands for matrix transpose. The operator $\otimes$ denotes the Kronecker product. The operator $|| . ||$ applied to a vector is the standard Euclidean $\mathcal{L}_{2}$ norm, while when applied to matrices stands for the induced $\mathcal{L}_{2}$ norm, which is equal to the spectral radius for symmetric matrices. The cardinality of a set $\mathcal{S}$ is $\left|\mathcal{S}\right|$. Finally, $diag(\mathbf{v})$ denotes the diagonal matrix with its diagonal elements as $\mathbf{v}$. All inequalities involving random variables are to be interpreted almost surely (a.s.).\
**Spectral Graph Theory.** The inter-agent communication network is a simple[^3] undirected graph $G=(V, E)$, where $V$ denotes the set of agents or vertices with cardinality $|V|=N$, and $E$ the set of edges with $|E|=M$. If there exists an edge between agents $i$ and $j$, then $(i,j)\in E$. A path between agents $i$ and $j$ of length $m$ is a sequence ($i=p_{0},p_{1},\cdots,p_{m}=j)$ of vertices, such that $(p_{t}, p_{t+1})\in E$, $0\le t \le m-1$. A graph is connected if there exists a path between all possible agent pairs. The neighborhood of an agent $n$ is given by $\Omega_{n}=\{j \in V|(n,j) \in E\}$. The degree of agent $n$ is given by $d_{n}=|\Omega_{n}|$. The structure of the graph is represented by the symmetric $N\times N$ adjacency matrix $\mathbf{A}=[A_{ij}]$, where $A_{ij}=1$ if $(i,j) \in E$, and $0$ otherwise. The degree matrix is given by the diagonal matrix $\mathbf{D}=diag(d_{1}\cdots d_{N})$. The graph Laplacian matrix is defined as $\mathbf{L}=\mathbf{D}-\mathbf{A}$. The Laplacian is a positive semidefinite matrix, hence its eigenvalues can be ordered and represented as $0=\lambda_{1}(\mathbf{L})\le\lambda_{2}(\mathbf{L})\le \cdots \lambda_{N}(\mathbf{L})$. Furthermore, a graph is connected if and only if $\lambda_{2}(\mathbf{L})>0$ (see [@chung1997spectral] for instance).\
SENSING MODEL AND PRELIMINARIES {#sec:sens_prel}
===============================
Consider $N$ physical agents monitoring a field over a large physical area. Each agent $n$ is associated with a scalar state $\theta_{n}^{\ast}$, which represents the field intensity parameter at its location. The agents are equipped with sensing capabilities. We assume each agent observes a time-series of measurements, given by noisy linear functions of its state and the states of *neighboring* agents. Due to this coupling in the observations, an agent should cooperate with neighbors to reconstruct its own state. For simplicity, we assume that the individual agent states are scalars. Our results can be generalized to vector valued states, though at the cost of extra notation. The observation at each agent is of the form: [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{RLU-prob1}
\mathbf{y}_{n}(t)=\mathbf{H}_{n}\mathbf{\btheta}^{\ast}+\mathbf{\gamma}_{n}(t),
\end{aligned}$$]{} where $\mathbf{H}_{n}\in\mathbb{R}^{M_{n}\times N}$ is a sparsifying (to be clarified soon) sensing matrix, $\{\mathbf{y}_{n}(t)\}$ is a $\mathbb{R}^{M_{n}}$-valued observation sequence for the $n$-th agent and for each $n$ where possibly $M_{n} \ll N$, $\left\{\mathbf{\gamma}_{n}(t)\right\}$ is a zero-mean temporally independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) noise sequence with nonsingular covariance matrix $\mathbf{R}_{n}$. It is to be noted that the assumption that the dimension of the parameter $\boldsymbol{\theta}^{\ast}$ is equal to the number of agents, $N$, is simply made for clarity of presentation. In particular, all our proofs and assertions will continue to hold with appropriate modifications if the dimension of the global parameter is different from $N$.
[A1]{} \[as:1\] *There exists $\epsilon_{1}>0$, such that, for all $n$, $\mathbb{E}_{\btheta}\left[\left\|\gamma_{n}(t)\right\|^{2+\epsilon_{1}}\right]<\infty$.*
The above assumption encompasses a broad class of noise distributions in the setup. The heterogeneity of the setup is exhibited in terms of the sensing matrix and the noise covariances at the agents. We now formalize an assumption on global model observability.\
[A2]{} \[as:2\] *The matrix $\mathbf{G}=\sum_{n=1}^{N}\mathbf{H}_{n}^{\top}\mathbf{R}_{n}^{-1}\mathbf{H}_{n}$ is full rank*.
Assumption \[as:2\] is crucial for our distributed setup. It is to be noted that such an assumption is needed for even a setup with a centralized node which has access to all the data samples at each of the agent nodes at each time. Assumption \[as:2\] ensures that if a hypothetical fusion center could stack all the data samples together at any time $t$, it would have sufficient information so as to be able to unambiguously estimate the parameter of interest. Hence, the requirement for this assumption naturally extends to our distributed setup. As far as reconstructing the parameter $\btheta$ is concerned, there is an inherent scalability issue as the dimension of the parameter scales with the size of the network. Owing to the ad-hoc nature of setups as described above and observations being made at different agents in a sequential manner, one has to resort to recursive message-passing schemes while conforming to a communication protocol specified by a inter-agent communication graph. Given the possibly high-dimensional state of the field, it is not desirable and communication-wise feasible to exchange the high-dimensional data in the form of parameter estimates and for each agent to estimate the entire vector. Before, going over specifics of our algorithm, we next review recursive estimation both in the centralized and distributed setups.
Preliminaries {#subsec:prel}
-------------
In this section, we go over the preliminaries of classical distributed estimation.\
**Distributed Estimation:**\
In the setup described above in , if a hypothetical fusion center having access to the data samples at all nodes at all times were to conduct the parameter estimation in a recursive manner, a (centralized) recursive least-squares type approach could be employed as follows: [$$\begin{aligned}
&\mathbf{x}_{c}(t+1)=\mathbf{x}_{c}(t)\nonumber\\&+\underbrace{\frac{a}{t+1}\sum_{n=1}^{N}\mathbf{H}_{n}^{\top}\mathbf{\Sigma}_{n}^{-1}\left(\mathbf{y}_{n}(t)-\mathbf{H}_{n}\mathbf{x}_{c}(t)\right)}_{\text{Global Innovation}},
\end{aligned}$$]{} where $a$ is a positive constant such that $a> N/\left(\lambda_{min}\left(\sum_{n=1}^{N}\mathbf{H}_{n}^{\top}\mathbf{R}_{n}^{-1}\mathbf{H}_{n}\right)\right)$. However, such a fusion center based scheme may not be implementable in our distributed multi-agent setting with time-varying sparse inter-agent interaction primarily due to the fact that the desired global innovation computation requires instantaneous access to the entire set of network sensed data at all times at the fusion center. Moreover, the fusion center intends to reconstruct the entire high-dimensional state and thus, maintains a $N$-dimensional estimate at all times. If in the case of a distributed setup, an agent $n$ in the network were to replicate the centralized update by replacing the global innovation in accordance with its local innovation, the update for the parameter estimate becomes [$$\begin{aligned}
&\widehat{\mathbf{x}}_{n}(t+1)=\widehat{\mathbf{x}}_{n}(t)\nonumber\\&+\underbrace{\frac{a}{t+1}\mathbf{H}_{n}^{\top}\mathbf{\Sigma}_{n}^{-1}\left(\mathbf{y}_{n}(t)-\mathbf{H}_{n}\widehat{\mathbf{x}}_{n}(t)\right)}_{\text{Local Innovation}},
\end{aligned}$$]{} where $\left\{\widehat{\mathbf{x}}_{n}(t)\right\}$ represents the estimate sequence at agent $n$. The above update involves purely decentralized and independent local processing with no collaboration among the agents whatsoever. However, note that in the case when the data samples obtained at each agent lacks information about all the features, the parameter estimates would be erroneous and sub-optimal. As in the case of the fusion center based approach outlined above, each agent maintains a $N$-dimensional estimate at all times and hence the messages exchanged in the neighborhood are $N$-dimensional and could be very large depending on the size of the network. Hence, as a surrogate to the global innovation in the centralized recursions, the local estimators compute a local innovation based on the locally sensed data as an agent has access to information only in its neighborhood. The information loss at a node is compensated by incorporating an agreement or consensus potential into their updates which is then incorporated (see, for example [@kar2011convergence; @kar2013distributed; @sahu2016distributedtsipn]) as follows: [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:benchmark_ci}
&\mathbf{x}_{n}(t+1) = \mathbf{x}_{n}(t)-\underbrace{\frac{b}{(t+1)^{\delta_{1}}}\sum_{l\in\Omega_{n}(t)}\left(\mathbf{x}_{n}(t)-\mathbf{x}_{l}(t)\right)}_{\text{Neighborhood Consensus}}\nonumber\\&+\underbrace{\frac{a}{t+1}\mathbf{\Gamma}^{-1}\mathbf{H}_{n}^{\top}\mathbf{\Sigma}_{n}^{-1}\left(\mathbf{y}_{n}(t)-\mathbf{H}_{n}\mathbf{x}_{n}(t)\right)}_{\text{Local Innovation}},
\end{aligned}$$]{} where $0 <\delta_{1}<1$, $\Omega_{n}(t)$ represents the neighborhood of agent $n$ at time $t$ and $a,b$ are appropriately chosen positive constants. In the above scheme, the information exchange among agent nodes is limited to the parameter estimates. It has been shown in previous work that under appropriate conditions (see, for example [@kar2011convergence]), the estimate sequence $\{\mathbf{x}_{n}(t)\}$ converges to $\btheta^{\ast}$ and is asymptotically normal, i.e., [$$\begin{aligned}
\sqrt{t+1}\left(\mathbf{x}_{n}(t)-\btheta\right)\overset{\mathcal{D}}{\Longrightarrow}\mathcal{N}\left(0,\left(N\mathbf{\Gamma}\right)^{-1}\right),
\end{aligned}$$]{} where $\mathbf{\Gamma}=\frac{1}{N}\sum_{n=1}^{N}\mathbf{H}_{n}^{\top}\mathbf{R}_{n}^{-1}\mathbf{H}_{n}$ and $\overset{\mathcal{D}}{\Longrightarrow}$ denotes convergence in distribution. The above established asymptotic normality also points to the conclusion that the MSE decays as $\Theta(1/t)$. For future reference, we will refer to the distributed estimation approach in as the classical consensus+innovations approach. The aforementioned scheme, though optimal in terms of the asymptotic covariance entails the availability of global model information at each agent and exchange of the entire parameter estimate which in turn is $N$-dimensional among agents. Furthermore, due to the inherent spatial coupling in the observation sequence at each node with other nodes in its neighborhood, the availability of a particular entry of the state vector is localized to a small area. Hence, a large-scale deployment of such a system, would incorporate a significant delay for an agent to assimilate information about a particular entry of the state vector which is not local with respect to its neighborhood. Moreover, such a scheme requires the knowledge of the dimension of the state vector at each agent and storage of a high-dimensional local estimates, same as the size of the entire state vector. Such prior knowledge about attributes of the parameter such as dimension in conjunction with requirement for large memory at each agent might be practically infeasible owing to the ad-hoc nature and limited sensing, computation and storage capabilities of agents in a networked setup.\
Thus, in both of the schemes above, specifically in the case which involves estimating a high-dimensional parameter, it might not be practical to estimate the entire parameter at each agent. In such a high-dimensional parameter estimation scheme, it is highly favorable to estimate only a few entries of the parameter based on the requirements of each agent, which could potentially reduce the dimensions of messages being exchanged in the network thereby reducing the implementation complexity considerably.\
Connections with Distributed Optimization {#subsec:dist_opt}
-----------------------------------------
In principle, distributed stochastic optimization, with each node interested in a few entries of the optimization variable, is more general than the distributed estimation/random fields setup studied here. Indeed, one recovers the setup here with specializing the cost functions to be quadratic. However, this is true only for a very generic formulation of distributed stochastic optimization, where no strong convexity is assumed, each node is interested in a subset of the variable of interest, and the gradient (first order) information is subject to noise, and the underlying network is random. However, to the best of our knowledge, there is no present work that simultaneously addresses all of these aspects. For example, in [@mota2015distributed], the setup involves a static network connected at all times with each agent having access to an incremental first order oracle, i.e., access to exact gradient information; the paper establishes convergence the iterate sequences to the optimizer, however, rates of convergence are not provided. In [@alghunaim2017distributed], the authors consider coupled distributed stochastic optimization setups where the coupling is induced by interest sets of different agents over static networks. The setup in [@alghunaim2017distributed] encompasses estimation setups, given that *global observability*[^4] holds for each entry of the parameter in the respective clusters, which in turn is subsumed in the setup. Technically speaking, typical distributed optimization setups rely on *local observability*[^5] without assuming *local correctness*[^6] at each agent. However, in the case of distributed estimation, the agents lack *local observability* but preserve *local correctness*. Moreover, the study of the mean square error in [@alghunaim2017distributed] reflects errors in terms of the step sizes only and does not reflect explicit dependence in terms of the number of agents collaborating to estimate a particular entry of the parameter. In comparison with [@mota2015distributed; @alghunaim2017distributed], we consider a distributed estimation setup over time-varying networks connected only on average and provide asymptotic characterization of the estimator as time goes to $\infty$. Furthermore, we specifically characterize the scaling of the asymptotic variance of each entry of the parameter in terms of the number of agents interested in reconstructing the particular entry in question. We also characterize the fundamental condition so as to generate consistent estimates of each entry of the parameter and show that connectivity of the network and global observability is not enough to ensure consistency of the estimates. We direct the reader to assumption A5 and the discussion after assumption A6 for a detailed illustration. In particular, we establish that connectivity of the subgraphs induced by the interest sets is a sufficient condition to enforce assumption A5. It is an open question as to what is a necessary condition (in terms of the network structure, sensing structure, and the interest sets’ structure) so as to enforce assumption A5.
$\mathcal{CIRFE}$: DISTRIBUTED RANDOM FIELDS ESTIMATION {#sec:cirfe}
=======================================================
In this section, we develop the algorithm $\mathcal{CIRFE}$. The parameter to be reconstructed which is the vector of states accumulated over the entire network is $\mathbf{\btheta}^{\ast}\in\mathbb{R}^{N}$. The sparsifying nature of $\mathbf{H}_{n}$ in is related to the coupling induced by the measurements in the field. To be specific, let us define $\widetilde{\mathcal{I}}_{n}$ as the set of agents whose states influence the measurement $\mathbf{y}_{n}(t)$ at agent $n$, i.e., $\widetilde{\mathcal{I}}_{n}$ collects the agents for which the corresponding columns of matrix $\mathbf{H}_n$ is non-zero. In what follows, we say an agent $n$ is physically coupled to an agent $l$ if the observation at agent $n$ is influenced by the state component $\theta^{\ast}_{l}$. Typically, $\widetilde{\mathcal{I}}_{n}$ is a small subset of the total number of agents $N$. Technically speaking, the above mentioned coupling induced by the measurements can be expressed in terms of an adjacency matrix, $\hat{\mathbf{A}}$, where $\hat{\mathbf{A}}_{nl}=1$ if $l\in\widetilde{\mathcal{I}}_{n}$ and $0$ otherwise. Now, that we have abstracted out the physical coupling (physical layer) in the networked system under consideration, we discuss about the communication layer (cyber layer), i.e., the inter-agent communication network and the associated communication protocol. Before getting into the communication protocol, we introduce *interest sets* of agents’ around which the communication protocol is built. We intend to formulate a distributed estimation procedure, where every agent wants to reconstruct the states of a small subset of the agents, which we refer to as the *interest set* of the agent. In what follows, we point out that the $n$-th component of the field has a one-to-one correspondence with the $n$-th agent: this one-to-one correspondence is best illustrated by visualizing the agents to be (geographically) distributed in a field with $\theta^{\ast}_{n}$ representing the state of the field at the location of the $n$-th agent. Formally, the interest set of an agent is represented as $\mathcal{I}_{n}$. The interest set could vary from one agent to another. The interest sets can be arbitrary but need to satisfy the following assumption:
[A3]{} \[as:3\] *The set of agents physically coupled with agent $n$ is a subset of the interest set of agent $n$, i.e., $\widetilde{\mathcal{I}}_{n}\subset\mathcal{I}_{n}$*.
We assume without loss of generality that $\widetilde{\mathcal{I}}_{n}$ and hence $\mathcal{I}_{n}$ is non-empty for all $n$. (For illustration, see below the example after Assumption \[as:6\]). We number the nodes (equivalently, components of $\btheta$) in the interest sets of agents in increasing order. Thus, the interest set $\mathcal{I}_{n}$ at an agent $n$ can be considered to be a vector with dimension $\left|\mathcal{I}_{n}\right|$. For example, $\mathcal{I}_{n}(r)=p$ indicates that agent $p$ is the $r$-th agent in increasing order in the interest set $\mathcal{I}_{n}$. We also have that $\mathcal{I}_{n}^{-1}(p)=r$. Moreover, as each agent $n$ is only interested in reconstructing the states of agents in its interest set, the estimate at agent $n$, $\mathbf{x}_{n}(t)\in\mathbb{R}^{\left|\mathcal{I}_{n}\right|},~\forall~t$. At every time instant $t$, an agent $n$ simultaneously fuses information received from the neighbors and the latest sensed information to update its parameter estimate. However, as the interest set of agents in the neighborhood might not be the same as that of the agent itself, the information received from the neighbors needs censoring. Let the message received from agent $l$ at time $t$ be denoted by $\mathbf{x}_{l}(t)\in\mathbb{R}^{\left|\mathcal{I}_{l}\right|}$, where $l\in\Omega_{n}$. The censored message processed by agent $n$, $\mathbf{x}_{l,n}^{r}(t)\in\mathbb{R}^{\left|\mathcal{I}_{n}\right|}$ is generated as follows: [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:cens_1}
\mathbf{e}_{j}^{\top}\mathbf{x}_{l,n}^{r}(t)=
\begin{cases}
\mathbf{e}_{\mathcal{I}_{l}^{-1}\left(\mathcal{I}_{n}(j)\right)}^{\top}\mathbf{x}_{l}(t) & \mathcal{I}_{n}(j)\in\mathcal{I}_{l}\\
0 & \mbox{otherwise},
\end{cases}
\end{aligned}$$]{} where $\mathbf{e}_{j}$ and $\mathbf{e}_{\mathcal{I}_{l}^{-1}\left(\mathcal{I}_{n}(j)\right)}$ are canonical vectors with $\mathbf{e}_{j}\in\mathbb{R}^{\left|\mathcal{I}_{n}\right|}$ and $\mathbf{e}_{\mathcal{I}_{l}^{-1}\left(\mathcal{I}_{n}(j)\right)}\in\mathbb{R}^{\left|\mathcal{I}_{l}\right|}$. Agent $n$ only wants to use estimates of those states from an agent in its neighborhood which are common to their interest sets. Formally, with agent $l$, agent $n$ only wants to use estimates of the states in the set $\mathcal{I}_{n}\cap\mathcal{I}_{l}$. Similarly, while using the obtained estimate states from the neighbors, only those states in the set $\mathcal{I}_{n}\cap\mathcal{I}_{l}$ are updated. We also define the transformed estimate $\mathbf{x}_{l,n}^{s}(t)\in\mathbb{R}^{\left|\mathcal{I}_{n}\right|}$ at agent $n$, for each $l\in\Omega_{n}(t)$ as follows: [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:cens_2}
\mathbf{e}_{j}^{\top}\mathbf{x}_{l,n}^{s}(t)=
\begin{cases}
\mathbf{e}_{j}^{\top}\mathbf{x}_{n}(t) & \mathcal{I}_{n}(j)\in\mathcal{I}_{l}\\
0 & \mbox{otherwise}.
\end{cases}
\end{aligned}$$]{} where $j\in\{1,\cdots,\left|\mathcal{I}_{n}\right|\}$. The agent $n$ also incorporates the latest sensed information $\mathbf{y}_{n}(t)$ while updating the parameter estimate at each sampling epoch and only retains the components of interest, i.e., those in $\mathcal{I}_n$. For a given vector $\mathbf{z}\in\mathbb{R}^{\left|\mathcal{I}_{n}\right|}$, let $\mathbf{z}^{\mathcal{P}_{\mathcal{I}_n}}\in\mathbb{R}^{N}$ be the vector whose $j$-th component is given by [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:cens_3}
\mathbf{e}_{j}^{\top}\mathbf{z}^{\mathcal{P}_{\mathcal{I}_n}}=
\begin{cases}
\mathbf{e}_{\mathcal{I}_{n}^{-1}(j)}^{\top}\mathbf{z} & j\in\mathcal{I}_{n}\\
0 & \mbox{otherwise}.
\end{cases}
\end{aligned}$$]{} Finally, for a given vector $\mathbf{z}\in\mathbb{R}^{N}$, $\mathbf{z}_{\mathcal{I}_n}$ denotes the vector in $\mathbb{R}^{\left|\mathcal{I}_{n}\right|}$, where $\mathbf{e}_{j}^{\top}\mathbf{z}_{\mathcal{I}_n}=\mathbf{e}_{\mathcal{I}_{n}(j)}^{\top}\mathbf{z}$.
We now introduce the algorithm $\mathcal{CIRFE}$ for distributed parameter estimation: [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:cirfe_1}
&\mathbf{x}_{n}(t+1)=\mathbf{x}_{n}(t)-\underbrace{\sum_{l\in\Omega_{n}(t)}\beta_{t}\left(\mathbf{x}_{l,n}^{s}(t)-\mathbf{x}_{l,n}^{r}(t)\right)}_{\text{Neighborhood Consensus}}\nonumber\\&+\underbrace{\alpha_{t}\mathbf{H}_{n}^{\top}\mathbf{R}_{n}^{-1}\left(\mathbf{y}_{n}(t)-\mathbf{H}_{n}\mathbf{x}_{n}^{\mathcal{P}_{\mathcal{I}_n}}(t)\right)_{\mathcal{I}_{n}}}_{\text{Local Innovation}},
\end{aligned}$$]{} where $\Omega_{n}(t)$ represents the neighborhood of agent $n$ at time $t$; and $\left\{\beta_{t}\right\}$ and $\left\{\alpha_{t}\right\}$ are the consensus and innovation weight sequences given by [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:ab}
\beta_{t} = \frac{\beta_{0}}{(t+1)^{\delta_{1}}}, \alpha_{t}=\frac{a}{t+1},
\end{aligned}$$]{} where $a, b > 0$ and $0<\delta_{1}<1/2-1/(2+\epsilon_{1})$ and $\epsilon_{1}$ was as defined in Assumption \[as:1\]. It is to be noted that with the interest set of each agent being $\mathcal{I}_{n}=\{1,2,\cdots,N\}$, we have that the update in reduces to the classical consensus+innovations update for linear parameter estimation schemes (see, [@kar2013distributed] for example). Thus, the classical consensus+innovations parameter estimation scheme, is strictly a special case of the update in .
We now illustrate the introduced setup and algorithm with a $5$ agents network example in Fig. \[5node-RLU\].
![A network example emphasizing the notion of structural observability.[]{data-label="5node-RLU"}](net_example.pdf){height="1in" width="1in"}
Each node $n$ corresponds to a physical component $\theta_{n}^{\ast}$. Thus, $\btheta^{\ast}\in\mathbb{R}^{5}$. The solid lines connecting the nodes correspond to the inter-node communication pattern. Each node observes a noisy scalar functional. In particular, we assume [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{RLU-dis2}
&y_{3}(t)=\frac{1}{3}\left(\theta_{2}^{\ast}+\theta_{3}^{\ast}+\theta_{4}^{\ast}\right)+\gamma_{3}(t)\nonumber\\
&y_{n}(t)=\theta_{n}^{\ast}+\gamma_{n}(t), n=1,2,4,5.
\end{aligned}$$]{} Note that then the noise covariance matrix $\mathbf{R}_n$ is a positive scalar, $n=1,2,...,5$. Also, for $n \neq 5$, $\mathbf{H}_n$ is a 5-dimensional (row) vector with all entries equal to zero except the $n$-th entry which equals one. On the other hand, $\mathbf{H}_3 = [\,0,\,1/3,\,1/3,\,1/3,\,0\,]$. we have that $\widetilde{\mathcal{I}_{n}}= \{n\}$ for $n=1,2,4,5$, and $\widetilde{\mathcal{I}_{3}}= \{2,3,4\}$. Let us also assume that the agents’ interest sets are given by ${\mathcal{I}_{n}} = \widetilde{\mathcal{I}_{n}}$, for each $n=1,2,...,5$. For notational simplicity, we omit time index $t$ when writing the agents’ estimates; that is, we write $\mathbf{x}_n$ in place of $\mathbf{x}_n(t)$. Also, we denote by $[\mathbf{x}_n]_i$ the $i$-th entry of $\mathbf{x}_n$. Then, agent 3’s estimate $\mathbf{x}_3$ is a $3 \times 1$ vector, with $[\mathbf{x}_3]_1$ being an estimate of $\theta_{2}^{\ast}$, $[\mathbf{x}_3]_2$ being an estimate of $\theta_{3}^{\ast}$, and $[\mathbf{x}_3]_3$ being an estimate of $\theta_{4}^{\ast}$. Regarding the remaining agents $n \neq 3$, we have that $\mathbf{x}_n$ is a scalar, with $\mathbf{x}_n$ being an estimate of $\theta_{n}^{\ast}$. Next, consider agent $3$ and its interaction with agent 2. The censored quantity $\mathbf{x}_{32}^r$ at agent 3 based on the received message from agent 2 equals $\mathbf{x}_{32}^r = [\,\mathbf{x}_2,\,0,\,0\,]^\top$. Further, the agent 3’s own censored estimate, adapted so that it can be combined with $\mathbf{x}_{32}^r$, equals $\mathbf{x}_{32}^s = [\,[\mathbf{x}_3]_1,\,0,\,0\,]^\top$. Note that the first entry in both $\mathbf{x}_{32}^r$ and $\mathbf{x}_{32}^s$ corresponds to an estimate of $\theta_{2}^{\ast}$, the second entry of both $\mathbf{x}_{32}^r$ and $\mathbf{x}_{32}^s$ corresponds to an estimate of $\theta_{3}^{\ast}$, and the third entry of both $\mathbf{x}_{32}^r$ and $\mathbf{x}_{32}^s$ corresponds to an estimate of $\theta_{4}^{\ast}$. The second and third entry in both $\mathbf{x}_{32}^r$ and $\mathbf{x}_{32}^s$ is zero, because the intersection of the agents’ 2 and 3 interest sets $\mathcal{I}_1 \cap \mathcal{I}_2 = \{2\}$, i.e., it does not include the interest for $\theta_{3}^{\ast}$ nor for $\theta_{4}^{\ast}$. Further, we have that $\mathbf{x}_{23}^r = [\mathbf{x}_3]_1$ and $\mathbf{x}_{23}^s = \mathbf{x}_2$. The remaining pairs of quantities $\mathbf{x}_{nl}^r $ and and $\mathbf{x}_{nl}^s $ are defined analogously. Next, agent 3’s estimate “lifted” to the $N=5$-dimensional space equals $\widetilde{\mathbf{x}}_3 = [0,\,\,[\mathbf{x}_3]_1,\,[\mathbf{x}_3]_2,\,[\mathbf{x}_3]_3,\,0\,]^\top$. Note that the first and fifth entries in $\widetilde{\mathbf{x}}_3$ are zero, because agent 3 does not have interest in $\theta_{1}^{\ast}$ nor in $\theta_{5}^{\ast}$. Similarly, we have that $\widetilde{x}_2 = [\,0,\,\mathbf{x}_2,\,0,\,0,\,0\,]^\top$. We next specialize the update rule for the example considered here and agent 3; we have: [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:cirfe_1_example}
&\underbrace{\begin{bmatrix}
[\mathbf{x}_{3}]_1(t+1) \\
[\mathbf{x}_{3}]_2(t+1) \\
[\mathbf{x}_{3}]_3(t+1)
\end{bmatrix}}_{\mathbf{x}_3(t+1)}
=\underbrace{\begin{bmatrix}
[\mathbf{x}_{3}]_1(t) \\
[\mathbf{x}_{3}]_2(t) \\
[\mathbf{x}_{3}]_3(t)
\end{bmatrix}}_{\mathbf{x}_3(t)}+\beta_{t}
\underbrace{\left(
\begin{bmatrix}
\mathbf{x}_{2}(t) \\
0 \\
0
\end{bmatrix}-
\begin{bmatrix}
[\mathbf{x}_{3}]_1(t) \\
0 \\
0
\end{bmatrix}
\right)}_{\mathbf{x}_{32}^r(t) - \mathbf{x}_{32}^s(t) }\nonumber\\
&
+\beta_{t}\underbrace{\left(
\begin{bmatrix}
0 \\
0 \\
\mathbf{x}_{4}(t)
\end{bmatrix}-
\begin{bmatrix}
0 \\
0 \\
[\mathbf{x}_{3}]_3(t)
\end{bmatrix}
\right)}_{\mathbf{x}_{34}^r(t) - \mathbf{x}_{34}^s(t) }\nonumber\\&+
\alpha_t\,
\underbrace{
\begin{bmatrix}
1/3 \\
1/3 \\
1/3
\end{bmatrix}}_{({\mathbf{H}_3^\top})_{\mathcal{I}_{3}}}\,R_3^{-1}\left( y_3(t)-\frac{1}{3}([\mathbf{x}_3]_1(t) +
[\mathbf{x}_3]_2(t)
+
[\mathbf{x}_3]_3(t) )\right).
\end{aligned}$$]{} We formalize an assumption on the connectivity of the inter-agent communication graph before proceeding further.
[A4]{} \[as:4\] *The inter-agent communication graph is connected on average, i.e., $\lambda_{2}(\mathbf{\overline{L}}) > 0$, where $\mathbf{\overline{L}}$ denotes the mean of the sequence of identically and independently distributed (i.i.d) graph Laplacian sequence $\left\{\mathbf{L}(t)\right\}$*.
\[rm:1\] In the parameter estimation scheme in , an agent $n$ uses only those components of its neighbor $l$’s estimate $\mathbf{x}_{l}(t)$, which belong to its interest set $\mathcal{I}_{n}$. Thus, agents $n$ and $l$ combine components linearly which belong to $\mathcal{I}_{n}\cap\mathcal{I}_{l}$ and reject the rest of the components. From an implementation viewpoint, it is desirable for an agent $l$ to only transmit those components to agent $n$ which belong to $\mathcal{I}_{n}\cap\mathcal{I}_{l}$ instead of transmitting the entire $\mathbf{x}_{l}(t)$ to agent $n$ as the one which involves exchanging only those components which are common to the agents has lower communication overhead. In the former case, the receiving agent $n$ will zero out the components it does not require, so both the transmission strategies would lead to the same update. Moreover, in the innovation term, where an agent $n$ uses its own previous state to compute the innovation, an agent subsequently retains only the components of interest so as to keep the update economical in terms of size. We also emphasize here that the inter-agent communication graphs $\{L(t)\}$ and the physical adjacency matrix $\hat{A}$ induced by the measurement coupling may be structurally different.
We now present a more compact representation of the $\mathcal{CIRFE}$ algorithm so as to be able to establish its asymptotic convergence properties. Let $\mathcal{I}$ denote a subset of $\left\{1, 2, \cdots, N\right\}$. Define the diagonal matrix $P_{\mathcal{I}}$ which selects the corresponding non-zero components of $\mathcal{I}$ from a $\mathbb{R}^{N^2}$ dimensional vector. In particular, $P_{\mathcal{I}} = \textrm{diag}\left[P_{\mathcal{I}_{1}},\cdots,P_{\mathcal{I}_{n}}\right]$, where each $P_{\mathcal{I}_{n}}\in\mathbb{R}^{N\times N}$ and is a diagonal matrix such $[P_{\mathcal{I}_{n}}]_{i,i}=1$ if $i\in\mathcal{I}_{n}$ or $0$ otherwise.
For the 5-agent network example associated with Figure 1, we have for $n \neq 3$ that $P_{\mathcal{I}_{n}}$ is the $5 \times 5$ matrix with all the entries equal to zero, except the $(n,n)$-th entry which equals one. The matrix $P_{\mathcal{I}_{3}}$ has all the entries equal to zero, except the $(2,2)$-th, $(3,3)$-th, and $(4,4)$-th entries, which al equal to one.
For the estimate sequence $\left\{\mathbf{x}_{n}(t)\right\}$ at agent $n$, let $\left\{\widetilde{\mathbf{x}}_{n}(t)\right\}\in\mathbb{R}^{N}$ denote the auxiliary estimate sequence, where $\widetilde{\mathbf{x}}_{n}(t)=\mathbf{x}_{n}(t)^{\mathcal{P}_{\mathcal{I}_n}}$. With the above development in place, it is easy to see that, for $\mathbf{y}\in\mathbb{R}^{N}$, $\left(\mathbf{x}_{l,n}^{r}(t)\right)^{\mathcal{P}_{\mathcal{I}_n}}=P_{\mathcal{I}_{n}}P_{\mathcal{I}_{l}}\widetilde{\mathbf{x}}_{l}(t)$, $\left(\mathbf{x}_{l,n}^{s}(t)\right)^{\mathcal{P}_{\mathcal{I}_n}}=P_{\mathcal{I}_{n}}P_{\mathcal{I}_{l}}\widetilde{\mathbf{x}}_{n}(t)$ and $\left(\mathbf{x}_{n}(t)\right)^{\mathcal{P}_{\mathcal{I}_n}}=P_{\mathcal{I}_{n}}\widetilde{\mathbf{x}}_{n}(t)$. The $\mathcal{CIRFE}$ update in can then be written in terms of the auxiliary processes as follows: [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:cirfe_2}
&\widetilde{\mathbf{x}}_{n}(t+1)=\widetilde{\mathbf{x}}_{n}(t)-\sum_{l\in\Omega_{n}(t)}\beta_{t}P_{\mathcal{I}_{n}}P_{\mathcal{I}_{l}}\left(\widetilde{\mathbf{x}}_{n}(t)-\widetilde{\mathbf{x}}_{l}(t)\right)\nonumber\\&+\alpha_{t}P_{\mathcal{I}_{n}}\mathbf{H}_{n}^{\top}\mathbf{R}_{n}^{-1}\left(\mathbf{y}_{n}(t)-\mathbf{H}_{n}P_{\mathcal{I}_{n}}\widetilde{\mathbf{x}}_{n}(t)\right).
\end{aligned}$$]{} We introduce the matrix $\mathbf{L}_{\mathcal{P}}\in\mathbb{R}^{N^{2}\times N^{2}}$ so as to make the above representation more compact. [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:LP}
\left[\mathbf{L}_{\mathcal{P}}(t)\right]_{nl}=
\begin{cases}
-P_{\mathcal{I}_{n}}\sum_{r=1:r\neq n}^{N}\mathbf{L}_{nr}(t)P_{\mathcal{I}_{r}}& \mbox{if}~n=l\\
\mathbf{L}_{nl}(t)P_{\mathcal{I}_{l}}P_{\mathcal{I}_{n}} & \mbox{otherwise},
\end{cases}
\end{aligned}$$]{} where $\left[\mathbf{L}_{\mathcal{P}}(t)\right]_{nl}\in\mathbb{R}^{N\times N}$ denotes the $(n,l)$-th sub-block of the block matrix $\mathbf{L}_{\mathcal{P}}$. It follows by elementary matrix multiplication properties that $\mathcal{P}\mathbf{L}_{\mathcal{P}}(t) = \mathbf{L}_{\mathcal{P}}(t)$. It is also to be noted that $\mathbf{L}_{\mathcal{P}}$ is a symmetric matrix. The matrix $\mathbf{L}_{\mathcal{P}}(t)$ at each time step $t$ can be decomposed as follows: [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:LP_1}
\mathbf{L}_{\mathcal{P}}(t) = \overline{\mathbf{L}_{\mathcal{P}}}+\widetilde{\mathbf{L}_{\mathcal{P}}}(t),
\end{aligned}$$]{} where $\{\mathbf{L}_{\mathcal{P}}(t)\}$ is an i.i.d. sequence with mean $\overline{\mathbf{L}_{\mathcal{P}}}$ and $\widetilde{\mathbf{L}_{\mathcal{P}}}(t) = \mathbf{L}_{\mathcal{P}}(t) - \mathbb{E}\left[\mathbf{L}_{\mathcal{P}}(t)\right]$. Thus, we have that the residual sequence $\{\widetilde{\mathbf{L}_{\mathcal{P}}}(t)\}$ satisfies $\mathbb{E}\left[\widetilde{\mathbf{L}_{\mathcal{P}}}(t)\right]=\mathbf{0}$. With the above development in place, the update in can be written in a compact form as follows: [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:cirfe_3}
\widetilde{\mathbf{x}}(t+1)=\widetilde{\mathbf{x}}(t)-\beta_{t}\mathbf{L}_{\mathcal{P}}(t)\widetilde{\mathbf{x}}(t)+\alpha_{t}\mathcal{P}\mathbf{G}_{H}\mathbf{R}^{-1}\left(\mathbf{y}(t)-\mathbf{G}_{H}^{\top}\mathcal{P}\widetilde{\mathbf{x}}(t)\right),
\end{aligned}$$]{} where $\widetilde{\mathbf{x}}^{\top}(t)=\left[\widetilde{\mathbf{x}}^{\top}_{1}(t),\cdots,\widetilde{\mathbf{x}}^{\top}_{N}(t)\right]^{\top}$, $\mathbf{y}(t)^{\top}=[y_{1}(t)^{\top}\cdots y_{N}(t)^{\top}]^{\top}$, $\mathbf{R}=diag\left[\mathbf{R}_{1},\cdots,\mathbf{R}_{N}\right]$, $\mathcal{P}=diag\left[\mathcal{P}_{\mathcal{I}_1},\cdots,\mathcal{P}_{\mathcal{I}_N}\right]$, and $\mathbf{G}_{H}=diag[\mathbf{H}_{1}^{\top}, \mathbf{H}_{2}^{\top},\cdots, \mathbf{H}_{N}^{\top}]$.\
\[rm:1.1\] In the case when the noise covariance is not known apriori, a recursive estimator of the inverse noise covariance can be used so as to be used as a plugin estimate for $\mathbf{R}_{n}^{-1}$. A plugin estimate for $\mathbf{R}_{n}^{-1}$ at time $t+1$, denoted by $\widehat{\mathbf{R}}_{n}^{-1}(t+1)$ can be generated as follows: [$$\begin{aligned}
&\mathbf{Q}_{n}(t+1) = \frac{1}{t}\sum_{s=0}^{t}\mathbf{y}_{n}(s)\mathbf{y}_{n}^{\top}(s)-\left(\frac{1}{t}\sum_{s=0}^{t}\mathbf{y}_{n}(s)\right)\left(\frac{1}{t}\sum_{s=0}^{t}\mathbf{y}_{n}(s)\right)^{\top}\nonumber\\
&\widehat{\mathbf{R}}_{n}^{-1}(t+1) = \left(\mathbf{Q}_{n}(t+1)+\gamma_{t}\mathbf{I}_{M_{n}}\right)^{-1},
\end{aligned}$$]{} where $\gamma_{t}$ is a time-decaying sequence such that $\gamma_{t}\to 0$ as $t\to\infty$.
Also, given the sensing model and the assumption that the dimension of the observations at each agent $n$, given by $M_{n}$ is $M_{n}\ll N$, inverting a low-dimensional matrix is not particularly computationally taxing. In particular, $M_{n}$ can be equal to $1$ for instance in which the inverse noise covariance matrix can be estimated seamlessly. Furthermore, it is to be noted that the update can be adapted to be of the following form, where $\mathbf{R}^{-1}$ is replaced by $\mathbf{I}$ $$\begin{aligned}
\widetilde{\mathbf{x}}(t+1)=\widetilde{\mathbf{x}}(t)-\beta_{t}\mathbf{L}_{\mathcal{P}}(t)\widetilde{\mathbf{x}}(t)+\alpha_{t}\mathcal{P}\mathbf{G}_{H}\left(\mathbf{y}(t)-\mathbf{G}_{H}^{\top}\mathcal{P}\widetilde{\mathbf{x}}(t)\right),
\end{aligned}$$ which does not require the inverse noise covariance. We remark that with the above update, the algorithm still retains the property concerning the almost sure convergence of the parameter estimate at each agent to the entries of the parameter corresponding to its interest set. Thus, the computational cost can be reduced drastically with an update of the following form as defined above, which does not involve any matrix inversions. Thus, when knowledge or calculation of $\mathbf{R}^{-1}$ is an issue, algorithm can be replaced with the update above, retaining consistency but possibly with a loss in terms of the asymptotic covariance.
\[rm:2\] The recursive update in is of the stochastic approximation type. The stochastic approximation procedure, employed here is a mixed time-scale stochastic approximation as opposed to the classical single time-scale stochastic approximation (see, for example [@nevelson1973stochastic]). The above notion of mixed time-scale is very different from the more commonly studied two time-scale stochastic approximation (see, for instance [@Borkar-stochapp]) in which a fast process is coupled with a slower dynamical system. The approach employed here is similar to the ones in [@Gelfand-Mitter] and [@kar2013distributed] in which a single update procedure is influenced by multiple potentials with different time-decaying weights. Now, suppose that the interest set of each agent consists of all components of $\btheta^{\ast}$, i.e., the update in reduces to the classical consensus+innovations update in (2). A key technical step employed in the analysis of classical consensus+innovations procedures of the type in (see, for example, [@kar2013distributed]) consists of an approximation of the update in to a single time-scale stochastic approximation procedure that is *asymptotically equivalent* to the former, in particular, that converges to the original iterate sequence at a rate faster than $(t+1)^{0.5}$. Typically, in the context of the approximating single time-scale procedure is the network-averaged estimate sequence, $\widetilde{\mathbf{x}}_{avg}(t) = \left(\frac{\mathbf{1}_{N}^{\top}}{N}\otimes\mathbf{I}_{N}\right)\widetilde{\mathbf{x}}(t)$, and the analysis in [@kar2013distributed] uses the fact that the Laplacian $\mathbf{L}(t)$ in has a left eigen vector of $\mathbf{1}_{N^{2}}$ and that every agent is interested in estimating the entire parameter vector. However, in the context of the update in , every agent is interested in only a few entries of the parameter which makes the characterization of asymptotic properties of the estimate sequences highly non-trivial and substantially different from prior work on consensus+innovations type estimation procedures [@kar2013distributed] in which agents share the common objective of estimating all components of the parameter. However, in contrast to prior work on consensus+innovations type estimation procedures (see, for example [@kar2013distributed]) in which agents share the common objective of estimating all components of the parameter, the analysis with heterogeneous agent objectives in , in that each agent is interested in a different subset of components, requires new technical machinery. In particular, to obtain asymptotic properties of , we develop a more generalized approximation of the mixed time-scale procedure to an appropriate single time-scale procedure that takes into account of the heterogeneity in agent objectives; this approximation and subsequent analysis require new technical tools that we develop in this paper.
Define the subspace $\mathcal{S}_{P}\in\mathbb{R}^{N^2}$ by $\mathcal{S}_{P}=\left\{\mathbf{y}\in\mathbb{R}^{N^2}|\mathbf{y}=\mathcal{P}\mathbf{w}, \mbox{for some}~\mathbf{w}\in\mathbb{R}^{N^{2}}\right\}$. We now formalize a key assumption relating the interest sets $\mathcal{I}_n$ to the network connectivity and global observability.
[A5]{} \[as:5\] *There exists a constant $c_{1}>0$ such that, [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:as4}
&\mathbf{y}^{\top}\left(\frac{\beta_0}{\alpha_0}\overline{\mathbf{L}_{\mathcal{P}}}+\mathcal{P}\mathbf{G}_{H}\mathbf{R}^{-1}\mathbf{G}_{H}^{\top}\mathcal{P}\right)\mathbf{y}\nonumber\\&\geq c_{1}\left\|\mathbf{y}\right\|^{2}, \forall~\mathbf{y}\in\mathcal{S}_{P}.
\end{aligned}$$]{}*
We formalize an assumption on the innovation gain sequence $\{\alpha_{t}\}$ before proceeding further.
[A6]{} \[as:6\] *Let $\lambda_{min}\left(\cdot\right)$ denote the smallest eigenvalue. We require that $a$ satisfies, [$$\begin{aligned}
a\min\{\lambda_{min}\left(\sum_{n=1}^{N}\mathcal{P}_{\mathcal{I}_n}\mathbf{H}_{n}^{\top}\mathbf{R}_{n}^{-1}\mathbf{H}_{n}\mathcal{P}_{\mathcal{I}_n}\right),c_{1},\beta_{0}^{-1}\}\ge 1,
\end{aligned}$$]{} where $c_1$ is defined in .*
It is to be noted that in Assumption \[as:5\], if $\mathcal{P}=\mathbf{I}_{N^2}$, then the subspace $\mathcal{S}_{P}$ reduces to $\mathbb{R}^{N^{2}}$ and the condition in reduces to a commonly employed Lyapunov condition in classical consensus+innovations type inference procedures (see, for example, Lemma 6 in [@kar2011convergence]) which, in turn, can be enforced by global observability and the mean connectivity of the network under consideration. However, in the case when $\mathcal{P}\neq\mathbf{I}_{N^2}$, the case considered in this paper, global observability and connectivity of the network is not sufficient to obtain the condition in . The insufficiency of global observability and connectivity of the network in order to enforce can be attributed to heterogeneous objectives of the agents and censoring of messages at agents leading to an inherent information loss. Intuitively, such a condition calls for existence of information pathways between agents who share a particular component in their interest sets and the particular component in question to be observable at this set of agents collectively. As we show in the following (Lemma \[str\_RLU\]), a sufficient condition for Assumption \[as:5\] is that in addition to the global observability and the mean network connectedness, the induced subgraph for every entry of the vector $\mathbf{\btheta}^{\ast}$ needs to be connected. The induced subgraph for the $r$-th entry is the set of agents and their associated links which have the $r$-th entry of $\mathbf{\btheta}^{\ast}$ in their interest sets.
In the following, we will establish consistency of the $\mathcal{CIRFE}$ under Assumption \[as:5\]. We now show by a simple example that, in general, Assumption \[as:5\] is stronger than mean connectivity and global observability. To this end, consider again the simple network consisting of $5$ nodes in Fig. \[5node-RLU\] and .
Clearly, in this case, $G=\sum_{n=1}^{5}\mathbf{H}_{n}^{\top}\mathbf{H}_{n}$ is invertible and, as shown, the communication network is connected. In case, every node wants to estimate the entire $\btheta^{\ast}$, then the above inference task reduces to the inference setup considered in [@kar2011convergence; @sahu2016distributedtsipn]. Consider the case where $\mathcal{I}_{n}=\widetilde{\mathcal{I}}_{n}$ for $n=1,2,3,4$, i.e., these nodes are interested in reconstructing only their own states and those who influence their observations. However, let $\mathcal{I}_{5}=\{5,1\}$, i.e., node $5$ is interested in the state of node $1$. This problem falls under the purview of $\mathcal{CIRFE}$. Clearly, Assumption \[as:4\] is satisfied. However, it can be shown by calculating the various terms, that assumption \[as:5\] is not satisfied and hence, convergence of $\mathcal{CIRFE}$ to desired values is not guaranteed. This shows that mean connectivity and global observability is not sufficient for assumption \[as:5\] in general. We provide an intuitive explanation, why the $\mathcal{CIRFE}$ is not expected to yield accurate estimates in this case and why the Lyapunov type requirement in assumption \[as:5\] is sufficient for $\mathcal{CIRFE}$’s desired convergence.. Looking at Fig. \[5node-RLU\], we note that the only node that observes (at least partially) the component $\theta_{1}^{\ast}$ is node $1$, i.e., the influence of the state $\theta_{1}^{\ast}$ only affects the observations at node $1$. Clearly, for node $5$ to be able to reconstruct $\theta_{1}^{\ast}$, it should be able to access information about $\theta_{1}^{\ast}$ from the allowed communication graph. Moreover, there is a path connecting node $1$ to node $5$. However, the other nodes in the path are not interested in reconstructing $\theta_{1}^{\ast}$, so they do not participate in the exchange of information regarding $\theta_{1}^{\ast}$. For example, node $2$ ignores the estimate of $\theta_{1}^{\ast}$ at node $1$ and similarly the others. As a result, the information about $\theta_{1}^{\ast}$ never reaches node $5$, although the communication network is connected. Note that the induced subgraph of component $1$ of $\btheta^{*}$ is disconnected, and it involves only nodes $1$ and $5$ and no links.
At the same time, it is easy to see that this problem is resolved if an extra communication link is added between nodes $1$ and $5$. Thus, we see that connectivity of the subgraph formed by those nodes interested in reconstructing $\theta_{1}$ seems to facilitate proper information flow necessary for the desired convergence of $\mathcal{CIRFE}$. Based on this intuition, we formulate a general structural connectivity condition (see [@kar2010large]) that guarantees the satisfaction of \[as:5\] which, in turn, will be used subsequently to derive the convergence of $\mathcal{CIRFE}$. We direct the reader to Lemma 3.4.1 in [@kar2010large] for a proof.
\[str\_RLU\] Let assumption \[as:4\] be satisfied and the global observability condition hold. For each component $r$ of $\mathbf{\theta}^{\ast}$, define the subset $\mathcal{I}^{r}\subset [1,\cdots,N]$ by [$$\label{str_RLU1}
\mathcal{I}^{r}=\{n\in [1,\cdots,N]~|~r\in\mathcal{I}_{n}\}$$]{} Let $\overline{\mathcal{G}}$ denote the network graph corresponding to the mean Laplacian $\overline{\mathbf{L}}$, i.e., there is an edge between nodes $n$ and $l$ in $\overline{G}$ *iff* the $(n,l)$-th entry in $\overline{\mathbf{L}}$ is non-zero. For each $1\leq r\leq N$, denote the induced subgraph $\overline{\mathcal{G}}_{r}$ of $\overline{\mathcal{G}}$ with node set $\mathcal{I}^{r}$. Then, condition \[as:5\] is satisfied if $\overline{\mathcal{G}}_{r}$ is connected for all $r$.
Technically speaking, the average connectedness of the induced subgraphs in conjunction with the global observability of the entry of the parameter relevant to the subgraphs is enough to ensure consistency of the estimate sequence of the entry of the parameter. The combinatorial perspective brought about by the preceding observation being, can one relax the connectivity of the induced subgraph. For example, consider the $r$-th entry of the parameter. Let the number of agents interested to estimate the entry is $N_{r}$ out of which $M$ agents (referred to as $\mathcal{O}$-agents) have the entry incorporated into their observations. In the case, when one can split $N_r$ agents into disconnected components where each component consists of non-zero number of agents which observe the entry and the entry is rendered globally observable with respect to those $\mathcal{O}$-agents in that component, would ensure the estimates of that entry being consistent at each agent which is interested to reconstruct that agent. However, as the subgraphs induced by interest sets are coupled in lieu of the interest sets, it might not be possible to ensure such a construction as the one described before for each entry of the parameter.
$\mathcal{CIRFE}$: MAIN RESULTS {#sec:main_res}
===============================
In this section we formally state the main results concerning the distributed parameter estimation $\mathcal{CIRFE}$ algorithm. The proofs are relegated to Section \[sec:proof\_mainres\]. The first result concerns with the consistency of the parameter estimate sequence at each agent $n$.
\[th1\] Consider the parameter estimate sequence $\{\widetilde{\mathbf{x}}(t)\}$ generated by the $\mathcal{CIRFE}$ algorithm according to . Let Assumptions \[as:1\]-\[as:6\] hold. Then, we have, [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:th1_1}
\mathbb{P}_{\btheta^{\ast}}\left(\lim_{t\to\infty}\widetilde{\mathbf{x}}(t)=\mathcal{P}\left(\mathbf{1}_{N}\otimes\btheta^{\ast}\right)\right)=1.
\end{aligned}$$]{}
At this point, we note that the estimate sequence generated by $\mathcal{CIRFE}$ at any agent $n$ is strongly consistent, i.e., $\mathbf{x}_{n}(t)\rightarrow\btheta^{\ast}_{\mathcal{I}_{n}}$ almost surely (a.s.) as $t\rightarrow\infty$. It is also to be noted that, owing to the heterogeneous objectives of the agents, the consensus in terms of the estimates sequences across any pair of agents is only limited to the common components of the parameter in their interest sets.\
\[th1.1\] Let the hypothesis of theorem \[th1\] hold. Then, we have, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:th1.1}
\mathbb{E}\left[\left\|\widetilde{\mathbf{x}}(t)-\mathcal{P}\left(\mathbf{1}_{N}\otimes\boldsymbol{\theta}^{\ast}\right)\right\|^{2}\right] = O\left(\frac{1}{t}\right)
\end{aligned}$$
Thus, we note that the mean square error of the estimate sequence with respect to the components of the parameter $\boldsymbol{\theta}^{\ast}$ decays as $1/t$. With the above development in place, we state a result which allows us to benchmark the asymptotic efficiency of the proposed algorithm.
\[th2\] Let the hypotheses of Theorem \[th1\] hold. Then, the time-scaled sequence $\sqrt{t+1}\left(\widetilde{\mathbf{x}}(t)-\mathcal{P}\left(\mathbf{1}_{N}\otimes\btheta^{\ast}\right)\right)$ is asymptotically normal, i.e., [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:th2_1}
\sqrt{t+1}\left(\widetilde{\mathbf{x}}(t)-\mathcal{P}\left(\mathbf{1}_{N}\otimes\btheta^{\ast}\right)\right)\overset{\mathcal{D}}{\Longrightarrow}\mathcal{N}\left(\mathbf{0}, \mathbf{S}_{R}\right),
\end{aligned}$$]{} where [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:th2_2}
&\mathbf{S}_{R}=\mathbf{P}\mathbf{M}\mathbf{P}^{\top}\nonumber\\
&\left[\mathbf{M}\right]_{ij}=\left[\mathbf{P}\mathbf{Q}\left(\sum_{n=1}^{N}\mathcal{P}_{\mathcal{I}_n}\mathbf{H}_{n}^{\top}\mathbf{R}_{n}^{-1}\mathbf{H}_{n}\mathcal{P}_{\mathcal{I}_n}\right)\mathbf{Q}\mathbf{P}\right]_{ij}\nonumber\\&\times\left(\left[\mathbf{\Lambda}\right]_{ii}+\left[\mathbf{\Lambda}\right]_{jj}-1\right)^{-1},
\end{aligned}$$]{} and $\mathbf{P}$ and $\mathbf{\Lambda}$ are orthonormal and diagonal matrices such that $\mathbf{P}^{\top}\mathbf{Q}\left(\sum_{n=1}^{N}\mathcal{P}_{\mathcal{I}_n}\mathbf{H}_{n}^{\top}\mathbf{R}_{n}^{-1}\mathbf{H}_{n}\mathcal{P}_{\mathcal{I}_n}\right)\mathbf{P} = \mathbf{\Lambda}$, in which, $\mathbf{Q} = \textit{diag}\left[\frac{1}{Q_{1}},\frac{1}{Q_{2}},\cdots,\frac{1}{Q_{N}}\right]$, with $Q_{i}$ denoting the number of agents interested in the $i$-th entry of $\btheta^{\ast}$.
Theorem \[th2\] establishes the asymptotic normality of the time-scaled (auxilliary) estimate sequence. Noting that the estimate sequence $\{\mathbf{x}_{n}(t)\}$ is a linear transformation of the auxiliary estimate sequence, we conclude that $\sqrt{t+1}\left(\mathbf{x}_{n}(t)-\btheta^{\ast}_{\mathcal{I}_{n}}\right)$ is also asymptotically normal. It is also to be noted that, when the interest sets of each agent is the identity matrix, i.e., every agent is interested to reconstruct the entire parameter, the matrix $\mathbf{Q}$ reduces to $\frac{\mathbf{I}}{N}$ and the asymptotic covariance reduces to that of the classical consensus+innovations linear parameter estimation case (see [@kar2011convergence] and the corresponding update in ). In this sense, the classical linear parameter estimation case is a special case of the problem being addressed here. It is to be noted that the case in which $\mathbf{Q}$ reduces to $\frac{1}{\widetilde{Q}}\mathbf{I}$ for some $\widetilde{Q}<N$ ($\widetilde{Q}<N$ agents interested in each entry of $\btheta^{\ast}$), the asymptotic covariance reduces to, [$$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{S}_{R}=\frac{a\mathbf{I}}{2\widetilde{Q}}+\frac{\left(\frac{1}{N}\sum_{n=1}^{N}\mathbf{H}_{n}^{\top}\mathbf{R}_{n}^{-1}\mathbf{H}_{n}+\frac{\mathbf{I}}{2a}\right)^{-1}}{\widetilde{Q}}.
\end{aligned}$$]{} The asymptotic covariance as derived in Theorem \[th2\] explicitly showcases the heterogeneity in the scaling with respect to different components of the parameter through $\mathbf{Q}$, as different components have different cardinalities of interest sets.\
The convergence rate is unaffected by the communication of low-dimensional estimates, i.e., the mean square error of the proposed scheme decays as $1/t$ as characterized by Theorem \[th1.1\]. However, by communicating low dimensional estimates which is due to the interest sets being strict subsets of $\{1,2,\cdots,N\}$, the variance of the estimation scheme is affected in terms of scaling by the number of agents. In particular, as demonstrated by Theorem \[th2\], the variance of the estimate sequence scales inversely with the number of agents interested to reconstruct the particular entry. Thus, larger the size of the communicated estimates lower is the variance. For instance, the variance scaling as $1/N$ is obtained if every agent is interested to reconstruct the entire parameter. Intuitively speaking, the difference in scaling can be attributed to averaging by a smaller number of agents against averaging by the entire network. However, note that the scaling is only with respect to the asymptotic covariance and as we will demonstrate later in section \[sec:sim\] on line graphs, the finite time variance of the error estimates can be lower for the proposed algorithm with respect to agents which directly do not observe the component of the parameter being estimated.
Simulation Results {#sec:sim}
==================
In this section, we demonstrate the efficiency of the proposed algorithm $\mathcal{CIRFE}$ through simulation experiments on a synthetic dataset. In particular, we construct a $10$ node ring network, where every agent has exactly two nodes in its communication neighborhood. We number the nodes from $1$ to $10$. The neighbors for the $i$-th node in the communication graph are the nodes $(i-1)mod~10$ and $(i+1)mod~10$.
The physical coupling which affects each agent’s observations is assumed to be an agent’s $2$-hop neighborhood. For instance, node $1$’s observations are affected by the value of the field at nodes $9$, $10$, $2$ and $3$. Thus, $\widetilde{\mathcal{I}}_{1} = \{9,10,2,3\}$. The interest set of each agent is taken to be all the field values which affects its observation. For instance, $\mathcal{I}_{1}=\{9,10,1,2,3\}$. We resort to a static Laplacian in the simulation setup here. We also note that in this case the inter-agent communication network is sparser than the physical network induced by measurement coupling. Each agent makes a scalar observation at each time. Hence, the observation matrix for each agent is given by a $5$-sparse $10$-dimensional row vector. To be specific, the observation matrices used in the simulation setup are given by $\mathbf{H}_{1}= [1.0,1.2,1.3,0,0,0,0,0,1.4,1.5]$, $\mathbf{H}_2=[1.5,1.0,1.2,1.3,0,0,0,0,0,1.4]$, $\mathbf{H}_3=[1.4,1.5,1.0,1.2,1.3,0,0,0,0,0]$, $\mathbf{H}_4=[0,1.4,1.5,1.0,1.2,1.3,0,0,0,0]$, $\mathbf{H}_5 = [0,0,1.4,1.5,1.0,1.2,1.3,0,0,0]$, $\mathbf{H}_6 = [0,0,0,1.4,1.5,1.0,1.2,1.3,0,0]$, $\mathbf{H}_7 = [0,0,0,0,1.4,1.5,1.0,1.2,1.3,0]$, $\mathbf{H}_8 = [0,0,0,0,0,1.4,1.5,1.0,1.2,1.3]$, $\mathbf{H}_9 = [1.3,0,0,0,0,0,1.4,1.5,1.0,1.2]$ and $\mathbf{H}_{10} = [1.2,1.3,0,0,0,0,0,1.4,1.5,1.0]$. The noise covariance $\mathbf{R}$ is taken to be $\mathbf{I}_{10}$. The parameter capturing the field values is taken to be $\btheta=[1.2,1.3,1.4,0.8,0.7,1.1,0.9,1.0,1.8,0.6]$. It can be seen that Assumption \[as:5\] is satisfied, by verifying Lemma \[str\_RLU\] for the third parameter component $\theta^{\ast}_{3}$.\
We carry out $500$ Monte-Carlo simulations for analyzing the convergence of the parameter estimates. The estimates are initialized as $\mathbf{x}_{n}(0)=\mathbf{0}$ for $n=1,\cdots, 10$. The normalized error for the $n$-th agent at time $t$ is given by the quantity $\left\|\mathbf{x}_{n}(t)-\mathcal{P}_{\mathcal{I}_n}\btheta\right\|/5$, as each agent’s interest set has the cardinality of $5$. Figure \[fig:2\] shows the normalized error at every agent against the time index $t$.
![Convergence of normalized estimation error at each agent[]{data-label="fig:2"}](est_error){width="60mm"}
In Figures \[fig:3\] and \[fig:4\] we compare the performance of $\mathcal{CIRFE}$ to the classical distributed estimator in [@kar2011convergence] (see for the corresponding update), where each agent is interested in reconstructing the entire state or the parameter vector. We refer to the estimates of the distributed estimator in [@kar2011convergence] as “classical" and “classical-d" (to be specified shortly) in the sequel.
![Comparison of $e_{3}^{\top}\btheta^{\ast}$ estimation error[]{data-label="fig:3"}](entry3){width="60mm"}
![Comparison of $e_{7}^{\top}\btheta^{\ast}$ estimation error[]{data-label="fig:4"}](entry7){width="60mm"}
In Figures \[fig:3\] and \[fig:4\], “Classical-d" represents the case in the algorithm in [@kar2011convergence], where an agent does not observe the entry to be estimated and entirely depends on the neighborhood communication to estimate the quantity of interest. We specifically study the estimation performance of the agents in the “Classical-d" case, as these are the agents that tend to increase the communication overhead considerably by being interested in estimates of components that they do not directly observe, relying on other agents possibly far off to obtain the desired information. Note that, in the current simulation setup, such class of agents do not exist for the proposed $\mathcal{CIRFE}$ algorithm. It can be observed from figures \[fig:3\] and \[fig:4\] that the estimation error in $\mathcal{CIRFE}$ is higher than that of the classical distributed estimator but at the same time exchanging $5$-dimensional or even smaller dimensional messages as opposed to $10$-dimensional messages in the case of the classical consensus+innovations estimator in [@kar2011convergence]. This analysis brings about an inherent trade-off between estimation error and the dimension of the messages exchanged between agents. It is also to be noted that the agents in case of $\mathcal{CIRFE}$ store $5$-dimensional vectors at each time step as opposed to $10$-dimensional vectors in the case of the classical. An intuitive way to interpret the higher estimation error is noting the fact that, effective for the algorithm $\mathcal{CIRFE}$, the estimation procedure for each entry of the parameter $\btheta^{*}$ effectively happens over a line graph, whereas for the Classical and “Classical-d" procedures the communication graph to which the estimation procedure conforms to is a ring graph. In order to demonstrate the effectiveness of the algorithm $\mathcal{CIRFE}$, we consider a line graph, where the agents have the same sensing model as in the previous case except for the two edges of the line graph. Thus, agent $1$ and $10$’s observations are dependent on agent $2$ and agent $9$’s state. Furthermore, we assume that each agent’s observation is physically coupled with the states of the agents’ in its one-hop neighborhood. The interest set for the $1$st and $10$th agents are taken to be $\{1,2\}$ and $\{9,10\}$ respectively. All the other agents, have interest sets of cardinality three, i.e, itself and its one-hop neighborhood. In Figures \[fig:5\] and \[fig:6\] we compare the performance of $\mathcal{CIRFE}$ to the classical distributed estimator in [@kar2011convergence] (see for the corresponding update), with the aforementioned line graph setup.
![Comparison of $e_{2}^{\top}\btheta^{\ast}$ estimation error[]{data-label="fig:5"}](rfsim_line_graph_10_2.pdf){width="60mm"}
![Comparison of $e_{9}^{\top}\btheta^{\ast}$ estimation error[]{data-label="fig:6"}](rfsim_line_graph_10_9.pdf){width="60mm"}
For the “classical-d" case, the agent selected was the farthest end of the graph. It is well known that under a line graph, the performance of a distributed protocol is affected due to poor connectivity. It can be seen from figures \[fig:5\] and \[fig:6\] that the performance of $\mathcal{CIRFE}$ closely resembles that of the classical benchmark algorithm with respect to an agent which observes the particular entry. However, for agents far away from the agent which observes the particular entry, $\mathcal{CIRFE}$ outperforms them. Intuitively speaking, while in this case, the communication protocol for each entry of the parameter in $\mathcal{CIRFE}$ conforms to a line graph, where the maximum number of vertices in each is $3$, for the benchmark the line graph consists of $10$ agents. In order to reinforce the effectiveness of $\mathcal{CIRFE}$, we ran experiments on a $30$ node line graph, where each agent except the nodes numbered $1$, $2$, $29$ and $30$, have an interest set of cardinality $5$. The nodes numbered $1$, $2$, $29$ and $30$ are assumed to have interest sets of cardinality $3$, $4$, $4$ and $3$ respectively. For instance the interest sets of agents $1$ and $2$ are given by $\{1,2,3\}$ and $\{1,2,3,4\}$ respectively. We assume that the physical coupling which affects each agent’s observation is limited to its two-hop neighborhood. In Figures \[fig:7\] and \[fig:8\] we compare the performance of $\mathcal{CIRFE}$ to the classical distributed estimator in [@kar2011convergence] (see for the corresponding update), with the aforementioned line graph setup.
![Comparison of $e_{2}^{\top}\btheta^{\ast}$ estimation error[]{data-label="fig:7"}](rfsim_line_graph_30_2.pdf){width="60mm"}
![Comparison of $e_{7}^{\top}\btheta^{\ast}$ estimation error[]{data-label="fig:8"}](rfsim_line_graph_30_7.pdf){width="60mm"}
For the “classical-d" case, the agent selected was the farthest end of the graph as in the previous case. It can be seen from figures \[fig:7\] and \[fig:7\] that the performance of $\mathcal{CIRFE}$ closely resembles that of the classical benchmark algorithm with respect to an agent which observes the particular entry. However, for agents far away from the agent which observes the particular entry, $\mathcal{CIRFE}$ outperforms them.\
Technically speaking, in the classical case, an agent which is diameter number of steps away from a particular agent requires diameter number of time steps to fuse information from the other agent for an entry which it does not observe. In contrast with the classical case, the estimation of a particular entry of the parameter effectively happens over the induced subgraph with respect to the particular entry which typically will have smaller diameter as compared to the original graph. In conclusion, forcing an agent to obtain estimates of all parameter components may actually slow down the overall process in many scenarios of interest (especially situations involving large graphs with poor connectivity), as some of these components are only observed at agents geographically distant from the agent under consideration.
Proof of Main Results {#sec:proof_mainres}
=====================
Define the sequence, $\{\widehat{\mathbf{x}}(t)\}$, as $\widehat{\mathbf{x}}(t) = \widetilde{\mathbf{x}}(t)-\mathcal{P}\left(\mathbf{1}_{N}\otimes\btheta^{\ast}\right)$. Then, we have, [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:tr1pr_1}
&\widehat{\mathbf{x}}(t+1)=\widehat{\mathbf{x}}(t) - \left(\beta_{t}\overline{\mathbf{L}}_{\mathcal{P}}+\alpha_{t}\mathcal{P}\mathbf{G}_{H}\mathbf{R}^{-1}\mathbf{G}_{H}^{\top}\mathcal{P}\right)\widehat{\mathbf{x}}(t)\nonumber\\
&-\beta_{t}\widetilde{\mathbf{L}}_{\mathcal{P}}(t)\widehat{\mathbf{x}}(t)+\alpha_{t}\mathcal{P}\mathbf{G}_{H}\mathbf{R}^{-1}\left(\mathbf{y}(t)-\mathbf{G}_{H}^{\top}\mathcal{P}\left(\mathbf{1}_{N}\otimes\btheta^{*}\right)\right).
\end{aligned}$$]{} It is clear that $\{\widehat{\mathbf{x}}(t)\}$ is Markov with respect to its natural filtration $\{\mathcal{F}^{\widehat{\mathbf{X}}}_{t}\}$. Now, define the function $V:\mathbb{R}^{N^{2}}\longmapsto\mathbb{R}_{+}$ as, $V(\mathbf{y})=\left\|\mathbf{y}\right\|^{2}$, for all $\mathbf{y}$. We note that [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:tr1pr_2}
\mathbb{E}_{\mathbf{\theta}^{\ast}}\left[V(\widehat{\mathbf{x}}(t+1))~|~\mathcal{F}^{\widetilde{\mathbf{x}}}_{t}\right]=\mathbb{E}_{\mathbf{\theta}^{\ast}}\left[V(\widehat{\mathbf{x}}(t+1))~|~\widehat{\mathbf{x}}(t)\right]
\end{aligned}$$]{} By basic algebraic manipulations, we have, [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:tr1pr_3}
&\mathbb{E}_{\mathbf{\theta}^{\ast}}\left[V(\widehat{\mathbf{x}}(t+1))~|~\widehat{\mathbf{x}}(t)\right] \nonumber\\&\leq \widehat{\mathbf{x}}(t)^{\top}\left(\mathbf{I}-\beta_{t}\overline{\mathbf{L}}_{\mathcal{P}}-\alpha_{t}\mathcal{P}\mathbf{G}_{H}\mathbf{R}^{-1}\mathbf{G}_{H}^{\top}\mathcal{P}\right)^{2}\widehat{\mathbf{x}}(t)\nonumber\\&+\beta_{t}^{2}\mathbb{E}_{\mathbf{\theta}^{\ast}}\left[\left\|\widetilde{\mathbf{L}}_{\mathcal{P}}(t)\widehat{\mathbf{x}}(t)\right\|^{2}\right]\nonumber \\ & +\alpha^{2}_t\mathbb{E}_{\mathbf{\theta}^{\ast}}\left[\left\|\mathcal{P}\mathbf{G}_{H}\mathbf{R}^{-1}\left(\mathbf{y}(t)-\mathbf{G}_{H}^{\top}\mathcal{P}\left(\mathbf{1}_{N}\otimes\btheta^{*}\right)\right)\right\|^{2}\right].
\end{aligned}$$]{} We note that $\beta_{t}\overline{\mathbf{L}}_{\mathcal{P}}+\alpha_{t}\mathcal{P}\mathbf{G}_{H}\mathbf{R}^{-1}\mathbf{G}_{H}^{\top}\mathcal{P}$ is uniformly elliptic on the subspace $\mathcal{S}_{\mathcal{P}}$, and it is precisely the subspace where $\{\widehat{\mathbf{x}}(t)\}$ resides. We thus prove the result by showing convergence to zero of the sequence $\{\widehat{\mathbf{x}}(t)\}$ through the subspace $\mathcal{S}_{\mathcal{P}}$. To this end, using the fact, that, for $\mathbf{y}\in\mathcal{S}_{\mathcal{P}}$, [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:tr1pr_4}
\mathbf{y}^{\top}\left(\frac{\beta_0}{\alpha_0}\mathbf{L}_{\mathcal{P}}+\mathcal{P}\mathbf{G}_{H}\mathbf{R}^{-1}\mathbf{G}_{H}^{\top}\mathcal{P}\right)\mathbf{y}\geq c_{1}\left\|\mathbf{y}\right\|^{2},~\mbox{a.s.}
\end{aligned}$$]{} By choosing, $t_{1}$ sufficiently large, we have for $\widehat{\mathbf{x}}(t)^{\top}\in\mathcal{S}_{\mathcal{P}}$ for all $t\geq t_1$, [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:tr1pr_5}
&\widehat{\mathbf{x}}(t)^{\top}\left(\beta_{t}^{2}\overline{\mathbf{L}}_{\mathcal{P}}^{2}+\beta_{t}^{2}\mathbb{E}_{\mathbf{\theta}^{\ast}}\left\|\widetilde{\mathbf{L}}_{\mathcal{P}}(t)\right\|^{2}-\beta_{t}\overline{\mathbf{L}}_{\mathcal{P}}\right)\widehat{\mathbf{x}}(t)\nonumber\\
&\le \left(c^{'}_1\beta_{t}^2-c^{'}_3\beta_{t}\right)\left\|\widehat{\mathbf{x}}(t)\right\|^{2} \le 0,
\end{aligned}$$]{} where equality exists if $\widehat{\mathbf{x}}(t)=\mathcal{P}\left(\mathbf{1}_{N}\otimes \mathbf{a}\right)$, where $\mathbf{a}\in\mathbb{R}^{N}$. Thus, we obtain the following inequality: [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:thr1:6}
&\mathbb{E}_{\mathbf{\theta}^{\ast}}\left[V(\widehat{\mathbf{x}}(t+1))~|~\widehat{\mathbf{x}}(t)=\mathbf{y}\right]-V(\mathbf{y})\leq c_{11}\alpha_{t}^{2}\left(1+\left\|\mathbf{y}\right\|^{2}\right)\nonumber\\&-\alpha_{t}c_{10}\left\|\mathbf{y}\right\|^{2}
\end{aligned}$$]{} for all $\mathbf{y}\in\mathcal{S}_{\mathcal{P}}$. Now, define the function $W:\mathbb{T}_{+}\times\mathbb{R}^{N^{2}}\longmapsto\mathbb{R}_{+}$: [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:thr1:7}
W(t,\mathbf{y})=\left(1+V(\mathbf{y})\right)\prod_{j=t}^{\infty}(1+c_{11}\alpha^{2}_{j}).
\end{aligned}$$]{} From it can be shown that, for $\mathbf{y}\in\mathcal{S}_{\mathcal{P}}$, [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:thr1:8}
&\mathbb{E}_{\mathbf{\theta}^{\ast}}\left[W(t+1,\widehat{\mathbf{x}}(t+1))~|~\widehat{\mathbf{x}}(t)=\mathbf{y}\right]-W(t,\mathbf{y})\nonumber\\&\leq -\alpha_{t}c_{10}\left\|\mathbf{y}\right\|^{2}\left(\prod_{j=t+1}^{\infty}(1+c_{11}\alpha^{2}_j)\right)\nonumber \\ & \leq -\alpha_{t}c_{10}\left\|\mathbf{y}\right\|^{2}
\end{aligned}$$]{} Now consider $\varepsilon>0$, and let $V_{\varepsilon}$ denote the set [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:thr1:9}
V_{\varepsilon}=\{\mathbf{y}\in\mathbb{R}^{N^{2}}~|~\left\|\mathbf{y}\right\|\geq\varepsilon\}\cap\mathcal{S}_{\mathcal{P}}
\end{aligned}$$]{} Also, define $\tau_{\varepsilon}$ to be the exit time of the process $\{\widehat{\mathbf{x}}(t)\}$ from $V_{\varepsilon}$, i.e., [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:thr1:10}
\tau_{\varepsilon}=\inf\{i\in\mathbb{T}_{+}~|~\widehat{\mathbf{x}}(t)\notin V_{\varepsilon}\}
\end{aligned}$$]{} We now show that $\tau_{\varepsilon}<\infty$ a.s. For mathematical simplicity, assume $\widehat{\mathbf{x}}(0)\in V_{\varepsilon}$. Consider the function [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{thr1:11}
\widetilde{W}(t,\mathbf{y})=W(t,\mathbf{y})+c_{10}\varepsilon^{2}\sum_{j=0}^{t-1}\alpha_j
\end{aligned}$$]{} By it follows that, for $\mathbf{y}\in V_{\varepsilon}$, [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{thr1:12}
\mathbb{E}_{\mathbf{\theta}^{\ast}}\left[W(t+1,\widehat{\mathbf{x}}(t+1))~|~\widehat{\mathbf{x}}(t)=\mathbf{y}\right]-W(t,\mathbf{y})\leq -\alpha_{t}c_{10}\varepsilon^{2}
\end{aligned}$$]{} and hence, it can be shown that, for $\mathbf{y}\in V_{\varepsilon}$, [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{thr1:13}
\mathbb{E}_{\mathbf{\theta}^{\ast}}\left[\widetilde{W}(t+1,\widehat{\mathbf{x}}(t+1))~|~\widehat{\mathbf{x}}(t)=\mathbf{y}\right]-\widetilde{W}(t,\mathbf{y})\leq 0
\end{aligned}$$]{} Hence, we have that the stopped process $\{\widetilde{W}(\max\{t,\tau_{\varepsilon}\},\widehat{\mathbf{x}}(\max\{t,\tau_{\varepsilon}\}))\}$ is a super martingale. Being nonnegative it converges a.s. as $t\rightarrow\infty$. By , we then conclude that the following term converges, [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{thr1:14}
\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}c_{10}\varepsilon^{2}\sum_{j=0}^{(t\wedge\tau_{\varepsilon})-1}\alpha_j~\mbox{converges a.s.}
\end{aligned}$$]{} Since, $\sum_{t\in\mathbb{T}_{+}}\alpha_t=\infty$, the above is possible, only if, $\tau_{\varepsilon}<\infty$ a.s.
We thus note, that the process $\{\widehat{\mathbf{x}}(t)\}$ leaves the set $V_{\varepsilon}$ almost surely in finite time. Since, the process is constrained to lie in $\mathcal{S}_{\mathcal{P}}$ at all times, the finite time exit from $V_{\varepsilon}$ suggests, [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{thr1:15}
\mathbb{P}_{\mathbf{\theta}^{\ast}}\left(\inf\{t\in\mathbb{T}_{+}~|~\left\|\widehat{\mathbf{x}}(t)\right\|<\varepsilon\}<\infty\right)=1
\end{aligned}$$]{} Since $\varepsilon>0$ is arbitrary, a subsequence almost surely converges to zero, and we have [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{thr1:16}
\mathbb{P}_{\mathbf{\theta}^{\ast}}\left(\liminf_{t\rightarrow\infty}\left\|\widehat{\mathbf{x}}(t)\right\|=0\right)=1
\end{aligned}$$]{} Now going back to and noting that $\{\widehat{\mathbf{x}}(t)\}$ takes values in $\mathcal{S}_{\mathcal{P}}$, we conclude that the process $\{V(\widehat{\mathbf{x}}(t))\}$ is a nonnegative supermartingale. Hence, [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{thr1:17}
\mathbb{P}_{\mathbf{\theta}^{\ast}}\left(\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}V(\widehat{\mathbf{x}}(t))~\mbox{exists}\right)=1
\end{aligned}$$]{} Also, by and we conclude that [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{thr1:19}
\mathbb{P}_{\mathbf{\theta}^{\ast}}\left(\lim_{i\rightarrow\infty}\left\|\widehat{\mathbf{x}}(t)\right\|=0\right)=1
\end{aligned}$$]{}
From - in the proof of Theorem \[th1\] we have, for $t\geq t_1$ ($t_1$ chosen appropriately large) and using the property that $\widehat{\mathbf{x}}(t)$ resides in $\mathcal{S}_{\mathcal{P}}$ $$\begin{aligned}
&\mathbb{E}_{\mathbf{\theta}^{\ast}}\left[V(\widehat{\mathbf{x}}(t+1))~|~\widehat{\mathbf{x}}(t)\right]\leq \left(1-c_{1}\alpha_{t}\right)\left\|\widehat{\mathbf{x}}(t)\right\|^{2}+\alpha^{2}_t c_{2} \nonumber\\
&\Rightarrow\mathbb{E}_{\mathbf{\theta}^{\ast}}\left[\left\|\widehat{\mathbf{x}}(t+1)\right\|^{2}\right]\leq \left(1-c_{1}\alpha_{t}\right)\left\|\widehat{\mathbf{x}}(t)\right\|^{2}+\alpha^{2}_t c_{2}\nonumber\\
&\Rightarrow \mathbb{E}\left[\left\|\widetilde{\mathbf{x}}(t)-\mathcal{P}\left(\mathbf{1}_{N}\otimes\boldsymbol{\theta}^{\ast}\right)\right\|^{2}\right] = O\left(\frac{1}{t}\right).
\end{aligned}$$ for appropriately chosen constants $c_1$ and $c_2$, where the conclusion in the last line follows from Lemma \[int\_res\_0\].
Let the number of agents interested in the $i$-th entry of $\btheta^{\ast}$ be $Q_{i}$. To get the vector of estimates of the $i$-th entry of $\btheta^{\ast}$, left multiply the selector matrix $\mathcal{S}_{i}\in\mathbb{R}^{Q_{i}\times N^{2}}$ and noting that $S_{i}\mathbf{L}_{\mathcal{P}}(t)\widetilde{\mathbf{x}}(t) = \mathbf{L}_{\mathcal{P},i}(t)\widetilde{\mathbf{x}}(i,t)$, where $\mathbf{L}_{\mathcal{P},i}(t)\in \mathbb{R}^{Q_{i}\times Q_{i}} $ is the subgraph induced by the interest sets for the $i$-th entry of $\btheta^{\ast}$, which is connected as a result of a sufficient condition which enforced Assumption \[as:5\] and $\widetilde{\mathbf{x}}(i,t)\in\mathbb{R}^{Q_{i}}$ is the vector of estimates for the $i$-th entry of $\btheta^{\ast}$.
A vector $\mathbf{z}\in\mathbb{R}^{N^{2}}$ may be decomposed as $\mathbf{z} = \mathbf{z}_{\mathcal{C}} + \mathbf{z}_{\mathcal{C}^{\perp}}$ with $\mathbf{z}_{\mathcal{C}}$ denoting its projection on the consensus or agreement subspace $\mathcal{C}$, $\mathcal{C}= \left\{\mathbf{z}\in\mathbb{R}^{N^{2}}|\mathbf{z}=\mathbf{1}_{N}\otimes\mathbf{a}~\textit{for~some}~\mathbf{a}\in\mathbb{R}^N\right\}$. We first prove the following Lemma regarding the mean connectedness of the subgraphs $\mathbf{L}_{\mathcal{P},i}(t)$.
\[main\_res\_lap\] Let $\left\{\mathbf{z}_{t}\right\}$ be an $\mathbb{R}^{N^{2}}$ valued $\mathcal{F}_{t}$-adapted process such that $\mathbf{z}_{t}\in\mathcal{C}^{\perp}$ for all $t$. Also, let $\left\{\mathbf{L}_{t}\right\}$ be an i.i.d. sequence of Laplacian matrices as in assumption \[as:4\] that satisfies [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:mrl1}
\lambda_{2}\left(\overline{\mathbf{L}}\right)=\lambda_{2}\left(\mathbb{E}\left[\mathbf{L}_{t}\right]\right) > 0,
\end{aligned}$$]{} where $\mathbf{L}_t$ is $\mathcal{F}_{t+1}$-adapted and independent of $\mathcal{F}_{t}$ for all $t$. [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:l2_11}
\left\|\left(\mathbf{I}_{N^{2}}-\left(\mathbf{L}(t)\otimes\mathbf{I}_{N}\right)\right)\mathbf{z}_{t}\right\|\le (1-r_{t})\left\|\mathbf{z}_{t}\right\|,
\end{aligned}$$]{} where $\{r_t\}$ is a $\mathbb{R}^{+}$ valued $\mathcal{F}_{t+1}$ process satisfying [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:l2_10}
\mathbb{E}\left[r_{t}|\mathcal{F}_{t}\right]\geq \underline{p}\beta_{t}\frac{\lambda_{2}\left(\overline{\mathbf{L}}\right)}{4|\mathcal{L}|},
\end{aligned}$$]{} where $\mathcal{L}$ denotes the set of all possible Laplacians.
The following Lemmas will be used to quantify the rate of convergence of distributed vector or matrix valued recursions to their network-averaged behavior.
\[le:l1.1\] Let $\{z_{t}\}$ be an $\mathbb{R}^{+}$ valued $\mathcal{F}_{t}$-adapted process that satisfies [$$\begin{aligned}
z_{t+1} \leq \left(1-r_{1}(t)\right)z_{t} +r_{2}(t)U_t(1+J_t),
\end{aligned}$$]{} where $\{r_1(t)\}$ is an $\mathcal{F}_{t+1}$-adapted process, such that for all $t$, $r_1(t)$ satisfies $0\leq r_1(t)\leq 1$ and [$$\begin{aligned}
a_{1}\leq \mathbb{E}\left[r_1(t)|\mathcal{F}_{t}\right] \leq \frac{1}{(t+1)^{\delta_{1}}}
\end{aligned}$$]{} with $a_{1} > 0$ and $0\leq \delta_{1} < 1$. The sequence $\{r_2(t)\}$ is deterministic and $\mathbb{R}^{+}$ valued and satisfies $r_2(t)\leq \frac{a_{2}}{(t+1)^{\delta_{2}}}$ with $a_2 > 0$ and $\delta_{2}>0$. Further, let $\{U_t\}$ and $\{J_t\}$ be $\mathbb{R}^{+}$ valued $\mathcal{F}_{t}$ and $\mathcal{F}_{t+1}$ adapted processes, respectively, with $\sup_{t\geq 0} \left\|U_t\right\|<\infty$ a.s. The process $\left\{J_{t}\right\}$ is i.i.d. with $J_{t}$ independent of $\mathcal{F}_{t}$ for each $t$ and satisfies the moment condition $\mathbb{E}\left[\left\|J_{t}\right\|^{2+\epsilon_{1}} \right]<\kappa<\infty$ for some $\epsilon_{1}>0$ and a constant $\kappa > 0$. Then, for every $\delta_{0}$ such that $0\leq \delta_0 < \delta_{2}-\delta_{1}-\frac{1}{2+\epsilon_{1}}$, we have $(t+1)^{\delta_{0}}z_{t}\to 0$ a.s. as $t\to\infty$.
\[int\_res\_0\] Consider the scalar time-varying linear system [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:int_res_0}
u(t+1)\leq(1-r_{1}(t))u(t)+r_{2}(t),
\end{aligned}$$]{} where $\{r_{1}(t)\}$ is a sequence, such that [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:int_res_0_1}
\frac{a_{1}}{(t+1)^{\delta_{1}}}\leq r_{1}(t)\leq 1
\end{aligned}$$]{} with $a_{1} >0, 0\leq\delta_{1}\leq 1$, whereas the sequence $\{r_{2}(t)\}$ is given by [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:int_res_0_2}
r_{2}(t)\le\frac{a_{2}}{(t+1)^{\delta_{2}}}
\end{aligned}$$]{} with $a_{2}>0, \delta_{2}\geq 0$. Then, if $u(0)\geq 0$ and $\delta_{1} < \delta_{2}$, we have [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:int_res_0_3}
\lim_{t\to\infty}(t+1)^{\delta_0}u(t)=0,
\end{aligned}$$]{} for all $0\le\delta_{0}<\delta_{2}-\delta_{1}$. Also, if $\delta_{1}=\delta_{2}$, then the sequence $\{u(t)\}$ stays bounded, i.e. $\sup_{t\geq 0}\left\|u(t)\right\|<\infty$.
Let $\mathcal{L}$ denote the set of possible Laplacian matrices which is necessarily finite. Since the set of Laplacians is finite, we have, [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:l2_2}
\underline{p}=\inf_{\mathbf{L}\in\mathcal{L}}p_{\mathbf{L}} > 0,
\end{aligned}$$]{} with $p_{L}=\mathbb{P}\left(\mathbf{L}(t)=\mathbf{L}\right)$ for each $\mathbf{L}\in\mathcal{L}$ such that $\sum_{\mathbf{L}\in\mathcal{L}}p_{\mathbf{L}}=1$. We also have that $\lambda_{2}\left(\overline{\mathbf{L}}\right) > 0$ implies that for every $\mathbf{z}\in\mathcal{C}^{\perp}$, where, [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:l2_3}
\mathcal{C} = \left\{\mathbf{x}|\mathbf{x}=\mathbf{1}_{N}\otimes \mathbf{a}, \mathbf{a}\in\mathbb{R}^{N}\right\},
\end{aligned}$$]{} we have, [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:l2_4}
\sum_{\mathbf{L}\in\mathcal{L}}\mathbf{z}^{\top}\mathbf{L}\mathbf{z}\geq \sum_{\mathbf{L}\in\mathcal{L}}\mathbf{z}^{\top}p_{\mathbf{L}}\mathbf{L}\mathbf{z}=\mathbf{z}^{\top}\overline{\mathbf{L}}\mathbf{z}\geq \lambda_{2}\left(\overline{\mathbf{L}}\right)\left\|\mathbf{z}\right\|^{2}.
\end{aligned}$$]{} Owing to the finite cardinality of $\mathcal{L}$ and , we also have that for each $\mathbf{z}\in\mathcal{C}^{\perp}$,$\exists \mathbf{L}_{\mathbf{z}}\in\mathcal{L}$ such that, [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:l2_41}
\mathbf{z}^{\top}\mathbf{L}_{\mathbf{z}}\mathbf{z}\ge \frac{\lambda_{2}\left(\overline{\mathbf{L}}\right)}{|\mathcal{L}_{t}|}\left\|\mathbf{z}\right\|^{2}
\end{aligned}$$]{} Moreover, since $\mathcal{L}$ is finite, the mapping $L_{\mathbf{z}}:\mathcal{C}^{\perp}\mapsto\mathcal{L}$ can be realized as a measurable function. For each, $\mathbf{L}\in\mathcal{L}$, the eigen values of $\mathbf{I}_{N^{2}}-\beta_{t}\left(\mathbf{L}\otimes\mathbf{I}_{N}\right)$ are given by $N$ repetitions of $1$ and $1-\beta_{t}\lambda_{n}\left(\mathbf{L}\right)$, where $2\leq n\leq N$. Thus, for $t\geq t_{0}$, $\left\|\mathbf{I}_{N^{2}}-\beta_{t}\left(\mathbf{L}\otimes\mathbf{I}_{N}\right)\right\| \leq 1$ and $\left\|\left(\mathbf{I}_{N^{2}}-\beta_{t}\left(\mathbf{L}\otimes\mathbf{I}_{N}\right)\right)\mathbf{z}\right\| \leq \left\|\mathbf{z}\right\|$. Hence, we can define a jointly measurable function $r_{\mathbf{L},\mathbf{z}}$ given by, [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{l2_5}
r_{\mathbf{L},\mathbf{z}} =
\begin{cases}
1 &~~\textit{if}~t<t_{0}~\textit{or}~\mathbf{z}=\mathbf{0}\\
1-\frac{\left\|\left(\mathbf{I}_{NM}-\beta_{t}\left(\mathbf{L}\otimes\mathbf{I}_{M}\right)\right)\mathbf{z}\right\|}{\left\|\mathbf{z}\right\|} & ~~\textit{otherwise},
\end{cases}
\end{aligned}$$]{} which satisfies $0\le r_{\mathbf{L},\mathbf{z}} \le 1$ for each $\left(\mathbf{L},\mathbf{z}\right)$. Define $\{r_{t}\}$ to be a $\mathcal{F}_{t+1}$ process given by, $r_{t} = r_{\mathbf{L},\mathbf{z}_{t}}$ for each $t$ and $\left\|\left(\mathbf{I}_{N^2}-\beta_{t}\left(\mathbf{L}\otimes\mathbf{I}_{N}\right)\right)\mathbf{z}_{t}\right\|=(1-r_{t})\left\|\mathbf{z}_{t}\right\|$ a.s. for each $t$. Then, we have, [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:l2_6}
&\left\|\left(\mathbf{I}_{N^2}-\beta_{t}\left(\mathbf{L}_{\mathbf{z}_{t}}\otimes\mathbf{I}_{N}\right)\right)\mathbf{z}_{t}\right\|^{2}\nonumber\\&=\mathbf{z}^{\top}_{t}\left(\mathbf{I}_{N^2}-2\beta_{t}\left(\mathbf{L}_{\mathbf{z}_{t}}\otimes\mathbf{I}_{N}\right)\right)\mathbf{z}_{t}\nonumber\\
&+\mathbf{z}_{t}^{\top}\beta_{t}^2\left(\mathbf{L}_{\mathbf{z}_{t}}\otimes\mathbf{I}_{N}\right)^{2}\mathbf{z}_{t}\nonumber\\
&\leq \left(1-2\beta_{t}\frac{\lambda_{2}\left(\overline{\mathbf{L}}\right)}{|\mathcal{L}|}\right)\left\|\mathbf{z}_{t}\right\|^{2}+c_{1}\beta_{t}^{2}\left\|\mathbf{z}_{t}\right\|^{2}\nonumber\\
&\leq \left(1-\beta_{t}\frac{\lambda_{2}\left(\overline{\mathbf{L}}\right)}{|\mathcal{L}|}\right)\left\|\mathbf{z}_{t}\right\|^{2}
\end{aligned}$$]{} where we have used the boundedness of the Laplacian matrix. With the above development in place, choosing an appropriate $t_{1}$ (making $t_{0}$ larger if necessary), for all $t\geq t_{1}$, we have, [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:l2_7}
\left\|\left(\mathbf{I}_{N^2}-\beta_{t}\left(\mathbf{L}_{\mathbf{z}_{t}}\otimes\mathbf{I}_{N}\right)\right)\mathbf{z}_{t}\right\|\le \left(1-\beta_{t}\frac{\lambda_{2}\left(\overline{\mathbf{L}}\right)}{4|\mathcal{L}|}\right)\left\|\mathbf{z}_{t}\right\|^{2}.
\end{aligned}$$]{} Then, from , we have, [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:l2_8}
&\mathbb{E}\left.\left[\left\|\left(\mathbf{I}_{N^2}-\beta_{t}\left(\mathbf{L}_{\mathbf{z}_{t}}\otimes\mathbf{I}_{N}\right)\right)\mathbf{z}_{t}\right\|\right|\mathcal{F}_{t}\right]\nonumber\\&=\sum_{\mathbf{L}\in\mathcal{L}}p_{\mathbf{L}}\left(1-r_{\mathbf{L},\mathbf{z}_{t}}\right)\left\|\mathbf{z}_{t}\right\|\nonumber\\
&\le \left(1-\left(\underline{p}\beta_{t}\frac{\lambda_{2}\left(\overline{\mathbf{L}}\right)}{4|\mathcal{L}|}+\sum_{\mathbf{L}\neq\mathbf{L}_{\mathbf{z}_{t}}}\right)\right)\left\|\mathbf{z}_{t}\right\|.
\end{aligned}$$]{} Since, $\sum_{\mathbf{L}\neq\mathbf{L}_{\mathbf{z}_{t}}} p_{\mathbf{L}}r_{\mathbf{L},\mathbf{z}_{t}}\geq 0$, we have for all $t\ge t_1$, [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:l2_9}
&\left(1-\mathbb{E}\left[r_{t}|\mathcal{F}_{t}\right]\right)\left\|\mathbf{z}_{t}\right\| \nonumber\\&= \mathbb{E}\left.\left[\left\|\left(\mathbf{I}_{N^2}-\beta_{t}\left(\mathbf{L}_{\mathbf{z}_{t}}\otimes\mathbf{I}_{N}\right)\right)\mathbf{z}_{t}\right\|\right|\mathcal{F}_{t}\right]\nonumber\\
&\le \left(1-\underline{p}\beta_{t}\frac{\lambda_{2}\left(\overline{\mathbf{L}}\right)}{4|\mathcal{L}|}\right)\left\|\mathbf{z}_{t}\right\|.
\end{aligned}$$]{} As $r_{t}=1$ on the set $\{\mathbf{z}_{t}=0\}$, we have that, [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:l2_102}
\mathbb{E}\left[r_{t}|\mathcal{F}_{t}\right]\geq \underline{p}\beta_{t}\frac{\lambda_{2}\left(\overline{\mathbf{L}}\right)}{4|\mathcal{L}|}.
\end{aligned}$$]{} Thus, we have established that, [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:l2_112}
\left\|\left(\mathbf{I}_{N^2}-\left(\mathbf{L}(t)\otimes\mathbf{I}_{N}\right)\right)\mathbf{z}_{t}\right\|\le (1-r_{t})\left\|\mathbf{z}_{t}\right\|,
\end{aligned}$$]{} where $\{r_t\}$ is a $\mathbb{R}^{+}$ valued $\mathcal{F}_{t+1}$ process satisfying .
With the above development in place, consider the residual process $\{\mathbf{x}^{\dagger}(t)\}$ given by $\mathbf{x}^{\dagger}(i,t) = \widetilde{\mathbf{x}}(i,t)-\mathbf{1}_{Q_i}\otimes\widetilde{\mathbf{x}}_{\mbox{avg,i}}(t)$, where $i$ denotes the $i$-th entry of $\btheta^{\ast}$ and $\mathbf{x}^{\dagger}(t)=\left[\mathbf{x}^{\dagger}(1,t),\cdots,\mathbf{x}^{\dagger}(N,t)\right]^{\top}$. Thus, we have that the process $\{\mathbf{x}^{\dagger}(i,t)\}$ satisfies the recursion, [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:l2_12}
\mathbf{x}^{\dagger}(i,t+1) = \left(\mathbf{I}_{Q_{i}}-\mathbf{L}_{\mathcal{P},i}(t)\right)\mathbf{x}^{\dagger}(i,t) +\alpha_{t}\widetilde{\mathbf{z}}(i,t),
\end{aligned}$$]{} where the process $\{\widetilde{\mathbf{z}}(i,t)\}$ is given by [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:l2_13}
\widetilde{\mathbf{z}}(i,t)=\left(\mathbf{I}_{Q_{i}}-\frac{1}{Q_i}\mathbf{1}_{Q_i}\mathbf{1}_{Q_i}^{\top}\right)\times\mathcal{S}_{i}\mathcal{P}\mathbf{G}_{H}\mathbf{R}^{-1}\left(\mathbf{y}(t)-\mathbf{G}_{H}^{\top}\mathcal{P}\widetilde{\mathbf{x}}(t)\right).
\end{aligned}$$]{} From , we also have, [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:l2_14}
\widetilde{\mathbf{z}}(i,t)=\overline{\mathbf{J}}_{i,t}+\overline{\mathbf{U}}_{i,t},
\end{aligned}$$]{} where, [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:l2_141}
&\overline{\mathbf{J}}_{i,t}=\left(\mathbf{I}_{Q_{i}}-\frac{1}{Q_i}\mathbf{1}_{Q_i}\mathbf{1}_{Q_i}^{\top}\right)\nonumber\\&\times\mathcal{S}_{i}\mathcal{P}\mathbf{G}_{H}\mathbf{R}^{-1}\left(\mathbf{y}(t)-\mathbf{G}_{H}^{\top}\mathcal{P}\left(\mathbf{1}_{N}\otimes\btheta^{\ast}\right)\right)\nonumber\\
&\overline{\mathbf{U}}_{t}=\left(\mathbf{I}_{Q_{i}}-\frac{1}{Q_i}\mathbf{1}_{Q_i}\mathbf{1}_{Q_i}^{\top}\right)\nonumber\\&\times\mathcal{S}_{i}\mathcal{P}\mathbf{G}_{H}\mathbf{R}^{-1}\left(\mathbf{G}_{H}^{\top}\mathcal{P}\left(\mathbf{1}_{N}\otimes\btheta^{\ast}\right)-\mathbf{G}_{H}^{\top}\mathcal{P}\widetilde{\mathbf{x}}(t)\right).
\end{aligned}$$]{} By Theorem \[th1\], we also have that, the process $\{\widetilde{\mathbf{x}}(i,t)\}$ is bounded. Hence, there exists an $\mathcal{F}_{t}$-adapted process $\{\widetilde{U}_{i,t}\}$ such that $\left\|\overline{\mathbf{U}}_{i,t}\right\|\le \widetilde{U}_{i,t}$ and $\sup_{t\ge 0}\widetilde{U}_{i,t} < \infty$ a.s.. Furthermore, denote the process $U_{i,t}$ as follows, [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:l2_15}
U_{i,t} = \max\left\{\widetilde{U}_{i,t}, \left\|\mathbf{I}_{Q_{i}}-\frac{1}{Q_i}\mathbf{1}_{Q_i}\mathbf{1}_{Q_i}^{\top}\right\|\right\}.
\end{aligned}$$]{} With the above development in place, we conclude, [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:l2_15.1}
\left\|\overline{\mathbf{U}}_{i,t}\right\|+\left\|\overline{\mathbf{J}}_{i,t}\right\| \le U_{i,t}\left(1+J_{i,t}\right),
\end{aligned}$$]{} where $J_{i,t} = \left\|\mathbf{y}(t)-\mathbf{G}_{H}^{\top}\mathcal{P}\left(\mathbf{1}_{N}\otimes\btheta^{\ast}\right)\right\|$ and $\mathbb{E}_{\btheta}\left[J_{i,t}^{2+\epsilon}\right] < \infty$. Then, from - we have, [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:l2_16}
\left\|\mathbf{x}^{\dagger}(i,t+1)\right\| \leq (1-r_{t})\left\|\mathbf{x}^{\dagger}(i,t) \right\|+\alpha_{t}U_{i,t}(1+J_{i,t}),
\end{aligned}$$]{} which then falls under the purview of Lemma \[le:l1.1\] and hence we have the assertion, [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:l2_17}
\mathbb{P}\left(\lim_{t\to\infty}(t+1)^{\delta_0}\left(\widetilde{\mathbf{x}}(i,t)-\mathbf{1}_{Q_i}\otimes\widetilde{\mathbf{x}}_{\mbox{avg,i}}(t)\right)=0\right)=1,
\end{aligned}$$]{} where $0<\delta_{0}<1-\tau_{1}$ and hence $\delta_{0}$ can be chosen to be $1/2 + \delta$, where $\delta > 0$ and we finally have, [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:l2_18}
\mathbb{P}\left(\lim_{t\to\infty}(t+1)^{\frac{1}{2}+\delta}\left(\widetilde{\mathbf{x}}(t)-\mathbf{1}_{N}\otimes\widetilde{\mathbf{x}}_{\mbox{\scriptsize{avg}}}(t)\right)=0\right)=1,
\end{aligned}$$]{}
as the above analysis can be repeated each entry $i$ of the parameter of interest $\btheta^{\ast}$.
The proof of Theorem \[th2\] needs the following Lemma from [@Fabian-2] concerning the asymptotic normality of the stochastic recursions.
\[main\_res\_l0\] Let $\{\mathbf{z}_{t}\}$ be an $\mathbb{R}^{k}$-valued $\{\mathcal{F}_{t}\}$-adapted process that satisfies [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:l0_1}
&\mathbf{z}_{t+1}=\left(\mathbf{I}_{k}-\frac{1}{t+1}\Gamma_{t}\right)\mathbf{z}_{t}+(t+1)^{-1}\mathbf{\Phi}_{t}\mathbf{V}_{t}\nonumber\\&+(t+1)^{-3/2}\mathbf{T}_{t},
\end{aligned}$$]{} where the stochastic processes $\{\mathbf{V}_{t}\}, \{\mathbf{T}_{t}\} \in \mathbb{R}^{k}$ while $\{\mathbf{\Gamma}_{t}\}, \{\mathbf{\Phi}_{t}\} \in \mathbb{R}^{k\times k}$. Moreover, suppose for each $t$, $\mathbf{V}_{t-1}$ and $\mathbf{T}_{t}$ are $\mathcal{F}_{t}$-adapted, whereas the processes $\{\mathbf{\Gamma}_{t}\}$, $\{\mathbf{\Phi}_{t}\}$ are $\{\mathcal{F}_{t}\}$-adapted.
Also, assume that [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:l0_2}
\mathbf{\Gamma}_{t}\to\mathbf{\Gamma}, \mathbf{\Phi}_{t}\to\mathbf{\Phi},~ \textit{and} ~\mathbf{T}_{t}\to 0 ~~\mbox{a.s. as $t\rightarrow\infty$},
\end{aligned}$$]{} where $\mathbf{\Gamma}$ is a symmetric and positive definite matrix, and admits an eigen decomposition of the form $\mathbf{P}^{\top}\mathbf{\Gamma}\mathbf{P}=\mathbf{\Lambda}$, where $\mathbf{\Lambda}$ is a diagonal matrix and $\mathbf{P}$ is an orthogonal matrix. Furthermore, let the sequence $\{\mathbf{V}_{t}\}$ satisfy $\mathbb{E}\left[\mathbf{V}_{t}|\mathcal{F}_{t}\right]=0$ for each $t$ and suppose there exists a positive constant $C$ and a matrix $\Sigma$ such that $C > \left\|\mathbb{E}\left[\mathbf{V}_{t}\mathbf{V}_{t}^{\top}|\mathcal{F}_{t}\right]-\Sigma\right\|\to 0~a.s. ~\textit{as}~ t\to\infty$ and with $\sigma_{t,r}^{2}=\int_{\left\|\mathbf{V}_{t}\right\|^{2} \ge r(t+1)}\left\|\mathbf{V}_{t}\right\|^{2}d\mathbb{P}$, let $\lim_{t\to\infty}\frac{1}{t+1}\sum_{s=0}^{t}\sigma_{s,r}^{2}=0$ for every $r > 0$. Then, we have, [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:l0_3}
(t+1)^{1/2}\mathbf{z}_{t}\overset{\mathcal{D}}{\Longrightarrow}\mathcal{N}\left(\mathbf{0}, \mathbf{P}\mathbf{M}\mathbf{P}^{\top}\right),
\end{aligned}$$]{} where the $(i,j)$-th entry of the matrix $\mathbf{M}$ is given by [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:l0_4}
\left[\mathbf{M}\right]_{ij}=\left[\mathbf{P}^{\top}\mathbf{\Phi}\mathbf{\Sigma}\mathbf{\Phi}^{\top}\mathbf{P}\right]_{ij}\left(\left[\mathbf{\Lambda}\right]_{ii}+\left[\mathbf{\Lambda}\right]_{jj}-1\right)^{-1}.
\end{aligned}$$]{}
Multiplying the selection matrix, we have, [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:t2_1}
&\widetilde{\mathbf{x}}(i,t+1)=\widetilde{\mathbf{x}}(i,t)-\mathbf{L}_{\mathcal{P},i}(t)\widetilde{\mathbf{x}}(i,t)+\alpha_{t}\mathcal{S}_{i}\mathcal{P}\mathbf{G}_{H}\mathbf{R}^{-1}\nonumber\\&\times\left(\mathbf{y}(t)-\mathbf{G}_{H}^{\top}\mathcal{P}\widetilde{\mathbf{x}}(t)\right)\nonumber\\
&\Rightarrow \frac{\mathbf{1}_{Q_{i}}^{\top}}{Q_{i}}\widetilde{\mathbf{x}}(i,t+1) = \frac{\mathbf{1}_{Q_{i}}^{\top}}{Q_{i}}\widetilde{\mathbf{x}}(i,t)-\frac{\mathbf{1}_{Q_{i}}^{\top}}{Q_{i}}\mathbf{L}_{\mathcal{P},i}(t)\widetilde{\mathbf{x}}(i,t)\nonumber\\&+\alpha_{t}\frac{\mathbf{1}_{Q_{i}}^{\top}}{Q_{i}}\mathcal{S}_{i}\mathcal{P}\mathbf{G}_{H}\mathbf{R}^{-1}\left(\mathbf{y}(t)-\mathbf{G}_{H}^{\top}\mathcal{P}\widetilde{\mathbf{x}}(t)\right)\nonumber\\
&\Rightarrow \widetilde{\mathbf{x}}_{\mbox{\scriptsize{avg}},i}(t+1)=\widetilde{\mathbf{x}}_{\mbox{\scriptsize{avg}},i}(t)+\alpha_{t}\frac{\mathbf{1}_{Q_{i}}^{\top}}{Q_{i}}\mathcal{S}_{i}\mathcal{P}\mathbf{G}_{H}\mathbf{R}^{-1}\nonumber\\&\times\left(\mathbf{y}(t)-\mathbf{G}_{H}^{\top}\mathcal{P}\widetilde{\mathbf{x}}(t)\right),
\end{aligned}$$]{} where $\{\widetilde{\mathbf{x}}_{\mbox{\scriptsize{avg}},i}(t)\}$ is the averaged estimate sequence for the $i$-th entry of the parameter $\btheta^{\ast}$. Stacking, all such averages together we have, [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:t2_2}
&\widetilde{\mathbf{x}}_{\mbox{\scriptsize{avg}}}(t+1)=\widetilde{\mathbf{x}}_{\mbox{\scriptsize{avg}}}(t)+\alpha_{t}\mathcal{S}_{\mbox{\scriptsize{avg}}}\mathcal{P}\mathbf{G}_{H}\mathbf{R}^{-1}\left(\mathbf{y}(t)-\mathbf{G}_{H}^{\top}\mathcal{P}\widetilde{\mathbf{x}}(t)\right)\nonumber\\
&\Rightarrow \widetilde{\mathbf{x}}_{\mbox{\scriptsize{avg}}}(t+1) - \btheta^{\ast} = \left(\mathbf{I}-\alpha_{t}\mathbf{Q}\sum_{n=1}^{N}\mathcal{P}_{\mathcal{I}_n}\mathbf{H}_{n}^{\top}\mathbf{R}^{-1}\mathbf{H}_{n}\mathcal{P}_{\mathcal{I}_n}\right)\nonumber\\&\times\left(\widetilde{\mathbf{x}}_{\mbox{\scriptsize{avg}}}(t)-\btheta^{\ast}\right)\nonumber\\
&+\alpha_{t}\mathcal{S}_{\mbox{\scriptsize{avg}}}\mathcal{P}\mathbf{G}_{H}\mathbf{R}^{-1}\mathbf{\gamma}(t)\nonumber\\&+\alpha_{t}\mathbf{Q}\sum_{n=1}^{N}\mathcal{P}_{\mathcal{I}_n}\mathbf{H}_{n}^{\top}\mathbf{R}_{n}^{-1}\mathbf{H}_{n}\left(\widetilde{\mathbf{x}}_{n}(t)-\mathcal{P}_{\mathcal{I}_n}\widetilde{\mathbf{x}}_{\mbox{\scriptsize{avg}}}(t)\right),
\end{aligned}$$]{} where [$\mathcal{S}_{\mbox{\scriptsize{avg}}}=\left[\frac{\mathbf{1}_{Q_{1}}^{\top}}{Q_{1}}\mathcal{S}_{1}, \frac{\mathbf{1}_{Q_{2}}^{\top}}{Q_{2}}\mathcal{S}_{2},\cdots,\frac{\mathbf{1}_{Q_{N}}^{\top}}{Q_{N}}\mathcal{S}_{N}\right]$ and $\mathbf{Q} = \textit{diag}\left[\frac{1}{Q_{1}},\frac{1}{Q_{2}},\cdots,\frac{1}{Q_{N}}\right]$.]{} In the above derivation, we make use of the fact that [$\mathcal{S}_{\mbox{\scriptsize{avg}}}\mathcal{P}\mathbf{G}_{H}\mathbf{R}^{-1}\mathbf{G}_{H}^{\top}\mathcal{P}\mathbf{1}_{N}\otimes\left(\widetilde{\mathbf{x}}_{\mbox{\scriptsize{avg}}}(t)-\btheta^{\ast}\right)=\mathbf{Q}\sum_{n=1}^{N}\mathcal{P}_{n}\mathbf{H}_{n}^{\top}\mathbf{R}^{-1}\mathbf{H}_{n}\left(\widetilde{\mathbf{x}}_{\mbox{\scriptsize{avg}}}(t)-\btheta^{\ast}\right)$]{}, which in turn follows from the fact that, [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:savg_explain}
&\mathcal{S}_{\mbox{\scriptsize{avg}}} = \mathbf{Q}\left[\mathcal{P}_{\mathcal{I}_1}~\mathcal{P}_{\mathcal{I}_2}\cdots\mathcal{P}_{\mathcal{I}_N}\right]=\left[\mathbf{Q}\mathcal{P}_{\mathcal{I}_1}~\mathbf{Q}\mathcal{P}_{\mathcal{I}_2}\cdots\mathbf{Q}\mathcal{P}_{\mathcal{I}_N}\right]\nonumber\\
&\Rightarrow \mathcal{S}_{\mbox{\scriptsize{avg}}}\mathcal{P}\mathbf{G}_{H}\mathbf{R}^{-1}\mathbf{G}_{H}^{\top}\mathcal{P}\mathbf{1}_{N}\otimes\left(\widetilde{\mathbf{x}}_{\mbox{\scriptsize{avg}}}(t)-\btheta^{\ast}\right) \nonumber\\&= \left[\mathbf{Q}\mathcal{P}_{\mathcal{I}_1}~\mathbf{Q}\mathcal{P}_{\mathcal{I}_2}\cdots\mathbf{Q}\mathcal{P}_{\mathcal{I}_N}\right]\nonumber\\&\times\left[\mathcal{P}_{\mathcal{I}_1}\mathbf{H}_{1}^{\top}\mathbf{R}_{1}^{-1}\mathbf{H}_{1}\left(\widetilde{\mathbf{x}}_{\mbox{\scriptsize{avg}}}(t)-\btheta^{\ast}\right)\right.\cdots\nonumber\\&\left.\mathcal{P}_{\mathcal{I}_N}\mathbf{H}_{N}^{\top}\mathbf{R}_{N}^{-1}\mathbf{H}_{N}\left(\widetilde{\mathbf{x}}_{\mbox{\scriptsize{avg}}}(t)-\btheta^{\ast}\right)\right]^{\top}\nonumber\\
&=\mathbf{Q}\sum_{n=1}^{N}\mathcal{P}_{\mathcal{I}_n}\mathbf{H}_{n}^{\top}\mathbf{R}^{-1}\mathbf{H}_{n}\left(\widetilde{\mathbf{x}}_{\mbox{\scriptsize{avg}}}(t)-\btheta^{\ast}\right).
\end{aligned}$$]{}
Define, the residual sequence, $\{\mathbf{z}_{t}\}$, where $\mathbf{z}(t)=\widetilde{\mathbf{x}}_{\mbox{\scriptsize{avg}}}(t)-\btheta^{\ast}$, which can be then shown to satisfy the recursion [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:l1_2}
\mathbf{z}_{t+1}=\left(\mathbf{I}_{N}-\alpha_{t}\Gamma\right)\mathbf{z}_{t}+\alpha_{t}\mathbf{U}_{t}+\alpha_{t}\mathbf{J}_{t},
\end{aligned}$$]{} where [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:l1_3}
&\Gamma = \mathbf{Q}\sum_{n=1}^{N}\mathcal{P}_{\mathcal{I}_n}\mathbf{H}_{n}^{\top}\mathbf{R}^{-1}\mathbf{H}_{n}\mathcal{P}_{\mathcal{I}_n}\nonumber\\
&\mathbf{U}_{t}=\mathbf{Q}\sum_{n=1}^{N}\mathcal{P}_{\mathcal{I}_n}\mathbf{H}_{n}^{\top}\mathbf{R}_{n}^{-1}\mathbf{H}_{n}\left(\widetilde{\mathbf{x}}_{n}(t)-\mathcal{P}_{\mathcal{I}_n}\widetilde{\mathbf{x}}_{\mbox{\scriptsize{avg}}}(t)\right)\nonumber\\
&\mathbf{J}_{t}=\mathcal{S}_{\mbox{\scriptsize{avg}}}\mathcal{P}\mathbf{G}_{H}\mathbf{R}^{-1}\mathbf{\gamma}(t).
\end{aligned}$$]{} We rewrite the recursion for $\{\mathbf{z}_{t}\}$ as follows: [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:l3_2}
\mathbf{z}_{t+1} = \left(\mathbf{I}_{N}-\alpha_{t}\Gamma_{t}\right)\mathbf{z}_{t}+(t+1)^{-3/2}\mathbf{T}_{t}+(t+1)^{-1}\mathbf{\Phi}_{t}\mathbf{V}_{t},
\end{aligned}$$]{} where [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:l3_3}
&\mathbf{\Gamma}_{t} = \mathbf{\Gamma} =\mathbf{Q}\sum_{n=1}^{N}\mathcal{P}_{\mathcal{I}_n}\mathbf{H}_{n}^{\top}\mathbf{R}^{-1}\mathbf{H}_{n}\mathcal{P}_{\mathcal{I}_n}, \mathbf{\Phi}_{t} = a\mathbf{I}\nonumber\\
&\mathbf{T}_{t}=a(t+1)^{1/2}\mathbf{U}_{t}\nonumber\\& = a\mathbf{Q}\sum_{n=1}^{N}\mathcal{P}_{\mathcal{I}_n}\mathbf{H}_{n}^{\top}\mathbf{R}_{n}^{-1}\mathbf{H}_{n}(t+1)^{0.5}\left(\widetilde{\mathbf{x}}_{n}(t)-\mathcal{P}_{\mathcal{I}_n}\widetilde{\mathbf{x}}_{\mbox{\scriptsize{avg}}}(t)\right)\xrightarrow{t\to\infty}0\nonumber\\
&\mathbf{V}_{t}=\mathbf{J}_{t}=\mathcal{S}_{\mbox{\scriptsize{avg}}}\mathcal{P}\mathbf{G}_{H}\mathbf{R}^{-1}\mathbf{\gamma}(t),~\mathbb{E}\left[\mathbf{V}_{t}|\mathcal{F}_{t}\right]=0,\nonumber\\&\mathbb{E}\left[\mathbf{V}_{t}\mathbf{V}^{\top}_{t}|\mathcal{F}_{t}\right]= \mathcal{S}_{\mbox{\scriptsize{avg}}}\mathcal{P}\mathbf{G}_{H}\mathbf{R}^{-1}\mathbf{G}_{H}^{\top}\mathcal{P}\mathcal{S}_{\mbox{\scriptsize{avg}}}\nonumber\\& = \mathbf{Q}\left(\sum_{n=1}^{N}\mathcal{P}_{\mathcal{I}_n}\mathbf{H}_{n}^{\top}\mathbf{R}^{-1}\mathbf{H}_{n}\mathcal{P}_{\mathcal{I}_n}\right)\mathbf{Q}
\end{aligned}$$]{} Due to the i.i.d nature of the noise process, we have the uniform integrability condition for the process $\{\mathbf{V}_{t}\}$. Hence, $\{\mathbf{x}_{\mbox{\scriptsize{avg}}}(t)\}$ falls under the purview of Lemma \[main\_res\_l0\] and we thus conclude that [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:l3_4}
(t+1)^{1/2}\left(\widetilde{\mathbf{x}}_{\mbox{\scriptsize{avg}}}(t)-\btheta\right)\overset{\mathcal{D}}{\Longrightarrow}\mathcal{N}(0,\mathbf{P}\mathbf{M}\mathbf{P}^{\top}),
\end{aligned}$$]{} in which, [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:th2_21}
&\left[\mathbf{M}\right]_{ij}=\left[\mathbf{P}\mathbf{Q}\left(\sum_{n=1}^{N}\mathcal{P}_{\mathcal{I}_n}\mathbf{H}_{n}^{\top}\mathbf{R}_{n}^{-1}\mathbf{H}_{n}\mathcal{P}_{\mathcal{I}_n}\right)\mathbf{Q}\mathbf{P}\right]_{ij}\nonumber\\&\times\left(\left[\mathbf{\Lambda}\right]_{ii}+\left[\mathbf{\Lambda}\right]_{jj}-1\right)^{-1},
\end{aligned}$$]{} where $\mathbf{P}$ and $\mathbf{\Lambda}$ are orthonormal and diagonal matrices such that $\mathbf{P}^{\top}\mathbf{Q}\left(\sum_{n=1}^{N}\mathcal{P}_{\mathcal{I}_n}\mathbf{H}_{n}^{\top}\mathbf{R}_{n}^{-1}\mathbf{H}_{n}\mathcal{P}_{\mathcal{I}_n}\right)\mathbf{Q}\mathbf{P} = \mathbf{\Lambda}$. Now from , we have that the processes $\{\widetilde{\mathbf{x}}_{n}(t)\}$ and $\{\widetilde{\mathbf{x}}_{\mbox{\scriptsize{avg}}}(t)\}$ are indistinguishable in the $(t+1)^{1/2}$ time scale, which is formalized as follows: [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:l3_7}
&\mathbb{P}_{\btheta}\left(\lim_{t\to\infty}\left\|\sqrt{t+1}\left(\widetilde{\mathbf{x}}(t)-\btheta\right)-\sqrt{t+1}\left(\widetilde{\mathbf{x}}_{\mbox{\scriptsize{avg}}}(t)-\btheta\right)\right\|=0\right)\nonumber\\
&=\mathbb{P}_{\btheta}\left(\lim_{t\to\infty}\left\|\sqrt{t+1}\left(\widetilde{\mathbf{x}}(t)-\widetilde{\mathbf{x}}_{\mbox{\scriptsize{avg}}}(t)\right)\right\|=0\right)=1.
\end{aligned}$$]{} Thus, the difference of the sequences $\left\{\sqrt{t+1}\left(\widetilde{\mathbf{x}}_{n}(t)-\btheta\right)\right\}$ and $\left\{\sqrt{t+1}\left(\widetilde{\mathbf{x}}_{\mbox{\scriptsize{avg}}}(t)-\btheta\right)\right\}$ converges a.s. to zero as $t\rightarrow\infty$ and hence we have, [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:t2_pr_12}
\sqrt{t+1}\left(\widetilde{\mathbf{x}}_{n}(t)-\btheta\right)\overset{\mathcal{D}}{\Longrightarrow}\mathcal{N}(0,\mathbf{P}\mathbf{M}\mathbf{P}^{\top}).
\end{aligned}$$]{}
CONCLUSION {#sec:conc}
==========
In this paper, we have proposed a $\emph{consensus}+\emph{innovations}$ type algorithm, $\mathcal{CIRFE}$, for estimating a high-dimensional parameter or field that exhibits a cyber-physical flavor. In the proposed algorithm, every agent updates its estimate of a few components of the high-dimensional parameter vector by simultaneous processing of neighborhood information and local newly sensed information and in which the inter-agent collaboration is restricted to a possibly sparse communication graph. Under rather generic assumptions we establish the consistency of the parameter estimate sequence and characterize the asymptotic variance of the proposed estimator. A natural direction for future research consists of considering models with non-linear observation functions and extension of the proposed algorithm $\mathcal{CIRFE}$ to quantized communication schemes in the lines of [@kar2012distributed] and [@Zhang2017DistributedDO].
[^1]: A. K. Sahu and S. Kar are with the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA (email:[email protected], [email protected]). D. Jakovetic is with the Department of Mathematics and Informatics, University of Novi Sad, Serbia (e-mail: [email protected]).
The work of A. K. Sahu and S. Kar was supported in part by NSF under grants CCF-1513936. The work of D. Jakovetic was supported by Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development, Republic of Serbia, grant no. 174030.
[^2]: An estimate sequence is asymptotically normal if its $\sqrt{t}$ scaled error process, i.e., the difference between the sequence and the true parameter converges in distribution to a normal random variate.
[^3]: A graph is said to be simple if it is devoid of self loops and multiple edges.
[^4]: Global Observability refers to the condition, when the parameter can be reconstructed by stacking the samples collected from all the agents.
[^5]: Local observability refers to the condition, where an agent can reconstruct its own state based on its own observation sequence.
[^6]: Local correctness refers to the condition, where the set of local optimizers for the agent’s local cost function includes the optimizer of the global objective.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- |
\
Institute for Theoretical Physics, University of Wroc[ł]{}aw, 50-204 Wroc[ł]{}aw, Poland\
Fakultät für Physik, Universität Bielefeld, 33501 Bielefeld, Germany\
Bogoliubov Laboratory of Theoretical Physics, JINR Dubna, 141980 Dubna, Russia\
E-mail:
- |
David E. Alvarez-Castillo\
Bogoliubov Laboratory of Theoretical Physics, JINR Dubna, 141980 Dubna, Russia\
Instituto de Física, Universidad Autónoma de San Luis Potosí, S.L.P. 78290, México\
E-mail:
- |
Sanjin Benić\
Physics Department, Faculty of Science, University of Zagreb, Zagreb 10000, Croatia\
E-mail:
title: 'Mass-radius constraints for compact stars and a critical endpoint'
---
Introduction
============
The quest for the location of the critical endpoint (CEP) in the QCD phase diagram (PD) in heavy-ion collisions (HIC) is ongoing and has not yet yielded definite results. Suspicions are raised that there might be none(!) since that transition which is seen to be crossover at vanishing chemical potential $\mu=0$ on the temperature axis of the PD (lattice QCD results of the Wuppertal-Budapest collaboration [@Borsanyi:2010cj] and the HotQCD Collaboration [@Bazavov:2011nk] may remain of this type also at $\mu \neq 0$. Such a behaviour has been obtained in local Polyakov-Nambu-Jona-Lasinio (PNJL) models with a vector meson coupling [@Redlich:2006rf; @Sasaki:2006ws]. In particular, when this coupling is fixed so that the slope of the pseudocritical temperature obtained in lattice QCD simulations [@Kaczmarek:2011zz] at small $\mu$ is reproduced on the meanfield level of description [@Bratovic:2012qs]. In nonlocal generalizations of the PNJL model the situation is not so clear; it depends on the details of the mdel setup [@Contrera:2012wj; @Hell:2012da]. However, as understanding confinement within these models is not possible or questionable and also the backreaction of hadronic fluctuations on the phase structure is not accomplished, no firm satements about the location and even the existence of the CEP in the PD can be made at present.
This situation is rather unsatisfactory on the background of large scale experimental programmes to experimentally identify signatures of the CEP and identify its location which are operating at RHIC Brookhaven (STAR BES programme) and CERN-SPS (NA61) and are in preparation (NICA at JINR Dubna and CBM at FAIR Darmstadt).
Therefore, at this workshop an appeal was issued to the community of compact star astrophysicists to come up with suggestions how to prove the existence of a first order QCD phase transition in compact star interiors. Would it be possible to gain evidence for a strong first order deconfinement transition in compact stars this would prove the existence of at least one CEP in the QCD phase diagram since in the high temperature region explored by lattice QCD simulations [@Kaczmarek:2011zz] the transition is crossover.
One confirmative answer to the quest for a first-order phase transition in compact stars will be discussed here. If nature is so kind let cold, high-density compact star matter undergo a strong first-order phase transition which fulfills certain conditions to be detailed here, we show that the resulting mass-radius diagram for compact stars will provide besides an almost vertical hadronic star branch also a disconnected, hybrid star branch. If the onset of quark deconfinement, marking the end of this hadronic branch will occur at the presently known upper limit of compact star masses, around $2~M_\odot$, then the “third family” of compact stars, the quark core hybrid stars, will occur also in this mass range provided the quark matter EoS is stiff enough to carry the hadronic mantle.
What would it require to prove that this situation occurs in nature? As we know already two of these high-mass compact stars: PSR J1614-2230 with 1.97 $\pm $ 0.04 M$_{\odot}$ [@Demorest:2010bx] and PSR J0348+0432 with 2.01 $\pm $ 0.04 M$_{\odot}$ [@Antoniadis:2013pzd], the measurement of their radii to an accuracy of about 5% (i.e., $\delta~R \sim 600$m) bears the potential proof. If their radii would differ significantly, e.g., by 2 km, whie their masses are about the same, they would present an example of the high-mass twin stars, the existence of which would prove the presence of a strong first order phase transition in old compact stars and thus the existence of a CEP in the QCD phase diagram.
Massive hybrid stars & twins
============================
In the following we want to demonstrate on the examples of two classes of hybrid EoS models under which conditions the interesting phenomenon of twins at high compact star masses of $\sim 2~M_\odot$ may be obtained. The first one is a phenomenological ansatz Zdunik, Haensel [@Zdunik:2012dj], Alford, Han and Prakash [@Alford:2013aca] which we call the ZHAHP scheme. The second one is based on a QCD motivated, microscopic EoS obtained within a nonlocal Polyakov-NJL model, see [@Blaschke:2013rma] and references therein.
The ZHAHP scheme
----------------
A first order phase transition in neutron star matter can take place just as in symmetric matter where it is searched for in heavy ion collisions. Adopting the setting of the ZHAHP scheme, we construct hybrid stars with a hybrid EoS composed of a given hadronic EoS, here DD2 [@Typel:1999yq], and a quark matter EoS parametrized by its squared speed of sound $c_{\rm QM}^2$ which pretty well describes [@Zdunik:2012dj] results of a color superconducting NJL model [@Lastowiecki:2011hh] $$\label{eos}
P(\varepsilon)=
P_{\rm DD2}(\varepsilon)\Theta(\varepsilon_{\rm crit}-\varepsilon)
+c_{\rm QM}^2~\varepsilon~\Theta(\varepsilon-\varepsilon_{\rm crit}
-\Delta\varepsilon)~.$$ The critical energy density $\varepsilon_{\rm crit}$ and the discontinuity $\Delta\varepsilon$ complete this three-parameter EoS model which is capable of describing compact star sequences with a third family of stars in the mass-radius diagram. For early works on the disconnected, third branch of stable compact stars and the related mass-twin phenomenon, see Refs. [@Gerlach:1968zz; @Kampfer:1981yr; @Schertler:2000xq; @Glendenning:2000gh]. Searching for sequences with twins obeying the $2~M_\odot$ mass constraint [@Demorest:2010bx; @Antoniadis:2013pzd] we obtain a quasi-horizontal hybrid star branch disconnected by an unstable branch from the almost vertical hadron star branch, as a consequence of a strong phase transition.
Fig. \[EoS-MR1\] (left) shows the corresponding EoS (\[eos\]) for the parameters: $c_{\rm QM}^{2}= 0.94$, $\Delta\varepsilon = 0.67~\varepsilon_{\rm crit}$ and $\varepsilon_{\rm crit}=485$ MeV/fm$^3$. The latter corresponds to $P(\varepsilon_{\rm crit})=100$ MeV/fm$^3$ and a baryon density at the quark matter onset of $n_{\rm crit}= 2.9~n_0$ with $n_0=0.16$ fm$^{-3}$. Fig. \[EoS-MR1\] (right) shows the mass-radius relation for this hybrid EoS.
The ZHAHP scheme allows also to study the dependence of the $M-R$ relation on the strength of the transition, i.e. on the parameter $\Delta\varepsilon$ which can be also set to zero, thus mimicking the situation of a crossover transition. When hadronic and high-density phases behave rather similar, this case is also called “masquerade” [@Alford:2004pf]. In Fig. 1, we show the EoS (left) and the $M-R$ relation (right) in this situation for the two cases: a transition at a low density $n_{\rm crit}=1.8~n_0$ corresponding to $\varepsilon_{\rm crit}=290$ MeV, $c_s=0.55$; and at a high density $n_{\rm crit}=2.9~n_0$ corresponding to $\varepsilon_{\rm crit}=487$ MeV, $c_s=0.76$.
Nonlocal PNJL model
-------------------
In this microscopic scheme for obtaining high-mass twins we use the standard two-phase construction of the deconfinement phase transition, adopting separate EoS models for the $\beta-$ equilibrated $T=0$ compact star matter: $P_H(\mu)$ for the hadronic phase and $P_Q(\mu;\eta_v)$ for the quark phase. For the former we employ standard nuclear matter EoS like APR [@Akmal:1998cf] and DD2 [@Typel:1999yq] (see also [@Typel:2005ba; @Klahn:2006ir]) which we modify at high densities by adopting an excluded volume with a nonlinear dependence on the chemical potential [@Sasaki:2013mha] $$v_{\rm ex}(\mu) = (4\pi/3) r^3(\mu)~~,~~r^3(\mu)=r_0 + r_1 \mu + r_2 \mu^2~.$$ For the quark phase, we use the nonlocal PNJL model EoS of Refs. [@Contrera:2012wj; @Benic:2013eqa] where the 4-momentum dependence of the formfactors is adjusted to describe the dynamical mass function and wave function renormalization of the $T=0$ quark propagator from lattice QCD simulations [@Parappilly:2005ei; @Kamleh:2007ud] and the vector meson coupling $\eta_v$ is adjusted to obtain the slope of the chemical potential dependence of the pseudocritical temperature $T_c(\mu)$ in accordance with lattice QCD [@Kaczmarek:2011zz]. In addition, we follow the procedure suggested in [@Blaschke:2013rma] to implement a $\mu$ dependence of $\eta_v$ by interpolating between zero temperature pressures $P_< =P_Q(\mu;\eta_<)$ and $P_> =P_Q(\mu;\eta_>)$ in $\beta-$ equilibrium which are calculated at different, but fixed values $\eta_< = \eta_v(\mu \le \mu_c)$ and $\eta_> = \eta_v(\mu > \mu_c)$. The critical chemical potential $\mu_c$ is found from the Gibbs condition for the phase equilibrium $P_H(\mu_c)=P_<(\mu_c)$, where $P_H(\mu)$ stands for the pressure of one of the hadronic EoS models in $\beta-$equilibrium. Different from [@Blaschke:2013rma] we use here a Gaussian function for this interpolation and obtain for the resulting hybrid star matter EoS $$\begin{aligned}
\label{interpol}
P(\mu)&=&P_H(\mu)\Theta(\mu_c-\mu)+\left[\left(P_< - P_>\right)
\exp\left[-(\mu-\mu_c)^2/\Gamma^2\right]+P_>\right]\Theta(\mu-\mu_c)~.\end{aligned}$$ The density jump at the first order phase transition is given by the change in the slope of the pressure at the critical chemical potential $\Delta n = \partial P_</\partial \mu |_{\mu=\mu_c}
- \partial P_H/\partial \mu |_{\mu=\mu_c}$. Note that with the choice $\eta_< < \eta_>$ one achieves a strong first order phase transition with large $\Delta n$ on the one hand and stable hybrid star configurations even at high central energy densities on the other. In particular, one can realize in this way microscopically motivated hybrid star EoS which also exhibit the feature of mass twin star configurations at high masses $M\sim 2 M_\odot$. Two particular examples are shown in Fig. \[EoS-MR2\] compared to the ZHAHP scheme parametrization of Ref. [@Alvarez-Castillo:2013cxa], given also in Fig. \[EoS-MR1\]. These examples show that it is possible to prove the presence of a strong first order phase transition in compact star matter provided nature would be so kind to allow the mass twin phenomenon to occur.
The two parameter sets are given in Table \[tab:par\]
-------------------------- -------- ------------ ---------------- -------------------------- --------- ---------- ---------- ----------
$r_0$ $r_1$ $r_2$ $\varepsilon_{\rm crit}$ $\mu_c$ $\Gamma$ $\eta_<$ $\eta_>$
model \[fm\] \[fm/GeV\] \[fm/GeV$^2$\] \[MeV/fm$^3$\] \[MeV\] \[MeV\]
DD2v$_{\rm ex}$ - nlPNJL 0.3 0.35 0.05 225.3 1420 360 0.10 0.20
APRv$_{\rm ex}$ - nlPNJL 0.65 0.01 0.0 373.0 1400 400 0.05 0.25
-------------------------- -------- ------------ ---------------- -------------------------- --------- ---------- ---------- ----------
: Parameters of the hybrid EoS model. For details, see text.[]{data-label="tab:par"}
One may ask for the motivation of the increasing stiffness of quark matter with chemical potential. This is a generally open question and should be answered within a fully nonperturbative QCD approach to dense matter in the vicinity of the deconfinement transition, which is not available yet. So we may speculate that at asymptotically high chemical potentials the ratio of vector to scalar coupling can be given by the value from Fierz transformation of one-gluon exchange, $\eta_v=0.5$. Approaching the regio of the phase transition from above, the hadronic correlations might lead to a lowering of this value, eventually to as low values as we use here, $\eta_v(\mu_c)=0.05 ... 0.10$.
Conclusions
===========
In this work we have demonstrated for a simple hybrid star EoS model in the ZHAHP scheme as well as for more elaborated, microscopically motivated models, that a strong first order phase transition in cold nuclear matter under neutron star constraints reveals itself by the mass twin phenomenon in the mass-radius diagram for compact star sequences. Particularly interesting for verification by observations is the case of high-mass twins at $M\sim 2 M_\odot$. As our examples show, those twins have typically a difference in their radii of about $2$ km. A further precondition for the existence of high-mass twins is a large radius for massive stars on the hadronic branch, as indicated in some recent analyses [@Trumper:2011; @Bogdanov:2012md]. Therefore, if radius measurements of compact stars in that mass range could be performed to an accuracy of less than 1 km, this would allow in principle to detect such high-mass compact star twins, if they exist. Their detection in turn would yield important impact to studies of the QCD phase diagram since the proof of a strong first order phase transition at $T=0$ would imply the existence of a line of critical endpoints at finite temperatures. Then, there can be hope to find signatures of a strong first-order phase transition also in heavy-ion collision experiments with cool, strongly compressed baryon matter. A very concrete suggestion derived from this study would be an observational campaign to measure the radii of the known $2~M_\odot$ pulsars, PSR J1614-2230 and PSR J0348+0432, for instance with the planned missions LOFT [@Mignani:2012vc] and/or NICER.
Acknowledgements
================
We gratefully acknowledge numerous discussions and collaboration work on the topic addressed in this contribution with our colleagues, in particular with G. Contrera, H. Grigorian, O. Kaczmarek, T. Klähn, E. Laermann, R. [Ł]{}astowiecki, M. C. Miller, G. Poghosyan, S. B. Popov, J. Trümper, D. N. Voskresensky and F. Weber. This research has been supported by Narodowe Centrum Nauki within the “Maestro” programme under contract number DEC-2011/02/A/ST2/00306. D.B. acknowledges support by the Russian Fund for Basic Research under grant number 11-02-01538-a. D.A-C. is grateful for support by the Bogoliubov-Infeld programme.
[99]{}
S. Borsanyi, G. Endrodi, Z. Fodor, A. Jakovac, S. D. Katz, S. Krieg, C. Ratti and K. K. Szabo, JHEP [**1011**]{}, 077 (2010). A. Bazavov, T. Bhattacharya, M. Cheng, C. DeTar, H. T. Ding, S. Gottlieb, R. Gupta and P. Hegde [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. D [**85**]{}, 054503 (2012). K. Redlich, B. Friman and C. Sasaki, J. Phys. G [**32**]{}, S283 (2006). C. Sasaki, B. Friman and K. Redlich, Phys. Rev. D [**75**]{}, 054026 (2007). O. Kaczmarek [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. D [**83**]{}, 014504 (2011).
N. M. Bratovic, T. Hatsuda and W. Weise, Phys. Lett. B [**719**]{}, 131 (2013). G. A. Contrera, A. G. Grunfeld and D. B. Blaschke, arXiv:1207.4890 \[hep-ph\]. T. Hell, K. Kashiwa and W. Weise, J. Mod. Phys. [**4**]{}, 644 (2013). P. Demorest [*et al.*]{}, Nature [**467**]{}, 1081 (2010). J. Antoniadis [*et al.*]{}, Science [**340**]{}, 6131 (2013).
J. L. Zdunik and P. Haensel, arXiv:1211.1231 \[astro-ph.SR\].
M. G. Alford, S. Han and M. Prakash, arXiv:1302.4732 \[astro-ph.SR\]. D. Blaschke, D. E. A. Castillo, S. Benic, G. Contrera and R. Lastowiecki, PoS ConfinementX [****]{}, 249 (2012).
S. Typel and H. H. Wolter, Nucl. Phys. A [**656**]{}, 331 (1999). R. Lastowiecki [*et al.*]{}, Acta Phys. Polon. Supp. [**5**]{}, 535 (2012).
U. H. Gerlach, Phys. Rev. [**172**]{}, 1325 (1968). B. Kämpfer, J. Phys. A [**14**]{}, L471 (1981).
K. Schertler [*et al.*]{}, Nucl. Phys. A [**677**]{}, 463 (2000). N. K. Glendenning and C. Kettner, Astron. Astrophys. [**353**]{}, 795 (2000). M. Alford, M. Braby, M. W. Paris and S. Reddy, Astrophys. J. [**629**]{}, 969 (2005). A. Akmal, V. R. Pandharipande and D. G. Ravenhall, Phys. Rev. C [**58**]{}, 1804 (1998). S. Typel, Phys. Rev. C [**71**]{}, 064301 (2005). T. Klähn, D. Blaschke, S. Typel, E. N. E. van Dalen, A. Faessler, C. Fuchs, T. Gaitanos and H. Grigorian [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. C [**74**]{}, 035802 (2006). T. Sasaki, N. Yasutake, M. Kohno, H. Kouno and M. Yahiro, arXiv:1307.0681 \[hep-ph\]. S. Benic, D. Blaschke, G. A. Contrera and D. Horvatic, arXiv:1306.0588 \[hep-ph\]. M. B. Parappilly [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. D [**73**]{}, 054504 (2006). W. Kamleh [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. D [**76**]{}, 094501 (2007). D. E. Alvarez-Castillo and D. Blaschke, arXiv:1304.7758 \[astro-ph.HE\].
J. E. Trümper, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. [**66**]{}, 674 (2011). S. Bogdanov, Astrophys. J. [**762**]{}, 96 (2013).
R. P. Mignani [*et al.*]{} \[LOFT team Collaboration\], arXiv:1201.0721 \[astro-ph.IM\].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We present an interferometric scheme producing orbital entanglement in a quantum Hall system upon electron-hole pair emission via tunneling. The proposed setup is an electronic version of the optical interferometer proposed by Cabello *et al.* \[Phys. Rev. Lett. [**102**]{}, 040401 (2009)\], and is feasible with present technology. It requires single-channel propagation and a single primary source. We discuss the creation of entanglement and its detection by the violation of a Bell inequality.'
author:
- Diego Frustaglia
- Adán Cabello
title: Electronic entanglement via quantum Hall interferometry in analogy to an optical method
---
Introduction
============
Experimental progress in quantum information requires reliable sources of entanglement. In quantum optics, spontaneous parametric down conversion is a natural source of polarization-entangled photons [@KMWZSS95] and can be used to produce energy-time entangled photons after postselection. [@F-PRL89] These sources and the existence of efficient methods for distributing photons explain the success of quantum optics for long-distance quantum communication.
On the other hand, solid-state nanostructures offer advantages for the local processing of quantum information. This has provoked a major scientific effort towards the development of quantum electronics. Specifically, there is a research program for translating optical technologies which have already proved their applicability for quantum information processing into the realm of quantum electronics. That includes the development of an electronic Mach-Zehnder interferometer, [@JCSHMS-Nature03] several implementations [@e-HT; @NOCHMU-Nature07] of electronic Hanbury Brown-Twiss interferometers [@HT56] and, more recently, the proposal [@GFTF-PRB06] of an electronic Hong-Ou-Mandel interferometer. [@HOM87]
In this Rapid Communication we take a further step in this program and present a source of electronic entanglement. This is inspired by a recent photonic interferometer, originally aimed for the production and detection of energy-time and time-bin entanglement, [@CRVdMM-08] after noticing that the same scheme can be used to create orbital entanglement by a suitable redefinition of the postselective local measurements. Here, we show that all topological constraints from the optical setup—the basis of its working principle—can be satisfied and the problems derived from fermionic statistics can be overcome by making use of the last developments in quantum Hall physics. [@NOCHMU-Nature07] The detection procedure is based on the measurement of zero-frequency current-noise correlators in the tunneling regime. Moreover, the setup presents some distinguishing features over previous proposals requiring either two propagating channels [@BEKV-PRL03] or two sources: [@SSB-PRL04; @SB-PRB05] it requires, instead, a single channel and a single tunnel barrier as a source of correlated electron-hole pairs.
Optical interferometer
======================
We start by reviewing the interferometer introduced in Ref. (see Fig. \[fig-1\]). A source simultaneously emits two photons in opposite directions: photon 1 to the right (along path $\Gamma_1$) and photon 2 to the left (along path $\Gamma_2$). After meeting beam splitter BS-1 (BS-2), photon 1 (2) splits into a pair of paths $\Gamma_{\rm R1}$ and $\Gamma_{\rm L1}$ ($\Gamma_{\rm R2}$ and $\Gamma_{\rm L2}$). Path $\Gamma_{\rm R1}$ ($\Gamma_{\rm R2}$) takes photon 1 (2) to the right side of the interferometer for detection, while path $\Gamma_{\rm L1}$ ($\Gamma_{\rm L2}$) does likewise in the left side.
The complete two-photon state emitted from BS-1 and BS-2 is a coherent superposition of four possible paths combinations represented by kets $| \Gamma_{\rm (L,R)1},\Gamma_{\rm (L,R)2}
\rangle$, with the first site for photon 1 and the second for photon 2. It consists of two contributions in which one photon flies off to the right and the other one to the left ($| \Gamma_{\rm
R1},\Gamma_{\rm L2} \rangle$ and $| \Gamma_{\rm L1},\Gamma_{\rm R2}
\rangle$), and two contributions in which both photons fly off to the same side ($| \Gamma_{\rm R1},\Gamma_{\rm R2} \rangle$ and $|\Gamma_{\rm L1},\Gamma_{\rm L2} \rangle$). Photons 1 and 2 are not entangled with each other. However, their state is not separable when rewritten on a left-right bipartition basis, owning both standard mode entanglement (orbital-mode or path entanglement in this case) and occupation-number entanglement (i.e., coherent superposition of terms with different local occupation number). [@OccNumEnt] The orbital entanglement \[i.e., the entanglement between left ($\Gamma_{\rm L1}$ , $\Gamma_{\rm L2}$) and right ($\Gamma_{\rm R1}$, $\Gamma_{\rm R2}$) propagating channels\] can be postselected from the total state by coincidence measurements at both sides of the interferometer. This keeps only that part of the two-photon state with one photon on each side of the interferometer: events in which two photons arrive in the same side are simply rejected. The postselected state corresponds to a coherent superposition of $|\Gamma_{\rm L1},\Gamma_{\rm R2}
\rangle$ and $| \Gamma_{\rm R1},\Gamma_{\rm L2} \rangle$. The additional beam splitters BS-L and BS-R produce a local mixing required for detecting entanglement between left and right outgoing channels via the violation of Bell inequalities. [@bell-ineq]
An electronic analog of this photonic setup does not require an explicit rejection of double-click events on each side if, instead of measuring the times of detection—something difficult in electronic systems—, one measures zero-frequency current-noise cross correlations in the tunneling regime. [@SSB-PRL04; @SSB-PRL03]
The purpose of the interferometer in Ref. was to solve a fundamental deficiency in the Franson’s Bell experiment [@F-PRL89] based on energy-time and time-bin entanglement, identified by Aerts [*et al.*]{} [@AKLZ-PRL99-PRL01]. Interestingly, the Franson’s interferometer (including its electronic analog) cannot be used to produce orbital entanglement, since the postselection in Franson’s scheme requires communication between the local parties and cannot be avoided by a local redefinition of the observables.
![Electronic analogue of the interferometer of Fig. \[fig-1\] on a quantum Hall setup. Full (noiseless) electron streams—redefined vacuum (see text)—are represented by solid lines. Dashed lines correspond to empty electron channels.[]{data-label="fig-2"}](fig-2.eps){width="\columnwidth"}
Electronic interferometer
=========================
Figure \[fig-2\] represents the electronic implementation of the interferometer of Fig. \[fig-1\] on a quantum Hall system. The resulting device is feasible nowadays with modern experimental techniques. [@NOCHMU-Nature07] Though geometrically similar to that of Fig. \[fig-1\], the electronic version has some singular features as a consequence of the fermionic nature of the carriers. Electrons propagate coherently along single-mode edge channels from sources 1 and 2 (subject to equal voltages $V$) to drains L1, L2, R1, and R2 (connected to earth). On their way, the electrons find a series of electrically controlled quantum point contacts acting as beam splitters (BS-$n$, with $n =
0, 1, 2, {\rm L}, {\rm R}$). The BS-0 is set to be low transmitting (tunnel barrier). An electron propagating from *primary* source 1 can tunnel through BS-0 to the right side of the barrier, leaving a hole in the Fermi sea on the left side. So, BS-0 behaves as an electron-hole pair emitter (as discussed in Ref. [@BEKV-PRL03], with the difference that here we consider single—instead of double—channel propagation [@note-1]). After emission, each member of the electron-hole pair splits independently into a pair of paths at BS-1 and BS-2, respectively, as discussed above. Path entanglement can be observed by zero-frequency current-noise cross correlations, which were shown [@SSB-PRL04; @SSB-PRL03; @B-EFS05] to be equivalent to coincidence measurements in the tunneling regime. The *secondary* source 2 is not directly involved in the production of entanglement itself: its role is to eliminate the undesired current-noise correlations that otherwise would be generated at BS-2, masking the signal originated from the creation of electron-hole pairs at BS-0. Moreover, note that the resulting entanglement is not exactly between electrons on the one side and holes on the other side (in contrast to previous proposals [@BEKV-PRL03; @SSB-PRL04]), since both right and left propagating excitations can be either electronlike or holelike due to the combined action of BS-1 and BS-2. The BS-L and BS-R produce a controllable local mixing of right and left propagating channels, as discussed below.
Entanglement production
=======================
We start by introducing the uncorrelated state injected from sources $n= 1, 2$ as $$|\Psi_{\rm in} \rangle=\prod_{0 < \varepsilon < eV} a_1^\dag(\varepsilon) a_2^\dag(\varepsilon) |0\rangle,
\label{Psi-in}$$ where the operator $a_m^\dag(\varepsilon)$ excites an electron towards BS-0 ($m=1$) and BS-2 ($m=2$) with energy $\varepsilon$ on an energy window $eV$ above the Fermi sea $|0 \rangle$. Upon tunneling of electrons from source 1 through BS-0, the initial state (\[Psi-in\]) scatters as $$|\Psi' \rangle=\prod_{ \varepsilon} \left [t_0 b_1^\dag(\varepsilon) + r_0 b_2^\dag(\varepsilon) \right ] a_2^\dag
(\varepsilon) |0\rangle,
\label{Psi-inter}$$ where $t_0$ and $r_0$ are the scattering amplitudes at BS-0 ($T_0=|t_0|^2 \ll R_0=|r_0|^2$), and $b_n^\dag(\varepsilon)$ excites a propagation mode from BS-0 toward BS-$n$ ($n=1,2$). Expanding Eq. (\[Psi-inter\]) up to first order in $t_0$ and using $b_2(\varepsilon)b_2^\dag(\varepsilon) |0\rangle = |0\rangle$ (close to what is done in Ref. [@SSB-NJP05]), we find $$|\Psi' \rangle \approx \left [1- t_0 \int_0^{eV} {\rm
d}\varepsilon'~ b_2(\varepsilon') b_1^\dag(\varepsilon')\right ]
\prod_{ \varepsilon} b_2^\dag(\varepsilon) a_2^\dag(\varepsilon)
|0\rangle. \label{Psi-inter-2}$$ The integral term in Eq. (\[Psi-inter-2\]) corresponds to the emission (with probability $T_0 \ll 1$) of an electron-hole pair packet from BS-0, where the electron ($b_1^\dag$) propagates to the right and the hole ($b_2$) to the left (see Fig. \[fig-2\]). The hole appears as an excitation out of a full stream of particles toward BS-2 represented by $\prod_{ \varepsilon} b_2^\dag(\varepsilon)
|0\rangle$. The electrons emitted from source 2 ($a_2^\dag$) do not play any role in the generation of the electron-hole pair. Their relevance is proved only after scattering at BS-2, as we see next. Upon scattering at BS-1 and BS-2 (with amplitudes $t_1,r_1$ and $t_2,r_2$, respectively), the intermediate state (\[Psi-inter-2\]) evolves into $$|\Psi_{\rm out} \rangle = |\bar{0}\rangle + |\bar{\Psi}\rangle,$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Psi-bar} |\bar{\Psi} \rangle &=& t_0 e^{i(\phi_1-\phi_2)}
\int_0^{eV} {\rm d}\varepsilon'~ [ t_1 t_2^*C_{\rm L1}^\dag(\varepsilon') C_{\rm R2}(\varepsilon') \nonumber \\
&-& r_1 r_2^* C_{\rm L2}(\varepsilon') C_{\rm R1}^\dag(\varepsilon')
+ t_1 r_2^* C_{\rm L1}^\dag(\varepsilon') C_{\rm L2}(\varepsilon') \nonumber \\
&+& r_1 t_2^* C_{\rm R1}^\dag(\varepsilon') C_{\rm R2}(\varepsilon') ]
|\bar{0}\rangle\end{aligned}$$ describes an electron-hole excitation out of a redefined vacuum $|\bar{0}\rangle = \prod_\varepsilon^{eV} C_{\rm
L2}^\dag(\varepsilon) C_{\rm R2}^\dag(\varepsilon) |0\rangle$. Here, $C_n^\dag$ ($C_n$) creates an electron (hole) propagating towards terminal $n=$L1, L2, R1, or R2 (when BS-L and BS-R are *closed*) and $\phi_m$ is the phase acquired by an electron along path $\Gamma_m$ with $m= 1, 2$. The redefined vacuum corresponds to a *noiseless* stream of electrons emitted from BS-2 toward terminals L2 and R2. This is only possible thanks to the introduction of the secondary source 2, which sets the net current through BS-2 to zero when BS-0 is closed. Otherwise, electrons from primary source 1 alone would be scattered at BS-2 as correlated noisy currents, masking the signatures of the electron-hole emission at BS-0.
Having a look at $|\bar{\Psi}\rangle$ in Eq. (\[Psi-bar\]), and leaving aside the specific features of electrons, we notice that the electron-hole pair emitted from BS-0 suffers from an evolution wholly analogous to the one described in Ref. [@CRVdMM-08] for photon pairs (as discussed above).
The first two terms within brackets in Eq. (\[Psi-bar\]) show a coherent superposition of an electron and a hole traveling, alternately, toward opposite sides of the interferometer along different paths. This is the part of the state we are interested in, corresponding to a pair of “orbital” qubits, [@note-qubits] which can be entangled depending on the relative weights given by the scattering amplitudes at BS-1 and BS-2. The entanglement of a normalized two-qubit pure state $| \Psi
\rangle$ can be quantified by the concurrence $0 \le {\cal C}(\Psi)=
|\langle \Psi| \tilde{\Psi} \rangle| \le 1$, [@W-PRL98] where $|
\tilde{\Psi} \rangle = \sigma_y \otimes \sigma_y | \Psi^* \rangle$ is the time reverse of $ | \Psi \rangle$ (with $\sigma_y$ the second Pauli matrix), ${\cal C}(\Psi)=0$ for separable states (no entanglement), and ${\cal C}(\Psi)=1$ for Bell states (maximal entanglement). Applying this to the first two terms in Eq. (\[Psi-bar\]), after normalization, we obtain $${\cal C}= 2 \frac {\sqrt{T_1T_2R_1R_2}}{T_1T_2+R_1R_2},
\label{conc}$$ where $T_1$ ($R_1$) and $T_2$ ($R_2$) are the transmission (reflection) probabilities at BS-1 and BS-2, respectively. Maximal entanglement is achieved whenever $T_1 T_2 = R_1 R_2$.
The last two terms within brackets in Eq. (\[Psi-bar\]), instead, correspond to a particle and a hole traveling both either to the right or to the left side of the interferometer. This part of the state (subject to occupation-number entanglement only) shall be filtered out during measurement.
Entanglement detection
======================
At this point, we can drop out of the electron-hole picture introduced above, which was only a convenient frame for revealing the process of entanglement production. From now on we work within the standard electron picture, which simplifies the description of the detection procedure. In the tunneling regime, entanglement can be detected via the violation of Bell-like inequalities [@bell-ineq] constructed upon the measurement of zero-frequency current-noise cross correlations defined as $$S_{ij}=\lim_{\cal{T} \rightarrow \infty} \frac {h\nu} {{\cal{T}}^2} \int_0^{\cal{T}} {\rm d}t_1 {\rm d}t_2
\langle \delta I_{{\rm L}i}(t_1) \delta I_{{\rm R}j}(t_2)\rangle.$$ This quantity correlates the time-dependent current fluctuations $\delta I_{{\rm L}i}$ at the left terminals ($i=1, 2$) with the fluctuations $ \delta I_{{\rm R}j}$ at the right terminals ($j=1,2$), where $\cal{T}$ is the measurement time and $\nu$ is the density of states \[a discrete spectrum is considered to ensure a proper regularization of the current-noise correlations (see Ref. )\]. The last two terms in Eq. (\[Psi-bar\]) do not contribute to $S_{ij}$, since this is a two-particle observable demanding the presence of one particle on each side of the interferometer for detection. Thanks to this, only the first two terms in Eq. (\[Psi-bar\]) are postselected. At low temperatures ($kT<<eV$), the cross correlator reads [@B-PRL90] as $$\begin{aligned}
S_{ij}&=&-e^3V/h |( t_{\rm L} t_{\rm R}^\dag)_{ij}|^2,
\label{s-noise}\end{aligned}$$ where the $2 \times 2$ matrices $t_{\rm L}$ and $t_{\rm R}$ contain the scattering amplitudes from sources 1 and 2 to terminals L1 and L2 the first one, and to R1 and R2 the second one. They satisfy $t_{\rm
L}^\dag t_{\rm L}+ t_{\rm R}^\dag t_{\rm R}=\openone$ due to unitarity of the scattering matrix. The $S_{ij}$ turns out to be proportional to the tunneling probability $T_0$ (i.e., $S_{ij}
\propto T_0$), meaning that any correlation signal is due to the emission of electron-hole pairs from BS-0 alone. This is only possible thanks to the presence of secondary source 2: otherwise, $S_{ij}$ would be finite even for $T_0=0$, due to the undesired correlated noise generated at BS-2. So defined, the correlator $S_{ij}$ is proportional to the probability of joint detection of particles in terminals $i$ and $j$ (an electron on one side and a hole on the other). [@SSB-PRL04; @SSB-PRL03; @B-EFS05] The presence of finite reference currents at both sides of the interferometer (redefined vacuum $|\bar{0}\rangle$) does not change this fact. This is because the current-noise correlators are independent of the noiseless reference currents (an alternative formulation based on pure tunneling currents can be used with identical results). A Bell inequality can be constructed upon $S_{ij}$ by defining the correlation function $$\begin{aligned}
E= \frac {S_{11}+S_{22}-S_{12}-S_{21}}
{S_{11}+S_{22}+S_{12}+S_{21}}= \frac {{\rm tr} \left( \sigma_z
t_{\rm L} t_{\rm R}^\dag \sigma_z t_{\rm R} t_{\rm L}^\dag\right)}
{{\rm tr} \left(t_{\rm L}^\dag t_{\rm L} t_{\rm R}^\dag\ t_{\rm
R}\right)},\end{aligned}$$ where $\sigma_z$ is the third Pauli matrix. The correlator $E$ is explored by introducing an additional local mixing of left and right outgoing channels. This is implemented through the beam splitters BS-L and BS-R, as shown in Fig. \[fig-2\], from which the transmission matrices transform as $t_{\rm L} \rightarrow U_{\rm L}
t_{\rm L}$ and $t_{\rm R} \rightarrow U_{\rm R} t_{\rm R}$, where $U_{\rm L}$ and $U_{\rm R}$ are the corresponding $2 \times 2$ unitary scattering matrices. [@note-phases] Hence, the correlator $E$ transforms as $$\begin{aligned}
E(U_{\rm L},U_{\rm R})= \frac {{\rm tr} \left(U_{\rm L}^\dag
\sigma_z U_{\rm L} t_{\rm L} t_{\rm R}^\dag U_{\rm R}^\dag \sigma_z
U_{\rm R} t_{\rm R} t_{\rm L}^\dag\right)} {{\rm tr} \left(t_{\rm
L}^\dag t_{\rm L} t_{\rm R}^\dag\ t_{\rm R}\right)},\end{aligned}$$ from which the Bell-Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt (CHSH) operator is defined as [@bell-ineq] $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal E}=
E(U_{\rm L},U_{\rm R})+E(U'_{\rm L},U_{\rm R})+E(U_{\rm L},U'_{\rm R})-E(U'_{\rm L},U'_{\rm R}). \nonumber \\
\label{bell-param}\end{aligned}$$ The studied state is entangled if the Bell-CHSH operator satisfies $|{\cal E}| > 2$ for some configurations of matrices $\{ U_{\rm
L},U_{\rm R},U'_{\rm L},U'_{\rm R}\}$. Following Refs. and , we find that the maximum possible value for the Bell-CHSH operator (\[bell-param\]) reads as $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal E}_{\rm max}= 2 \sqrt{1+ \frac {4 (1-\lambda_+)(1-\lambda_-)\lambda_+ \lambda_-}
{(\lambda_++\lambda_--\lambda_+^2-\lambda_-^2)^2}},
\label{E-max}\end{aligned}$$ where $\lambda_{+} = 1- T_0 T_1 T_2$ and $\lambda_{-} = T_0 R_1 R_2$ are the eigenvalues of the matrix product $t_{\rm R}^\dag t_{\rm R}$ up to first order in the tunneling probability $T_0$. We notice that Eq. (\[E-max\]) reduces to ${\cal E}_{\rm max} = 2 \sqrt{1 + {\cal
C}^2}$ with ${\cal C}$ the concurrence of Eq. (\[conc\]). This is an expected relation for a pair of entangled qubits, [@BEKV-PRL03; @G-PLA91] which guarantees the accuracy of our approach. Its meaning is straightforward in our case: whenever there is orbital entanglement in the emitted state $|\bar{\Psi} \rangle$ of Eq. (\[Psi-bar\]) (${\cal C} > 0$), there is a violation of the Bell-CHSH inequality $|{\cal E}| \le 2$.
Conclusions
===========
The production and detection of entanglement are still a major challenge for quantum electronics. Here we have described a source of orbital entanglement in an electron-hole quantum Hall systems. We have discussed how to use it to prepare entangled states and characterize entanglement and quantum nonlocality. A fundamental feature is that the scheme is simpler than previous proposals and seems feasible with present technology, so we expect that it can stimulate further experimental developments in electronic quantum information.
[99]{}
P.G. Kwiat, K. Mattle, H. Weinfurter, A. Zeilinger, A.V. Sergienko, and Y. H. Shih, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**75**]{}, 4337 (1995).
J.D. Franson, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**62**]{}, 2205 (1989).
Y. Ji, Y. Chung, D. Sprinzak, M. Heiblum, D. Mahalu, and H. Shtrikman, Nature (London) [**422**]{}, 415 (2003).
M. Henny, S. Oberholzer, C. Strunk, T. Heinzel, K. Ensslin, M. Holland, and C. Schönenberger; Science [**284**]{}, 296 (1999); W.D. Oliver, J. Kim, R.C. Liu, and Y. Yamamoto, *ibid.* [**284**]{}, 299 (1999); S. Oberholzer, M. Henny, C. Strunk, C. Schönenberger, T. Heinzel, K. Ensslin, and M. Holland, Physica (Amsterdam) [**6E**]{}, 314 (2000); H. Kiesel, A. Renz, and F. Hasselbach, Nature (London) [**418**]{}, 392 (2002).
I. Neder, N. Ofek, Y. Chung, M. Heiblum, D. Mahalu, and V. Umansky, Nature (London) [**448**]{}, 333 (2007).
R. Hanbury Brown and R.Q. Twiss, Nature (London) [**177**]{}, 27 (1956).
V. Giovannetti, D. Frustaglia, F. Taddei, and R. Fazio, Phys. Rev. B [**74**]{}, 115315 (2006).
C.K. Hong, Z.Y. Ou, and L. Mandel, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**59**]{}, 2044 (1987).
A. Cabello, A. Rossi, G. Vallone, F. De Martini, and P. Mataloni, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**102**]{}, 040401 (2009).
C.W.J. Beenakker, C. Emary, M. Kindermann, and J.L. van Velsen, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**91**]{}, 147901 (2003).
P. Samuelsson, E.V. Sukhorukov, and M. Büttiker, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**92**]{}, 026805 (2004).
P. Samuelsson and M. Büttiker, Phys. Rev. B [**71**]{}, 245317 (2005).
H.M. Wiseman and J.A. Vaccaro, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**91**]{}, 097902 (2003); N. Schuch, F. Verstraete, and J.I. Cirac, [*ibid.*]{} [**92**]{}, 087904 (2004); V. Giovannetti, D. Frustaglia, F. Taddei, and R. Fazio, Phys. Rev. B [**75**]{}, 241305(R) (2007).
J.S. Bell, Physics (Long Island City, N.Y.) [**1**]{}, 195 (1964); J.F. Clauser, M.A. Horne, A. Shimony, and R.A. Holt, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**23**]{}, 880 (1969).
P. Samuelsson, E.V. Sukhorukov, and M. Büttiker, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**91**]{}, 157002 (2003).
S. Aerts, P.G. Kwiat, J.-Å. Larsson, and M. Żukowski, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**83**]{}, 2872 (1999); [**86**]{}, 1909 (2001).
For the sake of simplicity, we consider the spinless case only. Spin-degenerate channels can be introduced without any significant consequence on orbital entanglement due to separability of spin and orbital degrees of freedom.
C.W.J. Beenakker, in [*Quantum Computers, Algorithms and Chaos*]{}, Proceedings of the International School of Physics “Enrico Fermi”, Varenna, 2005 (IOS Press, Amsterdam, 2006). P. Samuelsson, E.V. Sukhorukov, and M. Büttiker, N. J. Phys. [**7**]{}, 176 (2005).
We identify the two levels of each qubit with the pair of outgoing channels at each side of the interferometer (along which only one particle- electron or hole- propagates). Defining the *upper*-state of each qubit as the electron excitation, $| 1 \rangle = C_{\rm (L,R)1}^\dag
|\bar{0}\rangle$, and the *lower*-state as the hole one, $| 0
\rangle = C_{\rm (L,R)2} |\bar{0}\rangle$, the first two terms in Eq. (\[Psi-bar\]) read as $t_1 t_2^* |10 \rangle - r_1 r_2^*
|01\rangle$.
W.K. Wootters, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**80**]{}, 2245 (1998).
M. Büttiker, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**65**]{}, 2901 (1990).
The $U_{\rm L}$ and $U_{\rm R}$ mixing matrices can absorb the kinetic/magnetic phases acquired by the electrons (and holes) along their way from BS-1 and BS-2 to drains, so we do not need to consider them explicitly. Notice that the mixing can be performed either by controlling the transmission amplitude of BS-L and BS-R, by modifying the Aharonov-Bohm flux through the interferometer, or by introducing local electric gates that modify the length of selected paths towards the left and/or right side of the interferometer. S. Popescu and D. Rohrlich, Phys. Lett. A [**166**]{}, 293 (1992).
N. Gisin, Phys. Lett. A [**154**]{}, 201 (1991).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In the present paper we prove that every 2-local derivation on a von Neumann algebra of type I is a derivation.'
address:
- 'Institute of Mathematics and Information Technologies, Tashkent, Uzbekistan and the Abdus Salam International Centre for Theoretical Physics (ICTP) Trieste, Italy'
- 'Institute of Mathematics and Information Technologies, Tashkent, Andizhan State University, Andizhan, Uzbekistan'
author:
- Shavkat Ayupov
- Farkhad Arzikulov
date: 'February 21, 2012.'
title: '2-LOCAL DERIVATIONS ON VON NEUMANN ALGEBRAS OF TYPE I'
---
[2000 Mathematics Subject Classification: Primary 46L57; Secondary 46L40]{}
Introduction {#introduction .unnumbered}
============
The present paper is devoted to 2-local derivations on von Neumann algebras. Recall that a 2-local derivation is defined as follows: given an algebra $A$, a map $\bigtriangleup : A \to A$ (not linear in general) is called a 2-local derivation if for every $x$, $y\in
A$, there exists a derivation $D_{x,y} : A\to A$ such that $\bigtriangleup(x)=D_{x,y}(x)$ and $\bigtriangleup(y)=D_{x,y}(y)$.
In 1997, P. Šemrl [@S] introduced the notion of 2-local derivations and described 2-local derivations on the algebra $B(H)$ of all bounded linear operators on the infinite-dimensional separable Hilbert space H. A similar description for the finite-dimensional case appeared later in [@KK]. In the paper [@LW] 2-local derivations have been described on matrix algebras over finite-dimensional division rings.
In [@AK] the authors suggested a new technique and have generalized the above mentioned results of [@S] and [@KK] for arbitrary Hilbert spaces. Namely they considered 2-local derivations on the algebra $B(H)$ of all linear bounded operators on an arbitrary (no separability is assumed) Hilbert space $H$ and proved that every 2-local derivation on $B(H)$ is a derivation.
In the present paper we also suggest another technique and generalize the above mentioned results of [@S], [@KK] and [@AK] for arbitrary von Neumann algebras of type I. Namely, we prove that every 2-local derivation on a von Neumann algebra of type I is a derivation.
The authors want to thank K.K.Kudaybergenov for many stimulating conversations on the subject.
Preliminaries
=============
Let $M$ be a von Neumann algebra.
[*Definition.*]{} A linear map $D : M\to M$ is called a derivation, if $D(xy)=D(x)y+xD(y)$ for any two elements $x$, $y\in
M$.
A map $\Delta : M\to M$ is called a 2-local derivation, if for any two elements $x$, $y\in M$ there exists a derivation $D_{x,y}:M\to M$ such that $\Delta (x)=D_{x,y}(x)$, $\Delta
(y)=D_{x,y}(y)$.
It is known that any derivation $D$ on a von Neumann algebra $M$ is an inner derivation, that is there exists an element $a\in M$ such that $$D(x)=ax-xa, x\in M.$$ Therefore for a von Neumann algebra $M$ the above definition is equivalent to the following one: A map $\Delta : M\to M$ is called a 2-local derivation, if for any two elements $x$, $y\in M$ there exists an element $a\in M$ such that $\Delta (x)=ax-xa$, $\Delta (y)=ay-ya$.
Further we will use the latter definition.
Let $n$ be an arbitrary infinite cardinal number, $\Xi$ be a set of indexes of the cardinality $n$. Let $\{e_{ij}\}$ be a set of matrix units such that $e_{ij}$ is a $n\times
n$-dimensional matrix, i.e. $e_{ij}=(a_{\alpha\beta})_{\alpha\beta\in\Xi}$, the $(i,j)$-th component of which is $1$, i.e. $a_{ij}=1$, and the rest components are zeros. Let $\{m_\xi\}_{\xi\in \Xi}$ be a set of $n\times n$-dimensional matrixes. By $\sum_{\xi\in \Xi} m_\xi$ we denote the matrix whose components are sums of the corresponding components of matrixes of the set $\{m_\xi \}_{\xi\in \Xi}$. Let $$M_n({\bf C})=\{\{\lambda_{ij}e_{ij}\}: \,for\,\, all\,\,
indexes\,\, i,\,j \,\lambda_{ij}\in {\bf C},$$ $$and\,\, there\,\, exists\,\, such\,\, number\,\, K\in {\bf
R},\,\,that \,\, for \,\, all\,\, n\in N$$ $$and\,\, \{e_{kl}\}_{kl=1}^n\subseteq \{e_{ij}\} \Vert\sum_{kl=1}^n
\lambda_{kl}e_{kl}\Vert \le K\},$$ where $\Vert \,\, \Vert$ is a norm of a matrix. It is easy to see that $M_n({\bf C})$ is a vector space.
The associative multiplication of elements in $M_n({\bf C})$ can be defined as follows: if $x=\sum_{ij\in \Xi}\lambda_{ij}e_{ij}$, $ y=\sum_{ij\in \Xi}\mu_{ij}e_{ij}$ are elements of $M_n({\bf C})$ then $xy=\sum_{ij\in \Xi} \sum_{\xi\in \Xi} \lambda_{i\xi}\mu_{\xi
j}e_{ij}$. With this operation $M_n({\bf C})$ becomes an associative algebra and $M_n({\bf C})=B(l_2(\Xi))$, where $l_2(\Xi)$ is a Hilbert space over ${\bf C}$ with elements $\{x_i\}_{i\in \Xi}$, $x_i\in \bf C$ for all $i\in \Xi$, $B(l_2(\Xi))$ is the associative algebra of all bounded linear operators on the Hilbert space $l_2(\Xi)$. Then $M_n({\bf C})$ is a von Neumann algebra of infinite $n\times n$-dimensional matrices over ${\bf C}$.
Similarly, if we take the algebra $B(H)$ of all bounded linear operators on an arbitrary Hilbert space $H$ and if $\{q_i\}$ is an arbitrary maximal orthogonal set of minimal projections of the algebra $B(H)$, then $B(H)=\sum_{ij}^\oplus q_i B(H)q_j$ (see [@AFN]).
Let $X$ be a hyperstonean compact, and let $C(X)$ denote the commutative algebra of all complex-valued continuous functions on the compact $X$ and $$\mathcal{M}=\{\{\lambda_{ij}(x)e_{ij}\}_{ij\in\Xi}: (\forall ij\,\,\,
\lambda_{ij}(x)\in C(X))$$ $$(\exists K\in R)(\forall m\in N)(\forall
\{e_{kl}\}_{kl=1}^m\subseteq \{e_{ij}\})\Vert\sum_{kl=1\dots
m}\lambda_{kl}(x)e_{kl}\Vert\leq K\},$$ where $\Vert\sum_{kl=1\dots m}\lambda_{kl}(x)e_{kl}\Vert\leq K$ means $(\forall x_o\in X) \Vert \sum_{kl=1\dots
m}\lambda_{kl}(x_o)e_{kl}\Vert\leq K$. The set $\mathcal{M}$ is a vector space with point-wise algebraic operations. The map $\Vert\,\,\, \Vert : \mathcal{M}\to {\bf R}_+$ defined as $$\Vert a \Vert = \sup_{\{e_{kl}\}_{kl=1}^n\subseteq
\{e_{ij}\}}\Vert\sum_{kl=1}^n \lambda_{kl}(x)e_{kl}\Vert,$$ is a norm on the vector space $\mathcal{M}$, where $a\in
\mathcal{M}$ and $a=\sum_{ij\in\Xi}\lambda_{ij}(x)e_{ij}$.
Moreover $\mathcal{M}$ is a von Neumann algebra of type I$_n$ and $\mathcal{M}=C(X)\otimes M_n({\bf C})$, where the multiplication is defined as follows $xy=\sum_{ij\in \Xi} \sum_{\xi\in \Xi} \lambda_{i\xi}(x)\mu_{\xi
j}(x)e_{ij}$ [@AFN2].
Let $\mathcal{M}$ be a von Neumann algebra, $\bigtriangleup :\mathcal{M}\to \mathcal{M}$ be a 2-local derivation. Now let us show that $\bigtriangleup$ is homogeneous. Indeed, for each $x\in \mathcal{M}$, and for $\lambda \in {\mathbb C}$ there exists a derivation $D_{x,\lambda x}$ such that $\bigtriangleup(x)=D_{x,\lambda x}(x)$ and $\bigtriangleup(\lambda x)=D_{x,\lambda x}(\lambda x)$. Then $$\bigtriangleup(\lambda x)=D_{x,\lambda x}(\lambda x)=\lambda D_{x,\lambda x}(x) =\lambda \bigtriangleup(x).$$ Hence, $\bigtriangleup$ is homogenous. At the same time, for each $x\in \mathcal{M}$, there exists a derivation $D_{x,x^2}$ such that $\bigtriangleup(x)=D_{x,x^2}(x)$ and $\bigtriangleup(x^2)=D_{x,x^2}(x^2)$. Then $$\bigtriangleup(x^2)=D_{x,x^2}(x^2)=D_{x,x^2}(x)x+xD_{x,x^2}(x) =\bigtriangleup(x)x+x\bigtriangleup(x).$$
In [@Bre] it is proved that any Jordan derivation on a semi-prime algebra is a derivation. Since $\mathcal{M}$ is semi-prime, the map $\bigtriangleup$ is a derivation if it is additive. Therefore, to prove that the 2-local derivation $\bigtriangleup :\mathcal{M}\to \mathcal{M}$ is a derivation it is sufficient to prove that $\bigtriangleup :\mathcal{M}\to \mathcal{M}$ is additive in the proofs of theorems 1 and 5.
2-local derivations on von Neumann algebras of type I$_n$ with an infinite cardinal number $n$
==============================================================================================
The following theorem is the key result of this section.
[**Theorem 1.**]{} [*Let $\bigtriangleup :C(X)\otimes M_n({\bf C})\to C(X)\otimes M_n({\bf C})$ be a 2-local derivation. Then $\bigtriangleup$ is a derivation.*]{}
First let us prove lemmata which are necessary for the proof of theorem 1.
Put $\mathcal{M}=C(X)\otimes M_n({\bf C})$, $e_{ij}:={\bf
1}e_{ij}$ for all $i$, $j$, where ${\bf 1}$ is unit of the algebra $C(X)$. Let $\{a(ij)\}\subset \mathcal{M}$ be the set such that $$\bigtriangleup(e_{ij})=a(ij)e_{ij}-e_{ij}a(ij).$$ for all $i$, $j$, put $a_{ij}e_{ij}=e_ia(ji)e_j$ for all pairs of different indexes $i$, $j$ and let $\{a_{\xi\eta}e_{\xi\eta}\}_{\xi\neq \eta}$ be the set of all such elements.
[**Lemma 2.**]{} [*For any pair $i$, $j$ of different indices the following equality holds $$\bigtriangleup(e_{ij})=\{a_{\xi\eta}e_{\xi\eta}\}_{\xi\neq \eta}e_{ij}-e_{ij}\{a_{\xi\eta}e_{\xi\eta}\}_{\xi\neq \eta}+
a(ij)_{ii}e_{ij}-e_{ij}a(ij)_{jj}, \,\,\,\,\,\,\,(1)$$ where $a(ij)_{ii}$, $a(ij)_{jj}$ are functions in $C(X)$ which are the coefficients of the Peirce components $e_{ii}a(ij)e_{ii}$, $e_{jj}a(ij)e_{jj}$.*]{}
[*Proof.*]{} Let $k$ be an arbitrary index different from $i$, $j$ and let $a(ij,ik)\in \mathcal{M}$ be an element such that $$\bigtriangleup(e_{ik})=a(ij,ik)e_{ik}-e_{ik}a(ij,ik) \,\, \text{and}\,\,
\bigtriangleup(e_{ij})=a(ij,ik)e_{ij}-e_{ij}a(ij,ik).$$ Then $$e_{kk}\bigtriangleup(e_{ij})e_{jj}=e_{kk}(a(ij,ik)e_{ij}-e_{ij}a(ij,ik))e_{jj}=$$ $$e_{kk}a(ij,ik)e_{ij}-0=e_{kk}a(ik)e_{ij}-e_{kk}e_{ij}\{a_{\xi\eta}e_{\xi\eta}\}_{\xi\neq \eta}e_{jj}=$$ $$e_{kk}a_{ki}e_{ij}-e_{kk}e_{ij}\{a_{\xi\eta}e_{\xi\eta}\}_{\xi\neq \eta}e_{jj}=
e_{kk}\{a_{\xi\eta}e_{\xi\eta}\}_{\xi\neq \eta}e_{ij}-e_{kk}e_{ij}\{a_{\xi\eta}e_{\xi\eta}\}_{\xi\neq \eta}e_{jj}=$$ $$e_{kk}(\{a_{\xi\eta}e_{\xi\eta}\}_{\xi\neq \eta}e_{ij}-e_{ij}\{a_{\xi\eta}e_{\xi\eta}\}_{\xi\neq \eta})e_{jj}.$$
Similarly, $$e_{kk}\bigtriangleup(e_{ij})e_{ii}=e_{kk}(a(ij,ik)e_{ij}-e_{ij}a(ij,ik))e_{ii}=$$ $$e_{kk}a(ij,ik)e_{ij}e_{ii}-0=0-0=
e_{kk}\{a_{\xi\eta}e_{\xi\eta}\}_{\xi\neq \eta}e_{ij}e_{ii}-e_{kk}e_{ij}\{a_{\xi\eta}e_{\xi\eta}\}_{\xi\neq \eta}e_{ii}=$$ $$e_{kk}(\{a_{\xi\eta}e_{\xi\eta}\}_{\xi\neq \eta}e_{ij}-e_{ij}\{a_{\xi\eta}e_{\xi\eta}\}_{\xi\neq \eta})e_{ii}.$$
Let $a(ij,kj)\in \mathcal{M}$ be an element such that $$\bigtriangleup(e_{kj})=a(ij,kj)e_{kj}-e_{kj}a(ij,kj) \,\, \text{and}\,\,
\bigtriangleup(e_{ij})=a(ij,kj)e_{ij}-e_{ij}a(ij,kj).$$
Then $$e_{ii}\bigtriangleup(e_{ij})e_{kk}=e_{ii}(a(ij,kj)e_{ij}-e_{ij}a(ij,kj))e_{kk}=$$ $$0-e_{ij}a(ij,kj)e_{kk}=0-e_{ij}a(kj)e_{kk}=0-e_{ij}a_{jk}e_{kk}=$$ $$e_{ii}\{a_{\xi\eta}e_{\xi\eta}\}_{\xi\neq \eta}e_{ij}e_{kk}-e_{ij}\{a_{\xi\eta}e_{\xi\eta}\}_{\xi\neq \eta}e_{kk}=$$ $$e_{ii}(\{a_{\xi\eta}e_{\xi\eta}\}_{\xi\neq \eta}e_{ij}-e_{ij}\{a_{\xi\eta}e_{\xi\eta}\}_{\xi\neq \eta})e_{kk}.$$
Also we have $$e_{jj}\bigtriangleup(e_{ij})e_{kk}=e_{jj}(a(ij,kj)e_{ij}-e_{ij}a(ij,kj))e_{kk}=$$ $$0-0=e_{jj}\{a(ij)\}_{i\neq j}e_{ij}e_{kk}-e_{jj}e_{ij}\{a(ij)\}_{i\neq j}e_{kk}=$$ $$e_{jj}(\{a_{\xi\eta}e_{\xi\eta}\}_{\xi\neq \eta}e_{ij}-e_{ij}\{a_{\xi\eta}e_{\xi\eta}\}_{\xi\neq \eta})e_{kk},$$
$$e_{ii}\bigtriangleup(e_{ij})e_{ii}=e_{ii}(a(ij)e_{ij}-e_{ij}a(ij))e_{ii}=$$ $$0-e_{ij}a(ij)e_{ii}=0-e_{ij}a(ij)e_{ii}=0-e_{ij}a_{ji}e_{ii}=$$ $$e_{ii}\{a_{\xi\eta}e_{\xi\eta}\}_{\xi\neq \eta}e_{ij}e_{ii}-e_{ij}\{a_{\xi\eta}e_{\xi\eta}\}_{\xi\neq \eta}e_{ii}=$$ $$e_{ii}(\{a_{\xi\eta}e_{\xi\eta}\}_{\xi\neq \eta}e_{ij}-e_{ij}\{a_{\xi\eta}e_{\xi\eta}\}_{\xi\neq \eta})e_{ii}.$$
$$e_{jj}\bigtriangleup(e_{ij})e_{jj}=e_{jj}(a(ij)e_{ij}-e_{ij}a(ij))e_{jj}=$$ $$e_{jj}a(ij)e_{ij}-0=e_{jj}a_{ji}e_{ij}-0=$$ $$e_{jj}\{a_{\xi\eta}e_{\xi\eta}\}_{\xi\neq \eta}e_{ij}-e_{jj}e_{ij}\{a_{\xi\eta}e_{\xi\eta}\}_{\xi\neq \eta}e_{jj}=$$ $$e_{jj}(\{a_{\xi\eta}e_{\xi\eta}\}_{\xi\neq \eta}e_{ij}-e_{ij}\{a_{\xi\eta}e_{\xi\eta}\}_{\xi\neq \eta})e_{jj}.$$
Hence the equality (1) holds. $\triangleright$
We take elements of the sets $\{\{e_{i\xi}\}_\xi\}_i$ and $\{\{e_{\xi j}\}_\xi\}_j$ in pairs $(\{e_{\alpha\xi}\}_\xi,\{e_{\xi \beta}\}_\xi)$ such that $\alpha\neq \beta$. Then using the set $\{(\{e_{\alpha\xi}\}_\xi,\{e_{\xi\beta}\}_\xi)\}$ of such pairs we get the set $\{e_{\alpha\beta}\}$.
Let $x=\{e_{\alpha\beta}\}$ be a set $\{v_{ij}e_{ij}\}_{ij}$ such that for all $i$, $j$ if $(\alpha,\beta)\neq (i,j)$ then $v_{ij}=0$ else $v_{ij}=1$. Then $x\in \mathcal{M}$. Let $c\in \mathcal{M}$ be an element such that $$\bigtriangleup(e_{ij})=ce_{ij}-e_{ij}c \,\, \text{and}\,\,
\bigtriangleup(x)=cx-xc,$$ $i\neq j$ and fix the indices $i$, $j$.
Put $c=\{c_{ij}e_{ij}\}\in \mathcal{M}$ and $\bar{a}=\{a_{ij}e_{ij}\}_{i\neq j}\cup \{a_{ii}e_{ii}\}$, where $\{a_{ii}e_{ii}\}=\{c_{ii}e_{ii}\}$.
[**Lemma 3.**]{} [*Let $\xi$, $\eta$ be arbitrary different indices, and let $b\in \mathcal{M}$ be an element such that $$\bigtriangleup(e_{\xi\eta})=be_{\xi\eta}-e_{\xi\eta}b \,\, \text{and}\,\,
\bigtriangleup(x)=bx-xb.$$ Then $c_{\xi\xi}-c_{\eta\eta}=b_{\xi\xi}-b_{\eta\eta}$.*]{}
[*Proof.*]{} We have that there exist $\bar{\alpha}$, $\bar{\beta}$ such that $e_{\xi\bar{\alpha}}$, $e_{\bar{\beta}\eta}\in \{e_{\alpha\beta}\}$ (or $e_{\bar{\alpha}\eta}$, $e_{\xi\bar{\beta}}\in \{e_{\alpha\beta}\}$, or $e_{\bar{\alpha},\bar{\beta}}\in \{e_{\alpha\beta}\}$), and there exists a chain of pairs of indexes $(\hat{\alpha}, \hat{\beta})$ in $\Omega$, where $\Omega=\{(\check{\alpha},\check{\beta}): e_{\check{\alpha},\check{\beta}}\in \{e_{\alpha\beta}\}\}$, connecting pairs $(\xi, \bar{\alpha})$, $(\bar{\beta},\eta)$ i.e., $$(\xi,\bar{\alpha}), (\bar{\alpha}, \xi_1), (\xi_1, \eta_1),\dots ,(\eta_2, \bar{\beta}), (\bar{\beta},\eta).$$ Then $$c_{\xi\xi}-c_{\bar{\alpha}\bar{\alpha}}=b_{\xi\xi}-b_{\bar{\alpha}\bar{\alpha}},
c_{\bar{\alpha}\bar{\alpha}}-c_{\xi_1\xi_1}=b_{\bar{\alpha}\bar{\alpha}}-b_{\xi_1\xi_1},$$ $$c_{\xi_1\xi_1}-c_{\eta_1\eta_1}=b_{\xi_1\xi_1}-b_{\eta_1\eta_1},\dots ,
c_{\eta_2\eta_2}-c_{\bar{\beta}\bar{\beta}}=b_{\eta_2\eta_2}-b_{\bar{\beta}\bar{\beta}},
c_{\bar{\beta}\bar{\beta}}-c_{\eta\eta}=b_{\bar{\beta}\bar{\beta}}-b_{\eta\eta}.$$ Hence $$c_{\xi\xi}-b_{\xi\xi}=c_{\bar{\alpha}\bar{\alpha}}-b_{\bar{\alpha}\bar{\alpha}},
c_{\bar{\alpha}\bar{\alpha}}-b_{\bar{\alpha}\bar{\alpha}}=c_{\xi_1\xi_1}-b_{\xi_1\xi_1},$$ $$c_{\xi_1\xi_1}-b_{\xi_1\xi_1}=c_{\eta_1\eta_1}-b_{\eta_1\eta_1},\dots ,
c_{\eta_2\eta_2}-b_{\eta_2\eta_2}=c_{\bar{\beta}\bar{\beta}}-b_{\bar{\beta}\bar{\beta}},
c_{\bar{\beta}\bar{\beta}}-b_{\bar{\beta}\bar{\beta}}=c_{\eta\eta}-b_{\eta\eta}.$$ and $c_{\xi\xi}-b_{\xi\xi}=c_{\eta\eta}-b_{\eta\eta}$, $c_{\xi\xi}-c_{\eta\eta}=b_{\xi\xi}-b_{\eta\eta}$.
Therefore $c_{\xi\xi}-c_{\eta\eta}=b_{\xi\xi}-b_{\eta\eta}$. $\triangleright$
[**Lemma 4.**]{} [*Let $x$ be an element of the algebra $\mathcal{M}$. Then $\bigtriangleup(x)=\bar{a}x-x\bar{a}$, where $\bar{a}$ is defined as above.*]{}
[*Proof.*]{} Let $d(ij)\in \mathcal{M}$ be an element such that $$\bigtriangleup(e_{ij})=d(ij)e_{ij}-e_{ij}d(ij) \,\, \text{and}\,\,
\bigtriangleup(x)=d(ij)x-xd(ij)$$ and $i\neq j$. Then $$\bigtriangleup(e_{ij})=d(ij)e_{ij}-e_{ij}d(ij)=e_{ii}d(ij)e_{ij}-e_{ij}d(ij)e_{jj}+
(1-e_{ii})d(ij)e_{ij}-e_{ij}d(ij)(1-e_{jj})=$$ $$a(ij)_{ii}e_{ij}-e_{ij}a(ij)_{jj}+
\{a_{\xi\eta}e_{\xi\eta}\}_{\xi\neq \eta}e_{ij}-e_{ij}\{a_{\xi\eta}e_{\xi\eta}\}_{\xi\neq \eta}$$ for all $i$, $j$ by lemma 2.
Since $e_{ii}d(ij)e_{ij}-e_{ij}d(ij)e_{jj}=a(ij)_{ii}e_{ij}-e_{ij}a(ij)_{jj}$ we have $$(1-e_{ii})d(ij)e_{ii}=\{a_{\xi\eta}e_{\xi\eta}\}_{\xi\neq \eta}e_{ii},
e_{jj}d(ij)(1-e_{jj})=e_{jj}\{a_{\xi\eta}e_{\xi\eta}\}_{\xi\neq \eta}$$ for all different $i$ and $j$.
Hence by lemma 3 we have $$e_{jj}\bigtriangleup(x)e_{ii}=e_{jj}(d(ij)x-xd(ij))e_{ii}=$$ $$e_{jj}d(ij)(1-e_{jj})xe_{ii}+
e_{jj}d(ij)e_{jj}xe_{ii}-e_{jj}x(1-e_{ii})d(ij)e_{ii}-e_{jj}xe_{ii}d(ij)e_{ii}=$$ $$e_{jj}\{a_{\xi\eta}e_{\xi\eta}\}_{\xi\neq \eta}xe_{ii}-e_{jj}x\{a_{\xi\eta}e_{\xi\eta}\}_{\xi\neq \eta}e_{ii}+
e_{jj}d(ij)e_{jj}xe_{ii}-e_{jj}xe_{ii}d(ij)e_{ii}=$$ $$e_{jj}\{a_{\xi\eta}e_{\xi\eta}\}_{\xi\neq \eta}xe_{ii}-e_{jj}x\{a_{\xi\eta}e_{\xi\eta}\}_{\xi\neq \eta}e_{ii}+
c_{jj}e_{jj}xe_{ii}-e_{jj}xe_{ii}c_{ii}e_{ii}$$ since $d(ij)_{jj}-d(ij)_{ii}=
b_{jj}-b_{ii}$.
Hence $$e_{ii}\bigtriangleup(x)e_{ii}=e_{ii}(d(ij)x-xd(ij))e_{ii}=$$ $$e_{ii}d(ij)(1-e_{ii})xe_{ii}+
e_{ii}d(ij)e_{ii}xe_{ii}-e_{ii}x(1-e_{ii})d(ij)e_{ii}-e_{ii}xe_{ii}d(ij)e_{ii}=$$ $$e_{ii}\{a_{\xi\eta}e_{\xi\eta}\}_{\xi\neq \eta}xe_{ii}-e_{ii}x\{a_{\xi\eta}e_{\xi\eta}\}_{\xi\neq \eta}e_{ii}+
e_{ii}d(ij)e_{ii}xe_{ii}-e_{ii}xe_{ii}d(ij)e_{ii}=$$ $$e_{ii}\{a_{\xi\eta}e_{\xi\eta}\}_{\xi\neq \eta}xe_{ii}-e_{ii}x\{a_{\xi\eta}e_{\xi\eta}\}_{\xi\neq \eta}e_{ii}+0=
c_{ii}e_{ii}xe_{ii}-e_{ii}xc_{ii}e_{ii}.$$
Hence $$\bigtriangleup(x)=(\sum_i c_{ii}e_{ii})x-x(\sum_i c_{ii}e_{ii})+
\{a_{\xi\eta}e_{\xi\eta}\}_{\xi\neq \eta}x-x\{a_{\xi\eta}e_{\xi\eta}\}_{\xi\neq \eta}=$$ $$\bar{a}x-x\bar{a}$$ for all $x\in \mathcal{M}$. $\triangleright$
[*Proof of theorem 1.*]{} Let $V=\{\{\lambda_{ij}e_{ij}\}_{ij}: \{\lambda_{ij}\}\subset C(X)\}$ (the set of all infinite $n\times n$-dimensional function-valued matrices). Then $V$ is a vector space with componentwise algebraic operations and $\mathcal{M}$ is a vector subspace of $V$.
By lemma 4 $\bigtriangleup(e_{ii})=\bar{a}e_{ii}-e_{ii}\bar{a}\in \mathcal{M}$. Hence $$\sum_\xi a_{\xi i}e_{\xi i}-\sum_\xi a_{i\xi}e_{i\xi}\in \mathcal{M}.$$ Then $$e_{ii}(\sum_\xi a_{\xi i}e_{\xi i}-\sum_\xi a_{i\xi}e_{i\xi})=
a_{ii}e_{ii}-\sum_\xi a_{i\xi}e_{i\xi}\in \mathcal{M}$$ and $$(\sum_\xi a_{\xi i}e_{\xi i}-\sum_\xi a_{i\xi}e_{i\xi})e_{ii}=
\sum_\xi a_{\xi i}e_{\xi i}-a_{ii}e_{ii}\in \mathcal{M}.$$ Therefore $\sum_\xi a_{\xi i}e_{\xi i}$, $\sum_\xi a_{i\xi}e_{i\xi}\in \mathcal{M}$ i.e., $\bar{a}e_{ii}, e_{ii}\bar{a}\in \mathcal{M}$. Hence $e_{ii}\bar{a}x, x\bar{a}e_{ii}\in \mathcal{M}$ for any $i$ and $$\bar{a}x, x\bar{a}\in V$$ for any element $x=\{x_{ij}e_{ij}\}\in \mathcal{M}$, i.e., $$\sum_\xi a_{i\xi}x_{\xi j}e_{ij}, \sum_\xi x_{i\xi}a_{\xi j}e_{ij}\in {\mathbb C}e_{ij}$$ for all $i$, $j$. Therefore for all $x$, $y\in \mathcal{M}$ we have that the elements $\bar{a}x$, $x\bar{a}$, $\bar{a}y$, $y\bar{a}$, $\bar{a}(x+y)$, $(x+y)\bar{a}$ belong to $V$. Hence $$\bigtriangleup(x+y)=\bigtriangleup(x)+\bigtriangleup(y)$$ by lemma 4.
Similarly for all $x$, $y\in \mathcal{M}$ we have $$(\bar{a}x+x\bar{a})y=\bar{a}xy-x\bar{a}y\in \mathcal{M}, \bar{a}xy=\bar{a}(xy)\in V.$$ Then $x\bar{a}y=\bar{a}xy-(\bar{a}x-x\bar{a})y$ and $x\bar{a}y\in V$. Therefore $$\bar{a}(xy)-(xy)\bar{a}=\bar{a}xy-x\bar{a}y+x\bar{a}y-xy\bar{a}=(\bar{a}x-x\bar{a})y+x(\bar{a}y-y\bar{a}).$$ Hence $$\bigtriangleup(xy)=\bigtriangleup(x)y+x\bigtriangleup(y)$$ by lemma 4. Now we show that $\bigtriangleup$ is homogeneous. Indeed, for each $x\in \mathcal{M}$, and for $\lambda \in {\mathbb C}$ there exists a derivation $D_{x,\lambda x}$ such that $\bigtriangleup(x)=D_{x,\lambda x}(x)$ and $\bigtriangleup(\lambda x)=D_{x,\lambda x}(\lambda x)$. Then $$\bigtriangleup(\lambda x)=D_{x,\lambda x}(\lambda x)=\lambda D_{x,\lambda x}(x) =\lambda \bigtriangleup(x).$$ Hence, $\bigtriangleup$ is homogenous and therefore it is a linear operator and a derivation. The proof is complete.
$\triangleright$
The main theorem
================
[**Theorem 5.**]{} [*Let $M$ be a von Neumann algebra of type $I$ and let $\bigtriangleup :M\to M$ be a 2-local derivation. Then $\bigtriangleup$ is a derivation.*]{}
[*Proof.*]{} We have that $$M=\sum_j^\oplus M_{I_{n_j}},$$ where $M_{I_{n_j}}$ is a von Neumann algebra of type $I_{n_j}$, $n_j$ is a cardinal number for any $j$. Let $x_j\in M_{I_{n_j}}$ for any $j$ and $x=\sum_j x_j$. Note that $\bigtriangleup(x_j)\in M_{I_{n_j}}$ for all $x_j\in M_{I_{n_j}}$. Hence $$\bigtriangleup\vert_{M_{I_{n_j}}}: M_{I_{n_j}}\to M_{I_{n_j}}$$ and $\bigtriangleup$ is a 2-local derivation on $M_{I_{n_j}}$. There exists a hyperstonean compact $X$ such that $M_{I_{n_j}}\cong C(X)\otimes M_{n_j}({\bf C})$. Hence by theorem 1 $\bigtriangleup$ is a derivation on $M_{I_{n_j}}$.
Let $x$ be an arbitrary element of $M$. Then there exists $d(j)\in M$ such that $\bigtriangleup(x)=d(j)x-xd(j)$, $\bigtriangleup(x_j)=d(j)x_j-x_jd(j)$ and $$z_j\bigtriangleup(x)=z_j(d(j)x-xd(j))=z_j\sum_i (d(j)x_i-x_id(j))=$$ $$d(j)x_j-x_jd(j)=\bigtriangleup(x_j),$$ for all $j$, where $z_j$ is unit of $M_{I_{n_j}}$. Hence $$\bigtriangleup(x)=\sum_j z_j\bigtriangleup(x)=\sum_j \bigtriangleup(x_j).$$ Since $x$ was chosen arbitrarily $\bigtriangleup$ is a derivation on $M$ by the last equality.
Indeed, let $x,y\in M$. Then $$\bigtriangleup(x)+\bigtriangleup(y)=\sum_j \bigtriangleup(x_j)+\sum_j \bigtriangleup(y_j)=
\sum_j [\bigtriangleup(x_j)+\bigtriangleup(y_j)]=$$ $$\sum_j \bigtriangleup(x_j+y_j)=\sum_j z_j\bigtriangleup(x+y)=
\bigtriangleup(x+y).$$
Similarly, $$\bigtriangleup(xy)=\sum_j \bigtriangleup(x_jy_j)=\sum_j [\bigtriangleup(x_j)y_j+x_j\bigtriangleup(y_j)]=$$ $$\sum_j \bigtriangleup(x_j)y_j+\sum_j x_j\bigtriangleup(y_j)=
\sum_j \bigtriangleup(x_j) \sum_j y_j+\sum_j x_j \sum_j \bigtriangleup(y_j)=$$ $$\bigtriangleup(x)y+x\bigtriangleup(y).$$ By the proof of the previous theorem $\bigtriangleup$ is homogenous. Hence $\bigtriangleup$ is a linear operator and a derivation. The proof is complete. $\triangleright$
[CS79]{}
P. Šemrl, Local automorphisms and derivations on $B(H)$, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 125 (1997), 2677–2680.
S. O. Kim, J. S. Kim, Local automorphisms and derivations on $M_n$, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 132 (2004), 1389–1392.
Y. Lin, T. Wong, A note on 2-local maps, Proc. Edinb. Math. Soc. 49 (2006), 701–708.
Sh. A. Ayupov, K. K. Kudaybergenov, 2-local derivations and automorphisms on $B(H)$, arxiv 1111.2928v1 \[math.OA\] 12 nov 2011.
F. N. Arzikulov, Infinite order and norm decompositions of C\*-algebras, Int. Journal of Math. Analysis, Vol. 2, no. 5-8, pp. 255-262.(2008) (www.m-hikari.com)
F. N. Arzikulov, Infinite order decompositions of C$^*$-algebras, arXiv:1008.0243v1 \[math.OA\], 2 Aug 2010.
M.Bresar, Jordan derivations on semiprime rings, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 104 (1988), 1003-1006.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The path integral for classical statistical dynamics is used to determine the properties of one-dimensional Darcy flow through a porous medium with a correlated stochastic permeability for several spatial correlation lengths. Pressure statistics are obtained from the numerical evaluation of the path integral by using the Markov chain Monte Carlo method. Comparisons between these pressure distributions and those calculated from the classic finite-volume method for the corresponding stochastic differential equation show excellent agreement for Dirichlet and Neumann boundary conditions. The evaluation of the variance of the pressure based on a continuum description of the medium provides an estimate of the effects of discretization. Log-normal and Gaussian fits to the pressure distributions as a function of position within the porous medium are discussed in relation to the spatial extent of the correlations of the permeability fluctuations.'
address:
- '$^1$ Department of Earth Science and Engineering, Imperial College London, London SW7 2BP, United Kingdom'
- '$^2$ The Blackett Laboratory, Imperial College London, London SW7 2AZ, United Kingdom'
- '$^3$ Accuracy, 41 Rue de Villiers, 92200 Neuilly-sur-Seine, France'
author:
- 'Marise J E Westbroek$^{1,2}$, Gil-Arnaud Coche$^3$, Peter R King$^1$, and Dimitri D Vvedensky$^2$'
title: Pressure statistics from the path integral for Darcy flow through random porous media
---
[*Keywords*]{}: path integral, porous media, Darcy equation, random permeability, pressure, Markov chain Monte Carlo method
Introduction
============
Flow in porous media arises in many branches of science, engineering, and industry, including geologic CO$_2$ sequestration [@juanes12], enhanced oil recovery [@orr84], and water infiltration into soil [@juanes08]. Examples involving porous biological tissue [@khaled03] include the flow of oxygen through lungs [@miguel12], the transport of cerebrospinal fluid through the brain [@penn07] and hemodynamics through blood vessels [@zunino10]. Artificial porous media in widespread industrial use include building materials [@hu13] and catalysts [@perego13]. The main computational concern in many applications is based around how the pore structure affects the flow characteristics through the medium. The path integral methodology we describe here is appropriate for slow, single-phase flow, in a porous material with a correlated random permeability. In particular, we consider data that are typical for flow in hydrocarbon reservoirs and groundwater aquifers.
The permeability of a reservoir rock, which describes its resistance to fluid flow, relates the local flow rate to the local pressure gradient. Permeability data are available at only a limited number of points in the rock. For hydrocarbon and groundwater flow applications, the presumed properties of the rock away from those locations can sometimes be inferred from analogue outcrops. The most common way of obtaining a quantitative description of the permeability, however, is through the calibration of a model to observed data. The aim of any reservoir engineering model is to generate simulations of the pressure, flow rates and fluid saturations in terms of probability distributions in a random porous medium.
In this paper, we focus on the simplest case of single-phase, steady-state incompressible flow. There are two basic methods to simulate such flow through a porous medium [@renard]. One is to solve the Navier-Stokes equations at the pore level [@aramideh18]. This method is computationally too intensive for our purposes, because our goal is to simulate the flow in a macroscopic volume that spans many pores. The alternative is to invoke Darcy’s law [@darcy56; @whitaker86], an empirical linear relation between the average velocity of the fluid $\bi{q}$, the pressure gradient $\bi{\nabla} p$, and the effective permeability $K$ of the flow through a porous medium: $$\label{Darcy}
\bi{q}=-K \nabla p\, .$$ Here, $K(\bi{x})=k(\bi{x})/\mu$, where $k(\bi{x})$ is the effective permeability of the medium and $\mu$ is the viscosity of the fluid. Darcy’s law is valid on a “mesoscopic” scale, large compared to the pore scale, but small on the scale of the macroscopic system. To solve Darcy’s law, we must have a realistic representation of $K(\bi{x})$. We use a log-normal model for the permeability [@law; @freeze]. For an incompressible fluid, $\bi{\nabla}\cdot \bi{q}=0$, which, together with Darcy’s law (\[Darcy\]), yields: $$\label{gradzero}
\bi{\nabla}\cdot(K(\bi{x})\bi{\nabla} p(\bi{x}))=0.$$
The established way of calculating pressure statistics is by generating discrete realizations of the porous medium and solving for the pressure field using (\[gradzero\]). This way of discretizing and evaluating a differential equation is known as the finite-volume method (FVM) [@schafer]. Here, we propose an alternative approach, based on the path integral formalism, which does not rely on explicit permeability realizations. Instead, we work directly with the probability distribution of the log-permeability field. Subject to Darcy’s law, we generate pressure realizations. Both methods require a large number of independent realizations for a reliable error estimate. Casting the problem in path integral form has the advantage of access to existing analytic techniques, notably the renormalization group and applications of perturbation theory [@amit84; @zinn-justin06], both of which have been applied to Darcy flow [@tanksley94; @hanasoge17], as well as an abundance of numerical methods for the evaluation of path integrals [@morningstar; @westbroek18a], which is an altogether new approach to this problem [@westbroek18b].
The organization of our paper is as follows. Section \[sec2\] explains how a random permeability is described within Darcy’s law for a one-dimensional system, including the generation of correlated log-normal statistics for the permeability. There are two ways of solving Darcy’s law for a one-dimensional system: the direct solution of Darcy’s law (\[gradzero\]) with a random permeability, and the evaluation of the path integral, which is the approach taken here. The direct solution of Darcy’s law by the finite-volume method is described in Sec. \[sec3\], and the formulation and numerical solution of the path integral for Darcy’s equation with the Markov chain Monte Carlo method are developed in Secs. \[sec4\] and \[sec5\]. The pressure statistics obtained with the two methods are compared for Neumann and Dirichlet boundary conditions in Secs. \[sec6\] and \[sec7\], with an emphasis on the role of the correlation length in determining the pressure distributions. Section \[sec8\] summarizes our results and provides a brief description of future work. The appendices contain derivations for our statistical analysis.
Darcy’s Law with Stochastic Permeability {#sec2}
========================================
Solutions with Dirichlet and Neumann Boundary Conditions {#sec2.1}
--------------------------------------------------------
![Schematic depiction of one-dimensional flow through a permeable medium of length $X$. The term “one-dimensional” refers to the number of spatial coordinates $x$ required to describe the flow. That is, flow is along the $x$-direction, with no flow in the lateral directions. For Dirichlet boundary conditions, the initial and final pressures $P_i$ and $P_f$ are specified at the entry and exit points of the medium, respectively, while for Neumann boundary conditions, $P_i$ and the flow $q_0$ are specified at the entry to the medium, leaving the final pressure determined by the realization of the permeability fluctuations.[]{data-label="fig1"}](fig1.pdf){width="45.00000%"}
We consider viscous flow along the $x$-direction through a one-dimensional permeable “rock” of length $X$. The one-dimensional form of Darcy’s law (\[Darcy\]) reads: $$\label{darcy}
q(x)=-K(x)\frac{d p(x)}{dx}\, .$$ In one dimension, incompressible flow reduces to constant flow, $q(x)=q_0$, so integrating (\[darcy\]) subject to the initial condition $p(0)=P_i$, yields$$\label{DarcyNBC}
p(x)=P_i-q_0 R(x),$$ where $$\label{eq:R}
R(x)=\int_0^x\frac{dx^\prime}{K(x^\prime)}$$ is a resistance to flow. By setting $x=X$ in (\[DarcyNBC\]), we obtain a relation between the initial flow $q_0$ and the final pressure $p(X)=P_f$: $$\label{pa}
q_0=-\frac{P_f-P_i}{R(X)}\, .$$ To solve for $p(x)$, one additional variable must be specified. Imposing $q_0$, the derivative of $p(x)$ at the boundary, defines a Neumann boundary condition (NBC). In oil-field terms, fixed $q_0$ corresponds to a constant injection rate. The specification of $P_f$, the pressure at the exit of the well (Fig. \[fig1\]), is the condition of constant production, and yields a Dirichlet boundary condition (DBC).
Correlated Permeability Fluctuations {#sec2.2}
------------------------------------
![Realizations of the effective permeability $K(x)$ for the indicated correlation lengths obtained from a stationary Ornstein–Uhlenbeck process with the correlation function (\[eq:covL\]). For $\xi=0.02X$ (a), permeability correlations are barely visible. For $\xi=X$ (d), such correlations are apparent in the small site-to-site variations. In (b), (c), and (d), the profile in (a) shown in gray to emphasize the contrasting scale and magnitude of permeability fluctuations as a function of the correlation length. Simulations were carried out on systems of $N_x=240$ sites with $\Delta x=0.5$ m.[]{data-label="fig2"}](fig2.pdf){width="80.00000%"}
With the log permeability of the rock denoted by $L(x)\equiv\log K(x)$, the Gaussian random variable $L(x)$ is modelled as a stationary Ornstein–Uhlenbeck process [@sahimi93]. Such a process is fully characterized by its mean (which we set to zero) and covariance function $$\label{eq:covL}
\mathrm{Cov}(L(x),L(y))=\sigma^2 e^{-|x-y|/\xi}.$$ The choice to set the mean of the log-permeability to zero implies that the permeability has geometric mean one. The correlation length $\xi$ describes the typical length scale over which the permeabilities take comparable values; we have set $\sigma=0.5$ for all simulations presented here. More information about the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process, including a derivation of (\[eq:covL\]) may be found in \[secA1\].
The effect of the correlation length is illustrated in Fig. \[fig2\]. For a correlation length of a few lattice spacings (Fig. \[fig2\](a)), the permeability is effectively random on neighboring sites, and so shows substantial fluctuations over small distances. As the correlation length increases to the system size (Fig. \[fig2\](b,c,d)), the site-to-site variations of the permeability are significantly diminished, as is the magnitude of the fluctuations through the system, though appreciable variations can still occur over larger distances.
Pressure Profiles {#sec2.3}
-----------------
Examples of pressure profiles in systems with Neumann and Dirichlet boundary conditions are shown in Fig. \[fig3\]. In both cases the pressure decreases monotonically due to the resistance of the permeable medium. The difference is that, for DBC, the pressure is fixed at both ends of the system while, for NBC, the pressure is fixed only at entry (along with the injection rate), so the exit pressure is a free variable. In particular, the distribution of pressures broadens along the system for NBC, but, for DBC, broadens initially, then narrows as the effect of the exit boundary takes hold. Pressure distributions will be analyzed in Secs. \[sec6\] and \[sec7\].
Finite-Volume Method {#sec3}
====================
![Pressure profiles with (a) Neumann and (b) Dirichlet boundary conditions for $\xi=0.1 X$. Simulations were carried out on systems of $N_x=120$ sites with $\Delta x=1$. The pressure gauge invariance of Darcy’s equation means that only pressure differences are meaningful; negative pressures result from a particular choice of a zero of pressure.[]{data-label="fig3"}](fig3.pdf){width="80.00000%"}
The statistics of pressure distributions in a one-dimensional permeable medium are given in terms of the permeability distribution by the solution (\[DarcyNBC\]) and (\[eq:R\]) to Darcy’s equation (\[darcy\]). In two and three dimensions, the corresponding solutions of (\[gradzero\]) are divergence-free vector fields expressed as $K(\bi{x})\bi{\nabla}p(\bi{x})=\bi{\nabla}\times\bi{A}$, where $\bi{A}$ is a vector potential. These do not yield the simple analytic forms of (\[DarcyNBC\]) and (\[eq:R\]), so we must look to numerical solutions of (\[gradzero\]) for each realization of the permeability, then average the results. In this section, we describe the numerical method for accomplishing this, which we will then apply to the one-dimensional Darcy equation (\[darcy\]).
The finite volume method (FVM) is a discretization technique for partial differential equations, especially those associated with conservation laws, such as (\[gradzero\]). The FVM uses a volume integral formulation based on a partition of the system into volumes to discretize the equations by representing their solution as a set of algebraic equations for quantities defined within each volume. Finite volume methods are based on applying conservation principles over each of the small volumes in the partition, so global conservation is ensured. The FVM is an established technique, especially for computational fluid dynamics, but we provide a brief description here for completeness.
Simulations for the FVM and the path integral are carried out on a lattice with $N_x+2$ sites (Fig. \[fig4\](a)). Solving (\[gradzero\]) requires a permeability field $K(x)$. The log-permeability $L(x)$ is generated first, after which the relation $K(x)=e^{L(x)}$ is used to obtain the permeabilities. There are various ways of generating $L(x)$. A simple, but slow, method is the Cholesky decomposition of the covariance matrix for $L$ [@NR], which takes $O(N_x^3)$ floating-point operations (flops) [@NR]. Another method, which is faster, but more involved, employs a fast Fourier transform (FFT) [@dietrich93; @dietrich97]. The computational cost of the FFT method is $O(N_x \log N_x)$ flops.
Once the permeability field has been determined, we can derive an equation for the pressure by integrating (\[gradzero\]) over a small region near the boundary between the $i$th and $(i+1)$st cells (Fig. \[fig4\](b)): $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{x_-}^{x_+}{d\over dx}\biggl(K{dp\over dx}\biggr)\,dx&=\biggl(K{dp\over dx}\biggr)\bigg|_{x_-}-\biggl(K{dp\over dx}\biggr)\bigg|_{x_+}\nonumber\\
&=K_i(p-p_i)-K_{i+1}(p_{i+1}-p)\, ,
\label{eq8}\end{aligned}$$ where $p$ is the pressure at the boundary between the two cells. As there are no sources, the upper (resp. lower) limit of integration can be extended to the right (resp. left) edge of the system without affecting the value of the integral. Hence, the two terms on the right-hand side must each be equal to the same constant: $$q_0=K_i(p-p_i)=K_{i+1}(p_{i+1}-p)\, .$$ Elimination of the boundary pressure $p$ yields: $$\label{harmonicmean}
q_0=\frac{K_i K_{i+1}}{K_i+K_{i+1}}(p_{i+1}-p_i)\equiv t_{i,i+1}(p_{i+1}-p_i)\, ,$$ where we have defined the transmissibility $t_{i,i+1}$ as the harmonic mean of $K_i$ and $K_{i+1}$. For DBC, we set $p_0=P_i$ and $p_{N_x+1}=P_f$ while, for NBC, where $q_0$ is fixed, we only set $p_0=P_i$. In each case, the solution of (\[gradzero\]) is replaced by the solution of a set of linear equations of the form ${\sf T}_{D/N}\bi{P}=\bi{B}_{D/N}$, where the subscript indicates Dirichlet ($D$) or Neumann ($N$) boundary conditions. The transmissibility matrices ${\sf T}_{D/N}$ are $$\fl
{\sf T}_D=\left(
\begin{array}{ccccc}
t_{0,1}+t_{1,2}& -t_{1,2}&\cdots & 0 & 0\\
\noalign{\vskip6pt}
-t_{1,2}& t_{1,2}+t_{2,3}&\cdots & 0 & 0\\
\vdots&\vdots&\ddots&\vdots&\vdots\\
0& 0 &\cdots & t_{N_x-2,N_x-1}+t_{N_x-1,N_x} & -t_{N_X-1,N_x}\\
\noalign{\vskip6pt}
0 & 0 &\cdots & -t_{N_x-1,N_x} & t_{N_x-1,N_x}+t_{N_x,N_x+1}
\end{array}\right)\, ,$$ for Dirichlet boundary conditions, $${\sf T}_N=\left(
\begin{array}{cccccc}
\hskip3ptt_{0,1} & 0 & \cdots & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
\noalign{\vskip6pt}
\hskip-6pt -t_{1,2} & t_{1,2} & \cdots & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
\vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots \\
0 & 0 & \cdots & -t_{N_x-1,N_x} & t_{N_x-1,N_x} & 0 \\
\noalign{\vskip6pt}
0 & 0 & \cdots & 0 & -t_{N_x,N_x+1} & t_{N_x,N_x+1}
\end{array}\right)\, ,$$ for Neumann boundary conditions, and $$\fl
\bi{P}=\left(
\begin{array}{c}
p_1\\
\noalign{\vskip6pt}
p_2\\
\vdots\\
p_{N_x-1}\\
\noalign{\vskip6pt}
p_{N_x}
\end{array}\right)\, ,\qquad
\bi{B}_D=\left(
\begin{array}{c}
t_{0,1}P_i\\
\noalign{\vskip6pt}
0\\
\vdots\\
0\\
\noalign{\vskip6pt}
t_{N_x,N_x+1}P_f
\end{array}\right)\, ,\qquad
\bi{B}_N=\left(
\begin{array}{c}
t_{0,1}P_i+q_0\\
\noalign{\vskip6pt}
q_0\\
\vdots\\
q_0\\
\noalign{\vskip6pt}
q_0
\end{array}\right)\, ,$$ in which $\bi{B}_D$ and $\bi{B}_N$ are the inhomogeneous terms for Dirichlet and Neumann boundary conditions, respectively. The calculations were carried out with the sparse matrix solver UMFPACK [@UMFPACK], which can solve a sparse matrix equation in $O(N_x\log N_x)$ flops.
![(a) Schematic depiction of a one-dimensional lattice partitioned into 5 cells with $N_x+2=7$ sites according to the finite-volume method. The permeabilities $K_i$, for $i=1,2,3,4,5$, are considered constant within each cell, and the pressures at the cell boundaries are determined from (\[eq8\]). (b) Section of the one-dimensional lattice with the integration region (shown shaded) used to derive the equation for the pressure.[]{data-label="fig4"}](fig4.pdf){width="0.6\columnwidth"}
Path Integral Formulation of Solutions to Darcy’s Law {#sec4}
=====================================================
The path integral provides an alternative approach to obtaining pressure statistics for flow in a random permeable medium. Introduced as an alternative formulation of quantum mechanics by Feynman in a seminal paper [@feynman], the path integral is a weighted integral over all possible “paths” (in our case, pressure trajectories) for a noisy system (in our case, random permeabilities). The path integral can be formulated for a broad range of physical problems that have a source of uncertainty or in noisy environments, most notably for quantum field theory [@huang], statistical mechanics [@brush] and stochastic dynamics [@wio] and, as first pointed out by Wiener [@wiener], to stochastic differential equations. Here, we derive the path integral for Darcy’s law by using using methods of classical statistical dynamics [@dedom; @jouvet]. The methods described in Sec. \[sec5\] enable us to numerically evaluate the path integral to obtain pressure statistics and correlations once the statistics of the permeability have been specified.
Our initial aim is to calculate the probability associated with some pressure path. Suppose we take a large number $N_x$ of pressure measurements $p(x_1),\ldots,p({N_x})$ at points separated by a small spatial interval $\delta x$ and subject to the boundary conditions $p(0)=P_i;~p({N_{x+1}})=P_f$, as illustrated in Fig. \[fig4\](a). We have chosen to use DBC for this example because they are easy to visualize. We denote the value that results from a pressure measurement at position $x_j$ by $p_j$. A “pressure path” $\{p_j\}$ is defined by the values of the pressure across the system: $$\{p_j\}=\{P_i,p_1,p_2,\ldots,P_f\}\, .
\label{eq14}$$ The generating functional for expectations and correlation functions of the pressure that are determined by Darcy’s law is, for a fixed log-permeability, expressed as an integral over pressure paths: $$Z_{L}(\{u_i\})=\int\prod_i dp_i \exp\biggl(\sum_iu_ip_i\biggr)\delta\biggl({p_i-p_{i-1}\over\delta x}+q_0 e^{-L_i}\biggr)\, .
\label{eq5}$$ We have omitted the Jacobian $J=(\delta x)^{-N}$ from the argument of the $\delta$-function. A detailed calculation can be found in the article by Jouvet and Phythian [@jouvet]. Although $J$ becomes infinite as $\delta x\to0$, this quantity is cancelled by the same divergence in the denominator in expressions for averages. Taking the average of $Z_L$ over the probability density of the log-permeability, we obtain the generating function for pressure correlations: $$Z(\{u_i\})=\int \prod_i dL_i P(\{L_i\})Z_{L}(\{u_i\}) e^{-\sum_i L_i }\, .
\label{eq6}$$ The factor $q_0$ in the Jacobian $q_0 \exp(-\sum_i L_i)$ has been omitted. The log-permeabilities are taken to follow a multivariate Gaussian distribution: $$P(\{L_i\})={1\over (2\pi)^{N/2}|{\sf C}_L|^{1/2}}\exp\biggl[-\sum_{ij}L_i({\sf C}_L^{-1})_{ij}L_j\biggr]\, ,
\label{eq7}$$ where ${\sf C}_L$ is the correlation matrix and $|{\sf C}_L|$ its determinant. By substituting (\[eq5\]) and (\[eq7\]) into (\[eq6\]) and again omitting constant prefactors, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
Z(\{u_i\})&=\int\prod_i dp_i\int\prod_i d{L_i}\exp\biggl(\sum_iu_ip_i\biggr)\exp\biggl[-\sum_{ij}L_i({\sf C}_L^{-1})_{ij}L_j \biggr]\nonumber\\
&\qquad\times\exp\biggl(-\sum_i L_i\biggr)\delta\biggl({p_i-p_{i-1}\over\delta x}+q_0 e^{-L_i}\biggr)\, .\end{aligned}$$ By integrating over the $L_i$, we are left with a path integral for the probability density $Q$ of the pressures: $$Q(\{p_i\},\{u_i\})={e^{-S(\{p_i\},\{u_i\})}\over Z}\, ,
\label{eq9}$$ where $$Z(\{u_i\})=\int\prod_i dp_i e^{-S(\{p_i\},\{u_i\})}\, ,$$ with the discrete “action” $$\begin{aligned}
S(\{p_i\})&=\sum_{ij}\log\biggl({p_{i-1}-p_i\over q_0\delta x}\biggr)({\sf C}_L^{-1})_{ij}\log\biggl({p_{j-1}-p_j\over q_0\delta x}\biggr)\nonumber\\
&\quad+\sum_i\log\biggl({p_{i-1}-p_i\over q_0\delta x}\biggr)+\sum_i u_ip_i\, .
\label{eq10}\end{aligned}$$ Averages over pressure are determined by logarithmic derivatives of $Z(\{u_i\})$: $$\langle p_{k_1},p_{k_2},\ldots,p_{k_n}\rangle={\partial^n\log\bigl[Z(\{u_i\})\bigr]\over\partial u_{k_1}\partial u_{k_2}\cdots u_{k_n}}\bigg|_{\{u_i=0\}}\, .$$ For example, the average $\langle p_k\rangle$ of the pressure $p_k$ at the $k$th lattice point is $$\langle p_k\rangle={1\over Z}\int\prod_i dp_i\, p_k\, e^{-S(\{p_i\})}\, ,
\label{eq11}$$ which confirms the cancellation of the omitted factors. Higher-order correlation functions and cumulants are calculated analogously.
Computational Methods for Evaluating Path Integrals {#sec5}
===================================================
The calculations are carried out on a spatial lattice with $N_x\gg 1$ elements (Fig. \[fig4\]). The computational task is to generate $N\gg 1$ pressure trajectories from the probability $e^{-S(\{p_i\})}$. Once these trajectories are available, the calculation of the pressure statistics and correlations is straightforward. We use a Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) method, so called because the “paths” (\[eq14\]) are updated to form a chain, within which each profile $\{p_j\}^{(\nu)}$ depends only on its predecessor $\{p_j\}^{(\nu-1)}$. The discrete “action” is given in (\[eq10\]). Starting from an initial configuration $\{p_j\}^{(0)}$, typically an array of random numbers that respects the boundary conditions, we use the Metropolis-Hastings [@metropolis; @hastings] (MH) algorithm to update the elements of this array. The $N_x$ elements are normally updated in random order. An element may be updated more than once, but will on average be visited once per “sweep” (series of $N_x$ updates). The MH algorithm is designed to generate paths from any probability distribution, using a symmetric proposal update. As applied to a specific lattice element $p_k$, the basic MH algorithm consists of four steps:
1. Generate a random number $u$ from a uniform probability distribution in the interval $[-h,h]$. The parameter $h$, known as the “hit size”.
2. Propose a new value: $p_k^\prime=p_k+u$. If $h$ is too large, few changes will be accepted; too small and the exploration of the phase space will be slow. An optimal acceptance rate (a conventional choice is 0.5) is obtained by adjusting $h$ after $N_x$ Metropolis updates according to the current acceptance rate. If the current acceptance rate is less than optimal, the hit size is decreased by one percent. If the current acceptance rate is greater than optimal, the hit size is increased by one percent.
3. Calculate the change $\Delta S$ in the action as a result of the proposed change.
4. Accept the change with probability $\mathrm{Min}(1, e^{-\Delta S})$: changes that lower the action are always accepted. A value of $p_k^\prime$ that would increase the action is accepted with probability $e^{-\Delta S}$.
After one sweep the pressure profile is said to have been updated once. The MH algorithm satisfies the detailed-balance condition, which ensures reversibility of the chain in equilibrium [@morningstar].
Two further remarks are in order here. First, some initial number of measurements $N_{\mathrm{therm}}\gg 1$ must be discarded because $N_{\mathrm{therm}}$ sweeps are required to generate a path that is representative of the desired probability distribution. Such a path is said to be “thermalized”. Second, between every two paths used for measurements, some $N_{\mathrm{sep}}\gg 1$ must be abandoned because each path is created from a previous path, there is strong autocorrelation within the Markov chain. Any set of paths is, therefore, representative of the probability law $e^{-(S\{p_i\})}$ only if a sufficient number of intermediate paths is discarded.
With regard to the boundary conditions, $p_0=P_i$ and $q_0$ are fixed under NBC. The index 0 cannot chosen as part of the sweep. Under DBC, $p_0=P_i$ and $p_{N_x+1}=P_f$ are fixed. The pressure is initially updated with only $p_0$ fixed; after $N_{\mathrm{sep}}$ updates $q_0$ is calculated and the pressure is rescaled accordingly. Details of the MH algorithm and the calculation of path integrals on a lattice can be found in Ref. [@westbroek18a].
In contrast to the finite-volume method, the path integral requires $O(N_x^2)$ flops to calculate a pressure realization. One factor $N_x$ arises from the number of lattice sites. The number of required intermediate updates $N_{\mathrm{sep}}$ introduces a further factor $N_x$. However, the implementation of techniques such as overrelaxation [@creutz2; @brown] and the multigrid method [@goodman] will likely decrease the run time considerably. In addition, the performance of the Metropolis-Hastings algorithm can often be improved through directed sampling [@dir1; @dir2; @dir3].
Pressure Statistics for Neumann Boundary Conditions {#sec6}
===================================================
Pressure statistics for Darcy flow obtained from the stochastic differential equation and the path integral are shown in Fig. \[fig5\]. We have used a system size of $X=240$ m with $P_i/X=10^4~\mathrm{Pa/m}$ and $q_0=10^{-6}~\mathrm{m/s}$, which are typical estimates for Darcy flow of oil in rocks. The probability density of the pressure was calculated at various points in the rock for several values of the correlation length. These correspond to vertical slices at the chosen points through the realizations of the type shown in Fig. \[fig3\]. Because the initial pressure is greater than the final pressure, the pressure distributions are shown at positions that increase from right to left. For the three largest values of the correlation length, the graph corresponding to $x=0.9X$ was left out to improve clarity. The pressure is fixed at $x=0$. Away from this point, the distributions broaden in a manner determined by the correlation length of the permeability (Fig. \[fig2\]), but the free boundary condition at $x=X$ means that the broadening continues unabated for $x>0$.
Two types of distributions are used to fit the data in Fig. \[fig2\]: log-normal and Gaussian. The equation $$\frac{dp(x)}{dx}=-\frac{q_0}{K(x)}$$ can be interpreted as a steady-state Langevin equation for diffusion with log-normal noise. The resulting expression for the variance of the pressure, $$\langle p^2(x)\rangle-\langle p(x)\rangle^2
= q_0^2 e^{\sigma^2}\int_0^x \int_0^x \Bigl[e^{\sigma^2 e^{-|u-v|/\xi}}-1\Bigr]\,du\,dv\, ,$$ demonstrates the vanishing influence of the correlation length with increasing $x/\xi$. For NBC, Darcy’s law takes the form (\[DarcyNBC\]), where $R(x)$, given in (\[eq:R\]), is the source of noise.
![Pressure statistics for Darcy flow under NBC for correlation lengths of the stochastic permeability (Fig. \[fig2\]) of (a) $\xi=0.02X$, (b) $\xi=0.1X$, (c) $\xi=0.6X$, and (d) $\xi=X$ obtained from the finite volume method (disks) and the path integral (crosses). Fewer data points are shown than used for statistical analysis. The dashed green and black lines represent the log-normal fits and Gaussian approximations, respectively. The calculations are based on $N=10^4$ simulations on lattices with $N_x=240$ sites and spacing $\Delta x=0.5~\mathrm{m}$. The path integral and stochastic data agree to a confidence level of 95%.[]{data-label="fig5"}](fig5.pdf){width="13cm"}
The resistance term $R(x)$ is an integral over correlated log-normal stochastic variables. For small values of $x/\xi$, $R$ is the integral over weakly correlated log-normal variables over a short distance (small $\xi$), or the integral over more strongly correlated stochastic variables over a longer distance (larger $\xi$). In both of these cases, we are able to make a log-normal fit to $R(x)$ and, consequently, to $p(x)$. These fits (Fig. \[fig5\]) are based on the empirical first and second moments of the simulations.
[@lllllll]{} $\xi (X)$ & $x (X)$ & & & & &\
&0.1&212.168&212.804&8.08306&7.32955&7.97994\
&0.25&171.354&172.011&13.5634&12.6210&13.4854\
0.02&0.5&103.348&104.022&19.5774&18.3138&19.4676\
&0.75&35.4959&36.0333&24.3331&22.6163&24.0024\
&0.9&5.27945&4.76007&26.6637&24.8427&26.3513\
&0.1&212.318&212.804&12.5381&12.1807&12.2510\
&0.25&171.466&172.011&25.5700&25.1552&25.1849\
0.1&0.5&103.167&104.022&39.9844&39.8835&39.8997\
&0.75&35.3963&36.0333&50.5274&50.7368&50.7478\
&0.9&5.26133&4.76007&55.8586&56.2633&56.2723\
&0.1&212.055&212.804&14.6806&13.9840&14.0545\
&0.25&171.198&172.011&34.4524&33.5988&33.6267\
0.6&0.5&103.320&104.022&63.2270&62.8236&62.8375\
&0.75&35.2116&36.033&88.2456&88.5658&88.5751\
&0.9&5.83536&4.76007&102.159&102.640&102.648\
&0.1&212.203&212.804&14.6486&13.8463&14.2264\
&0.25&171.397&172.011&35.1531&34.2714&34.6159\
1.0&0.5&103.082&104.022&67.2820&65.9685&66.3126\
&0.75&34.7882&36.033&96.7118&95.1455&95.4987\
&0.9&6.18528&4.76007&113.349&111.588&111.947\
Table \[table1\] compares the mean and standard deviation of the pressure distribution obtained from the evaluation of the path integral ($\mu_s$ and $\sigma_s$), from the solutions (\[Rexpcont\]) and (\[eqC5\]) of the Fokker–Planck equation of the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process ($\mu_c$ and $\sigma_c$), and the corresponding discrete forms (\[Rexpdisc\]) and (\[Rvardisc\]) corresponding to the discretization of the finite-volume method in Sec. \[sec3\] ($\mu_d=\mu_c$ and $\sigma_d$). There are two sources of the discrepancies between the results from the path integral, which are regarded as “exact”, and the two sets of calculations in \[secA3\]: lattice effects and correlations. Figure \[fig5\] shows that the Gaussian approximation is most accurate for the smallest correlation length (Fig. \[fig5\](a)), with correlation effects becoming more evident with increasing correlation length (Fig. \[fig5\](b,c,d)). Correlation effects play a role in both the discrete and the continuous approximations to the path integral calculations. The Gaussian approximation becomes more appropriate as the ratio $\xi/x$ decreases. The “breakdown of Gaussianity” can be clearly seen in Fig. 5(b,c,d): Gaussian fits are only appropriate for the smallest correlation length. Due to the strong correlation, the pressure distributions are seen to broaden appreciably away from the boundary. The data in Table \[table1\] support this trend in the comparisons between the values of the mean and standard deviation obtained from the path integral and the approximations.
A comparison between the discrete and continuous approximations to the standard deviation ($\sigma_d$ and $\sigma_c$, respectively) makes apparent that $\sigma_c$ is a better approximation to the standard deviation $\sigma_s$ obtained from the path integral calculation. These discrepancies are indicative of the error caused by the discretization, which diminish with increasingly refined lattice spacing.
We now consider the case of small $\xi/x$. In the limiting case $\xi \to 0$, each stochastic variable $K(x)$ is drawn from the Gaussian probability function (\[secA1\]). Indeed, the central limit theorem (CLT) mandates that the sum of $N$ independent, identically distributed random variables tends to a normal distribution in the limit of large $N$ if all moments of the distribution are finite. An alternative version of the CLT holds for correlated random variables and states that the sum of $N$ realizations of an ergodic process (whose long-term average is equal to its expectation value [@vK]), will behave as a Gaussian random variable in the limit of large $N$ [@bouchaud]. The process $K$ is a Markov process with continuous trajectories, otherwise known as a “diffusion” process [@pavliotis]. The probability law of $K$ is invariant under time reversal. Since all reversible diffusions are ergodic [@pavliotis], the alternative version of the CLT applies to $R(x)$.
Under what conditions can $R(x)$ be approximated by a Gaussian random variable? Clearly, the criterion depends on the ratio $\xi/x$. We have determined the order of magnitude of $\xi/x$ below which $R(x)$ is approximately Gaussian. To do so, we made use of the Kolmogorov–Smirnov (KS) test, which is a statistical test that determines the probability (or “$p$-value” [@wasserstein]) that a data sample follows a given distribution (one-sided test), as well as the probability that two data sets follow the same distribution (two-sided test) [@KSpaper]. For $R(x)$, we performed a one-sided KS test at the $95\%$ confidence level: if the $p$-value is below $5\%$, we reject the “null hypothesis” that the sample is normally distributed. Of course, the greater the $p$-value, the better the quality of the approximation. A two-sided KS test was carried out for all pairs of data sets (FVM and path integral) at the $95\%$ confidence level, which all pairs of data sets passed.
We have carried out a KS test for $100$ different values of $\xi/x$, each based on $N=1000$ realizations of $R$ [@KS]. The realizations were of $R(X)$; if $R$ is found to be Gaussian at any point in $[0,X]$, then it is Gaussian on the entire interval, due to the strict stationarity of Gaussian stochastic processes (\[secA1\]). From Fig. \[fig6\] we infer that the Gaussian approximation breaks down for $$\label{Gausscondition}
x\gtrsim 10\,\xi.$$ For $\xi=0.02 X$, we were therefore able to make Gaussian fits to $p(x)$ for all values of $x$. These fits are shown in Fig. \[fig6\]. If it is possible to make a Gaussian approximation, it is advantageous to do so, because it can be based on the theoretical mean and variance of $p(x)$ and does not require any simulations. A calculation of the first and second moments of $p(x)$ under NBC can be found in \[NBCGauss\].
![The $p$-value obtained from the KS test for $R(X)$ as a function of $\xi/X$.[]{data-label="fig6"}](fig6.pdf){width="40.00000%"}
Pressure Statistics for Dirichlet Boundary Conditions {#sec7}
=====================================================
Under Dirichlet boundary conditions, the pressure $p(x)$ takes the form $$p(x)=P_i-(P_f-P_i)\frac{R(x)}{R(X)}.$$ From the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test in Sec. \[sec6\], we know that $R(x)$ can be approximated by a Gaussian random variable if the condition (\[Gausscondition\]) is met. The ratio $$\label{Rfrac}
\frac{R(x)}{R(X)}=\frac{\int_0^x \frac{1}{K(x')}dx'}{\int_0^x \frac{1}{K(x')}dx'+\int_x^X \frac{1}{K(x')}dx'}$$ is then a function of correlated Gaussians. We have taken as our working assumption that a Gaussian approximation can be made to (\[Rfrac\]) if $x\gtrsim 10\xi$. This assumption, verified by further Kolmogorov–Smirnov tests, turns out to be correct. As for NBC, we have made Gaussian approximations to the pressure distributions for the parameter choice $\xi=0.02X$; for the other parameter choices, we have made log-normal fits to the pressure distributions. A derivation of these approximations is given in \[DBCGauss\].
![Pressure statistics for Darcy flow under DBC for correlation lengths $\xi=0.02X$ (a), $\xi=0.1X$ (b), $\xi=0.6X$ (c) and $\xi=X$ (d). Simulations were done using the finite volume method (disks) and path integral method (crosses). Fewer data points are shown than used for statistical analysis. The dashed green and black lines represent the log-normal fits and Gaussian approximations, respectively. The calculations are based on $N=10^4$ simulations on a lattice of $N_x=240$ lattice sites and lattice spacing $\Delta x=0.5~\mathrm{m}$. The path integral and stochastic data agree to a confidence level of 95%.[]{data-label="fig7"}](fig7.pdf){width="13cm"}
The Gaussian theoretical curves and log-normal fits are shown in Fig. \[fig7\]. Other than the final pressure, $P_f/X=0$ Pa/m, and $q_0$, which is not fixed, all parameters were set to the same values as under Neumann boundary conditions. Because the initial and final pressures are fixed, the distributions are narrowest near the ends of the system. The distributions broaden away from the endpoints. The pressure range is greater for the system with the smaller correlation length for the permeability. This results from the pressure paths showing a smaller variation with the smaller correlation length. In the case of DBC, the pressure distributions $p(x)$ are symmetric about $x=X/2$, due to the strict stationarity of the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process (\[secA1\]). The influence of the correlation length is, therefore, felt at both ends of the interval $[0,X]$, and the Gaussian approximation is best in the center of the “rock”.
[@llllllll]{} &&&&&&&\
&0.1&215.537&215.638&215.793&6.65118&7.39637&8.05491\
&0.25&179.497&179.830&179.748&9.976593&8.61085&10.4318\
0.02&0.5&119.300&120.50&119.499&11.76703&11.2895&12.0930\
&0.75&59.3505&59.2513&59.2475&10.1345&9.64244&10.3687\
&0.9&23.2585&23.1188&23.1126&6.512375&6.08723&7.71568\
&0.1&215.517&212.630&214.834&9.782208&10.7666&9.08430\
&0.25&179.703&178.413&179.655&17.73364&19.0602&14.6467\
0.1&0.5&119.857&120.427&119.500&21.855&26.1954&17.1548\
&0.75&60.0631&59.8698&59.3168&17.65783&20.9629&14.4449\
&0.9&23.8099&23.7858&23.2374&9.600161&11.0541&8.66795\
&0.1&214.934&204.426&203.015&8.798261&22.7199&25.6091\
&0.25&178.866&169.881&168.652&17.41341&35.2504&36.1574\
0.6&0.5&119.463&116.881&115.825&22.56851&44.9074&45.2879\
&0.75&60.1718&62.4917&62.4303&17.27851&35.2585&35.6411\
&0.9&24.0128&26.8928&26.9697&8.472904&21.3853&21.6713\
&0.1&215.072&202.156&200.700&7.567443&26.8830&29.5648\
&0.25&178.946&166.939&166.407&15.25785&38.9908&39.8613\
1.0&0.5&119.497&115.702&114.638&19.99505&47.5015&47.8495\
&0.75&59.8951&62.6097&62.5277&15.08735&37.3308&37.6855\
&0.9&23.817&27.4292&27.4930&7.327701&23.4083&23.6594\
The comparison between the mean and standard deviation obtained from path integral simulations with those from discrete and continuous calculations with the Gaussian approximation is shown in Table \[table2\]. As expected, the accuracy of the Gaussian approximation diminishes with increasing correlation length. The spatial effect of increased Gaussianity is less apparent under Dirichlet boundary conditions: the “rock” has two boundaries. One can only get half as far away from the boundary, where the approximation is most fitting.
Contrary to the calculations done for Neumann boundary conditions, there is no exact equality between the mean resulting from the Fokker-Planck equation ($\mu_s$) and its discrete counterpart ($\mu_d$). Under Neumann boundary conditions, the approximate mean depends only on the expectation value of $R$ (Eq. (\[c2\])). This quantity does not depend on the nature of the approximation. By contrast, under Dirichlet boundary conditions the standard deviation of the pressure depends on many quantities, including the variance of $R$ and the correlation between values of $R$ at different points. These variables in turn depend on correlation effects, which a discrete setup estimates more crudely than a continuous one.
Conclusions and Future Work {#sec8}
===========================
This study has shown that a path integral formulation of Darcy’s law can be used to calculate pressure statistics for flow through a one-dimensional permeable medium. The results of these calculations agree with those acquired through conventional finite-volume techniques. A Gaussian approximation, whose advantage lies in the small computational effort, is applicable when the correlation length is much smaller than the system size. For larger correlation lengths, the pressure distributions are best approximated by a log-normal distribution.
The one-dimensional calculations presented here are intended to demonstrate the accuracy and viability of the path integral method and to gain insight into the pressure statistics of constrained Darcy flow through a porous medium. In fact, the one-dimensional system has relevance to actual physical settings because Darcy flow is often constrained to flow along one main direction, with negligible flow in the lateral directions. Darcy flow in two and three dimensions requires an extension of the method described here. A full description of this extension and the results of two-dimensional simulations will be published in a forthcoming article.
Apart from the extension of our method to higher dimensions, there are two other main areas where the path integral affords a more general description of Darcy flow. The lognormal distribution of the permeabilities (\[eq7\]) can be replaced by any distribution [@dedom; @phythian77]; the only effect of such a replacement on our implementation would be to modify the acceptance/rejection criteria in the Metropolis–Hastings method because of the modified Lagrangian.
The other extension, to multiphase flow, is a more substantial endeavor. Multiphase flow through porous media is important for a various applications, such as CO$_2$ sequestration,[@juanes12] and enhanced oil recovery [@orr84]. These often involve the displacement of a nonwetting invading fluid from a porous medium by a wetting fluid (imbibition). There are several formulations of the equations of multiphase flow, with the most realistic expressed in terms of coupled stochastic nonlinear partial differential equations. Casting the solutions to these equations as a path integral and adapting the MCMC method for the evaluation of correlation functions will be the subject of future work.
MJEW was supported through a Janet Watson scholarship from the Department of Earth Science and Engineering and a studentship in the Centre for Doctoral Training on Theory and Simulation of Materials funded by the EPSRC (EP/L015579/1), both at Imperial College London. GAC was supported by a studentship in the CDT in TSM, funded by the EPSRC (EP/G036888/1), for the duration of his time at Imperial College London.
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
[99]{}
Szulczewski M L, MacMinn C W, Herzog H J, and Juanes R 2012 Lifetime of carbon capture and storage as a climate-change mitigation technology [*Proc Natl Acad Sci USA*]{} [**109**]{}, 5185–5189
Orr F M Jr and Taber J J 1984 Use of carbon dioxide in enhanced oil recovery [*Science*]{} [**224**]{}, 563–569
Cueto-Felgueroso L, Juanes R 2008 Nonlocal interface dynamics and pattern formation in gravity-driven unsaturated flow through porous media [*Phys Rev Lett*]{} [**101**]{}, 244504
Khaled A-R A and Vafai K 2003 The role of porous media in modeling flow and heat transfer in biological tissues [*Int J Heat Mass Transfer* ]{} [**46**]{}, 4989–5003
Miguel A F 2012 Lungs as a natural porous media: Architecture, airflow characteristics and transport of suspended particles, in Delgado J. (eds) [*Heat and Mass Transfer in Porous Media*]{}. Advanced Structured Materials, vol 13 (Berlin: Springer) pp. 115–137
Linninger A A, Xenos M, Zhu D C, Somayaji M R, Kondapalli S, and Penn R D 2007 Cerebrospinal fluid flow in the normal and hydrocephalic human brain 2007 [*IEEE Trans Biomed Eng*]{} [**24**]{}, 291–302
D’Angelo C and and Zunino P 2010 Robust numerical approximation of coupled Stokes’ and Darcy’s flows applied to vascular hemodynamics and biochemical transport [*ESAIM: M2AN*]{} [**45**]{}, 447–476
Hu L B, Savidge C, Rizzo D M, Hayden, N, Hagadorn J W, and Dewoolkar, M 2013 Commonly used porous building materials: geomorphic pore structure and fluid transport [*J Mater Civ Eng*]{} [**25**]{}, 1803–1812
Perego C and Millin R 2013 Porous materials in catalysis: challenges for mesoporous materials [*Chem Soc Rev*]{} [**42**]{}, 3956–3976
Renard Ph and de Marsily G 1997 Calculating equivalent permeability: A review [*Adv Water Resour*]{} **20**, 253–278
Aramideh S, Vlachos P P, and Ardekani A M 2018 [*Phys. Rev. E*]{} [**98**]{}, 013104
Darcy H 1856 [*Les Fonfaines Publiques de la Ville de Dijon*]{} (Paris: Dalmont)
Whitaker S 1986 Flow in porous media I: A theoretical derivation of Darcy’s law [*Transport Porous Med*]{} [**1**]{}, 3–25
Law J 1943 A statistical approach to the interstitial heterogeneity of sand reservoirs [*Trans AIME*]{} [**155**]{}, 202–222
Freeze R A 1975 A stochastic-conceptual analysis of one-dimensional groundwater flow in nonuniform homogeneous media [*Water Resour Res*]{} **11**, 725–741
Schäfer M 2006 [*Computational Engineering: Introduction to Numerical Methods*]{} (Berlin: Springer-Verlag) pp. 77–103
Amit D J 1984 [*Field Theory, The Renormalization Group, and Critical Phenomena*]{} (Singapore: World Scientific)
Zinn-Justin J 2006 [*Path Integrals in Quantum Mechanics*]{} (Oxford: Oxford University Press)
Tanksley M A and Koplik J 1994 [*Phys Rev E*]{} [**49**]{}, 1353–1366
Hanasoge S, Agarwal U, Tandon K, and Koelman J M V A 2017 Renormalization group theory outperforms other approaches in statistical comparison between upscaling techniques for porous media [*Phys. Rev. E*]{} [**96**]{}, 033313
Morningstar C The Monte Carlo method in quantum field theory arXiv:hep-lat/0702020.
Westbroek M J E, King P R, Vvedensky D D, and DŸ[ü]{}rr S 2018 UserÕs guide to Monte Carlo methods for evaluating path integrals [*Am. J. Phys.*]{} [**86**]{} 293–304
Westbroek M J E, Coche G-A, King P R, and Vvedensky D D 2018 Evaluation of the path integral for flow through random porous media, [*Phys Rev E*]{} [**97**]{}, 042119
Sahimi M 1993 Flow phenomena in rocks: from continuous models to fractals, percolation, cellular automata, and simulated annealing [*Rev Mod Phys*]{} **65** 1393–1534
Chavent G and Jaffré J 1986 [*Mathematical Models and Finite Elements for Reservoir Simulation*]{}, vol. 17 (Elsevier: North Holland)
Press W H, Teukolsky S A, Vetterling W T, and Flannery B P 2007 [*Numerical Recipes: The Art of Scientific Computing*]{} 3rd end (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge UK)
Dietrich C R and Newsam G N 1993 A fast and exact method for multidimensional Gaussian stochastic simulations [*Water Resour Res*]{} [**29**]{}, 2861–2869
Dietrich C R and Newsam G N 1997 Fast and exact simulation of stationary Gaussian processes through circulant embedding of the covariance matrix [*SIAM J Sci Comput*]{} [**18**]{}, 1088–1107
David T A 2004 Algorithm 832: UMFPACK V4.3 – An unsymmetric-pattern multifrontal method ACM Trans Math Softw [**30**]{}, 196–199
Feynman R P 1948 Space-time approach to non-relativistic quantum mechanics [*Rev Mod Phys*]{} **20**, 367–387
Huang K 2010 [*Quantum Field Theory: From Operators to Path Integrals*]{} 2nd ed. (Wiley: Weinheim)
Brush S G 1961 Functional integrals and statistical physics [*Rev Mod Phys*]{} [**33**]{}, 79–92
Wio H 2013 [*Path Integrals for Stochastic Processes: An Introduction*]{} (World Scientific: Singapore)
Wiener N 1921 The average value of a functional, [*Proc London Math Soc*]{} [**22**]{}, 454–467
De Dominicis C and Peliti L 1978 Field-theory renormalization and critical dynamics above $T_c$: Helium, antiferromagnets, and liquid-gas systems, [*Phys Rev B*]{} [**18**]{}, 353–376.
Jouvet B and Phythian R 1979 Quantum aspects of classical and statistical fields [*Phys Rev A*]{}[**19**]{}, 1350–1355
Metropolis N, Rosenbluth A W, Rosenbluth M N, Teller A H, and Teller E 1953 Equation of state calculations by fast computing machines [*J Chem Phys*]{} **21**, 1087–1092
Hastings W A 1970 Monte Carlo sampling methods using Markov Chains and their applications [*Biometrika*]{} [**57**]{}, 97–109
Creutz M 1987 Overrelaxation and Monte Carlo simulation [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**36**]{}, 515–519.
Brown F R and Woch T J 1987 Overrelaxed heat-bath and Metropolis algorithms for accelerating pure gauge Monte Carlo calculations [*Phys Rev Lett*]{} [**58**]{}, 2394–2396
Goodman J and Sokal A D 1986 Multigrid Monte Carlo method for lattice field theories [*Phys Rev Lett*]{} [**56**]{}, 1015–1018
Duncan A B, Lelièvre T, and Pavliotis G A 2016 Variance reduction using nonreversible Langevin samplers [*J Stat Phys*]{} [**163**]{} 457–491
Duncan A B, N[ü]{}sken N, and Pavliotis G A 2017 Using perturbed underdamped Langevin dynamics to efficiently sample from probability distributions [*J Stat Phys*]{} [**169**]{} 1098–1131
Lelièvre T, Nier F, and Pavliotis G A 2013 Optimal non-reversible linear drift for the convergence to equilibrium of a diffusion [*J Stat Phys*]{} [**152**]{} 237–274
van Kampen N G 2004 [*Stochastic Processes in Physics and Chemistry*]{} (Elsevier: Amsterdam)
Bouchaud J-P and Georges A 1990 Anomalous diffusion in disordered media: Statistical mechanisms, models and physical applications [*Phys Rep*]{} **195**, 127–293
Pavliotis G A 2014 [*Stochastic Processes and Applications*]{} (Springer: New York)
Wasserstein R L and Lazar N A 2016 The ASA’s statement on $p$-values: Context, process, and purpose Am Statist [**70**]{}, 129–133
Massey F J 1951 The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for goodness of fit [*J Am Stat Assoc*]{} [**46**]{}, 68–78
The in-built KS test *kstest2* of MATLAB\_R2014b, The MathWorks, Inc. was used for this analysis.
Du K-L and Swamy M N S 2016 [*Search and Optimization by Metaheuristics*]{} (Springer: Switzerland).
Phythian R 1977 The functional formalism of classical statistical dynamics [*J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.*]{} [**10**]{} 777
Conditional Probability for Log-Permeability {#secA1}
============================================
The conditional probability density $P(L_2,x_2;L_1,x_1)$ that, given that the log permeability takes the value $L_1$ at $x_1$, the value $L_2$ at $x_2$ is $$\fl P(L_2,x_2;L_1,x_1)={1\over\sqrt{2\pi\sigma^2[1-e^{-(x_2-x_1)/\xi}}]}\exp\left\{-{1\over2\sigma^2}{[L_2-L_1e^{-(x_2-x_1)/\xi}]^2\over 1-e^{-2(x_2-x_1)/\xi}}\right\}\, .
\label{eqA1}$$ This function is a Gaussian probability density with mean $L_1e^{-(x_2-x_2)/\xi}$ and variance $\sigma^2[1-e^{-2(x_2-x_1)/\xi}]$, where $\xi$ is a correlation length. The initial condition for $P$, when $x_2=x_1$, is $$P(L_2,x_1;L_1,x_1)=\delta(L_2-L_1)\, ,$$ and, when $(x_2-x_1)/\xi\to\infty$, that is, when $x_2-x_1\gg\xi$, $P$ approaches a Gaussian distribution for $L_2$: $$\lim_{(x_2-x_1)/\xi\to\infty}\hskip-0.7cmP(L_2,x_2;L_1,x_1)={1\over\sqrt{2\pi\sigma^2}}\exp\left(-{L_2\over2\sigma^2}\right)\, .$$ In fact, $P$ in (\[eqA1\]) is the Green’s function for $${\partial P\over\partial x}={1\over\xi}{\partial(\ell P)\over\partial\ell}+{\sigma^2\over\xi}{\partial^2P\over\partial\ell^2}\, ,$$ which is the Fokker–Planck equation for an Ornstein–Uhlenbeck process with drift $1/\xi$ and diffusion $\sigma^2/\xi$.
Correlation Functions for Permeability {#secA2}
======================================
With the initial value $L_1$ in (\[eqA1\]) drawn from a Gaussian probability density with mean zero and variance $\sigma^2$, $$P_0(L_1)={1\over\sqrt{2\pi\sigma^2}}\exp\left(-{L_1^2\over2\sigma^2}\right)\, ,$$ the expectation value $\mathbb{E}(K(x))$, where $K(x)=e^{L(x)}$, is calculated as $$\mathbb{E}(K(x))=\int_{-\infty}^\infty\int_{-\infty}^\infty e^L\, P(L,x;L_0,0)P_0(L_0)\, dL\, dL_0=e^{\sigma^2/2}\, .
\label{eqB2}$$ The two-point correlation function $\mathbb{E}(K(x_1)K(x_0))$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}(K(x_2)K(x_1))&=&\int_{-\infty}^\infty\int_{-\infty}^\infty e^{L_2}e^{L_1}\, P(L_2,x_2;L_1,x_1)P_0(L_1)\, dL_1\, dL_2\nonumber\\
\noalign{\vskip3pt}
&=&\exp\left\{\sigma^2\left[1+e^{-(x_2-x_1)/\xi}\right]\right\}\, ,\end{aligned}$$ from which we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\mbox{Cov}(K(x_1)K(x_0))&=&\mathbb{E}(K(x_1)K(x_0))-\mathbb{E}(K(x_1))\mathbb{E}(K(x_0))\nonumber\\
\noalign{\vskip3pt}
&=&e^{\sigma^2}\left\{\exp\left[1+e^{-(x_1-x_0)/\xi}\right]-1\right\}\, .
\label{eqB4}\end{aligned}$$ The mean and covariance in (\[eqB2\]) and (\[eqB4\]) are clearly invariant under translations of $x$. Finally, since $K^{-1}(x)=e^{-L(x)}$, the probability distribution for $K^{-1}$ is identical to that of $K$.
Gaussian Approximations {#secA3}
=======================
Neumann boundary conditions {#NBCGauss}
---------------------------
From Darcy’s law and the definition of $R$ in (\[eq:R\]), we obtain $$p(x)=P_i-q_0 R(x)\, ,$$ where the initial pressure $P_i=p(0)$. For Neumann boundary conditions, we specify $P_i$ and $q_0$. If the correlation length is small, we can use the following Gaussian approximation for $p(x)$: $$\label{c2}
p(x)\sim \mathcal{N}(\mu,\sigma^2)=\mathcal{N} \left(P_i-q_0 \mathbb{E}[R(x)],~ q_0^2\mbox{Var}(R(x))\right).$$ The first and second moments of $R(x)$ are calculated based on those of the permeability in (\[eqB2\]) and (\[eqB4\]): $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}[R(x)]&=&\int_0^x e^{\sigma^2/2}~dx=e^{\sigma^2/2}x \label{Rexpcont} \\
\mathrm{Var}[R(x)]&=&e^{\sigma^2}\left\{ \int_0^x \int_0^x e^{\sigma^2 e^{-|x'-x''|/\xi}}-1\,dx'\,dx''\right\}. \label{Rvarcont}\end{aligned}$$ Similarly, the covariance of $R$ is given by: $$\mathrm{Cov}[R(x),R(y)]=e^{\sigma^2}\left\{ \int_0^x \int_0^y e^{\sigma^2 e^{-|x'-x''|/\xi}}-1\,dx'\,dx''\right\}.
\label{eqC5}$$
The expressions in (\[Rexpcont\]), (\[Rvarcont\]), and (\[eqC5\]) represent statistical characteristics of the permeability associated with a continuous medium. However, the evaluation of the path integral in Sec. \[sec4\] is carried out on a lattice with a particular lattice spacing. Thus, for consistency, comparisons between the pressure statistics obtained from the discrete path integral and those calculated directly from the permeability distribution function should be based on discrete approximations to the first and second moments of $R$. Referring to Fig. \[fig4\], we arrive at the following discrete definition of $R$: $$R(l)/\delta x=
\left\{\begin{array}{cll}
0 &\mbox{if}&l=0 \\
\noalign{\vskip6pt}
\frac{1}{2}K(1)+\sum_{i=1}^{l-1} K(i) &\mbox{if}&0<l<N_x \\
\noalign{\vskip6pt}
\frac{1}{2}K(1)+\sum_{i=1}^{l-1} K(i) + \frac{1}{2}K(N_x-1) &\mbox{if}& l=N_x.
\end{array}\right.$$ We concentrate here on the most relevant case: $0<l<N_x$. The expectation value is then, $$\label{Rexpdisc}
\mathbb{E}[R(l)/\delta x]=\frac{1}{2}e^{\sigma^2/2} + (l-1) e^{\sigma^2/2} = \left(l-\frac{1}{2}\right) e^{\sigma^2/2},$$ and the second moment of $R$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Rsq}
\mathbb{E}[R(l)^2/\delta x^2]&=&\mathbb{E}\left[\frac{1}{4}K(1)^2+\sum_{i=1}^{l-1}[K(i)]+\sum_{i=1}^{l-1}\sum_{j=1}^{l-1}[ K(i) K(j)]\right] \nonumber \\
&=&\frac{1}{4} e^{\sigma^2} + \sum_{i=1}^{l-1}\left[e^{\sigma^2} e^{1+e^{-1/\xi}}\right]
+(l-1)e^{\sigma^2}\nonumber\\
&& + 2\sum_{p=1}^{l-1}\left[ (l-1-p) e^{\sigma^2 \left(1+e^{1+e^{-p/\xi}}\right)}\right].\end{aligned}$$ Subtracting the square of (\[Rexpdisc\]) from (\[Rsq\]), we obtain an expression for the discrete variance of $R$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Rvardisc}
\mbox{Var}[R(l)/\delta x]&=&\left(l-\frac{3}{4}\right) e^{\sigma^2} + \sum_{i=1}^{l-1}\left[e^{\sigma^2\left(1+e^{-i/\xi}\right)}\right] \nonumber \\
&&+2\sum_{p=1}^{l-1} \left[ (l-1-p) e^{\sigma^2\left(1+e^{-p/\xi}\right)}\right] - \left(l-\frac{1}{2}\right)^2 e^{\sigma^2}.\end{aligned}$$
The Gaussian curves in Fig. \[fig5\] are based on the discrete definition of $R$. The continuum definition, $R(x)=\int_0^x e^{-L(x')}~dx'$, gives rise to the same expectation values, but smaller variances. The discrepancies are due to the discretization of the lattice: in the limit $\delta x \to 0$, the expressions (\[Rvardisc\]) and (\[Rvarcont\]) give rise to the same numerical values. Note, in addition, that $R$ is strictly positive. Because the Gaussian approximation is symmetric, the positivity of $R$ makes for a poor agreement between data and approximation for small values of $x$, especially for large values of the correlation length.
Dirichlet boundary conditions {#DBCGauss}
-----------------------------
Again, we start from the integrated version of Darcy’s law (\[pa\]). In the Dirichlet formulation, the initial pressure $P_i$ and final pressure $P_f=p(X)$ are fixed. Then, $$q_0=-\frac{P_f-P_i}{R(X)}.$$ If we define $\Delta p\equiv P_i-P_f$, the pressure $p(x)$ is given by $$p(x)=P_i-\Delta p \frac{R(x)}{R(X)}.$$ To approximate $p(x)$ by a Gaussian random variable, we must find a Gaussian approximation to the ratio $R(x)/R(X)$, which is of the form $$Z\equiv \frac{X}{X+Y},$$ for stochastic variables $$\label{XY}
X=\int_0^x \frac{1}{K(x')}~dx'\, ,\quad Y=\int_x^X \frac{1}{K(x')}~dx'\, .$$ For this choice of stochastic variables in the regime $\xi \gtrsim 0.1X$, which defines the domain of applicability of the Gaussian approximation, we can assume that the mean is much greater than the variance. This assumption is needed to ensure that the fraction $Z$ is strictly positive, and the cumulative distribution function of $Z$ can be defined sensibly. We denote the means of $X$ and $Y$ by $\mu_x$ and $\mu_y$ and the variances by $\sigma_x^2$ and $\sigma_y^2$, respectively, so the Gaussian forms of $X$ and $Y$ are $$\label{GaussianAssumption}
X \sim \mathcal{N}(\mu_x, \sigma_x^2)\, ,\qquad
Y \sim \mathcal{N}(\mu_y, \sigma_y^2).$$ For Darcy’s law, (\[GaussianAssumption\]) translates to $$\label{RAssumption}
\begin{array}{rll}
R(x) &\hskip-6pt \sim &\hskip-6pt \mathcal{N}(\mathbb{E}[R(x)], \mathrm{Var}[R(x)]) \\
\noalign{\vskip3pt}
R(X-x) &\hskip-6pt \sim &\hskip-6pt \mathcal{N}(\mathbb{E}[R(X-x), \mathrm{Var}[R(X-x)]),
\end{array}$$ as given in Equations (\[Rexpcont\]) and (\[Rvarcont\]). Equation (\[RAssumption\]) holds for $x\leq{1\over2} X$. If $x > {1\over2}X$, the condition $$\frac{X}{X+Y}\leq z$$ becomes $$\frac{Y}{Y+X} \leq 1-z.$$ The discussion below still follows, with the renamed variables. The covariance matrix of $X$ and $Y$ is symbolically denoted by $$\left( \begin{array}{cc}\label{covXY}
\sigma_x^2 & c_{xy} \\
c_{xy} & \sigma_y^2 \end{array} \right),$$ where $c_{xy}\equiv \rho\,\sigma_x\sigma_y$ is the covariance matrix of $X$ and $Y$. The symmetric, real, positive-definite covariance matrix admits the Cholesky decomposition $$\left( \begin{array}{cc}
\sigma_x & 0 \\
\sigma_y\, \rho & \sigma_y\sqrt{1-\rho^2} \end{array} \right).$$ The sum $X+Y$ can be written as a linear combination of unit normal ($\sim\mathcal{N}(0,1)$) random variables $U$ and $V$. We observe that $$\begin{aligned}
\fl\left(\begin{array}{cc}
X & Y
\end{array}\right)
\left(\begin{array}{c}
X\\
\noalign{\vskip6pt}
Y
\end{array}\right)&=&
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
U & V
\end{array}\right)
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\sigma_x^2 & \rho\,\sigma_x\sigma_y\\
\noalign{\vskip6pt}
\rho\,\sigma_x\sigma_y & \sigma_y^2
\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}
U\\
\noalign{\vskip6pt}
V
\end{array}\right)\nonumber\\
\noalign{\vskip3pt}
&=&\left(\begin{array}{cc}
U & V
\end{array}\right)
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\sigma_x & 0\\
\noalign{\vskip6pt}
\rho\,\sigma_y & \sigma_y\sqrt{1-\rho^2}
\end{array}\right)
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\sigma_x & \rho\,\sigma_y\\
\noalign{\vskip6pt}
0 & \sigma_y\sqrt{1-\rho^2}
\end{array}\right)
\left(\begin{array}{c}
U\\
\noalign{\vskip6pt}
V
\end{array}\right)\nonumber\, .\\\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, $X+Y$ has the same distribution as $$\mu_x+\mu_y+(\sigma_x+\rho \sigma_y)U+\sqrt{1-\rho^2}\sigma_y V.$$
We can now find an expression for the cumulative distribution function of $\frac{X}{X+Y}\equiv Z$: $$\begin{aligned}
F(z)&=&\mathbb{P}(Z\leq z) \nonumber\\
&=&\mathbb{P}\left\{ \frac{[(1-z)\mu_x-z\mu_y]\sigma_x+[(1-z)\sigma_x^2-z c_{xy}]U}{z\sqrt{\sigma_x^2 \sigma_y^2-c_{xy}}}<V\right\}\nonumber\\
&=&\mathbb{P}\left\{\frac{[(1-z)\mu_x -z\mu_y]\sigma_x}{z\sqrt{\sigma_x^2\sigma_y^2-c_{xy}}}+\frac{[(1-z)\sigma_x^2-z c_{xy}]}{z\sqrt{\sigma_x^2 \sigma_y^2 -c_{xy}}}U-V<0\right\}.\end{aligned}$$ Let $W(z)\sim\mathcal{N}(\mu_w(z),\sigma_w^2(z))$, with $$\begin{array}{rcl}
\mu_w(z)&\hskip-3pt = &\hskip-3pt \displaystyle{\frac{[(1-z)\mu_x -z\mu_y]\sigma_x}{z\sqrt{\sigma_x^2\sigma_y^2-c_{xy}}}}\, ,\\
\sigma_w(z)&\hskip-3pt = &\hskip-3pt \displaystyle{\left[\frac{[(1-z)\sigma_x^2-z c_{xy}]}{z\sqrt{\sigma_x^2 \sigma_y^2 -c_{xy}}}\right]^2+1}\, ,
\end{array}$$ then $\mathbb{P}(W(z)\leq 0)=\mathbb{P}(Z\leq z)$. Therefore, the cumulative distribution function of $W(z)$ describes $\mathbb{P}(Z\leq z)\equiv F(z)$. $$\label{cdfW}
\mathbb{P}(W(z)\leq 0)=\int_{-\infty}^0 \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}\sigma_W(z)} e^{-(z-\mu_W(z))^2/(2\sigma_W(z))^2}~dz.$$ Equation (\[cdfW\]) is an analytic formula for $F(z)$. The probability density function is $f(z)=F^\prime(z)$. To obtain a Gaussian approximation to the pressure density, we evaluate $$\frac{1}{|\Delta p|}f\left(\frac{z-P_i}{P_f-P_i}\right)\, .$$
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'When analyzing animal movement, it is important to account for interactions between individuals. However, statistical models for incorporating interaction behavior in movement models are limited. We propose an approach that models dependent movement by augmenting a dynamic marginal movement model with a spatial point process interaction function within a weighted distribution framework. The approach is flexible, as marginal movement behavior and interaction behavior can be modeled independently. Inference for model parameters is complicated by intractable normalizing constants. We develop a double Metropolis-Hastings algorithm to perform Bayesian inference. We illustrate our approach through the analysis of movement tracks of guppies (*Poecilia reticulata*).'
author:
- 'James C Russell, Ephraim M Hanks, and Murali Haran'
bibliography:
- 'extracted2.bib'
title: Dynamic Models of Animal Movement with Spatial Point Process Interactions
---
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Keywords</span>: [auxiliary variable MCMC algorithm, collective motion, biased correlated random walk, group navigation, *Poecilia reticulata*, state-space model]{}
Introduction {#intro}
============
Movement models are important for studying animal behavior as they can reveal how animals use space and interact with the environment. Information on the movement patterns of animal species can play an important role in conservation, particularly for migratory species \*[durban2012antarctic]{}. Many methods exist for modeling individual animal movement, including models that account for changing behaviors at different locations and times by utilizing Markovian switching models (e.g. ; ) and models that account for the animal’s preferences for covariates measured throughout the territory (e.g. \*[Hooten\_2013]{}; \*[Johnson\_2013]{}).
Interactions between animals can give insight into the structures of animal societies \*[mersch2013tracking]{}. Animal species often exhibit herd or school behavior, and even those that do not form groups have movement that depends on the behavior of other individuals. \*[Langrock]{} incorporate dependence by assuming the animals in a herd move around a central point, such as a designated group leader or a latent central location. propose a model that combines individual navigational behavior with the tendency to copy the behavior of other nearby individuals by taking a weighted average of the two behavioral mechanisms. This enables information sharing among neighbors. \*[perna2014]{} consider a model that encourages individuals to have a preferential structure. For example, an individual might tend to stay directly behind another, thus creating a leader-follower relationship. gives a broad overview of animal movement, including computer simulation models which utilize self propelled particle (SPP) systems with specific movement rules to account for interaction.
We propose a model that describes continuous-time dynamics of animal movement \*[Johnson2008]{} while simultaneously allowing for current-location based interactions by modeling animal locations as a spatial interacting point process [@moller2004statistical]. Point process models allow interaction between animal locations such as clustering, regularity, or repulsion, through the use of interaction functions. This provides a paradigm for modelling different types of interactions between animals including collision avoidance, herding behavior, animals that break off into multiple smaller groups, and animals that interact with each other without moving in herds or schools. Our model uses a weighted distribution approach to incorporate several features, including
i. directional persistence through a continuous-time biased correlated random walk,
ii. inter-animal behavior modeled using spatial point process interaction functions,
iii. observation error in animal locations.
Other models exist which incorporate one or more of these features; we propose a flexible framework for all three.
![Group Movement Paths[]{data-label="fig:SimulatedPaths"}](figure1.jpg "fig:"){width="110mm"}\
a)Plotted paths of a shoal of 10 guppies from \*[Bode2012]{}.\
b)Plotted paths of a simulated realization from the CTCRW model without interactions.\
c)Plotted paths of a simulated realization from the DPPI model with the attraction-repulsion point process interaction function.
To illustrate our approach we analyze the guppy (*Poecilia reticulata*) movement data of \*[Bode2012]{} in which ten guppies are released in the lower right section of a fish tank, and are attracted to the top left by shelter in the form of shade and rocks. A realization of this experiment is shown in Figure \[fig:SimulatedPaths\](a) where the interaction between guppies is evident, as the guppies remain together in a shoal. To illustrate the need for statistical models incorporating between-animal dependence, Figure \[fig:SimulatedPaths\](b) shows a simulation from an independent movement model, as described in Section 2.2. In the simulation, the guppies tend to drift apart, so the model does not replicate the shoaling behavior. In Figure \[fig:SimulatedPaths\](c) we show a simulated realization from our proposed dynamic point process interaction (DPPI) model, described in Section 2.4. Each guppy’s marginal movement is modeled as a continuous-time biased correlated random walk which results in smooth paths similar to the observed guppy paths. Group movement is modeled using the attraction-repulsion interaction function of \*[Goldstein]{}. The simulated guppies in Figure \[fig:SimulatedPaths\](c) stay together in a group, similar to the observed guppies in Figure \[fig:SimulatedPaths\](a).
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we introduce the general modeling framework, and give several examples of point process interaction functions useful for modeling group animal movement. In Section 3, we propose a Markov Chain Monte Carlo algorithm to sample from the posterior distributions of model parameters. We describe a double Metropolis-Hastings algorithm for inference complicated by the intractable normalizing function that arises from our point process interaction approach to modeling group movement. In Section 4, we examine the performance of our approach by utilizing several simulated movement paths. Finally, in Section 5, we use our approach to analyze the guppy movement paths of .
Modeling Movement Dynamics with Interactions {#sec1}
============================================
In this section, we describe our proposed approach, starting with a continuous-time stochastic model for the dynamics of individual guppy movement. Next, we aggregate the individual model to incorporate multiple individuals and describe our point process approach to modeling interactions. Finally, we compare our approach to existing methods.
Let the unobserved states, consisting of the true locations and instantaneous velocities, of individuals $(1,...,K)$ at a given time $t_i$ be denoted by $\boldsymbol{A}_{t_i} = (\boldsymbol{\alpha}^{(1)}_{t_i},\boldsymbol{\alpha}^{(2)}_{t_i},...,\boldsymbol{\alpha}^{(K)}_{t_i})^T$, and let $\boldsymbol{\Theta}$ denote our vector of parameters. We can write an aggregate group movement model by assuming independence and multiplying the marginal densities
$$\begin{aligned}
f(\boldsymbol{A}_{t_i}|\boldsymbol{A}_{t_{i-1}},\boldsymbol{\Theta}) = \prod_{k=1}^K f(\boldsymbol{\alpha}^{(k)}_{t_i}|\boldsymbol{\alpha}^{(k)}_{t_{i-1}},\boldsymbol{\Theta})
\end{aligned}$$
where $f(\boldsymbol{\alpha}^{(k)}_{t_i}|\boldsymbol{\alpha}^{(k)}_{t_{i-1}},\boldsymbol{\Theta})$ represents a marginal movement model. That is, the $k^{th}$ individual’s state at time $t_i$, $\boldsymbol{\alpha}^{(k)}_{t_i}$, is modeled conditional on that individual’s state at time $t_{i-1}$, $\boldsymbol{\alpha}^{(k)}_{t_{i-1}}$, and the k individuals move independently of each other. To model movement interactions, we multiply the marginal model by an interaction function, which is a function of the pairwise distance between observations at time $t_i$, yielding a joint distribution
$$\begin{aligned}
f(\boldsymbol{A}_{t_i}|\boldsymbol{A}_{t_{i-1}},\boldsymbol{\Theta}) = \frac{\prod_{k=1}^K f(\boldsymbol{\alpha}^{(k)}_{t_i}|\boldsymbol{\alpha}^{(k)}_{t_{i-1}},\boldsymbol{\Theta}) \prod_{j<k}\psi_{jk}(\boldsymbol{\alpha}_{t_{i}}^{(j)}, \boldsymbol{\alpha}_{t_{i}}^{(k)};\boldsymbol{\Theta})}{c(\boldsymbol{\Theta})}
\end{aligned}$$
where $\psi_{jk}(\boldsymbol{\alpha}_{t_{i}}^{(j)}, \boldsymbol{\alpha}_{t_{i}}^{(k)};\boldsymbol{\Theta})$ is the interaction function, which we take from methods in point process literature. The resulting model is similar to the weighted distribution approach to modeling animal movement. \*[johnson2008b]{} and \*[lele2006]{} utilize this approach to model a resource selection function for animal telemetry data which accounts for animals preferentially selecting certain habitats. In our method, the animal’s proximity to neighbors, rather than habitat resource covariates, are driving movement behavior. Note that $c(\boldsymbol{\Theta})$ is an intractable normalizing function of $\boldsymbol{\Theta}$. This complicates posterior evaluation as we will see later.
Marginal Movement Model
-----------------------
To develop a group movement model with interactions, we start with an existing movement model for an individual, the continuous time biased correlated random walk model (CTCRW) from \*[Johnson2008]{}. The CTCRW model specifies an Ornstein-Uhlenbeck model for velocity, resulting in movement paths that show directional persistence, similar to that of the observed guppy movement paths in Figure 1(a). While not important for the guppy data, an additional advantage of the CTCRW model is that it allows for observations at non-uniform time points. The CTCRW model is flexible, and can easily be adjusted to account for complexities in a given data set. For example, use the CTCRW model to estimate the displacement velocities of killer whalers; \*[citta2013dive]{} use an adjusted version of the CTCRW model to analyze haul out behavior of Eastern Chukchi beluga whales and \*[kuhn2014evidence]{} use the CTCRW model to estimate locations of northern fur seals along foraging tracks.
Let $x(t)$ and $y(t)$ be the observed location coordinates of the animal at time $t$, $\mu^{(x)}(t)$ and $\mu^{(y)}(t)$ be the true unobserved $x$ and $y$ locations of the animal at time $t$, and $v^{(x)}(t)$ and $v^{(y)}(t)$ the instantaneous $x$ and $y$ directional velocities of the animal at time $t$. Let $\boldsymbol{s}(t)$ be the observed location and $\boldsymbol{\alpha}_t$ the unobserved state at time $t$, with
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:2.1}
\boldsymbol{s_t} = \left( \begin{array} {c} x(t) \\ y(t) \end{array} \right), &&
\boldsymbol{\alpha}_t = \left( \begin{array} {c} \mu^{(x)}(t) \\ v^{(x)}(t) \\ \mu^{(y)}(t) \\ v^{(y)}(t) \end{array} \right).
\end{aligned}$$
We assume that $t \in \mathbb{R}^+$, and the locations $(x(t), y(t))$ belong to $\mathbb{R}^2$. The x and y elements are assumed to be independent, as a positive correlation between x and y velocities, for example, would indicate movement in a northeast or southwest direction.
To model directional persistence in movement, $v^{(x)}(t)$ and $v^{(y)}(t)$ are assumed to follow independent continuous-time Ornstein-Uhlenbeck processes. We first present the CTCRW model for one-dimensional movement, focusing on the $x$ coordinate of Equation . Our development follows that of .
Given a change in time $\Delta$, the $x$-directional velocity is given by
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:vel}
v^{(x)}(t+\Delta) = \gamma_1 + e^{-\beta\Delta}[v^{(x)}(t)-\gamma_1] + \xi_1(\Delta),
\end{aligned}$$
where $\xi_1(\Delta)$ is a normal random variable with mean 0 and variance $\sigma^2 [1-\exp(-2\beta\Delta)]/2\beta$, $\sigma^2$ represents the variability in the random velocity, $\gamma_1$ describes the directional drift (mean velocity) in the $x$ direction, and $\beta$ controls the autocorrelation in velocity. Equation reveals that the updated velocity at time $t + \Delta$ ($ v^{(x)}(t+\Delta)$) is equal to a weighted average of the mean drift ($\gamma_1$), and the velocity at time $t$ ($v^{(x)}(t)$) plus a random term with mean $0$. Using this parametrization, small values of $\beta$ imply a higher tendency to continue traveling with the same velocity over time. The location $\mu^{(x)}(t+\Delta)$ is obtained by integrating velocity over time
$$\begin{aligned}
\mu^{(x)}(t+\Delta) = \mu^{(x)}(t) + \int_{t}^{t+\Delta} v^{(x)}(u) du.\end{aligned}$$
Assuming we have $N$ observations at times $(t_1,..., t_N)$ , discretization of the continuous time model yields the distributions for the unobserved states,
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:2.2}
\left( \begin{array} {c} \mu^{(x)}_{t_i} \\ v^{(x)}_{t_i} \end{array} \right) &\sim
N\left(\boldsymbol{T_1}(\beta, \Delta_i) \left( \begin{array} {c} \mu^{(x)}_{t_{i-1}} \\ v^{(x)}_{t_{i-1}} \end{array} \right) + \boldsymbol{d_1}(\gamma_1, \beta ,\Delta_i ) ,\sigma^2 \boldsymbol{V_1}(\beta, \Delta_i)\right), \hfill i=1,...,N,
\end{aligned}$$
where $\Delta_i$ is the time change between observations $i-1$ and $i$, $\boldsymbol{T_1}(\beta, \Delta_i)$ accounts for the directional persistence,
$$\begin{aligned}
\boldsymbol{T_1}(\beta, \Delta_i) = \left( \begin{array} {cc} 1 & \frac{1-e^{-\beta\Delta_i}}{\beta} \\
0 & e^{-\beta\Delta_i} \end{array} \right),
\end{aligned}$$
$\boldsymbol{d_1}(\gamma_1, \beta ,\Delta_i )$ models directional drift,
$$\begin{aligned}
\boldsymbol{d_1}( \gamma_1, \beta ,\Delta_i ) =
\gamma_1 \left( \begin{array} {c} \Delta_i - \frac{1-e^{-\beta\Delta_i}}{\beta} \\
1 - e^{-\beta\Delta_i} \end{array} \right),
\end{aligned}$$
and the variance matrix of Equation is given by
$$\begin{aligned}
\boldsymbol{V_1}(\beta, \Delta_i) &= \left( \begin{array} {cc} v_1(\beta, \Delta_i) & v_3(\beta, \Delta_i)
\\ v_3(\beta, \Delta_i) & v_2(\beta, \Delta_i) \end{array} \right),
\end{aligned}$$
with
$$\begin{aligned}
v_1(\beta, \Delta_i)&=\frac{\Delta_i - \frac{2}{\beta}(1-e^{-\beta\Delta_i}) + \frac{1}{2\beta}(1-e^{-2\beta\Delta_i})}{\beta^2}, \\
v_2(\beta, \Delta_i)&= \frac{1-e^{-2\beta\Delta_i}}{2\beta},\\
v_3(\beta, \Delta_i)&= \frac{1 - 2e^{-\beta\Delta_i} + e^{-2\beta\Delta_i}}{2\beta^2}.
\end{aligned}$$
Finally, the observed position ($s^{(x)}_{t_i}$) of the animal is modeled as a Gaussian random variable centered at the true location ($\mu^{(x)}_{t_i}$)
$$\begin{aligned}
s^{(x)}_{t_i} &\sim N(\mu^{(x)}_{t_i},\sigma_E^2),
\end{aligned}$$
where $\sigma_E^2$ represents the observation error variance. To aggregate the x and y dimensional distributions into a 2-dimensional model, as given in Equation , the covariance terms between all x and y elements are set to 0. This yields the marginal model for the individual, with parameters $(\beta, \gamma_1, \gamma_2, \sigma^2, \sigma_E^2)$ and distributions
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:2.4}
\boldsymbol{s}_{t_i} &\sim N(\boldsymbol{Z}\boldsymbol{\alpha}_{t_i},\sigma_E^2 \boldsymbol{I_2})\\ \label{eq:2.4b}
\boldsymbol{\alpha}_{t_i} &\sim N(\boldsymbol{T}(\beta, \Delta_i)\boldsymbol{\alpha}_{t_{i-1}} +
\boldsymbol{d}(\gamma_1, \gamma_2, \beta ,\Delta_i ) ,\sigma^2 \boldsymbol{V}(\beta, \Delta_i)).
\end{aligned}$$
where $\boldsymbol{T} = \boldsymbol{I_2} \otimes \boldsymbol{T_1}(\beta, \Delta_i)$, $\boldsymbol{d} = [ \boldsymbol{d_1}( \gamma_1, \beta ,\Delta_i )', \boldsymbol{d_1}( \gamma_2, \beta ,\Delta_i )' ]'$, $\boldsymbol{V} = \boldsymbol{I_2} \otimes \boldsymbol{V_1}(\beta, \Delta_i)$, and
$$\begin{aligned}
\boldsymbol{Z} &= \left( \begin{array} {cccc} 1 & 0 & 0 & 0
\\ 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \end{array} \right),
\end{aligned}$$
For details about the derivation of the model and examples using this model see .
Independent Group Movement Model
--------------------------------
Assuming independent movement between individuals, this model can be easily extended to a group setting. For the remainder of the article we assume that the movement parameters $(\beta, \gamma_1, \gamma_2, \sigma^2, \sigma_E^2)$ are shared by all individuals.
Assume that we observe $K \geq 1$ animals where every individual is observed at each time point $(t_1, t_2, ..., t_N)$. The observed locations are denoted by $\boldsymbol{S}_{t_i}= (\boldsymbol{s}^{(1)}_{t_i},\boldsymbol{s}^{(2)}_{t_i},...,\boldsymbol{s}^{(K)}_{t_i})^T$ for $t_i \in {t_1, t_2, ..., t_N}$ and the unobserved states are denoted $\boldsymbol{A_{t_i}} = (\boldsymbol{\alpha}^{(1)}_{t_i},\boldsymbol{\alpha}^{(2)}_{t_i},...,\boldsymbol{\alpha}^{(K)}_{t_i})^T$. The joint distribution for the unobserved states may be expressed as
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:2.6}
g \left(\boldsymbol{A_{t_{1:N}}} |\beta, \gamma_1, \gamma_2, \sigma^2 \right) = \prod_{i=1}^{N} \prod_{k=1}^{K} f(\boldsymbol{\alpha}^{(k)}_{t_i}|\boldsymbol{\alpha}^{(k)}_{t_{i-1}}, \beta, \gamma_1, \gamma_2, \sigma^2),\end{aligned}$$
where $f(\boldsymbol{\alpha}^{(k)}_{t_i}|\boldsymbol{\alpha}^{(k)}_{t_{i-1}}, \beta, \gamma_1, \gamma_2, \sigma^2)$ is the density of a normal random variable for the unobserved state for individual $k$ at time $t_i$, as defined in Equation . The joint distribution for the observed locations conditional on the unobserved states is therefore
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:2.6b}
h\left(\boldsymbol{S_{t_{1:N}}} |\boldsymbol{A_{t_{1:N}}}, \sigma^2_E \right) = \prod_{i=1}^{N} \prod_{k=1}^{K} f(\boldsymbol{s}^{(k)}_{t_i}|\boldsymbol{\alpha}^{(k)}_{t_{i}}, \sigma^2_E),\end{aligned}$$
where $f(\boldsymbol{s}^{(k)}_{t_i}|\boldsymbol{\alpha}^{(k)}_{t_i}, \sigma_E^2)$ is the density of a normal random variable for the observation error for individual $k$ at time $t_i$, as defined in Equation ,
Dynamic Point Process Interaction (DPPI) Model
----------------------------------------------
If we assume independence between individuals, once two animals start to drift apart, there is no mechanism to draw the animals back towards each other. To model schooling or herd behavior, we propose an approach motivated by spatial point process models. Consider Equation , which gives the distribution of the unobserved states of a set of animals at the current time point conditional on the locations at the previous time point. To simplify notation, let $\boldsymbol{\Theta_1} = (\beta, \gamma_1, \gamma_2, \sigma^2, \sigma_E^2)$ describe the parameters for the marginal movement model, and let $\boldsymbol{\Theta_2}$ describe the parameters for a spatial point process interaction function $\psi(\cdot)$. For each pair of locations at the current time point, we multiply the density by a point process interaction function $\psi_{jk}\left(\delta \left(\boldsymbol{\alpha}_{t_{i}}^{(j)}, \boldsymbol{\alpha}_{t_{i}}^{(k)}\right);\boldsymbol{\Theta_2}\right)$ which depends only on the pairwise Euclidean distance between the current locations, which we define to be $\delta \left(\boldsymbol{\alpha^{(j)}},\boldsymbol{\alpha^{(k)}}\right) = \sqrt{(\mu_x^{(j)}-\mu_x^{(k)})^2 + (\mu_y^{(j)}-\mu_y^{(k)})^2}$, and parameter $\boldsymbol{\Theta_2}$. Note that this is not a function of the unobserved velocities. Hence we multiply Equation by the product of our interaction functions
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:psi}
\psi(\boldsymbol{A_{t_{1:N}}};\boldsymbol{\Theta_2}) =\prod_{i-1}^N \prod_{k=2}^{K} \prod_{j<k}\psi_{jk}\left(\delta \left(\boldsymbol{\alpha}_{t_{i}}^{(j)}, \boldsymbol{\alpha}_{t_{i}}^{(k)}\right);\boldsymbol{\Theta_2}\right)\end{aligned}$$
which takes values in $\mathbb{R}^+$. For two animals $i$ and $j$, if the value of $\psi_{jk} ( \cdot )$ is small, this discourages animals from moving to these locations at the same time, similar to a weighted distribution approach for resource selection \*[johnson2008b]{}. The ordering of the individuals does not impact the results.
The resulting model has joint density given by:
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:density}
\frac{ h\left(\boldsymbol{S_{t_{1:N}}} |\boldsymbol{A_{t_{1:N}}}, \sigma^2_E \right) g\left(\boldsymbol{A_{t_{1:N}}} |\beta, \gamma_1, \gamma_2, \sigma^2 \right) \psi( \boldsymbol{A_{t_{1:N}}} |\boldsymbol{\Theta_2})}{c(\boldsymbol{\Theta_1}, \boldsymbol{\Theta_2})},
\end{aligned}$$
where $h\left(\boldsymbol{S_{t_{1:N}}} |\boldsymbol{A_{t_{1:N}}}, \sigma^2_E \right)$ represents the density of the observed locations conditional on the unobserved states from Equation , $g\left(\boldsymbol{A_{t_{1:N}}} |\beta, \gamma_1, \gamma_2, \sigma^2 \right)$ represents the density of the unobserved states from Equation , $\psi( \boldsymbol{A_{t_{1:N}}} |\boldsymbol{\Theta_2})$ represents the interaction function from Equation and $c(\boldsymbol{\Theta_1}, \boldsymbol{\Theta_2})$ is the normalizing function required to ensure that the density integrates to 1 and is given by the multidimensional integral over the unobserved states:
$$\begin{aligned}
c(\boldsymbol{\Theta_1}, \boldsymbol{\Theta_2}) = \int h\left(\boldsymbol{S_{t_{1:N}}} |\boldsymbol{A_{t_{1:N}}}, \sigma^2_E \right) g\left(\boldsymbol{A_{t_{1:N}}} |\beta, \gamma_1, \gamma_2, \sigma^2 \right) \psi( \boldsymbol{A_{t_{1:N}}} |\boldsymbol{\Theta_2})d\boldsymbol{A_{t_{1:N}}}
\end{aligned}$$
The point process interaction function $\psi( \boldsymbol{A_{t_{1:N}}} |\boldsymbol{\Theta_2})$ should be selected based on the assumed interaction behavior of the animals being studied.
Herding or schooling behavior can be generated when individuals repel each other at small distances to avoid collisions, attract each other at mid range distances, and behave independently when they are a large distance apart. An interaction function that captures this behavior is the attraction-repulsion interaction function found in . This interaction function is given by:
$$\begin{aligned}
\psi(\boldsymbol{A_{t_{1:N}}} , \theta_1, \theta_2, \theta_3, R) = \prod_{i=1}^N \prod_{k=2}^{K} \prod_{j<k} \psi \left(\delta\left(\boldsymbol{\alpha}_{t_i}^{(j)}, \boldsymbol{\alpha}_{t_i}^{(k)}\right) ;\theta_1, \theta_2, \theta_3, R \right),\end{aligned}$$
with
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:2.7}
\psi(r ;\theta_1, \theta_2, \theta_3, R) = \begin{cases} 0 &\mbox{if } 0 \leq r \leq R \\
\psi_1(r) \equiv \theta_1 - \left( \frac{\sqrt{\theta_1}}{\theta_2-R} (r-\theta_2)^2 \right)& \mbox{if } R \leq r \leq r_1 \\
\psi_2(r) \equiv 1 + \frac{1}{(\theta_3(r-r_2))^2}&\mbox{if } 0 \geq r_1 \end{cases}.\end{aligned}$$
Using this parametrization, $\theta_1$ gives the peak height of the interaction function, $\theta_2$ gives the location of the peak, and $\theta_3$ controls the rate at which the function descends after the peak. The values $r_1$ and $r_2$ in Equation are the unique real numbers that make $\psi(r)$ and $\frac{d}{dr} \psi(r)$ continuous, given by the solution to the differential equations
$$\begin{aligned}
\begin{cases}
\psi_1(r_1) = \psi_2(r_1)\\
\frac{d\psi_1}{dr}(r_1) = \frac{d\psi_2}{dr}(r_1)
\end{cases}.\end{aligned}$$
![Behavior of Attraction-Repulsion Interaction Function[]{data-label="fig:joshInteract"}](figure2.jpg "fig:"){width="120mm"}\
Examples of the attraction-repulsion interaction function from \*[Goldstein]{}.\
a) Demonstrates the effect of changing the peak height parameter $\theta_1$.\
b) Demonstrates the effect of changing the peak location parameter $\theta_2$.\
c) Demonstrates the effect of changing the rate of descent parameter $\theta_3$.
See \*[Goldstein]{} for details. Examples of the interaction functions under different parameter settings are given in Figure \[fig:joshInteract\].
Comparison with Existing Approaches
-----------------------------------
There have been several other models proposed to account for interaction behavior in animal movement. Let $\boldsymbol{A}_{t_{i}}$ represent the true locations of each of the animals in the group at time $t_i$. utilize a model where the locations at the next time point $\boldsymbol{A}_{t_{i+1}}$ are only dependent on neighbor’s locations at the current time point, so the interaction is a function of $\boldsymbol{A}_{t_{i}}$. Since animals generally interact continuously over time we prefer a model that allows modeling of group behavior based on the joint distribution of the next location of the individuals in the group, resulting in an interaction which is a function of $\boldsymbol{A}_{t_{i+1}}$. This results in a reasonable model even if there are long time lags between the observations. Additionally, we consider direct estimation of model parameters, whereas utilize extensive simulations under different parametrizations followed by analysis of group summary statistics. discuss Bayesian parameter estimation of a SPP system model, where the interaction term in the model is again assumed to depend only on the system state at the previous time point. However, the analysis is only accurate if the rate of observations matches the rate at which animals update their velocity, implicitly assuming that individuals update their velocities at discrete time points \*[mcclintock2014discrete]{}.
\*[potts2014]{} propose a similar weighted distribution framework that combines three different aspects of movement, individual movement, the effect of the environment and the interaction with previous behavior of the rest group, to model an individuals next location. These factors are modeled by assuming separability and taking the product of three different parts, the movement process, the environmental desirability weighting function, and the collective interaction which can include all information on group movement up to and including the recent time point. We extend this framework by using ideas from point process statistics to jointly model the probability of members of a group moving to a new location rather than considering the group’s recent history. Another recent approach due to \*[Langrock]{} assumes that animals move around a latent centroid to account for group dynamics in animal movement. The movement of the individuals is modeled as a hidden Markov model with behavioral states. In one state, the animals may be attracted to the group centroid, and follow a biased correlated random walk, whereas in an exploratory state, the individual might follow a correlated random walk. Instead of the latent centroid approach of \*[Langrock]{}, our method deals with the group dynamics by looking at the pairwise behavior between the individuals directly, allowing for different types of behavior, such as pairs of animals moving together separate from the group. finds that parameter estimates can be biased if the time lag for the observations does not match the rate at which individuals update their velocities when only the previous locations are considered. Our approach does not have this weakness since we model interaction behavior dependent on the current joint locations of the group of individuals, rather than just the previous locations using point process interaction functions. \*[Johnson\_2013]{} use spatio-temporal point process models to study resource selection, but they do not consider animal interactions.
Our weighted distribution approach provides a general approach to modelling movement interactions that is not affected by the timescale of the observations due to the joint modeling of the locations. This is an improvement over existing methods which model interactions based on the most recent locations under a Markovian assumption. In the case of the guppies, we are able to model individual movement using existing dynamic models, and interaction using existing point process models which provide a natural way of modeling the interaction among points in a plane. Both of these types of models have a large literature basis and this makes modeling accessible.
Model Inference {#sec2}
===============
Next, we describe a Metropolis-Hastings algorithm to perform Bayesian inference. We select priors for each of the parameters that reflect our limited prior information about the model parameters. We will use the same priors for both our simulation study and data analysis. For $\gamma_1$ and $\gamma_2$ we specify conjugate normal priors with zero mean and variance equal to $10^4$, $\pi(\gamma_1)\sim N(0, 10^4)$ and $\pi(\gamma_2)\sim N(0, 10^4)$. For the parameters that are restricted to be positive we specify truncated normal priors, denoted $\textnormal{truncN}(\mu, \sigma^2, B_L)$, with lower bound given by $B_L$ and density proportional to
$$\begin{aligned}
f(x|\mu, \sigma^2, B_L) \propto \exp \left( \frac{-(x-\mu)^2}{2\sigma^2} \right) I\{x > B_L\}
\end{aligned}$$
where $I$ is the indicator function. The priors chosen are given by $\beta \sim \textnormal{truncN}(1, 10^4, 0)$, $\sigma^2 \sim \textnormal{truncN}(1, 10^4, 0)$ and $\sigma^2_E \sim \textnormal{truncN}(1, 10^4, 0)$. The parameter R was fixed a priori to be the minimum distance between individuals across all time points, denoted $\hat{R}$. We have additional interaction parameters $\theta_1$, $\theta_2$ and $\theta_3$. For $\theta_1$ and $\theta_2$ we use truncated normal priors; $\theta_1 \sim \textnormal{truncN}(2, 10^4, 1)$ and $\theta_2 \sim \textnormal{truncN}(\hat{R} + 1, 10^4, \hat{R})$. Finally, since the effect of $\theta_3$ on the interaction function is minimal for all $\theta_3$ greater than one (see Figure \[fig:joshInteract\]) we use a uniform prior on $(0,1)$ for $\theta_3$.
Inference is straightforward when the point process interactions are not included in the model. For the independent group movement model discussed in Section 2.2, we use variable-at-a-time Metropolis-Hastings. At each iteration of our MCMC algorithm, we first update the unobserved states for each individual at each time point, $\boldsymbol{A_{t_{1:N}}}$, and then each of the model parameters $(\beta, \gamma_1, \gamma_2, \sigma^2, \sigma^2_E)$. The Kalman filter can be used for the model with no interactions but it can not be easily extended to the general case; thus we focus on a more general method for inference.
We assessed convergence by monitoring Monte Carlo standard errors using the batch means procedures, described in \*[jones2006fixed]{} and \*[flegal2008markov]{}, and by comparing kernel density estimates of the posterior of the first half of the chain and the second half of the chain.
Inference becomes more challenging when interactions are included in the model. Without the interaction function $\psi(\cdot)$, the normalizing constant does not depend on the parameters, so it can be ignored for Bayesian inference. However, the normalizing function in Equation is a function of all of the model parameters $c(\boldsymbol{\Theta}) = c( \boldsymbol{\Theta_1}, \boldsymbol{\Theta_2} )$. In the Metropolis-Hastings algorithm, using the model likelihood from Equation , and a proposal density $q(\cdot|\cdot)$ we have acceptance probability:
$$\begin{aligned}
\alpha = \text{min}\left( 1, \frac{p(\boldsymbol{\Theta'}) q(\boldsymbol{\Theta'}|\boldsymbol{\Theta}) h\left(\boldsymbol{S_{t_{1:N}}} |\boldsymbol{A_{t_{1:N}}}, \boldsymbol{\Theta'} \right) g\left(\boldsymbol{A_{t_{1:N}}} |\boldsymbol{\Theta'} \right) \psi( \boldsymbol{A_{t_{1:N}}} |\boldsymbol{\Theta'}) c(\boldsymbol{\Theta)}}{p(\boldsymbol{\Theta}) q(\boldsymbol{\Theta}|\boldsymbol{\Theta'}) h\left(\boldsymbol{S_{t_{1:N}}} |\boldsymbol{A_{t_{1:N}}}, \boldsymbol{\Theta} \right) g\left(\boldsymbol{A_{t_{1:N}}} |\boldsymbol{\Theta} \right) \psi( \boldsymbol{A_{t_{1:N}}} |\boldsymbol{\Theta}) c(\boldsymbol{\Theta'})} \right).
\end{aligned}$$
Thus, since the normalizing functions do not cancel out we cannot use Metropolis-Hastings without accounting for them.
Many methods have been suggested to deal with this issue in the point process literature, however they are often computationally expensive. proposed an estimation method using psuedo-likelihood which does not work well when there is strong interaction. use importance sampling to estimate the normalizing constant, however this method only works if the parameter value used in the importance function is close to the maximum likelihood estimate of the parameter. \*[atchade2013bayesian]{} propose an MCMC algorithm for Bayesian inference. gives an overview of several other estimation methods. Here we use the double Metropolis-Hastings (MH) algorithm [@Liang]. This is an approximate version of the auxiliary variable M-H algorithm \*[moller2006efficient,murray2012]{} but avoids perfect sampling [@propp1996exact] which is not possible from our model. The auxiliary variable is approximately simulated using a nested MH sampler. This avoids estimation of the normalizing constant at the cost of simulating the path using MCMC. The length of the nested MH sampler must be large enough so that the distribution of the auxiliary variable is close to that of a perfect sampler.
The double MH algorithm [@Liang] is
1. Generate a proposal $\boldsymbol{\Theta'}$ from some proposal distribution $q(\boldsymbol{\Theta} | \boldsymbol{\Theta'})$
2. Generate an auxiliary $\boldsymbol{Y^*} = (\boldsymbol{A^*_{t_{1:N}}},\boldsymbol{S^*_{t_{1:N}}})$ from a kernel with stationary distribution
$$\begin{aligned}
\frac{h\left(\boldsymbol{S^*_{t_{1:N}}} |\boldsymbol{A^*_{t_{1:N}}}, \boldsymbol{\Theta'} \right) g\left(\boldsymbol{A^*_{t_{1:N}}} |\boldsymbol{\Theta'} \right) \psi( \boldsymbol{A^*_{t_{1:N}}} |\boldsymbol{\Theta'})}{c(\boldsymbol{\Theta'})}.\end{aligned}$$
$\boldsymbol{Y^*}$ is a approximation of a simulated path from the proposal distribution, this is accomplished using a MH algorithm.
3. Accept $\boldsymbol{\Theta'}$ with probability $\alpha=min\left(1, R(\boldsymbol{\Theta}, \boldsymbol{\Theta'})\right)$, where $R(\boldsymbol{\Theta}, \boldsymbol{\Theta'})$ is given by
$$\begin{aligned}
\frac{p\left(\boldsymbol{\Theta'}\right)q\left(\boldsymbol{\Theta'}|\boldsymbol{\Theta}\right)h\left(\boldsymbol{S_{t_{1:N}}} |\boldsymbol{A_{t_{1:N}}}, \boldsymbol{\Theta'} \right) g\left(\boldsymbol{A_{t_{1:N}}} |\boldsymbol{\Theta'} \right) \psi\left( \boldsymbol{A_{t_{1:N}}} |\boldsymbol{\Theta'}\right)} {p\left(\boldsymbol{\Theta}\right)q\left(\boldsymbol{\Theta}|\boldsymbol{\Theta'}\right)h\left(\boldsymbol{S_{t_{1:N}}} |\boldsymbol{A_{t_{1:N}}}, \boldsymbol{\Theta} \right) g\left(\boldsymbol{A_{t_{1:N}}} |\boldsymbol{\Theta} \right) \psi\left( \boldsymbol{A_{t_{1:N}}} |\boldsymbol{\Theta}\right)} H\left(\boldsymbol{\Theta}, \boldsymbol{\Theta'}, \boldsymbol{A^*_{t_{1:N}}}, \boldsymbol{S^*_{t_{1:N}}} \right)\end{aligned}$$
and $H\left(\boldsymbol{\Theta}, \boldsymbol{\Theta'}, \boldsymbol{A^*_{t_{1:N}}}, \boldsymbol{S^*_{t_{1:N}}} \right)$ is the ratio
$$\begin{aligned}
H\left(\boldsymbol{\Theta}, \boldsymbol{\Theta'}, \boldsymbol{A^*_{t_{1:N}}}, \boldsymbol{S^*_{t_{1:N}}} \right) = \frac{h\left(\boldsymbol{S^*_{t_{1:N}}} |\boldsymbol{A^*_{t_{1:N}}}, \boldsymbol{\Theta} \right) g\left(\boldsymbol{A^*_{t_{1:N}}} |\boldsymbol{\Theta} \right) \psi\left( \boldsymbol{A^*_{t_{1:N}}} |\boldsymbol{\Theta}\right)}{h\left(\boldsymbol{S^*_{t_{1:N}}} |\boldsymbol{A^*_{t_{1:N}}}, \boldsymbol{\Theta'} \right) g\left(\boldsymbol{A^*_{t_{1:N}}} |\boldsymbol{\Theta'} \right) \psi\left( \boldsymbol{A^*_{t_{1:N}}} |\boldsymbol{\Theta'}\right)}.\end{aligned}$$
In our model, since none of the parameters can be easily separated from the integration over the unobserved states; the normalizing function is a function of all model parameters. Thus, we need to use the double Metropolis-Hastings algorithm for each parameter update. Therefore, for each parameter update, we use an MH algorithm to simulate a realization of the unobserved states $\boldsymbol{A^*_{t_{1:N}}}$ and observations $\boldsymbol{S^*_{t_{1:N}}}$ from our model with the proposal parameters, and use this simulation $\boldsymbol{Y^*} = (\boldsymbol{A^*_{t_{1:N}}},\boldsymbol{S^*_{t_{1:N}}})$ to estimate the ratio $H\left(\boldsymbol{\Theta}, \boldsymbol{\Theta'}, \boldsymbol{A^*_{t_{1:N}}}, \boldsymbol{S^*_{t_{1:N}}} \right)$. This requires a simulation of an entire sample path for each new proposal parameter. Note that this estimate is only accurate if the value of $\boldsymbol{\Theta}$ is similar to the value of $\boldsymbol{\Theta'}$, so we elect to use variable at a time updates for all parameters, as opposed to block updates of $\boldsymbol{\Theta}$.
Now we consider the DPPI model from Section 2.4 with the attraction-repulsion interaction function from . In each iteration of our double Metropolis-Hastings algorithm we first update the unobserved states, $\boldsymbol{A_{t_{1:N}}}$, using a four-dimensional block Metropolis-Hastings update, where the unobserved state of each fish $j$ at each time point $t_i$, $ \boldsymbol{\alpha}^{(j)}_{t_i}$ consisting of the true x and y locations and instantaneous velocities, is updated one at a time. Next, we update each each parameter ($\beta$, $\gamma_1$, $\gamma_2$, $\sigma^2$, $\sigma^2_E$, $\theta_1$, $\theta_2$, $\theta_3$) one at a time using a double Metropolis-Hastings update. For each parameter, we use a nested MH sampler to generate an auxiliary variable $\boldsymbol{Y^*}$ from the DPPI model using the current parameters in the MCMC chain and the proposed parameter to be updated. For parameters ($\beta$, $\gamma_1$, $\gamma_2$, $\sigma^2$, $\theta_1$, $\theta_2$, $\theta_3$) the auxiliary variable is a simulated realization of the unobserved states $\boldsymbol{Y^*}=\boldsymbol{A^*_{t_{1:N}}}$ and for $\sigma^2_E$ the auxiliary variable also requires a simulated realization of the observations $\boldsymbol{Y^*} = (\boldsymbol{A^*_{t_{1:N}}},\boldsymbol{S^*_{t_{1:N}}})$. Both of these auxiliary variables are generated using a Metropolis-Hastings algorithm.
The length of the nested MH sampler used to generate the auxiliary variable was determined by examining the distances between the simulated realizations of the observed locations $\boldsymbol{S^*_{t_{1:N}}}$ as the length is increased. The length was doubled until the average distance between locations stabilized, resulting in a nested MH sampler of length 200. The double Metropolis-Hastings step is time consuming, since it requires a nested Metropolis-Hastings sampler for each parameter at each MCMC step. Convergence was determined using the same methods as for the independent movement algorithm.
Application to Simulated Data {#sec3}
=============================
To test the performance of our double Metropolis-Hastings algorithm we generated simulated paths from our DPPI model and recovered the true parameters. We simulated three group movement paths with starting locations taken from the starting locations of the ten guppies in Figure \[fig:SimulatedPaths\](a). In all cases the CTCRW movement parameters $\boldsymbol{\Theta_1}$ were set to the means of the posterior distributions from Section 5 $(\beta=0.15 , \gamma_1=-1.2 ,\gamma_2=1.5 ,\sigma^2=1.7 , \sigma^2_E=0.4)$. The interaction parameters $\boldsymbol{\Theta_2}$ were chosen for three different scenarios. In scenario 1 (medium interaction), we used the posterior mean parameter values from Section 5 $(\theta_1^{(1)}=32, \theta_2^{(1)}=33, \theta_3^{(1)}=0.3)$ to mimic the guppy movement. The parameters in scenario 2 were specified to encourage stronger interaction $(\theta_1^{(2)}=100, \theta_2^{(2)}=20, \theta_3^{(2)}=0.5)$. The parameters in scenario 3 were specified to represent a weaker interaction $(\theta_1^{(3)}=10, \theta_2^{(3)}=80, \theta_3^{(3)}=0.5)$. The interaction functions and simulated paths are plotted in Figure \[fig:simulation\]. The heights of the interaction functions show that the second set of parameters (Figure \[fig:simulation\](b)) results in the strongest interaction, and the third set of parameters (Figure \[fig:simulation\](c)) results in the weakest interaction. In the simulated movement paths, it is apparant that Figure \[fig:simulation\](c) has less interaction, but it is difficult to compare the strength of attraction between Figures \[fig:simulation\](a) and (b) from the plots of the movement paths alone.
![Simulated Data under Different Settings[]{data-label="fig:simulation"}](figure3.jpg "fig:"){width="120mm"}\
The attraction-repulsion point process interaction function for the (a)medium, (b)strong, and (c)weak simulated realizations of the model; and plots of the simulated paths for the (d)medium, (e)strong, and (f)weak interactions.
We first estimated the parameters using the independent model that assumes that the fish moved independently, as in Section 2.2. The resulting parameter estimates and 95% equi-tailed credible intervals are given in Table \[table:1\].
Interaction Strength $\beta=0.15$ $\gamma_1=-1.2$ $\gamma_2=1.5$ $\sigma^2=1.7$ $\sigma^2_E=0.4$
---------------------- -------------- ----------------- ----------------- ---------------- ------------------
Medium $.184$ $-1.25$ $1.64$ $1.94$ $.389$
$(.15, .21)$ $(-1.57,-0.91)$ $(1.33, 1.98)$ $(1.76,2.12)$ $(.36,.41)$
Strong $.210 $ $-1.11 $ $1.30 $ $1.92 $ $.385 $
$(.18, .23)$ $(-1.40,-0.83)$ $(1.02, 1.59)$ $(1.72,2.11)$ $(.35,.41)$
Weak $.146 $ $-1.40 $ $1.53 $ $1.75 $ $.392 $
$(.12, .16)$ $(-1.78,-1.00)$ $ (1.13, 1.93)$ $(1.61,1.93)$ $(.36,.42)$
: Simulated Model Assuming Independent Movement[]{data-label="table:1"}
Posterior means and 95% equi-tailed credible intervals estimated using a variable at a time Metropolis-Hastings algorithm assuming there is no interaction between individuals on the data simulated from a DPPI model with medium $(\theta_1^{(1)}=32, \theta_2^{(1)}=33, \theta_3^{(1)}=0.3)$, strong $(\theta_1^{(2)}=100, \theta_2^{(2)}=20, \theta_3^{(2)}=0.5)$, and weak $(\theta_1^{(3)}=10, \theta_2^{(3)}=80, \theta_3^{(3)}=0.5)$ interaction settings.
Our credible intervals for for $\gamma_1$, $\gamma_2$, and $\sigma^2_E$ include the true parameters for all of the simulations. However, in the medium and strong attraction scenarios the credible intervals for $\beta$ and $\sigma^2$ do not contain the truth. This indicates that assuming independence when there is actually interaction among the animals can result in biased parameter estimates.
Next, we used the correct DPPI model to analyze the simulated data. The results are given in Table \[table:2\].
Interaction Strength $\beta=0.15$ $\gamma_1=-1.2$ $\gamma_2=1.5$ $\sigma^2=1.7$ $\sigma^2_E=0.4$
---------------------- --------------- ------------------ ----------------- ---------------- ------------------
Medium $.161 $ $-1.25 $ $1.64 $ $1.72 $ $.404 $
$ (.13, .18)$ $ (-1.58,-0.90)$ $(1.30, 2.01)$ $(1.57,1.86)$ $ (.37,.43)$
Strong $.161 $ $-1.11 $ $1.32 $ $1.51 $ $.413 $
$(.13, .18)$ $(-1.45,-0.79)$ $ (1.00, 1.64)$ $(1.38,1.68)$ $(.38,.44)$
Weak $.144 $ $-1.40 $ $1.53 $ $1.74 $ $.391 $
$(.12, .16)$ $(-1.82,-1.01)$ $(1.12, 1.92)$ $ (1.59,1.91)$ $ (.36,.42)$
: Simulated Model Including Interactions[]{data-label="table:2"}
Interaction Strength $\theta_1 = (32, 100, 10)$ $\theta_2 = (33,20,80)$ $\theta_3 = (0.3,0.3,0.5)$
---------------------- ---------------------------- ------------------------- ----------------------------
Medium $37.5 $ $33.7 $ $.408 $
$(18.1, 74.4)$ $ (29.6,39.1)$ $ (.050, .954)$
Strong $66.9 $ $19.4 $ $.614 $
$(31.0, 134.2)$ $ (16.6,21.5)$ $ (.073, .983)$
Weak $12.4 $ $78.7 $ $.359 $
$ (4.0, 33.3)$ $ (20.2,114.4)$ $ (.011, .947)$
: Simulated Model Including Interactions[]{data-label="table:2"}
Posterior means and 95% equi-tailed credible intervals estimated using the double Metropolis-Hastings algorithm on the data simulated from a DPPI model with medium, strong, and weak interaction settings.
From Table \[table:2\], we can see that our algorithm accurately recovers the movement parameters $\boldsymbol{\Theta_1}$ with the exception of $\sigma^2$ which falls just outside the 95% credible interval in the strong attraction scenario. In Table \[table:2\], we are also successful in recovering $\theta_1$ and $\theta_2$, but there is greater uncertainty in these parameter estimates than in the movement parameters. Although the simulated paths looked similar in Figure \[fig:simulation\], we are able to distinguish between the medium attraction and the strong attraction scenarios. However the width of the credible interval increases as attraction increases, indicating it is harder to differentiate between levels of attraction as the peak of our attraction-repulsion interaction function increases. For $\theta_3$, the posterior is very similar to the prior distribution, a uniform distribution on $(0,1)$, which indicates that there is not enough information in the simulated data to infer the parameter. To test the effect that having an incorrect estimate for $\theta_3$ would have on the other parameter estimates, the double Metropolis-Hastings algorithm was rerun fixing $\theta_3$ at several different values $\left( \theta_3=0.05 ,\theta_3=0.5 ,\theta_3=0.9 \right)$. The resulting posterior distributions for the other parameters remained consistent with our previous results, so the lack of identifiability of $\theta_3$ does not invalidate our estimates for the other parameters.
Guppy Data {#sec4}
==========
We now use our approach to analyze the guppy shoal data of , available online \*[data]{}, where the individuals show a tendency to interact, as evident by the shoaling behavior in Figure \[fig:SimulatedPaths\](a). Gravel and shade were added in one corner of the tank to attract the guppies, and a group of ten guppies is released in the opposite corner. The full trajectories are observed for the guppies from the time they begin moving towards the destination until the first guppy reaches the target. The guppies were filmed with a standard definition camera, recording 10 frames per second, and tracking software (SwisTrack; \*[lochmatter2008swistrack]{})was used to obtain the coordinates. One realization of the experiment is plotted in Figure \[fig:SimulatedPaths\](a). The experiment was repeated several times, but we focus our analysis on a single realization of the experiment. calculated a summary statistic based on angles of direction to estimate the social interactions of a group. A permutation test, which randomly assigned group membership of guppies to artificial experimental trials, found that the social interaction summary statistic was larger in actual groups than in artificially permutated groups in all but 75 out of 10,000 permutations. concluded that the guppies do interact socially. Using our approach, we are able to extend the results of and directly infer parameter values that reflect this interaction between fish.
We first performed inference using the independent movement model from Section 2.2. Next we used our double Metropolis-Hastings algorithm to estimate the parameters for the DPPI model described in Section 2.3. The priors in both scenarios were selected to be the same as in the simulation example, described in Section 3. The results are presented in Table \[table:4\].
Model $\beta$ $\gamma_1$ $\gamma_2$ $\sigma^2$ $\sigma^2_E$
---------- -------------- ------------------ ----------------- ---------------- ----------------
Indep. $.159 $ $-1.18 $ $1.51 $ $1.88 $ $0.384 $
$(.13, .18)$ $ (-1.56,-0.80)$ $ (1.14, 1.89)$ $ (1.71,2.04)$ $(0.35,0.41)$
Interact $.145 $ $-1.17 $ $1.51 $ $1.75 $ $0.395 $
$(.12, .16)$ $(-1.58,-0.77)$ $ (1.12, 1.89)$ $ (1.60,1.95)$ $ (0.36,0.42)$
: Posterior Summary for the Guppy Data[]{data-label="table:4"}
Model $\theta_1$ $\theta_2$ $\theta_3$
---------- ---------------- ----------------- ------------------
Interact $32.0 $ $32.9 $ $0.304 $
$(15.1, 58.2)$ $ (23.4, 44.4)$ $(0.019, 0.921)$
: Posterior Summary for the Guppy Data[]{data-label="table:4"}
Posterior means and 95% equi-tailed credible intervals for the guppy data of \*[Bode2012]{} assuming no interaction and attraction-repulsion point process interactions, estimated using variable at a time Metropolis-Hastings and the double Metropolis-Hastings algorithm respectively.
The means of the posterior distributions for the the parameters $\gamma_1$, $\gamma_2$, and $\sigma^2_E$ are almost identical for the independent and the interaction models. However, the estimates for $\beta$ and $\sigma^2$ differ slightly. Our results from the simulation study imply that the independent model estimates could be inaccurate, since the fish interact with each other socially [@Bode2012]. The results for the movement model parameters $\boldsymbol{\Theta_1}$ indicate that there is autocorrelation in the observations over time, the fish tend to move toward the shelter in the upper left corner, and there is appreciable measurement error but it is very small in magnitude, since 0.4 pixels is approximately 0.08 cm. This seems reasonable since the tracking software used by is highly accurate \*[lochmatter2008swistrack]{}.
To compare the independent model and the DPPI model, we analyze the distribution of pairwise distances from simulated realizations of the two models. In point process statistics, Ripley’s K function, which is described in , can be used to analyze the attraction or repulsion between points. The K function, however, requires an estimate for the intensity of the point process, which does not exist in our model since each point has a unique distribution. Instead, we consider the number of pairs of points that lie within a distance of $d$ of each other, a monotone function which starts at 0 and ends at the total number of pairs of points in the process, defined by
$$\begin{aligned}
K^*(d)= \sum_{i=1}^N \sum_{k=2}^{K} \sum_{j<k} I\{ \delta (\boldsymbol{\alpha}_{t_{i}}^{(j)}, \boldsymbol{\alpha}_{t_{i}}^{(k)}) <d \}\end{aligned}$$
where $I$ represents the indicator function. Larger values of the function indicate that there are more pairs of points within that distance of each other; for example larger values of $K^*(d)$ for small values of d indicate that there is more attraction between points at small scales. To test if our fitted model is capturing the interaction between guppies, we simulate 100 movement paths using draws from the posterior densities of the parameters from the independent movement model and from the DPPI model. We calculate $K^*(d)$ for each of the simulated paths, and create 95% pointwise envelopes for the K-functions in the two simulation settings by taking the $2.5\%$ and $97.5\%$ quantiles. The $K^*(d)$ function is then calculated for the data and is compared to the envelopes. The result is plotted in Figure \[fig:comparison\]. The $K^*(d)$ function for the guppy data is above the envelope for the independent movement model at small distances, indicating that there is more attraction between individuals that can be captured in the independent group movement model. When we use the fitted DPPI model with an attraction-repulsion interaction function, the envelope includes the $K^*(d)$ function for the guppy data at all distances, indicating that the inclusion of the interaction function improves the performance of the model in the case of the guppies.
![Pairwise Distance Envelope[]{data-label="fig:comparison"}](figure4.jpg "fig:"){width="110mm"}\
Estimates of the $K^*(d)$ function for the data compared to 95% equi-tailed confidence intervals calculated from simulated paths using parameters drawn from the posterior distributions of (a)the CTCRW model assuming no interactions; and (b)The DPPI model with the attraction-repulsion interaction function.
Discussion {#sec5}
==========
The movement model with point process interactions we have developed allows us to study group movement of individuals by considering location-based interactions directly. Our double Metropolis-Hastings algorithm for Bayesian inference allows us to accurately estimate parameters. We analyze the movement tracks of a shoal of guppies, which was previously studied using permutation tests and summary statistics in , and find that the DPPI model captures the observed pairwise interactions between guppies. We are able to generate paths with similar distributions of pointwise distances between individuals using our model, and show that an independent model fails to do so. We have shown that ignoring interactions of the guppies from [@Bode2012] leads to unrealistic group movement paths and inaccuracies in parameter estimates.
One drawback of our model is that the simulated paths appear less smooth than the actual paths in the data. This could be due to the time-varying behavior of the guppies, which is apparent in Figure \[fig:SimulatedPaths\](a), as the guppies change direction during their movement. Further, the guppies do not all start to move at the same time. Some guppies linger at their start location after they have been released. Thus, our assumption of a constant drift shared by all fish may not hold, and including a time-varying drift term that varies across individuals in our CTCRW model might better capture the observed movement behavior. However, this increased flexibility would exacerbate the computational cost, and without incorporating these improvements we are still able to capture the social interactions.
In future work, we would like to consider the impact of unobserved animals interacting with the group. This could potentially result in biased parameter estimates. For example, the strength of the attraction to an individual may be overestimated if there are some unobserved animals moving in a group, or the range of attraction may be overestimated if there are additional unobserved animals between the group members. The locations of unobserved animals could be imputed but this would result in additional computational difficulties, particularly if the number of unobserved individuals is unknown.
Analysis on group movement mechanics have focused on three main features: collision avoidance at small scales, alignment at medium scales, and attraction at larger scales [@gautrais2008]. Our model as presented in Section 2.3 does not explicitly account for the alignment behavior. One method to account for the alignment is to model correlation between the velocities of different individuals as a function of their pairwise distance at the previous time step. \*[katz2011inferring]{}, however, find that the alignment is automatically induced by the attraction and repulsion behavior, indicating that this might not be necessary to add to the model.
Animal movement models can vary greatly depending on the species being considered. In this case, we have only analyzed the movement of guppies, so the results of our analysis may not extend directly to other animals with different types of interactions. The flexibility to choose a dynamic movement and interaction function provides the potential to model a variety of methods of movement, especially when there is prior knowledge of the animal’s behavior.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
We would like to acknowledge the insightful and constructive comments provided by two anonymous reviewers and the associate editor which have clarified and improved the manuscript. This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 1414296 (Russell and Hanks).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We derive new spectral H$\gamma$ index definitions which are robust age indicators for old and relatively old stellar populations and therefore have great potential for solving the age-metallicity degeneracy of galaxy spectra. To study this feature as a function of age, metallicity and resolution, we have used a new spectral synthesis model which predicts spectral energy distributions of single-age, single-metallicity stellar populations at resolution FWHM$\sim1.8$Å (which can be smoothed to different resolutions), allowing direct measurements of the equivalent widths of particular absorption features. We show that H$\gamma$ strong age disentangling power is due to a compensating effect: at specified age, H$\gamma$ strengthens with metallicity due to an adjacent metallic absorption, but on the other hand the adopted pseudocontinua are depressed by the effects of strong neighboring Fe[I]{} lines on both sides of H$\gamma$. Despite the fact that this effect depends strongly on the adopted resolution and galaxy velocity dispersion $\sigma$, we propose a system of indicators which are completely insensitive to metallicity and stable against resolution, allowing the study of galaxies up to $\sigma\sim300$ kms$^{-1}$.
An extensive analysis of the characteristics of these indices indicates that observational spectra of very high signal-to-noise ratio and relatively high dispersion, are required to gain this unprecedented age discriminating power. Once such spectra are obtained, accurate and reliable estimates for the luminosity-weighted average stellar ages of these galaxies will become possible for the first time, without assessing their metallicities. We measured this index for two globular clusters, a number of low-luminosity elliptical galaxies and a standard S0 galaxy. We find a large spread in the average stellar ages of a sample of low-luminosity ellipticals. In particular, these indices yield 4 Gyr for M 32. This value is in excellent agreement with the age provided by an extraordinary fit to the full spectrum of this galaxy that we achieve in this paper.
author:
- 'A. Vazdekis & N. Arimoto'
title: A Robust Age Indicator for Old Stellar Populations
---
Introduction
============
The understanding of the stellar populations of early-type galaxies plays a key role in assessing the origin of these systems. Elliptical galaxies yield robust color-magnitude relations, as shown with high photometric precision by Bower, Lucey & Ellis (1992) for the Virgo and Coma clusters. The origin of this color-magnitude relation is under a strong debate; the relation could either be caused by a variation of the mean stellar metallicity along the relation (e.g., Arimoto & Yoshii 1987; Kodama & Arimoto 1997), or it can be attributed to a variation of the age and metallicity (Ferreras, Charlot & Silk 1998). This is because the interpretation of the stellar populations from the integrated light of galaxies suffers from the fact that there is an age-metallicity degeneracy, i.e, the two effects cannot be separated simultaneously with current techniques (O’Connell 1986; Worthey 1994; Arimoto 1996).
One expects that, rather than using colors, more accurate spectral information should be able to break this degeneracy. In particular, Balmer lines were thought to be ideal candidates, because younger (i.e. hotter) stars show stronger hydrogen absorption (O’Connell 1976). However, Worthey (1994) showed that use of H$\beta$ at intermediate spectral resolution ($\sigma\sim200$ kms$^{-1}$) together with a large set of the other Lick metallic absorption lines is not enough to provide the desired age-metallicity discrimination. Therefore more accurate and reliable estimates for the ages of early-type galaxies are crucial in understanding their formation. Worthey & Ottaviani (1997) showed the importance of increasing resolution when working with Balmer lines, and Jones & Worthey (1995) (hereafter JW95) have shown the ability of their H$\gamma_{HR}$ (a redefinition of Rose 1994 H$\gamma$ index) high resolution index to separate the metallicity and age effects.
In this paper we study H$\gamma$ feature to understand its power in breaking the well known degeneracy. In § 2 we use the high spectral resolution (FWHM$\sim$1.8Å) single-age, single-metallicity stellar populations (SSP’s) model library of Vazdekis (1999) (hereafter V99) and find that H$\gamma_{HR}$ is strongly dependent on resolution and galaxy velocity dispersion. In § 3 we study H$\gamma$ as a function of age, metallicity and resolution and define a new indicator which is completely insensitive to metallicity and stable against resolution. We deal with the most important problems affecting this indicator and propose a recipe for determining the average stellar age of a galaxy. In § 4 we present a discussion and in § 5 our conclusions.
The H$\gamma$ feature
=====================
The SSP spectral library
------------------------
To study H$\gamma$ feature we use the spectral synthesis model of V99 (an extended version of the evolutionary stellar population synthesis model of Vazdekis et al. 1996) which predicts spectral energy distributions (SED’s) for single-aged old stellar populations with metallicities $-0.7\leq[Fe/H]\leq+0.2$ at resolution FWHM$\sim1.8$Å in the optical region. The model uses as input database the empirical spectral library of Jones (1997), after a careful selection of a subsample of $\sim$550 stars. One important advantage of this model is that it allows direct measurements of particular absorption features on the spectra of SSP’s with specified metallicity, age, and initial stellar mass function (IMF), instead of employing polynomial fitting functions that relate the absorption line-strengths with the stellar atmospheric parameters (Worthey 1994; Vazdekis et al. 1996). We use the [*bimodal IMF*]{} of Vazdekis et al. (1996) with a shallow low-mass ($\leq 0.6 M_{\odot}$) slope and a Salpeter (1955) high mass slope.
The behavior of H$\gamma$ as a function of resolution
-----------------------------------------------------
In V99 we showed the intermediate resolution indices H$\gamma_{A}$ and H$\gamma_{F}$ (Worthey & Ottaviani 1997) and the high resolution index H$\gamma_{HR}$ (JW95) as a function of the age and metallicity for SSP’s. Unexpectedly, the two set of indices show opposite trends: at specified age, most metal-deficient SSP’s give largest values for H$\gamma_{A}$ and H$\gamma_{F}$ but H$\gamma_{HR}$. Moreover, the wavelength baselines covered by H$\gamma_{A}$ and H$\gamma_{F}$ are considerably larger than the one by H$\gamma_{HR}$. This fact suggests that H$\gamma$ is not only sensitive to resolution but also to the way in which the index is defined, as was pointed out by JW95. We therefore speculate that there must be a particular definition (with wavelength coverage larger than in H$\gamma_{HR}$ but shorter than in H$\gamma_{F}$ and H$\gamma_{A}$, where the index is insensitive to metallicity. Fig. 1 shows H$\gamma_{HR}$ as a function of the metallicity and age of the SSP for different resolutions $\sigma$’s. For $\sigma=60$ kms$^{-1}$ the most metal-rich SSP’s provide the largest values. This tendency is much less pronounced for $\sigma=125$ kms$^{-1}$, where the previous trend is starting to change (e.g., the values for \[Fe/H\]=$-$0.4 are larger than those for \[Fe/H\]=0.0). For $\sigma=200$ kms$^{-1}$ we get the maximum convergence of the lines; this resolution seems to be the [*inflection point*]{} at which all loci with different metallicities converge. Finally, for $\sigma=275$ kms$^{-1}$ the trend is completely inverted (resembling H$\gamma_{A}$ and H$\gamma_{F}$).
Fig. 2 shows various SSP model spectra of 13 Gyr and different metallicities broadened to the resolutions used in Fig. 1. In first panel we mark the definition of H$\gamma_{HR}$, which measures the EW of a total area of 3.74 Å centered on H$\gamma$ by selecting as pseudocontinua the left and right peaks (indicated by arrows). While H$\gamma$ has nearly the same depth, the metallic contribution from its left side is strengthening the feature for more metal-rich populations. For stars, the dependence of H$\gamma_{A}$, H$\gamma_{F}$, and H$\gamma_{HR}$ as a function of T$_{eff}$ was shown by Worthey & Ottaviani (1997) and Jones (1997) respectively: in all cases the EW increases very sharply for T$_{eff}$’s larger than $\sim$5500 K, but for lower T$_{eff}$’s where H$\gamma$ is basically constant. Since old stellar populations have T$_{eff}$’s in this lower temperature range, differences in T$_{eff}$ due to changes in metallicity are not enough to vary the absorption strength rapidly enough to compensate the very slow change of H$\gamma$. We conclude that for old stellar populations the strengthening of H$\gamma_{HR}$ as a function of metallicity is mainly caused by its adjacent blue side metallic absorption. When broadening the spectra to $\sigma=125$ kms$^{-1}$ these metallic features are merged with H$\gamma$ line. However the adopted pseudocontinua start to be depressed by the deepening of the strong neighboring Fe[I]{} lines centered on 4325 Å and 4352 Å (the latter also contains Mg[I]{}), affecting H$\gamma_{HR}$ strength in the reverse sense. For $\sigma=200$ kms$^{-1}$ these pseudocontinua are more depressed (than for $\sigma=125$ kms$^{-1}$) for more metal-rich SSP’s, making H$\gamma_{HR}$ nearly identical. This is what we have called the inflection point, where metallicity effects are negligible. Finally, for $\sigma=275$ kms$^{-1}$ the pseudocontinua are considerably depressed, breaking the effect that occurs at $200$ kms$^{-1}$, and causing larger EW’s for most metal-deficient SSP’s. Unfortunately, due to limitations in model parameter coverage, we are unable to study in detail the inflection point for SSP’s of younger ages and/or lower metallicities.
The new age indicator
=====================
New index definitions
---------------------
Fig. 1 shows that H$\gamma_{HR}$ provides a stronger power at separating age at $\sigma=200$ kms$^{-1}$ than for lower or higher resolutions. JW95 calculated H$\gamma_{HR}$ for SSP’s using a different approach: they derived empirical fitting functions which relate the stellar atmospheric parameters to the measured line-strengths on the basis of Jones (1997) stellar library (after broadening the spectra to $\sigma=83$ kms$^{-1}$). Their H$\gamma_{HR}$ model predictions fall among the first two plots of Fig. 1 (i.e. those calculated for $\sigma = 60$ and $125$ kms$^{-1}$). Fig. 1 also shows that H$\gamma_{HR}$ is very sensitive to resolution due to the selection of these two peaks as pseudocontinua (which also vary in height and position as a function of metallicity). Thus, H$\gamma_{HR}$ age disentangling power is destroyed with very small $\sigma$ changes.
To achieve a metallicity insensitive H$\gamma$ indicator which is stable against $\sigma$ we used the following approach: first we broadened the SSP spectral library of V99 by steps of $25$ kms$^{-1}$ from $\sigma=60$ kms$^{-1}$ to $\sigma=400$ kms$^{-1}$. We propose various H$\gamma$ index definitions, and then we measure them on these model spectra. We find new indices, \[H$\gamma$+1/2(Fe[I]{}+Mg[I]{})\]$_{\sigma}$, which are completely insensitive to metallicity, at well separated resolutions: $\sigma = 125$ kms$^{-1}$, $200$ kms$^{-1}$ and $275$ kms$^{-1}$, each quite stable in a range of $\Delta\sigma\sim75$ kms$^{-1}$. Table 1 provides the new definitions (also marked in Fig. 2).
\[H$\gamma$+1/2(Fe[I]{}+Mg[I]{})\]$_{125}$ uses the effect of the blue pseudocontinuum to precisely guarantee this ability to disentangle the age, while for the red pseudocontinuum it uses a portion of the very stable continuum around 4364Å. To achieve the resolution stability (required for practical applications) we select the blue pseudocontinuum to fall into the bottom of H$\gamma$ ($\lambda$=4340.468Å), and the feature to fall well inside this pseudocontinuum. This selection introduces a change that is cancelled by extending the red edge of our feature to the bottom of Fe[I]{}+Mg[I]{} at $\lambda$=4352.737Å (Fe[I]{}): for increasing metallicities the strength lost due to blue pseudocontinuum depression (caused by the strengthening of Fe[I]{} at 4325Å and by the full inclusion in this pseudocontinuum of H$\gamma$ blue side metallic absorption) is cancelled with the depth gained by Fe[I]{}+Mg[I]{} strengthening (which is contributing to the feature in the new definition). Thus this index is not just an EW as we are dealing with the [*absorption line profile*]{}, and then it is required spectroscopy of very high signal-to-noise ratio and relatively high dispersion (see § 3.2). At this level of accuracy, an influence of the stellar kinematics cannot be neglected. In particular, kinematically complex systems (e.g., Prada et al. 1996) would require a simultaneous line profiles and kinematics processing.
Modifying these definitions slightly, we find similar age-metallicity trends for $\sigma=200$ kms$^{-1}$ and $\sigma=275$ kms$^{-1}$, providing equally stable $\sigma$ ranges. These indices allow us to cover almost the whole range of galaxy $\sigma$’s up to $\sim300$ kms$^{-1}$. However, despite the fact that such inflection point can essentially be found for larger $\sigma$’s ($\sim400$ kms$^{-1}$), resulting solutions were not stable against resolution. Fig. 3 demonstrates the robustness and age disentangling power of \[H$\gamma$+1/2(Fe[I]{}+Mg[I]{})\]$_{\sigma}$ system. Bottom-left panel of Fig. 3 shows \[H$\gamma$+1/2(Fe[I]{}+Mg[I]{})\]$_{125}$ stability against resolution. Table 2 tabulates the mean index values for various ages of the SSP’s. We also note that \[H$\gamma$+1/2(Fe[I]{}+Mg[I]{})\]$_{\sigma}$ indices are probably not unique for achieving this age discriminating power and alternative definitions could well be sought.
Index characteristics and major uncertainties
---------------------------------------------
In this section we study the problems that can affect \[H$\gamma$+1/2(Fe[I]{}+Mg[I]{})\]$_{\sigma}$ indicators for practical applications. Table 3 summarizes their characteristics and major uncertainties.
### Spectral resolution
The spectral resolution effect is extensively discussed in § 3.1. Table 3 tabulates $\sigma$ ranges where \[H$\gamma$+1/2(Fe[I]{}+Mg[I]{})\]$_{\sigma}$ indices are stable against resolution. Within these ranges ($\Delta\sigma\sim45$ kms$^{-1}$) it is possible to distinguish models of 13 Gyr and 17 Gyr, irrespective of the metallicity (in the range $-$0.7$\leq$\[Fe/H\]$\leq$+0.2). Bottom-left panel of Fig. 3 shows that \[H$\gamma$+1/2(Fe[I]{}+Mg[I]{})\]$_{\sigma}$ indices are also stable within $\Delta\sigma\sim75$ kms$^{-1}$ but the age disentangling power decreases slightly (only SSP’s younger than 12 Gyr can be distinguished from one of 17 Gyr).
### Signal-to-noise ratio
Unfortunately, the required signal-to-noise ratio per Å, S/N(Å), is very high, limiting the number of galaxies observable with most of present-day intermediate class telescopes. An estimate of the required exposure time can be done using the analytical approach of Cardiel et al. (1998) (eqs. (9) and (41) to (44)). Following their notation, coefficients c1 and c2 are calculated from eqs. (43) and (44) using Table 1 index definitions. Assuming a desirable index error ($\sigma[I_{a}]$), we use eq. (41) to estimate the required S/N(Å) (SN). Then by approaching $\sigma_{i}(\lambda_{i})\sim\sqrt{S(\lambda_{i})}$, we use eq. (42) to obtain the number of counts per ADU: $$c=\frac{SN\theta}{2g}\left[SN+\sqrt{SN^{2}+\frac{4\sigma_{RN}^{2}}
{\theta}}\right] ,$$ where $\theta$ is the dispersion in Å per resolution element, $g$ is the gain in $e^{-1}/ADU$, $\sigma_{RN}$ is the readout noise in $e^{-1}$. Finally we compare with the signal obtained in real observational runs. An example in which we integrate all photons within $\sim2\arcsec$ for a nearby galaxy center with $\mu_{B}=17.5~mag~arcsec^{-2}$ on a 4m class telescope is given in Table 3. We used $\theta=$0.8 Å/pix and $\sigma_{RN}=4.4~e^{-1}$. Table 3 also shows that higher resolution \[H$\gamma$+1/2(Fe[I]{}+Mg[I]{})\]$_{\sigma}$ definitions require lower S/N’s.
### Wavelength and radial velocity uncertainties
Table 3 shows largest $\lambda$ errors or shifts allowed to guarantee \[H$\gamma$+1/2(Fe[I]{}+Mg[I]{})\]$_{\sigma}$ age disentangling power. Thus irrespective of galaxy $\sigma$’s, observational spectra of relatively high dispersion ($\stackrel{<}{_\sim}$0.8Å) are required to achieve an accurate $\lambda$ calibration that is typically $\sim$ 5-10% of the adopted dispersion. This also implies that radial velocity effects such as galaxy internal rotational velocity or redshift should be taken into account with high precision. For this purpose the observed spectrum should be crosscorrelated with an appropriate V99 model spectrum (see Appendix). We also note that a galaxy with a recession velocity of $\sim1000$ kms$^{-1}$ produces a difference of $\sim0.13$Å between the bluest point of the blue pseudocontinuum and the reddest point of the red pseudocontinuum, i.e., as large as the largest $\lambda$ shift allowed for \[H$\gamma$+1/2(Fe[I]{}+Mg[I]{})\]$_{125}$. Therefore the (1+$z$) effect should be properly accounted for.
### The spectrum shape
The effect of the spectrum shape on \[H$\gamma$+1/2(Fe[I]{}+Mg[I]{})\]$_{\sigma}$ should be small because the wavelength range involved is quite narrow. We have done the following test: we removed the continuum of V99 model spectra (using an spline3 of order 6) and then measured \[H$\gamma$+1/2(Fe[I]{}+Mg[I]{})\]$_{\sigma}$. Table 3 shows the largest differences (obtained for the oldest SSP’s) when comparing to previous measurements (i.e., on the SSP spectra with a flux calibrated response). We conclude that the effect of the instrumental response curve on \[H$\gamma$+1/2(Fe[I]{}+Mg[I]{})\]$_{\sigma}$ is nearly negligible.
### Age uncertainties
Table 3 summarizes the largest theoretical age uncertainties as well as the ones obtained when adopting the largest errors allowed either in $\sigma$, $\Delta\lambda$ (e.g., errors in $\lambda$ calibration, redshift, rotation curve) or S/N slightly lower than recommended.
A recipe for determining the luminosity-weighted average stellar age of a galaxy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A detailed description of the main characteristics and uncertainties of \[H$\gamma$+1/2(Fe[I]{}+Mg[I]{})\]$_{\sigma}$ indices was performed in § 3.2. Here we summarize the steps required to ensure a correct index measurement:
1. The observed spectrum should satisfy the high S/N requirement of Table 3, which can be achieved by integrating over the spatial direction. Dispersion should be large enough (preferably $<$0.8Å/pix) to prevent absolute $\Delta\lambda$ shifts or errors with a precision as given in Table 3.
2. Determine $\sigma$ along the spatial direction (e.g., by using stellar template spectra acquired with the same instrumental configuration, or by using V99 models). Very accurate $\sigma$ measurement is not essential.
3. Crosscorrelate the observed spectrum with an appropriate V99 model spectrum (instead of using a stellar template) to determine its absolute radial velocity, which has to be taken into account when measuring the index (see Appendix). This is a very important step.
4. Integrate over spatial direction to achieve the required S/N. Variations of velocity rotation (and $\sigma$) must be smaller than indicated in Table 3. Otherwise they should be carefully taken into account.
5. Measure \[H$\gamma$+1/2(Fe[I]{}+Mg[I]{})\]$_{\sigma}$ index appropriate for obtained $\sigma$ and compare with Table 2 to estimate the age[^1]. A fortran code is provided at our web site: http://www.ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp/$\sim$vazdekis/.
Discussion
==========
First panel of Fig. 3 shows \[H$\gamma$+1/2(Fe[I]{}+Mg[I]{})\]$_{125}$ measurements for two metal-rich globular clusters of our Galaxy, 47 Tuc and NGC 6624 (Rose 1994), five low velocity dispersion ellipticals of Jones (1997) (NGC 4489, NGC 4239, NGC 3605, NGC 4387 and M 32) and the standard S0 galaxy NGC 7332 (Vazdekis 1996). The latter spectrum, with 1 $hour$ exposure time, was obtained at Observatorio del Roque de Los Muchachos, La Palma, using the 4.2m WHT (ISIS spectrograph). We integrate the innermost 1.5$\arcsec$ along the slit (positioned on the minor axis of the galaxy) to achieve a relatively high (although not enough) S/N(Å)$\sim$140. Rotation curve and $\sigma$ were both found to be very stable in this region. All these spectra (except NGC 7332 which has $\sigma\sim135$ kms$^{-1}$) were pre-broadened to a common resolution of $125$ kms$^{-1}$.
The M 32 spectrum (with extremely high S/N, see JW95) was broadened to $\sigma=200~kms^{-1}$ and $275~kms^{-1}$ for measuring \[H$\gamma$+1/2(Fe[I]{}+Mg[I]{})\]$_{200}$ and \[H$\gamma$+1/2(Fe[I]{}+Mg[I]{})\]$_{275}$ respectively (see right panels of Fig. 3). Obtained ages (using Table 2) are in good internal consistency since the three indices provide $\sim$4 Gyr. JW95 obtained $\sim$7 Gyr on the basis of H$\gamma_{HR}$. This difference could be attributed in part to the fact that the stellar isochrones adopted in Worthey’s (1994) population synthesis model are systematically hotter than those used in Vazdekis et al. (1996), and to possible effects caused by the fact that H$\gamma_{HR}$ is strongly sensitive to very small $\sigma$ variations. However our age estimation is in full agreement with an extraordinary fit that we have obtained for this galaxy using V99 models (see Fig. 4 and Appendix).
The two clusters are found to be very old ($\stackrel{>}{_\sim}$13 Gyr). This sample of low-luminosity ellipticals show a rather large spread in age; NGC 4489 ($\sim3$ Gyr), M 32 ($\sim 4$ Gyr), NGC 4239 ($\sim 5.5$ Gyr), NGC 3605 ($\sim7.5$ Gyr) and NGC 4387 ($\sim12$ Gyr), respectively. Finally, for NGC 7332 we obtain $\sim$6 Gyr (in full agreement with Vazdekis 1996). Since our results are based on SSP model predictions this method estimates luminosity-weighted average stellar ages, but cannot tell whether this spread is due to a real difference of [*mean stellar age*]{}, implying different epoch of galaxy formation, or caused by a contamination of intermediate age stars formed in a secondary episode of star formation (Kodama & Arimoto 1998).
\[H$\gamma$+1/2(Fe[I]{}+Mg[I]{})\]$_{\sigma}$ indices cover most of galaxy $\sigma$’s range (up to $300$ km$^{-1}$). In this paper we derive average ages for globular clusters and low-luminosity ellipticals. However we stress that these indices are fully applicable to normal and giant ellipticals, including cD’s. Once high S/N spectra of relatively high dispersion are obtained, accurate and reliable estimates for the average stellar ages of these galaxies will be possible, without assessing their metallicities. Once the age is determined, metallicity can be evaluated uniquely from key metallic lines. The age-metallicity degeneracy of line indices is solved. We note that \[H$\gamma$+1/2(Fe[I]{}+Mg[I]{})\]$_{\sigma}$ indices are probably not unique as age indicators for old stellar populations. Other Balmer lines with neighboring metallic lines could also produce a similar effect and need to be addressed.
Direct estimates of galaxy age would provide a definitive answer to the origin of the CMR which is tightly followed by cluster elliptical galaxies (e.g., Bower, Lucey & Ellis 1992). Field ellipticals and small groups of galaxies might have formed differently from those in rich clusters. González (1993) showed that field ellipticals have significantly stronger H$_{\beta}$ indices than expected from Worthey’s (1994) models of very old age. This implies that they could be younger than cluster ellipticals. However H$_{\beta}$ is not an accurate age indicator since its dependence on metallicity is not negligible, and since it could be easily filled in with nebular emission (Davies et al. 1993) even for early-type galaxies. H$\gamma$ is substantially less affected.
It is well known that stars in the Galactic halo, including those in globular clusters, are enhanced in $\alpha$-elements (e.g., Mg, Si, Ca) with respect to Fe (Edvardsson et al. 1993). Giant elliptical galaxies show $[\alpha/Fe] \simeq +0.3$ (Peletier 1989, Worthey, Faber & González 1992, Vazdekis et al. 1997). This may cause a small effect on the resulting age estimate, because we have assumed solar abundance ratios throughout the present study (although \[H$\gamma$+1/2(Fe[I]{}+Mg[I]{})\]$_{\sigma}$ includes both Fe and Mg in its definition). Worthey (1998) suggested that abundance ratio changes can cause changes in isochrone temperature structure that can mimic an age effect. Salaris & Weiss (1998) have shown that scaled-solar isochrones no longer can be used to replace $\alpha$-enhanced ones at the same total metallicity. Unfortunately, empirical spectra of stars with different $[\alpha/Fe]$ ratios are not yet available and we cannot assess this problem for the moment.
Conclusions
===========
We define new spectral indices, \[H$\gamma$+1/2(Fe[I]{}+Mg[I]{})\]$_{\sigma}$, which are robust age indicators for old and relatively old stellar populations and therefore have a great potential for breaking the age-metallicity degeneracy of galaxy spectra. To achieve this we use the new evolutionary stellar population synthesis model of Vazdekis (1999) which provides SED’s of SSP’s at FWHM$\sim1.8$Å. These new models not only allow us to investigate the behavior of H$\gamma$ as a function of metallicity and age, but also as a function of spectral resolution by performing a direct measurement of the feature on the synthesized SSP spectra broadened to different $\sigma$’s. We show that the strong power of H$\gamma$ to disentangle the age is due to a compensating effect: at specified age the strengthening of H$\gamma$ is mainly caused by its adjacent metallic absorption which is more prominent for more metal-rich populations. On the other hand the adopted pseudocontinua are depressed by the effects of the strong neighboring Fe[I]{} lines on both sides of H$\gamma$ (centered on 4325Å and 4352Å). On the basis of this effect we achieve new H$\gamma$ index definitions that are completely insensitive to the metallicity in the range -0.7$\leq$\[Fe/H\]$\leq$+0.2. However, since this effect is strongly dependent on the adopted resolution and galaxy velocity dispersion, we have optimized H$\gamma$ definitions for assessing the resolution stability required for practical applications. We propose unprecedented age indicators, \[H$\gamma$+1/2(Fe[I]{}+Mg[I]{})\]$_{\sigma}$, at well separated velocity dispersions: $\sigma=125$, $200$, and $275$ kms$^{-1}$, and each is stable in a range of $\Delta\sigma\sim75$ kms$^{-1}$, thus allowing study of most galaxies up to $\sigma\sim300$ kms$^{-1}$.
The main characteristics and uncertainties affecting \[H$\gamma$+1/2(Fe[I]{}+Mg[I]{})\]$_{\sigma}$ are extensively discussed. Since we are dealing with the absorption profile of H$\gamma$, observational spectra of very high signal-to-noise (S/N(Å)$\stackrel{>}{_\sim}$200) and relatively high dispersion ($\stackrel{<}{_\sim}$0.8Å/pix), but feasible for luminous nearby galaxies with 4m class telescopes, are required to gain this unprecedented age discriminating power. We provide a recipe for a correct measurement of \[H$\gamma$+1/2(Fe[I]{}+Mg[I]{})\]$_{\sigma}$: determine $\sigma$ of the observed spectrum, determine its absolute radial velocity (by using a synthetic spectrum which match best the age/metallicity of the galaxy), measure the index appropriate for that velocity dispersion, and compare with the metallicity-insensitive model values of Table 2 to estimate the age. High S/N’s can be achieved by integrating along the spatial direction if variations of velocity rotation (and $\sigma$) are properly accounted for.
Once observational spectra of high quality are acquired, accurate and reliable estimates for the luminosity-weighted average stellar ages of these galaxies will be possible for the first time, without assessing their metallicities. In this paper we perform such measurements for two metal-rich globular clusters, a sample of low-luminosity ellipticals and a standard S0 galaxy. We find a large spread in the average stellar ages of these low-luminosity ellipticals. In particular, these indices yield 4 Gyr for M 32. This value is in excellent agreement with the age provided by an extraordinary fit to the full spectrum of this galaxy that we achieve in this paper.
We are indebted to J. Rose and L. Jones for providing their globular cluster and elliptical galaxy spectra. We are grateful to V.Vansevičius and R. Peletier for very interesting comments and suggestions. We are also grateful to the referee for useful corrections and suggestions. A.V. thanks the Japan Society for Promotion of Science for financial support. This work was financially supported in part by a Grant-in-Aid for the Scientific Research (No.09640311) by the Japan Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports and Science.
Accurate absolute radial velocity determination for measuring \[H$\gamma$+1/2(Fe[I]{}+Mg[I]{})\]$_{\sigma}$
===========================================================================================================
Accurate radial velocity determinations can be achieved if an observational galaxy spectrum is crosscorrelated with a template which resembles best the galaxy (e.g. Tonry & Davis 1979). This approach would benefit substantially if templates are chosen from the new SSP model spectral library of V99, rather than using observations of a template star (which could easily be a poor match, thus producing a crosscorrelation peak with asymmetrical wings that could bias the centroid of the fitting function, e.g., gaussian). Therefore we strongly suggest the use as templates of at least various synthetic spectra (FWHM$\sim$1.8Å) of different ages (e.g., 1.5, 3, 6 and 12 Gyr) and metallicities (\[Fe/H\]=-0.7, -0.4, 0.0, +0.2) which can be retrieved from our web site (http://www.ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp/$\sim$vazdekis/). Choosing the model spectrum which provides the largest crosscorrelation peak height (i.e., produced by the most appropriate template), we determine accurately the absolute radial velocity and prevent any additional shifts to the models. Prior to crosscorrelation all the spectra should be rebinned logarithmically (with same dispersion), continuum removed (e.g., using a spline3 of low order). Results improve if the spectra are adequately filtered to remove their very high and very low frecuencies, and multiplied by a cosine-bell-like function. Detailed explanations can be found in V99 (and references therein).
As an example, we have crosscorrelated M 32 spectrum (Jones 1997) with the whole SSP model spectral library of V99. Fig. 4 shows that the largest crosscorrelation peak height is obtained for a model of $\sim4$ Gyr and \[Fe/H\]=0.0. This implies that the use of this spectrum (or a similar one) as template would increase the accuracy of the kinematical parameter determination. This model is overplotted on M 32 spectrum providing an extraordinary fit (see Fig. 4) which confirms the age predicted by \[H$\gamma$+1/2(Fe[I]{}+Mg[I]{})\]$_{\sigma}$.
Arimoto, N., 1996, ASP Conference Series, Vol. 98, [*From Stars To Galaxies*]{}, eds. C. Leitherer, U. Fritze-von Alvensleben & J. Huchra, p. 287 Arimoto, N., & Yoshii, Y., 1987, , 173, 23 Bower, R.G., Lucey, J.R., Ellis, R.S., , 254, 589 Cardiel, N., Gorgas, J., Cenarro, J., González, J.J, 1998, , 127, 597 Davies, R.L., Sadler, E.M., Peletier, R.F. 1993, , 262, 650 Edvardsson, B., Andersen, J., Gufstafsson, B., Lambert, D.L., Nissen, P.E., Tomkin, J., 1993, , 275, 101 Ferreras, I., Charlot, S. & Silk, J. 1998, ApJ, in press González, J.J, 1993, Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. of Lick, Santa Cruz, California Jones, L.A, 1997, Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. of North Carolina, Chapel Hill Jones, L. & Worthey, G., 1995, , 446, L31 [**(JW95)**]{} Kodama, T. & Arimoto, Y., 1997, , 320, 41 Kodama, T. & Arimoto, Y., 1998, , 300, 193 O’Connell, R., 1976, , 206, 370 O’Connell, R., 1986, in Stellar Populations, ed. C. Norman, A. Renzini and M. Tosi, Cambridge University Press, p. 167 Peletier, R.F., 1989, Ph. D. Thesis, Univ. of Groningen Prada, F., Gutiérrez, C.M., Peletier, R.F., McKeith, C.D. 1996, , 463, L9 Rose, J.A., 1994, , 107, 206 Salaris, M., Weiss, A., 1998, , 335, 943 Salpeter, E., 1955, , 121, 161 Tonry, J. & Davis, M. 1979, , 84, 1511 Vazdekis, A., 1999, , 513, 224 [**(V99)**]{} Vazdekis, A., 1996, Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. of La Laguna, Spain Vazdekis, A., Peletier, R. F., Beckman, J. E. & Casuso, E., 1997, , 111, 203 Vazdekis, A., Casuso, E., Peletier, R. F. & Beckman, J. E., 1996, , 106, 307 Worthey, G., 1998, , 110, 888 Worthey, G., 1994, , 95, 107 Worthey, G. & Ottaviani, D.L., 1997, , 111, 377 Worthey, G., Faber, S., González, J., 1992, , 398, 69 , 94, 687
Index Blue pseudocont. Feature Red pseudocont.
------------------------------------------ ------------------- ------------------- -------------------
$[H\gamma$+1/2(Fe[I]{}+Mg[I]{})$]_{125}$ 4330.000 4340.468 4333.000 4352.737 4359.250 4368.750
$[H\gamma$+1/2(Fe[I]{}+Mg[I]{})$]_{200}$ 4331.000 4340.750 4332.000 4352.250 4359.250 4368.750
$[H\gamma$+1/2(Fe[I]{}+Mg[I]{})$]_{275}$ 4331.500 4341.000 4331.500 4351.875 4359.250 4368.750
: \[H$\gamma$+1/2(Fe[I]{}+Mg[I]{})\]$_{\sigma}$ index definitions
[Age]{} [$_{125}$]{} [$_{200}$]{} [$_{275}$]{}
--------- -------------- -------------- --------------
1.6 1.366 0.824 0.534
2.0 1.289 0.773 0.498
2.5 1.186 0.702 0.446
3.0 1.140 0.672 0.425
4.0 1.062 0.619 0.387
5.0 1.021 0.592 0.368
6.0 0.997 0.575 0.357
7.0 0.965 0.553 0.342
8.0 0.929 0.530 0.325
9.0 0.908 0.516 0.316
10.0 0.887 0.502 0.306
11.0 0.869 0.492 0.299
12.0 0.851 0.480 0.291
13.0 0.843 0.476 0.288
14.0 0.833 0.469 0.283
15.0 0.828 0.466 0.280
16.0 0.820 0.461 0.278
17.0 0.812 0.457 0.274
17.4 0.809 0.455 0.273
: Predicted index values for different ages. The tabulated numbers are obtained by averaging the index values obtained for different metallicities. The $\sigma$ ranges in which these indices are very stable against resolution are: $115-160$ kms$^{-1}$ for \[H$\gamma$+1/2(Fe[I]{}+Mg[I]{})\]$_{125}$, $165-210$ kms$^{-1}$ for \[H$\gamma$+1/2(Fe[I]{}+Mg[I]{})\]$_{200}$ and $240-285$ kms$^{-1}$ for \[H$\gamma$+1/2(Fe[I]{}+Mg[I]{})\]$_{275}$
[$_{125}$]{} [ \[H$\gamma$+1/2(Fe[I]{}+Mg[I]{})\]$_{200}$]{} [$_{275}$]{}
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------- ------------------------------------------------- --------------
Optimal spectral resolution $\sigma$(kms$^{-1}$) 125 200 275
Stability $\sigma$(kms$^{-1}$) range 100-175 150-225 225-300
Recommended $\sigma$(kms$^{-1}$) range 115-160 165-210 240-285
Required S/N per Å $\sim$200 $\sim$300 $\sim$400
Exp.time($\mu_{B}$=17.5,Int.=2$\arcsec$,Tel.=4.2m,0.8Å/pix,$\sigma_{RN}$=4.4) $\sim$1.5hour $\sim$3hour $\sim$5hour
Maximum $\Delta\lambda$ shift (e.g., errors in $\lambda$, $z$, rot. curve) 0.12Å 0.08Å 0.07Å
$\Delta$\[H$\gamma$+1/2(Fe[I]{}+Mg[I]{})\]$_{\sigma}$ (Flux calib. - Continuum remov.) $<$0.022Å $<$0.015Å $<$0.009Å
Largest theoretical age uncertainty 14-17.5Gyr 14-17.5Gyr 14-17.5Gyr
Index error causing an age uncertainty of 11.5-17.5Gyr $\sim$0.030Å $\sim$0.021Å $\sim$0.017Å
: Index characteristics and uncertainties
[^1]: If obtained $\sigma$ falls outside \[H$\gamma$+1/2(Fe[I]{}+Mg[I]{})\]$_{\sigma}$ resolution stability range (see Table 3), results improve slightly if the observational spectrum is broadened (by convolving with a gaussian) to match $\sigma$ of the index. However the reader should be aware that higher resolution definitions require lower S/N’s (see Table 3).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Signatures of soft supersymmetry breaking at the CERN LHC and in dark matter experiments are discussed with focus drawn to light superparticles, and in particular light gauginos and their discovery prospects. Connected to the above is the recent PAMELA positron anomaly and its implications for signatures of SUSY in early runs at the Large Hadron Collider. Other new possibilities for physics beyond the Standard Model are also briefly discussed.'
author:
- |
**Daniel Feldman\
Michigan Center for Theoretical Physics,\
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor**
title: |
[**MCTP-09-43**]{}
**Superparticle Signatures: from PAMELA to the LHC**
---
Dual Probes of SUSY
===================
We review here testable predictions of high scale models with universal and non universal soft \[supersymmetry\][^1] breaking within the framework of applied supergravity (SUGRA) and effective models of string theories with D-branes supporting chiral gauge theories (for recent related reviews see [@NP; @Blumenhagen:2006ci]). Common to all these models are the ingredients needed for working in the predictive SUGRA framework, namely: (a) an effective Kähler metric which generally depends on moduli, (b) a gauge kinetic function also dependent on such scalars, and (c) a superpotential comprised of visible and hidden sector fields and a bilinear term for the Higgses.
An important set of predictions of the models discussed here is that they can offer the possibility of a relatively light gluino and electroweak gauginos with dark matter which is naturally Majorana. Thus the confluence of LHC signatures and signatures of dark matter play a central role in understanding the predictions of the above models. This connection is illuminated through knowledge of the possible sparticle mass hierarchies that can arise [@Feldman:2007zn]. These mass hierarchies include the possibility of light scalars. However, naturalness/radiative electroweak symmetry breaking (REWSB) tend to point us to light gauginos and heavy squarks which generally occur on the upper Hyperbolic Branch (HB) of REWSB [@Chan:1997bi] often referred to as the focus point (FP) region. This region naturally arises in the minimal supergravity framework [@Chamseddine:1982jx] and its extensions which are typically perturbations around universality.
Towards the end of this overview we will further discuss the connection between dark matter and the LHC, but more specifically in terms of the link between the WMAP data and the recent PAMELA positron excess [@Spergel:2006hy]. Should the PAMELA anomaly be attributed to SUSY dark matter, the eigen-composition of the LSP plays a very relevant role. In addition, the composition of the LSP has important implications for collider signatures, and thus a direct bearing on the discovery prospects of SUSY at LHC, as well as the very nature of how dark matter was produced in the early universe.
Resolving the Sparticle Landscape
=================================
We begin with the Sparticle Landscape[@Feldman:2007zn]. Of the 32 massive particles predicted in the MSSM, the number of ways in which the sparticle masses can stack up in their mass hierarchy is a priori undetermined unless an underlying framework is specified. Thus, if the 32 masses are treated as essentially all independent, then aside from sum rules on the Higgs, sfermions, and gaugino masses, and without imposition of any phenomenological constraints, the number of hierarchical patterns for all 32 sparticles could be as many as $O(10^{25-28})$ or larger. One may compare this with the landscape of string vacua in type II strings which lead to $O(10^{1000})$ possibilities. However, the number of superparticle mass hierarchies is reduced enormously in predictive frameworks such as supergravity models with REWSB.
Upon carrying out a mapping of the parameter space of the minimal SUGRA framework for the first four particles (discounting the lightest Higgs whose mass is constrained over a $\sim$ 25 GeV range) we find 22 possible mass patterns consistent with all known collider and cosmological constraints. We label these as mSUGRA pattern 1 (mSP1) through mSUGRA pattern 22 (mSP22), the first 16 arising for $\mu >0$ and the remaining for $\mu <0$ [@Feldman:2007zn]. In Table(\[msptable\]) we exhibit these mass orderings. The groupings may be considered more simply in terms of the NLSP; thus there are Chargino Patterns (CPs) (mSP 1-4), Stau Patterns (SUPs) (mSP 5-10,17-19), Stop Patterns (SOPs) (mSP 11-13,20,21), Higgs Patterns (HPs) (mSP 14-16), and an isolated Neutralino Pattern (mSP 22).
[|l||l|c|]{} mSP& Mass Pattern & $\mu$\
mSP1 & $\na$ $<$ $\cha$ $<$ $\nb$ $<$ $\nc$ & $\mu_{\pm}$ mSP2 & $\na$ $<$ $\cha$ $<$ $\nb$ $<$ $A/H$ & $\mu_{\pm}$ mSP3 & $\na$ $<$ $\cha$ $<$ $\nb$ $<$ $\sta$ & $\mu_{\pm}$ mSP4 & $\na$ $<$ $\cha$ $<$ $\nb$ $<$ $\g$ & $\mu_{\pm}$ mSP5 & $\na$ $<$ $\sta$ $<$ $\slr$ $<$ $\snl$ & $\mu_{\pm}$ mSP6 & $\na$ $<$ $\sta$ $<$ $\cha$ $<$ $\nb$ & $\mu_{\pm}$ mSP7 & $\na$ $<$ $\sta$ $<$ $\slr$ $<$ $\cha$ & $\mu_{\pm}$ mSP8 & $\na$ $<$ $\sta$ $<$ $A\sim H$ & $\mu_{\pm}$ mSP9 & $\na$ $<$ $\sta$ $<$ $\slr$ $<$ $A/H$ & $\mu_{\pm}$ mSP10 & $\na$ $<$ $\sta$ $<$ $\ta$ $<$ $\slr$ & $\mu_{+}$ mSP11 & $\na$ $<$ $\ta$ $<$ $\cha$ $<$ $\nb$ & $\mu_{\pm}$ mSP12 & $\na$ $<$ $\ta$ $<$ $\sta$ $<$ $\cha$ & $\mu_{\pm}$ mSP13 & $\na$ $<$ $\ta$ $<$ $\sta$ $<$ $\slr$ & $\mu_{\pm}$ mSP14 & $\na$ $<$ $A\sim H$ $<$ $\hc$ & $\mu_{+}$ mSP15 & $\na$ $<$ $ A\sim H$ $<$ $\cha$ & $\mu_{+}$ mSP16 & $\na$ $<$ $A\sim H$ $<$ $\sta$ & $\mu_{+}$ mSP17 & $\na$ $<$ $\sta$ $<$ $\nb$ $<$ $\cha$ & $\mu_{-}$ mSP18 & $\na$ $<$ $\sta$ $<$ $\slr$ $<$ $\ta$ & $\mu_{-}$ mSP19 & $\na$ $<$ $\sta$ $<$ $\ta$ $<$ $\cha$ & $\mu_{-}$ mSP20 & $\na$ $<$ $\ta$ $<$ $\nb$ $<$ $\cha$ & $\mu_{-}$ mSP21 & $\na$ $<$ $\ta$ $<$ $\sta$ $<$ $\nb$ & $\mu_{-}$ mSP22 & $\na$ $<$ $\nb$ $<$ $\cha$ $<$ $\g$ & $\mu_{-}$
By extending the minimal framework to include larger landscapes in SUGRA models with non universalities (NUSUGRA) and in D-brane models we find new mass hierarchies. For the NUSUGRA cases, motivated by flavour changing neutral current constraints, considered are the following three possibilities for the soft parameters at the GUT scale: (i) the Higgs sector (NUH): $M_{H_u,H_d} = m_0(1+\delta_{H_{(u,d)}})$ (ii) the third generation squark sector (NU3): $M_{q3} = m_0(1+\delta_{q3}),~M_{u3,d3} = m_0(1+\delta_{tbR})$, and (iii) the gaugino sector (NUG): $M_{1,2,3} = m_{1/2}\{1,(1+\delta_{2}),(1+\delta_{3})\}$.
[|l|l|c|c|]{} NUSP & Mass Pattern & Model\
NUSP1 & $\na$ $<$ $\cha$ $<$ $\nb$ $<$ $\ta$ & NU3,NUG NUSP2 & $\na$ $<$ $\cha$ $<$ $A\sim H$ & NU3 NUSP3 & $\na$ $<$ $\cha$ $<$ $\sta$ $<$ $\nb$ & NUG NUSP4 & $\na$ $<$ $\cha$ $<$ $\sta$ $<$ $\slr$ & NUG NUSP5 & $\na$ $<$ $\sta$ $<$ $\snl$ $<$ $\stb$ & NU3 NUSP6 & $\na$ $<$ $\sta$ $<$ $\snl$ $<$ $\cha$ & NU3 NUSP7 & $\na$ $<$ $\sta$ $<$ $\ta$ $<$ $A/H$ & NUG NUSP8 & $\na$ $<$ $\sta$ $<$ $\slr$ $<$ $\snm$ & NUG NUSP9 & $\na$ $<$ $\sta$ $<$ $\cha$ $<$ $\slr$ & NUG NUSP10 & $\na$ $<$ $\ta$ $<$ $\g$ $<$ $\cha$ & NUG NUSP11 & $\na$ $<$ $\ta$ $<$ $A\sim H$ & NUG NUSP12 & $\na$ $<$ $A\sim H$ $<$ $\g$ & NUG NUSP13 & $\na$ $<$ $\g$ $<$ $\cha$ $<$ $\nb$ & NUG NUSP14 & $\na$ $<$ $\g$ $<$ $\ta$ $<$ $\cha$ & NUG NUSP15 & $\na$ $<$ $\g$ $<$ $A\sim H$ & NUG & $\na < \sta < \snl <A/H$ & DB & $\na < \sta < \snl <\slr$ & DB & $\na < \sta < \snl <\snm $ & DB & $\na < \ta < \sta <\snl $ & DB & $\na < \snl < \sta <\snm $ & DB & $\na < \snl < \sta <\cha $ & DB
\[patternstable2\]
The landscape analysis reveals a collection of new mass hierarchies not discussed in the literature; even in the minimal model. Indeed most of the mSP patterns do not appear in previous works. All of the Snowmass mSUGRA points (labeled SPS) are only of types mSP(1,3,5,7). Regarding the Post-WMAP points, these are predominantly stau-coannihilation models, and one model which resides on the Hyperbolic Branch. The CMS benchmarks classified as (Low/High) Mass (LM)/(HM) [@Ball:2007zza] do a better job of representing mSP1 which is one of several dominant patterns, however, again the mapping only covers mSP(1,3,5,7) (see [@Feldman:2007zn] for details). One such example of a missing class of mass hierarchies are the Higgs Patterns mSP(14-16) (HPs)[@Feldman:2007zn] which occur for large $\tan \beta$ in mSUGRA (but occur more generally at lower values in NUSUGRA) where the CP odd/heavier CP even Higgses are in fact the lightest particles beyond the LSP neutralino and in some cases they can be even lighter (we remind the reader that the Higgses are R-Parity even). The HPs typically occur in the bulk and will be discussed further in the next section. For the large $m_0$ region with lower values of $m_{1/2}$ the mass hierarchy is dominantly composed of mSP1 located in the HB/FP region where the LSP has a strong Higgsino component, while there is also a bino branch of mSP1 in which the the lightest chargino and next heavier neutralino are very close in mass, really effectively degenerate. One also observes several more CPs where the NLSP is a chargino (mSP1-mSP4), and where mSP4 is rather special with a very light neutralino mass less than $\sim$ 55 GeV. Bino dominated patterns include, for example, the (SUPs) mSP(5-10) and (SOPs) mSP(11-13). A large density of the model points also occur in the vicinity of a Higgs pole [@Nath:1992ty]. Many models generally arise also from coannihilations [@Griest:1990kh], for example, mSP(5,7) and mSP(11) arise respectively from $\sta-\na$ and $\ta-\na$ [@Ellis:1999mm], however many of the new patterns actually arise from a large mixture of thermal annihilations.
For the case of non universal SUGRA models, 15 new mass patterns are uncovered labeled NUSP(1-15). In a class of models based on D-branes (to be discussed shortly), 6 more new patterns labeled as DBSP(1-6) are also revealed. A complete set of specific benchmarks for each pattern can be found in [@Feldman:2007zn]. There are also patterns where the gluino is light and is the NLSP ($\equiv \rm GNLSP$ discussed in what follows) and where the sneutrino of the third generation is light and is the NLSP occurring in the NU and DB cases respectively as illustrated in Table(\[patternstable2\]).
Light Higgs Bosons and D-branes
===============================
\[db\]
{width="5cm" height="5cm"} {width="5cm" height="5cm"} {width="5cm" height="5cm"}
Progress in D-brane model building (see e.g., [@Antoniadis:2000ena; @Ibanez:2001nd; @Cvetic:2001nr; @NT; @Cremades:2003qj; @Kors:2003wf; @dsoft2; @Font:2004cx; @Kors:2004hz; @Bertolini:2005qh; @Blumenhagen:2006ci]) has lead to testable predictions of related models which support chiral matter [@Kane:2004hm; @Kane:2006yi; @Feldman:2007zn; @Chen:2007zu]. Here we discuss light Higgses and dark matter in the context of SUGRA and D-branes [@Feldman:2007zn]. We first briefly summarize the model class studied in [@Kors:2003wf] which offers a concrete early example of an effective string model where the soft terms can be computed. The model employs toroidal orbifold compactifications based on ${\cal
T}^6/\mathbb{Z}_2\times \mathbb{Z}_2$ where ${\cal T}^6$ is taken to be a product of 3 ${\cal T}^2$ tori. This model has a moduli sector consisting of volume moduli $t_m$, shape moduli $u_m$ $(m
=1,2,3)$ and the axion-dilaton field $s$. Of special interest here is the Kähler metric of the $m^{\rm th}$ component of open strings which are split between common brane stacks $[a,a]$ and twisted open strings connecting different brane stacks $[a,b]$. The Kähler metric is deduced from dimensional reduction and $T-$duality generalizing the previous known result for the heterotic string [@Kors:2003wf]. The soft scalars are simple functions of the graviton mass, the stack angle, and moduli VEVs and are given in full in [@Kors:2003wf]. Specifically the parameter space consists of the gravitino mass $m_{3/2}$, the gaugino mass $m_{1/2}$, the tri-linear coupling $A_0$ (which is in general non-vanishing), $\tan\beta$, sign($\mu$), the stack angle $\alpha$ ($0\leqslant \alpha \leqslant \frac{1}{2}$), and the $F$ term VEVs through the Goldstino angle $\theta$, and complex modular parameters $\Theta_{t_i}$, $\Theta_{u_i}$ $(i=1,2,3)$ . The latter parametrize the directionality of the Goldstino angles in the modular space and enter in the VEV of the $F$-term which are functions of the real part of the moduli.
From the analysis of the D-brane model it is found that the mass hierarchies are dominated by the mSPs with only six new patterns (at isolated points) emerging. Of specific interest is that all the HPs (mSP14-mSP16) are seen to emerge in good abundance. Given in Fig.(\[KN\]) (left panel) is the analysis of the neutral Higgs \[$\Phi = h,H,A$\] production cross sections at the LHC in the $2\tau$ mode for several patterns in the minimal SUGRA model with the dominant contributions to the cross section entering from gluon fusion and bottom quark annihilation processes. Similarly, in the middle panel of Fig.(\[KN\]) are the Higgs production cross sections in the D-brane model, where all patterns seen in the D-brane model are exhibited. The analysis shows that the HPs dominate the Higgs production cross sections. One also finds that the $B_s\to \mu^+\mu^-$ predictions constrain the HPs in this model[@Feldman:2007zn]. The spin independent proton-LSP cross sections are given in the right panel of Fig.(\[KN\]). Here also one finds that the Higgs Patterns typically give the largest scalar cross sections followed by the Chargino Patterns (mSP1-mSP3) and then by the Stau Patterns (which are dense in this model). Further, one finds a Wall of Chargino Patterns developing which enhances the discovery potential of these CPs (see also the middle panel of Fig.(\[bigpic\])). This Wall is consequence of the larger Higgsino component of mSP1 which is also found in the DB model class [@Feldman:2007zn].
Compressed Spectra in Intersecting D-brane Models
=================================================
\[db2\] We consider next another class of D-brane models, motivated by the recent works of [@Cremades:2003qj; @dsoft2; @Font:2004cx; @Bertolini:2005qh]. The specific class of models we consider is with $u$ moduli breaking. The model consists of a chiral particle spectrum arising from intersecting branes with supporting gauge groups $SU(3)_C \times SU(2)_L$ and $U(1)_a$,$ U(1)_c$, $U(1)_d$ and $U(1)_Y$. Here, there is an anomalous $U(1)= U(1)_a + U(1)_d$ and the anomaly is cancelled via a Green-Schwarz mechanism (for an overview see [@Blumenhagen:2006ci]) giving a mass to the $U(1)$ gauge boson (for recent reviews of the mechanism see [@Feldman:2007nf],[@Langacker:2008yv]). The Kähler metric for the twisted moduli arising from strings stretching between stacks $P$ and $Q$ for the BPS $1/4$ sector is taken in the form similar to [@Font:2004cx], and more specifically of the form given in [@Kane:2004hm] where the gauge kinetic function is also deduced. The Kähler metric for BPS $1/2$ brane configurations in this framework is given in [@dsoft2].
[|c||c|c|]{} Sparticle & D6 & mSUGRA\
type & Mass/GeV & Mass/GeV\
$m_h$ & 113.9 & 113.6 $\na$ & 209.0 & 208.8 $\cha$ & 229.1 & 388.6 $\nb$ & 229.5 & 388.8 $\sta$ & 404.2 & 433.3 $\ser,\smr$ & 464.4 & 637.8 $\sta$ & 547.6 & 929.2 $\g$ & 760.4 & 1181.4 $ m_{{\rm max} ={\tilde{s},\tilde{d}}_L}$ &882.2 & $ m_{{\rm max} ={\tilde{s},\tilde{d}}_L}$ 1210.4
[|c||c|c|]{} D6 & mSUGRA\
$(\tilde{B},\tilde{W},\tilde{H}_1,\tilde{H}_2)$ & $(\tilde{B},\tilde{W},\tilde{H}_1,\tilde{H}_2)$ (0.985,-.133,.104,-.0399)& (0.994,-.017,.101,-.041) $\sigma^{\rm SI}_{\na p}= 7.4 \times 10^{-9}$ pb & $\sigma^{\rm SI}_{\na p}= 1.4 \times 10^{-8}$ pb $\Omega h^2= 0.099$ co-annih. & $\Omega h^2= 0.095$ $b \bar b,\tau \bar\tau$
In Table(\[compress\]) a comparison is given of 2 model points, one from the D-brane model (labeled D6) and the other from mSUGRA, both of which sit in mSP3. We see from Table(\[compress\]) that these models have effectively the same LSP mass and light CP even Higgs mass. Observe also that there is a major violation of gaugino mass scaling in the D6 model relative to that of the mSUGRA model. Quite interestingly, the overall mass scale in the D6 model is much compressed relative to that of the mSUGRA model. This feature appears rather generic to the D6 models over the part of parameter space investigated. Thus while the LSP masses are effectively identical, the NLSP mass in the D6 model is about 160 GeV lighter than in the mSUGRA case considered. Further, the $\g$ is several hundred GeV lighter in the D6 case relative to the mSUGRA case and the heaviest sparticle in the D6 cases lies lower than the mSUGRA case by approximately 300 GeV. In Table(\[compress\]) we see that the D6 LSP has a relatively larger wino component, while the LSP in the mSUGRA model is more of a mixed bino-Higgsino but with a stronger bino component. Both models give a relic density consistent with WMAP but do so in very different ways. The compressed mass scale has implications for collider physics that requires further study.
Dark Matter and the LHC
=======================
We now turn to a very central idea; namely the correlation of LHC signals with dark matter direct detection signals. The correlation is exhibited in Fig.(\[bigpic\]). The top panel gives an analysis at $L=$ 10 fb$^{-1}$ at $\sqrt S = 14 ~\rm TeV$ admitting only model points in the parameter space that generate at least 500 total SUSY events, for statistical significance, in the normalized channels $ [2bjets + jets \geq 2]/N_{\rm SUSY}$ vs $ [1bjet + jets \geq 2]/N_{\rm SUSY}$ and average $ P^{\rm miss}_T$ vs $[0bjets + jets \geq 2]/N_{\rm SUSY}$. The middle panels are 4 mSPs shown for illustration (for the full set see the 2nd Ref. of [@Feldman:2007zn]) in the $\sigma^{\rm SI}_{\na p}$ vs LSP signature space. Finally the bottom two panels show the effective mass distributions of sample benchmarks for different mSPs. A large separation among many of the hierarchical patterns can be seen in Fig.(\[bigpic\]).
Indeed the mass hierarchies act as prism separating the landscape of signatures. The top left panel exhibits separation of CPs and HPs from SOPs and SUPs, with CPs and HPs occupying one region, and SOPs and SUPs occupy another in this signature space except for a very small overlap. This can be recast as “Higgsinos to one side, and binos the to other". The average missing $P_T$ for each model point vs the fraction of events with $0b$ also shows a separation of the CPs and HPs from SOPs and SUPs. Further, mSP4 appears isolated residing in its own space. Even further, the middle panels exhibits the spin independent cross sections along with direct detection limits and indeed a remarkable separation of the mass patterns is achieved.
{width="6cm" height="5cm"} {width="6cm" height="5cm"} {width="6cm" height="5cm"} {width="6cm" height="5cm"} {width="6cm" height="5cm"} {width="6cm" height="5cm"}
The left bottom panel shows distributions in effective mass where only trigger level cuts are imposed, while the right panel has post trigger level cuts imposed and they have been imposed globally for all the models considered (see the 3rd Ref. of [@Feldman:2007zn] for these cuts). For the case when only trigger level cuts are imposed, the SOPs and CPs are highly peaked at lower values of effective mass, while the HPs and SUPs are much broader at higher effective mass. As is apparent, the trigger level cuts can have an enormous effect on the observability of these signals. Thus, imposing the trigger level cuts globally on all classes of hierarchical mass patterns may disguise the signal. Additionally, the imposed post trigger level cuts kills the SOP and CP signals, while the SUPs and HPs signals remain relatively strong. Likewise, the missing $P_T$ distributions for the SOPs and CPs are generally much narrower, while the HPs and SUPs are generally much broader. We observe these effects more generally in the minimal SUGRA model. The discovery prospects of SUSY will be directly tested by CMS and ATLAS [@Ball:2007zza] (see also [@Yamamoto:2007it]) and prospects continue to be explored at the Tevatron (for a sample of recent works by D0 & CDF see [@MonicaDOnofrio]). Triggering for different scenarios is quite important, in particular, as we illustrated here, the triggers need to be specialized for different mass hierarchies. There appears to be some attention now drawn this way for strategies in general [@OsamuJinnouchi].
LHC as a Gluino Factory, GNLSP, and Isomorphic GUT Models
==========================================================
{width="6.75cm" height="5.75"} {width="6.75cm" height="5.75"}
The possibility of detecting the presence of a gluino close in mass to the LSP has been raised in [@Feldman:2007zn] and recently has been studied in [@Alwall:2008ve] and in [@Feldman:2009zc]. This situation arises in supergravity models with non universalities in the gaugino mass sector[@Feldman:2007zn] and can more specifically come about when the GUT symmetry is broken by a $F$ term in $SU(5), SO(10)$, and $E_6$ models. In the analysis of [@Feldman:2009zc] it is found that a gluino NLSP (GNLSP) arises from such GUT models in the presence of an additional singlet. Thus what is minimally necessary for a GNLSP in these GUT models is a combination of GUT symmetry breaking in the gaugino mass term sector with two irreducible representations; a linear combination of a singlet and a non-singlet $F$ term. In this case an interesting phenomenon arises in that models with the same $r\equiv (M_2-M_1)/(M_3-M_1)$ can be made isomorphic under redefinitions and scalings in the gaugino sector. Therefore, in essence, models with the same value of $r$ would in fact be equivalent, or phenomenologically indistinguishable, when taken in a linear combination of breakings including singlets.
One finds that there are several possibilities for which the GNLSP class of models can arise that fall under the isomorphic class of gaugino mass models. Considered more generally are 3 classes of models. (A) ${\rm GNLSP_{\rm A}}$ : Here $r$ takes the common value over several models: $(M_1:M_2:M_3)=$ $(-1/2:-3/2:1)$, $(19/10:5/2:1)$, $(-1/5:-1:1)$; all of which map into $r=-2/3$. (B) ${\rm GNLSP_{\rm B}}$: This is a model specific to $E_6$ with $F$ type breaking with [**2430**]{} plet such that[@Martin:2009ad] $E_6\to SU(6)''\times SU(2)_L( 2430\to (189,1))$ which gives $M_1:M_2:M_3=0:0:1$. This model can generate a gluino as the NLSP upon the addition of breaking with a singlet. (C) ${\rm GNLSP_{\rm C}}$: Here $r$ is free and thus defining $r=\delta_2/\delta_3 $, the gaugino masses at the GUT scale may be parametrized as discussed earlier and can be varied independently. Model ${\rm GNLSP_{\rm C}}$ contains models ${\rm GNLSP_{\rm A,B}}$ as sub cases. For all the three models a GNLSP requires $\delta_3$ to lie in the range $(-0.9,-0.8)$. We also note that from the analysis of [@Martin:2009ad] one can discern several other set of models which have a common value of $r$, i.e other models such as (A). Further examples of these isomorphisms are given in [@Feldman:2009zc] along with generalized sum rules on the gaugino masses.
An interesting property of the GNLSP class of models is that the relic density (RD) is controlled by gluino coannihilations [@Profumo; @Profumo:2005xd], and one has that $\langle \sigma_{\rm eff} v \rangle$ to be integrated has a cross section well approximated by [@Feldman:2009zc] $
\sigma_{\rm eff}\simeq \sigma_{\tilde g \tilde g}\gamma^2_{\na} \left(\gamma^2 + 2\gamma \frac{\sigma_{\na\tilde g}}{\sigma_{\tilde g \tilde g}} +
\frac{\sigma_{\na\na}}{\sigma_{\tilde g \tilde g} }\right)~,
\label{relic2}
$ where $\gamma =\gamma_{\tilde g}/\gamma_{\na}$ and where $\gamma_i$ are defined in the standard notation of Ref. [@Griest:1990kh]. Thus for example, a typical set of annihilations [*for a bino LSP*]{} that contribute to the RD enter with weights $ \na \na \to t \bar t (\lesssim 3 \%)$, $ \na \na \to \tau^{+} \tau^{-} (\sim 1\%)$, $ \na \g \to t \bar t (\lesssim 3\%) $, $ \g \g \to g g (\sim 50\%)$, $ \g \g \to q \bar q (\sim 40\%)$. We also find cases where the GNLSP emerges without significant which occurs when the LSP has a significant Higgsino component [@Feldman:2009zc]. In either case there is a typical mass splitting of $ \Delta_{\g \na}\equiv(m_{\tilde g}- m_{\na})/m_{\na} \in ( 0.08 - 0.20) $. Non-perturbative effects, namely a Sommerfeld Enhancement of $\langle \sigma_{\rm eff} v \rangle$ , i.e. reduction of $(\Omega h^2)_{\na}$, requires $\Delta_{\g \na}$ increase by (2 to 3)% for $m_{\g} \lesssim \rm TeV$ to maintain $(\Omega h^2)_{\na} \in$ WMAP [@Profumo:2005xd; @Feldman:2009zc]. We also find, that beyond the compression of the gluino mass in GNLSP models, there is a 2nd generation slepton-squark degeneracy (SSD) and in some cases an inversion where these sleptons are heavier than the squarks [@Feldman:2009zc].
The dominant SM backgrounds for GNLSP models at the LHC are from QCD, $Z$/$W$+ jets, $b \bar b$, and $t \bar t$ and therefore one can cut on large $\Delta\phi ({\rm jet}_1, {\rm jet}_2)$ to suppress the QCD background due to light quark flavours and $b \bar b$ as well as $t \bar t$. We reject isolated $e/\mu$ from background $W/Z$ leptonic decays and it is found that the $e/\mu$ veto significantly enhances the GNLSP signals over the SM background. Specific cuts are given in [@Feldman:2009zc].
That the LHC will turn into a gluino factory if the GNSLP model is realized is seen in Fig.(\[GF\]). Fig.(\[GF\]) shows that a gluino NLSP consistent with the two sided WMAP relic density constraints can span the entire range from $ \sim $ 220 GeV to almost a TeV over the parameter space investigated. This analysis includes the radiative decay of the gluino, which can in some cases dominate the branching fractions of the gluino. As can be seen from Fig.(\[GF\]), with just 10/fb a GNLSP can be discovered up to about 800 GeV and thus if the gluino and neutralino masses are split over a narrow gap, this mass hierarchy at the LHC can be tested into the TeV region [@Feldman:2009zc].
Connecting PAMELA and the LHC
=============================
{width="6.5cm" height="5.7"} {width="6.1cm" height="5.15"}
The connection between colliders and dark matter has become increasingly relevant due to new data released by the PAMELA collaboration indicating an excess in positron flux in the halo. In SUSY models [^2] with MSSM spectra annihilations of $\na \na \to WW,ZZ$ are dominant possible sources of positrons in the energy range of interest. The $WW$ production can lead to a sufficiently large cross sections in the halo to account for the PAMELA anomaly (for recent related work see [@GKPPW; @LR; @Hooper:2008kv; @Hisano; @Feldman:2009wv]). For a pure wino the halo cross section for the $WW$ mode for $m_{\na} \sim (180 - 200) ~\rm GeV$ can be as large as $\sim 10^{-24} cm^3/s$, yet the mass splitting between $m_{\cha}$ and $m_{\na}$ is squeezed to be order the pion mass when the spectrum is MSSM like. However, the PAMELA data can be fit when the LSP has a non-negligible Higgsino component, and in such a case, the mass gap between $m_{\cha}$ and $m_{\na}$ opens up [@Feldman:2009wv]. A mass splitting of order 10 GeV maintains a large enough wino component to produce a sufficiently large halo cross section, and leads to a significant change in the wave function of the LSP. This effect comes about from non universalities in gaugino masses, and can occur if there is, for example, a relatively large reduction of both the $SU(2)$ and $SU(3)$ gaugino masses at the GUT scale relative to the pure wino, where the pure wino can come about from a reduced $SU(2)$ gaugino mass. For this Higgsino-wino model (HWM) the LSP also has a relatively large bino component (we still call it HWM to distinguish it from the pure wino) and most importantly there is a compression of the colored sparticle masses opening up detectable signals at the LHC while the PAMELA data is also fit [@Feldman:2009wv] (see Fig.(\[posit\]) for one such comparison). The Higgsino content also leads to detectable spin independent cross section that can be observed with the CDMS and XENON-10 experiments [@XENONCDMS]. The mass splitting also leads to a LSP which suffers less from the coannihilations with the chargino. The correct relic density prediction can be obtained from the presence of extra $U(1)_X$ gauge factors and thus the presence of extra Majorana matter arising from the hidden sector. The extra Majorana matter is naturally extra weakly interacting due to electroweak constraints. However it supplies extra degrees of freedom to the relic abundance of the LSP through coannihilations and therefore [*enhances*]{} the relic density of the LSP neutralino. This is maximized for the HWM over the pure wino due to the lifting of the mass degeneracy for the HWM. This general concept of boosting the relic density of a thermal neutralino through coannihilations appeared earlier in [@Feldman:2006wd] as well as in [@Profumo:2006bx] in different contexts. If indeed the PAMELA data is due to neutralino annihilations in the halo, with the contributing annihilations controlled by MSSM interactions, the high energy $e^{+} + e^{-}$ flux reported by FERMI must be dominantly a consequence of other astrophysical sources such as pulsars (see e.g. [@Barger:2009yt; @LR]).
On the other hand, dark matter annihilations which have a significant direct production of positrons through a pole [@Feldman:2008xs] can simultaneously explain the PAMELA data as well as the WMAP data. For models which directly produce leptons, the high energy flux can be fit within the confines of the current experimental data (see [@Feldman:2008xs] and [@Grasso:2009ma] ). For the case of a Breit-Wigner enhancement in the galactic halo [@Feldman:2008xs] the fits to both the fluxes and WMAP data are made possible due to the spreading of $\langle \sigma v \rangle$ when integrating $\langle \sigma v \rangle$ up to the freeze out temperature in the vicinity of the pole. This may hint at a very narrow $Z'$ which couples with hypercharge enhanced couplings to the SM fermions, and couples vectorially through a Stueckelberg field to a dark dirac fermion[@KN].
Conclusions
===========
Low lying SUSY spectra, which sit in specific mass hierarchies, reveal that SUGRA and D-brane models have early discovery prospects at the LHC. These mass hierarchical patterns can be resolved by combining dark matter signatures and LHC signatures of new physics. Emphasized also was the possibility of a light chargino and a gluino that can surface with early runs at the LHC. Included in the discussion was the recently explored class of GUT models that yield a gluino as the NLSP (GNLSP) which satisfy WMAP constraints via gluino coannhilations and also give rise to signals at the LHC which are overwhelmingly dominated by gluino production. Several models reviewed have light SUSY Higgses and mass hierarchies involving these light Higgses are expected to be tested further in the next round of experiments.
Also discussed was the PAMELA positron excess which can be explained by SUSY dark matter in high scale models. Such a prediction depends importantly on the eigen decomposition of the LSP. A splitting of the chargino and LSP mass plays a central role in the observational prospects of these models. It is found that high scale models can predict a LSP with a non-negligible Higgsino component that can fit PAMELA and produce easily detectable LHC signatures, while a pure wino will be rather difficult to observe should the SUSY scale be order a few TeV. The $\bar p$ constraints on these models can be satisfied for a MIN diffusion model. WMAP constraints can be accommodated in the presence of extra $U(1)_X$ factors which lead to extra Majorana degrees of freedom of spectator states with suppressed interactions that enhance the relic density of a mixed Higgsino-wino LSP via coannihilations. We also briefly mentioned earlier work which can fit both the low and high energy flux data, as well as the WMAP data, via the presence of a pole[^3]. This comes about via a very narrow $Z'$ resonance. A discovery of this type of $Z'$ at the Tevatron and/or LHC in the dilepton channel may point us to a dark dirac fermion with mass that is slightly larger than $M_{Z'}/2$ and thus lend further support for this distinct possibility of leptonic annihilations in the halo [@KN; @Feldman:2008xs].
[*Acknowledgements:*]{} [This research received funding from NSF grant PHY-0757959 as well as from the Office of the Vice-Provost of Northeastern University, and support from the Michigan Center for Theoretical Physics (MCTP) and DOE grant DE-FG02-95ER40899.]{}
[9]{}
P. Nath, \[arXiv:hep-ph/0307123\] in “Beyond the desert 2003", [*Berlin, Springer, 2004.*]{}, L. Ibanez and G. Ross, Comptes Rendus Physique [**8**]{}, 1013 (2007).
P. Nath and P. Fileviez Perez, Phys. Rept. [**441**]{}, 191 (2007); T. Ibrahim and P. Nath, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**80**]{}, 577 (2008). R. Blumenhagen, B. Kors, D. Lust and S. Stieberger, Phys. Rept. [**445**]{}, 1 (2007). D. Feldman, Z. Liu and P. Nath, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**99**]{}, 251802 (2007); Phys. Lett. B [**662**]{}, 190 (2008); JHEP [**0804**]{}, 054 (2008).
H. Baer, X. Tata, arXiv:0805.1905 \[hep-ph\]; R. L. Arnowitt, et. al Phys. Rev. Lett. [**100**]{}, 231802 (2008); B. Altunkaynak, M. Holmes and B. D. Nelson, JHEP [**0810**]{}, 013 (2008); D. Feldman, Z. Liu and P. Nath, Phys. Rev. D [**78**]{}, 083523 (2008); AIP Conf. Proc. [**1078**]{}, 116 (2009); N. Bhattacharyya, A. Datta and S. Poddar, Phys. Rev. D [**78**]{}, 075030 (2008); C. F. Berger, et. al, JHEP [**0902**]{}, 023 (2009); S. Bhattacharya, et. al, arXiv:0907.3428.
K. L. Chan, U. Chattopadhyay and P. Nath, Phys. Rev. D [**58**]{}, 096004 (1998); J. L. Feng, K. T. Matchev and T. Moroi, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**84**]{}, 2322 (2000). A. H. Chamseddine, R. L. Arnowitt and P. Nath, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**49**]{}, 970 (1982).
\[WMAP Collaboration\],Astrophys. J. Suppl. [**180**]{}, 330 (2009); \[PAMELA Collaboration\], Nature [**458**]{}, 607 (2009).\
K. Griest and D. Seckel, Phys. Rev. D [**43**]{}, 3191 (1991). P. Nath and R. L. Arnowitt, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**70**]{}, 3696 (1993). J. R. Ellis, T. Falk, K. A. Olive and M. Srednicki, Astropart. Phys. [**13**]{}, 181 (2000); J. R. Ellis, K. A. Olive and Y. Santoso, Astropart. Phys. [**18**]{}, 395 (2003).
I. Antoniadis, E. Kiritsis and T. N. Tomaras, Phys. Lett. B [**486**]{}, 186 (2000).
L. E. Ibanez, F. Marchesano and R. Rabadan, JHEP [**0111**]{}, 002 (2001). M. Cvetic, G. Shiu and A. M. Uranga, Nucl. Phys. B [**615**]{}, 3 (2001). P. Nath and T. R. Taylor, Phys. Lett. B [**548**]{}, 77 (2002).
D. Cremades, L. E. Ibanez and F. Marchesano, JHEP [**0307**]{}, 038 (2003).
B. Kors and P. Nath, Nucl. Phys. B [**681**]{}, 77 (2004).
D. Lust, P. Mayr, R. Richter and S. Stieberger, Nucl. Phys. B [**696**]{}, 205 (2004); D. Lust, S. Reffert and S. Stieberger, Nucl. Phys. B [**706**]{} (2005) 3.
A. Font, L. Ibanez, JHEP [**0503**]{}, 040 (2005). B. Kors and P. Nath, Nucl. Phys. B [**711**]{} (2005) 112.
M. Bertolini, M. Billo, A. Lerda, J. F. Morales and R. Russo, Nucl. Phys. B [**743**]{}, 1 (2006).
G. L. Kane, P. Kumar, J. D. Lykken and T. T. Wang, Phys. Rev. D [**71**]{}, 115017 (2005).
G. L. Kane, P. Kumar and J. Shao, J. Phys. G [**34**]{}, 1993 (2007).
C. Chen, T. Li, V. Mayes, D. Nanopoulos, Phys. Rev. D [**77**]{}, 125023 (2008); J. A. Maxin, V. E. Mayes and D. V. Nanopoulos, arXiv:0908.0915 \[hep-ph\].
D. Feldman, Z. Liu and P. Nath, AIP Conf. Proc. [**939**]{}, 50 (2007).
P. Langacker, arXiv:0801.1345 \[hep-ph\]; arXiv:0909.3260 \[hep-ph\]. S. Profumo and C. E. Yaguna, Phys. Rev. D [**69**]{}, 115009 (2004). S. Profumo, Phys. Rev. D [**72**]{}, 103521 (2005).
D. Feldman, Z. Liu and P. Nath, Phys. Rev. D [**80**]{}, 015007 (2009).
S. P. Martin, Phys. Rev. D [**79**]{}, 095019 (2009).
J. Alwall, M. P. Le, M. Lisanti and J. G. Wacker, Phys. Lett. B [**666**]{}, 34 (2008). \[CMS Collaboration\], J. Phys. G [**34**]{}, 995 (2007); \[The ATLAS Collaboration\], arXiv:0901.0512 \[hep-ex\]. S. Yamamoto \[ATLAS Collaboration\], arXiv:0710.3953 \[hep-ex\]; T. Yetkin and M. Spiropulu \[CMS Collaboration\], Acta Phys. Polon. B [**38**]{}, 661 (2007). M. D’Onofrio, SUSY 09 Plenary Session.
O. Jinnouchi, SUSY 09 Plenary Session.
P. Grajek, G. Kane, D. Phalen, A. Pierce and S. Watson, Phys. Rev. D [**79**]{}, 043506 (2009). G. Kane, R. Lu and S. Watson, arXiv:0906.4765 \[astro-ph.HE\]. D. Hooper, A. Stebbins and K. M. Zurek, Phys. Rev. D [**79**]{}, 103513 (2009).
J. Hisano,M. Kawasaki,K. Kohri,K. Nakayama, Phys. Rev. D [**79**]{}, 063514 (2009).
D. Feldman, Z. Liu, P. Nath and B. D. Nelson, arXiv:0907.5392 \[hep-ph\]; PRD in Press.
D. Feldman, B. Kors and P. Nath, Phys. Rev. D [**75**]{}, 023503 (2007) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0610133\]; P. Nath, arXiv:hep-ph/0610414.
S. Profumo and A. Provenza, JCAP [**0612**]{}, 019 (2006) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0609290\]. \[XENON Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**100**]{}, 021303 (2008); \[CDMS Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**102**]{}, 011301 (2009).
D. Feldman, Z. Liu and P. Nath, Phys. Rev. D [**79**]{}, 063509 (2009), \[arXiv:0810.5762 \[hep-ph\]\]; W. L. Guo and Y. L. Wu, Phys. Rev. D [**79**]{}, 055012 (2009); X. J. Bi, X. G. He and Q. Yuan, Phys. Lett. B [**678**]{}, 168 (2009); F. Y. Cyr-Racine, S. Profumo and K. Sigurdson, arXiv:0904.3933 \[astro-ph.CO\].
D. Grasso [*et al.*]{} \[FERMI-LAT Collaboration\], arXiv:0905.0636 \[astro-ph.HE\]. V. Barger, Y. Gao, W. Y. Keung, D. Marfatia and G. Shaughnessy, Phys. Lett. B [**678**]{}, 283 (2009).
B. Kors and P. Nath, Phys. Lett. B [**586**]{}, 366 (2004); JHEP [**0412**]{}, 005 (2004); JHEP [**0507**]{}, 069 (2005); D. Feldman, Z. Liu and P. Nath, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**97**]{}, 021801 (2006); JHEP [**0611**]{}, 007 (2006); Phys. Rev. D [**75**]{}, 115001 (2007); K. Cheung and T. C. Yuan, JHEP [**0703**]{}, 120 (2007); P. Nath, arXiv:0812.0958 \[hep-ph\]; Z. Liu, arXiv:0910.0061 \[hep-ph\].
[^1]: For recent clear reviews see [@Nath]
[^2]: Discussed here are high scale models which lead to REWSB as in the previous sections.
[^3]: The Breit-Wigner enhancement with fits to the PAMELA data first appeared in Ref. 1 of [@Feldman:2008xs] where WMAP data was also fit (see also the last 4 Refs. of [@KN] & [@Feldman:2007nf]).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We prove scattering of solutions just below the energy norm of the $3D$ Klein-Gordon equation
$$\left\{
\begin{array}{ccl}
\partial_{tt} u - \Delta u + u & = & -|u|^{p-1} u \\
u(0,x)& = & u_{0}(x) \\
\partial_{t} u(0,x) & = & u_{1}(x)
\end{array}
\right. \nonumber$$
with $5 > p >3$: this result extends those obtained in the energy class [@brenscat; @nakanash1; @nakanash2] and those obtained below the energy norm under the additional assumption of spherical symmetry [@triroyradnlkg]. It is well-known that the notion of scattering is closely related to that of decay. The main difficulty is that, unlike the radial case, there is no useful decay estimate available. The idea is to generate some decay estimates, by means of concentration [@bourgjams] and a low-high frequency decomposition [@bourgbook; @almckstt]. On low frequencies we use the physical properties of the solution and we modify the arguments in [@nakanash1; @nakanash2]; on high frequencies we use the local smoothing properties of the solutions: this, combined with an almost conservation law, allows to prove these decay estimates: this is the starting point to establish scattering.
address:
- Korea Advanced Institute Of Science And Technology
- 'Institute For Advanced Study, Princeton'
author:
- Soonsik Kwon
- Tristan Roy
title: Generation of decay estimates and application to scattering of rough solutions of $3D$ NLKG
---
Introduction
============
In this paper we consider the $p$- defocusing Klein-Gordon equation on $\mathbb{R}^{3}$
$$\begin{array}{ll}
\partial_{tt} u - \Delta u + u & = -|u|^{p-1}u \\
\end{array}
\label{Eqn:NlkgWdat}$$
with data $u(0)=u_{0}$, $\partial_{t}u(0)=u_{1}$ lying in $H^{s}$, $H^{s-1}$ respectively. Here $H^{s}$ is the standard inhomogeneous Sobolev space i.e $H^{s}$ is the completion of the Schwartz space $\mathcal{S}(\mathbb{R}^{3})$ with respect to the norm
$$\begin{array}{ll}
\| f \|_{H^{s}} & := \| \langle D \rangle^{s} f \|_{L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}
\end{array}$$
where $\langle D \rangle$ is the operator defined by
$$\begin{array}{ll}
\widehat{\langle D \rangle^{s} f}(\xi) & := ( 1 + |\xi|)^{s} \hat{f}(\xi)
\end{array}$$
and $\hat{f}$ denotes the Fourier transform $$\begin{array}{ll}
\hat{f}(\xi) & := \int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}} f(x) e^{-i x \cdot \xi} \, dx
\end{array}$$ We are interested in the strong solutions of the $p$- defocusing Klein-Gordon equation on some interval $[0,T]$ i.e maps $u$, $\partial_{t} u$ that lie in $C \left([0, \, T], \, H^{s}(\mathbb{R}^{3}) \right)$, $C \left( [0, \,T], \, H^{s-1} ( \mathbb{R}^{3}) \right)$ respectively and that satisfy
$$\begin{array}{ll}
u(t) & = \cos{(t \langle D \rangle)} u_{0} + \frac{\sin(t \langle D \rangle)}{\langle D \rangle} u_{1} - \int_{0}^{t} \frac{\sin \left(
(t-t^{'}) \langle D \rangle \right)}{\langle D \rangle} |u|^{p-1}(t^{'}) u(t^{'}) \, dt^{'}
\end{array}
\label{Eqn:StrongSol}$$
The $p$- defocusing Klein-Gordon equation is closely related to the $p$- defocusing wave equation i.e
$$\begin{array}{ll}
\partial_{tt} v - \triangle v = & - |v|^{p-1} v
\end{array}
\label{Eqn:DefocPWaveEq}$$
with data $v(0)=v_{0}$, $\partial_{t} v(0)=v_{1}$. (\[Eqn:DefocPWaveEq\]) enjoys the following scaling property
$$\begin{array}{ll}
v(t,x) & \rightarrow \frac{1}{\lambda^{\frac{2}{p-1}}} u \left( \frac{t}{\lambda}, \frac{x}{\lambda} \right) \\
v_{0}(x) & \rightarrow \frac{1}{\lambda^{\frac{2}{p-1}}} u_{0} \left( \frac{x}{\lambda} \right) \\
v_{1}(x) & \rightarrow \frac{1}{\lambda^{\frac{2}{p-1}+1}} u_{1} \left( \frac{x}{\lambda} \right)
\end{array}
\label{Eqn:WaveScaling}$$
We define the critical exponent $s_{c}:= \frac{3}{2} - \frac{2}{p-1}$. One can check that the $\dot{H}^{s_{c}} \times \dot{H}^{s_{c}-1}$ norm of $(u_{0},u_{1})$ is invariant under the transformation (\[Eqn:WaveScaling\]) [^1]. (\[Eqn:DefocPWaveEq\]) was demonstrated to be locally well-posed in [@linsog] and in $H^{s} \times H^{s-1}$, $s >\frac{3}{2} - \frac{2}{p-1}$, $p>3$ by using an iterative argument. In fact their results extend immediately to (\[Eqn:NlkgWdat\]) [^2].
If $p=5$ then $s_{c}=1$ and this is why we say that that the nonlinearity $|u|^{p-1} u$ is $\dot{H}^{1}$ critical. If $3<p<5$ then $s_{c}<1$ and the regime is $\dot{H}^{1}$ subcritical.
It is well-known that smooth solutions to (\[Eqn:NlkgWdat\]) have a conserved energy
$$\begin{array}{ll}
E(u(t)) & := \frac{1}{2} \int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}} \left| \partial_{t} u (t,x) \right|^{2} \, dx + \frac{1}{2} \int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}} | \nabla u
(t,x)|^{2} \, dx + \frac{1}{2} \int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}} | u(t,x) |^{2} \, dx \\
& + \frac{1}{p+1} \int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}} |u(t,x)|^{p+1} \, dx
\end{array}
\label{Eqn:DefEnergy}$$
In fact by standard limit arguments the energy conservation law remains true for solutions $(u,\partial_{t}u) \in H^{s} \times H^{s-1}$, $s \geq
1$.
Since the lifespan of the local solution depends only on the $H^{s} \times H^{s-1}$ norm of the initial data $(u_{0},u_{1})$ (see [@linsog]) then it suffices to find an a priori pointwise in time bound in $H^{s} \times H^{s-1}$ of the solution $(u,\partial_{t}u)$ to establish global well-posedness. The energy captures the evolution in time of the $H^{1} \times L^{2}$ norm of the solution. Since it is conserved we have global existence of (\[Eqn:NlkgWdat\]).
The scattering theory (i.e the linear asymptotic behaviour of the solution of (\[Eqn:NlkgWdat\]) ) in the energy space (i.e with data $(u_{0},u_{1}) \in H^{1} \times L^{2}$ ) has attracted much attention from the community. In particular scattering was proved in [@bren; @brenscat; @nakanash1; @nakanash2] for all dimension $n$ and for all exponent $p$ that is $\dot{H}^{1}$ subcritical and $L^{2}$ supercritical, i.e $ 1 + \frac{4}{n} < p < 1 +\frac{4}{n-2} $.
The scattering theory below energy norm (i.e for data in $H^{s} \times H^{s-1}$, $s_{c} \leq s <1$) and in dimension $3$ has been recently studied in [@triroyradnlkg] for radial data. More precisely it was proved that the asymptotic behaviour is linear for $3<p<5$ and for radial data in $H^{s} \times H^{s-1}$, $ s_{p} < s < 1$ with
$$\begin{array}{l}
s_{p} := \left\{
\begin{array}{l}
1- \frac{(5-p)(p-3)}{2(p-1)(p-2)}, \, 4 \geq p > 3 \\
1- \frac{(5-p)^{2}}{2(p-1)(6-p)}, \, 5 > p \geq 4
\end{array}
\right. \end{array}$$
In this paper we are interested in proving scattering results for general data below the energy norm and in dimension $3$. The main result of this paper is the following one
Let $3<p<5$. Let $(u_{0},u_{1}) \in H^{s} \times H^{s-1}$ and $A \geq 0$ such that
$$\begin{array}{ll}
\|( u_{0},u_{1}) \|_{H^{s} \times H^{s-1}} & \leq A
\end{array}
\label{Eqn:BoundA}$$
Then there exists $\tilde{s}:=\tilde{s}(A,p) < 1$ such that the solution of the $p$-defocusing Klein-Gordon equation on $\mathbb{R}^{3}$ with data $(u_{0},u_{1})$ exists for all time $T$ in $ H^{s} \times H^{s-1} $, $ 1> s > \tilde{s}$. Moreover it scatters as $T$ goes to infinity, i.e there exists $\left( u_{+,0}, u_{+,1} \right) \in H^{s} \times H^{s-1}$ such that
$$\begin{array}{ll}
\lim \limits_{T \rightarrow \infty} \| \left( u(T) , \partial_{t} u(T) \right) - K(T) (u_{+,0}, u_{-,0} ) \|_{H^{s} \times H^{s-1}} & = 0
\end{array}
\label{Eqn:ScatteringRes}$$
and
$$\begin{array}{ll}
\| I u \|_{L_{t}^{2(p-1)-} L_{x}^{2(p-1)+}(\mathbb{R})} & \lesssim_{A} 1
\end{array}
\label{Eqn:DecayEstp}$$
Here
$$K(T):= \left(
\begin{array}{ll}
\cos{(T \langle D \rangle)} & \frac{\sin{(T \langle D \rangle)}}{\langle D \rangle} \\
- \langle D \rangle \, \sin{(T \langle D \rangle)} & \cos{ ( T \langle D \rangle)}
\end{array}
\right)$$
and $ \left( 2(p-1)-, 2(p-1)+ \right) \in \left( a_{p}, \, 2(p-1) \right) \times \left( 2(p-1), \, b_{p} \right) $ (for $a_{p}$ and $b_{p}$ to be determined) that satisfy $ \frac{1}{2(p-1)-} + \frac{3}{2(p-1)+} = \frac{3}{2} -s_{c} = \frac{2}{p-1} $ [^3]
\[Thm:Scat\]
1. On can find an an explicit value of $\tilde{s}$ if one reads carefully the proof of Theorem \[Thm:Scat\]. Nevertheless we have decided not to do this in order to make the paper easier to read.
2. $\tilde{s}$ grows to one as $A$ goes to $\infty$.
3. The reader can check, after reading the proof of Theorem \[Thm:Scat\] that
- $a_{p}$ decreases and $b_{p}$ increases as $p$ grows
- $\lim_{p \rightarrow 3^{+}} (a_{p},b_{p})=\left( 2(p-1),2(p-1) \right)$.
We set some notation that appear throughout the paper.\
Let $\nabla$ denote the gradient operator. If $w$ is a smooth function then
$$\begin{array}{ll}
Z_{m,s}(J,w) & := \sup_{ \substack {(q,r)-m \\ wave \, adm} } \| \partial_{t} \langle D \rangle^{-m} I w \|_{L_{t}^{q}(J) L_{x}^{r}} + \|
\langle D \rangle^{1-m} I w \|_{L_{t}^{q}(J) L_{x}^{r}}
\end{array}$$
and
$$\begin{array}{ll}
Z(J,w) & := \sup_{m \in [0,1]} Z_{m,s}(J,w)
\end{array}$$
We write $F(w)$ for the following function
$$\begin{array}{ll}
F(w) & := |w|^{p-1} w
\end{array}$$
If $w$ is a solution of (\[Eqn:NlkgWdat\]) with data $(w_{0},w_{1})$ then $w(t)=w^{lin}(t)+ w^{nlin}(t)$ with
$$\begin{array}{ll}
w^{lin}(t) & := \cos{(t \langle D \rangle)} w_{0} + \frac{ \sin{(t \langle D \rangle)}}{ \langle D \rangle} w_{1}
\end{array}$$
and
$$\begin{array}{ll}
w^{nlin}(t) & := - \int_{0}^{t} \frac{ \sin{(t-s) \langle D \rangle}} {\langle D \rangle} F(w) \, ds
\end{array}$$
If $(C,Q) \in (\mathbb{R}^{+})^{2}$ then let $X_{C,Q}:=Y_{0}$ where $(Y_{i})_{ 0 \leq i \leq m}$ is an element of the class of sequences $(Z_{i})_{0 \leq i \leq m}$ satisfying
$$\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
Z_{i} := e^{C^{C} C^{C Z_{i+1}} A^{C} C^{A ^{C}}} \\
Z_{m} << 1 \\
m \sim Q
\end{array}
\right.$$
Let $I$ be the following multiplier
$$\begin{array}{ll}
\widehat{If}(\xi) & := m(\xi) \hat{f}(\xi)
\end{array}$$
where $m(\xi): = \eta \left( \frac{\xi}{N} \right)$, $\eta$ is a smooth, radial, nonincreasing in $|\xi|$ such that
$$\begin{array}{ll}
\eta (\xi) & := \left\{
\begin{array}{l}
1, \, |\xi| \leq 1 \\
\left( \frac{1}{|\xi|} \right)^{1-s}, \, |\xi| \geq 2
\end{array}
\right.
\end{array}$$
and $N>>1$ is a dyadic number playing the role of a parameter to be chosen. We shall abuse the notation and write $m (|\xi|)$ for $m(\xi)$, thus for instance $m(N)=1$. If $w$ is a function and $B(x_{0},R):= \{ x \in \mathbb{R}, \, |x-x_{0}| \leq R \}$ then
$$\begin{array}{ll}
E(Iw) & := \frac{1}{2} \int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}} |\partial_{t} I w (x)|^{2} \, dx + \frac{1}{2} \int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}} |I w(x)|^{2} \, dx \\
& + \frac{1}{2} \int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}} |\nabla I w (x)|^{2} \, dx + \frac{1}{p+1} \int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}} | I w(x)|^{p+1} \, dx
\end{array}
\label{Eqn:DefMolNrj}$$
$$\begin{array}{ll}
E(Iw,B(x_{0},R)) & := \frac{1}{2} \int_{B(x_{0},R)} |\partial_{t} Iw (x)|^{2} \, dx + \frac{1}{2} \int_{B(x_{0},R)} |I w(x)|^{2} \, dx \\
& + \frac{1}{2} \int_{B(x_{0},R)} |\nabla I w (x)|^{2} \, dx + \frac{1}{p+1} \int_{B(x_{0},R)} |Iw(x)|^{p+1} \, dx
\end{array}$$
and
$$\begin{array}{l}
E_{c}(Iw) := \frac{1}{2} \int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}} |\partial_{t} I w (x)|^{2} \, dx + \frac{1}{2} \int_{\mathbb{R}^{2}} |Iw(x)|^{2} \, dx +
\frac{1}{2} \int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}} |\nabla I w (x)|^{2} \, dx
\end{array}$$
Some estimates that we establish throughout the paper require a Paley-Littlewood decomposition. We set it up now. Let $\phi(\xi)$ be a real, radial, nonincreasing function that is equal to $1$ on the unit ball $\left\{ \xi \in \mathbb{R}^{3}: \, |\xi| \leq 1 \right\}$ and that that is supported on $\left\{ \xi \in \mathbb{R}^{3}: \, |\xi| \leq 2 \right\}$. Let $\psi$ denote the function
$$\begin{array}{ll}
\psi(\xi) & := \phi(\xi) - \phi(2 \xi)
\end{array}$$
If $(M,M_{1},M_{2}) \in 2^{\mathbb{N}}$ are dyadic numbers such that $M_{2}>M_{1}$ we define the Paley-Littlewood operators in the Fourier domain by
- if $M > 1$
$$\begin{array}{ll}
\widehat{P_{M} f}(\xi) & := \psi \left( \frac{\xi}{M} \right) \hat{f}(\xi) \
\end{array}$$
- if $M=1$
$$\begin{array}{ll}
\widehat{P_{1} f }(\xi) & := \phi \left( \xi \right) \hat{f}(\xi)
\end{array}$$
and
$$\begin{array}{ll}
\widehat{P_{\leq M} f}(\xi) & := \phi \left( \frac{\xi}{M} \right) \hat{f}(\xi) \\
\widehat{P_{> M} f}(\xi) & := \widehat{f}(\xi) - \widehat{P_{\leq M} f}(\xi) \\
\widehat{P_{ << M } f}(\xi) & : = \widehat{P_{ \leq \frac{M}{128} }f}(\xi) \\
\widehat{P_{ \gtrsim M } f}(\xi) & : = \widehat{P_{ > \frac{M}{128}}f}(\xi) \\
P_{M_{1} < . \leq M_{2}} f & := P_{ \geq M_{2}} f - P_{< M_{1}} f \\
\end{array}$$
Since $ \phi(\xi) + \sum_{M \in 2^{\mathbb{N}^{*}}} \psi \left( \frac{\xi}{M} \right)=1$ we have
$$\begin{array}{ll}
f & = \sum_{M \in 2^{\mathbb{N}}} P_{M} f
\end{array}$$
Notice also that
$$\begin{array}{ll}
f & = P_{\lesssim M}f + P_{\gtrsim M} f
\end{array}$$
Throughout this paper we constantly use Strichartz-type estimates (see [@ginebvelo; @nakamura; @triroyradnlkg] )
[**“Strichartz estimates for Klein-Gordon equations in $L_{t}^{q} L_{x}^{r}$ spaces” [@triroyradnlkg]**]{} Assume that $w$ satisfies the following Klein-Gordon equation on $\mathbb{R}^{3}$
$$\left\{
\begin{array}{ccl}
\partial_{tt} w - \Delta w + w & = & Q \\
w(0,x)& = & w_{0}(x) \\
\partial_{t} w(0,x) & = & w_{1}(x)
\end{array}
\right. \label{Eqn:KlGH}$$
Let $T \geq 0$. Then
$$\begin{array}{l}
\| w \|_{L_{t}^{q} L_{x}^{r} ([0,T])} + \| \partial_{t} \langle D \rangle^{-1} w \|_{L_{t}^{q} L_{x}^{q} ([0,T]) } + \| w \|_{L_{t}^{\infty}
H^{m} [0,T] } + \| \partial_{t} w \|_{L_{t}^{\infty} H^{m-1} [0, T]} \\ \\
\lesssim \| w_{0} \|_{H^{m}} + \| w_{1} \|_{H^{m-1}} + \| Q \|_{L_{t}^{\tilde{q}} L_{x}^{\tilde{r}} ([0,T])}
\end{array}
\label{Eqn:StrNlkg}$$
under the following assumptions
- $(q,r)$ is $m$- wave admissible, i.e $ (q,r) \in (2, \infty] \times [2, \infty) $ and $ \frac{1}{q} + \frac{1}{r} \leq \frac{1}{2} $ and it obeys the following constraint $\frac{1}{q} + \frac{3}{r} =\frac{3}{2} -m $
- $(q,r) \neq \left( 2, \infty \right) $
- $(\tilde{q},\tilde{r})$ satisfies $ \frac{1}{\tilde{q}} + \frac{1}{q}=1 $, $\frac{1}{\tilde{r}} + \frac{1}{r}=1$ and $\frac{1}{\tilde{q}} + \frac{3}{\tilde{r}} -2 = \frac{1}{q} + \frac{3}{r} $.
\[prop:StrEstLtqLxr\]
Next we recall some propositions
[“**Mollified energy at time $0$ is bounded by $N^{2(1-s)}$**” [@triroyradnlkg]]{} Let $w$ be a solution of (\[Eqn:NlkgWdat\]). Then there exists a constant $C_{E} >0$ such that
$$\begin{array}{ll}
E(Iw_{0}) & \lesssim N^{2(1-s)} \left( \| w_{0} \|^{2}_{H^{s}} + \| w_{1} \|^{2}_{H^{s-1}} + \| w_{0} \|^{p+1}_{H^{s}} \right)
\end{array}
\label{Eqn:BoundInitMolNrj}$$
In particular, if $w$ is a solution of (\[Eqn:NlkgWdat\]) with data $(w_{0},w_{1})$ satisfying (\[Eqn:BoundA\]) with $A \gtrsim 1$, then there exists a constant $C_{E}$ such that
$$\begin{array}{ll}
E(Iw_{0}) & \leq C_{E} N^{2(1-s)} A^{p+1}
\end{array}$$
\[Prop:EstInitMolNrj\]
[**“Almost Conservation Law ”** [@triroyradnlkg]]{} Assume that $w$ satisfies (\[Eqn:NlkgWdat\]). Let $J=[a,b]$ be a time interval. Let $3 \leq p < 5$ and $s \geq \frac{3p-5}{2p}$. Then
$$\begin{array}{ll}
\left| \sup_{t \in J} E(Iw(t)) - E(Iw(a)) \right| & \lesssim \left| \int_{J} \int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}} | \Re (\overline{\partial_{t} Iw}
(IF(w)-F(Iw)) ) | \, dx
\, dt \right| \\
& \\
& \lesssim \frac{Z^{p+1}(J,w)}{N^{\frac{5-p}{2}-}}
\end{array}
\label{Eqn:Acl}$$
\[Prop:Acl\]
In fact, if one looks carefully at the proof of Proposition \[Prop:Acl\], on notices that
$$\begin{array}{ll}
\left| \sup_{t \in J} E(Iw(t)) - E(Iw(a)) \right| & \lesssim \left| \int_{J} \int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}} | \Re (\overline{\partial_{t} Iw}
(IF(w)-F(Iw)) ) | \, dx
\, dt \right| \\
& \\
& \lesssim \frac{\bar{Z}^{p+1}(J,w)}{N^{\frac{5-p}{2}-}}
\end{array}
\label{Eqn:AclRem}$$
with $\bar{Z}(J,w):= \sup_{m \in \{ 0,1,\frac{p-3}{2},\frac{3p-5}{2p} \}} Z_{m,s}(J,w)$.
\[rem:VarMolNrj\]
[**“Estimate of integrals”** [@triroyradnlkg]]{} Let $J$ be a time interval. Let $w$ be a smooth function. Then for $i=1,2$ we have
$$\begin{array}{ll}
| R_{i}(J,w) | & \lesssim \frac{Z^{p+1}(J,w)}{N^{\frac{5-p}{2}-}}
\end{array}
\label{Eqn:BdRi}$$
with
$$\begin{array}{ll}
R_{1}(J,w) : = \int_{J} \int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}} \frac{\nabla Iw(t,x).x}{|x|} \left( F(Iw) - I F(w) \right) \, dx dt
\end{array}$$
and
$$\begin{array}{ll}
R_{2}(J,w) := \int_{J} \int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}} \frac{Iw(t,x)}{|x|} \left( F(Iw) - I F(w) \right) \, dx dt
\end{array}$$
\[Prop:EstInt\]
[**“Almost Morawetz-Strauss Estimate”** [@triroyradnlkg]]{} Let $w$ be a solution of (\[Eqn:NlkgWdat\]). Let $x_{0} \in \mathbb{R}^{3}$ and let $T \geq 0$. Then
$$\begin{array}{ll}
\int_{0}^{T} \int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}} \frac{|Iw(t,x)|^{p+1}}{|x-x_{0}|} \, dx dt & \lesssim \sup_{t \in [0, T]} E(Iw(t)) + R_{1}([0, \, T],w) +
R_{2}([0, \, T],w)
\end{array}
\label{Eqn:AlmMorStrEst}$$
\[Prop:AlmMor\]
Now we explain the main ideas of this paper.
In [@nakanash1; @nakanash2], the author found for all dimension $n$ an upper bound of the $L_{t}^{q} L_{x}^{r}$ norm of the solution of (\[Eqn:NlkgWdat\]) with data in the energy class (i.e $(u_{0},u_{1}) \in H^{1} \times L^{2}$) by a tower-exponential type bound of the energy and for some $(q:=q(n),r:=r(n))$ only depending on the dimension $n$: this decay estimate was the preliminary step to prove scattering. A natural question is\
*Is it possible to prove decay estimates of this form (or a modified form) in the subcritical case and for rough data (i.e for data $
(u_{0},u_{1}) \in H^{s}
\times H^{s-1}, \, s_{c} < s < 1 )$ ?*\
\
Because, if this is possible, then it might help us to prove scattering of solutions of (\[Eqn:NlkgWdat\]) with rough data, by analogy with the scattering theory for data in the energy space. This paper gives a positive answer to this question, at least for $s$ close enough to one.\
Of course, one cannot use the energy conservation law as because it can be infinite on $H^{s} \times H^{s-1}$, $s<1$. Instead we work with a mollified energy (defined in (\[Eqn:DefMolNrj\])) that is finite in these rough spaces (see Proposition \[Prop:EstInitMolNrj\]) and that is expected to be almost conserved [^4]: this is the $I$-method, introduced first in [@almckstt] to study global existence of rough solutions of semilinear Schrödinger equations and inspired by the *Fourier truncation method*, designed in [@bourgbook]. Since we basically introduced this multiplier $I$ to make the energy finite, we aim at proving decay estimates involving not only $u$ but also $I$. It was proved in [@triroyradnlkg] that, under the additional assumption of radial symmetry, we can control pretty easily $\| Iu \|_{L_{t}^{p+2} L_{x}^{p+2} (\mathbb{R})}$ by combining the “Almost Morawetz-Strauss estimate” (\[Eqn:AlmMorStrEst\]) with a pointwise decay estimate around the origin (a radial Sobolev inequality). Unfortunately, there is no useful pointwise estimate to our knowledge in the general case and we shall prove that, by means of concentration [@bourgjams], that a large number of norms are bounded. Several difficulties appear: we mention them now.
First we need to identify the norms we would like to control: we realize, after some tries, that the right candidates are $\| Iu
\|_{L_{t}^{2(p-1)-} L_{x}^{2(p-1)+} (\mathbb{R})}$, with\
$\left( 2(p-1)-,2(p-1)+ \right)$ defined in Theorem \[Thm:Scat\].
Then we have to control the errors generated by this multiplier $I$, not only in order to establish upper bounds (see for example (\[Eqn:proc2\]) ) but also lower bounds (see (\[Eqn:IncreaseRate2\]) ). These bounds should not depend on time $T$, if not it would kill the scattering: this can be done by letting the estimates only depend on the parameter $N$, taking advantage of the local smoothing properties of the solutions. If we neglect, in a first approximation, the variation of the mollified energy in order to estimate the norm $\| I u
\|_{L_{t}^{2(p-1)-} L_{x}^{2(p-1)+}}$, we expect to find a tower-type exponential bound of this norm, by analogy with the bound of the $L_{t}^{q} L_{x}^{r}$ norm of the solutions of (\[Eqn:NlkgWdat\]) with data $(u_{0},u_{1}) \in H^{1} \times L^{2}$, say formally (by using (\[Eqn:BoundInitMolNrj\]) )
$$\begin{array}{l}
\| I u \|_{L_{t}^{2(p-1)-} L_{x}^{2(p-1)+}} \lesssim \left( ( N^{1-s} A)^{\alpha} \right)^{ ( N^{1-s} A)^{\alpha}}
\end{array}$$
for some $\alpha >0$. Then combining this bound with the polynomial decay ( $\frac{1}{N^{\frac{5-p}{2}-}} $) of the almost conservation law we expect to find after iteration of the local theory (see Proposition \[prop:LocalBd\]) an error of the form
$$\begin{array}{l}
\frac{ \left( ( N^{1-s} A)^{\alpha} \right)^{ ( N^{1-s} A)^{\alpha}} } {N^{\frac{5-p}{2}-}}
\end{array}$$
and it seems at first sight that there do not exist $s_{0}:=s_{0}(p) < 1$ and $N:=N(A,p,s)$ such that we can make the error smaller than the upper bound $N^{2(1-s)} A^{p+1}$ (see Proposition \[Prop:EstInitMolNrj\]) of the mollified energy at initial time for $s \geq s_{0}$, since the denominator grows polynomially whereas the numerator grows exponentially. Notice, however, that
$$\begin{array}{l}
\lim_{s \rightarrow 1^{-}} \frac{ \left( ( N^{1-s} A)^{\alpha} \right)^{ ( N^{1-s} A)^{\alpha}} } { N^{2(1-s)} A^{p+1} N^{\frac{5-p}{2}-}} =
\frac{ (A^{\alpha})^{A^{\alpha}}}{A ^{p+1} N^{\frac{5-p}{2}-}}
\end{array}$$
and therefore, choosing $N:= C \left( (A^{\alpha})^{A^{\alpha}} \right)^{\frac{2}{5-p}+}$ (with $C:=C(p)>>1$), we see that there exists $s_{1}:=s_{1}(A,p) <1$ such that the error is small compare to $N^{2(1-s)} A^{p+1}$ for $ s_{1} \leq s < 1$: this is why the range of $s$ for which there is scattering is expected not only to depend on $p$, but also on the size of the initial data (i.e $A$): see Theorem \[Thm:Scat\].
Lastly we deal with quantities that are not conserved. This implies that we have to modify significantly the induction on energy method designed in [@bourgjams], in order to establish a finite bound of $\| Iu \|_{L_{t}^{2(p-1)-} L_{x}^{2(p-1)+}}$. In particular, we design a relation that allows to control not only $\| Iw \|_{L_{t}^{2(p-1)-} L_{x}^{2(p-1)+}}$ but also $\sup_{t \in \mathbb{R}} E(Iw)$ (with $w$ solution of (\[Eqn:NlkgWdat\]) ), assuming that we control the mollified energy of $w$ at one time (see the definition of $\mathcal{P}_{C,Q}(l)$, just below (\[Eqn:NControlVar\])) and the goal is to prove that this relation is true for large levels of mollified energy at one time by induction, using the small mollified energy (at one time) theory: see Proposition \[prop:EstSmallNrj\]. Also, one has to make sure that the methods of concentration, combined with the Almost Morawetz-Strauss estimate, allow to make the mollified energy decrease at one time at a non-decreasing rate if the $L_{t}^{2(p-1)-} L_{x}^{2(p-1)+}$ norm of the solutions is large, in order to reach the small energy level and apply the small energy theory (see Proposition \[prop:EstSmallNrj\]). In order to do that, we have to prove that the variation of the mollified energy is small enough in order to construct a solution of which the mollified energy is smaller than the initial one by a nontrivial amount ( $(N^{s-1} \eta_{1} A^{-1})^{\alpha}$, see for example (\[Eqn:SepMolNrj\]) ), and this is why we introduce the parameter $\beta$: see (\[Eqn:DefBeta\]), (\[Eqn:MakeDecr\]) and (\[IneqChainNrj\]). The remainder of the argument is based upon a modification of arguments in [@nakanash1; @nakanash2], modulo errors.
$\textbf{Acknowledgements}:$ The second author would like to thank Kenji Nakanishi for providing him with explanations regarding [@nakanash1; @nakanash2] while he visited Courant Institute in March 2010. This work was done while the first author worked at Princeton University.
Proof of Theorem \[Thm:Scat\]
=============================
Let $\epsilon_{0}>0$ be a *fixed* constant (say $\epsilon_{0}=\frac{1}{1000}$).
In this section we prove Theorem \[Thm:Scat\], assuming that the following propositions are true [^5]. As it was pointed out in the introduction, we modify significantly an inductive argument ( see [@bourgjams; @nakanash1; @nakanash2] ). Unlike the energy space, we have to make a balance between the decay of the mollified energy at a given time and the growth of it, at each inductive step.
[**“ Separation of the localized mollified energy ”**]{} Let $A \gtrsim 1$. Let $J \subset [0,\infty)$. Let $w_{l}$ be a solution of (\[Eqn:NlkgWdat\]). Let $(C,Q,M) \in \mathbb{R}^{+} \times
\mathbb{R}^{+} \times[100, \infty)$. There exist $\eta_{1}:=\eta_{1}(p)>0$, $\alpha:=\alpha(p)>0$, $\bar{\alpha}:=\bar{\alpha}(p)$ and $C_{1}:=C_{1}(p)>> 1$ such that if
$$\begin{array}{l}
\sup_{t \in J} E(Iw_{l}(t)) \leq \left( C_{E} N^{2(1-s)} A^{p+1} - l (1 - \epsilon_{0}) (N^{s-1} \eta_{1} A^{-1})^{\alpha} \right) \left( 1 +
\beta \right)
\end{array}
\label{Eqn:InducNrj}$$
$$\begin{array}{l}
\| I w_{l} \|_{L_{t}^{2(p-1)-} L_{x}^{2(p-1)+}(J)} \leq 2 X_{C,Q}
\end{array}
\label{Eqn:InducStr}$$
and
$$\begin{array}{ll}
\| I w_{l} \|_{L_{t}^{2(p-1)-} L_{x}^{2(p-1)+} (J)} & \geq e^{ (C_{1} M e^{ C_{1} (N^{1-s} A)^{\alpha}} ) ^{ C_{1} (N^{1-s} A )^{\alpha}}}
\end{array}$$
then there exists $T_{l} \in J$ and $v_{l}$, solution of the free Klein-Gordon equation, that satisfy
$$\begin{array}{l}
E(Iw_{l}- Iv_{l},T_{l}) \leq C_{E} N^{2(1-s)} A^{p+1} - (l+1)(1- \epsilon_{0})(N^{s-1} \eta_{1} A^{-1})^{\alpha}
\end{array}
\label{Eqn:SepMolNrj}$$
$$\begin{array}{l}
E_{c}(v_{l},T_{l}) \lesssim (N^{s-1} \eta_{1} A^{-1})^{\alpha}
\end{array}$$
and
$$\begin{array}{l}
\| I v_{l} \|_{L_{t}^{2(p-1)-} L_{x}^{2(p-1)+}(T_{l},b)} \lesssim \frac{(N^{1-s} \eta_{1} A)^{\alpha}}{M^{\bar{\alpha}}}
\end{array}
\label{Eqn:FreeDecay}$$
assuming that $(N,s)$ satisfies the following conditions
$$\begin{array}{ll}
N^{1-s} A^{\frac{p+1}{2}} \frac{( A^{-1} \eta_{1} N^{s-1})^{(p-1) \alpha} }{ N^{\frac{5-p}{2}-}} & = o \left( N^{s-1} \eta_{1} A^{-1}
\right)^{\alpha}
\end{array}
\label{Eqn:Cond1}$$
$$\begin{array}{ll}
\frac{( N^{1-s} A^{\frac{p+1}{2}} )^{p-1} }{N^{\frac{5-p}{2}-}} & << 1
\end{array}
\label{Eqn:Cond2}$$
and
$$\begin{array}{ll}
\frac{(X_{C,Q})^{2(p-1)-} (N^{1-s} A^{\frac{p+1}{2}})^{p} }{N^{\frac{5-p}{2}-}} & << 1
\end{array}
\label{Eqn:Cond3}$$
Here
$$\begin{array}{ll}
\beta & := \frac{ \epsilon_{0} (N^{s-1} \eta_{1} A^{-1})^{\alpha} }{C_{E} N^{2(1-s)} A^{p+1}}
\end{array}
\label{Eqn:DefBeta}$$
\[Prop:SepLocMol\]
[**“Local Boundedness”**]{} Let $A \gtrsim 1$ and let $J \subset [0, \infty)$ be an interval. Let $w_{l}$ be a solution of (\[Eqn:NlkgWdat\]). Assume that there exist $(C,Q, \alpha) \in (\mathbb{R}^{+})^{3}$ such that (\[Eqn:InducNrj\]) and (\[Eqn:InducStr\]) hold.
Then there exist $\eta_{0}>0$ such that if $\eta \leq \eta_{0}$ and
$$\begin{array}{ll}
\| I w_{l} \|_{L_{t}^{2(p-1)-} L_{x}^{2(p-1)+} (J)} & \leq \eta
\end{array}$$
then
$$\begin{array}{l}
Z(J,w_{l}) \lesssim \left( \left( C_{E} N^{2(1-s)} A^{p+1} - l(1- \epsilon_{0}) (N^{s-1} \eta_{1} A^{-1})^{\alpha} \right) (1 + \beta)
\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}
\end{array}
\label{Eqn:BoundZ}$$
with $\beta$ is defined in (\[Eqn:DefBeta\]), provided that $(N,s)$ satisfies (\[Eqn:Cond2\]).
\[prop:LocalBd\]
[**“Perturbation argument”**]{}
Let $A \gtrsim 1$ and $J:=[a,b] \subset [0,\infty)$ be an interval. Let $T_{l} \in J$. Let $w_{l}$ be a solution of (\[Eqn:NlkgWdat\]). Assume that there exist $(\alpha,C,Q) \in (\mathbb{R}^{+})^{3}$ such that (\[Eqn:InducNrj\]) and (\[Eqn:InducStr\]) hold. Let $v_{l}$ be solution of the linear Klein-Gordon equation such that
$$\begin{array}{ll}
E_{c}(Iv_{l}) & \leq (N^{s-1} A^{-1})^{\alpha}
\end{array}
\label{Eqn:BoundEc}$$
Let $w_{l+1}$ be a solution of (\[Eqn:NlkgWdat\]) with the same initial data as $w_{l}-v_{l}$ at $t=T_{l}$. Assume that
$$\begin{array}{l}
\sup_{t \in J} E(Iw_{l+1}(t)) \leq \left( C_{E} N^{2(1-s)} A^{p+1} - (1+ l)(1- \epsilon_{0})(N^{s-1} \eta_{1} A^{-1})^{\alpha} \right)(1+ \beta)
\end{array}
\label{Eqn:InducNrjw}$$
(with $\eta_{1}$ defined in Proposition \[Prop:SepLocMol\]) and that there exists a constant $L(l+1)$ such that
$$\begin{array}{ll}
\| I w_{l+1} \|_{L_{t}^{2(p-1)-} L_{x}^{2(p-1)+}(J)} & \leq L(l+1) \\
& \leq X_{C,Q}
\end{array}
\label{Eqn:BoundIw}$$
Then there exist $ C_{2}:= C_{2}(p)>> 1 $ and $\bar{C}:=\bar{C}(p) >> 1 $ such that if
$$\begin{array}{ll}
k & \leq \frac{1}{C_{2}^{C_{2}L(l+1) + 1}}
\end{array}
\label{Eqn:Boundk}$$
and
$$\begin{array}{ll}
\| I v_{l} \|_{L_{t}^{2(p-1)-} L_{x}^{2(p-1)+} ([T_{l},b])} \leq k
\end{array}
\label{Eqn:BoundIv}$$
then
$$\begin{array}{l}
\| I w_{l} \|_{L_{t}^{2(p-1)-} L_{x}^{2(p-1)+} ([T_{l},b])} \lesssim L(l+1)
\end{array}$$
provided that $(N,s)$ satisfies (\[Eqn:Cond2\]) and
$$\begin{array}{l}
\frac{\bar{C}^{\bar{C} X_{C,Q}} (N^{1-s} A^{\frac{p+1}{2}})^{p} X_{C,Q} } {N^{ \min{ \left( \left( s_{c} -\frac{1}{2} \right)-, (1-s_{c})-
\right) }}} << \eta_{0}
\end{array}
\label{Eqn:Cond4}$$
(with $\eta_{0}$ defined in Proposition \[prop:LocalBd\])
Here, again, $\beta$ is defined in (\[Eqn:DefBeta\]).
\[prop:PerturbArg\]
[**“ Initial mollified energy small implies control of $\| Iw \|_{L_{t}^{2(p-1)-} L_{x}^{2(p-1)+} (\mathbb{R})}$ and control of $\sup_{t \in \mathbb{R}} E(Iw(t))$ ”**]{} Assume that $w$ satisfies (\[Eqn:NlkgWdat\]) and that there exists $(i, t_{i}) \in
\mathbb{N} \times \mathbb{R}$ such that
$$\begin{array}{ll}
E(Iw (t_{i})) & \leq C_{E} N^{2(1-s)} A^{p+1} - i (1- \epsilon_{0}) (N^{s-1} \eta_{1} A^{-1})^{\alpha} \\
& \leq \frac{1}{10^{8}}
\end{array}
\label{Eqn:BoundInitSmall}$$
then
$$\begin{array}{l}
\| I w \|_{L_{t}^{2(p-1)-} L_{x}^{2(p-1)+} (\mathbb{R})} \lesssim 1
\end{array}$$
and
$$\begin{array}{l}
\sup_{t \in \mathbb{R}} E(Iw(t)) \lesssim \left( C_{E} N^{2(1-s)} A^{p+1} - i (1- \epsilon_{0}) (N^{s-1} \eta_{1} A^{-1})^{\alpha} \right) (1+
\beta)
\end{array}$$
provided that $(N,s)$ satisfies
$$\begin{array}{l}
\frac{ 2 (C_{E} N^{2(1-s)} A^{\frac{p+1}{2}})^{\frac{p-1}{2}} }{\beta N^{\frac{5-p}{2}-}} << 1
\end{array}
\label{Eqn:Cond6}$$
\[prop:EstSmallNrj\]
Let $(C,Q) \in (\mathbb{R}^{+})^{2}$. Let $C_{0} >> 1$ and $N:= \max{( N_{1},N_{2},N_{3},N_{4},N_{5})}$ with
$$\begin{array}{l}
N_{1} := C_{0} (A^{-1} \eta_{1})^{\frac{2(p-2) \alpha}{5-p}+} A^{\frac{p+2}{5-p}+}
\end{array}$$
$$\begin{array}{l}
N_{2} := C_{0} A^{\frac{p^{2}-1}{5-p}+}
\end{array}$$
$$\begin{array}{l}
N_{3} := C_{0} (X_{C,Q})^{\frac{4(p-1)}{5-p}+} A^{\frac{p(p+1)}{5-p}+}
\end{array}$$
$$\begin{array}{l}
N_{4} := C_{0} ( \bar{C}^{\bar{C} X_{C,Q}} A^{\frac{p(p+1)}{2}} X_{C,Q})^{ \max{ \left( \frac{1}{s_{c} -\frac{1}{2}}+, \frac{1}{1-s_{c}}+
\right)}}
\end{array}$$
and
$$\begin{array}{l}
N_{5} := C_{0} \left( (2 X_{C,Q})^{2(p-1)-} 2 (C_{E} A^{p+1})^{\frac{p+1}{2}} \epsilon_{0}^{-1} (\eta_{1} A^{-1})^{- \alpha}
\right)^{\frac{2}{5-p}+}
\end{array}$$
Let $\tilde{s}:=\tilde{s}(A,C,Q,p) < 1 $ be such that $N^{1-s} \sim 1$ for $s \geq \tilde{s}(A,C,Q,p)$ [^6]. Notice that, for this range of $s$ and for this value of $N$, (\[Eqn:Cond1\]), (\[Eqn:Cond2\]), (\[Eqn:Cond3\]), (\[Eqn:Cond4\]) and (\[Eqn:Cond6\]) are satisfied ( if $C_{0}$ is large enough). Observe also that the following condition is satisfied
$$\begin{array}{ll}
\frac{( 2 X_{C,Q} )^{2(p-1)-} 2 \left( C_{E} N^{2(1-s)} A^{p+1} \right)^{\frac{p-1}{2}} } { \beta N^{\frac{5-p}{2}-}} & << 1
\end{array}
\label{Eqn:NControlVar}$$
since $N \geq N_{5}$. Next we define the following statement of induction for $(N,s)$ prescribed above:
$\mathcal{P}_{C,Q}(l)$ is the following: For $i \geq l$, let $\mathcal{C}_{i}$ be the following set
$$\begin{array}{ll}
\mathcal{C}_{i} & = \left\{ w_{i}, \,
\begin{array}{l}
w_{i} \, \, solution \, \, of \, \, (\ref{Eqn:NlkgWdat}) \\
\exists t_{i} \in \mathbb{R}^{+} \, \, s.t \, \, E \left( I w_{i}(t_{i}) \right) \leq C_{E} N^{2(1-s)} A^{p+1} - i(1- \epsilon_{0}) (N^{s-1}
\eta_{1} A^{-1})^{\alpha}
\end{array}
\right\}
\end{array}
\label{Eqn:DefCi}$$
with $\eta_{1}$ defined in Proposition \[Prop:SepLocMol\]. Then there exists an $L:=L_{N,A} (i)$ [^7] such that
$$\begin{array}{l}
\inf{ \{ \bar{C}, \, \, w_{i} \in \mathcal{C}_{i} \, \, and \, \, \| I w_{i} \|_{L_{t}^{2(p-1)-} L_{x}^{2(p-1)+} (\mathbb{R}^{+})} \leq \bar{C}
\}} = L(i)
\end{array}
\label{Eqn:ControlIwStrich}$$
$$\begin{array}{ll}
L(i) & \leq X_{C,Q}
\end{array}
\label{Eqn:ContBoundLi}$$
and
$$\begin{array}{ll}
\sup_{t \in \mathbb{R}+} E(Iw_{i}(t)) & \leq (C_{E} N^{2(1-s)} A^{p+1} -i (1 - \epsilon_{0}) (N^{s-1} \eta_{1} A^{-1})^{\alpha} ) \left( 1+
\frac{\beta}{2} \right)
\end{array}
\label{Eqn:ControlEIw}$$
We shall prove that $\mathcal{P}_{C,Q}(l)$ is true for some constants $C:=C(A,p)$ and $Q:=Q(A,p)$ (to be chosen shortly), for all $ \sim
A^{p+1+ \alpha} \geq l \geq 0$: this will be done by induction on $l$. Once we have proved that $\mathcal{P}(l)$ is true for this range of $l$, then this implies that we have $\sup_{t \in \mathbb{R}+} E(Iu(t)) {\lesssim_{A}}1$, $\| I u \|_{L_{t}^{2(p-1)-} L_{x}^{2(p-1)+} (\mathbb{R}+)}
{\lesssim_{A}}1$: indeed, it is enough to apply $\mathcal{P}_{C,Q}(0)$ to $u$, using (\[Eqn:BoundInitMolNrj\]). In fact, we also have $\sup_{t \in
\mathbb{R}} E(Iu(t)) {\lesssim_{A}}1 $ and $\| I u \|_{L_{t}^{2(p-1)-} L_{x}^{2(p-1)+} (\mathbb{R})} {\lesssim_{A}}1$, by time reversal symmetry. Indeed, notice first that it is enough by time reversal symmetry to establish these bounds restricted to $[t_{l}, \infty)$; then it is enough to apply $\mathcal{P}_{C,Q}(0)$ to $u$
- $\mathcal{P}_{C,Q}(\sim A^{p+1 + \alpha})$ is true: it is enough to apply Proposition \[prop:EstSmallNrj\]
- we want to prove that $\mathcal{P}_{C,Q}(l+1) \Longrightarrow \mathcal{P}_{C,Q}(l)$. Let $T> t_{l}$. We shall first prove that the bounds (\[Eqn:ControlIwStrich\]) and (\[Eqn:ControlEIw\]) hold if we are restricted to $[t_{l},T]$ [^8]. Then it is enough to let $T$ go to infinity in order to fully prove (\[Eqn:ControlIwStrich\]) and (\[Eqn:ControlEIw\]).\
We introduce
$$F_{T}:= \left\{
T^{'} \in [t_{l}, \,T]:
\begin{array}{ll}
\sup_{t \in [t_{l}, \, T^{'}] } E(Iw_{l}(t)) \leq \\
(C_{E} N^{2(1-s)} A^{p+1} - l(1 - \epsilon_{0}) (N^{s-1} \eta_{1} A^{-1})^{\alpha})\left( 1+ \frac{\beta}{2} \right) \\
\| I w_{l} \|_{L_{t}^{2(p-1)-} L_{x}^{2(p-1)+} ([t_{l},T^{'}])} \leq X_{C,Q}
\end{array}
\right\}
$$
We want to show that $F_{T}=[t_{l}, \, T]$ . Indeed
- $F_{T} \neq \emptyset $ since $ t_{l} \in F_{T}$, by (\[Eqn:DefCi\]).
- $F_{T}$ is closed by continuity
- $F_{T}$ is an open set of $[t_{l},T]$. Let $\widetilde{T'} \in F_{T}$. By continuity there exists $ \delta > 0$ such that for all $T^{'} \in
(\widetilde{T^{'}} - \delta, \widetilde{T^{'}} + \delta) \cap [t_{l}, T]$ we have
$$\begin{array}{l}
\sup_{t \in [t_{l}, T^{'}]} E(Iw_{l}(t)) \leq \left( C_{E} N^{2(1-s)} A^{p+1} - l (1- \epsilon_{0}) (N^{s-1} \eta_{1} A^{-1})^{\alpha} \right)
\left( 1+ \beta \right)
\end{array}
\label{Eqn:InducNrjThm}$$
and
$$\begin{array}{ll}
\| I w_{l} \|_{L_{t}^{2(p-1)-} L_{x}^{2(p-1)+} ([t_{l},T^{'}])} & \leq 2 X_{C,Q}
\end{array}
\label{Eqn:BoundIwlXCQ}$$
We divide $[t_{l},T^{'}]$ into subintervals $(J_{j})_{1 \leq j \leq m}$ such that $ \| I w_{l} \|_{L_{t}^{2(p-1)-} L_{x}^{2(p-1)+} (J_{j})} =
\eta_{0} $ and $\| I w_{l} \|_{L_{t}^{2(p-1)-} L_{x}^{2(p-1)+} (J_{m}) } \leq \eta_{0}$. By Proposition \[prop:LocalBd\] and (\[Eqn:InducNrjThm\]) we have
$$\begin{array}{ll}
Z(w_{l},J_{j}) & \lesssim \left[ \left( C_{E} N^{2(1-s)} A^{p+1} - l(1- \epsilon_{0}) (N^{s-1} \eta_{1} A^{-1})^{\alpha} \right) (1+ \beta)
\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}
\end{array}$$
Now, by applying Proposition \[Prop:Acl\], (\[Eqn:NControlVar\]) and (\[Eqn:BoundIwlXCQ\]) we see that in fact
$$\begin{array}{ll}
\sup_{t \in [0, T^{'}]} E(Iw_{l}(t)) \leq \left( C_{E} N^{2(1-s)} A^{p+1} - l (1- \epsilon_{0}) (N^{s-1} \eta_{1} A^{-1})^{\alpha} \right)
\left( 1+ \frac{\beta}{2} \right)
\end{array}$$
Let $M$ be such that $ \frac{(N^{1-s} A)^{\alpha}}{M^{\bar{\alpha}}}:= \frac{1}{C_{2}^{C_{2} L(l+1) + 1}}$ ( with $\alpha$, $\bar{\alpha}$ and $C_{2}$ defined in Proposition \[prop:PerturbArg\]). If $ \| I w_{l} \|_{L_{t}^{2(p-1)-} L_{x}^{2(p-1)+} ([t_{l},T^{'}]) } \geq 2B $ then this implies that there exists $T_{0} \in [t_{l},T^{'}]$ such that $ \| I w_{l} \|_{L_{t}^{2(p-1)-} L_{x}^{2(p-1)+} ([t_{l},T_{0}])} \geq B$ and $\|
I w_{l} \|_{L_{t}^{2(p-1)-} L_{x}^{2(p-1)+} ([T_{0},T^{'}])} \geq B $. There are two options:
- $$\begin{array}{ll}
B & \geq e^{(C_{1} M e^{C_{1} (N^{1-s} A )^{\alpha}})^{C_{1} (N^{1-s} A)^{\alpha}}}
\end{array}
\label{Eqn:BoundB1}$$
with $C_{1}$ defined in Proposition \[Prop:SepLocMol\]. Then, in this case, applying Proposition \[Prop:SepLocMol\] to $J=[t_{l},T_{0}]$, we see that there exists $T_{l} \in J$ such that
$$\begin{array}{ll}
E(Iw_{l}-Iv_{l}, T_{l}) & \leq \left( C_{E} N^{2(1-s)} A^{p+1} - l(1-\epsilon_{0}) (N^{s-1} \eta_{1} A^{-1})^{\alpha} \right)(1+ \beta) - (N^{s-1} A^{-1})^{\alpha} \\
& \leq C_{E} N^{2(1-s)} A^{p+1} - (l+1)(1- \epsilon_{0})(N^{s-1} \eta_{1} A^{-1})^{\alpha}
\end{array}
\label{Eqn:MakeDecr}$$
by our choice of $\beta$ (see (\[Eqn:DefBeta\])) and
$$\begin{array}{ll}
\| I v_{l} \|_{L_{t}^{2(p-1)-} L_{x}^{2(p-1)+} ( T_{l},T^{'} ) } & \leq \frac{1}{C_{2}^{C_{2} L(l+1) +1 }}
\end{array}$$
and letting $w_{l+1}$ be the solution of (\[Eqn:NlkgWdat\]) with data $w_{l+1}(T_{l}):=(w_{l}-v_{l})(T_{l})$, we see that, by using $\mathcal{P}_{C,Q}(l+1)$ and Proposition \[prop:PerturbArg\]
$$\begin{array}{ll}
B & \leq \| I w_{l} \|_{ L_{t}^{2(p-1)-} L_{x}^{2(p-1)+} ( [T_{0},T^{'}] ) } \\
& \leq \| I w_{l} \|_{ L_{t}^{2(p-1)-} L_{x}^{2(p-1)+} ( [T_{l},T^{'}] ) } \\ \
& \lesssim L(l+1) \\
\end{array}$$
Therefore, in this case,
$$\begin{array}{ll}
\| I w_{l} \|_{L_{t}^{2(p-1)-} L_{x}^{2(p-1)+} ([t_{l},T^{'}])} & \lesssim L(l+1)
\end{array}$$
- There exists a constant $\tilde{C}$ large enough such that
$$\begin{array}{l}
B \leq e^{(C_{1} M e^{C_{1} (N^{1-s} A )^{\alpha}})^{C_{1} (N^{1-s} A)^{\alpha}}} \\
\leq e^{ \left( \tilde{C}^{\tilde{C}} \tilde{C}^{\tilde{C} \, L(l+1)} A^{\tilde{C}} e^{\tilde{C} \, A^{\tilde{C}}} \right) ^{ \tilde{C} \,
A^{\tilde{C}} }}
\end{array}$$
and, in this case
$$\begin{array}{ll}
\| I w_{l} \|_{ L_{t}^{2(p-1)-} L_{x}^{2(p-1)+} ([t_{l},T^{'}])} & \lesssim e^{ \left( \tilde{C}^{\tilde{C}} \tilde{C}^{\tilde{C} L(l+1)}
A^{\tilde{C}} e^{\tilde{C} A^{\tilde{C}}} \right) ^{ \tilde{C} A^{\tilde{C}} }}
\end{array}
\label{Eqn:BoundIwl}$$
Therefore (\[Eqn:BoundIwl\]) holds in both cases. Now we iterate, and it is even simpler since we can use (\[Eqn:ContBoundLi\]) and (\[Eqn:ControlEIw\]): we do not even need to introduce the set $F_{T}$. For example, let us sketch the proof to estimate $L(l+1)$ from $L(l+2)$. Let $w^{'}_{l+1} \in \mathcal{C}_{l+1}$. Assume that $\| I w^{'}_{l+1} \|_{L_{t}^{2(p-1)-} L_{x}^{2(p-1)+} (\mathbb{R}^{+})} \geq 2B$. Then this implies that there exists $T_{0} \in \mathbb{R}^{+}$ such that $\| I w^{'}_{l+1} \|_{L_{t}^{2(p-1)-} L_{x}^{2(p-1)+} ([0,T_{0}])}
\geq B $ and\
$ \| I w^{'}_{l+1} \|_{L_{t}^{2(p-1)-} L_{x}^{2(p-1)+}([T_{0}, \infty))} \geq B$. Now, by (\[Eqn:ContBoundLi\]) and (\[Eqn:ControlEIw\]) we see that we can apply Proposition \[Prop:SepLocMol\] to $J=[0,T_{0}]$ and we find, after letting $M$ be such that $\frac{(N^{1-s}A )^{\alpha}}{M^{\alpha}} := \frac{1}{ C_{2}^{C_{2} L(l+2) +1} }$ and after slightly modifying the steps from (\[Eqn:BoundB1\]) to (\[Eqn:BoundIwl\]), that
$$\begin{array}{ll}
\| I w^{'}_{l+1} \|_{ L_{t}^{2(p-1)-} L_{x}^{2(p-1)+} (\mathbb{R}^{+})} & \lesssim e^{ \left( \tilde{C}^{\tilde{C}} \tilde{C}^{\tilde{C} L(l+2)}
A^{\tilde{C}} e^{\tilde{C} A^{\tilde{C}}} \right) ^{ \tilde{C} A^{\tilde{C}} }}
\end{array}$$
and therefore
$$\begin{array}{ll}
L(l+1) & \lesssim e^{ \left( \tilde{C}^{\tilde{C}} \tilde{C}^{\tilde{C} \, L(l+2)} A^{\tilde{C}} e^{\tilde{C} \, A^{\tilde{C}}} \right) ^{
\tilde{C} A^{\tilde{C}} }}
\end{array}$$
iterating $ \lesssim A^{p+1 + \alpha}$ times, we see that, letting $C:=\tilde{C}$ and $Q:= \tilde{Q}$ (with $\tilde{Q} \sim A^{p+1 + \alpha}$), we have
$$\begin{array}{ll}
\| I w_{l} \|_{L_{t}^{2(p-1)-} L_{x}^{2(p-1)+} ([0,T^{'}]) } & \leq X_{C,Q}
\end{array}$$
, by using Proposition \[prop:EstSmallNrj\].
Therefore $\mathcal{P}_{C,Q}(l)$ holds, for these values of $C$ and $Q$.
**Global existence**\
$$\begin{array}{ll}
\sup_{t \in [-T,T]} E(Iu(t)) & \lesssim_{A} 1
\end{array}
\label{Eqn:BdNrjNrjIn}$$ and
$$\begin{array}{ll}
\| I u \|_{L_{t}^{2(p-1)-} L_{x}^{2(p-1)+} ([-T,T])} {\lesssim_{A}}1
\end{array}$$
Now by Plancherel and (\[Eqn:BdNrjNrjIn\])
$$\begin{array}{ll}
\| ( u(T),\partial_{t} u(T)) \|^{2}_{H^{s} \times H^{s-1}} & \lesssim E(Iu(T)) \\
& {\lesssim_{A}}1
\end{array}
\label{Eqn:BounduTMolNrj}$$
This proves global well-posedness of (\[Eqn:NlkgWdat\]) with data $(u_{0},u_{1}) \in H^{s} \times H^{s-1}$ such that $\| (u_{0},u_{1})
\|_{H^{s} \times H^{s-1}} \leq A$ and $1 > s > \tilde{s}:=\tilde{s}(A,p)$. Moreover by letting $T$ go to infinity, we have in fact
$$\begin{array}{ll}
\sup_{t \in \mathbb{R}} E(Iu(t)) & {\lesssim_{A}}1
\end{array}
\label{Eqn:BdRNrj}$$
and
$$\begin{array}{ll}
\| I u \|_{L_{t}^{2(p-1)-} L_{x}^{2(p-1)+} (\mathbb{R})} {\lesssim_{A}}1
\end{array}
\label{Eqn:BdLgEst}$$
This implies that $\mathcal{P}_{C,Q}(l)$ is true.
**Global estimates**\
Now we claim that
$$\begin{array}{ll}
Z_{m,s}(\mathbb{R},u) & {\lesssim_{A}}1
\end{array}
\label{Eqn:GlobEst}$$
for all $0 \leq m \leq s$. Let $ \mathcal{P}:= (J_{l}=[a_{l}, \, b_{l}])_{1 \leq l \leq L }$ be a partition of $[0, \infty)$ such that $\| Iu
\|_{L_{t}^{2(p-1)-} L_{x}^{2(p-1)+}(J_{l})} = \eta_{0}$, $l < L$ and $\| I u \|_{L_{t}^{2(p-1)-} L_{x}^{2(p-1)+}(J_{L})} \leq \eta_{0}$.
$$\begin{array}{ll}
\| I u \|_{L_{t}^{2(p-1)-} L_{x}^{2(p-1)+}(J_{l}) } & \leq \eta_{0}
\end{array}
\label{Eqn:LocLongThm}$$
with $\eta_{0}$ defined in Proposition \[prop:LocalBd\]. Notice that this implies that $L {\lesssim_{A}}1$ by (\[Eqn:BdLgEst\]). Moreover by slightly modifying the proof of Proposition \[prop:LocalBd\] we see that
- if $m=0$ then $Z_{m,s}(J_{l},u) {\lesssim_{A}}1$: it follows from (\[Eqn:BdRNrj\])
- $m=s_{c}$: by slightly modifying (\[Eqn:Comput\])
$$\begin{array}{ll}
Z_{m,s}(J_{l},u) & \lesssim N^{1-s} A^{\frac{p+1}{2}} + Z_{s_{c},s} (J_{l},u) \left( \eta_{0}^{p-1} + \frac{Z^{p-1}_{s_{c},s}(J_{l},u)
}{N^{\frac{5-p}{2}-}} \right) \\
& \lesssim N^{1-s} A^{\frac{p+1}{2}} \\
& {\lesssim_{A}}1
\end{array}$$
by a continuity argument and our choice of $N$.
- $ 0< m < s_{c}$: it follows by interpolating between $m=s_{c}$ and $m=0$
- $m=1$: again, by slightly modifying the proof of Proposition \[prop:LocalBd\] we have
$$\begin{array}{ll}
Z_{1,s}(J_{l},u) & \lesssim N^{1-s} A^{\frac{p+1}{2}} + \eta^{p-1}_{0} Z_{1,s}(J_{l},u) + \frac{Z_{1,s}(J_{l},u) N^{1-s}
A^{\frac{p+1}{2}}}{N^{\frac{5-p}{2}-}} \\ & + \frac{ (N^{1-s} A^{\frac{p+1}{2}})^{p-1} } {N^{\frac{5-p}{2}-}} Z_{1,s}(J_{l},u) +
\frac{Z^{p}_{\frac{2}{p}-,s} (J_{l},u) }{N^{\frac{5-p}{2}-}} \\
& \lesssim N^{1-s} A^{\frac{p+1}{2}} \\
& {\lesssim_{A}}1
\end{array}$$
by a continuity argument and our choice of $N$
- if $s_{c} < m < 1$ then $Z_{m,s}(J_{l},u) \lesssim N^{1-s} A^{\frac{p+1}{2}} {\lesssim_{A}}1$: if follows by interpolating between $m=s_{c}$ and $m=1$.
Therefore, iterating over $l$, we get (\[Eqn:GlobEst\]).
**Scattering**\
Let
$$\begin{array}{ll}
v(t) & := \left(
\begin{array}{l}
u(t) \\
\partial_{t} u(t)
\end{array}
\right)
\end{array}$$
$$\begin{array}{ll}
v_{0} : = \left(
\begin{array}{l}
u_{0} \\
u_{1}
\end{array}
\right)
\end{array}$$
$$\begin{array}{ll}
\mathbf{K}(t) & := \left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\cos{(t \langle D \rangle)} & \frac{\sin{(t \langle D \rangle)}}{\langle D \rangle} \\ & \\
-\langle D \rangle \sin {(t \langle D \rangle)} & \cos{(t \langle D \rangle)}
\end{array}
\right)
\end{array}$$
and
$$\begin{array}{ll}
\mathbf{u_{nl}}(t) & = \left(
\begin{array}{l}
\int_{0}^{t} \frac{\sin{\left((t-t^{'}) \langle D \rangle \right)}}{\langle D \rangle} \left( |u|^{p-1}(t^{'}) u(t^{'}) \right) \, d t^{'} \\ \\
\int_{0}^{t} \cos{ \left( (t-t^{'}) \langle D \rangle \right)} \left( |u|^{p-1}(t^{'}) u(t^{'}) \right) \, d t^{'}
\end{array}
\right)
\end{array}$$
Then we get from (\[Eqn:StrongSol\])
$$\begin{array}{ll}
\mathbf{v}(t) & = \mathbf{K}(t) \mathbf{v_{0}} - \mathbf{u_{nl}}(t)
\end{array}$$
Recall that the solution $u$ scatters in $H^{s} \times H^{s-1}$ if there exists
$$\begin{array}{ll}
\mathbf{v_{+,0}} & := \left(
\begin{array}{l}
u_{0,+} \\
u_{1,+}
\end{array}
\right)
\end{array}
\label{Eqn:ScatBegin}$$
such that
$$\left\| \mathbf{v}(t)
-\mathbf{K}(t) \mathbf{v_{+,0}} \right\|_{H^{s} \times H^{s-1}}$$
has a limit as $t \rightarrow \infty$ and the limit is equal to $0$. In other words since $K$ is bounded on $H^{s} \times H^{s-1}$ it suffices to prove that the quantity
$$\left\| \mathbf{K}^{-1}(t) \mathbf{v}(t) - \mathbf{v_{+,0}} \right\|_{H^{s} \times H^{s-1}}$$
has a limit as $t \rightarrow \infty$ and the limit is equal to $0$. A computation shows that
$$\begin{array}{ll}
\mathbf{K}^{-1}(t) & = \left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\cos{(t \langle D \rangle )} & -\frac{\sin{(t \langle D \rangle)}}{\langle D \rangle} \\ & \\
\langle D \rangle \sin {(t \langle D \rangle)} & \cos{(t \langle D \rangle)}
\end{array}
\right)
\end{array}$$
But
$$\begin{array}{ll}
\mathbf{K}^{-1}(t) \mathbf{v}(t) & = \mathbf{v_{0}} - \mathbf{K}^{-1}(t) \mathbf{u^{nlin}}(t)
\end{array}
\label{Eqn:ScatEnd}$$
By Proposition \[prop:StrEstLtqLxr\]
$$\begin{array}{ll}
\| \mathbf{K}^{-1}(t_{1}) \mathbf{u^{nlin}}(t_{1}) - \mathbf{K}^{-1}(t_{2}) \mathbf{u^{nlin}}(t_{2}) \|_{H^{s} \times H^{s-1}} & \lesssim \|
\mathbf{u^{nlin}}(t_{1}) - \mathbf{u^{nlin}}(t_{2}) \|_{H^{s} \times
H^{s-1}} \\
& \lesssim \| |u|^{p-1} u \|_{L_{t}^{\frac{2}{1+s}} L_{x}^{\frac{2}{2-s}} ([t_{1}, \, t_{2}]) } \\
& \lesssim \| \langle D \rangle^{1-s} I \left( |u|^{p-1} u \right) \|_{L_{t}^{\frac{2}{1+s}} L_{x}^{\frac{2}{2-s}} ([t_{1}, \, t_{2}]) }
\end{array}
\label{Eqn:CauchyScat}$$
But, plugging $\langle D \rangle^{1-s}$ into (\[Eqn:StrNlkg\]), we get
$$\begin{array}{l}
\| \langle D \rangle^{1-s} I \left( |u|^{p-1} u \right) \|_{L_{t}^{\frac{2}{1+s}} L_{x}^{\frac{2}{2-s}} ([t_{1}, \, t_{2}]) } \lesssim
\| \langle D \rangle^{1-s} Iu \|_{L_{t}^{\frac{2}{s}+} L_{x}^{\frac{2}{1-s}-}([t_{1}, \, t_{2}])}
\| u \|^{p-1}_{L_{t}^{2(p-1)-} L_{x}^{2(p-1)+} ([t_{1},t_{2}])} \\
\lesssim \| \langle D \rangle^{1-s} I u \|_{L_{t}^{\frac{2}{s}+} L_{x}^{\frac{2}{1-s}-}([t_{1}, \, t_{2}])}
\left( \| P_{<<N} u \|^{p-1}_{L_{t}^{2(p-1)-} L_{x}^{2(p-1)+} ([t_{1},t_{2}])} + \| P_{\gtrsim N} u \|^{p-1}_{L_{t}^{2(p-1)-} L_{x}^{2(p-1)+}
([t_{1},t_{2}])} \right) \\
\lesssim Z_{s,s}([t_{1},t_{2}],u) \left( \| I u \|^{p-1}_{L_{t}^{2(p-1)-} L_{x}^{2(p-1)+} ([t_{1},t_{2}]) } +
\frac{ \| \langle D \rangle^{1- s_{c}} I u \|^{p-1}_{L_{t}^{2(p-1)-} L_{x}^{2(p-1)+} ([t_{1},t_{2}])}}{N^{ \frac{5-p}{2} -}}
\right) \\
\lesssim Z_{s,s}([t_{1},t_{2}],u) \left( \| I u \|^{p-1}_{L_{t}^{2(p-1)-} L_{x}^{2(p-1)+} ([t_{1},t_{2}]) } + \frac{Z^{p-1}_{s_{c},s}
([t_{1},t_{2}],u)} {N^{\frac{5-p}{2} -}} \right)
\end{array}
\label{Eqn:Donemins}$$
Therefore in view of (\[Eqn:BdLgEst\]), (\[Eqn:GlobEst\]), (\[Eqn:CauchyScat\]) and (\[Eqn:Donemins\]), we see that the Cauchy criterion is satisfied by $\mathbf{K}^{-1}(t) v(t)$ and we conclude that $\mathbf{K}^{-1}(t) v(t)$ has a limit in $H^{s} \times H^{s-1}$ as $t$ goes to infinity. Moreover
$$\begin{array}{ll}
\lim \limits_{t \rightarrow \infty} \left\| \mathbf{v}(t) - \mathbf{K}(t)\mathbf{v_{+,0}} \right\|_{H^{s} \times H^{s-1}} & = 0
\end{array}$$
with $\mathbf{v_{+,0}}$ defined in (\[Eqn:ScatBegin\]),
$$\begin{array}{ll}
u_{+,0} & := u_{0} + \int_{0}^{\infty} \frac{\sin{(t^{'} \langle D \rangle)}}{\langle D \rangle} \left( |u|^{p-1}(t^{'}) u(t^{'}) \right) \, d
t^{'}
\end{array}$$
and
$$\begin{array}{ll}
u_{+,1} & := u_{1} - \int_{0}^{\infty} \cos{(t^{'} \langle D \rangle)} \left( |u|^{p-1}(t^{'}) u(t^{'}) \right) \, d t^{'}
\end{array}$$
Proof of Proposition \[prop:EstSmallNrj\] {#Sec:EstSmallNrj}
=========================================
In this section we prove Proposition \[prop:EstSmallNrj\].
The proof is made of three steps:
- Control of $\| I w \|_{L_{t}^{2(p-1)-} L_{x}^{2(p-1)+} (\mathbb{R})}$: by looking at the proof of Proposition \[prop:LocalBd\], we realize that
$$\begin{array}{ll}
Z_{s_{c},s}(\mathbb{R},w) & \lesssim \frac{1}{10^{8}} + \| \langle D \rangle^{1-s_{c}} I w \|_{L_{t}^{\frac{2}{s_{c}} +}
L_{x}^{\frac{2}{1-s_{c}}} (\mathbb{R})} \\
& \left( \| Iw \|^{p-1}_{L_{t}^{2(p-1)-} L_{x}^{2(p-1)+} (\mathbb{R})} + \frac{ \|
\langle D \rangle^{1-s_{c}} I w \|^{p-1}_{L_{t}^{2(p-1)-} L_{x}^{2(p-1)+} (\mathbb{R}) } } {N^{\frac{5-p}{2}-}} \right) \\
& \lesssim \frac{1}{10^{8}} + \left( Z^{p}_{s_{c},s}(w,\mathbb{R}) + \frac{Z^{p}_{s_{c},s} (w,\mathbb{R})}{N^{\frac{5-p}{2}-}} \right)
\end{array}$$
where we used the Sobolev embedding
$$\begin{array}{ll}
\| I w \|_{L_{t}^{2(p-1)-} L_{x}^{2(p-1)+} (\mathbb{R})} & \lesssim \| \langle D \rangle^{1- s_{c}} I w \|_{L_{t}^{2(p-1)-}
L_{x}^{\frac{6(p-1)}{2p-3}+ }(\mathbb{R})}
\end{array}
\label{Eqn:SobEmbedp}$$
and, by a continuity argument, we have $Z_{s_{c},s}(\mathbb{R},w) \lesssim 1$ hence
$$\begin{array}{ll}
\| I w \|_{L_{t}^{2(p-1)-} L_{x}^{2(p-1)+}(\mathbb{R})} & \lesssim 1
\end{array}
\label{Eqn:EndIu}$$
- Control of $\sup_{t \in \mathbb{R}} E(Iw(t))$.
We define the set
$$\begin{array}{ll}
F & : =\left\{ T \in \mathbb{R}, \, \sup_{t \in [-T,T]} E(Iw(t)) \leq \left( C_{E} N^{2(1-s)} A^{p+1} - i(1- \epsilon_{0}) (N^{s-1} \eta_{1}
A^{-1})^{\alpha} \right) \left( 1+ \frac{\beta}{2} \right) \right\}
\end{array}$$
- $F \neq \emptyset$ since $T_{l} \in F$
- $F$ is closed by continuity
- $F$ is open: given $T \in F$, there exists by continuity $\delta > 0$ such that for $T^{'} \in (T_{l}, T+ \delta)$
$$\begin{array}{ll}
\sup_{t \in [-T^{'},T^{'}]} E(Iw(t)) \leq \left( C_{E} N^{2(1-s)} A^{p+1} - i(1- \epsilon_{0}) (N^{s-1} \eta_{1} A^{-1})^{\alpha} \right) \left(
1+ \beta \right)
\end{array}
\label{Eqn:InducNrjSmall}$$
Using (\[Eqn:InducNrjSmall\]) and (\[Eqn:EndIu\]), we see that, by looking at the proof of Proposition \[prop:LocalBd\], that $Z_{m,s}(w,[-T^{'}, T^{'}]) << 1$ for all $m \in [0,1]$, since $(N,s)$ satisfies (\[Eqn:Cond2\]). Combining these bound with Proposition \[Prop:Acl\] and (\[Eqn:BoundInitSmall\]), we see that in fact
$$\begin{array}{l}
\sup_{t \in [-T^{'},T^{'}]} E(Iw(t)) \left( C_{E} N^{2(1-s)} A^{p+1} - i(1- \epsilon_{0}) (N^{s-1} \eta_{1} A^{-1})^{\alpha} \right) \left( 1+
\frac{\beta}{2} \right)
\end{array}$$
since $(N,s)$ also satisfies (\[Eqn:Cond6\]).
Proof of Proposition \[prop:LocalBd\]
=====================================
In this section we prove Proposition \[prop:LocalBd\]. Let
$$\begin{array}{l}
Y:= \left( \left( C_{E} N^{1-s} A^{p+1} - l(1- \epsilon_{0}) (N^{s-1} A^{-1})^{\alpha} \right) (1+ \beta) \right)^{\frac{1}{2}}
\end{array}$$
Plugging $\langle D \rangle ^{1-m}I$ into (\[Eqn:StrNlkg\]) we have
$$\begin{array}{ll}
Z_{m,s}(J,w_{l}) & \lesssim Y + \| \langle D \rangle^{1-m} I ( |w_{l}|^{p-1} w_{l} ) \|_{L_{t}^{\frac{2}{1+m}} L_{x}^{\frac{2}{2-m}}(J)}
\end{array}
\label{Eqn:PlugNrjStr}$$
There are five cases:
- $m=0$: it follows from (\[Eqn:InducNrj\])
- $ m = s_{c}$: we have
$$\begin{array}{l}
Z_{s_{c},s}(J,w_{l}) \lesssim Y + \| \langle D \rangle^{1-s_{c}} I w_{l} \|_{L_{t}^{\frac{2}{s_{c}}+} L_{x}^{\frac{2}{1-s_{c}}-}(J)}
\| |w_{l}|^{p-1} \|_{L_{t}^{2-} L_{x}^{2+}(J)} \\
\lesssim Y + Z_{s_{c},s}(J,w_{l}) \| w_{l} \|^{p-1}_{L_{t}^{2(p-1)-} L_{x}^{2(p-1)+}(J)} \\
\lesssim Y + Z_{s_{c},s}(J,w_{l}) \left( \| P_{<<N} w_{l} \|^{p-1}_{L_{t}^{2(p-1)-} L_{x}^{2(p-1)+} (J)} + \| P_{\gtrsim N} w_{l}
\|^{p-1}_{L_{t}^{2(p-1)-} L_{x}^{2(p-1)+} (J)} \right) \\
\lesssim Y + Z_{s_{c},s}(J,w_{l}) \left( \| I w_{l} \|^{p-1}_{L_{t}^{2(p-1)-} L_{x}^{2(p-1)+} (J)} + \frac{ \| \langle D
\rangle^{1- s_{c}} I w_{l} \|^{p-1}_{L_{t}^{2(p-1)-} L_{x}^{2(p-1)+} (J)}}{N^{\frac{5-p}{2}-}} \right) \\
\lesssim Y + Z_{s_{c},s}(J,w_{l}) \left( \eta^{p-1}_{0} + \frac{Z^{p-1}_{s_{c},s} (J,w_{l})}{N^{\frac{5-p}{2}-}} \right)
\end{array}
\label{Eqn:Comput}$$
Therefore, by a continuity argument, we conclude that
$$\begin{array}{l}
Z_{s_{c},s}(J,w_{l}) \lesssim Y
\end{array}
\label{Eqn:BoundZsc}$$
- $0 < m < s_{c}$: It follows by interpolating $m=s_{c}$ and $m=0$
- $m={1}$. We have
$$\begin{array}{l}
Z_{m,s}(J,w_{l}) \lesssim Y + \| I (|w_{l}|^{p-1} w_{l}) \|_{L_{t}^{1} L_{x}^{2} (J)} \\ \\
\lesssim Y + \| |w_{l}|^{p-1} w_{l} \|_{L_{t}^{1} L_{x}^{2}(J)} \\ \\
\lesssim Y + \| |P_{<<N} w_{l}|^{p-1} P_{<< N} w_{l} \|_{L_{t}^{1} L_{x}^{2} (J)} + \| |P_{<<N} w_{l}|^{p-1}
P_{\gtrsim N} w_{l} \|_{L_{t}^{1} L_{x}^{2}(J)} \\ \\
+ \| |P_{\gtrsim N} w_{l}|^{p-1} P_{<<N} w_{l} \|_{L_{t}^{1} L_{x}^{2} (J)} + \| |P_{\gtrsim N} w_{l}|^{p-1} P_{\gtrsim N} w_{l} \|_{L_{t}^{1}
L_{x}^{2}(J)} \\ \\
\lesssim Y + B_{1} + B_{2} + B_{3} + B_{4}
\end{array}
\label{Eqn:0}$$
But
$$\begin{array}{l}
B_{1} \lesssim \| I w_{l} \|^{p-1}_{L_{t}^{2(p-1)-} L_{x}^{2(p-1)+} (J)} \| I w_{l} \|_{L_{t}^{2+} L_{x}^{\infty-}(J)} \\ \\
\lesssim \eta^{p-1}_{0} Z_{1,s}(w_{l},J)
\end{array}
\label{Eqn:1}$$
As for $B_{2}$, $B_{3}$ and $B_{4}$, we have (see also [@triroyradnlkg] for a similar argument)
$$\begin{array}{l}
B_{2} \lesssim \| I w_{l} \|^{p-1}_{L_{t}^{p-1} L_{x}^{\frac{6(p-1)}{p-3}} (J) } \| P_{\gtrsim N} w_{l} \|_{L_{t}^{\infty}
L_{x}^{\frac{6}{6-p}}(J)} \\ \\
\lesssim Z^{p-1}_{1,s}(J,w_{l}) \frac{\| \langle D \rangle I w_{l} \|_{L_{t}^{\infty} L_{x}^{2}(J)} }{N^{\frac{5-p}{2}-}} \\ \\
\lesssim \frac{Z^{p-1}_{1,s} (J,w_{l})}{N^{\frac{5-p}{2}-}} Y
\end{array}
\label{Eqn:2}$$
$$\begin{array}{l}
B_{3} \lesssim \frac{ \| \langle D \rangle^{1-s_{c}} I w_{l} \|^{p-1}_{L_{t}^{2(p-1)-} L_{x}^{2(p-1)+}(J)}}{N^{\frac{5-p}{2}}} \| Iw_{l}
\|_{L_{t}^{2+} L_{x}^{\infty -}(J)} \\ \\
\lesssim \frac{Z^{p-1}_{s_{c},s}(J,w_{l})}{N^{\frac{5-p}{2}-}} Z_{1,s}(J,w_{l}) \\ \\
\lesssim \frac{Y^{p-1} }{N^{\frac{5-p}{2}-}} Z_{1,s}(J,w_{l})
\end{array}
\label{Eqn:3}$$
and
$$\begin{array}{l}
B_{4} \lesssim \| P_{\gtrsim N} w_{l} \|^{p}_{L_{t}^{p} L_{x}^{\frac{2p}{p-2}}(J)} \\
\lesssim \frac{ \| \langle D \rangle^{1- \left( \frac{2}{p} \right)} I w_{l} \|^{p}_{L_{t}^{p} L_{x}^{\frac{2p}{p-2}}(J)}
}{N^{\frac{5-p}{2}-}} \\
\lesssim \frac{ Z^{p}_{\frac{2}{p},s} (J,w_{l}) }{N^{\frac{5-p}{2}-}} \\
\lesssim \frac{Y^{p}}{N^{\frac{5-p}{2}-}}
\end{array}
\label{Eqn:4}$$
Therefore, by Proposition \[Prop:EstInitMolNrj\], (\[Eqn:Comput\]), (\[Eqn:0\]), (\[Eqn:1\]), (\[Eqn:2\]), (\[Eqn:3\]), (\[Eqn:4\]) and a continuity argument we also get
$$\begin{array}{l}
Z_{1,s}(w_{l},J) \lesssim Y
\end{array}$$
- $s_{c}< m < 1$: it follows by interpolating between $m=s_{c}$ and $m=1$.
Proof of Proposition \[Prop:SepLocMol\]
=======================================
The proof of Proposition \[Prop:SepLocMol\] relies upon several conditions and three lemmas that we show in the next subsections.
[**“ Concentration of $\| Iw_{l} \|_{L_{t}^{2(p-1)-} L_{x}^{2(p-1)+} }$ implies concentration of potential term of the mollified energy ”**]{} Assume that $\| I w_{l} \|_{L_{t}^{2(p-1)-} L_{x}^{2(p-1)+} (J) } = \eta$ with $\eta \leq \eta_{0} << 1$ [^9]. Then there exist $\alpha:=\alpha(p)
>0$, a subinterval $K \subset J$, $R>0$, $c:=c(p)>0$ , $C:=C(p)>0$ and $x_{0} \in \mathbb{R}^{3}$ such that
- $$\begin{array}{ll}
R & := C (\eta^{-1} A N^{1-s})^{\alpha}
\end{array}
\label{Eqn:DefR}$$
- $$\begin{array}{ll}
\int_{|x-x_{0}| \leq R} |Iw_{l}(t,x)|^{p+1} \, dx & \gtrsim (\eta A^{-1} N^{s-1})^{\alpha}
\end{array}
\label{Eqn:ConcNrjMol}$$
for all $t \in K$
- $$\begin{array}{ll}
|K| & = c (\eta A^{-1} N^{s-1})^{\alpha}
\end{array}
\label{Eqn:SizeK}$$
\[lem:ConcNrj\]
[**“Logarithmic growth of size of intervals on which there is concentration”**]{}
Let $ (J_{j}=[a_{j},a_{j+1}])_{ 1 \leq j \leq \bar{j}} $ be a partition of $J$ such that $\| Iw_{l} \|_{L_{t}^{2(p-1)-} L_{x}^{2(p-1)+}
(J_{j})} = \eta$ with $\eta << 1$, $j< \bar{j}$ and $\| I w_{l} \|_{L_{t}^{2(p-1)-} L_{x}^{2(p-1)+} (J_{\bar{j}})} \leq \eta$. Then there exist $t_{j} \in J_{j}$ and $\alpha:=\alpha(p)
> 0$ such that
$$\begin{array}{ll}
\sum_{j=1}^{\bar{j}} \frac{1}{t_{j} + 1} & \lesssim (N^{1-s} A \eta^{-1})^{\alpha}
\end{array}
\label{Eqn:RepartJj}$$
\[lem:UseMorEst\]
[**“If $\| I w_{l} \|_{L_{t}^{2(p-1)} L_{x}^{2(p-1)}(J)}$ large enough then large subinterval s.t Strichartz norms smaller compare to concentration of mollified energy”**]{}
Let $M \geq 100$. If $K \subset J$ is a subinterval, let
$$\begin{array}{l}
\bar{Z}(K,w_{l}) := \| \partial_{t} \langle D \rangle^{-\frac{1}{2}} I w_{l} \|_{L_{t}^{4} L_{x}^{4} (K)} + \| I w_{l} \|_{L_{t}^{2(p-1)-}
L_{x}^{2(p-1)+} (K)} \\
+ \| \langle D \rangle^{1- \frac{2}{p}} I w_{l} \|_{L_{t}^{p} L_{x}^{\frac{2p}{p-2}} (K) } + \| \langle D
\rangle^{1-\frac{3p-5}{2p}} I w_{l} \|_{L_{t}^{p} L_{x}^{2p} (K)} \\
+ \| \langle D \rangle^{1-\frac{1}{2}} I w_{l} \|_{L_{t}^{4+} L_{x}^{4-} (K) } + \| \langle D \rangle^{1- \frac{p-3}{2} } I w_{l}
\|_{L_{t}^{\frac{4}{p-3}} L_{x}^{\frac{4}{5-p} }(K)} \\
+ \| \langle D \rangle^{1-1} I w_{l} \|_{L_{t}^{\frac{4(p-1)}{7-p}} L_{x}^{\frac{4(p-1)}{p-3}} (K) }
\end{array}
\label{Eqn:DefBarZ}$$
Then there exist $\alpha:=\alpha(p) > 0$, $\eta_{1}:= \eta_{1}(p) << 1$, $C_{1}:=C_{1}(p) >> 1$, $R^{'} \in (1,\infty)$ , $[S_{l},T_{l}] \subset
J$, $\bar{x} \in \mathbb{R}^{3}$ and $R^{'}>1$ such that for all $\epsilon < \frac{1}{100}$, if
$$\begin{array}{l}
\| I w_{l} \|_{L_{t}^{2(p-1)-} L_{x}^{2(p-1)+} (J)} \geq e^{ \left( C_{1} M e^{C_{1} (N^{1-s} A \epsilon^{-1})^{\alpha} } \right)^{C_{1}
(N^{1-s } A )^{\alpha}}}
\end{array}
\label{Eqn:UpperBdIu}$$
then
$$\begin{array}{l}
\bar{Z}([S_{l},T_{l}],w_{l}) \leq 3 (\eta_{1} A^{-1} N^{s-1})^{\alpha} \leq E( Iw_{l}(S_{l}),B(\bar{x},R^{'}))
\end{array}
\label{Eqn:BoundZpr}$$
$$\begin{array}{l}
|T_{l}-S_{l}| \geq M R^{'}
\end{array}
\label{Eqn:LowerBoundST}$$
and
$$\begin{array}{l}
\left\| \frac{Iw_{l}(S_{l})}{\langle x-\bar{x} \rangle} \right\|_{L^{2}} \leq \epsilon
\end{array}
\label{Eqn:UpBdWeight}$$
\[lem:StrVsConcNrj\]
Assuming that Lemma \[lem:ConcNrj\], Lemma \[lem:UseMorEst\] and Lemma \[lem:StrVsConcNrj\] are true, let us prove Proposition \[Prop:SepLocMol\]. We apply Lemma \[lem:StrVsConcNrj\] with [^10]
$$\begin{array}{ll}
\epsilon & := \frac{1}{1000} (N^{s-1} \eta_{1} A^{-1})^{\alpha} N^{s-1} A^{-\frac{p+1}{2}}
\end{array}$$
The proof is made of several steps:
- Construction of the free Klein-Gordon equation $v_{l}$
Let $P(y)$: $$\begin{array}{ll}
E \left( Iw_{l}(S_{l}), B (y,1) \right) & \leq \frac{1}{100} (N^{s-1} \eta_{1} A^{-1})^{\alpha}
\end{array}$$ By (\[Eqn:InducNrj\]) there exists $\bar{\bar{x}} \in \mathbb{R}^{3}$ such that, even if it means increasing the value of $\alpha$, there exists $\bar{\bar{x}} \in \mathbb{R}^{3}$ such that $|\bar{x} - \bar{\bar{x}}| \lesssim (N^{1-s} A)^{\alpha}$ and such that $P(\bar{\bar{x}})$ is true. By this observation, notice (see [@nakanash1]) that there exists a constant $C >>1$ and $\Gamma \in [\frac{1}{2}, R^{'} + C
(N^{1-s} A)^{\alpha} ]$ by continuity such that
$$\begin{array}{ll}
E \left( I w_{l}(S_{l}), B(\bar{\bar{x}}, \Gamma) \right) & = 3 (N^{s-1} \eta_{1} A^{-1})^{\alpha}
\end{array}$$
, since
$$\begin{array}{ll}
E \left( I w_{l}(S), B(\bar{\bar{x}},0.5) \right) & \leq E \left( Iw_{l}(S), B (\bar{\bar{x}},1) \right) \\
& \leq \frac{1}{100} (N^{s-1} \eta_{1} A^{-1})^{\alpha}
\end{array}$$
and
$$\begin{array}{ll}
E \left( I w_{l}(S), B (\bar{\bar{x}}, R^{'} + C (N^{1-s} A)^{\alpha} ) \right) & \geq E \left( Iw_{l}(S), B(\bar{x},R^{'}) \right) \\
& \geq 3 (N^{s-1} \eta_{1} A^{-1})^{\alpha}
\end{array}$$
, even if it means increasing the value of $\alpha$.
Let $v_{l}$ be the solution of the free Klein-Gordon equation with data
$$\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
v_{l}(S_{l}) & := I^{-1} \left( \chi \left( \frac{x - \bar{\bar{x}}}{\Gamma} \right) Iw_{l}(S_{l}) \right) \\
\partial_{t} v_{l}(S_{l}) & := I^{-1} \left( \chi \left( \frac{x - \bar{\bar{x}}}{\Gamma} \right) \partial_{t} I w_{l}(S_{l}) \right)
\end{array}
\right.$$
where $\chi$ is a smooth function such that $\chi(x)=1$ if $|x| \leq 1$ and $\chi(x)=0$ if $|x| \geq 2$
A computation shows that
$$\begin{array}{ll}
E_{c} \left( Iv_{l} , S_{l} \right) & \leq E \left( Iw_{l}(S_{l}), B(\bar{\bar{x}}, \Gamma ) \right) + O \left( \frac{1}{\Gamma^{2}} \int_{
\Gamma \leq |x-
\bar{\bar{x}}| \leq 2 \Gamma} |Iw_{l}(S_{l})|^{2} \, dx \right) + \\
& O \left( \frac{1}{\Gamma} \int_{ \Gamma \leq |x - \bar{\bar{x}}| \leq 2 \Gamma}
|Iw_{l}(S_{l})| |\nabla Iw_{l} (S_{l})| \, dx \right) \\
& \leq (N^{s-1} \eta_{1} A^{-1})^{\alpha} + O \left( N^{1-s} A^{\frac{p+1}{2}} \left\| \frac{I w_{l}(S_{l})}{\langle x - \bar{\bar{x}} \rangle}
\right\|_{L^{2}}
\right) + O \left( \left\| \frac{I w_{l}(S_{l})}{\langle x - \bar{\bar{x}} \rangle} \right\|^{2}_{L^{2}} \right) \\
& \lesssim (N^{s-1} \eta_{1} A^{-1})^{\alpha}
\end{array}
\label{Eqn:IneqNrjS}$$
and
$$\begin{array}{l}
E \left( Iw_{l} - Iv_{l}, S_{l} \right) \leq \frac{1}{2} \int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}} \left( 1 - \chi^{2} \left( \frac{x- \bar{\bar{x}}}{\Gamma}
\right) \right) |\nabla I w_{l}(S_{l})|^{2} \, dx + \frac{1}{p+1} \int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}} \left( 1 - \chi^{p+1} \left( \frac{x-
\bar{\bar{x}}}{\Gamma} \right)
\right) |Iw_{l}(S_{l})|^{p+1} \, dx \\
+ \frac{1}{2} \int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}} \left( 1 - \chi^{2} \left( \frac{x- \bar{\bar{x}}}{\Gamma} \right) \right) |\partial_{t} Iw_{l}(S_{l})|^{2}
\,
dx + \frac{1}{2} \int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}} \left( 1 - \chi^{2} \left( \frac{x- \bar{\bar{x}}}{\Gamma} \right) \right) |Iw_{l}(S_{l})|^{2} \, dx \\
+ O \left( \frac{1}{\Gamma} \int_{ \Gamma \leq |x-\bar{\bar{x}}| \leq 2 \Gamma} | Iw_{l}(S_{l})| | \nabla I u(S_{l})| \, dx + \frac{1}{\Gamma^{2}}
\int_{ \Gamma \leq |x - \bar{\bar{x}}| \leq 2 \Gamma} |Iw_{l}(S_{l})|^{2} \, dx \right) \\
\leq \left( C_{E} N^{2(1-s)} A^{p+1} -l(1-\epsilon_{0}) (N^{s-1} \eta_{1} A^{-1})^{\alpha} \right) (1 + \beta) - 3 (N^{s-1} \eta_{1} A^{-1})^{\alpha} + O
\left( N^{1-s} A^{\frac{p+1}{2}} \left\| \frac{I w_{l}(S_{l})}{\langle x - \bar{\bar{x}}
\rangle} \right\|_{L^{2}} \right) \\
+ O \left( \left\| \frac{I w_{l}(S_{l})}{\langle x - \bar{\bar{x}} \rangle} \right\|^{2}_{L^{2}} \right) \\
\leq C_{E} N^{2(1-s)} A^{p+1} - (1+l)(1- \epsilon_{0})(N^{s-1} A^{-1})^{\alpha} - 2(N^{s-1} \eta_{1} A^{-1})^{\alpha}
\end{array}
\label{IneqChainNrj}$$
, by our choice of $\beta$ (see (\[Eqn:DefBeta\])).
- Proof of the decay (\[Eqn:FreeDecay\])
By Sobolev, interpolation ( since $p<5$ and $s >s_{c}$ ), (\[Eqn:LowerBoundST\]) and the following dispersive estimate ( see [@ginebvelo], Lemma 2.1 )
$$\begin{array}{ll}
\| e^{it \langle D \rangle \phi } \|_{B^{-\frac{5}{4}}_{\infty,2}} & \lesssim \frac{1}{|t|^{\frac{3}{2}}} \| \phi \|_{B^{\frac{5}{4}}_{1,2} }
\end{array}$$
we have, by letting $\gamma:= 1 - \frac{4}{(p-1)(3-2s)}$,
$$\begin{array}{l}
\| Iv_{l} \|_{L_{t}^{2(p-1)-} L_{x}^{2(p-1)+} (T_{l},b)} \lesssim \| \langle D \rangle^{1-s} I v_{l}
\|^{\frac{4}{(p-1)(3-2s)}}_{L_{t}^{\frac{8}{3-2s}-} L_{x}^{\frac{8}{3-2s}+} (T_{l},b)} \| \langle D \rangle^{- \left( \frac{3}{2}++ \right) } I
v_{l} \|^{1- \frac{4}{(p-1)(3-2s)}}_{L_{t}^{\infty}
L_{x}^{\infty} (T_{l},b)} \\
\lesssim (N^{s-1} \eta_{1} A^{-1})^{\alpha} \| I v_{l} \|^{\gamma}_{L_{t}^{\infty} B_{\infty,2}^{- \left( \frac{3}{2} + \right) } (T_{l},b) } \\
\lesssim (N^{s-1} \eta_{1} A^{-1})^{\alpha} \frac{1}{|T_{l}-S_{l}|^{\frac{3 \gamma}{2}}} \left( \| I v_{l}(S_{l}) \|^{\gamma}_{B^{1-}_{1,2}} +
\|
\partial_{t} I v_{l}(S_{l}) \|^{\gamma}_{B^{0-}_{1,2}}
\right) \\
\lesssim (N^{s-1} \eta_{1} A^{-1})^{ \alpha} \frac{1}{|T_{l}-S_{l}|^{\frac{3 \gamma}{2}}} \left( \| \langle \nabla \rangle I v_{l}(S_{l}) \|^{\gamma}_{L^{1}} + \|
\partial_{t} I v_{l}(S_{l}) \|^{\gamma}_{L^{1}} \right) \\
\lesssim (N^{s-1} \eta_{1} A^{-1})^{\alpha} \frac{1}{|T_{l}-S_{l}|^{\frac{3 \gamma}{2}}} \left( \Gamma^{\frac{\gamma}{2}} \| I w_{l}(S_{l}) \|_{L^{2}} +
\Gamma^{\frac{3 \gamma}{2}} \| \nabla I w_{l}(S_{l}) \|_{L^{2}} + \Gamma^{\frac{3 \gamma}{2}} \| \partial_{t} I w_{l} (S_{l}) \|_{L^{2}}
\right) \\
\lesssim (N^{1-s} A )^{\alpha} \frac{1}{M^{\frac{3 \gamma}{2}}}
\end{array}$$
, even if it means increasing the value of $\alpha$. Therefore (\[Eqn:FreeDecay\]) follows by letting $\bar{\alpha}:= \frac{3 \gamma}{2}$.
- Proof of the separation of the localized mollified energy (\[Eqn:SepMolNrj\]),
Notice first, that, in view of (\[Eqn:StrNlkg\]) and (\[Eqn:IneqNrjS\]), we have
$$\begin{array}{ll}
Z(v_{l}, \mathbb{R}) & \lesssim (N^{s-1} \eta_{1} A^{-1})^{\alpha}
\end{array}
\label{Eqn:Zv}$$
and therefore, in view of (\[Eqn:BoundZpr\]), we have
$$\begin{array}{ll}
\bar{Z}(\bar{w}_{l}, [S_{l},T_{l}]) & \lesssim (N^{s-1} \eta_{1} A^{-1})^{\alpha}
\end{array}
\label{Eqn:Zbarw}$$
with $\bar{w}_{l}:=w_{l}-v_{l}$. We have
$$\begin{array}{ll}
\partial_{t} E(I \bar{w}_{l},t) & = \int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}} \Re \left( \overline{\partial_{t} I \bar{w}_{l}}
\left( \partial_{tt} I \bar{w}_{l} - \triangle I \bar{w}_{l} + I \bar{w}_{l} + F(I \bar{w}_{l}) \right) \right) \\
& = \int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}} \Re \left( \overline{\partial_{t} I \bar{w}_{l}} ( F(I \bar{w}_{l}) - I F(w_{l}) ) \right) \\
\end{array}$$
Therefore
$$\begin{array}{ll}
E(I\bar{w}_{l},T_{l}) - E(I \bar{w}_{l},S_{l}) & = X_{1,1} + X_{1,2} + X_{2}
\end{array}$$
with
$$\begin{array}{ll}
X_{1,1} & : = \int_{S_{l}}^{T_{l}} \int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}} \Re{ \left( \overline{\partial_{t} I \bar{w}_{l}} \left( F(w_{l}) -IF(w_{l}) \right)
\right)} \,dx \, dt
\end{array}$$
$$\begin{array}{ll}
X_{1,2} & := \int_{S_{l}}^{T_{l}} \int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}} \Re{ \left( \overline{\partial_{t} I \bar{w}_{l}} \left( F(Iw_{l}) -F(w_{l}) \right)
\right)} \, dx \, dt
\end{array}$$
and
$$\begin{array}{ll}
X_{2} & := \int_{S_{l}}^{T_{l}} \int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}} \Re{ \left( \overline{\partial_{t} I \bar{w}_{l}} \left( F (I\bar{w}_{l}) - F(Iw_{l})
\right) \right)} \, dx \, dt
\end{array}$$
It is enough to estimate $X_{1,1}$, $X_{1,2}$ and $X_{2}$. By the fundamental theorem of calculus we have $|F(w_{l}) - F(Iw_{l})| \lesssim \max{
( |Iw_{l}|^{p-1}, |w_{l}|^{p-1})} | I w_{l} -w_{l}|$ and therefore
$$\begin{array}{l}
X_{1,1} \lesssim \| \partial_{t} I \bar{w}_{l} \|_{L_{t}^{\infty} L_{x}^{2}([S_{l},T_{l}])} \left(
\begin{array}{l}
\| P_{<<N} w_{l} \|^{p-1}_{L_{t}^{\frac{4(p-1)}{7-p}} L_{x}^{\frac{4(p-1)}{p-3} } ([S_{l},T_{l}]) } \| P_{\gtrsim N} w_{l}
\|_{L_{t}^{\frac{4}{p-3}}
L_{x}^{\frac{4}{5-p}} ([S_{l},T_{l}]) } \\
+ \| P_{\gtrsim N} w_{l} \|^{p-1}_{L_{t}^{p} L_{x}^{2p} ([S_{l},T_{l}])} \| P_{\gtrsim N} w_{l} \|_{L_{t}^{p} L_{x}^{p} ([S_{l},T_{l}])}
\end{array}
\right) \\
\lesssim \frac{1}{N^{\frac{5-p}{2}-}} \| \partial_{t} I \bar{w}_{l} \|_{L_{t}^{\infty} L_{x}^{2}([S_{l},T_{l}])} \left(
\begin{array}{l}
\| \langle D \rangle^{1- 1} I w_{l} \|^{p-1}_{L_{t}^{\frac{4(p-1)}{7-p} } L_{x}^{\frac{4(p-1)}{p-3} } ([S_{l},T_{l}]) } \\
\| \langle D \rangle^{1- \frac{p-3}{2}} I w_{l} \|_{L_{t}^{\frac{4}{p-3}} L_{x}^{\frac{4}{5-p}} ([S_{l},T_{l}]) } \\
+ \| \langle D \rangle^{1- \frac{3p-5}{2p}} I w_{l} \|^{p}_{L_{t}^{p} L_{x}^{2p} ([S_{l},T_{l}])}
\end{array}
\right) \\
\lesssim N^{1-s} A^{\frac{p+1}{2}} \frac{(A^{-1} \eta_{1} N^{s-1})^{p \alpha}}{N^{\frac{5-p}{2}-}} \\ \\
= o \left( (N^{s-1} \eta_{1} A^{-1})^{\alpha} \right)
\end{array}$$
since $(N,s)$ satisfies (\[Eqn:Cond1\]).
We turn to $X_{1,2}$. We use an argument in [@triroyradnlkg]: on low frequencies we use the smoothness of $F$ ($F$ is $C^{1}$) and on high frequencies, we use the regularity of $u$ (in $H^{s}$). We have, by the fundamental theorem of calculus
$$\begin{array}{l}
F (w_{l}) := F \left( P_{<< N} w_{l} + P_{\gtrsim N} w_{l} \right) \\
= F \left( P_{<<N} w_{l} \right) + \left( \int_{0}^{1} |P_{<< N} w_{l} + y P_{\gtrsim N} w_{l}|^{p-1} \, dy \right) P_{\gtrsim N} w_{l} \\
+ \left( \int_{0}^{1} \frac{ P_{<< N} w_{l} + y P_{\gtrsim N} w_{l} }{ \overline{P_{<<N} w_{l} + y P_{\gtrsim N} u} } |P_{<< N} w_{l} + y
P_{\gtrsim N} w_{l}|^{p-1} \, dy \right) \, \overline{P_{\gtrsim N} w_{l}}
\end{array}
\label{Eqn:Decomp}$$
Therefore
$$\begin{array}{ll}
X_{1,2} & \lesssim \| \partial_{t} I \bar{w}_{l} \|_{L_{t}^{\infty} L_{x}^{2}([S_{l},T_{l}])} (X_{1,2,1} + X_{1,2,2} + X_{1,2,3} ) \\
& \lesssim N^{1-s} A^{\frac{p+1}{2}} (X_{1,2,1} + X_{1,2,2} + X_{1,2,3} )
\end{array}$$
with
$$\begin{array}{ll}
X_{1,2,1} & := \| P_{\gtrsim N} F(P_{<<N} w_{l}) \|_{L_{t}^{1} L_{x}^{2}([S_{l},T_{l}])} \\
X_{1,2,2} & := \| | P_{<< N} w_{l} |^{p-1} P_{\gtrsim N} w_{l} \|_{L_{t}^{1} L_{x}^{2}([S_{l},T_{l}])} \\
X_{1,2,3} & := \| P_{\gtrsim N} w_{l} \|^{p}_{L_{t}^{p} L_{x}^{2p} ([S_{l},T_{l}])}
\end{array}$$
We have
$$\begin{array}{ll}
X_{1,2,1} & \lesssim \frac{1}{N} \| \nabla F(P_{<<N} w_{l}) \|_{L_{t}^{1} L_{x}^{2}([S_{l},T_{l}])} \\
& \lesssim \frac{1}{N} \| P_{<<N} w_{l} \|^{p-1}_{L_{t}^{\frac{4(p-1)}{7-p}} L_{x}^{\frac{4(p-1)}{p-3}} ([S_{l},T_{l}])} \| \nabla P_{<<N} w_{l}
\|_{L_{t}^{\frac{4}{p-3}} L_{x}^{\frac{4}{5-p}} ([S_{l},T_{l}])} \\
& \lesssim \frac{1}{N^{\frac{5-p}{2}-}} \| \langle D \rangle^{1- 1} I w_{l} \|^{p-1}_{L_{t}^{\frac{4(p-1)}{7-p} } L_{x}^{\frac{4(p-1)}{p-3}}
([S_{l},T_{l}]) } \| \langle D \rangle^{1- \frac{p-3}{2}} I w_{l} \|_{L_{t}^{\frac{4}{p-3}} L_{x}^{\frac{4}{5-p} }([S_{l},T_{l}])} \\
& \lesssim \frac{(N^{s-1} \eta_{1} A^{-1})^{\alpha p}}{N^{\frac{5-p}{2}-}}
\end{array}
\label{Eqn:AX123}$$
$$\begin{array}{ll}
X_{1,2,2} & \lesssim \left\| |P_{<<N} w_{l}|^{p-1} P_{\gtrsim N} w_{l} \right\|_{L_{t}^{1} L_{x}^{2} ([S_{l},T_{l}])} \\
& \lesssim \frac{1}{N^{\frac{5-p}{2}-}} \| \langle D \rangle^{1-1} I w_{l} \|^{p-1}_{L_{t}^{\frac{4(p-1)}{7-p}} L_{x}^{\frac{4(p-1)}{p-3}}
([S_{l},T_{l}])}
\| \langle D \rangle^{1- \frac{p-3}{2} } I w_{l} \|_{L_{t}^{\frac{4}{p-3}} L_{x}^{\frac{4}{5-p}} ([S_{l},T_{l}]) } \\
& \lesssim \frac{(N^{s-1} \eta_{1} A^{-1})^{\alpha p}}{N^{\frac{5-p}{2}-}}
\end{array}
\label{Eqn:BX123}$$
$$\begin{array}{ll}
X_{1,2,3} & \lesssim \| P_{\gtrsim N} w_{l} \|^{p}_{L_{t}^{p} L_{x}^{2p} ([S_{l},T_{l}])} \\
& \lesssim \frac{ \| \langle D \rangle^{1- \frac{3p-5}{2p}} I w_{l} \|^{p}_{L_{t}^{p} L_{x}^{2p}([S_{l},T_{l}])}} {N^{\frac{5-p}{2}-}} \\
& \lesssim \frac{(N^{s-1} \eta_{1} A^{-1})^{\alpha p}}{N^{\frac{5-p}{2}-}} \\
\end{array}
\label{Eqn:CX123}$$
Therefore $X_{1,2} = o \left( (N^{s-1} \eta_{1} A)^{\alpha} \right) $, since $(N,s)$ satisfies (\[Eqn:Cond1\]).
Now we turn to $X_{2}$. By (\[Eqn:Zbarw\]) and (\[Eqn:BoundZpr\]), we have
$$\begin{array}{ll}
X_{2} & \lesssim \| \partial_{t} \langle D \rangle^{-\frac{1}{2}} I \bar{w}_{l} \|_{L_{t}^{4} L_{x}^{4} ([S_{l},T_{l}])} \| \langle D
\rangle^{\frac{1}{2}}
(F(I\bar{w}_{l}) -F(Iw_{l}) ) \|_{L_{t}^{\frac{4}{3}} L_{x}^{\frac{4}{3}} ([S_{l},T_{l}]) } \\
& \lesssim \| \partial_{t} \langle D \rangle^{-\frac{1}{2}} I \bar{w}_{l} \|_{L_{t}^{4} L_{x}^{4} ([S_{l},T_{l}])} \left( \| I w_{l}
\|^{p-1}_{L_{t}^{2(p-1)-}
L_{x}^{2(p-1)+} ([S_{l},T_{l}])} + \| I \bar{w}_{l} \|^{p-1}_{ L_{t}^{2(p-1)-} L_{x}^{2(p-1)+} ([S_{l},T_{l}]) } \right) \\
& \left( \| \langle D \rangle^{\frac{1}{2}} I w_{l} \|_{L_{t}^{4+} L_{x}^{4-}([S_{l},T_{l}])} + \| \langle D \rangle^{\frac{1}{2}} I
\bar{w}_{l} \|_{L_{t}^{4+} L_{x}^{4-}([S_{l},T_{l}])} \right) \\
& = o \left( (N^{s-1} \eta_{1} A^{-1})^{\alpha} \right)
\end{array}$$
Therefore (\[Eqn:SepMolNrj\]) holds since again $(N,s)$ satisfies (\[Eqn:Cond1\]). Notice also that, in view of (\[Eqn:Zv\]), we have
$$\begin{array}{ll}
E(Iv_{l},T_{l}) & \lesssim (N^{s-1} \eta_{1} A^{-1})^{\alpha}
\end{array}$$
even if it means increasing the value of $\alpha$.
Proof of Lemma \[lem:ConcNrj\]
------------------------------
The proof is made of three steps:
- Control of auxiliary norms
$$\begin{array}{ll}
\bar{Z}(J):= & \| \langle D \rangle^{1- \frac{1}{2}} I w_{l} \|_{L_{t}^{4} L_{x}^{4} (J)} + \| \langle D \rangle^{1- \frac{1}{2}} I w_{l}
\|_{L_{t}^{2(p-1)}
L_{x}^{\frac{6(p-1)}{2p-3}} (J) } + \| \langle D \rangle^{1-\frac{1}{2}} I w_{l} \|_{L_{t}^{\infty -} L_{x}^{3 +}(J)} \\
& + \| \langle D \rangle^{1-\frac{1}{2}} I w_{l} \|_{L_{t}^{\frac{2(p-1)}{p-4} -} L_{x}^{\frac{6(p-1)}{p+2} +} (J) }
\end{array}$$
Let $ Y:= \left( (C_{E} N^{2(1-s)} A^{p+1} -l(1-\epsilon_{0}) (N^{s-1} \eta_{1} A^{-1})^{\alpha}) (1+ \beta) \right)^{\frac{1}{2}} $. We have
$$\begin{array}{l}
\bar{Z}(J) \lesssim \sup_{t \in J} E^{\frac{1}{2}}(Iw_{l}(t)) + \| \langle D \rangle^{1-\frac{1}{2}} I (|w_{l}|^{p-1} w_{l}) \|_{L_{t}^{\frac{4}{3}} L_{x}^{\frac{4}{3}} (J) } \\
\lesssim Y + \| \langle D \rangle^{1-\frac{1}{2}} I w_{l} \|_{L_{t}^{4} L_{x}^{4}(J)} \left( \| P_{<<N} w_{l} \|^{p-1}_{L_{t}^{2(p-1)-}
L_{x}^{2(p-1)+} (J)} + \| P_{\gtrsim N} w_{l} \|^{p-1}_{L_{t}^{2(p-1)-} L_{x}^{2(p-1)+}(J)} \right) \\
\lesssim Y + \bar{Z}(J) \left( \| I w_{l} \|^{p-1}_{L_{t}^{2(p-1)-} L_{x}^{2(p-1)+} (J)} + \frac{\| \langle D \rangle^{\frac{1}{2}} I w_{l}
\|^{p-1}_{L_{t}^{2(p-1)-} L_{x}^{\frac{6(p-1)}{2p-1}+} (J) }}{N^{\frac{5-p}{2}}} \right) \\
\lesssim Y + \eta^{p-1} \bar{Z}(J) + \frac{\bar{Z}^{p}(J)}{N^{\frac{5-p}{2}}}
\end{array}$$
Applying a continuity argument, we see that
$$\begin{array}{ll}
\bar{Z}(J) & \lesssim Y \\
& \lesssim N^{1-s} A^{\frac{p+1}{2}}
\end{array}
\label{Eqn:EstZ}$$
since $(N,s)$ satisfies (\[Eqn:Cond2\]).
- Lower bound of the size of $J$
If $p \geq 4$ then, by (\[Eqn:EstZ\]) we have [^11]
$$\begin{array}{ll}
\eta & = \| I w_{l} \|_{L_{t}^{2(p-1)-} L_{x}^{2(p-1)+} (J)} \\
& \lesssim |J|^{\frac{5-p}{2(p-1)} \pm } \| \langle D \rangle^{1-\frac{1}{2}} I w_{l} \|_{L_{t}^{\frac{2(p-1)}{p-4}-} L_{x}^{\frac{6(p-1)}{p+2}+} (J)} \\
& \lesssim |J|^{\frac{5-p}{2(p-1)} \pm} A^{\frac{p+1}{2}} N^{1-s}
\end{array}
\label{Eqn:LowerBdJ1}$$
and if $p < 4$
$$\begin{array}{ll}
\eta & = \| I w_{l} \|_{L_{t}^{2(p-1)-} L_{x}^{2(p-1)+} (J)} \\
& \lesssim |J|^{\frac{1}{2(p-1)} \pm} \| \langle D \rangle^{1-\frac{1}{2}} I w_{l} \|_{L_{t}^{\infty -} L_{x}^{3 +} (J)} \\
& \lesssim |J|^{\frac{1}{2(p-1)} \pm} A^{\frac{p+1}{2}} N^{1-s}
\end{array}
\label{Eqn:LowerBdJ2}$$
Therefore there exists a constant $\alpha:=\alpha(p)>0$ such that
$$\begin{array}{l}
|J| \gtrsim ( A^{-1} N^{s-1} \eta)^{\alpha}
\end{array}
\label{Eqn:LowerBoundJ}$$
- Lower bound of $\| P_{M} w_{l} \|_{L_{t}^{\infty} L_{x}^{\infty}(J)}$ for some $M \in 2^{\mathbb{N}}$ such that $ M \leq f(A,N)$ We have, by (\[Eqn:EstZ\])
$$\begin{array}{ll}
\eta = & \| I w_{l} \|_{L_{t}^{2(p-1)-} L_{x}^{2(p-1)+}(J)} \\
& \leq \| \langle D \rangle^{1- \left (\frac{1}{2} + \right)} I w_{l} \|^{\frac{2}{p-1}}_{L_{t}^{4-}
L_{x}^{4+} (J)} \| \langle D \rangle^{- \left(\frac{1}{p-3} + \right)} I w_{l} \|^{1- \frac{2}{p-1}}_{L_{t}^{\infty} L_{x}^{\infty} (J)} \\
& \lesssim A^{\frac{p+1}{p-1}} N^{\frac{2(1-s)}{p-1}} \| \langle D \rangle^{- \left( \frac{1}{p-3} + \right)} I w_{l} \|^{1-
\frac{2}{p-1}}_{L_{t}^{\infty} L_{x}^{\infty} (J)}
\end{array}$$
Therefore, even if it means increasing the value of $\alpha$, we have
$$\begin{array}{l}
\| \langle D \rangle^{- \left( \frac{1}{p-3} + \right)} I w_{l} \|_{L_{t}^{\infty} L_{x}^{\infty} (J)} \gtrsim (\eta A^{-1} N^{s-1})^{\alpha}
\end{array}$$
and, by the pigeonhole principle, this implies that there exists $M \in 2^{\mathbb{N}}$ such that
$$\begin{array}{l}
\| P_{M} I w_{l} \|_{L_{t}^{\infty} L_{x}^{\infty} (J)} \gtrsim \langle M \rangle^{\frac{1}{p-3}+} (\eta A^{-1} N^{s-1})^{\alpha}
\end{array}
\label{Eqn:UpBdPM1}$$
Moreover
$$\begin{array}{ll}
\| P_{M} I w_{l} \|_{L_{t}^{\infty} L_{x}^{\infty} (J)} & \lesssim \langle M \rangle^{\frac{1}{2}} \| \langle D \rangle I u \|_{L_{t}^{\infty}
L_{x}^{2} (J)} \\
& \lesssim \langle M \rangle^{\frac{1}{2}} A^{\frac{p+1}{2}} N^{1-s}
\end{array}
\label{Eqn:UpBdPm2}$$
Therefore, combining (\[Eqn:UpBdPM1\]) and (\[Eqn:UpBdPm2\]), we see that, even if it means increasing the value of $\alpha$, we have $$\begin{array}{l}
\langle M \rangle \lesssim (A N^{1-s} \eta^{-1})^{\alpha}
\end{array}
\label{Eqn:UpperBdM}$$
- Control of $| P_{M} I w_{l} (t,\bar{x}) |$ for some $\bar{x} \in \mathbb{R}^{3}$ and for all $t \in K$, $K \subset J$ to be defined shortly. By (\[Eqn:UpBdPM1\]), there exists $(\bar{t}, \bar{x})$ such that
$$\begin{array}{l}
|P_{M} I w_{l}(\bar{t},\bar{x})| \gtrsim \langle M \rangle^{\frac{1}{p-3}+} (\eta A^{-1} N^{s-1})^{\alpha}
\end{array}
\label{Eqn:aux1}$$
But, by the fundamental theorem of calculus and (\[Eqn:InducNrj\])
$$\begin{array}{ll}
| P_{M} I w_{l}(t,\bar{x}) - P_{M} I w_{l}(\bar{t},\bar{x})| & \lesssim \sup_{s \in (\bar{t},t)} \| \partial_{s} I w_{l}(s) \|_{L_{x}^{2}}
\langle M \rangle^{\frac{3}{2}}
|t - \bar{t}| \\
& \lesssim (N^{1-s} A \eta^{-1})^{\alpha} |t - \bar{t}|
\end{array}
\label{Eqn:aux2}$$
, even if it means increasing the value of $\alpha$. Therefore, in view of (\[Eqn:LowerBoundJ\]), (\[Eqn:aux1\]) and (\[Eqn:aux2\]) there exist $c<<1$ such that for all $t \in [\bar{t}, \bar{t} + \delta] $ (in this case let $K:= [\bar{t}, \bar{t}+ \delta]$) or for all $t \in
[\bar{t} - \delta, \bar{t}]$ ( in this case let $ K:= [\bar{t}- \delta, \bar{t}]$ ), even if it means increasing the value of $\alpha$, we have
$$\begin{array}{ll}
|P_{M} Iw_{l}(t,x_{0})| & \gtrsim M^{\frac{1}{p-3}+} \eta^{\frac{p-1}{p-3}} A^{-\alpha_{3}} N^{\frac{s-1}{p-3}} \\
& \gtrsim (\eta A^{-1} N^{s-1})^{\alpha}
\end{array}
\label{Eqn:PM}$$
and $[\bar{t}, \bar{t} + \delta] \subset J$ or $[\bar{t} -\delta, \bar{t}] \subset J$ with
$$\begin{array}{l}
\delta := c (\eta A^{-1} N^{s-1})^{\alpha}
\end{array}$$
- lower bound of potential mollified energy. Let $R>1$ to be fixed shortly. Let $\Psi:= \psi$ if $M > 1$ and $\Psi:= \phi$ is $M=1$. By (\[Eqn:PM\]) we have [^12]
$$\begin{array}{ll}
M^{3}(A+B) & \gtrsim (\eta A^{-1} N^{s-1})^{\alpha}
\end{array}$$
with
$$\begin{array}{l}
A:= \int_{|y| \leq R} |\check{\Psi}(My)| |Iw_{l}(t,x_{0}-y)| \, dy \\
\end{array}$$
and
$$\begin{array}{l}
B:= \int_{|y| \geq R} |\check{\Psi}(My)| |Iw_{l}(t,x_{0}-y)| \, dy
\end{array}$$
We have
$$\begin{array}{ll}
A & \lesssim \left( \int_{|y| \leq R} |\check{\Psi} (My) |^{\frac{p+1}{p}} \, dy \right)^{\frac{p}{p+1}} \left( \int_{|y| \leq R}
|Iw_{l}(t,x_{0}-y)|^{p+1}
\, dy \right)^{\frac{1}{p+1}} \\
& \lesssim \left( \int_{|y-x_{0}| \leq R} |Iw_{l}(t,y)|^{p+1} \, dy \right)^{\frac{1}{p+1}} M^{-\frac{3p}{p-1}}
\end{array}$$
and
$$\begin{array}{ll}
B & \lesssim M^{-\frac{3}{2}} \| \check{\Psi} \|_{L^{2}(|y| \geq M R)} \| I w_{l} (t) \|_{L_{x}^{2}} \\
& \lesssim M^{-\frac{3}{2}} \| \check{\Psi} \|_{L^{2}(|y| \geq M R)} N^{1-s} A^{\frac{p+1}{2}}
\end{array}$$
Therefore, by the inequality $ \| \check{\Psi} \|_{L^{2}(|y| \geq MR)} \lesssim \frac{1}{(MR)^{\frac{3}{2}}}$, we see that there exists $C>0$ such that, even if it means increasing the value of $\alpha$, if
$$\begin{array}{ll}
R & := C (\eta^{-1} A N^{1-s})^{\alpha}
\end{array}$$
then
$$\begin{array}{l}
M^{\frac{3}{2}} \| \check{\Psi} \|_{L^{2}_{(|y| \geq MR)}} N^{1-s} A^{\frac{p+1}{2}} << (\eta A^{-1} N^{s-1})^{\alpha}
\end{array}
\label{Eqn:aux3}$$
and therefore ( even if it means increasing the value of $\alpha$0 we have
$$\begin{array}{l}
\int_{|y-x_{0}| \leq R} |Iw_{l}(t,y)|^{p+1} \, dy \gtrsim (\eta A^{-1} N^{s-1})^{\alpha}
\end{array}$$
for all $t \in K$.
Proof of Lemma \[lem:UseMorEst\]
--------------------------------
Recall that, by Lemma \[lem:ConcNrj\], on each $J_{j}$, there exist $x_{j} \in \mathbb{R}^{3}$ and $K_{j}=[t_{j},t_{j+1}] \subset J_{j}$ such that
$$\begin{array}{ll}
\int_{|x- x_{j}| \leq R } |I w_{l}(t,x)|^{p+1} \, dx & \gtrsim (\eta A^{-1} N^{s-1})^{\alpha}
\end{array}
\label{Eqn:LowerPotNrj}$$
$t \in K_{j}$, with $R$ satisfying (\[Eqn:DefR\]) and
$$\begin{array}{ll}
|K_{j}| & = c (\eta A^{-1} N^{s-1})^{\alpha}
\end{array}
\label{Eqn:SizeKj}$$
The proof is made of three steps:
- We construct (see [@nakanash1]) a set $\mathcal{P}:= \{ j_{1},....,j_{l} \} \subset [1,...,M]$. Initially $j_{1}=1$. Then let $j_{k+1}$ be the minimal $j \in [1,M]$ such that
$$\begin{array}{ll}
|x_{j} - x_{j_{k+1}}| & \geq |t_{j}-t_{j_{k+1}}| + 2R
\end{array}
\label{Eqn:Boundxjxk}$$
for $j:=j_{1},...,j_{k}$. Observe that $J=(J_{j})_{1 \leq j \leq M} = \bigcup_{j_{k} \in \mathcal{P}} A_{j_{k}}$ with $A_{j_{k}}:= \left\{ l \in
[1,..,m], \, l \geq j_{k}, \, and \, |x_{j_{k}} - x_{l}| < |t_{j_{k}}-t_{l}| + 2R \right\}$
- Weighted long time estimate and lower bound of mollified energy, restricted to a ball.
We chop $J$ into subintervals $(\tilde{J}_{l})_{1 \leq l \leq L }$ such that $\| I w_{l} \|_{L_{t}^{2(p-1) -} L_{x}^{2(p-1) +}(\tilde{J}_{l})} =
\eta_{0}$, $ \| I w_{l} \|_{L_{t}^{2(p-1)-} L_{x}^{2(p-1)+} (\tilde{J}_{L})} \leq \eta_{0}$. By (\[Eqn:InducStr\]) we have
$$\begin{array}{ll}
L & \lesssim X^{2(p-1)-}_{C,Q}
\end{array}
\label{Eqn:BoundL}$$
and combining this bound with Proposition \[prop:LocalBd\], Proposition \[Prop:AlmMor\], Proposition \[Prop:EstInt\] and (\[Eqn:BoundL\]) we see that
$$\begin{array}{ll}
\int_{J} \int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}} \frac{|Iw_{l}(t,x)|^{p+1}}{|x-x_{j}|} \, dx \, dt & \lesssim N^{2(1-s)} A^{p+1}
\end{array}
\label{Eqn:proc2}$$
since $(N,s)$ satisfies (\[Eqn:Cond3\]). Therefore
$$\begin{array}{ll}
\int_{J} \int_{R + |t-t_{j}| >|x-x_{j}|} \frac{|I w_{l}(t,x)|^{p+1}}{1+ R+|t-t_{j}|} \, dx \, dt & \lesssim N^{2(1-s)} A^{p+1}
\end{array}
\label{Eqn:StrLongEst}$$
This proves the weighted long-time estimate. Next, let us prove the following result
: Let $x_{a} \in \mathbb{R}^{3}$ and let $t_{b} \geq t_{a}$. Then
$$\begin{array}{ll}
E \left( Iw_{l}, B(x_{a}, R + t_{b} -t_{a}) \right) & \geq E \left( Iw_{l}, B(x_{a},R) \right) + o \left( (\eta A^{-1} N^{s-1})^{\alpha}
\right)
\end{array}
\label{Eqn:IncreaseRate2}$$
Indeed, by integrating the identity
$$\begin{array}{l}
\partial_{t} \left( \frac{1}{2} |\partial_{t} I w_{l}|^{2} + \frac{1}{2} |\nabla I w_{l}|^{2} + \frac{|Iw_{l}|^{p+1}}{p+1} + \frac{|Iw_{l}|^{2}}{2} \right)
- \partial_{x_{i}} \left( \Re ( \overline{\partial_{t} I w_{l}} \partial_{x_{i}} I w_{l} ) \right) \\
+ \Re \left( \overline{\partial_{t} I w_{l}} (I F(w_{l}) - F(Iw_{l})) \right)=0 \\
\end{array}$$
inside the truncated cone $M:= \{ (t,x), \, t \in [t_{a}, t_{b}], \, t-t_{a} + R \geq |x- x_{a}| \}$ we have
$$\begin{array}{l}
E \left( I w_{l}, B( x_{a}, R + t_{b} - t_{a}) \right) - E \left( I w_{l}, B(x_{a}, R) \right) \\
= \frac{1}{ \sqrt{2}} \int_{\partial M} \frac{|Iw_{l}|^{2}}{2} + \frac{|Iw_{l}|^{p+1}}{p+1} \, d \sigma \\
+ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \int_{\partial M} \left| \frac{x-x_{a}}{|x-x_{a}|} \partial_{t} I w_{l} + \nabla I w_{l} \right|^{2} \, d \sigma -
\int_{M} \Re \left( \overline{\partial_{t} I w_{l}} (I F(w_{l}) - F(Iw_{l})) \right) \, dx dt
\end{array}
\label{Eqn:IncreaseRate}$$
Therefore, by repeating the steps from (\[Eqn:BoundL\]) to (\[Eqn:proc2\]), we get (\[Eqn:IncreaseRate2\]) from (\[Eqn:IncreaseRate\]) and (\[Eqn:Acl\]). Consequently, by (\[Eqn:DefR\]), (\[Eqn:ConcNrjMol\]), (\[Eqn:SizeKj\]), (\[Eqn:LowerPotNrj\]) and (\[Eqn:StrLongEst\]) we have
$$\begin{array}{ll}
N^{2(1-s)} A^{p+1}{\operatorname{card}}{\mathcal{P}} & \gtrsim \sum_{j_{k} \in \mathcal{P}} \int_{J} \int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}}
\frac{|Iw_{l}(t,x)|^{p+1}}{|x-x_{j_{k}}|} \, dx \, dt \\
& \gtrsim (N^{s-1} A^{-1} \eta)^{\alpha} \sum_{j_{k} \in \mathcal{P}} \int_{J} \int_{|x-x_{j_{k}}| \leq |t-t_{j_{k}}| + 100R}
\frac{|I w_{l}(t,x)|^{p+1}} {1+ |t-t_{j_{k}}| } \, dx \, dt \\
& \gtrsim (N^{s-1} A^{-1} \eta)^{\alpha} \sum_{j_{k} \in \mathcal{P}} \sum_{l \in A_{j_{k}}} \int_{K_{l}} \frac{1}{1+ t} \, dt \\
& \gtrsim (N^{s-1} A^{-1} \eta)^{\alpha} \sum_{j=1}^{\bar{j}} \frac{1}{1+t_{j}}
\end{array}
\label{Eqn:Finite1}$$
It suffices to estimate ${\operatorname{card}}{\mathcal{P}}$. Let $j_{k_{max}}:= \max_{j_{k} \in \mathcal{P}} j_{k}$. By applying - $ {\operatorname{card}}{\mathcal{P}}$ - times (\[Eqn:IncreaseRate2\]), by the construction of $\mathcal{P}$ and by (\[Eqn:LowerPotNrj\]) we have
$$\begin{array}{ll}
N^{2(1-s)} A^{p+1} & \gtrsim E \left( I w_{l}(t_{j_{k}}), \bigcup_{j_{k} \in \mathcal{P}} B(x_{j_{k}}, R + |t_{j_{k_{max}}} - t_{j_{k}}| ) \right)\\
& \gtrsim \sum_{j_{k} \in \mathcal{P}} E \left( Iw_{l}(t_{j_{k}}), B(x_{j_{k}},R) \right) +
o \left( (\eta A^{-1} N^{s-1})^{\alpha} \right) {\operatorname{card}}{(\mathcal{P})} \\
& \gtrsim {\operatorname{card}}{(\mathcal{P})} (\eta A^{-1} N^{s-1})^{\alpha}
\end{array}
\label{Eqn:Finite2}$$
Therefore, even if it means increasing the value of $\alpha$, we get (\[Eqn:RepartJj\]) from (\[Eqn:Finite1\]) and (\[Eqn:Finite2\]).
Proof of Lemma \[lem:StrVsConcNrj\]
------------------------------------
The proof is made of several steps:
- Long-time weighted decay estimates.
Let $x_{0} \in \mathbb{R}^{3}$.\
We chop $J$ into subintervals $(\tilde{J}_{l})_{1 \leq l \leq L}$ such that $ \| I w_{l} \|_{L_{t}^{2(p-1)-} L_{x}^{2(p-1)+} (\tilde{J}_{l}) }
= \eta_{0} $, $1 \leq l < L$ and $ \| I w_{l} \|_{L_{t}^{2(p-1)-} L_{x}^{2(p-1)+} (J_{L})} \leq \eta_{0} $. Then, by repeating the steps from (\[Eqn:BoundL\]) to (\[Eqn:proc2\]), we get
$$\begin{array}{ll}
\int_{J} \int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}} \frac{|Iw_{l}|^{p+1}}{|x-x_{0}|} \, dx \, dt & \lesssim N^{2(1-s)} A^{p+1}
\end{array}
\label{Eqn:LongTimeEstLem}$$
Therefore (see Lemma $5.3$, [@nakanash1]) we have
$$\begin{array}{ll}
\int_{J} \int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}} \left( \frac{|Iw_{l}|^{2}}{\langle x -x_{0} \rangle^{2}} \right)^{\frac{p+1}{2}} \, dx \frac{1}{\langle t
\rangle} \, dt & \leq X_{1} + X_{2}
\end{array}$$
with
$$\begin{array}{l}
X_{1} := \int_{J} \int_{|t| > |x-x_{0}|} \left( \frac{|I w_{l}|^{2}}{\langle x -x_{0} \rangle^{2}} \right)^{\frac{p+1}{2}} dx \frac{1}{\langle
t \rangle} \, dt
\end{array}$$
and
$$\begin{array}{l}
X_{2} := \int_{J} \int_{|t| \leq |x-x_{0}|} \left( \frac{|I w_{l}|^{2}}{\langle x -x_{0} \rangle^{2}} \, \right)^{\frac{p+1}{2}} dx
\frac{1}{\langle t \rangle} \, dt
\end{array}$$
But, by Hölder (in space) and (\[Eqn:LongTimeEstLem\]) we have
$$\begin{array}{ll}
X_{1} & \lesssim \int_{J} \int_{|t| > |x - x_{0}|} \frac{|I w_{l}|^{p+1}}{\langle t \rangle} \, dx \, dt \\
& \lesssim N^{2(1-s)} A^{p+1}
\end{array}$$
and
$$\begin{array}{ll}
X_{2} & \lesssim \int_{J} \sup_{|x -x_{0}| \geq |t|} \left( \frac{1}{ \langle x -x_{0} \rangle^{2}} \right)^{\frac{p+1}{2}}
\left( \int_{|x-x_{0}| \geq |t|} |Iw_{l}|^{2} \right)^{\frac{p+1}{2}} \frac{1}{\langle t \rangle} \, dt \\
& \lesssim (N^{2(1-s)}A ^{p+1} )^{\frac{p+1}{2}}
\end{array}$$
Therefore, even it means increasing $\alpha$, we have
$$\begin{array}{l}
\int_{J} \int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}} \left( \frac{|I w_{l}|^{2}}{\langle x \rangle^{2}} \, dx \right)^{\frac{p+1}{2}} \frac{1}{\langle t \rangle} \,
dt \lesssim (N^{1-s} A)^{\alpha}
\end{array}
\label{Eqn:LongTimeHardy}$$
- We chop $J$ into subintervals $(J_{j}=[t_{j}, \, t_{j+1}])_{1 \leq j \leq m}$ such that $\| I w_{l} \|_{L_{t}^{2(p-1)-} L_{x}^{2(p-1)+} (J_{j})} = \eta$ with $\eta$ defined in Lemma \[lem:ConcNrj\]. Therefore, using (\[Eqn:InducNrj\]), we get, by Proposition \[prop:LocalBd\]
$$\begin{array}{ll}
\bar{Z}(J_{j},w_{l}) & \lesssim N^{1-s} A^{\frac{p+1}{2}}
\end{array}$$
with $\bar{Z}$ defined in (\[Eqn:DefBarZ\]). By (\[Eqn:ConcNrjMol\]), there exists $\bar{x}_{j} \in \mathbb{R}^{3}$ and $\bar{t}_{j} \in
J_{j}$ such that
$$\begin{array}{ll}
E \left( Iw_{l}(\bar{t}_{j}), B(\bar{x}_{j},R) \right) & \gtrsim (N^{s-1} \eta A^{-1})^{\alpha}
\end{array}$$
and, by (\[Eqn:IncreaseRate\]), we see that (with $t_{a}:=\bar{t}_{j}$, $t_{b}:=t$, $t \in J_{j}$ ) there exists $\eta_{1}
> 0 $ such that
$$\begin{array}{ll}
E \left( I w_{l}(t), B(\bar{x}_{j}, R + |t -\bar{t}_{j}|) \right) & \geq 3 (N^{s-1} \eta_{1} A^{-1})^{\alpha}
\end{array}
\label{Eqn:LowerBdNrjBall}$$
- We chop each subinterval $J_{j}$ into subsubintervals $(J_{j,k}= [t_{j,k}, t_{j,k+1}])_{ 1 \leq k < K_{j}}$ such that $\bar{Z}(J_{j,k},w_{l}) \sim (N^{s-1} \eta_{1} A^{-1})^{\alpha}$ and $\bar{Z}(J_{j,k},w_{l}) \leq 3 (N^{s-1} \eta_{1} A^{-1})^{\alpha}$. Notice that, even if it means increasing the value of $\alpha$, we have
$$\begin{array}{ll}
K_{j} & \lesssim (N^{1-s} \eta_{1} A)^{\alpha}
\end{array}
\label{Eqn:UpBdK}$$
Next, given $\epsilon \leq \frac{1}{100}$, we claim that there exists $C_{0}>0$ such that
$$\begin{array}{ll}
\log{(C_{0})} & \lesssim N^{2(1-s)} (A \epsilon^{-1})^{p+1}
\end{array}
\label{Eqn:BoundLogC0}$$
and such that for all $1 \leq k \leq K_{j}$ there exists $\tilde{t}_{j,k} \in [t_{j,k}, t_{j,k} + C_{0} \langle t_{j,k} - t_{j} \rangle]$ such that (\[Eqn:UpBdWeight\]) holds: if not, for all $C$ such that $\log{(C)}
>> N^{2(1-s)} (A \epsilon^{-1})^{p+1} $ , we would have, by (\[Eqn:LongTimeHardy\])
$$\begin{array}{ll}
N^{2(1-s)} A^{p+1} & \gtrsim \int_{t_{j,k}}^{t_{j,k} + C \langle t_{j,k} - t_{j} \rangle } \left\| \frac{Iw_{l}(t)}{\langle x - x_{j} \rangle}
\right\|^{p+1}_{L^{2} (\mathbb{R}^{3})} \frac{1}{ \langle t \rangle} \, dt \\
& \gtrsim \log{C} \, \epsilon^{p+1}
\end{array}$$
and it would yield a contradiction.
- Now we claim that there exists $(k_{0},j_{0})$ such that
$$\begin{array}{ll}
|t_{j_{0},k_{0}+1} -t_{j_{0},k_{0}}| & \geq M^{'} \left( R + |t_{j_{0},k_{0}}-t_{j_{0}}| \right)
\end{array}$$
with $M^{'}$ such that
$$\begin{array}{l}
M^{'} - C_{0} =100 M(C_{0}+1)
\end{array}
\label{Eqn:Mprime}$$
If not, this would imply, by simple induction on $k$, that $|t_{j,k} - t_{j}| \leq (2M^{'})^{k} R$ for all $j$ and therefore, by (\[Eqn:UpBdK\]), there would exist $C_{1} \lesssim 1$ such that we have $|J_{j}| \leq (2M^{'})^{C_{1} (N^{1-s} A)^{\alpha}}$ for all $j$. But, by Lemma \[lem:UseMorEst\], this would imply that
$$\begin{array}{ll}
\frac{\log{\left( 1 + m (2M^{'})^{C_{1} (N^{1-s} A)^{\alpha}} \right)}} {(2M^{'})^{C_{1} (N^{1-s} A)^{\alpha}}} & \leq \sum_{j=1}^{m}
\frac{1}{1+ j(2M^{'})^{C_{1} (N^{1-s} A)^{\alpha}} } \\
& \lesssim (N^{1-s} \eta^{-1} A)^{\alpha}
\end{array}$$
Therefore $ \log{(m)} \leq C_{1} (2M^{'})^{C_{1} (N^{1-s} A)^{\alpha}} $ (even if it means increasing the value of $C_{1}$) and, combining this inequality with (\[Eqn:BoundLogC0\]) and (\[Eqn:Mprime\]), this yields a contradiction with (\[Eqn:UpperBdIu\]) even if, again, it means increasing the value of $C_{1}$. Consequently,
$$\begin{array}{ll}
t_{j_{0},k_{0}+1} -\tilde{t}_{j_{0},k_{0}} & \gtrsim t_{j_{0},k_{0}+1} - t_{j_{0},k_{0}} - C_{0} \langle t_{j_{0},k_{0}}
- t_{j_{0}} \rangle \\
& \geq M^{'} \left( R + | t_{j_{0},k_{0}} -t_{j_{0}} | \right) - C_{0} \langle t_{j_{0},k_{0}} - t_{j_{0}} \rangle \\
& \geq M \left( R + | \tilde{t}_{j_{0},k_{0}} -t_{j_{0}} | \right)
\end{array}$$
and, choosing $R^{'}:= R + | \tilde{t}_{j_{0},k_{0}} -t_{j_{0}} | $, $S_{l}:= \tilde{t}_{j_{0},k_{0}}$ and $T_{l}:=t_{j_{0},k_{0}+1}$, we have (\[Eqn:BoundZpr\]), (\[Eqn:LowerBoundST\]) and (\[Eqn:UpBdWeight\]).
Proof of Proposition \[prop:PerturbArg\] {#Sec:ProofPerturb}
========================================
In this section we prove Proposition \[prop:PerturbArg\]. The proof is made of several steps:
- We divide $J$ into subintervals $(K_{l}=[t_{l},t_{l+1}]_{1 \leq l \leq m})$ such that $ \| I w_{l} \|_{L_{t}^{2(p-1)-} L_{x}^{2^(p-1)+} (K_{l})} = \eta_{0}$ and $ \| I w_{l} \|_{L_{t}^{2(p-1)-} L_{x}^{2^(p-1)+} (K_{m})} \leq
\eta_{0}$ (with $\eta_{0}$ defined in Proposition \[prop:LocalBd\] ). Notice that, in view of (\[Eqn:InducNrj\]), we have $Z(K_{l},u)
\lesssim N^{1-s} A^{\frac{p+1}{2}}$ and, by iteration, in view of (\[Eqn:BounduPerturb\]), we have
$$\begin{array}{ll}
Z(w_{l},J) & \lesssim X_{C,Q}^{2(p-1)-} N^{1-s} A^{\frac{p+1}{2}}
\end{array}
\label{Eqn:BounduPerturb}$$
- Again, we divide $J$ into subintervals $(J_{j}:=[t_{j},t_{j+1}])_{1 \leq j \leq k}$ such that\
$\| I w_{l+1} \|_{L_{t}^{2(p-1)-} L_{x}^{2(p-1)+}(J_{j})} = \eta_{0}$, $1 \leq j < k$ and $ \| I w_{l+1} \|_{L_{t}^{2(p-1)-}
L_{x}^{2(p-1)+}(J_{k})} \leq \eta_{0}$. Notice that
$$\begin{array}{ll}
k & \lesssim_{A} L^{2(p-1)-}(l+1)
\end{array}
\label{Eqn:Boundkprime}$$
in view of (\[Eqn:InducStr\]). Notice also that, in view of Proposition \[prop:LocalBd\], we have [^13]
$$\begin{array}{ll}
Z(w_{l+1},J_{j}) & \lesssim N^{1-s} A^{\frac{p+1}{2}} X_{C,Q}^{2(p-1)-}
\end{array}
\label{Eqn:BoundwPerturb}$$
- Let $\Gamma:= w_{l} - v_{l} - w_{l+1}$. A simple computation shows that
$$\begin{array}{ll}
\partial_{tt} I \Gamma - \triangle I \Gamma + I \Gamma & = (I F(w_{l+1}) - F(Iw_{l+1})) + ( F(Iw_{l}) - I F(w_{l})) + ( F(Iw_{l+1}) - F(Iw_{l}))
\end{array}$$
Therefore we conclude that
$$\begin{array}{ll}
I \Gamma(t) & = I \Gamma_{l}(t_{j}) + X_{1} + X_{2} + X_{3}
\end{array}$$
with
$$\begin{array}{ll}
I \Gamma_{l}(t_{j},t) & := \cos{ ((t-t_{j})\langle D \rangle)} I \Gamma(t_{j}) + \frac{\sin{ \left((t -t_{j}) \langle D \rangle \right)
}}{\langle D \rangle}
\partial_{t} I \Gamma(t_{j})
\end{array}$$
$$\begin{array}{ll}
X_{1} & := - \int_{t_{j}}^{t} \frac{\sin{(t-s) \langle D \rangle}}{\langle D \rangle} (I F(w_{l+1}) - F(Iw_{l+1})) \, ds
\end{array}$$
$$\begin{array}{ll}
X_{2} & := - \int_{t_{j}}^{t} \frac{\sin{(t-s) \langle D \rangle}} { \langle D \rangle} (I F(w_{l}) - F(Iw_{l})) \, ds
\end{array}$$
and
$$\begin{array}{ll}
X_{3} & := - \int_{t_{j}}^{t} \frac{\sin{(t-s) \langle D \rangle}} { \langle D \rangle} ( F(Iw_{l}) - F(Iw_{l+1}) ) \, ds
\end{array}$$
Notice that
$$\begin{array}{ll}
\Gamma_{l}(t_{j+1},t) & = \Gamma_{l}(t_{j},t) + Y_{1} + Y_{2} + Y_{3}
\end{array}$$
with
$$\begin{array}{ll}
Y_{1} & := - \int_{t_{j}}^{t_{j+1}} \frac{\sin{(t-s) \langle D \rangle}} { \langle D \rangle} (IF(w_{l+1}) -F(Iw_{l+1})) \, ds
\end{array}$$
$$\begin{array}{ll}
Y_{2} & := - \int_{t_{j}}^{t_{j+1}} \frac{\sin{(t-s) \langle D \rangle}} { \langle D \rangle} (I F(w_{l}) - F(Iw_{l})) \, ds
\end{array}$$
and
$$\begin{array}{ll}
Y_{3} & := - \int_{t_{j}}^{t_{j+1}} \frac{\sin{(t-s) \langle D \rangle}} { \langle D \rangle} (F(Iw_{l}) - F(Iw_{l+1})) \, ds
\end{array}$$
In view of the assumptions, it is enough to estimate $ \| I \Gamma \|_{L_{t}^{2(p-1)-} L_{x}^{2(p-1)+} (J)}$. By the Sobolev embedding
$$\begin{array}{ll}
\| I \Gamma \|_{ L_{t}^{2(p-1)-} L_{x}^{2(p-1)+} (J) } & \lesssim \| \langle D \rangle^{1- s_{c}} I \Gamma \|_{ L_{t}^{2(p-1)-}
L_{x}^{\frac{6(p-1)}{2p-3} +} (J) }
\end{array}
\label{Eqn:SobEmbedGamma}$$
it is enough to estimate $\sup_{(q,r) - \left( \frac{1}{2} \right) \, - \, wave \, adm} \| \langle D \rangle^{1- s_{c}} I
\Gamma \|_{L_{t}^{q} L_{x}^{r}} $. By summation over $j$, it is enough to estimate\
$Z(j,t):= \sup_{(q,r) - \frac{1}{2} \, - \, wave \, adm} \| \langle D \rangle^{1- s_{c} } I \Gamma \|_{L_{t}^{q} L_{x}^{r}([t_{j},t])}$ for all $1 \leq j < k$ and for $ t_{j} \leq t \leq t_{j+1}$. Let $ Z_{l}(j):= \sup_{(q,r) - \, \frac{1}{2} \, - \, wave \, adm } \| \langle D
\rangle^{1- s_{c} } \Gamma_{l}(t_{j}) \|_{L_{t}^{2(p-1)} L_{x}^{\tilde{r}}([t_{j},b])}$. There exists a constant $\bar{C}:=\bar{C}(p) >1$ such that
$$\begin{array}{ll}
Z(j,t) & \leq Z_{l}(j) + \bar{C} \sup_{(q,r)- \frac{1}{2} \, wave \, adm} \| \langle D \rangle^{1- s_{c}} X_{1}
\|_{L_{t}^{q} L_{x}^{r} ([t_{j},t])} \\
& + \bar{C} \sup_{(q,r)- \frac{1}{2} \, wave \, adm} \| \langle D \rangle^{1- s_{c} } X_{2} \|_{L_{t}^{q} L_{x}^{r} ([t_{j},t]) } \\
& + \bar{C} \sup_{(q,r)- \frac{1}{2} \, wave \, adm} \| \langle D \rangle^{1- s_{c} } X_{3} \|_{ L_{t}^{q} L_{x}^{r} ([t_{j},t]) }
\end{array}$$
and
$$\begin{array}{ll}
Z_{l}(j+1) & \leq Z_{l}(j) + \bar{C} \sup_{(q,r)- \, \frac{1}{2} \, - wave \, adm } \| \langle D \rangle^{1- s_{c} } Y_{1} \|_{L_{t}^{q}
L_{x}^{r} (J_{j}) }
\\
& + \bar{C} \sup_{(q,r)- \, \frac{1}{2} \, - wave \, adm} \| \langle D \rangle^{1- s_{c} } Y_{2} \|_{L_{t}^{q} L_{x}^{r } (J_{j}) } \\
& + \bar{C} \sup_{(q,r)- \, \frac{1}{2} \, - wave \, adm} \| \langle D \rangle^{1- s_{c} } Y_{3} \|_{L_{t}^{q} L_{x}^{r} (J_{j}) }
\end{array}$$
- We are interested in estimating $ \| \langle D \rangle^{1- s_{c} } X_{2} \|_{L_{t}^{q}
L_{x}^{r} (J) } $. We write $X_{2}: = X_{2,1} + X_{2,2}$ with
$$\begin{array}{ll}
X_{2,1} & : = - \int_{t_{j}}^{t} \frac{\sin{(t-s) \langle D \rangle}}{\langle D \rangle} \left( I F(w_{l}) - F(w_{l}) \right)
\end{array}$$
and
$$\begin{array}{ll}
X_{2,2} & : = - \int_{t_{j}}^{t} \frac{\sin{(t-s) \langle D \rangle}}{\langle D \rangle} \left( F(w_{l}) - F(Iw_{l}) \right)
\end{array}$$
First we deal with $ \| \langle D \rangle^{1- s_{c} } X_{2,2} \|_{L_{t}^{q} L_{x}^{r}(J) } $. By Proposition \[prop:LocalBd\] we have
$$\begin{array}{l}
\| \langle D \rangle^{1- s_{c}} X_{2,2} \|_{ L_{t}^{q} L_{x}^{r} ([t_{j},t]) } \lesssim
\| \langle D \rangle ^{1- s_{c}} ( F(w_{l})-F(Iw_{l})) \| _{L_{t}^{4+} L_{x}^{4-} (J) } \\
\lesssim \| w_{l} \|^{p-1}_{L_{t}^{2(p-1)-} L_{x}^{2(p-1)+} (J) } \| \langle D \rangle^{1- s_{c}} P_{\gtrsim N} w_{l}
\|_{L_{t}^{4+} L_{x}^{4-} (J) } \\
\lesssim \| \langle D \rangle^{1- s_{c}} I w_{l} \|^{p-1}_{L_{t}^{2(p-1)-} L_{x}^{2(p-1)+} (J) }
\frac{ \| \langle D \rangle^{1- \frac{1}{2}}
I w_{l} \|_{L_{t}^{4+} L_{x}^{4-}(J) }}{N^{s_{c}-\frac{1}{2}}} \\
\lesssim \frac { \left( X_{C,Q}^{2(p-1)-} N^{1-s} A^{\frac{p+1}{2}} \right)^{p}}{N^{s_{c} -\frac{1}{2} \, -}}
\end{array}$$
Next we deal with $ \| \langle D \rangle^{1- s_{c}} X_{2,1} \|_{L_{t}^{q} L_{x}^{r}(([t_{j},t])) } $. By (\[Eqn:Decomp\]), it is enough to bound $ \| \langle D \rangle^{1- s_{c} } X_{2,1,1} \|_{L_{t}^{q} L_{x}^{r}([t_{j},t]) }$, $ \| \langle D \rangle^{1- s_{c}} X_{2,1,2}
\|_{L_{t}^{q} L_{x}^{r}([t_{j},t]) } $ and $ \| \langle D \rangle^{1- s_{c}} X_{2,1,3} \|_{L_{t}^{q} L_{x}^{r}([t_{j},t]) }$ with
$$\begin{array}{ll}
X_{2,1,1} & := - \int_{t_{j}}^{t} \frac{\sin{(t-s) \langle D \rangle}}{\langle D \rangle} \left( \overbrace{ (I-1) \left( F ( P_{<< N} w_{l} )
\right) }^{Z_{1}} \right) \, ds
\end{array}$$
$$\begin{array}{ll}
X_{2,1,2} & := - \int_{t_{j}}^{t} \frac{\sin{(t-s) \langle D \rangle}}{\langle D \rangle} \left( \overbrace{ (I-1) \left( \int_{0}^{1} |
P_{<<N} w_{l}(s) + y P_{\gtrsim N} w_{l}(s)|^{p-1} \, P_{\gtrsim N} w_{l} (s) \, dy \right) }^{Z_{2}} \right) \, ds
\end{array}$$
and
$$\begin{array}{ll}
X_{2,1,3} & := - \int_{t_{j}}^{t} \frac{\sin{(t-s) \langle D \rangle}}{\langle D \rangle} \left( \overbrace { (I -1) \left( \int_{0}^{1} \frac{
P_{<< N} w_{l} + y P_{\gtrsim N} w_{l} }{ \overline{P_{<<N} w_{l} + y P_{\gtrsim N} w_{l}} } |P_{<< N} w_{l} + y P_{\gtrsim N} w_{l}|^{p-1} \,
\overline{P_{\gtrsim N} w_{l} (s)} \, dy \right) }^{Z_{3}} \right) \, ds
\end{array}$$
Again, we use the smoothness of $F$ ($F$ is $C^{1}$) to deal with $X_{2,1,1}$. We have
$$\begin{array}{l}
\| \langle D \rangle^{1-s_{c}} X_{2,1,1} \|_{L_{t}^{q} L_{x}^{r} ([t_{j},t]) } \lesssim
\| \langle D \rangle^{1- s_{c}} Z_{1} \|_{L_{t}^{\frac{4}{3}} L_{x}^{\frac{4}{3}} ([t_{j},t])} \\
\lesssim \frac{ \| \nabla F ( P_{<<N} w_{l} ) \|_{ L_{t}^{\frac{4}{3}} L_{x}^{\frac{4}{3}} ([t_{j},t]) } }
{N^{s_{c}-}} \\
\lesssim \frac{1}{N^{s_{c}-}} \| P_{<<N} w_{l} \|^{p-1}_{L_{t}^{2(p-1)-} L_{x}^{2(p-1)+} ([t_{j},t])} \| \nabla P_{<< N} w_{l} \|_{
L_{t}^{4+} L_{x}^{4-} ([t_{j},t])} \\
\lesssim \frac{1}{N^{ \left( s_{c} -\frac{1}{2} \right) \, -}} \| \langle D \rangle^{1-s_{c}} I w_{l} \|^{p-1}_{L_{t}^{2(p-1)-} L_{x}^{2(p-1)+}
([t_{j},t])} \| \langle D \rangle^{1-\frac{1}{2}}
I w_{l} \|_{L_{t}^{4+} L_{x}^{4-} ([t_{j},t]) } \\
\lesssim \frac { \left( X^{2(p-1)-}_{C,Q} N^{1-s} A^{\frac{p+1}{2}} \right)^{p}}{N^{ \left( s_{c} -\frac{1}{2} \right) \, -}}
\end{array}$$
As for $X_{2,1,2}$, we have
$$\begin{array}{l}
\| \langle D \rangle^{1- s_{c} } X_{2,1,2} \|_{L_{t}^{q} L_{x}^{r} ([t_{j},t]) } \lesssim \int_{0}^{1} \left\| \langle D \rangle^{1-s_{c}}
Z_{2} \right\|_{L_{t}^{\frac{4}{3}} L_{x}^{\frac{4}{3}} ([t_{j},t])} \, dy \\
\lesssim
\int_{0}^{1}
\left[
\begin{array}{l}
\| \langle D \rangle^{1-s_{c}} ( |P_{<< N} w_{l} + y P_{\gtrsim N} w_{l}|^{p-1} ) \|_{L_{t}^{?} L_{x}^{?} ([t_{j},t])}
\| P_{\gtrsim N} w_{l} \|_{L_{t}^{?} L_{x}^{?} ([t_{j},t])} \\
+ \left\| | P_{<<N} w_{l} + y P_{\gtrsim N} w_{l} |^{p-1} \right\|_{L_{t}^{2-} L_{x}^{2+} ([t_{j},t])} \| \langle D \rangle^{1-s_{c}}
P_{\gtrsim N} w_{l} \|_{L_{t}^{4+} L_{x}^{4-} ([t_{j},t])}
\end{array}
\right] \, dy \\
\lesssim \frac{ \| w_{l} \|_{ L_{t}^{2(p-1)-} L_{x}^{2(p-1)+} (J) }^{p-1} \| \langle D \rangle^{1- \frac{1}{2}} I w_{l} \|_{ L_{t}^{4+}
L_{x}^{4-} (J) }}{N^{ \left( s_{c}- \frac{1}{2} \right) \, - }} + \frac{ \| w_{l} \|_{ L_{t}^{2(p-1)-} L_{x}^{2(p-1)+} (J) }^{p-1} \| \langle
D \rangle^{1- \frac{1}{2}} I w_{l} \|_{
L_{t}^{4+} L_{x}^{4-} (J) }}{N^{ ( 1 -s_{c}) \, - }} \\
\lesssim \frac { \left( X^{2(p-1)-}_{C,Q} N^{1-s} A^{\frac{p+1}{2}} \right)^{p}}{N^{ \min{ \left( \left( s_{c} -\frac{1}{2} \right) \, -, \,
\left( 1- s_{c} \right)- \right) }}} +
\end{array}$$
by using the product rule followed by a two-variable Leibnitz rule\
(see Appendix with $f:= P_{<< N} w_{l}$ and $g:= P_{\gtrsim N} w_{l}$, $F(f,g)=|f + y g|^{p-1}$ and $q=p-2$)
$X_{2,1,3}$ is treated in a similar fashion: we get
$$\begin{array}{ll}
\| \langle D \rangle^{1- s_{c} } X_{2,1,3} \|_{L_{t}^{q} L_{x}^{r} ([t_{j},t]) } & \leq \frac { \left( X^{2(p-1)-}_{C,Q} N^{1-s}
A^{\frac{p+1}{2}} \right)^{p}}{N^{ \min{ \left( \left( s_{c} -\frac{1}{2} \right) \, -, \, \left( 1- s_{c} \right)- \right)}}}
\end{array}$$
Finally we have
$$\begin{array}{ll}
\| \langle D \rangle^{1- s_{c} } X_{2} \|_{L_{t}^{q} L_{x}^{r}(([t_{j},t])} & \leq \frac { \left( X^{2(p-1)-}_{C,Q} N^{1-s} A^{\frac{p+1}{2}}
\right)^{p}}{N^{ \min{ \left( \left( s_{c} -\frac{1}{2} \right) \, -, \, \left( 1- s_{c} \right)- \right)}}}
\end{array}
\label{Eqn:EstX2}$$
Similarly
$$\begin{array}{ll}
\| \langle D \rangle^{1-s_{c}} Y_{2} \|_{L_{t}^{q} L_{x}^{r} (J_{j})} & \lesssim \frac { \left( X^{2(p-1)-}_{C,Q} N^{1-s} A^{\frac{p+1}{2}}
\right)^{p}}{N^{ \min{ \left( \left( s_{c} -\frac{1}{2} \right) \, -, \, \left( 1- s_{c} \right)- \right)}}}
\end{array}
\label{Eqn:EstY2}$$
- In order to estimate $ \| \langle D \rangle^{1- s_{c}} X_{1} \|_{L_{t}^{q} L_{x}^{r} ([t_{j},t]) } $ and $\| \langle D \rangle^{1-s_{c}} Y_{1} \|_{L_{t}^{q} L_{x}^{r} (J_{j})} $, we perform a similar decomposition to that in the proof of (\[Eqn:EstX2\]), using (\[Eqn:BoundwPerturb\]) instead of (\[Eqn:BounduPerturb\]). We also have
$$\begin{array}{ll}
\| \langle D \rangle^{1- s_{c}} X_{1} \|_{L_{t}^{q} L_{x}^{r} ([t_{j},t]) } & \lesssim \frac { \left( X^{2(p-1)-}_{C,Q} N^{1-s}
A^{\frac{p+1}{2}} \right)^{p}}{N^{ \left( s_{c} -\frac{1}{2} \right) \, -}}
\end{array}
\label{Eqn:EstX1}$$
. and
$$\begin{array}{ll}
\| \langle D \rangle^{1-s_{c}} Y_{1} \|_{L_{t}^{q} L_{x}^{r} (J_{j})} & \lesssim \frac { \left( X^{2(p-1)-}_{C,Q} N^{1-s} A^{\frac{p+1}{2}}
\right)^{p}}{N^{ \left( s_{c} -\frac{1}{2} \right) \, -}}
\end{array}$$
- We are interested in estimating $ \| \langle D \rangle^{ 1 - s_{c}} X_{3} \|_{L_{t}^{q} L_{x}^{r} ([t_{j},t])} $ and $ \| \langle D \rangle^{ 1 - s_{c}} Y_{3} \|_{L_{t}^{q} L_{x}^{r} (J_{j})} $. Since $s_{c} > \frac{1}{2}$, there exist $\theta:= \theta(p)$, $m < \frac{1}{2}$, $(q,r)$ $m$- wave admissible such that
$$\begin{array}{ll}
\| \langle D \rangle^{1-s_{c}} I v_{l} \|_{L_{t}^{4+} L_{x}^{4-} ([t_{j},t])} & \lesssim
\| I v_{l} \|^{\theta}_{L_{t}^{2(p-1)-} L_{x}^{2(p-1)+}} \| \langle D \rangle^{1-m} I v_{l} \|^{1- \theta}_{L_{t}^{q} L_{x}^{r}} \\
& \lesssim k^{\theta}
\end{array}$$
in view of (\[Eqn:BoundEc\]) and (\[Eqn:BoundIv\]). Therefore
$$\begin{array}{l}
\| \langle D \rangle^{1- s_{c} } X_{3} \|_{L_{t}^{q} L_{x}^{r} ([t_{j},t])} \lesssim
\left(
\begin{array}{l}
\| I w_{l} \|^{p-1}_{ L_{t}^{2(p-1)-} L_{x}^{2(p-1)+} ([t_{j},t]) } + \| I v_{l} \|^{p-1}_{ L_{t}^{2(p-1)-} L_{x}^{2(p-1)+} ([t_{j},t]) } \\
+ \| I w_{l+1} \|^{p-1}_{L_{t}^{2(p-1)-} L_{x}^{2(p-1)+} ([t_{j},t]) }
\end{array}
\right) \\
\left( \| \langle D \rangle^{1 - s_{c} } I v_{l} \|_{ L_{t}^{4+} L_{x}^{4-} ([t_{j},t]) } +
\| \langle D \rangle^{1 - s_{c}} I \Gamma \|_{ L_{t}^{4+} L_{x}^{4- } ([t_{j},t]) } \right) \\
\lesssim \left( Z^{p-1}(j,t) + k^{p-1} + \eta^{p-1}_{0} \right) \left( k^{\theta} + \| \langle D \rangle^{1 - s_{c} } I \Gamma \|_{
L_{t}^{4+} L_{x}^{4-} ([t_{j},t])} \right)
\end{array}$$
Similarly
$$\begin{array}{ll}
\| \langle D \rangle^{1- s_{c}} Y_{3} \|_{L_{t}^{q} L_{x}^{r} ([t_{j},b]) } \lesssim \left( Z^{p-1}(j,t_{j+1}) + k^{p-1} + \eta^{p-1}_{0}
\right) \left( k^{\theta} + \| \langle D \rangle^{1- s_{c}} I \Gamma \|_{L_{t}^{4+} L_{x}^{4-} (J_{j})} \right)
\end{array}
\label{Eqn:EstY3}$$
Therefore there exists a positive constant (that we still denote by $\bar{C}$) such that
$$\begin{array}{ll}
Z(j+1,t) \leq Z_{l}(j) + \bar{C} \left( \eta^{p-1}_{0} + k^{p-1} + Z^{p-1}(j,t) \right) \left( Z(j,t) + k^{\theta} \right) + \bar{C} \frac{
\left( X^{2(p-1)-}_{C,Q} N^{1-s} A^{\frac{p+1}{2}} \right)^{p} } {N^{ \min{ \left( \left( s_{c}-\frac{1}{2} \right) \,-, (1-s_{c}) \,- \right)
}}}
\end{array}
\label{Eqn:Zjplusone}$$
for $t \in [t_{j},t_{j+1}]$ and
$$\begin{array}{ll}
Z_{l}(j+1) & \leq Z_{l}(j) + \bar{C} \left( \eta^{p-1}_{0} + k^{p-1} + Z^{p-1}(j,t_{j+1}) \right) \left( Z(j,t_{j+1}) + k^{\theta} \right) +
\bar{C} \frac{ \left( X^{2(p-1)-}_{C,Q} N^{1-s} A^{\frac{p+1}{2}} \right)^{p} } {N^{ \min{ \left( \left( s_{c}-\frac{1}{2} \right) \,-,
(1-s_{c}) \,- \right) }}}
\end{array}
\label{Eqn:Zljplusone}$$
We claim that
$$\begin{array}{ll}
Z_{l}(j) & \leq \eta_{0}
\end{array}
\label{Eqn:BoundZl}$$
for all $j$, provided that $C_{2}$ is large enough in (\[Eqn:Boundk\]). Indeed, by induction:
- $Z_{l}(1)=0$ since $w_{l+1}(T_{l}):=(w_{l}-v_{l})(T_{l})$
- assume that for all $k < j$ we have $Z_{l}(k) \leq \eta_{0}$; then, by (\[Eqn:Zjplusone\]) and a continuity argument we see that,even if it means increasing the value of $\bar{C}$
$$\begin{array}{ll}
Z(j,t) & \leq \bar{C} \max{ \left( Z_{l}(j), \, k^{\theta}, \, \frac{ \left( X^{2(p-1)-}_{C,Q} N^{1-s} A^{\frac{p+1}{2}} \right)^{p} }
{ \min{ \left( \left( s_{c}-\frac{1}{2} \right) \,-, (1-s_{c}) \,- \right) }} \right)} \\
& \leq \bar{C} \eta_{0}
\end{array}
\label{Eqn:BoundIntermZj}$$
Plugging (\[Eqn:BoundIntermZj\]) into (\[Eqn:Zljplusone\]) we have (again, even if it means increasing the value of $\bar{C}$)
$$\begin{array}{ll}
Z_{l}(j+1) & \leq Z_{l}(j) + \bar{C} \left( 3 \eta^{p-1}_{0} \right) \left( \max{ \left( Z_{l}(j), \, k^{\theta}, \, \frac{ ( X_{C,Q}^{2(p-1)-}
N^{1-s} A^{\frac{p+1}{2}} )^{p} }{N^{ \min{ \left( \left( s_{c}-\frac{1}{2} \right) \,-, (1-s_{c}) \,- \right) }} } \right)} + k^{\theta}
\right) \\
& + \frac{ \left( X_{C,Q}^{2(p-1)-} N^{1-s} A^{\frac{p+1}{2}} \right)^{p}}{N^{\min{ \left(
\left( s_{c}-\frac{1}{2} \right) \,-, (1-s_{c}) \,- \right) }}} \\
& \leq \bar{C} \max{\left( Z_{l}(j), \, k^{\theta}, \, \frac{ \left( X^{2(p-1)-}_{C,Q} N^{1-s} A^{\frac{p+1}{2}} \right)^{p}}{N^{\min{ \left(
\left( s_{c}-\frac{1}{2} \right) \,-, (1-s_{c}) \,- \right) }}} \right)}
\end{array}$$
and, therefore by simple iteration, in view of (\[Eqn:Boundk\]) and (\[Eqn:Cond4\]), we see that, even if it means increasing $\bar{C}$,
$$\begin{array}{ll}
Z_{l}(j+1) & \leq \bar{C}^{\bar{C} L(l+1)} \max{ \left( k^{\theta}, \, \frac{\left( X^{2(p-1)-}_{C,Q} N^{1-s} A^{\frac{p+1}{2}} \right)^{p}}
{N^{ \min{ \left( \left( s_{c}-\frac{1}{2}
\right) \,-, (1-s_{c}) \,- \right) }} } \right)} \\
& \leq \eta_{0}
\end{array}$$
provided that $C_{2} >> 1$ is large enough in (\[Eqn:Boundk\]). Therefore (\[Eqn:BoundZl\]) holds, if $k=j$\
By (\[Eqn:Boundkprime\]), (\[Eqn:BoundZl\]), (\[Eqn:BoundIntermZj\]), (\[Eqn:BoundIv\]), (\[Eqn:BoundIw\]) and (\[Eqn:SobEmbedGamma\]) we see that
$$\begin{array}{ll}
\| I w_{l} \|_{L_{t}^{2(p-1)-} L_{x}^{2(p-1)+} ([T_{l},b])} & \lesssim L(l+1)
\end{array}$$
Appendix
========
Proof of Theorem \[Thm:Scat\] {#Sub:Scat}
-----------------------------
In this subsection, we give a short proof of Theorem \[Thm:Scat\] for small data $( A \leq \frac{1}{1000})$. It relies upon well-known arguments: see [@linsog] for example. Assume that $w$ satisfies (\[Eqn:NlkgWdat\]) with data $(w_{0},w_{1})$ such that $\|(w_{0},w_{1})\|_{H^{s} \times H^{s-1}} \leq A \leq \frac{1}{1000}$.
Let $\bar{Z}(T):= \| (w(T),\partial_{t} w(T)) \|_{H^{s} \times H^{s-1}} + \| w \|_{L_{t}^{2(p-1)} L_{x}^{2(p-1)} ([0,T]) } + \| \langle D
\rangle^{s-\frac{1}{2}} w \|_{L_{t}^{2(p-1)} L_{x}^{\frac{6(p-1)}{2p-3}} ([0,T]) } + \| \langle D \rangle^{s- \frac{1}{2}} w \|_{L_{t}^{4}
L_{x}^{4} [0,T]}$. Then, plugging $\langle D \rangle^{s-\frac{1}{2}}$ into (\[Eqn:StrNlkg\]), we get
$$\begin{array}{l}
\| w \|_{L_{t}^{2(p-1)} L_{x}^{2(p-1)} ([0,T]) } \lesssim \| \langle D \rangle^{s-\frac{1}{2}} w \|_{L_{t}^{2(p-1)}
L_{x}^{\frac{6(p-1)}{2p-3}}([0,T]) }
\end{array}$$
and
$$\begin{array}{l}
\bar{Z}([0,T],w) \lesssim \| (w_{0},u_{1}) \|_{H^{s} \times H^{s-1}} + \| \langle D \rangle ^{s-
\frac{1}{2}} ( |w|^{p-1} w ) \|_{L_{t}^{\frac{4}{3}} L_{x}^{\frac{4}{3}} ([0,T]) } \\
\lesssim \frac{1}{1000} + \| \langle D \rangle^{s-\frac{1}{2}} w \|_{L_{t}^{4} L_{x}^{4} ([0,T])} \| w \|^{p-1}_{L_{t}^{2(p-1)}
L_{x}^{2(p-1)} ([0,T])} \\
\lesssim \frac{1}{1000} + Z^{p}([0,T],w)
\end{array}
\label{Eqn:ControlZ}$$
we get, by a continuity argument $Z([0,T]) \lesssim 1$. This proves global well-posedness. As for scattering, following the steps from (\[Eqn:ScatBegin\]) to (\[Eqn:ScatBegin\]) we have, for $t_{2}>t_{1}$
$$\begin{array}{ll}
\| \mathbf{K}^{-1} w^{nlin}(t_{1}) - \mathbf{K}^{-1} w^{nlin}(t_{2}) \|_{H^{s} \times H^{s-1}} & \lesssim \| w^{nlin}(t_{1}) - w^{nlin}(t_{2})
\|_{H^{s}
\times H^{s-1}} \\
& \lesssim \| \langle D \rangle^{s-\frac{1}{2}} (|w|^{p-1} w) \| _{L_{t}^{\frac{4}{3}} L_{x}^{\frac{4}{3}} ([t_{1},t_{2}]) } \\
& \lesssim \| \langle D \rangle^{s- \frac{1}{2}} w \|_{L_{t}^{4} L_{x}^{4} ([t_{1},t_{2}])} \| w \|_{L_{t}^{2(p-1)} L_{x}^{2(p-1)}([t_{1},t_{2}])} \\
\end{array}$$
This proves, in view of (\[Eqn:ControlZ\]), that the Cauchy criterion is satisfied by $\mathbf{K}^{-1} w^{nlin}(t)$ and therefore $\mathbf{K}^{-1} w^{nlin}(t)$ has a limit as $t \rightarrow \infty$ and therefore $w$ scatters.
A two-variable fractional Leibnitz rule
---------------------------------------
In this subsection we prove a two-variable Leibnitz rule
[**“A two-variable Leibnitz rule”**]{} Let $F \in C^{1} \left( \mathbb{C}^{2}, \mathbb{C} \right)$ such that $F(0,0)=0$ and such that for all $\lambda \in [0,1]$ and for all $(z_{1},z_{2},w_{1},w_{2}) \in \mathbb{C}^{4}$ we have
$$\begin{array}{l}
| F^{'} ( \lambda z_{1} + (1- \lambda) z_{2}, \lambda w_{1} + (1-\lambda) w_{2} ) | \lesssim |z_{1}|^{\alpha} + |z_{2}|^{\alpha} +
|w_{1}|^{\alpha} + |w_{2}|^{\alpha}
\end{array}$$
for some $\alpha > 0$. Then
$$\begin{array}{ll}
\| F(f,g) \|_{H^{s,p}} & \lesssim \| f \|^{\alpha}_{L^{p_{1}}} \| f \|_{H^{s,p_{2}}} + \| g \|^{\alpha}_{L^{\tilde{p}_{1}}} \| f
\|_{H^{s,\tilde{p}_{2}}} \\
& + \| f \|^{\alpha}_{L^{r_{1}}} \| g \|_{H^{s,r_{2}}} + \| g \|^{\alpha}_{L^{\tilde{r}_{1}}} \| g \|_{H^{s,\tilde{r}_{2}}}
\end{array}
\label{Eqn:LeibnForm}$$
assuming that $(p, p_{1}, p_{2}, \tilde{p}_{1}, \tilde{p}_{2}, r_{1},r_{2}, \tilde{r}_{1}, \tilde{r}_{2}) \in (1, \infty)^{9}$ and
$$\begin{array}{l}
\frac{1}{p} = \frac{\alpha}{p_{1}} + \frac{1}{p_{2}} = \frac{\alpha}{\tilde{p}_{1}} + \frac{1}{\tilde{p}_{2}} \\
\frac{1}{p} = \frac{\alpha}{r_{1}} + \frac{1}{r_{2}} = \frac{\alpha}{\tilde{r}_{1}} + \frac{1}{\tilde{r}_{2}}
\end{array}$$
The proof relies upon a simple modification of the one-variable fractional Leibnitz rules (see [@christweins]). We recall the following inequalities (see for example [@taylor] ): given $q: \mathbb{R}^{3} \rightarrow \mathbb{C}$ a function, we have
$$\begin{array}{l}
\int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}} | P_{N_{2}} q(x) - P_{N_{2}} q(y) | | \check{\psi_{N_{1}}} (x-y) | \, dy \lesssim \min{ \left( \frac{N_{2}}{N_{1}}, 1
\right) } M_{h} ( \tilde{P}_{N_{2}} q)(x)
\end{array}$$
and
$$\begin{array}{ll}
\int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}} | P_{N_{2}} q(x) -P_{N_{2}} q(y) | | \check{ \psi_{N_{1}}} (x-y) | H(y) \, dy \\
\lesssim \min{ \left( \frac{N_{2}}{N_{1}},1 \right)} \left( M_{h}( \tilde{P}_{N_{2}} q )(x) M_{h} H(x) + M_{h} ( |\tilde{P}_{N_{2}} q| H )(x)
\right)
\end{array}
\label{Eqn:EstHy}$$
with $(N_{1},N_{2}) \in 2^{\mathbb{N}^{*}} \in \mathbb{N}$, $H$ a nonnegative function, $\psi_{M}(\xi):= \psi \left( \frac{\xi}{M}\right)$ (if $M \in 2^{\mathbb{N}}$), $\tilde{P}_{M} := P_{ \frac{M}{2} \leq \cdot \leq 2 M}$ (if $M \in 2^{\mathbb{N}^{*}}$), $\tilde{P}_{1}:= P_{\leq 2}$ and $ ( M_{h}(f) )(x):= \sup_{r >0 } \frac{1}{|B(x,r)|} \int_{B(x,r)} |f(y)| \, dy$.\
\
Recall also the Paley-Littlewood inequalities (see [@stein])
$$\begin{array}{l}
\| F(f,g) \|_{H^{s,p}} \lesssim \| P_{1} ( F(f,g)) \|_{L^{p}} + \left\| \left( \sum_{N_{1} \in 2^{\mathbb{N}^{*}}} N_{1}^{2s} |P_{N_{1}} (
F(f,g)) |^{2} \right)^{\frac{1}{2}} \right\|_{L^{p}}
\end{array}$$
and
$$\begin{array}{l}
\left\| \left( \sum_{N_{1} \in 2^{\mathbb{N}}} N_{1}^{2s} |\tilde{P}_{N_{1}} f|^{2} \right)^{\frac{1}{2}} \right\|_{L^{p}} \lesssim \| f
\|_{H^{s,p}}
\end{array}
\label{Eqn:Paleyf}$$
We write
$$\begin{array}{l}
P_{N_{1}} ( F(f,g) )(x) \\ \
= \int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}} F(f(y),g(y)) \check{\psi_{N_{1}}}(x-y) \, dy \\
= \int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}} \left( F(f(y),g(y)) - F(f(x),g(x)) \right) \check{\psi_{N_{1}}}(x-y) \, dy \\
= A_{1} + A_{2} + A_{3} + A_{4}
\end{array}$$
with
$$\begin{array}{l}
A_{1} := \int_{0}^{1} \int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}} | \partial_{z} F( \lambda f(y) + (1- \lambda) f(x), \lambda g(y) + (1- \lambda) g(x) ) | | f(y) -
f(x)) | \, | \check{\psi_{N_{1}}}(x-y) | \, d\lambda \, dy
\end{array}$$
$$\begin{array}{l}
A_{2} := \int_{0}^{1} \int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}} | \partial_{\bar{z}} F ( \lambda f(y) + (1- \lambda) f(x), \lambda g(y) + (1 - \lambda) g(x) ) | |
f(y) - f(x) | \, | \check{\psi_{N_{1}}}(x-y) | \, d \lambda \, dy
\end{array}$$
$$\begin{array}{l}
A_{3} := \int_{0}^{1} \int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}} | \partial_{w} F ( \lambda f(y) + (1- \lambda) f(x), \lambda g(y) + (1 - \lambda) g(x) ) | |g(y)
-g(x) | | \check{\psi_{N_{1}}}(x-y) | \, d \lambda \, dy
\end{array}$$
and
$$\begin{array}{l}
A_{4} := \int_{0}^{1} \int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}} | \partial_{\bar{w}} F ( \lambda f(y) + (1- \lambda) f(x), \lambda g(y) + (1 - \lambda) g(x) ) |
|g(y)-g(x) | | \check{\psi_{N_{1}}}(x-y) | d \lambda \, dy
\end{array}$$
Let us deal for example with $A_{1}$.
$$\begin{array}{ll}
\sum_{N_{1} \in 2^{\mathbb{N}^{*}}} N_{1}^{2s} A_{1}^{2} & \lesssim \sum_{N_{1} \in 2^{\mathbb{N}^{*}}}
N_{1}^{2s} \left( \int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}} |f(y)|^{\alpha} |f(y)-f(x)| | \check{\psi_{N_{1}}}(x-y) | \, dy \right)^{2} \\
& + \sum_{N_{1} \in 2^{\mathbb{N}^{*}}} N_{1}^{2s} |f(x)|^{2 \alpha} \left( \int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}} |f(y)-f(x)| | \check{\psi_{N_{1}}}(x-y) | \, dy \right)^{2} \\
& + \sum_{N_{1} \in 2^{\mathbb{N}^{*}}} N_{1}^{2s} \left( \int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}} |g(y)|^{\alpha} |f(y)-f(x)| | \check{\psi_{N_{1}}}(x-y) | \, dy \right)^{2} \\
& + \sum_{ N_{1} \in 2^{\mathbb{N}^{*}} } N_{1}^{2s} |g(x)|^{2 \alpha} \left( \int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}} |f(y)-f(x)| | \check{\psi_{N_{1}}}(x-y) |
\, dy
\right)^{2} \\
& \lesssim A^{2}_{1,1} + A^{2}_{1,2} + A^{2}_{1,3} + A^{2}_{1,4}
\end{array}$$
We have
$$\begin{array}{l}
A^{2}_{1,1} \lesssim \sum_{N_{1} \in 2^{\mathbb{N}^{*}}} N_{1}^{2s} \left( \sum_{N_{2} \in 2^{\mathbb{N}}} \int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}}
|f(y)|^{\alpha}
|P_{N_{2}} (f)(y)- P_{N_{2}} (f)(x)| | \check{\psi_{N_{1}}}(x-y) | \, dy \right)^{2} \\
\lesssim \left(
\begin{array}{l}
\sum_{N_{1} \in 2^{\mathbb{N}^{*}}} N_{1}^{2s} \left( \sum_{N_{2} \leq N_{1}} \int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}} |f(y)|^{\alpha} | P_{N_{2}}(f)(y) -
P_{N_{2}}(f)(x) | | \check{\psi_{N_{1}}}(x-y) | \, dy \right)^{2} \\
+ \sum_{N_{1} \in 2^{\mathbb{N}^{*}}} N_{1}^{2s} \left( \sum_{N_{2} \geq N_{1}} \int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}} |f(y)|^{\alpha} | P_{N_{2}}(f)(y) -
P_{N_{2}}(f)(x) | | \check{\psi_{N_{1}}}(x-y) | \, dy \right)^{2}
\end{array}
\right) \\
\lesssim A^{2}_{1,1,1} + A^{2}_{1,1,2}
\end{array}$$
But, by (\[Eqn:EstHy\])
$$\begin{array}{l}
A^{2}_{1,1,1} \lesssim \left(
\begin{array}{l}
( M_{h} ( |f(x)|^{\alpha}) )^{2} \sum_{N_{1} \in 2^{\mathbb{N}^{*}} } N_{1}^{2s} \left( \sum_{N_{2} \leq N_{1}}
\frac{N_{2}}{N_{1}} M_{h} ( (\tilde{P}_{N_{2}} f)(x) ) \right)^{2} \\
+ \sum_{N_{1} \in 2^{\mathbb{N}^{*}}} N_{1}^{2s} \left( \sum_{N_{2} \leq N_{1}} \frac{N_{2}}{N_{1}} M_{h} (( |\tilde{P}_{N_{2}} f| |f|^{\alpha})
(x) ) \right)^{2}
\end{array}
\right)
\end{array}$$
Now, by Young’s inequality we have (since $s<1$)
$$\begin{array}{ll}
\sum_{N_{1} \in 2^{\mathbb{N}^{*}}} N_{1}^{2s} \left( \sum_{N_{2} \leq N_{1}} \frac{N_{1}}{N_{2}} |a_{N_{2}}| \right)^{2}
& = \sum_{N_{1} \in 2^{\mathbb{N}^{*}}} \left( \sum_{N_{2} \leq N_{1}} \left( \frac{N_{2}}{N_{1}} \right)^{1-s} N^{s}_{2} |a_{N_{2}}| \right)^{2} \\
& \lesssim \sum_{N_{1} \in 2^{\mathbb{N} }} N_{1}^{2s} |a_{N_{1}}|^{2}
\end{array}$$
which implies that
$$\begin{array}{l}
A^{2}_{1,1,1} \lesssim \left( M_{h} ( |f(x)|^{\alpha}) \right)^{2} \sum_{N_{1} \in 2^{\mathbb{N} }} N_{1}^{2s} \left( M_{h} (
(\tilde{P}_{N_{1}} f)(x) ) \right)^{2} + \sum_{N_{1} \in 2^{\mathbb{N} }} N_{1}^{2s} \left( M_{h} ( ( |\tilde{P}_{N_{1}} f| |f|^{\alpha})(x) )
\right)^{2}
\end{array}
\label{Eqn:BoundA2111}$$
and therefore, by Fefferman-Stein maximal inequality [@FefferStein], Hölder’s inequality and (\[Eqn:Paleyf\]) we have
$$\begin{array}{l}
\| A_{1,1,1} \|_{L^{p}} \lesssim \| f \|^{\alpha}_{L^{p_{1}}} \| f \|_{H^{s,p_{2}}}
\end{array}$$
Also, by (\[Eqn:EstHy\]) we have
$$\begin{array}{l}
A^{2}_{1,1,2} \lesssim \left(
\begin{array}{l}
( M_{h} ( |f(x)|^{\alpha}) )^{2} \sum_{N_{1} \in 2^{\mathbb{N}^{*}} } N_{1}^{2s} \left( \sum_{N_{2} > N_{1}}
M_{h} ( (\tilde{P}_{N_{2}} f)(x) ) \right)^{2} \\
+ \sum_{N_{1} \in 2^{\mathbb{N}^{*}}} N_{1}^{2s} \left( \sum_{N_{2} > N_{1}} M_{h} (( |\tilde{P}_{N_{2}} f| |f|^{\alpha}) (x) ) \right)^{2}
\end{array}
\right)
\end{array}$$
But, by Young’s inequality (since $s>0$)
$$\begin{array}{l}
\sum_{N_{1} \in 2^{\mathbb{N}^{*}}} N_{1}^{2s} \left( \sum_{N_{2} > N_{1}} |a_{N_{2}}| \right)^{2} = \sum_{N_{1} \in 2^{\mathbb{N}^{*}}}
\left( \sum_{N_{2} > N_{1}} \left( \frac{N_{1}}{N_{2}} \right)^{s} N_{2}^{s} |a_{N_{2}}| \right)^{2} \\
\lesssim \sum_{N_{1} \in 2^{\mathbb{N}}} N_{1}^{2s} |a_{N_{1}}|^{2}
\end{array}$$
and therefore (\[Eqn:BoundA2111\]) also holds if $A_{1,1,1}$ is substituted for $A_{1,1,2}$.\
The other terms ( $A_{1,2}$, $A_{1,3}$, $A_{1,4}$ and then $A_{2}$, $A_{3}$, $A_{4}$) are treated in a similar fashion.\
We also have $ \| P_{1}(F(f,g)) \|_{L^{p}} \lesssim \| F(f,g) \|_{L^{p}} $. Then writing $F(f,g)= F(f,g)-F(0,0)$ and applying the fundamental theorem of calculus, we see that (\[Eqn:LeibnForm\]) holds if $s=0$.
[99]{}
J. Bourgain, *Global well-posedness of defocusing $3D$ critical NLS in the radial case*, JAMS 12 (1999), 145-171
J. Bourgain, *New global well-posedness results for non-linear Schrödinger equations*, AMS Publications, 1999
P.Brenner, *On space-time means and everywhere defined scattering operators for nonlinear Klein-Gordon equations*, Math. Z. 186 (1984), 383-391
P. Brenner, *On scattering and everywhere defined scattering operators for nonlinear Klein-Gordon Equations*, J. Differential Equations 56 (1985), 310-344
M. Christ and M. Weinstein, *Dispersion of small amplitude solutions of the general Korteweg-de-Vries equation*, J. Func. Analysis 100 (1991), 87-109
J.Colliander, M.Keel, G.Staffilani, H.Takaoka, T.Tao, *Almost conservation laws and global rough solutions to a nonlinear Schrödinger equation*, Math. Res. Letters 9 (2002), pp. 659-682
C. Fefferman and E. Stein, *Some maximal inequalities*, Amer. J. Math 93 (1971), 107-115
J. Ginebre and G. Velo, *Time decay of finite energy solutions of the nonlinear Klein-Gordon and Schrödinger equation*, Ann. Inst. H. Poincare Phys Theor 43 (1985), 399-442
M. Keel and T. Tao, *Endpoint Strichartz estimates*, Amer. J. Math, 120 (1998), 955-980
H. Lindblad, C. D Sogge, *On existence and scattering with minimal regularity for semilinear wave equations*, J. Func.Anal 219 (1995), 227-252
C. Morawetz, *Time decay for the nonlinear Klein-Gordon equation*, Proc. Roy. Soc. A 306 (1968), 291-296
C. Morawetz and W. Strauss, *Decay and scattering of solutions of a nonlinear relativistic wave equation*, Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 25 (1972), pp 1-31
M. Nakamura and T. Ozawa, *The Cauchy Problem for Nonlinear Klein-Gordon Equations in the Sobolev Spaces*, Publ. Res. Inst. Math. Sci., 37 (2001), 255-293
K. Nakanishi, *Energy scattering for nonlinear Klein-Gordon and Schrödinger equations in spatial dimensions $1$ and $2$*, Journal of Functional Analysis 169 (1999), 201-225
K. Nakanishi, *Remarks on the energy scattering for nonlinear Klein-Gordon and Schrodinger equations*, Tohoku Math J. 53 (2001), 285-303
E. M. Stein, *Harmonic Analysis*, Princeton University Press, 1993
W. A. Strauss, *Nonlinear wave equations*, CBMS Regional Conference Series in Mathematics, no 73, Amer. Math. Soc. Providence, RI, 1989
T. Roy, *Global well-posedness for the radial defocusing cubic wave equation on $\mathbb{R}^{3}$ and for rough data*, EJDE, 166, 2007, 1-22, arXiv:0708.2288
T. Roy, *Introduction to scattering for radial $3D$ NLKG below energy norm*, J. Differential Equations 248 (2010), no. 4, 893–923., arXiv:0809.3835
M. Taylor, *Tools for PDE, Pseudodifferential Operators, Paradifferential Operators, and Layer Potentials*, Mathematical Surveys and Monographs, 81. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2000.
[^1]: Here $\dot{H}^{m}$ denotes the standard homogeneous Sobolev space endowed with the norm $\| f \|_{\dot{H}^{m}}: = \| D^{m} f \|_{L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}$
[^2]: by rewriting for example (\[Eqn:NlkgWdat\]) in the “wave” form $\partial_{tt}u - \triangle u= -|u|^{p-1} u -u$
[^3]: Nevertheless, because our primary goal is to prove scattering and to use the decay estimates (such as (\[Eqn:DecayEstp\])) as tools, we have chosen not to determine $a_{p}$ and $b_{p}$: it is left to the reader. He can check, after reading the proof of Theorem \[Thm:Scat\], that $a_{p}$ decreases and $b_{p}$ increases as $p$ grows; $\lim_{p \rightarrow 3^{+}} a_{p} = 2(p-1) $ and $ \lim_{ p \rightarrow 3^{+} } b_{p}= 2(p-1)$
[^4]: since the multiplier approaches the identity operator as $N$ goes to infinity
[^5]: Recall that $C_{E}$ is defined in Proposition \[Prop:EstInitMolNrj\]
[^6]: $C$ and $Q$ will be chosen shortly so that eventually $\tilde{s}$ will only depend on $A$ and $p$
[^7]: There are two important points. First the upper bound $L(i)$ does not depend on the function $w \in \mathcal{C}_{i}$. Second $L$ depend on the integer $i$: $N$ and $A$ are fixed parameters. This is why $N$ and $A$ are subscripts, in the definition of $L$. In the sequel we forget these subscripts, to make the argument easier to read
[^8]: The reader can check that the bounds (\[Eqn:ControlIwStrich\]) and (\[Eqn:ControlEIw\]) also hold if we are restricted to $[T^{'},t_{l}]$ (for $T^{'}<t_{l}$) by slightly modifying the proof of (\[Eqn:ControlIwStrich\]) and (\[Eqn:ControlEIw\]) on $[t_{l},T]$.
[^9]: Recall that $\eta_{0}$ is defined in Proposition \[prop:LocalBd\]
[^10]: the value of $\epsilon$ is not randomly chosen: see (\[IneqChainNrj\])
[^11]: The sign $\pm$ in (\[Eqn:LowerBdJ1\]) and in (\[Eqn:LowerBdJ2\]) denotes the plus or minus sign. It is not important to know whether it is a plus or minus sign: see the next computations. Therefore we have decided not to determine the sign.
[^12]: Here $\check{f}$ denotes the inverse Fourier transform of a function $f$
[^13]: In fact we have a better bound: $Z(w_{l+1},J_{j}) \lesssim N^{1-s} A^{\frac{p+1}{2}}$. $X_{1}$, $X_{2}$ will be estimated by using the bounds (\[Eqn:BounduPerturb\]), (\[Eqn:BoundwPerturb\]) respectively. Since we want an upper bound of $X_{1}+ X_{2}$, a sharper estimate for $Z(w_{l+1},J_{j})$ is not needed.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'It has been suggested that consciousness plays an important role in quantum mechanics as it is necessary for the collapse of wave function during the measurement. Furthermore, this idea has spawned a symmetrical proposal: a possibility that quantum mechanics explains the emergence of consciousness in the brain. Here we formulated several predictions that follow from this hypothetical relationship and that can be empirically tested. Some of the experimental results that are already available suggest falsification of the first hypothesis. Thus, the suggested link between human consciousness and collapse of wave function does not seem viable. We discuss the constraints implied by the existing evidence on the role that the human observer may play for quantum mechanics and the role that quantum mechanics may play in the observers consciousness.'
address:
- 'Department of Neurophysiology, Max Planck Institute for Brain Research, Deutschordenstr. 46, 60528 Frankfurt am Main, Germany'
- 'Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies, Johann Wolfgang Goethe University, Ruth-Moufang-Str. 1, 60438 Frankfurt am Main, Germany'
author:
- Shan Yu
- Danko Nikolić
bibliography:
- 'Yu\_and\_nikolic\_v2.bib'
title: '[**Quantum mechanics needs no consciousness (and the other way around)**]{}'
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
The nature of human consciousness and its relation to the physical reality is arguably the most puzzling issue regarding the fundamental questions about ourselves and the interaction with the world that we live in. An interesting proposal has been put forward of a link between the seemingly distant quantum mechanics and consciousness, leading to a direct, yet bizarre bridge between the mental and the physical. It all started with the measurement problem in quantum mechanics, which can be formulated as follows: According to quantum mechanics, the states of any physical system can be described fully by a wave function (state vector) that characterizes various systems variables such as its position, momentum, energy or spin. Schrödingers famous equation describes how these variables evolve over time [@Schrodinger_undulatory_1926]. According to most interpretations for the formalism of quantum mechanics (with the exception of the hidden variable theory, e.g., [@bohm_suggested_1952]), the system described by the wave function does not have specific values (e.g., does not have a specific position), but is in a superposition state defined as the weighted sum of all states that the system may possibly assume following a measurement (known also as a set of eigenstates). This superposition can be verified experimentally, for example through interference phenomena [@zeilinger_experiment_1999]. However, for each single measurement, that is, whenever a macroscopic measuring device is used to detect the state of a particular system, the result always indicates a single eigenstate, e.g., a single photon always has a specific location in space. Importantly, the probabilities for observing the specific states, i.e. their distributions, are predicted most accurately by the wave functions, which describe the system as a superposition of multiple states prior to the measurement. This led physicists to conclude that a quantum system can evolve in two, very different, forms: one is continuous, deterministic and reversible, described by a wave function and occurs prior to the measurement. The other form is discontinuous but stochastic, as, during the measurement, the system jumps“ suddenly from a superposition state into a single randomly chosen eigenstate. According to some interpretations of quantum mechanics, this jump is an irreversible event that occurs during the measurement process, and is usually referred to as the collapse of wave function or reduction of state vector. The measurement problem in quantum mechanics refers to understanding the nature of this collapse”, both at the explanatory level, such as: Which other, more fundamental processes cause the collapse?“, and the ontological level, such as: Is the collapse physically real or it is just an artifact of the theoretical system?”. This measurement problem is a major topic of discussion in quantum physics and has been a source of disagreements among theoretical physicists for many years as there is a number of different ways in which one can interpret this set of theoretically very unsettling but empirically indisputable properties of quantum mechanics.
Von Neumann [-@von_neumann_mathematical_1932] was probably the first person that addressed the problem of quantum measurement systematically and gave hints of its possible relation to human consciousness (for related reviews, see [@primas_critical_1997; @esfeld_wigners_1999; @thaheld_does_2005; @rosenblum_quantum_2008]). According to him, the measurement process consists of three main components: the system to be observed ($S$), the measuring instruments ($M$) and the observer ($O$). In order to measure the state of $S$, a physical device is needed. Let us denote it as $M_1$. This device has also its own states (e.g., the positions of the hand of a gauge) but these are sensitive to, and interact with $S$. The problem becomes more interesting when one realizes that, as $S$ and $M_1$ interact they form a combined system ($S^{\prime}$), which also needs to be observed. This observation can be made only by another measuring device ($M_2$), but then again $S^{\prime}$ in combination with $M_2$ forms $S^{\prime\prime}$, which needs yet another measuring device $M_3$, and the chain can go on up to the infinity. According to von Neumann, any measuring instrument, $M$, although a macroscopic object, should obey the fundamental rules of quantum mechanics, much like $S$. Thus, before the state of a device $M$ has been measured, the device must be in a superposition state, and this holds for every device in the chain, e.g., $M_1$, $M_2$, etc. This property postpones iteratively the collapse of the wave function to an ever later measuring device positioned higher and higher on the hierarchy, rendering thus the problem unsolvable. Von Neumann reasoned that in order to break this infinite chain of measurements and to give to the whole process a superposition-free, definite end, something with a very distinct propertythat cannot be described by the above procedure and hence, by the quantum mechanicsneeds to be involved. He also provided a formal proof that the formalism of quantum mechanics does not restrict the choice of the point at which such a cut“ could be inserted and suggested, although only implicitly, that the subjective perception” of the human observer, $O$, or its abstract ‘ego’“ plays this important chain-braking role [@von_neumann_mathematical_1932]. Shortly after, London and Bauer [-@london_la_1939] suggested explicitly that the collapse of the wave function and thus, the measurement of a quantum process, cannot occur without the registration of the results in the observers consciousness. This new role of human consciousness in theoretical physics was defended by pointing out that consciousness has a completely special character”, which is the faculty of introspection“, and which in turn allows a person to be aware of the status of its own awareness [@london_la_1939], corresponding to the measurement of itself and abrogating thus the need for any additional measurement devices. Therefore, the registration of a result in consciousness brings ultimately the initial system of the measurement into a new formtaking a single eigenstate. Later, Wigner popularized this link between consciousness and collapse of wave function passionately [@esfeld_wigners_1999]. Wigner suggested that It is the entering of an impression into our consciousness which alters the wave function.” and It is at this point that consciousness enters the theory unavoidably and unalterably."(cited from [@shimony_role_1963]). Importantly, however, Wigner dropped this opinion completely at his final years [@esfeld_wigners_1999].
Critical evaluation and heated debate on this hypothesis has not been absent (e.g., [@putnam_commentspaper_1961; @margenau_commentsprofessor_1962; @shimony_role_1963; @putnam_commentscommentscomments:reply_1964; @cramer_transactional_1986; @chalmers_conscious_1997; @primas_critical_1997; @mandel_quantum_1999; @esfeld_wigners_1999; @menskii_quantum_2000; @brukner_youngs_2002; @french_phenomenological_2002; @thaheld_does_2005; @koch_quantum_2006; @penrose_road_2007; @nauenberg_critique_2007; @stapp_mindful_2007; @rosenblum_quantum_2008]). Many of them address this issue from the philosophical point of view. Although they went to deep and interesting levels and brought up exciting ideas about fundamental aspects of the relationship between the mind and the physical world, those profound analyses failed to reach a simple and clear conclusion that would be widely accepted. Partly due to this reason, the hypothesis that consciousness causes (or is necessary for) the collapse of the wave function and, therefore, plays an important role in quantum mechanics remained a theoretical possibility for the interpretation of quantum mechanics. Although not preferred by most physicists, this solution to measurement problem is still strongly suggested even in some recent theoretical works (e.g., [@menskii_quantum_2000; @stapp_mindful_2007; @rosenblum_quantum_2008]).
In the present paper, we do not aim to provide another philosophical argument. Instead, we attempt to address this issue from an empirical perspective. We re-formulate von Neumanns hypothesis as an empirically testable problem. We then attempt to falsify the hypothesis on the basis of the existing empirical evidence, as already suggested elsewhere [@mandel_quantum_1999; @zeilinger_experiment_1999; @brukner_youngs_2002]. In addition, we identify the experiments that need to be made in order to rule out alternative explanations and thus, to test the hypothesis more thoroughly. This analysis is also informative for the study of consciousness itself, a phenomenon that is by no means easier to understand than the measurement problem [@chalmers_conscious_1997]. Following the hypothetical role of consciousness in the collapse of wave function, a symmetrical" proposal has been made, namely, that the collapse of wave function explains the emergence of consciousness. The most straightforward approach is to equate the consciousness with the collapse of the wave function. Therefore, through a bidirectional relationship, the two deep mysteries explain each other. This view has been explicitly expressed by e.g., @mensky_reality_2007 but it is arguably an implicit assumption made by many other authors suggesting consciousness as a solution to the measurement problem (e.g. [@von_neumann_mathematical_1932]; Wigner, as cited above; [@london_la_1939; @lockwood_many_1996]). Therefore, if the role of consciousness in the collapse of wave function can be falsified by empirical evidence, these suggestions of using quantum mechanics to explain consciousness will also become if not unwarranted, then considerably less attractive.
Experimental design {#sec:Experimental design}
===================
First, let us formulate the hypothesis to be tested:
[*Proposition:*]{} The event of forming an explicit phenomenal representation of a result of quantum measurement in an individual observers mind is necessary for the wave function (superposition state) of the system to collapse into a single eigenstate.
By using logic symbols of implication ($\Rightarrow$) we can write this statement formally as:
$$CWF \Rightarrow PR,
\label{eqn:CWF}$$
where CWF stands for collapse of wave function“ and PR for phenomenal representation”, meaning that the collapse of wave function should be always associated with a corresponding event of registering the results of measurement in consciousness. Or, by using logical negation ($\neg$) we can express this proposition equivalently as contraposition of (1):
$$\neg PR \Rightarrow \neg CWF,
\label{eqn:CWF}$$
meaning that the collapse of wave function should never occur if the corresponding result of measurement has not been registered by a conscious observer.
There are multiple definitions of consciousness. Here we adopt a definition that can be operationalized. Therefore, the registration of a stimulus in the observer‘s consciousness means that the stimulus (i.e., the results of measurement) is perceived at the level of subjective experience and that the observer is aware of its presence such that he/she can produce an appropriate verbal report stating its identity. For example, one may state: The light beam hit the screen on the left side.“, The oscilloscope showed 1 MHz signal.” or The gauge pointed to 5 mV." We think that this definition is fundamentally consistent with the issues described in the introduction and is sufficient for the current analysis.
It is clear that this proposition can be never proven true, much like any other theoretical statement in science cannot ever be proven true [@popper_logic_1963]. However, propositions can be proven untrue, and in the present case this can be made simply by finding a counter example, that is, by finding an experimental setup in which the collapse of wave function is dissociated from consciousness about the outcome of the measurement. Thus, the first goal is to find an experimental setup that would allow one to assess both the state of consciousness, and, independently, the state of the wave function. To this end, we consider an adapted version [@kim_delayed_2000] of the experimental setup originally proposed by Scully and Drühl [-@scully_quantum_1982] and designed to acquire which-path" information in a so-called double-slit experiment without interference (see Figure \[figure1\]).
![The proposed experimental setup that can be used to test whether collapse of wave function and consciousness about the outcome of the measurement are dissociated. This double-slit experiment is a modification of an actual experiment that has been carried out [@kim_delayed_2000] and is similar in principle to the setup proposed by @scully_quantum_1982. See main text for the detail. []{data-label="figure1"}](figure1){width="45.00000%"}
First, one photon from the pump travels through the double-slit and can hit either region A or B located on the nonlinear optical crystal to produce an entangled pair of photons. In the resulting pair, one photon (the signal) travels through the lens LS and is detected by the detector, $D_0$, positioned at the focal plane of LS. The other photon (the idler) is routed the other direction and travels through a prism to be diverteddepending on the region in which it has been produced (A or B)either towards $D_1$ or $D_2$. Thus, by knowing which of the two detectors has registered a photon, we know which path the signal photon has taken.
Next, we analyze the system more closely. Assume first that the laser emits only one photon at a time. The state of the photon, $\Psi$ , can be described as:
$$\Psi =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \big( |L \rangle + |R \rangle \big),
\label{eqn:CWF}$$
where $|L \rangle$ and $|R \rangle$ indicate the photon’s states, i.e., whether photon passed through the left or right slit, respectively. As a result, after the generation of a photon pair in the optical crystal, the signal photon may take either both paths 1 and 2 simultaneously (if it is in a superposition state, $|1,1' \rangle + |2,2' \rangle$ , and hence the wave function did not collapse) or through only one of the two (if it is in single state, $|1,1' \rangle$ or $|2,2' \rangle$ due to a collapse of the wave function). If the photons are always in a superposition state, after sufficient number of photons have been registered at $D_0$, the distribution of the registering location along the x-direction will exhibit standard Young’s double-slit interference pattern, manifested by the distribution consisting of a series of peaks and troughs [@kim_delayed_2000]. In contrast, the photons that assume a single state will not produce such an interference pattern but will instead form a single-peak distribution [@kim_delayed_2000]. Thus, the presence of the interference pattern at $D_0$ indicates whether the wave function of signal photon collapsed or not . Thus, regarding the collapse discussed here, the relevant information (corresponding results of measurement) is which path the photons took. Now, we can derive the predictions for this experimental setup that follow form previously formulated [*Proposition*]{}:
The interference pattern should be visible if which-path" information has not been registered in consciousness of the observer (e.g., the experimenter).
If the above is true, we expected to find the interference pattern at $D_0$ in the following conditions:
1\) No actual attempt to measure the which-path" information was made, that is, $D_1$ and $D_2$ are not implemented at all.
2\) The which-path" information was measured as $D_1$ and $D_2$ are implemented in order to interact with the incoming photons. However, no results were recorded by any macroscopic device and are not visible or in any way accessible to a human observer.
3\) The which-path" information was measured by a macroscopic device such as $D_1$ and $D_2$. The results were not recorded but were instead presented to a human observer directly such that the relevant information entered the sensory system but, at the same time, the observer was distracted in order to prevent conscious detection of this event. In other words, the information necessary to achieve phenomenal representation was available in the nervous system, but conscious phenomenal experience was actually not realized. Thus, there were only non-phenomenal mental representations. The relevant information can be presented by using a memory-less device (e.g., an old fashion gauge-based instrument) or by feeding the idle photons (or after amplification) directly into the retina and, thus, having human eyes serve directly the function of $D_1$ and $D_2$ (see [@brunner_possible_2008; @thaheld_modified_2008; @thaheld_mechanical_2009]). A distraction that prevents one from consciously detecting a stimulus is made routinely in psychological studies and can be achieved by various means, such as the visual masking [@lachter_disappearing_2000], attentional blink [@raymond_temporary_1992], binocular rivalry [@koch_quantum_2006], change blindness [@rensink_to_1997], execution of a concurrent tasks [@kahneman_perceptual_1967] , or by simply cluttering the visual scene [@treisman_feature-integration_1980]. The interference with conscious perception can be made even more directly by using trans-cranial magnetic stimulation. One could apply a magnetic pulse above e.g., visual cortex, in order to interrupt the information processing in this brain region, preventing hence conscious perception of the visual stimuli [@silvanto_striate_2005].
Moreover, one can manipulate gradually the level of subjective certainty of the presence of this information. This should then, according to the proposition, affect the contrast of the interference pattern accordinglyas it has been shown in physical experiments by manipulating the extent to which the which-path" information was available, e.g., by changing the position of photon detector [@zeilinger_experiment_1999] or by attenuating the optical transmission [@mandel_quantum_1999].
Verifying these three predictions through empirical tests we propose to be a necessary requirement to warrant the hypothesis that consciousness of the outcome of a measurement is necessary for the wave function to collapse. By formulating these predictions and requirement, we make this hypothesis empirically testable and hence, falsifiable.
Existing evidence {#sec:Existing evidence}
=================
The experimental results necessary to falsify the predictions 1 and 2 already exist. First, as described by @mandel_quantum_1999 and @zeilinger_experiment_1999, in experiments similar to that proposed here, if which-path“ information was in principle obtainable, then even though no actual attempt was made to extract this information (i.e., to measure it), no interference pattern was found. Thus, the first prediction of consciousness hypothesis is false. In other set of experiments [@eichmann_youngs_1993; @durr_origin_1998], which-path” information was measured but was not recorded by any macroscopic device (for example, this information was stored only in the state of single atom or photon) and, therefore, was not accessible to a conscious observer. Under such condition, also no interference pattern was found. Therefore, the existing evidence indicates that the second prediction is also false.
To the best of our knowledge, no direct attempt was made to test the third prediction. However, the expectations for this experiment are clearly set by the evidence related to predictions 1 and 2. That is, if no interference pattern was obtained when the which-path" information was not fed into the eye of the observer (e.g., carried by the idler photon as illustrated in Fig.1), the same is expected to occur if the photon reached the observers retina but the person was distracted as not to be able to detect the event.
Discussion {#sec:Discussion}
==========
We first derived a proposition about the relationship between the collapse of the wave function and conscious perception. Our subsequent analysis lead to the conclusion that this proposition is already disproved by the existing empirical results, which forces us to conclude tentatively the following: Conscious access to the information about the outcome of a measurement of a quantum state is not necessary for the collapse of wave functionconclusion similar to those suggested elsewhere [@mandel_quantum_1999; @zeilinger_experiment_1999; @brukner_youngs_2002].
Does the present analysis really tell us something about the relation between consciousness and quantum mechanics? One may argue that with the current experimental set up (shown in Figure 1), quantum mechanics as we known can predict, correctly, no interference pattern in $D_0$, irrespective of what happen with the idler photons (except for erasing the which-path information that is carried by those photons, see [@kim_delayed_2000]), and certainly irrespective of whether a conscious observer is involved and where the attention of this observer is directed. Therefore, this setup cannot tell us anything new about the relation between consciousness and quantum mechanics that we did not know before. So, did we just provide a circular argument?
To answer this question, let us consider the type of experiments that can be proposed in principle. According to the opinion mentioned above, a really interesting test would involve some observables not determined by the current quantum theory. Only in that case, consciousness of the observer would be given a chance to affect the results and only in that case we would be searching empirically for novel discoveries. But, given the known properties of quantum mechanics, is it possible ever to conceptualize such an experiment? Designing such an experiment would mean finding a situation in which the quantum mechanics is either incomplete (e.g., the current theory does not predict whether interference will be observed) or inconsistent (e.g., theoretically, presence or absence of interference are both possible).
In the early years of quantum mechanics (see for example [@einstein_can_1935]) doubts have been raised about the correctness of this theorywhich was a natural component of the scientific process. But by now, more than seven decades later, quantum theory has been proven to be one of the most accurate theories in the whole science. Not a single prediction of quantum mechanics has been empirically disproved. This casts doubts on the possibility of designing a novel experiment in which an observable is not completely constrained by the known theory and would be still open to the influences from the side of the consciousness of the observer. Such an attempt would be equivalent to posing a challenge to the firmly established formulations of quantum theory. The odds of something like this to succeed seem too small to warrant pursuing. Therefore, we argue that the kind of experiment proposed and discussed in the present paper, for which the results are completely predictable by the known properties of quantum mechanics, is the only kind of experiment that can be in principle proposed. The results we described can be considered as mere derivation of the quantum theory. The reason it is important for us here is that it manifests a perspective important for the current discussionquantum mechanics may have not left any space for the observer’s consciousness to manipulate the experimental results.
This conclusion suggests constraints for understanding the measurement problem and the mental-physical relationship. Firstly, it is necessary to discuss what constitutes a measurement, if we use the collapse of wave function as a defining characteristic of it. Clearly, measurement can be carried out without a macroscopic measuring device. For example, the idler photon, that carries the which-path“ information, can serve as the measuring device. In similar experiments, atoms with intrinsic states carrying which-path” information can also work as measuring devices and hence can cause the interference pattern to disappear [@scully_quantum_1982]. Therefore, the suggestion that the measurement is completed when the results are registered in consciousness or when the results are recorded macroscopically (for example, see [@primas_critical_1997]) does not seem to hold. It appears that neither the conscious registration nor the macroscopic recording is necessary for the collapse of the wave function. Even the interaction with the environment, as suggested by decoherence theory, is not a sufficient ingredient for measurement and collapsing the wave function. Because as long as the which-path“ is in principle unobtainable, the wave function does not collapse, regardless of the interaction of the system with the environment (e.g., see [@kim_delayed_2000] and other quantum eraser” experiments). One alternative is to conceptualize the quantum mechanics as being based on a structure of information [@zeilinger_foundational_1999; @brukner_youngs_2002; @brukner_quantum_2005].
Secondly, our argument about the existence of collapse without conscious registration of corresponding results casts strong doubt on those interpretations of quantum mechanics that place the observer’s mind in a special position (e.g., many-minds interpretation, [@lockwood_many_1996]). In such interpretations, the wave function is assumed to be the only and complete description of physical reality. There is no objective collapse“ occurring outside the mind of the observer. Hence, according to these interpretations, the effect of a measurement is to create an entanglement between the state of the system being measured, the measuring apparatus, and the mind of the observer” [@lockwood_many_1996]. Hence, the single state revealed after the measurement is only perceived by the mind and does not reflect any physical event outside this particular mind. However, as we argued, empirical evidence suggests that collapse occurs without the involvement of the mind. This renders the no-collapse-outside-the-mind interpretations untenable. Importantly, the implicit assumption in these interpretations that the mind has a special property and can, through collapse, perceive a single state has led to a symmetrical completion of the relations by proposing that the collapse of the wave functionwithin the brainis responsible for the emergence of consciousness (e.g., see [@mensky_reality_2007]). The present analysis provides strong reasons for refuting the underlying arguments: If the former need to be rejected by empirical evidence, the latter loses its foundations.
Thirdly, if consciousness does not play a special role in the measuring procedure, the role of the observer in quantum mechanics would be much less unique or mysterious. The observer would play a role no more special than that in the classical theory, for example, in Einstein’s special theory of relativity [@shimony_role_1963] or in Darwin’s theory of evolution. Some authors suggested that, if consciousness is irrelevant, the role of observer is special in the sense that he/she can choose the quantum reality that will be created. For example, the experimenter may decide whether to realize the interference pattern or not by deciding whether to make the which-path“ information available or not [@brukner_youngs_2002; @brukner_quantum_2005]. However, to make such choices special in comparison to other choices made by a mechanically deterministic systems (e.g., a robot) or random number generators (e.g., by playing a quantum dice), one needs to assume that the human observer makes decisions in a qualitatively different way, perhaps through free will”. Neither theoretical analyses nor the empirical data support the idea that humans make decisions free of the physical processes or of the influences from the environment [@wegner_minds_2003; @baum_what_2004; @haggard_conscious_2005; @haggard_human_2008]. Therefore, we do not see how the fact that the experimenter has a choice could endow him or her with any more special role in the quantum than in the classical theory. Moreover, the conclusion that the observer plays no more a special role in the quantum than in the classical mechanics would hold even if we assumed the existence of free will“. This is simply because we would then create” physical reality routinely, outside the physics experiments, though each individual’s actions resulting from our daily interactions with the (mostly non-quantum) world. Therefore, free will" cannot save the consciousness hypothesis for the explanation of the measurement problem, nor can it put the human observer at a more special place in quantum theory than it has been assigned in the classical theory.
Finally, it is helpful to note that the current analysis is aimed to clarify a specific relationship between the mind and the physical world, namely the hypothetical necessity of conscious registration of a measurement result to collapse the wave function. We do not try to draw any general conclusions about the relation between physical reality and phenomenal representations. One may argue that, even if we show that the conscious registration of which-path“ information is not necessary to collapse the wave function, we cannot exclude the possibility that the consciousness remains nevertheless responsible for the happening of the physical events. For instance, one possibility is that the single-peaked distribution at $D_0$ would never occur without a conscious perception of this distribution. To address this question, it is helpful to clarify the present assumption about physical reality. We used the criteria suggested by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen [-@einstein_can_1935], stating that if one can predict the physical quantity with certainty and without disturbing the system, one can consider this quantity as a physical reality. In our case, we can consider the distribution at $D_0$ as the physical quantity of interest and we demonstrated that if the which-path” information is obtainable, the distribution is always single-peaked (i.e., without interference patterns). That is, in this particular case, we can predict the physical quantity with certainty and without disturbing it. Therefore, we consider the distribution in $D_0$ as physically real. With this clarified, we can infer that the question about the possibility that conscious perception of $D_0$ distribution causes the collapse of all the wave functions simultaneously and creates hence the distribution itself, is an equivalent of asking whether the conscious perception creates the reality of the world in general. According to this latter idea, the universe would not exist if all its conscious creatures close their eyes and shut their ears. This is a non-trivial questionknown as solipsismthat has challenged human intellect for a long time. It is important to point out that this assertion is beyond the scope of scientific enquiry as it is not empirically testable. In other words, there is no conceivable experimental setup by which this statement could be falsified. Solely for that reason this assertion does not constitute a scientific statement [@popper_logic_1963].
In conclusion, the available evidence does not indicate that the observer’s explicit phenomenal representation about the outcome of a measurement plays a role in collapsing the wave function. We also suggest that the observer does not serve a more fundamental function in quantum mechanics than that in the classical theory. Thus, the idea that by mere observation the experimenter creates physical reality is not viable. This supports Wigner’s opinion in his later years and promises to fulfill his hopesthat we will not embrace solipsism“ and will let us admit that the world really exists” (cited from [@primas_critical_1997]). Perhaps equally importantly, we can add our own hope that the rejection of the role of consciousness in quantum mechanics will also lead us to re-evaluate the proposals that quantum mechanics is vital for explaining the consciousness. Having these two deep mysteries disentangled one from the other might be an important step forward towards understanding better either of them.
Acknowledgement {#sec:Acknowledgement .unnumbered}
===============
We thank Hrvoje Nikolić, Thomas Metzinger, Markus Arndt, Anton Zeilinger, Rajarshi Roy and Nick Herbert for helpful comments.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
Anomalous spectral shift of transmission peaks is observed in a Fabry–Pérot cavity filled with a chiral anisotropic medium. The effective refractive index value resides out of the interval between the ordinary and the extraordinary refractive indices. The spectral shift is explained by contribution of a geometric phase. The problem is solved analytically using the approximate Jones matrix method, numerically using the accurate Berreman method and geometrically using the generalized Mauguin–Poincaré rolling cone method. The $o$-mode blue shift is measured for a 4-methoxybenzylidene-4’-$n$-butylaniline twisted–nematic layer inside the Fabry–Pérot cavity. The twist is electrically induced due to the homeoplanar–twisted configuration transition in an ionic-surfactant-doped liquid crystal layer. Experimental evidence confirms the validity of the theoretical model.\
\
The text is available both
- in English (Timofeev2015en.tex)
- and in Russian (Timofeev2015ru.tex; Timofeev2015rus.pdf)
author:
- 'I.V. Timofeev'
- 'V.A. Gunyakov'
- 'V.S. Sutormin'
- 'S.A. Myslivets'
- 'V.G. Arkhipkin'
- 'S.Ya. Vetrov'
- 'W. Lee'
- 'V.Ya. Zyryanov'
title: |
Geometric phase and *o*-mode blue shift\
in a chiral anisotropic medium inside a Fabry–Pérot cavity
---
Introduction {#sec:introduction}
============
Optics of liquid crystals (LCs) is well known for fruitfulness in applications and a remarkable variety of connections between observable physical phenomena [@1]. A fascinating connection can be traced between the concept of geometric phase (GP) [@2], also known as a topological phase, and a number of phenomena in quantum, relativistic, classical physics [@3], and, in particular, in polarization optics [@4; @5; @6]. Today photonics is at the apogee of topological ideas [@7; @8]. On the one hand, it originates from the condensed-matter graphene idea and the concept of topological insulators [@9]. On the other hand, it arises from the optical technology advance. For instance, recently in polarization optics the three-dimensional structure of the field of light polarizations with nontrivial topology has been directly measured [@10].
GP in twisted–nematic polarization phenomena [@11] has application for the design of wave fronts using Pancharatnam–Berry phase optical elements [@12; @13]. Remarkably, polarizational GP is independent of the total phase, so it is used to offset the frequency of a laser beam by GP modulators, adding the mechanical rotation frequency of a quarter–half–quarter-waveplate Pancharatnam device [@14; @15; @16]. It permits switching by ferroelectric LC [@17].
Considerable attention is attracted to the research of LC placed inside a Fabry–Pérot cavity (LC-FPC), combining small-voltage LC manipulation and high spectral resolution of the Fabry–Pérot interferometer. Fundamental photonic degrees of freedom—in transmittance [@18; @19; @20; @21], phase [@22], and polarization [@23]—can be efficiently controlled. Polarization control usually uses the Mauguin adiabatic waveguide mode [@24] in a chiral anisotropic medium, particularly in a twisted–nematic (TN) LC layer inside the Fabry–Pérot cavity (TN-FPC) [@25].
The basic method for TN-FPC calculation is the Jones formalism of complex vectors and matrices of dimension 2 [@26]. Abele [@27; @28] had introduced Chebyshev identity for the matrix power which was successfully employed both in layered and in anisotropic media [@29; @30; @31]. To solve the problem one finds an eigenwave (optical mode) which conserves its shape while propagating through the medium. A set of eigenwaves is described by the eigenvectors and the eigenvalues of the Jones matrix.
Another approach to find the eigenwaves is to solve the Riccati-like ordinary differential equation system [@32; @33; @34]. Within the framework of coupled-mode theory and modal analysis, this approach is equivalent to the matrix one (see Appendix C in [@35]).
The account of anisotropic reflections between the sublayers of bulk LC led to a generalized Berreman formalism for matrices of dimension 4 [@36; @37; @84]. This generalization is necessary in media such as a cholesteric LC [@38; @39; @40; @41] and a TN cell of small thickness, and other media with a sharp spatial variation of dielectric characteristics at the wavelength scale [@42; @43; @44; @Palto2015CLC]. However, Jones formalism gives a good approximation when the thickness of the TN cell is several times larger than the wavelength and the dielectric constant varies smoothly.
Assuming no reflection between sublayers of the LC bulk, the TN-FPC behavior was described at high voltages [@25] as well as at low voltages [@34; @45]. The connection between these two extreme cases is described in [@46] and generalized in [@47]. Another approach is the substitution of the multilayer medium by an effective homogeneous anisotropic plate [@48]. The independent method is incorporated in [@24; @49] using distinct mathematical tools: group theory and phase space. Also TN-FPC can be considered as a one-dimensional photonic crystal [@50; @51; @52; @53]. The photonic crystal itself can be formed by a LC material [@54; @55].
The orientation model of the LC layer is required to determine its optical response. To the best of our knowledge, in a TN under electrical voltage the general orientation model cannot be derived analytically and is simulated numerically, even for the one-dimensional case [@56]. In contrast to in-plane-oriented nematic [@57], TN produces optical mode coupling manifested as avoided crossing of spectral transmission peaks [@56]. A certain way to eliminate the mode coupling using anisotropic mirrors is suggested in [@58]. The original theoretical study of the apparent paradox of the mode number jump for mode coupling inside a TN-FPC is proposed in [@45].
This article examines the TN-FPC sample with no electric voltage deformation that allows analytical description. The direction of the spectral shift of the transmission peaks is far from obvious. That’s why a visual connection is presented for the proposed spectral shift and the geometric phase shift. This shift observation is hindered by interplay of four optical waves of opposite directions and orthogonal polarizations. Positive feedback condition describes the total spectral shift (SS), assuming three types of wave coupling. The first type of the coupling originates from LC twist which induces a twist spectral shift (TSS). The second coupling type is produced by cavity mirror reflection which induces a reflection spectral shift (RSS). The third coupling type is produced by reflection between sublayers of LC bulk; in this research it is assumed insignificant. Previously developed theory [@34; @46] is generalized for the account of anisotropy at mirror reflection, meaning the distinct reflection phases of $e$- and $o$-wave components. The reflection is anisotropic even when the mirror is made of an isotropic material while the cavity medium itself is anisotropic.
The experimental scheme excludes significant spectral shift impact from parasitic factors other than TSS and RSS. The experiment confirms the theory qualitatively and quantitatively.
Analytic model {#sec:analytic}
==============
![Sketch of TN-FPC, a cavity with a chiral anisotropic medium.[]{data-label="fig1"}](f1.eps)
A FPC consists of two plane mirrors (Fig. \[fig1\]). The reflecting surfaces are oriented in *xy*-plane. Nematic is placed between the cavity mirrors. The LC director is a unit vector of predominant direction of LC molecules. Twist is the state when nematic layer is divided into thin lamellar sublayers with the nematic director being constant inside every sublayer and rotating from sublayer to sublayer. Uniform twist with no orienting external fields is implied when the LC director rotates uniformly in the plane of sublayers along the right screw. In Fig. \[fig1\] the twist angle is 80 degrees, hence the analysis is valid for an arbitrary angle. The LC director field determines the local dielectric tensor all over the medium. The extraordinary dielectric permittivity axis is collinear to the LC director. Consider the nematic with a positive uniaxial anisotropy. The extraordinary and ordinary refractive indices (RI) correspond to waves with slow and fast phase velocities and equal to $n_{e,o} =n\pm \delta n$.
Let the average phase *$\sigma $*, anisotropy phase (angle) $\delta $ and twist angle $\varphi $ be linear functions of the coordination $z$ along the layer normal direction: $$\sigma \left( z \right)=nk_0 \,z,
\quad
\delta \left( z \right)=\delta k\,z,
\quad
\varphi \left( z \right)=k_\varphi \,z,$$ where $k_0 =\omega /c$ is the angular wavenumber, $\delta k=\delta nk_0 $, $k_\varphi =\varphi \left( L \right)/L$, $L$ is the nematic layer thickness or distance between mirrors. At $z = L$ let function values $\sigma \left( {z=L}
\right)$, $\delta \left( {z=L} \right)$, $\varphi \left( {z=L} \right)$ be written simply as $\sigma $, $\delta $, $\varphi $ without the function argument. Let the light impinge to the TN-FPC strictly in $z $-direction. Electric field strength is described by the pair of $x$- and $y$-projections: $$E_x \left( z \right)\exp \left[ {i\left( {\omega t-\sigma \left( z \right)}
\right)} \right]+c.c.,$$ $$\label{eq1}
E_y \left( z \right)\exp \left[ {i\left( {\omega t-\sigma \left( z \right)}
\right)} \right]+c.c.,$$ where $c.c.$ stands for the complex conjugate component. The pair of complex amplitudes $E_{x,y} $ are convenient to be written as the Jones vector [@26]: $$\vec {e}_{xy} \left( z \right)=\left[ {\begin{array}{l}
E_x \left( z \right) \\
E_y \left( z \right) \\
\end{array}} \right].$$ The Jones matrix for untwisted nematic at $\varphi =0$ is diagonal when the nematic director is collinear to the $x$-axis: $$\label{eq2}
\hat {\Delta }\left( \delta \right)=\left[ {{\begin{array}{*{20}c}
{e^{-i\delta }} \hfill & 0 \hfill \\
0 \hfill & {e^{+i\delta }} \hfill \\
\end{array} }} \right].$$ Note that the extraordinary field component along the $x$-axis has negative phase shift according to standard notion (\[eq1\]): $$\vec {e}_{xy} \left( L \right)=\hat {\Delta }\vec {e}_{xy} \left( 0
\right)=\left[ {\begin{array}{l}
E_x \left( 0 \right)e^{-i\delta } \\
E_y \left( 0 \right)e^{+i\delta } \\
\end{array}} \right].$$ The Jones matrix $\hat {\Delta }$ is the transfer matrix (or propagation matrix) of the layer. It transfers a polarization state from one layer boundary to another by multiplying the corresponding Jones vector.
Traveling eigenwaves for a uniformly twisted nematic {#subsec:traveling}
----------------------------------------------------
For convenience of subsequent interpretation let us present a direct trigonometric derivation of some general expressions for a traveling wave in a chiral anisotropic medium. These classical results can be verified in [@31]. Let us divide a TN layer into a series of equal sublayers each with the thickness *dz* and the anisotropy angle $d\delta =\delta \left( {dz}
\right)=\delta k\,dz$. Generally, the following is valid for finite not twisted sublayers. The twist angle $d\varphi =\varphi \left( {dz}
\right)=k_\varphi \,dz$ is the angle between the dielectric permittivity main axes of neighboring sublayers. Italicized form “$d$” is used to distinguish it from the particular case of infinitesimal differential operator.
The rotation matrix is written as $$\label{eq3}
\hat {\Phi }\left( \varphi \right)=\left[ {{\begin{array}{*{20}c}
{\cos \varphi } \hfill & {\sin \varphi } \hfill \\
{-\sin \varphi } \hfill & {\cos \varphi } \hfill \\
\end{array} }} \right].$$ It rotates the reference frame about the $z$-axis by the $\varphi $ angle. The Jones matrix for the waveplate (retarder) situated at $\varphi $ angle is written as: $$\hat {\Delta }_\varphi =\hat {\Phi }^{-1}\hat {\Delta }\hat {\Phi }.$$ In rotating frame the polarization ellipse appears to be rotated by negative angle $-\varphi $. The total Jones matrix is written as the matrix product: $$\begin{aligned}
\hat {J}_0 &=&\hat {\Phi }\left( {-\varphi +\frac{d\varphi }{2}} \right)\hat
{\Delta }\left( {d\delta } \right)...
\nonumber \\
&\times &
\hat {\Phi }\left( {\frac{3d\varphi }{2}} \right)
\hat {\Delta }\left( {d\delta } \right)
\hat {\Phi }\left( {-\frac{3d\varphi }{2}} \right)
\nonumber \\
&\times &
\hat {\Phi }\left( {-\frac{d\varphi }{2}} \right)
\hat {\Delta }\left( {d\delta } \right)
\hat {\Phi }\left( {\frac{d\varphi }{2}} \right)=\hat {\Phi }\left( {-\varphi } \right)\hat
{J}.\end{aligned}$$ The product is supposed to be read from right to left with increase of $z$, because the Jones column vector is substituted on the right side of the matrix. In rotating frame of the matrix $\hat {J}$ the LC director is always collinear to the primary axis. It is the $e-o$-frame which is often used in description of chiral media [@34; @59].
$z$-axis rotations are additive, $$\hat {\Phi }\left( {\varphi _2 } \right)\hat {\Phi }\left( {\varphi _1 }
\right)=\hat {\Phi }\left( {\varphi _2 +\varphi _1 } \right),$$ so the Jones matrix is naturally decomposed into the product of certain sublayer matrices: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq4}
\hat {J}=d\hat {J}^{N_S }=\left[ {\hat {\Phi }\left( {\frac{d\varphi }{2}}
\right)\hat {\Delta }\left( {d\delta } \right)\hat {\Phi }\left(
{\frac{d\varphi }{2}} \right)} \right]^{N_S },\end{aligned}$$ where $N_S =\varphi /d\varphi $ is the number of sublayers. Substitution of Eqs. (\[eq2\]) and (\[eq3\]) gives:
$$\begin{aligned}
d\hat {J}=\left[ {{\begin{array}{*{20}c}
{\cos \left( {d\varphi /2} \right)} \hfill & {\sin \left( {d\varphi /2}
\right)} \hfill \\
{-\sin \left( {d\varphi /2} \right)} \hfill & {\cos \left( {d\varphi /2}
\right)} \hfill \\
\end{array} }} \right]\left[ {{\begin{array}{*{20}c}
{e^{-id\delta }} \hfill & 0 \hfill \\
0 \hfill & {e^{+id\delta }} \hfill \\
\end{array} }} \right]\left[ {{\begin{array}{*{20}c}
{\cos \left( {d\varphi /2} \right)} \hfill & {\sin \left( {d\varphi /2}
\right)} \hfill \\
{-\sin \left( {d\varphi /2} \right)} \hfill & {\cos \left( {d\varphi /2}
\right)} \hfill \\
\end{array} }} \right],\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq5}
d\hat {J}=\left[ {{\begin{array}{*{20}c}
{\cos \left( {d\varphi } \right)\cos \left( {d\delta } \right)-i\sin \left(
{d\delta } \right)} \hfill & {\sin \left( {d\varphi } \right)\cos \left(
{d\delta } \right)} \hfill \\
{-\sin \left( {d\varphi } \right)\cos \left( {d\delta } \right)} \hfill &
{\cos \left( {d\varphi } \right)\cos \left( {d\delta } \right)-i\sin \left(
{d\delta } \right)} \hfill \\
\end{array} }} \right].\end{aligned}$$
Eigenvectors $\vec {e}_J $ of the matrix $d\hat {J}$ describe polarization conserved in the rotating basis, and eigenvalues $g_J $ of the matrix $d\hat
{J}$ are phase factors of propagation through the medium layer. The eigenvalue condition is: $$\begin{aligned}
d\hat {J}\;\vec {e}_J =g_J \vec {e}_J ,
\nonumber \\
\det \left( {d\hat {J}-g_J \hat {I}} \right)=0,
\nonumber \\
\det \left( {d\hat {J}} \right)-tr\left( {d\hat {J}} \right)g_J +g_J^2 =0,
\label{eq6}\end{aligned}$$ where $\hat {I}$ is the identity matrix. According to Eq. (\[eq5\]) the determinant of the matrix equals $$\det \left( {d\hat {J}} \right)=1.$$ Transfer matrix is unimodular when the transferred energy is conserved. The trace of the matrix is $$tr\left( {d\hat {J}} \right)=2\cos \left( {d\varphi } \right)\cos \left(
{d\delta } \right).$$ Let’s introduce a new *twisted anisotropy angle* defined as the following: $$\label{eq7}
\cos \left( {d\upsilon } \right)\equiv \cos \left( {d\varphi } \right)\cos
\left( {d\delta } \right).$$ The solution of Eq. (\[eq6\]) can then be written as $$g_J^\mp =\cos \left( {d\upsilon } \right)\mp i\sin \left( {d\upsilon }
\right)=\exp \left( {\mp id\upsilon } \right).$$ The eigenvectors take the forms: $$\label{eq8}
\vec {e}_J^- =\vec {e}_{te} =\left[ {\begin{array}{c}
\cos \vartheta \\
-i\sin \vartheta \\
\end{array}} \right],
\quad
\vec {e}_J^\dagger =\vec {e}_{to} =\left[ {\begin{array}{c}
-i\sin \vartheta \\
\cos \vartheta \\
\end{array}} \right],$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq9}
\vartheta &=&\Theta /2,
\nonumber \\
\cos \Theta & \equiv & \sin \left( {d\delta } \right)/\sin \left( {d\upsilon }
\right),
\nonumber \\
\sin \Theta & \equiv & \sin \left( {d\varphi } \right)\cos \left( {d\delta }
\right)/\sin \left( {d\upsilon } \right).\end{aligned}$$
In the literature the pair of eigenwaves described by (\[eq8\]) has several names [@31; @34; @60; @61; @62]. As usual the terminology is chosen depending on domination of the anizotropy angle or the twist angle. With zero twist $d\varphi =0$ and $\vartheta =0$, the eigenwave $\vec
{e}_J^- $ is simplified into extraordinary $e$-wave, and $\vec {e}_J^\dagger $ is simplified into ordinary $o$-wave. They are named as *quasi-e*- and *quasi-o*-waves [@34], or *te*- and *to*-waves (“twisted waves”) [@31]. The latter italicized form is appropriate here. However elliptically polarized *te*-wave may be confused with linearly polarized TE-wave (transverse electric mode), whose electric field is perpendicular to the reference plane or axis. Also this abbreviation (extraordinary/ordinary) may be confused with the parity abbreviation (even/odd). The chirality of *te*-wave is opposite to LC director chirality. The chirality of *to*-wave is the same as LC director chirality. Consequently, the wave pair use to be termed as “opposite chirality” wave and “same chirality” wave [@60]. In cholesteric LC *to*-wave demonstrates the Bragg reflection, while *te*-wave is non-diffractive. That is another way to distinguish the eigenwaves [@61; @62].
The matrix $d\hat {J}$ is diagonalizable using the unitary matrix $\hat {U}$ to transform basic vectors $e_{e,o} $ into $e_{te,to} $: $$\begin{aligned}
\hat {U}^{-1}=\left[ {\vec {e}_{te} \;\vec {e}_{to} } \right]=\left[
{{\begin{array}{*{20}c}
{\begin{array}{c}
\cos \vartheta \\
-i\sin \vartheta \\
\end{array}} \hfill & {\begin{array}{c}
-i\sin \vartheta \\
\cos \vartheta \\
\end{array}} \hfill \\
\end{array} }} \right],
\nonumber \\
\hat {U}=\left( {\hat {U}^{-1}} \right)^\dagger=\left[ {{\begin{array}{*{20}c}
{\vec {e}_{te}^\dagger } \hfill \\
{\vec {e}_{to}^\dagger } \hfill \\
\end{array} }} \right]=\left[ {{\begin{array}{*{20}c}
{\begin{array}{c}
\cos \vartheta \\
i\sin \vartheta \\
\end{array}} \hfill & {\begin{array}{c}
i\sin \vartheta \\
\cos \vartheta \\
\end{array}} \hfill \\
\end{array} }} \right],\end{aligned}$$ where the symbol “$\dagger$” indicates the Hermitian conjugation. $$\label{eq10}
d\hat {J}=\hat {U}^{-1}\left[ {{\begin{array}{*{20}c}
{e^{-id\upsilon }} \hfill & 0 \hfill \\
0 \hfill & {e^{+id\upsilon }} \hfill \\
\end{array} }} \right]\hat {U}.$$ The diagonalization simplifies the Jones matrix (Eq. (\[eq4\])) exponentiation:
$$\hat {J}=\left\{ {d\hat {J}} \right\}^{N_S }=\left\{ {\hat {U}^{-1}\left[
{{\begin{array}{*{20}c}
{e^{-id\upsilon }} \hfill & 0 \hfill \\
0 \hfill & {e^{+id\upsilon }} \hfill \\
\end{array} }} \right]\hat {U}} \right\}^{N_S }=\hat {U}^{-1}\left[
{{\begin{array}{*{20}c}
{e^{-id\upsilon }} \hfill & 0 \hfill \\
0 \hfill & {e^{+id\upsilon }} \hfill \\
\end{array} }} \right]^{N_S }\hat {U}=\hat {U}^{-1}\left[
{{\begin{array}{*{20}c}
{e^{-i\upsilon }} \hfill & 0 \hfill \\
0 \hfill & {e^{+i\upsilon }} \hfill \\
\end{array} }} \right]\hat {U},$$ $$\hat {J}=\left[ {{\begin{array}{*{20}c}
{\begin{array}{c}
\cos \vartheta \\
-i\sin \vartheta \\
\end{array}} \hfill & {\begin{array}{c}
-i\sin \vartheta \\
\cos \vartheta \\
\end{array}} \hfill \\
\end{array} }} \right]\left[ {{\begin{array}{*{20}c}
{e^{-i\upsilon }} \hfill & 0 \hfill \\
0 \hfill & {e^{+i\upsilon }} \hfill \\
\end{array} }} \right]\left[ {{\begin{array}{*{20}c}
{\begin{array}{c}
\cos \vartheta \\
i\sin \vartheta \\
\end{array}} \hfill & {\begin{array}{c}
i\sin \vartheta \\
\cos \vartheta \\
\end{array}} \hfill \\
\end{array} }} \right],$$
$$\label{eq11}
\hat {J}=\left[ {{\begin{array}{*{20}c}
{\cos \upsilon -i\sin \upsilon \cos \Theta } \hfill & {\sin \Theta \sin
\upsilon } \hfill \\
{-\sin \Theta \sin \upsilon } \hfill & {\cos \upsilon +i\sin \upsilon \cos
\Theta } \hfill \\
\end{array} }} \right].$$
The uniform twist condition was used: $$N_S =\frac{\varphi }{d\varphi }=\frac{\delta }{d\delta }=\frac{\upsilon
}{d\upsilon }=\frac{z}{dz}.$$ The solution (\[eq11\]) is valid for sublayers of finite thickness and is the representation of Chebyshev identity [@29]. Equation (\[eq7\]) for the angle $d\upsilon $ is the Pythagorean theorem for the spherical right triangle. For the smooth twist function $\varphi \left( z \right)$ the sublayer thickness *dz* tends to vanish. The solution can be simplified using the Pythagorean theorem for the plane right triangle: $$d\upsilon ^2=d\delta ^2+d\varphi ^2.$$ It is easy to derive it by tailoring the cosines in Eq. (\[eq7\]). Multiplication by $N_S^2 $ produces $$\label{eq12}
\upsilon ^2=\delta ^2+\varphi ^2.$$ The total wave phase then is written as $$\label{eq13}
\sigma \pm \upsilon =\sigma \pm \sqrt {\delta ^2+\varphi ^2} .$$ Let’s name it as the Mauguin formula. The effective RI is found by dividing both sides by $k_0 L$: $$\label{eq14}
n_{te,to} =n\pm \sqrt {\delta n^2+\left( {\varphi /k_0 L} \right)^2} .$$ The eigenwave ellipticity parameter $\Theta $ from Eq. (\[eq9\]) can be reduces as relation $$\label{eq15}
\tan \Theta =\varphi /\delta .$$ Physically this ellipticity is the smoothness of the twist angle growth in comparison with the anisotropy angle growth. It is the adiabatic parameter of Mauguin’s waveguide regime.
Mirror reflection matrix {#subsec:mirror}
------------------------
The mirror reflection matrix has two multipliers: the phase marix $\hat
{M}_0 $ and the half-turn rotation matrix $\hat {R}$. For a mirror made of metal with RI $n_m $ the reflection originates from high RI contrast with LC ($n_m -n \gg \delta n)$. In this case the phase matrix $\hat {M}_0 $ is approximately isotropic. However for the dielectric multilayer Bragg mirror, the RI contrast is not high and the phase matrix is far from isotropic. $$\begin{aligned}
\hat {M}_0 &=&\left[ {{\begin{array}{*{20}c}
{\exp \left( {-i\mu _e } \right)} \hfill & 0 \hfill \\
0 \hfill & {\exp \left( {-i\mu _o } \right)} \hfill \\
\end{array} }} \right]\\
&=&\exp \left( {-i\sigma _\mu } \right)\left[
{{\begin{array}{*{20}c}
{\exp \left( {-i\delta _\mu } \right)} \hfill & 0 \hfill \\
0 \hfill & {\exp \left( {+i\delta _\mu } \right)} \hfill \\
\end{array} }} \right]\\
&=&\exp \left( {-i\sigma _\mu } \right)\hat {M}.\end{aligned}$$ Various algorithms are used to find phases $\mu _{e,o} $ for certain mirrors [@63; @64].
Assume the half-turn rotation matrix to act on the axis perpendicular to LC director. $$\hat {R}=\left[ {{\begin{array}{*{20}c}
{-1} \hfill & 0 \hfill \\
0 \hfill & 1 \hfill \\
\end{array} }} \right].$$ Obviously, the double reflection of $\hat {R}^2$ produces the identity matrix.
Perfect cavity eigenwave {#subsec:perfect}
------------------------
Assume the cavity is perfect (free of losses). The whole loop of the wave propagation through the cavity consists of a couple of passages and a couple of reflections. The corresponding matrix is the square of the half-loop matrix: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq16_0}
\hat {L}&=&\left\{ {\hat {H}\exp \left( {-i\sigma -i\sigma _\mu } \right)}
\right\}^2
\nonumber \\
&=&\hat {H}^2\exp \left( {-2i\sigma -2i\sigma _\mu } \right),\end{aligned}$$ where $\hat {H}=\hat {R}\hat {M}\hat {J}$.
If the polarization matrix $\hat {H}$ is not an identity matrix, then its eigenvectors coincide with the eigenvectors of $\hat {L}$. The eigenvalues of $\hat {L}$ are expressed through the eigenvalues of $\hat {H}$: $$g_L =g_H^2 \exp \left( {-2i\sigma -2i\sigma _\mu } \right).$$ Now one can find the eigenvalues of $\hat {H}$:
$$\hat {H}=\hat {R}\hat {M}\hat {J}=\left[ {{\begin{array}{*{20}c}
{-1} \hfill & 0 \hfill \\
0 \hfill & 1 \hfill \\
\end{array} }} \right]\left[ {{\begin{array}{*{20}c}
{\exp \left( {-i\delta _\mu } \right)} \hfill & 0 \hfill \\
0 \hfill & {\exp \left( {+i\delta _\mu } \right)} \hfill \\
\end{array} }} \right]\left[ {{\begin{array}{*{20}c}
{\cos \upsilon -i\sin \upsilon \cos \Theta } \hfill & {\sin \Theta \sin
\upsilon } \hfill \\
{-\sin \Theta \sin \upsilon } \hfill & {\cos \upsilon +i\sin \upsilon \cos
\Theta } \hfill \\
\end{array} }} \right],$$ $$\hat {H}=\left[ {{\begin{array}{*{20}c}
{-\exp \left( {-i\delta _\mu } \right)\left( {\cos \upsilon -i\sin \upsilon
\cos \Theta } \right)} \hfill & {-\exp \left( {-i\delta _\mu } \right)\left(
{\sin \Theta \sin \upsilon } \right)} \hfill \\
{-\exp \left( {+i\delta _\mu } \right)\left( {\sin \Theta \sin \upsilon }
\right)} \hfill & {\exp \left( {+i\delta _\mu } \right)\left( {\cos \upsilon
+i\sin \upsilon \cos \Theta } \right)} \hfill \\
\end{array} }} \right].$$
$$\det \left( {\hat {H}} \right)=-1,$$ $$tr\left( {\hat {H}} \right)=2i\left( {\cos \upsilon \sin \delta _\mu +\sin
\upsilon \cos \Theta \cos \delta _\mu } \right)\equiv 2i\cos \rho _0 .$$ The eigenvalues are $$g_H =i\left( {\cos \rho _0 \mp i\sin \rho _0 } \right)=\exp \left( {i\left(
{\pi /2 \mp \rho _0} \right)} \right)\equiv \pm \exp \left( {\pm i\rho }
\right),$$ where the *resonator* phase $\rho \equiv \pi/2 - \rho_0$, $$\label{eq16}
\sin \rho =\cos \rho _0 =\cos \upsilon \sin \delta _\mu +\sin \upsilon \cos
\Theta \cos \delta _\mu .$$ The solution corresponds to a couple of modes *resonating* inside the cavity (standing waves) and let’s denote them as *re*- and *ro*-waves.
In the exotic case where $\delta _\mu =\pi /2$ Eq. (\[eq16\]) is simplified to $\rho _0 = \pm \upsilon $. In [@58] the anisotropic mirrors are suggested with phases $\mu _e =\pi ,\;\mu _o =0$; consequently, $\sigma _\mu =\delta
_\mu =\pi /2$. $$\begin{aligned}
g_L & = & exp(-2(\sigma +\sigma _\mu \pm \rho))
\nonumber \\
& = & exp(-2(\sigma \mp \rho _0) + \pi(1 \pm 1))
\nonumber \\
& = & exp(-2(\sigma \pm \upsilon)).
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ The reflection coupling is removed and RSS is eliminated.
In the isotropic reflection case of $\delta _\mu =0$ Eq. (\[eq16\]) reduces to $$\label{eq17}
\sin \rho =\sin \upsilon \cos \Theta .$$ It is equivalent to expressions presented in [@34; @46].
Positive feedback condition {#subsec:positive}
---------------------------
The position of transmission peaks is determined by eigenfrequencies of perfect cavity waves (modes). They satisfy the positive feedback condition [@65] for the total phase shift to be a multiple of 2*$\pi $*. $$\begin{aligned}
-2\sigma -2\sigma _\mu \mp 2\rho =-2\pi N,
\\
\mp \rho =\sigma +\sigma _\mu -\pi N,\end{aligned}$$ where $N$ is the cavity mode number. Using Eq. (\[eq16\]): $$\label{eq18}
\mp \sin \left( {\sigma +\mu -\pi N} \right)=\cos \upsilon \sin \delta _\mu
+\sin \upsilon \cos \Theta \cos \delta _\mu .$$ Here the minus sign corresponds to *te*-wave, whereas the plus sign corresponds to *to*-wave. It is possible to solve this trigonometric equation graphically.
Dispersion curves and TSS {#subsec:dispersion}
-------------------------
Figure \[fig2\](a) shows dispersion curves of *te*- and *to*-waves for $\varphi =\pi /2$ and $\varphi =0$. Scales are dimensionless for both axes. At the ordinate the $o$-mode number $N_o =\left( {\sigma -\delta } \right)/2\pi =2L/\lambda _o
$ is proportional to the frequency of the light field. At the abscissa the phase shift is the wave number multiplied by the cavity length.
The branch of *to*-wave does not show the splitting by the cholesteric stopband ([@1], at p. 354), for $\varphi =\pi /2$ at $\sigma =\upsilon $, in the point B of Fig. \[fig2\](a). The splitting is omitted in Eq. (\[eq13\]).
Dashed curves for the untwisted structure correspond to *o*- and *e*-waves: $\upsilon \left( {\varphi =0} \right)=\delta $. Points O and T indicate the TSS of mode 3 from $o$- to *to*-wave. Calculated curves for *te*- and *to*-waves lie outside of the intervals of $o$- and $e$-wave phases. It illustrates the fact that effective RI lies outside of the interval determined by the ordinary and extraordinary RI.
Let’s use Eq. (\[eq11\]) to determine the twist phase shift: $$\upsilon -\delta =\sqrt {\delta ^2+\varphi ^2} -\delta ,$$ assuming $\varphi \ll\delta $ gives $$\label{eq19}
\upsilon -\delta =\delta \left( {\sqrt {1+\frac{\varphi ^2}{\delta ^2}} -1}
\right)\approx \delta \left( {\frac{\varphi ^2}{2\delta ^2}}
\right)=\frac{\varphi ^2}{2\delta }.$$
Dispersion curves and RSS {#subsec:mylabel2}
-------------------------
Figure \[fig2\](b) illustrates dispersion curves for *re*- and *ro*-waves under simplification by Eq. (\[eq17\]): $$\label{eq20}
\mp \arcsin \left( {\sin \upsilon \cos \Theta } \right)=\sigma -\pi N.$$ The left hand side of Eq. (\[eq20\]) at $\sigma _\mu =0$ was shown earlier in [@34] as a resonance diagram. The right hand site of Eq. (\[eq20\]) produces constant-slope lines. The reduced zone with the period $\pi $ corresponds to the half-loop. The positive feedback condition (\[eq20\]) is fulfilled at every intersection of the magenta curve with the green or blue one for *re*- and *ro*-wave frequencies corresponding to spectral transmission peaks. Dashed dispersion curves correspond to *te*- and *to*-waves $\mp \arcsin \left(
{\sin \upsilon \cos \left( {\Theta =0} \right)} \right)=\mp \upsilon $. These lines describe the zeroth-order approximation, no reflection coupling. Points T and R indicate the RSS of mode 3 from *to*- to *ro*-wave.
Dispersion curves for *te*-, *to*-, *re*- and *ro*-waves meet at points G$_{1,2\ldots }$ where the Gooch–Terry minimum condition is valid: $$\label{eq21}
\sin \left( \upsilon \right)=0.$$ The condition was obtained for minimal TN cell transmittance [@32]. In Gooch–Terry minima both resonator phase $\rho $ and twisted anisotropy phase $\upsilon $ are multiples of $\pi $. The Jones matrix $\hat {J}$ (Eq. (\[eq11\])) is degenerated into a unit matrix: $$\hat {J}=\pm \hat {I}$$ with $\pm 1$ eigenvalues and arbitrary eigenvectors. Let the condition $$\label{eq22}
\sin ^2\upsilon =1$$ be the Gooch–Terry maximum condition. Note that this simple condition describes local maxima of the TN cell transmittance only approximately. In fact, the Gooch–Terry transmittance is a sinc function of phase, and maxima of this function are slightly non-equidistant. Figure \[fig2\](b) shows that in Gooch–Terry maxima the phase $\rho $ is maximally distant from the phase $\pm \upsilon $. This difference is given by substituting the condition (\[eq22\]) into Eq. (\[eq20\]) $$\begin{aligned}
\upsilon &=&\arcsin \left( 1 \right)=\pi /2,
\nonumber \\
\rho &=&\arcsin \left( {\cos \Theta } \right)=\pi /2-\Theta ,
\nonumber \\
\upsilon -\rho &=&\Theta .\end{aligned}$$ The maximum difference is described by the adiabatic parameter $\Theta $. Near the Gooch–Terry maximum the difference decreases according to the law: $$\label{eq23}
\min \left( {\pi -\rho -\upsilon ,\upsilon -\rho } \right)=\frac{\sqrt
{1+\Theta ^2\tan ^2\upsilon } -1}{\left| {\tan \upsilon } \right|}.$$ Near the Gooch–Terry maximal point G$_{3/2}$, the four dispersion curves form a typical pattern called avoided crossing. In oscillation theory *re*- and *ro*-waves correspond to normal frequencies, while *te*- and *to*-waves correspond to partial frequencies [@66]. In quantum mechanics *re*- and *ro*-waves correspond to adiabatic states while *te*- and *to*-waves correspond to diabatic states [@67]. Both terminologies are used in optics.
The alternation of Gooch–Terry minima and maxima in Fig. \[fig2\](b) can be interpreted as an alternation of crossings and avoided crossings of transmission peaks [@45; @56]. Conditions (\[eq21\]) and (\[eq22\]) for the untwisted medium correspond to the respective conditions of $\sin ^2\delta =0$ and $\sin ^2\delta =1$. The Gooch–Terry minimum matches the twisted analogue of a waveplate. This waveplate retardes *te*-wave compared to *to*-wave by an integer number $N_\delta $ of wavelengths with phase shift $2\pi N_\delta $. Gooch–Terry maxima correspond to phase shifts of $\left( {2N_\delta +1} \right)\;\pi $.
Spectral shifts {#subsec:spectral}
---------------
Consider the total spectral shift $\Delta \lambda $ of the TN compared with an untwisted counterpart. Without loss of generality we consider the $o$-wave. For the $e$-wave one can derive symmetric formulae with the opposite sigh: $\Delta \lambda _e = -\Delta \lambda _o$
Dimensionless relative shift of the vacuum wavelength $\lambda $ is: $$\frac{\Delta \lambda }{\lambda }\approx -\frac{\Delta k}{k_0 -\delta
k}=-\frac{\rho -\delta }{\sigma -\delta }.$$ The average phase $\sigma $ can be excluded by use of the following relation: $$\frac{\lambda }{\sigma -\delta }=\frac{\lambda ^2}{2\pi n_o L}.$$ And substituting $\rho $ from Eq. (\[eq17\]) gives: $$\label{eq24}
\Delta \lambda =-\frac{\lambda ^2}{2\pi n_o L}\left( {\arcsin \left( {\sin
\upsilon \cos \Theta } \right)-\delta } \right).$$ Using approximations (\[eq23\]) and (\[eq19\]) one obtains: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq25}
\Delta \lambda &=&\Delta \lambda _{\mathrm{\mathrm{TSS}}} +\Delta \lambda _{\mathrm{RSS}} \nonumber \\
&=&-\frac{\lambda
^2}{2\pi n_o L}\left( {\frac{\varphi ^2}{2\delta }\mp \frac{\sqrt {1+\Theta
^2\tan ^2\upsilon } -1}{\tan \upsilon }} \right).\end{aligned}$$ Far from the Gooch–Terry maximum condition, the second summand $\Delta
\lambda _{\mathrm{RSS}} $ can be neglected: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq26}
\Delta \lambda _{\mathrm{TSS}} =-\frac{\lambda}{2\pi n_o L} \left( {\frac{\varphi ^2}{2\delta }} \right)
\nonumber \\
=-\frac{\lambda ^2\varphi ^2}{2\pi n_o 2L\;2\pi \delta
nL/\lambda }=-\frac{\lambda ^3}{2n\delta n}\left( {\frac{\varphi }{2\pi L}}
\right)^2.\end{aligned}$$ For the $o$-wave TSS is wavelength-negative $\Delta \lambda _{\mathrm{TSS}} <0$. And peaks are shifted in shortwave region; i.e., blue-shifted. However near the Gooch–Terry maximum $\tan \left( \upsilon \right)\to \infty $ so that $$\Delta \lambda \sim \frac{\varphi ^2}{2\delta }-\frac{\sqrt {1+\Theta ^2\tan
^2\upsilon } -1}{\left| {\tan \upsilon } \right|}=\frac{\varphi ^2}{2\delta
}-\Theta \approx \frac{\varphi ^2-2\varphi }{2\delta }.$$ For example, at $\varphi =\pi /2$, $$\Delta \lambda \sim \varphi -2=\frac{\pi -4}{2}<0.$$ Thus at $\varphi <2$ (in radians) the RSS component may locally reverse the total shift direction from blue to red.
Interpretation {#sec:interpretation}
==============
[c c c c]{} Anisotropic medium& Homogeneous& Twisted& TN-FPC\
Eigenwave& *o,e*& *to,te*& *ro,re*\
--------------
Eigen
polarization
--------------
: Three levels of anisotropy complexity.
&Linear& Elliptic&
---------------
Linear
at boundaries
---------------
: Three levels of anisotropy complexity.
\
\[tab1\]
Three levels of anisotropy complexity are presented in Table \[tab1\] and illustrated in Fig. \[fig3\]. Eigenwaves *re*- and *ro*- have linear polarizations at mirrors of the cavity [@45; @46]. These polarizations are biased from the LC director and the direction orthogonal to the LC director by the deflection angle $\xi $. With increasing frequency linear polarizations rotate continuously passing from one of the principal axes to another. Therefore, we suggest to denote the eigenwaves as $e$2$o$- and $o$2$e$-waves (English words “two” and “to” are pronounced identically). At the Gooch–Terry maximum the polarization coincides with the bisectors $\xi =\pm 45^{\circ}$. Therefore, the waves are called bisector and orthogonal bisector [@46]. It is convenient to treat $e$2$o$-wave as *re*-wave while it is close to $e$-wave and to change its name to *ro*-wave after it passes through the bisector and gets close to $o$-wave. And vice versa for $o$2$e$-wave. Dispersion curves in Fig. \[fig2\](b) show this renaming by changing color at the Gooch–Terry maximum. The curve $\mathrm{G_{1}RG_{2}}$ for $o$2$e$-wave is blue-colored in the lower part for *ro*-wave. And it is green-colored in the upper part for *re*-wave.
Poincaré sphere {#subsec:poincar}
---------------
There is a variety of methods to make the results more comprehensive and visually attractive. They are the complex-number representation of polarization, Poincaré sphere [@31; @33; @68; @69], high-order and hybrid-order Poincaré sphere [@70; @71], admittance diagram method, Volpert–Smith chart and three-dimensional (3D) Smith chart [@63; @72], and the rolling cone method [@24; @73]. The last method provides a mechanical visualization of Eqs. (\[eq12\]) and (\[eq7\]) with a sum of orthogonal angular velocities of a solid cone rolling on a plane. For the sublayers of finite thickness the cone is replaced by the pyramid. The cone is rolling in a characteristic space of light polarization ellipses. This space is usually represented as a sphere of unit radius called the Poincaré sphere (PS).
, $\lambda $ = 579.1 nm.[]{data-label="fig4"}](f4.eps)
Figure \[fig4\] shows a *to*-wave polarization trajectory and a *ro*-wave polarization trajectory (in blue and magenta, respectively). They smoothly evolve with the penetration depth of the TN layer under the action of operator $\hat
{J}_0 $. For the right-handed *to*- and *ro*-waves it is convenient to set the right-handed polarization in the upper hemisphere of PS as in [@33; @35], and not in the lower one, as in [@6; @31; @74]. The trajectory RR$^\prime$ is the spherical trochoid [@75]. It is associated with a trajectory of a point rigidly connected with a solid cone (Fig. \[fig5\](a)) rolling without slipping on a plane [@24]. Stereographic projection of a similar trajectory is presented in Ref [@33], p. 136, Fig. 2.24.
For further consideration it is essential that the unimodular Jones matrix has the geometrical sense of the PS rotation. Jones vectors correspond to PS points. Distances between points are conserved at transformations on the spherical surface. The PS point is often regarded either as the normalized triplet of Stokes parameters or as the polarization ellipse traced by the terminal point of the field vector. In both cases PS is a two-dimensional manifold. But the Jones vector has three degrees of freedom. Its third phase is the temporal phase. It progresses by $2\pi $ while the field vector passes the elliptic trajectory. The 3-phase polarization state is the one-to-one representation of the Jones vector. This polarization state is regarded either as the triplet of Euler angles or as the unit quaternion. The space of all polarization states is a 3-sphere. The Hopf fibration projects it onto PS which is a 2-sphere [@6]. The unit quaternion may be imagined as a “flag” consisting of two arrows. The first polarization arrow goes from the center of PS to its surface. The second arrow of temporal phase is connected to the terminal point of the first arrow and goes in a perpendicular direction (similar to that shown in Fig. 2 of Ref [@76]). If the polarization arrow is rotated then the entire “flag” of polarization state is rotated about the same axis. With the temporal phase increase the second arrow rotates around the first one. Remarkably, one period on the polarization ellipse corresponds to two revolutions of the “flag.” Strictly speaking, Jones matrices form the special unitary group SU(\[eq2\]). This group is the universal covering of the rotation group SO(\[eq3\]). The covering is two-sheeted [@77; @78; @79].
Geometric phase {#subsec:geometric}
---------------
The parallel transport of a geometric object on a curved surface rotates the object about its own axis. A classic example is the Foucault pendulum with the rotation of its swing plane caused by the Earth’s daily rotation. Similarly, the parallel transport of the polarization state on the PS curved surface leads to the phase shift called the geometric phase (GP). It is caused by global geometric characteristics, such as the curvature and the parallel transport trajectory, and independent of local characteristics, such as the speed of state movement along the trajectory. There is a *geometric formula* for closed trajectories. Applied to polarization optics it claims: GP $\beta$ is equal to minus half the area $\Omega$ encircled by the trajectory on PS: $$\beta =-\Omega /2.
\label{eqGF}$$ A rigorous proof is given in [@6] using Stokes’ theorem.
Geometric calculation of the phase shift corresponding to TSS for traveling wave {#subsec:mylabel3}
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We apply the geometric formula to find the phase shift of the traveling wave at the trajectory TT$^\prime$ in Fig. \[fig4\]. Elliptical wave expressed by Eq. (\[eq8\]) is a superposition of $o-$ and $e-$waves with relevant RIs. The averaged RI should be chosen in the form that takes into account the analogue of the Aharonov–Anandan dynamic phase (see Ref [@6], Eq. (5.19)): $$\label{eq27}
\bar {n}=n-\delta n\cos \Theta ,
\quad
\alpha =\bar {n}k_0 L=\sigma -\delta \cos \Theta .$$ The minus sign corresponds to $o$-wave. This RI normalization reduces the PS rotation to parallel transport along the great-circle trajectory.
Let the twist angle $\varphi =\pi $. Then $\Phi =2\varphi =2\pi $ makes one turn on the PS “parallel” with latitude $\Theta $. The area between the “equator” and this “parallel” is equal to the side surface of a cylinder of unit radius and of height equal to $\sin \Theta $ (see Ref [@80], Lambert cylindrical equal-area projection on p. 260). $$\Omega \left( {\varphi =\pi } \right)=2\pi \sin \Theta .$$ For arbitrary twist angle $$\label{eq28}
\Omega \left( \varphi \right)=2\varphi \sin \Theta .$$ The total phase shift $\gamma $ consists of the dynamic phase $\alpha $ and the geometric phase $\beta $: $\gamma =\alpha +\beta $. The geometric formula (\[eqGF\]) and equations (\[eq27\],\[eq28\]) give: $$\gamma =\sigma -\delta \cos \Theta -\varphi \sin \Theta .$$ Eqs. (\[eq12\]) and (\[eq15\]) produce a transformation $\delta =\upsilon \cos \Theta $, $\varphi =\upsilon \sin \Theta $. This transformation gives $$\gamma =\sigma -\upsilon \left( {\cos ^2\Theta +\sin ^2\Theta }
\right)=\sigma -\sqrt {\delta ^2+\varphi ^2} .$$ Indeed, the result coincides with the Mauguin formula (\[eq13\]).
Geometric calculation of the phase shift corresponding to RSS for cavity wave {#subsec:mylabel4}
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Mauguin–Poincaré rolling cone method is easily expanded to the Hopf bundle of PS. In fact, the generalization is a consequence of the solid cone analogy. This generalization allows to find certain phase relations trigonometrically. The phase integration along the trajectory RR$^\prime$ corresponds to the matrix multiplication of Eq. (\[eq4\]). Diagonalization of Eq. (\[eq10\]) is a simplifying algebraic transition to the rotating frame written as the product of three matrices. Geometrically, it corresponds to the transition from the trajectory RR$^\prime$ to the chain of three arcs: RT-TT$^\prime$-T$^\prime$R$^\prime$ (Fig. \[fig4\](b)). Wherein the first and the last arcs are to be chosen as geodesics. The great circle arc RT (see Fig. \[fig5\](a)) matches the parallel transport and the geometric phase corresponds to the Pancharatnam phase [@4] without any normalizing dynamic phase of Eq. (\[eq27\]).
![ The rolling cone method on the Poincaré sphere. (a) Points O, T and R describe the polarizations of $o$-, *to*- and *ro*-waves at the boundary of the twisted layer. The Mauguin cone contains the point T on its axis, and the point O on its generator. Spherical triangle OTR has a right angle $\protect\angle $ROT. The cathetus RO = $\Xi =2\xi $ lies on the “equator”. The cathetus TO = $\Theta =2\vartheta $ is perpendicular to the “equator”. Acute angles are $\protect\angle \mathrm{RTO}= \upsilon $ and $\protect\angle \mathrm{ORT}= {\rho _0 } $. The area is equal to spherical excess $\Omega \left( \mathrm{OTR} \right)= (\pi/2 + \upsilon + \rho_0) - \pi = \upsilon - \rho $. (b) Points E and T$_e$ describe polarizations of $e$- and *te*-waves. The great circle G$_0$G is perpendicular to the diameter TT$_e$. The big circle T$_e$GRT in the Gooch–Terry minimum coincides with the great circle T$_e$G$_0$OT. Distance to the Gooch–Terry minimum for the *to-*wave is determined by the phase $\upsilon =\protect\angle \mathrm{G_0 G}=\Omega \left( {\mathrm{TG_0 G}} \right)$, and for *ro*-waves it is determined by the phase $\rho=\Omega(\mathrm{G_0GRO})$.[]{data-label="fig5"}](f5.eps)
During the passage of the distance $L$ ahead through the cavity the traveling *to*-wave in rotating frame receives the phase shift $\upsilon $. Therefore, PS is rotated by the angle $2\upsilon $. After the rotation the linear polarization $R$ is returned back to the “equator” at the point R$^\prime$. It corresponds to reflection symmetry of triangles OTR and O$^\prime$T$^\prime$R$^\prime$. The mirror reflection corresponds to the triangle reflection symmetry with respect to the RO arc (improper rotation). The resultant geometric phase shift of the *ro*-wave compared with that of the *to*-wave accounts the triangle area four times per loop cycle $4\Omega \left( {OTR} \right)=2\beta _{\mathrm{RSS}} $.
The rolling cone method works even when the adiabatic condition is violated. In [@47] the non-uniform LC twist is examined, for example, under electric voltage. However, in the symmetric case for the cone opening angle $\Theta \left( z \right)=\Theta \left( {L-z} \right)$ the eigenwave preserves linear polarization on the layer boundary. For practice the linear polarization of the transmitted light is advantageous, because of the reliable blocking of transmission [@Palto2011].
The account of mirror phase shift $\delta _\mu $ by anisotropic reflection is equivalent to a waveplate action. On PS this leads to an additional rotation of the RO arc by the angle of $\delta _\mu $ off the “equator.” Pythagorean theorem (\[eq17\]) for the right spherical triangle OTR transforms to the cosine theorem (\[eq16\]) for the angles of the spherical triangle. The point R leaves the PS “equator”. It means that the corresponding transmission peak becomes elliptically polarized. The superposition of opposing traveling waves on a perfect cavity mirror remains linearly polarized at $\delta _\mu
\ne 0$ only when $\sigma _\mu =\pi N_\mu/2$ with integer $N_\mu$.
Connection between dispersion curve phases and PS angles {#subsec:connection}
--------------------------------------------------------
With increasing frequency the Mauguin cone rolling angle $2\upsilon $ is increased uniformly. The *to*-wave corresponds to the Mauguin cone axis on PS. The point T is fixed, assuming constant adiabatic parameter: $\Theta \left(
\omega \right)\approx \mbox{const}$. Without changing the polarization the *to*-wave acquires a $\pi $ phase between the adjacent Gooch–Terry minima (see the section G$_{1}$G$_{3/2}$G$_{2}$ of the dispersion curve at Fig. \[fig2\](b)). The *ro*-wave gains the phase $\rho $ (dispersion curve section G$_{1}$RG$_{2})$ which is less than the phase $\upsilon $ by the area of a spherical triangle $\Omega \left( {OTR} \right)= \upsilon - \rho $. During the passage of the Gooch–Terry maximum this area has a critical value $\Omega \left( {OTR} \right)=\Theta $ in accordance with Eq. (\[eq23\]).
The cathetus RO=$\Xi =2\xi $ of the triangle OTR is given by Napier’s rules for right spherical triangles [@79]: $$\tan \Xi =-\sin \Theta \tan \upsilon .$$ This equation determines the deflection angle $\xi $ of the boundary *ro*-wave linear polarization from the LC director (Fig. \[fig3\]). Figure \[fig4\](b) shows the arc TR rotating when $\upsilon $ increases. The point R moves non-uniformly along the PS “equator”. The movement is faster near the Gooch–Terry maximum. In adiabatic approximation $\Theta \ll\pi /2$ the point R jumps at the Gooch–Terry maximum so that $\xi \approx 0$ for *ro*-wave and $\xi \approx \pi /2$ for *re*-wave.
Exact correspondence between optical wave phases and characteristic space angles provides a visual support and a qualitative understanding of the phenomenon supporting the validity of the obtained solution.
Intermediate optical response presumption {#subsec:intermediate}
-----------------------------------------
The motivation for this study was the debate about the direction of the transmission peak spectral shift in a TN layer. The *intermediate optical response presumption* was formulated for an anisotropic medium whose *effective RI is between the ordinary and extraordinary RI,* $$\label{eq29}
n_o <\tilde {n}<n_e$$ Here are a few abstract examples supporting the intermediate optical response presumption.
1. The average RI of nematic in the isotropic phase is [@1; @73] $$n_{iso}^2 =\left( {n_e^2 +2n_o^2 } \right)/3.$$
2. In a homogeneous, uniaxially anisotropic medium, the extraordinary light wave propagating at an angle $\theta $ to the optical axis has the following RI (Ref [@1], Eq. (11.6)): $$n_e \left( \theta \right)=n_o n_e \left( 0 \right)/\sqrt {n_e^2 \left( 0
\right)\cos ^2\theta +n_o^2 \sin ^2\theta } .$$
3. The thin sublayer of the TN layer has effective RI according to the normalization (\[eq27\]).
Non-additive response of a slab of sublayers leads to the geometric phase (\[eqGF\]). As a result, the Mauguin formula (\[eq14\]) contradicts the intermediate optical response presumption (\[eq29\]): $$n_{te,to} =n\pm \sqrt {\delta n^2+\left( {\varphi /k_0 L} \right)^2} ,
\quad
n_{to} <n_o <n_e <n_{te} .$$ The stated contradiction admits an experimental test. With an increase in the effective RI (i.e., increase in the optical length of the cavity), transmission peaks are shifted to the red. For the $o$-wave in untwisted structure the effective RI is equal to the ordinary RI. According to the intermediate optical response presumption (Eq. (\[eq29\])) the twisted effective RI shifts towards the extraordinary RI; in other words, the effective RI increases. This predicts the redshift $\Delta \lambda _{\mathrm{TSS}} >0$ for spectral peaks. In contrast, the Mauguin formula predicts the blue shift $\Delta \lambda _{\mathrm{TSS}} <0$ (\[eq26\]).
Experiment {#sec:experiment}
==========
LC orientation {#subsec:mylabel1}
--------------
An experimental study of the shift of the $o-$polarized spectral transmission peaks to shorter wavelengths was carried out inside a LC-FPC. The Fabry–Pérot cavity consisting of two dielectric mirrors (Fig. \[fig6\], bottom row) is treated as a LC cell. It was filled with the nematic LC 4-methoxybenzylidene-4’-$n$-butylaniline (MBBA) doped with the cationic surfactant cethyltrimethyl ammonium bromide (CTAB) in the weight ratio 1: 0.003. The cavity gap is 7 *$\mu $*m. CTAB molecules within MBBA dissociate into Br-anions and surface active CTA-cations. The latter are adsorbed at the surfaces of aligning layers and, at the sufficient concentration, can form a layer specifying the homeotropic coupling condition for nematic molecules [@81; @82].
A multilayer mirror coating consists of 6 layers of zirconium dioxide (ZrO$_{2})$ with RI of 2.04 and a thickness of 55 nm and 5 layers of silicon dioxide (SiO$_{2})$ with RI of 1.45 and a thickness of 102 nm, alternately deposited on the surface of a quartz substrate. The alternating layers produce the reflection band in the range of 420–610 nm. Thin ($\sim $ 150 nm) ITO-electrodes were deposited on the upper layers of ZrO$_{2}$ to apply the electric field normally to the LC-FPC mirrors. Electrodes were covered with different polymeric alignment films by spin-coating to implement the initial homeoplanar director orientation (Fig. \[fig6\](a), bottom row). The top substrate was covered with a planar-orienting film of pure polyvinyl alcohol (PVA). The bottom substrate was covered with a PVA film doped with glycerin (Gl) compound in the weight ratio 1: 0.61. With the utilized CTAB concentration the surfactant ion molecules were adsorbed on the PVA–Gl film. The formed layer shields the planar-orienting effect of the polymer coating and provides the homeotropic anchoring for MBBA. Polymer films on both dielectric mirrors were rubbed unidirectionally to define the axis of easy orientation. The angle between the rubbing directions at the top (R1) and bottom (R2) mirrors is 90$^\circ$.
Inside the LC-FPC cell at constant voltage value U = 4 V, the orientation transition from homeoplanar to twist director configuration is induced by ionic modification of surface adhesion [@83]. This transition is accompanied by a modification in polarizing microscope optical texture of the LC-FPC cell under the parallel- and crossed-polarizer scheme (Fig. \[fig6\], top row and middle row, respectively). For example, under crossed polarizers the optical texture of LC-FPC cells in the initial state is uniformly dark when the R1 direction coincides with the transmission axis of the polarizer (Fig. \[fig6\](a), middle row). The light transmission is increased when the voltage is applied and the twist-configured FPC (TN-FPC) is formed (Fig. \[fig6\](b), middle row). However, under the parallel-polarizer scheme the TN-FPC transmittance is low (Fig. \[fig6\](b), upper row) due to the rotation of the polarization plane of linearly polarized light at an angle close to 90$^\circ$ after passing the TN layer.
The experimental scheme excludes a significant impact of parasitic factors on the shift. The structure is twisted uniformly, because every sublayer has constant twist torque created by different rubbing orientations. Twist-structure is under the voltage of 4 V. However, this does not lead to any deformation of the structure. Firstly, in the volume of the cell the voltage is partially compensated by surface charges. Secondly, MBBA is oriented transversely to electric field.
Cavity and its spectra {#subsec:cavity}
----------------------
![Experimental setup for measurement of polarized transmittance spectra of LC-FPC. C – fiber collimator, GP – Glan prism, PD – photodetector.[]{data-label="fig7"}](f7.eps)
Polarized transmission spectra of LC-FPC with two different configurations of MBBA director for normally incident light were measured using an Ocean Optics HR4000 spectrometer equipped with fiber-optics (Fig. \[fig7\]). The LC-FPC sample was placed inside the optical channel with planar orientant (R$_{1}$ $\vert \vert $ $x)$ at the input mirror. A Glan prism (P) was used as a polarizing element with the linear polarization along the $y$-axis (i.e., orthogonal to the director on the input mirror). In this experimental scheme the $o$-polarized transmission spectrum was measured regardless of structural transformations in the nematic volume. Spectra were recorded at a fixed temperature of 23.0$^\circ$ C. Thermal stabilization error was no more than $\pm $0.2$^\circ$ C. The voltage was generated by a power supply (AKTAKOM ATN-1236).
Comparison of experiment, simulation and analytic formulae {#subsec:comparison}
----------------------------------------------------------
Three measurements were averaged to calculate the experimental spectral shift (Fig. \[fig8\]). Experimental resolution of 0.25 nm was improved by fitting spectral peaks by Voigt contours. The confidence interval was calculated as the corrected sample standard deviation multiplied by the Student coefficient with 95[%]{} reliability: $t_{0.05,2} $= 4.3027.
![Ordinary-polarized LC-FPC spectrum (a) and the spectral shift of transmission peaks (b). ($\bullet$) – experimental shift values, (o) - calculated shift values obtained by direct numerical simulation using the Berreman method, solid curve – analytical shift calculated from Eq. (\[eq24\]) obtained by the Jones method, dashed curve – the shift $\Delta \lambda _{\mathrm{TSS}} $ calculated without mirror effect from Eq. (\[eq26\]). The parameters of the rightmost peak with $\lambda $ = 579.1 nm were taken to calculate Fig. \[fig4\].[]{data-label="fig8"}](f8.eps)
The Berreman method [@37; @84] was used for numerical simulations. The method evaluates polarization vectors and transfer matrices of dimension 4 to take into account the reflection between sublayers of the LC bulk. The TN layer was divided into 200 sublayers and the calculated spectral resolution was 0.01 nm. Some parameters were considerably tuned to match the experimental spectra. The thicknesses and RIs of amorphous layers constituting the dielectric mirror were taken for SiO$_{2}$: 83 nm and 1.45; for ZrO$_{2}$: 66 nm and 2.02; for each ITO layer: 117 nm and 1.88858 + 0.022i taking the absorption into account; for the substrate RI: 1.45 and for the PVA RI: 1.515; two thicknesses of PVA layers: 300 and 600 nm; for MBBA extraordinary RI: 1.737 and ordinary RI: 1.549, both with RI imaginary part: 0.00078i. The thickness of MBBA layer was 7980 nm; the twist angle was 80$^\circ$.
The material dispersion gave some minor changes in the spectra and the shift. The most notable changes were the absorption dispersion and the change in MBBA layer thickness by 40 nm. Therefore, the spectra illustrated in Figs. 8 and 9 were calculated assuming no material dispersion.
![Zoomed experimental (a) and calculated (b) transmittance spectral peaks for homeoplanar (blue) and twisted (magenta) configurations in LC-FPC. The twist leads to shorter wavelength shifts.[]{data-label="fig9"}](f9.eps)
Experimental transmission peaks are broadened no more than 2 times larger than the calculated peaks (Fig. \[fig9\]). This was achieved by additional flatness tuning of the cavity. Comparison of experimental spectra with simulations shows the transmission peaks shift to shorter wavelengths for the twisted configuration. The shift is less than the half-width at half maximum of a peak. Three peaks in the range of 480–500 nm have minimal intensity and maximal shift dispersion. However, all 14 points fit satisfactorily into the simulated dependence curve.
Figure 8(b) shows by dots and circles the experimental and calculated values of the spectral shift, respectively. Analytical Eqs. (\[eq24\]) and (\[eq26\]) are shown by the solid curve and the dotted curve, respectively. The reflection phase shift leads to simultaneous displacement of all the points along the solid curve. The latter analytic curve is affected by the reflection phase shift only near Gooch–Terry maxima. The experimental spectrum contains no Gooch–Terry maxima. So in analytical equations the reflection anisotropy was ignored $\delta _\mu =0$.
The analytic formula (\[eq24\]) slightly overestimates the shift. There are several possible reasons for this distinction. Firstly, the difference of PVA layer thicknesses on mirrors leads to some error. Secondly, reflection between sublayers of LC bulk produces the difference between the Berreman and the Jones spectral shifts. The effective Jones RI (\[eq14\]) is commonly used for the TN LC where the helical pitch is much larger than the wavelength [@21]. The formula (\[eq14\]) has been generalized [@59; @62; @85; @86] for cholesteric LC where the helical pitch is of the same order with the wavelength. The wave vector for the Berreman method: $$q^\pm =\pm \sqrt {k_\varphi ^2+n^2k_0^2 \pm k_0 \sqrt {4k_\varphi
^2n^2+\left( {2n\delta n+\delta n^2} \right)^2k_0^2 } } .$$ It gives the effective Berreman RI: $$\label{eq30}
n_B ^\pm =\pm \sqrt {n_\varphi ^2+n^2\pm \sqrt {4n_\varphi ^2n^2+\left(
{2n\delta n+\delta n^2} \right)^2} } .$$ The Berreman RI (\[eq30\]) and the Jones RI (\[eq14\]) contrast is evident in the graph scale despite the reasonable approximation $\varphi \ll\delta \ll\sigma $.
Concluding Remarks {#sec:concluding}
==================
To the best of our knowledge, the Mauguin phase shift formula (\[eq13\]) has had only implicit and indirect confirmations in polarization measurements. Such measurements are, for example, the measurement of spectral positions of Gooch–Terry minima and the optical activity measurement of cholesteric LC [@73]. As usual in commercial TN cells TSS does not exceed 1 nm in accordance with Eq. (\[eq26\]). TSS is really hard to ascertain experimentally. For example, in the experimental spectra of TN-FPC with twist-homeotropic electric switching, the $o$-polarized spectral shift, as reported in [@56], was much higher than TSS Eq. (\[eq26\]). The crucial factor was reorientation of the parietal LC sublayers. They were not reoriented homeotropically up to the cell breakdown voltage.
The reported shift in TN-FPC can be observed directly without any polarizers. And the required measurement accuracy is achieved due to multiple interference in the cavity. The main drawback of the presented scheme is that untwisted structure maintains a constant RI for the $o$-polarized light only. The $e$-polarized spectral shift may be measured in the experimental scheme with the twist-planar to homogeneous-planar transition, which could be achieved using photoalignment material with reversible intermolecular bonds [@87; @88].
The avoided crossing spectral shift caused by the mirror reflection mode coupling, the above-mentioned RSS, was described analytically and experimentally in the uniformly twisted structure. The analytical expression (\[eq25\]) for RSS near the Gooch–Terry maximum looks much easier than the one published before [@34]. A generalized Mauguin–Poincaré rolling cone method allowed us to solve the problem geometrically, independently of the Jones and Berreman matrix formalisms.
The spectral shift of transmission peaks should not be confused with a frequency shift or a frequency conversion. In the stationary linear problem the light frequency is not converted. Also we claim that the twist spectral shift characterizes not entirely the cavity but namely the twisted layer itself. The cavity just facilitates the measurement in that the twisted layer does not generate any transmission peaks. So what is actually shifted while twisting the layer? Obviously, shifted is the eigenwave phase when going out of the twisted layer. Therefore, the effective refractive index varies. This optical response can be measured without a cavity. For example, a polarization grating has considerable sensitivity to a minute change in refractive index, which permits the experimental confirmation of the described phenomenon.
The intermediate optical response presumption was formulated to determine the extreme values of the optical response of the complex medium. Despite the apparent evidence this presumption may be violated. A well-known example is a composite of a few optical media with the inhomogeneity scale much smaller than the wavelength. Its resonant optical response may exceed maximal values for every component. This intermediate optical response violation for composites is explained by the Clausius–Mossotti contribution of spatial boundaries between the components [@89; @90]. Another intermediate optical response violation for a twisted anisotropic medium is shown to be due to the GP contribution. This tiny GP contribution should not be confused with the GP of the zeroth-order adiabatic approximation. The last one is responsible for $\pi $-phase polarization conflict in the $\pi
$-twisted LC cell [@11]. A visual GP representation is speculated as the area covered by the polarization trajectory on PS. Contributions of TSS and RSS are related to areas of spherical rectangles and triangles.
The revealed tiny spectral shift in TN-FPC exists in an arbitrary anisotropic chiral medium, not only TN layer. No doubt, it must be accounted for a vast class of twist-polarization devices in high-precision engineering applications, such as multiplexers, 3D displays, optical tweezers, holographic data storage, and diffractive optics.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
This work was supported in part by the Grants of Russian Foundation for Basic Research Nos. 14-02-31248 and 15-02-06924; Russian Ministry of Education and Science under the Government program, Project No. 3.1276.2014/K; the Ministry of Science and Technology of Taiwan under Grant No. NSC 103-2923-M-009-003-MY3 through an NSC–SB-RAS joint project.
Address correspondence to I. V. Timofeev, Kirensky Institute of Physics, Akademgorodok 50/38, Krasnoyarsk, 660036 Russia. E-mail: [email protected]
[99]{} L. M. Blinov, *Structure and Properties of Liquid Crystals* (Springer, 2010).
M. V. Berry, Proc. R. Soc. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. **392**, 45 (1984).
D. Chruscinski and A. Jamiolkowski, *Geometric Phases in Classical and Quantum Mechanics (Progress in Mathematical Physics)*, 2004th ed. (Birkhäuser, 2004).
S. Pancharatnam, Proc. Indian Acad. Sci. - Sect. A **44**, 247 (1956).
D. Bouwmeester, N. H. Dekker, F. E. V Dorsselaer, C. A. Schrama, P. M. Visser, and J. P. Woerdman, Phys. Rev. A **51**, 646 (1995).
D. N. Klyshko, Uspekhi Fiz. Nauk **163**, 1 (1993).
L. Lu, J. D. Joannopoulos, and M. Soljačić, Nat. Photonics 821 (2014).
B. Zhen, C. W. Hsu, L. Lu, A. D. Stone, and M. Soljačić, Phys. Rev. Lett. **113**, 1 (2014).
M. Z. Hasan and C. L. Kane, Rev. Mod. Phys. **82**, 3045 (2010).
T. Bauer, P. Banzer, E. Karimi, S. Orlov, A. Rubano, L. Marrucci, E. Santamato, R. W. Boyd, and G. Leuchs, Science **347**, 964 (2015).
M. V Vasnetsov, V. A. Pas’ko, and D. S. Kasyanyuk, Opt. Lett. **36**, 2134 (2011).
E. Hasman, G. Biener, A. Niv, and V. Kleiner, Prog. Opt. **47**, 215 (2005).
S. R. Nersisyan, N. V Tabiryan, D. M. Steeves, and B. R. Kimball, Opt. Photonics News **21**, 40 (2010).
S. Pancharatnam, Proc. Indian Acad. Sci. - Sect. A **XLI**, 137 (1955).
R. Simon, H. J. Kimble, and E. C. G. Sudarshan, Phys. Rev. Lett. **61**, 19 (1988).
P. F. McManamon, P. J. Bos, M. J. Escuti, J. Heikenfeld, S. Serati, H. Xie, and E. A. Watson, Proc. IEEE **97**, 1078 (2009).
P. Hariharan, Prog. Opt. **48**, 149 (2005).
S. Isaacs, F. Placido, and I. Abdulhalim, Appl. Opt. **53**, H91 (2014).
V. Y. Zyryanov, V. A. Gunyakov, S. A. Myslivets, V. G. Arkhipkin, and V. F. Shabanov, Mol. Cryst. Liq. Cryst. **488**, 118 (2008).
V. A. Gunyakov, M. N. Krakhalev, V. Y. Zyryanov, and V. F. Shabanov, Tech. Phys. Lett. **41**, 86 (2015).
Y.-C. Hsiao, C.-Y. Wu, C.-H. Chen, V. Y. Zyryanov, and W. Lee, Opt. Lett. **36**, 2632 (2011).
A. Vargas, M. del Mar Sánchez-López, P. García-Martínez, J. Arias, and I. Moreno, J. Appl. Phys. **115**, 033101 (2014).
A. Márquez, I. Moreno, J. Campos, and M. J. Yzuel, Opt. Commun. **265**, 84 (2006).
C. V. Mauguin, [Bull. Soc. Fr. Miner. **34**, 71 (1911).](http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k1089141/f88.image)
J. S. Patel and Y. Silberberg, Opt. Lett. **16**, 1049 (1991).
R. C. Jones, J. Opt. Soc. Am. **31**, 488 (1941).
F. Abelès, Prog. Opt. **2**, 249 (1963).
M. Born and E. Wolf, *Principles of Optics: Electromagnetic Theory of Propagation, Interference and Diffraction of Light* (Cambridge University Press, 1999).
P. Yeh, A. Yariv, and C.-S. Hong, J. Opt. Soc. Am. **67**, 423 (1977).
P. Yeh, J. Opt. Soc. Am. **69**, 742 (1979).
P. Yeh and C. Gu, *Optics of Liquid Crystal Displays* (Wiley, 1999).
H. Gooch and C. Tarry, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. **8**, 1575 (1975).
R. M. A. Azzam and N. M. Bashara, *Ellipsometry and Polarized Light* (North-Holland Pub. Co., 1977).
Y. Ohtera, H. Yoda, and S. Kawakami, Opt. Quantum Electron. 147 (2000).
B. E. A. Saleh and M. C. Teich, *Fundamentals of Photonics* (Wiley, 2007).
S. Teitler and B. W. Henvis, J. Opt. Soc. Am. **60**, 830 (1970).
D. W. Berreman, J. Opt. Soc. Am. **62**, 502 (1972).
S. P. Palto, J. Exp. Theor. Phys. **92**, 552 (2001).
Z. Zhuang and J. S. Patel, Opt. Lett. **24**, 1759 (1999).
V. A. Belyakov, in *New Dev. Liq. Cryst. Appl. (Materials Sci. Technol.*, edited by P. K. Choudhury (Nova Science Pub Inc, 2013), pp. 199–227.
A. H. Gevorgyan, K. B. Oganesyan, G. A. Vardanyan, and G. K. Matinyan, Laser Phys. **24**, 115801 (2014).
I. V Timofeev, V. G. Arkhipkin, S. Y. Vetrov, V. Y. Zyryanov, and W. Lee, Opt. Mater. Express **3**, 496 (2013).
L. T. Song, J. He, H. L. Wang, Y. A. Han, and T. Li, Optoelectron. Lett. **8**, 277 (2012).
C. Zhang, N. Diorio, O. D. Lavrentovich, and a Jákli, Nat. Commun. **5**, 3302 (2014).
A. D. Kiselev and V. G. Chigrinov, Phys. Rev. E **90**, (2014).
\[1\] S. P. Palto, M. I. Barnik, a. R. Geivandov, I. V. Kasyanova, and V. S. Palto, Phys. Rev. E **92**, 032502 (2015).
H. Yoda, Y. Ohtera, O. Hanaizumi, and S. Kawakami, Opt. Quantum Electron. **29**, 285 (1997).
X. Zhu, Q. Hong, Y. Huang, and S.-T. Wu, J. Appl. Phys. **94**, 2868 (2003).
C. R. Fernández-Pousa, I. Moreno, N. Bennis, and C. Gómez-Reino, J. Opt. Soc. Am. A. Opt. Image Sci. Vis. **17**, 2074 (2000).
S. P. Palto, L. M. Blinov, M. I. Barnik, V. V. Lazarev, B. A. Umanskii, and N. M. Shtykov, Crystallogr. Reports **56**, 622 (2011).
S. Stallinga, J. Appl. Phys. **86**, 4756 (1999).
H. Poincaré, M. Lamotte, and D. Hurmuzescu, *Théorie Mathématique de La Lumière II.: Nouvelles Études Sur La Diffraction.–Théorie de La Dispersion de Helmholtz. Leçons Professées Pendant Le Premier Semestre 1891-1892* (G. Carré, 1892).
Y.-T. Lin, W.-Y. Chang, C.-Y. Wu, V. Y. Zyryanov, and W. Lee, Opt. Express **18**, 26959 (2010).
S. Y. Vetrov and A. V. Shabanov, J. Exp. Theor. Phys. **93**, 977 (2001).
V. F. Shabanov, S. Y. Vetrov, and A. V. Shabanov, *Optics of Real Photonic Crystals: Liquid Crystal Defects* (Irregularities (SB RAS Publisher: Novosibirsk \[in Russian\]), 2005).
A. Baldycheva, V. A. Tolmachev, K. Berwick, and T. S. Perova, Nanoscale Res. Lett. **7**, 387 (2012).
J. Schmidtke, W. Stille, and H. Finkelmann, Phys. Rev. Lett. **90**, 083902 (2003).
T. Matsui, M. Ozaki, and K. Yoshino, Phys. Rev. E **69**, 061715 (2004).
I. V Timofeev, Y. T. Lin, V. A. Gunyakov, S. A. Myslivets, V. G. Arkhipkin, S. Y. Vetrov, W. Lee, and V. Y. Zyryanov, Phys. Rev. E **85**, 011705(7) (2012).
V. G. Arkhipkin, V. A. Gunyakov, S. A. Myslivets, V. P. Gerasimov, V. Y. Zyryanov, S. Y. Vetrov, and V. F. Shabanov, J. Exp. Theor. Phys. **106**, 388 (2008).
I. V Timofeev and S. Y. Vetrov, Bull. Russ. Acad. Sci. Phys. **78**, 1599 (2014).
C. W. Oseen, Trans. Faraday Soc. **29**, 883 (1933).
I. Abdulhalim, Opt. Lett. **31**, 3019 (2006).
V. A. Belyakov, Mol. Cryst. Liq. Cryst. **612**, 81 (2015).
V. A. Belyakov, *Diffraction Optics of Complex-Structured Periodic Media* (Springer New York, 1992).
H. A. Macleod, *Thin-Film Optical Filters, Fourth Edition (Series in Optics and Optoelectronics)*, 4th ed. (CRC Press, 2010).
B. Gralak, M. Lequime, M. Zerrad, and C. Amra, J. Opt. Soc. Am. A **32**, 1 (2014).
S. P. Palto, N. M. Shtykov, B. A. Umanskii, and M. I. Barnik, J. Appl. Phys. **112**, (2012).
M. I. Rabinovich and D. I. Trubetskov, *Oscillations and Waves: In Linear and Nonlinear Systems (Mathematics and Its Applications)*, 1989th ed. (Springer, 1989).
A. Messiah, *Quantum Mechanics* (Dover Publications, 1999).
H. G. Jerrard, J. Opt. Soc. Am. **44**, 634 (1954).
D. H. Goldstein, *Polarized Light*, 3rd ed. (CRC Press, 2010).
X. Yi, Y. Liu, X. Ling, X. Zhou, Y. Ke, H. Luo, S. Wen, and D. Fan, Phys. Rev. A **91**, 14 (2015).
V. Lakshminarayanan, M. L. Calvo, and T. Alieva, editors , *Mathematical Optics* (CRC Press, 2012).
A. A. Muller, P. Soto, D. Dascalu, D. Neculoiu, and V. E. Boria, IEEE Microw. Wirel. Components Lett. **21**, 286 (2011).
S. Chandrasekhar, *Liquid Crystals* (Cambridge University Press, 1992).
W. A. Shurcliff, *Polarized Light: Production and Use* (Harvard University Press, 1962).
H. M. Jeffery, [Q. J. Pure Appl. Math. **19**, 44 (1883).](http://gdz.sub.uni-goettingen.de/dms/load/img/?PPN=PPN600494829_0019&DMDID=DMDLOG_0007&IDDOC=649333)
K. Y. Bliokh, A. Niv, V. Kleiner, and E. Hasman, Nat. Photonics **2**, 18 (2008).
I. M. Gelfand, R. A. Minlos, and G. Cummins, *Representations of the Rotation and Lorentz Groups and Their Applications* (Martino Publishing, 2012).
J. H. Conway and D. Smith, *On Quaternions and Octonions* (A K Peters/CRC Press, 2003).
G. A. Korn and T. M. Korn, *Mathematical Handbook for Scientists and Engineers: Definitions, Theorems, and Formulas for Reference and Review (Dover Civil and Mechanical Engineering)*, 2 Revised (Dover Publications, 2000).
D. Hilbert and S. Cohn-Vossen, *Geometry and the Imagination* (Chelsea Pub Co, 1952).
J. Cognard, *Alignment of Nematic Liquid Crystals and Their Mixtures: A Special Issue of the Journal Molecular Crystals and Liquid Crystals (Topics in Chemical Engineering)* (Routledge, 1982).
J. E. Proust, L. Ter-Minassian-Saraga, and E. Guyon, Solid State Commun. **11**, 1227 (1972).
V. S. Sutormin, M. N. Krakhalev, O. O. Prishchepa, W. Lee, and V. Y. Zyryanov, Opt. Mater. Express **4**, 810 (2014).
H. de Vries, Acta Crystallogr. **4**, 219 (1951).
E. I. Kats, Sov. Phys. JETP **32**, 1004 (1971).
V. G. Chigrinov, V. M. Kozenkov, and H. S. Kwok, *Photoalignment of Liquid Crystalline Materials: Physics and Applications* (Wiley, 2008).
V. Mikulich, A. Murauski, A. Muravsky, V. Agabekov, and V. Bezruchenko, J. Soc. Inf. Disp. **22**, 199 (2014).
A. Sihvola, *Electromagnetic Mixing Formulae and Applications (IEEE Electromagnetic Waves Series, 47)* (The Institution of Engineering and Technology, 1999).
T. G. Mackay, A. Lakhtakia, D. M. Richardson, and A. Ricciardi, *Electromagnetic Anisotropy and Bianisotropy: A Field Guide* (World Scientific Publishing Company, 2009).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
The programming new $e^{+}e^-$ collider with high luminosity shall provide another useful platform to study the properties of the doubly heavy $B_c$ meson in addition to the hadronic colliders as LHC and TEVATRON. Under the ‘New Trace Amplitude Approach’, we calculate the production of the spin-singlet $B_c$ and the spin-triplet $B^*_c$ mesons through the $Z^0$ boson decays, where uncertainties for the production are also discussed. Our results show $\Gamma_{(^1S_0)}= 81.4^{+102.1}_{-40.5}$ KeV and $\Gamma_{(^3S_1)}=116.4^{+163.9}_{-62.8}$ KeV, where the errors are caused by varying $m_b$ and $m_c$ within their reasonable regions.\
[**PACS numbers:**]{} 12.38.Bx, 12.39.Jh, 14.40Lb, 14.40.Nd
address: 'Department of Physics, Chongqing University, Chongqing 400044, P.R. China'
author:
- 'Li-Cheng Deng, Xing-Gang Wu[^1], Zhi Yang, Zhen-Yun Fang and Qi-Li Liao'
title: '$Z_0$ Boson Decays to $B^{(*)}_c$ Meson and Its Uncertainties'
---
The $B_c$ meson is a double heavy quark-antiquark bound state and carries flavors explicitly. Since its first discovery at TEVATRON [@CDF], $B_c$ physics is attracting more and wide interests. Recently, many progresses have been made for the hadronic production of $B_c$ meson at high energy colliders as LHC and TEVATRON. A computer program BCVEGPY for the direct hadronic production of $B_c$ meson has been presented in Refs.[@bcvegpy1; @bcvegpy2]. And it has been found that the indirect production of $B_c$ via top quark decays can also provide useful information on $B_c$ meson [@tbc1; @tbc2; @tbc3; @tbc4].
Comparing with the hadronic colliders, an $e^{+} e^{-}$ collider has its own advantages, mainly because of its lower background. As for the previous LEP-I experiment, no $B_c$ events have been found due to its lower collision energy and low luminosity [@chang1; @chang2]. However, if the luminosity of the $e^+e^-$ collider can be raised up to ${\cal L}\propto 10^{34}cm^{-2}s^{-1}$ or even higher as programmed by the Internal Linear Collider (ILC) [@ilc], then there might have enough events. Moreover, if the $e^{+} e^{-}$ collider further runs at the $Z^0$-boson energy, the resonance effects at the $Z^0$ peak may raise the production rate up to several orders. It has been estimated by Ref.[@gigaz] that more than $10^{9\sim 10}$ $Z^0$-events can be produced at ILC per year, which is about $3\sim 4$ orders higher than that collected by LEP-I. Such a high luminosity collider is called as GigaZ [@gigaz] or a $Z$-factory [@wjw]. Then it will open new opportunities not only for high precision physics in the electro-weak sector, but also for the hadron physics.
The production of $B_c$ through $Z^0$ decays has been studied in Refs [@chang1; @chang2; @braaten] with various methods. Since the process is very complicated, it would be helpful to have a cross check of these results. Furthermore, considering the forthcoming $Z$-factory, it may be interesting to know the theoretical uncertainties in estimating of $B_c$ production.
![Feynman diagrams for the process $Z^0(k)\rightarrow B^{(*)}_c(q_3) + b(q_2) +\bar c(q_1)$. []{data-label="feyn"}](feynmanfigure){width="40.00000%"}
For the purpose, we need to calculate the process $Z^0 \to B^{(*)}_c+b+\bar{c}$, whose Feynman diagrams are shown in Fig.(\[feyn\]). According to the NRQCD factorization formula [@nrqcd], the decay width for the process $Z^0 \to B^{(*)}_c+b+\bar{c}$ can be written in the following factorization form: $$d\Gamma=\sum_{n} d\hat\Gamma(Z^0 \to c\bar{b}[n]+b+\bar{c})\langle{\cal O}^H\rangle,$$ where the matrix element $\langle{\cal O}^{H}(n)\rangle$ is proportional to the inclusive transition probability of the perturbative state $c\bar{b}[n]$ into the bound states of $B_c$. As for the two color-singlet $S$-wave states $c\bar{b}[^1S_0]$ and $c\bar{b}[^3S_1]$, their matrix elements $\langle{\cal O}^{H}(n)\rangle$ are related with the Bethe-Salpeter wave function at the origin that can be determined by the potential model [@pot1; @pot2; @pot3; @pot4; @pot5; @pot6]. $d\hat\Gamma(Z^{0}\to c\bar{b}[n]+b+\bar{c})$ stands for the short-distance decay width, i.e. $$d\Gamma(Z^{0}\to c\bar{b}[n]+b+\bar{c})= \frac{1}{2k^0} \overline{\sum} |M|^{2} d\Phi_3,$$ where $\overline{\sum}$ means we need to average over the spin states of initial particles and to sum over the color and spin of all the final particles. And in $Z^0$ rest frame, the three-particle phase space can be written as $$d{\Phi_3}=(2\pi)^4 \delta^{4}\left(k_0 - \sum_f^3 q_{f}\right)\prod_{f=1}^3 \frac{d^3{q_f}}{(2\pi)^3 2q_f^0}.$$
The hard scattering amplitude for the process $Z^0(k)\rightarrow B^{(*)}_c(q_3) + b(q_2) +\bar c(q_1)$ can be written as: $$iM = {\cal{C}}{\bar u_s}({q_2}) \sum\limits_{n = 1}^4 {A _n }{v_{s'}}({q_1}),\label{MM}$$ where $\cal{C}$$=\frac{e g_s^2}{\sin\theta_{w}\cos\theta_w}\times \frac{4}{3\sqrt{3}}$. The gamma structure $A_n$ ($n=1$, $\cdots$, $4$) corresponds to the four Feynman diagrams in Fig.(\[feyn\]). More explicitly, $A_n$ can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
A_1 &=& \left[ {{\slashed{\epsilon}(k)}{\Gamma_{z\bar b}}\frac{\slashed{q}_2 - \slashed{k} + {m_b}}{(q_2 - k)^2 - m_b^2}{\gamma_\rho} \frac{\chi^{S{S_z}}_{q_3}(q)} {(q_{31} + {q_1})^2}{\gamma_\rho}}\right]_{q=0}, \label{A1}\\
A_2 &=& \left[\gamma_{\rho}\frac{\slashed{k}-\slashed{q}_{32}+{m_b}}{(k-q_{32})^2- m_b^2}{\slashed{\epsilon}(k)}{\Gamma_{z\bar b}} \frac{\chi^{S{S_z}}_{q_3}(q)} {(q_{31} + {q_1})^2}{\gamma_\rho}\right]_{q=0}, \label{A2}\\
A_3 &=& \left[\gamma_{\rho}\frac{\chi^{S{S_z}}_{q_3}(q)}{({q_{32}}+ {q_2})^2} \slashed{\epsilon}(k) \Gamma_{zc} \frac{\slashed{q}_{31} - \slashed{k} + m_c}{(q_{31} - k)^2- m_c^2}{\gamma_\rho}\right]_{q=0} \label{A3}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
A_4 &=& \left[\gamma_{\rho}\frac{\chi^{S{S_z}}_{q_3}(q)}{(q_{32} + {q_2})^2} \gamma_{\rho}\frac{\slashed{q}_3 + \slashed{q}_2 + {m_c}}{({q_3} +{q_2})^2 -m_c^2} {\slashed{\epsilon}(k)}{\Gamma_{zc}} \right]_{q=0}, \label{A4}\end{aligned}$$ where $\Gamma_{z\bar b} =\frac{1}{4} - \frac{1}{3}\sin^2\theta_w - \frac{1}{4}\gamma^5$, $\Gamma_{zc}=\frac{1}{4} - \frac{2}{3}\sin^2\theta_w -\frac{1}{4}\gamma^5$ and $q$ is the relative momentum between the two constitute quarks of $c\bar{b}$-quarkonium. In the nonrelativistic approximation, the $S$-wave projector $\chi^{S{S_z}}_{q_3}(q)$ takes the following form $$\chi^{S{S_z}}_{q_3}(q)= \frac{-\sqrt{m_{B_c}}}{{4{m_b}{m_c}}}(\slashed{q}_{31}- m_b) \left({\alpha\gamma_5+\beta\slashed{\varepsilon}_s}(q_3)\right) (\slashed{q}_{32} + m_c)$$ where $\alpha=1(0)$ and $\beta=0(1)$ for $S=0(1)$ meson respectively. $\varepsilon_s({q_3})$ is the polarization vector, $q_{31}$ and $q_{32}$ are the momenta of the two constitute quarks of the meson, $$q_{31} = \frac{m_b}{m_{B_c}}{q_3} + q \;\;{\rm and}\;\;
q_{32} = \frac{m_c}{m_{B_c}}{q_3} - q,$$ where $m_{B_c}= m_b + m_c$ is implicitly adopted to ensure the gauge invariance of the hard scattering amplitude.
By using the conventional trace technique, we need to derive the squared amplitude, which is very complicated and lengthy for the present case. To derive analytical expression for the process $Z^{0}\rightarrow B^{(*)}_c + b +\bar{c}$ and to make its form simpler as much as possible, we adopt the ‘new trace amplitude approach’ suggested and developed by Refs.[@chang1; @tbc2] to do our calculation. Under the approach, we first arrange each of the four amplitudes listed in Eqs.(\[A1\],\[A2\],\[A3\],\[A4\]) into four orthogonal sub-amplitudes according to the four spin combinations of the outgoing $b$-quark and $\bar{c}$-antiquark, and then do the trace of the Dirac-$\gamma$ matrix strings at the amplitude level by properly dealing with the massive spinors, which results in explicit series over several independent Lorentz-invariant structures. And then, our task left is to determine the coefficients of these Lorentz-invariant structures. To make the paper more compact, we present the detailed formulae for dealing with the process in Appendices A and B, where Appendix A gives the phase-space integration formulae and Appendix B gives the ‘new trace amplitude approach’, which presents all the necessary coefficients for the Lorentz-invariant structures.
As a cross check of the present obtained results, by taking the same parameters, we can obtain consistent numerical results as that of Ref.[@chang1] within reasonable numerical errors [^2].
In doing the numerical calculation, we take $m_Z=91.1876$ GeV and $\alpha_s(m_Z)=0.1176$ [@pdg]. To be consistent with the present leading-order calculation, we adopt the leading-order $\alpha_s$ running, and by taking the normalization scale to be $2m_c$, which leads to $\alpha_s(2m_c)=0.212$. The two constitute quark masses are taken as $m_b=4.90$ GeV and $m_c=1.50$ GeV. With the above parameter values, it can be found that the total decay width $\Gamma_{(^1S_0)}=81.4$ KeV and $\Gamma_{(^3S_1)}=116.4$ KeV.
{width="40.00000%"} {width="40.00000%"}
{width="40.00000%"} {width="40.00000%"}
The differential distributions of the invariant masses $s_1$ and $s_2$, i.e. $d\Gamma/ds_1$ and $d\Gamma/ds_2$ are shown in Fig.(\[diss1s2\]), where $s_1=(q_1+q_3)^2$ and $s_2=(q_1+q_2)^2$. And the differential distributions of $\cos\theta_{13}$ and $\cos\theta_{23}$, i.e. $d\Gamma/d\cos\theta_{13}$ and $d\Gamma/d\cos\theta_{23}$ are shown in Fig.(\[discos\]), where $\theta_{13}$ is the angle between $\vec{q}_1$ and $\vec{q}_3$, and $\theta_{23}$ is the angle between $\vec{q}_2$ and $\vec{q}_3$ respectively. It can be found that the largest differential decay width of $d\Gamma/d\cos\theta_{13}$ is achieved when $\theta_{13}=0^{\circ}$, i.e. the $(c\bar{b})$-quarkonium and $c$-quark moving in the same direction. While the largest differential decay width of $d\Gamma/d\cos\theta_{23}$ is achieved when $\theta_{23}=180^{\circ}$, i.e. the $(c\bar{b})$-quarkonium and $b$-quark moving back to back.
Next, it would be interesting to show the theoretical uncertainties for the production. Main uncertainty sources include the matrix elements (or the wavefunction at the origin of the binding system $|\psi_{B^{(*)}_c}(0)|$), the renormalization scale $\mu_R$, the constitute quark masses $m_b$ and $m_c$. $|\psi_{B^{(*)}_c}(0)|$ and $\alpha(\mu_R)$ are overall parameters for the present case, and their uncertainties can be easily figured out. For example, one can set $\mu_R$ to be $2m_c$ or $2m_b$, since the intermediate gluon as shown in Fig.(\[feyn\]) should be hard enough so as to produce a $c\bar{c}$-quark pair or a $b\bar{b}$-quark pair, which inversely ensures the pQCD applicability of the process. By setting these two scales to calculate the process, we obtain the ratio $\Gamma_{\mu_R=2m_b} / \Gamma_{\mu_R=2m_c}\propto\alpha^2_s(2m_b) / \alpha^2_s(2m_c)\sim 0.67$. In the following discussion, we fix $\mu_R=2m_c$ and $|\psi_{B^{(*)}_c}(0)|=0.361$ GeV$^{3/2}$ [@pot6].
For clarity, we present the uncertainties of $m_c$ and $m_b$ in ‘a factorizable way’. When focussing on the uncertainties from $m_c$, we let it be a basic ‘input’ parameter varying in a possible range $m_c=1.50\pm0.30\; {\rm GeV}$ with all the other factors, including the $b$-quark mass and [*etc.*]{} being fixed to their center values. Similarly, when discussing the uncertainty caused by $m_b$, we vary the $b$-quark mass $m_b$ within the region of $m_b=4.90\pm0.40\; {\rm GeV}$.
$m_c$([GeV]{}) 1.20 1.50 1.80
------------------------------- ------- ------- ------
$\Gamma_{(^1S_0)}({\rm KeV})$ 183.5 81.4 42.2
$\Gamma_{(^3S_1)}({\rm KeV})$ 280.1 116.4 57.1
: Decay width for the production of $B^{(*)}_c$ through $Z^0$ decay with varying $m_c$, where $m_b$ is fixed to be $4.9$ GeV. []{data-label="tabmc"}
$m_b$ ( [GeV]{}) 4.50 4.90 5.30
------------------------------- ------- ------- ------
$\Gamma_{(^1S_0)}({\rm KeV})$ 82.1 81.4 71.0
$\Gamma_{(^3S_1)}({\rm KeV})$ 114.1 116.4 95.6
: Decay width for the production of $B^{(*)}_c$ through $Z^0$ decay with varying $m_b$, where $m_c$ is fixed to be $1.5$ GeV. []{data-label="tabmb"}
The decay width for the production of $B^{(*)}_c$ through $Z^0$ decay with varying $m_c$ or $m_b$ are presented in TAB.\[tabmc\] and TAB.\[tabmb\]. It shows that the decay width is more sensitive to $m_c$, which decreases with the increment of $m_c$.
By adding these two uncertainties caused by $m_b$ and $m_c$ in quadrature, we obtain $$\Gamma_{(^1S_0)}=81.4^{+102.1}_{-40.5} \;{\rm KeV}$$ and $$\Gamma_{(^3S_1)}=116.4^{+163.9}_{-62.8} \;{\rm KeV} .$$
{width="40.00000%"} {width="40.00000%"}
{width="40.00000%"} {width="40.00000%"}
The shaded bands in Figs.(\[sun\],\[cosun\]) show the corresponding uncertainty more clearly, where the contributions from $^1S_0$ and $^3S_1$ are summed up. The center solid line is for $m_c=1.5 {\rm GeV}$ and $m_b=4.9 {\rm GeV}$, the upper edge of the band is obtained by setting $m_c=1.2 {\rm GeV}$ and $m_b=5.3 {\rm GeV}$, while the lower edge of the band is obtained by setting $m_c=1.8 {\rm GeV}$ and $m_b=4.5 {\rm GeV}$.
As a summary: by using the ‘new trace amplitude approach’, we calculate the $B_c$ production process, $Z^0\to B^{(*)}_c +b+\bar{c}$. The decay widths together with their uncertainties caused by the $b$ and $c$ quark masses are $\Gamma_{(^1S_0)}=81.4^{+102.1}_{-40.5}$ KeV and $\Gamma_{(^3S_1)}=116.4^{+163.9}_{-62.8}$ KeV, where the errors are caused by varying $m_b$ and $m_c$ within their reasonable regions $m_c\in[1.2, 1.8]$ GeV and $m_c\in[4.5,5.3]$ GeV. Further more, the differential decay width for $s_{1,2}$ and $\cos\theta_{13,23}$ together their uncertainties are drawn in Figs.(\[sun\],\[cosun\]). Considering the advantage of the clean environment in $e^{+}e^{-}$ collider, it will provide another useful platform in studying the $B_c$ production.
Acknowledgements: This work was supported in part by Natural Science Foundation Project of CQ CSTC under Grant No.2008BB0298, by Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant No.10805082 and No.11075225, and by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities under Grant No.CDJZR101000616.
Formulae for the phase space integration
========================================
The decay width of the process $Z^0(k) \to B^{(*)}_c(q_3) + b(q_2) + \bar c(q_1)$ is proportional to the following phase space, $$d\Gamma \propto \frac{(2\pi)^4}{2k^0}\prod\limits_{f = 1}^3 {d^3} {\vec{q}_f} \frac{\delta^4(k - \sum_{f=1}^3 {q_f})} {(2\pi)^3 2q_f^0}$$ where $k=(k^0,\vec k)=(k^0,k^1,k^2,k^3)$, $q_f=(q_f^0,\vec q_f)=(q_f^0,q_f^1,q_f^2,q_f^3)$. Furthermore, in the rest frame of $Z^0$ boson ($k^0=m_Z$), we have
$$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d\Gamma}{ds_1 ds_2}&\propto& \frac{1}{(2\pi)^5(2m_Z)} d^4q_1 d^4q_2d^4q_3 \delta(q_1^2-m_c^2) \delta(q_2^2-m_b^2) \delta(q_3^2-m_{B_c}^2)\theta(q_1^0)\theta(q_2^0)\theta(q_3^0)\nonumber\\
&&\times \delta(s_1-(q_1+q_3)^2)\delta(s_2-(q_1+q_2)^2)\delta(k-q_1-q_2-q_3)\nonumber\\
&\propto& \frac{1}{2^6 \pi^5 m_Z} d^4q_2d^4q_3\delta((k-q_2-q_3)^2-m_c^2) \delta(q_2^2-m_b^2)\delta(q_3^2-m_{B_c}^2) \theta(k^0-q_2^0-q_3^0)\nonumber\\
&&\times \theta(q_2^0)\theta(q_3^0)\delta(s_1-(k-q_2)^2)\delta(s_2-(k-q_3)^2)\nonumber\\
&\propto& \frac{1}{2^8 \pi^5 m^3_Z}d^3\vec{q}_2d^3\vec{q}_3 \delta(q_2^{0^2}-\vec{q}_2^2-m_c^2) \delta(q_3^{0^2}-\vec{q}_3^2-m_{B_c}^2) \theta(k^0-q_2^0-q_3^0)\nonumber\\
&&\times \theta (q_2^0)\theta (q_3^0)\delta(s_1+m_{B_c}^2-m_c^2-2m_Zq_3^0+2q_2^0q_3^0-2\vec{q}_2 \cdot \vec{q}_3)\nonumber\\
&\propto& \frac{|\vec{q}_2|\cdot|\vec{q}_3|}{2^{10} \pi^5 m_Z^3} d\Omega_2 \sin\theta_{23}d\theta_{23} d{\phi_{23}}\theta(k^0-q_2^0-q_3^0)\theta(q_2^0)\theta(q_3^0)\nonumber\\
&&\times \delta(s_1+s_2-m_Z^2-m_c^2+2q_2^0q_3^0-2|\vec{q}_2|\cdot|\vec{q}_3|\cos\theta _{23}) \nonumber\\
&\propto& \frac{1}{2^8 \pi^3 m^3_Z}\theta (k^0-q_2^0-q_3^0)\theta (q_2^0)\theta (q_3^0)\theta(X) ,\end{aligned}$$
where $q_2^0=\frac{m_Z^2+m_b^2-s_1}{2m_Z}$ and $q_3^0=\frac{m_Z^2+m_{B_c}^2-s_2}{2m_Z}$, $|\vec q_2|= \sqrt{q_2^{0^2}-m_b^2}$ and $|\vec q_3|=\sqrt{q_3^{0^2}-m_{bc}^2}$. The step function $\theta(X)$ is determined by ensuring $|\cos\theta_{23}|\leq1$, where $$\cos\theta_{23} =\frac{s_1 + s_2 - m_Z^2 - m_c^2 + 2q_2^0 q_3^0}{2\left|\vec{q}_2 \right| \left|\vec{q}_3\right|}.$$ With all these step function above, we can get the integration ranges:
$$\begin{aligned}
s_1^{\min } &=& m_c^2 + m_{B_c}^2 - \frac{\left(s_2 - m_Z^2 + m_{B_c}^2 \right) \left(s_2 - m_b^2 + m_c^2 \right) + \sqrt{\eta\left(s_2,m_Z^2,m_{B_c}^2\right)\eta\left(s_2,m_b^2,m_c^2 \right)}}{2s_2}\\
s_1^{\max } &=& m_c^2 + m_{B_c}^2 - \frac{\left( s_2 - m_Z^2 + m_{B_c}^2 \right) \left(s_2 - m_b^2 + m_c^2 \right) - \sqrt {\eta \left( s_2, m_Z^2, m_{B_c}^2\right) \eta\left(s_2,m_b^2,m_c^2 \right)}} {2s_2}\\
s_2^{\min} &=& \left(m_c + m_b \right)^2 \\
s_2^{\max} &=& \left(m_Z - m_{B_c} \right)^2\end{aligned}$$
where $\eta(x,y,z)=(x-y-z)^2-4yz$.
Furthermore, we can obtain the $\cos\theta_{23}$ distribution $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d\Gamma}{ds_1 d\cos\theta_{23}} \propto \frac{J}{2^7 \pi^3 m_Z^3}\theta(k^0 - q_2^0 - q_3^0)
\theta (q_2^0)\theta (q_3^0)\theta (X)\nonumber\\\end{aligned}$$ where the extra Jacobian $$J=\frac{- \left| {{\vec q}_2} \right|\left| {\vec q}_3 \right|}{\left| {1 - \frac{q_2^0}{m_Z} + \frac{\left| {{{\vec q}_2}} \right|(m_Z^2 + m_{B_c}^2 - {s_2})}{m_Z \sqrt {m_{B_c}^4 - 2(m_Z^2 + {s_2})m_{bc}^2 + (m_Z^2 -s_2 )^2}}\cos\theta _{23}}\right|}$$ and there are two $s_2$ in different range of $\cos\theta_{23}$ and $s_1$, i.e.
$$\begin{aligned}
s^{\pm}_2=&&\frac{1}{|\vec{q_2}|^2\cos^2\theta_{23}-(q_2^0-m_Z)^2} \Bigg\{[|\vec{q_2}|^2(m_{B_c}^2 +{m_Z}^2)\cos^2\theta_{23}-(q_2^0-m_Z) [m_Z(s_1 +q_2^0 m_Z)+q_2^0 m_{B_c}^2-m_c^2-{m_Z}^2]] \nonumber\\
&&\pm m_Z|\vec{q_2}|\cos\theta_{23}[m_{B_c}^4-2m_{B_c}^2(m_c^2+2(m_Z-q_2^0)^2 -s_1-2|\vec{q_2}|^2 \cos^2\theta_{23})+(m_c^2-s_1)^2]^\frac{1}{2}\Bigg\} ,\end{aligned}$$
where $s^{+}_2$ is obtained when $\cos\theta_{23}\in [0,-1]$ and $s_1\in [s_{1\min}[{\cos\theta_{23}}], s_{1\min}[{\cos\theta_{23}=0}]]$. And $s^{-}_2$ is obtained when $\cos\theta_{23}\in[1,0]$ and $s_1\in[s_{1\min}[\cos\theta_{23}=0],s_{1\max}]$ or $\cos\theta_{23}\in[0,-1]$ and $s_1\in[s_{1\min}[{\cos\theta_{23}}],s_{1\max}]$. The $\theta(X)$ function determines the boundary of $s_1$:
$$\begin{aligned}
s_{1\max }&=&(m_Z - m_b)^2 \\
s_{1\min}[\cos\theta_{23}]&=&\frac{m_b^{2} (\cos^2\theta_{23}-1) m_{B_c}^2 + m_Z^{2}(m_c^2 + m_{B_c}^2 \cos^2\theta_{23}) +m_{B_c} m_Z\sqrt{Y}} {(\cos^2\theta_{23}-1) m_{B_c}^2 +m_Z^2}\end{aligned}$$
with
$$\begin{aligned}
Y&=&4m_b^{2} m_{B_c}^2 \cos^4\theta_{23}- (m_b^4 +(6m_{B_c}^2 -2(m_c^2 +m_Z^2)) m_b^2 +((m_{B_c}-m_c)^2-m_Z^2) \nonumber\\
&&\times ((m_{B_c}+m_c)^2 -m_Z^2)) \cos^2\theta_{23} +\left(m_b^2 +m_{B_c}^2 -m_c^{2} -m_Z^2\right)^2.\end{aligned}$$
The distribution for $\cos\theta_{13}$ can be obtained in a similar way.
Amplitude of the process $Z^0(k)\rightarrow B^{(*)}_c(q_3) + b(q_2) +\bar c(q_1)$
=================================================================================
The amplitude $M$ of the process $Z^0(k)\rightarrow B^{(*)}_c(q_3) + b(q_2) +\bar c(q_1)$ has the general structure $$M = {\bar u_s}({q_2})A{v_{s'}}({q_1}) ,$$ where $A$ can be read from Eqs.(\[A1\])-(\[A4\]).
To derive analytical expression for the process and to make its form simpler as much as possible, we adopt the ‘new trace amplitude approach’ suggested by Refs.[@chang1; @tbc2] to do our calculation. Detailed process of the approach can be found in Refs.[@chang1; @tbc2], and here, we shall only list our main results.
After summing up the spin states, the square of the amplitude can be divided into four parts, $$|M|^2 = |M_{1}|^2 + |M_{2}|^2 + |M_{3}|^2 + |M_{4}|^2,$$ where by introducing a light-like momentum $k_0$ and a spacelike vector $k_1$ that satisfies the relations, $k_1\cdot k_1=-1$ and $k_0\cdot k_1=0$, the four amplitude $M_i$ can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
M_1 &=& \frac{N}{{\sqrt 2 }} Tr\left[ {({\slashed{q}_1} - {m_c}){\slashed{k}_0}({\slashed{q}_2} + {m_b})A } \right] ,\nonumber\\
M_2 &=& \frac{N}{{\sqrt 2 }} Tr\left[ {({\slashed{q}_1} - {m_c}){\gamma _5}{\slashed{k}_0}({\slashed{q}_2} + {m_b})A } \right] , \nonumber\\
M_3 &=& \frac{N}{{\sqrt 2 }} Tr\left[ {({\slashed{q}_1} - {m_c}){\slashed{k}_0}{\slashed{k}_1}({\slashed{q}_2} + {m_b})A } \right]\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ and $$M_4 = \frac{N}{{\sqrt 2 }} Tr\left[ {({\slashed{q}_1} - {m_c}){\gamma _5}{\slashed{k}_1}{\slashed{k}_0}({\slashed{q}_2} + {m_b})A } \right] ,\nonumber$$ where $N = 1/\sqrt {4({k_0}\cdot{q_1})({k_0}\cdot{q_2})}$ is the normalization constant. $k_0$ and $k_1$ are arbitrary momenta, and in order to write down $M_n$ as explicitly and simply as possible:\
1) We set $k_0 = {q_2} - \alpha {q_1}$, where the coefficient $\alpha$ is determined by the requirement that $k_0$ be a lightlike vector: $$\alpha = \frac{{q_1} \cdot {q_2} \pm \sqrt{({q_1} \cdot {q_2})^2 - m_b^2m_c^2}}{m_c^2} .$$ 2) We set $k_1^\mu = i{N_0}{\varepsilon ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }}{q_{1\nu }}{k_{\rho }}{q_{2\sigma }}$, where $N_0$ ensures $k_1\cdot k_1=-1$. It is found that $\slashed{k}_1$ can be expressed as, $$\slashed{k}_1 = {N_0}{\gamma _5}\left[ {{q_1} \cdot {k}{\slashed{q}_2} + {\slashed{q}_1}{k} \cdot {q_2} - {q_1} \cdot {q_2}{\slashed{k}} - {\slashed{q}_1}{\slashed{k}}{\slashed{q}_2}} \right]. \\$$ And then the resultant $M_i$ can be simplified as: $$\begin{aligned}
M_1 &=& {L_1} \times Tr [({\slashed{q}_1} - m_c)({\slashed{q}_2} + {m_b})A] ,\\
M_2 &=& {L_2} \times Tr [({\slashed{q}_1} - m_c){\gamma _5}(\slashed{q}_{2}+{m_b})A] ,\\
M_3 &=& M_{3'} - {N_0}[{m_b} ({q_1} \cdot {k}) + {m_c}({q_2} \cdot {k})]M_2 ,\\
M_4 &=& M_{4'} + {N_0}[{m_b} ({q_1} \cdot {k}) - {m_c}({q_2} \cdot {k})]M_1 ,\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
M_{3'} &=&\frac{N_0}{4L_2} Tr\left[ {({\slashed{q}_1} - {m_c}){\gamma _5}{\slashed{k}}({\slashed{q}_2} + {m_b})A } \right] , \\
M_{4'} &=&-\frac{N_0}{4L_1} Tr\left[ {({\slashed{q}_1} - {m_c}){\slashed{k}}({\slashed{q}_2} + {m_b})A } \right] .\end{aligned}$$
Furthermore, the amplitudes $M_i$ can be expanded over some basic Lorentz structures: $$M_i(n)=\sum^m_{j=1} A^i_j(n) B_j(n) (i=1-4)$$ and $$M_{i'}(n)=\sum^m_{j=1} A^{i'}_j(n) B_j(n) \;\; (i'=3,4)
\label{amat}$$ where $m$ is the number of basic Lorentz structure $B_j(n)$, whose value dependents on the $(c\bar{b})$-quarkonium state $n$: e.g. $m=3$ for $n=(c\bar{b})[^1S_0]_1$, $m=12$ for $n=(c\bar{b})[^3S_1]_1$. As for $A^3_j(n)$ and $A^4_j(n)$, they can be expressed by $$\begin{aligned}
A^3_j(n) &=& A^{3'}_j(n)-{N_0}[{m_b} ({q_1} \cdot {k}) + {m_c}({q_2} \cdot {k})] A^2_j(n) , \nonumber\\
A^4_j(n) &=& A^{4'}_j(n)+{N_0}[{m_b} ({q_1} \cdot {k}) - {m_c}({q_2} \cdot {k})] A^1_j(n) . \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ The explicit expression for $A^{1,2}_j(n)$ and $A^{3',4'}_j(n)$ of each state shall be listed in the following subsections.
To shorten the notation, we set $T_b=\frac{1}{4}-\frac{1}{3}{\sin ^2}{\theta _w}$ and $T_c=\frac{1}{4}-\frac{2}{3}{\sin ^2}{\theta _w}$. And, we define some dimensionless parameters $$r_1=\frac{m_b}{m_Z},\;\; r_2=\frac{m_c}{m_Z},\;\;
r_3=\frac{m_{B_c}}{m_Z}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
&&x=q_3\cdot k/m_Z^2=\frac{1}{2m_Z^2}(m_{B_c}^2+m_Z^2-s_2),\nonumber\\
&&y=q_2\cdot k/m_Z^2=\frac{1}{2m_Z^2} (m_b+m_Z^2-s_1), \nonumber\\
&&z=q_1\cdot k/m_Z^2=\frac{1}{2m_Z^2}(m_Z^2+m_c^2-s_3), \nonumber\\
&&u=q_3\cdot q_2/m_Z^2 =\frac{1}{2m_Z^2}(s_3-m_{B_c}^2-m_b^2), \nonumber\\
&&v=q_3\cdot q_1/m_Z^2=\frac{1}{2m_Z^2}(s_1-m_{B_c}^2-m_c^2), \nonumber\\
&&w=q_1\cdot q_2/m_Z^2= \frac{1}{2m_Z^2}(s_2-m_b^2-m_c^2),\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $s_1=(q_1+q_3)^2$, $s_2=(q_1+q_2)^2$, and $s_3=(q_2+q_3)^2$, which satisfy the relation: $s_1+s_2+s_3=m_Z^2+m_c^2+m_b^2+m_{B_c}^2$. And the short notations for the denominators are $$\begin{aligned}
&&d_1=\frac{1}{(q_2-k)^2-m_b^2}\frac{1}{(q_{31}+q_1)^2},\nonumber\\
&&d_2=\frac{1}{(k-q_{32})^2-m_b^2}\frac{1}{(q_{31}+q_1)^2},\nonumber\\
&&d_3=\frac{1}{(q_{32}+q_2)^2}\frac{1}{(q_{31}-k)^2-m_c^2},\nonumber\\
&&d_4=\frac{1}{(q_{32}+q_2)^2}\frac{1}{(q_3+q_2)^2-m_c^2},\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Furthermore, the following relations are useful to short the expressions: $$u+v+r_3^2=x,\;\; w+u+r_2^2=y, \;\; w+v+r_1^2=z.$$
Coefficients for the production of $B_c$
----------------------------------------
There are 3 basic Lorentz structures $B_j$ for the case of $B_c$ ($^1S_0$), which are $$B_1=\frac{q_3\cdot\epsilon(k)}{m_Z} ,\; B_2=
\frac{q_2\cdot\epsilon(k)}{m_Z},\; B_3=\frac{i}{m_Z^3}\varepsilon(k,q_3,q_2,\epsilon(k)),$$ where $\varepsilon(k,q_3,q_2,\epsilon(k))=\varepsilon^{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}
k_{\mu}q_{3\nu} q_{2\rho} \epsilon_\sigma(k)$. The values of the coefficients $A^{1}_j$ and $A^{3'}_j$ are
$$\begin{aligned}
A^1_1 &=&\frac{L_1 m_Z{}^{7/2} }{\sqrt{r_3}}\Bigg((r_1 (1-2 r_1 r_3)-(2 r_1- r_3) y)d_1+(r_1(r_3+2 r_3 u-2 r_1 x)-r_3^2 y)d_2 +(r_1 (2 r_2 (x-u)+r_3 (y-1))\nonumber\\
&&+r_2 (r_3 y-2 r_2 u))d_3+(r_1^3+2 (r_2-2 r_3) r_1^2 +(r_2^2-r_3^2-y) r_1+(r_2-2 r_3) (2 u-y))d_4\Bigg),\\
A^1_2 &=&\frac{L_1 m_Z{}^{7/2} }{\sqrt{r_3}}((r_3 (x-2 u)+r_3 (4 u-2 x-4 y+2))d_1+(r_3 x-2 r_1r_3^2)d_2 \nonumber\\
&&+ (2 r_2 r_3^2-r_3 x)d_3+(-2 r_1 r_3^2+2 r_2 r_3^2-2 u r_3-x r_3)d_4),\\
A^1_3 &=&-4 L_1 m_Z{}^{7/2} \sqrt{r_3} T_b(d_1+d_2+d_3+d_4),\\
A^{3'}_1 &=&\frac{m_Z{}^{9/2} N_0} {{L_2} r_3^{3/2}}(T_b (-2 y^2+y-r_1 r_3)r_3 d_1
+T_b (-2 x r_1^3 +(r_3 (4 x+4 y-3)-2 r_2 x) r_1^2 +(r_2 r_3-2 u+2 (r_3^2- \nonumber\\
&& 2 r_2r_3 +2 u) y) r_1+r_3 (2 u+(-2 x-2 y+1) y))d_2 -T_c ((r_3-2 r_2 x) r_1^2+r_2 (r_3 (4 x+4 y-3) -2 r_2 x) r_1 \nonumber\\
&& -2 r_3 y^2-2 r_2 u+(-4 r_3 r_2^2+2 r_3^2 r_2+4 u r_2+r_3) y)d_3+T_c (r_1 r_3 (1-2 x) +(2r_3(r_3 -3r_1)-2 u) y)r_3 d_4),\\
A^{3'}_2 &=&\frac{m_Z{}^{9/2} N_0} {L_2 \sqrt{r_3}}(T_b (2 x r_1^2+2 (-2 x r_3-2 y r_3+r_3+r_2x)r_1 +(-r_3^2+2 r_2 r_3-2 u+x) \times(2 y-1))d_1 \nonumber\\
&&-T_b (r_3^2+x (-2 x-2 y+1))d_2-T_c (r_3^2+x (2 y-1))d_3 +T_c (x r_1^2+2 (-2 x r_3-2 y r_3+r_3+r_2 x) r_1 \nonumber\\
&&+r_2^2 x+2 r_2 r_3 (2y-1) -(r_3^2+2 u) (x+2 y-1))d_4),\\
A^{3'}_3 &=&\frac{m_Z{}^{9/2} N_0 }{4 L_2 \sqrt{r_3}}((2 r_1 r_3+2 y-1)d_1+(2 r_1 r_3-2 x-2 y+1)d_2-(2r_2 r_3+2 y-1)d_3 + (2 r_3^2-4 r_2 r_3+2 u)d_4)\end{aligned}$$
The values of the coefficients $A^{2}_j$ and $A^{4'}_j$ are $$\begin{aligned}
A^2_1 &=&-\frac{4 L_2 m_Z{}^{7/2} }{\sqrt{r_3}}(T_b ((2r_1+ r_3) y-r_1)d_1+T_b ((5 r_1-r_2)
r_3 y-r_1 (2 r_1 r_3^2+(4 r_1 (r_1-r_2)+4 u \nonumber\\
&&+1) r_3+2r_1 u-2 r_2 u-2 r_1 x))d_2+(r_1 r_2 r_3 T_c(6r_1-2r_2)+r_3 T_c r_1+(4 r_2 r_1+2 r_2 r_3 )T_c u \nonumber\\
&&-2 r_2 T_c x r_1-r_3 T_c y r_1-3 r_2 r_3 T_c y)d_3+(-r_3 T_c r_1^3+4 r_3^2 T_c r_1^2+r_3^3 T_c r_1 -4 r_2 r_3^2 T_c r_1 \nonumber\\
&&+r_2^2 r_3 T_c r_1+r_3 T_c y r_1+4 r_3^2 T_c u-2 r_2 r_3 T_c u-2 r_3^2 T_c y+r_2 r_3 T_c y)d_4),\\
A^2_2 &=&-\frac{4 L_2 m_Z{}^{7/2} }{\sqrt{r_3}}(T_b ((6r_1-2r_2)r_1 r_3
+(4 u-2 x-4 y+2) r_3 +2 r_1 u-2 r_2 u-3 r_1 x+r_2 x)d_1 \nonumber\\
&&+(r_2-r_1) T_b x d_2+(r_1-r_2) T_c x d_3-T_c (-2 r_3 ((r_1-r_2)^2-r_2 r_3) -2 (r_1-r_2) u-r_3 x)d_4),\\
A^2_3 &=&\frac{L_2 m_Z{}^{7/2} }{\sqrt{r_3}}( r_3 d_1+(r_2-r_1)d_2+(r_2-r_1)d_3-r_3 d_4),\\
A^{4'}_1 &=&\frac{m_Z{}^{9/2} N_0}{4 L_1 r_3{}^{3/2}}((r_1 r_3+y) (2 y-1)d_1
+(2 x r_1^3-(r_3+2 r_2 x) r_1^2+(r_2 r_3+2 u-4 u y) r_1 \nonumber\\
&&-r_3(2 u+(-2 x-2 y+1) y))d_2+((r_3-2 r_2 x) r_1^2+r_2 (2 r_2 x-r_3) r_1 \nonumber\\
&&+(2 y-1) (2 r_2 u-r_3 y))d_3+(r_1 r_3 (2 x-1)-(-4 r_1 r_3-2 u) y)d_4),\\
A^{4'}_2 &=&\frac{m_Z{}^{9/2} N_0}{4 L_1 \sqrt{r_3}}( (r_3 (2 r_1-2 r_2+r_3)+2 u-x) (2 y-1)d_1+(r_3^2+2 r_1 (x+2 y-1) r_3+x \nonumber\\
&&-2 x (x+y))d_2+(r_3^2-2 r_2 (x+2 y-1) r_3+x (2 y-1))d_3+(-x r_1^2+2 r_3 (2 x+2 y-1) r_1 \nonumber\\
&&+r_2^2 x+(r_3^2+2 u) (x+2 y-1)-2 r_2 r_3 (2 x+2y-1))d_4),\\
A^{4'}_3 &=&-\frac{ N_0 m_Z{}^{9/2}}{L_1 \sqrt{r_3}} (T_b (2 y-1) d_1+T_b (-2 x-2 y+1) d_2 +(T_c-2T_c y)d_3+T_c (r_1^2-r_2^2+r_3^2+2 u)d_4)\end{aligned}$$
Coefficients for $B^*_c$
------------------------
There are 12 basic Lorentz structures $B_j$ for the case of $B^*_c$ $(^3S_1)$, which are $$\begin{aligned}
B_1 &=& \epsilon(k)\cdot\epsilon(q_3),\;\;
B_2 =\frac{i}{m_Z^2}\varepsilon(k,q_3,\epsilon(k),\epsilon(q_3)),\nonumber\\
B_3 &=&\frac{i}{m_Z^2}\varepsilon(k,q_2,\epsilon(k),\epsilon(q_3)),\;\;
B_4 = \frac{i}{m_Z^2}\varepsilon(q_3,q_2,\epsilon(k),\epsilon(q_3)),\nonumber\\
B_5 &=&\frac{k\cdot\epsilon(q_3) q_3\cdot\epsilon(k)}{m_Z^2},\;\;
B_6 =\frac{k\cdot\epsilon(q_3) q_2\cdot\epsilon(k)}{m_Z^2},\nonumber\\
B_7 &=&\frac{q_2\cdot\epsilon(q_3) q_3\cdot\epsilon(k)}{m_Z^2},\;\;
B_8 =\frac{q_2\cdot\epsilon(k) q_2\cdot\epsilon(q_3)}{m_Z^2}, \nonumber\\
B_9 &=&\frac{i}{m_Z^4} \varepsilon(k,q_3,q_2,\epsilon(k))k \cdot \epsilon(q_3),\nonumber\\
B_{10} &=& \frac{i}{m_Z^4} \varepsilon(k,q_3,q_2,\epsilon(q_3))q_3 \cdot \epsilon(k), \nonumber\\
B_{11} &=& \frac{i}{m_Z^4} \varepsilon(k,q_3,q_2,\epsilon(q_3))q_2 \cdot \epsilon(k), \nonumber\\
B_{12} &=& \frac{i}{m_Z^4} \varepsilon(k,q_3,q_2,\epsilon(k))q_2 \cdot \epsilon(q_3) . \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ The values of the coefficients $A^{1}_j$ and $A^{3'}_j$ are
$$\begin{aligned}
A^1_1 &=&\frac{4 L_1 m_Z{}^{7/2} }{\sqrt{r_3}}(T_b (r_2 y+r_1 (x+y-1))r_3 d_1+T_b (-2 xr_1^2+(r_3 (x-1)-2 r_2 x) r_1 \nonumber\\
&&-2 u x+r_3^2 y+2 x y)d_2-T_c (2 x r_1^2+(2 r_2 x+r_3 (x-1)) r_1+2 u x+r_3^2 y-2 x y)d_3 \nonumber\\
&&-T_c (r_1^3-(r_2^2-r_3^2-2u+x+y) r_1+r_2 y)r_3 d_4),\\
A^1_2 &=&\frac{L_1 m_Z{}^{7/2} }{\sqrt{r_3}}(-r_1 r_3 d_1+(r_1 (-2r_1- r_3)-4 u+4y)d_2 +(2 r_1^2+r_3 r_1+4 u-4 y)d_3-r_1 r_3 d_4),\\
A^1_3 &=&\frac{L_1 m_Z{}^{7/2} }{\sqrt{r_3}}((r_1-r_2)r_3 d_1+(3 r_3^2-2 x)d_2-(r_3^2-2x)d_3- (r_1-r_2) r_3 d_4),\\
A^1_4 &=&-\frac{2 L_1 m_Z{}^{7/2} }{\sqrt{r_3}}(r_1 r_3 d_1+(r_1 r_3+x-1)d_2+(r_2
r_3-x+1)d_3+r_2 r_3 d_4),\\
A^1_5 &=&\frac{4 L_1 m_Z{}^{7/2} }{\sqrt{r_3}}(-r_1 r_3 T_b d_1+T_b (2 r_1^2+r_3 r_1+2 u-2 y)d_2 +T_c(2 r_1^2+r_3 r_1+2 u-2 y)d_3- r_1 r_3 T_c d_4),\\
A^1_6 &=&-4 L_1 m_Z{}^{7/2}( (3 r_1+r_2) \sqrt{r_3} T_b d_1+r_3^{3/2} T_b d_2-r_3^{3/2}
T_c d_3+(r_1-r_2) \sqrt{r_3} T_c d_4),\\
A^1_7 &=&8 L_1 m_Z{}^{7/2}(-r_1 \sqrt{r_3} T_b d_2+r_2 \sqrt{r_3} T_c d_3+r_3^{3/2}T_c d_4),\\
A^1_8 &=&8 L_1 m_Z{}^{7/2} r_3^{3/2}(T_b d_1+T_c d_4),\\
A^1_9 &=&A^1_{10}=\frac{2 L_1 m_Z{}^{7/2}}{\sqrt{r_3}}(d_2-d_3),\\
A^1_{11} &=&A^1_{12}=0,\\
A^{3'}_1 &=&-\frac{m_Z{}^{9/2} N_0 }{4 L_2 \sqrt{r_3}}(r_3 ((2 x+2 y-1) r_1^2+(r_2-2 r_2 y) r_1+u+y-2 y (x+y))d_1 +(-2 x r_1^3+(r_3 (4 x+4 y-3)\nonumber\\
&&-2 r_2 x) r_1^2+(r_2 r_3-2 (u+(x-1) x)+2 (r_3^2-2 r_2r_3+2 u-x) y) r_1+2 r_2 x y+r_3 (-2 y^2-2 x y+y+u))d_2 \nonumber\\
&&-((r_3-2 r_2 x) r_1^2+(-2 x r_2^2+r_3 (4 x+4 y-3) r_2-2 x (x+y-1)) r_1 -2 r_2u-4 r_2^2 r_3 y+ 2 r_2 (r_3^2+2 u+x) y\nonumber\\
&&+r_3 (-2 y^2-2 x y+y+u))d_3 +r_3 (-u-r_1 (r_1+r_2 (2 x-1))+((r_1-r_2)^2+r_3^2+2 u) y)d_4),\\
A^{3'}_2 &=&\frac{2 m_Z{}^{9/2} N_0 }{L_2 \sqrt{r_3}}(T_b (r_1 (x-1)+(r_1 -r_2) y)d_2 -r_3 T_b y d_1 +T_c (r_1 (x-1)+(r_1 -r_2) y)d_3-r_3 T_c (r_1^2+u)d_4),\\
A^{3'}_3 &=&\frac{m_Z{}^{9/2} N_0 \sqrt{r_3} }{L_2}(T_b (1-2 y)d_1+T_b (2 x+2 y-1)d_2+T_c(2 x+2 y-1)d_3 +2r_2 r_3 T_c d_4),\\
A^{3'}_4 &=&-\frac{m_Z{}^{9/2} N_0 \sqrt{r_3} }{L_2}(T_b (d_1+d_2)+T_c d_3+T_c (2 x+2
y-1) d_4),\\
A^{3'}_5 &=&\frac{m_Z{}^{9/2} N_0}{2 L_2 \sqrt{r_3}}(r_3 (r_1^2-y)d_1+(r_2 y-r_1(u+x+y-1))d_2 + (r_3 y-r_2 (u+y)+r_1 (x+y-1))d_3+r_3(r_1^2+u)d_4),\\
A^{3'}_6 &=&\frac{m_Z{}^{9/2} N_0 \sqrt{r_3}}{4 L_2}( - (2 u+2 y-1)d_1+(2 r_1 r_3-2 x-2 y+1)d_2 +(2r_2 r_3+2 y-1)d_3+2r_2 r_3 d_4),\\
A^{3'}_7 &=&-\frac{m_Z{}^{9/2} N_0 }{4 L_2 \sqrt{r_3}}(-r_3 d_1+(r_3-2 r_1 x)d_2+(r_3-2 r_2 x)d_3-r_3 (2 x+4 y-1)d_4),\\
A^{3'}_8 &=&\frac{m_Z{}^{9/2} N_0 \sqrt{r_3} }{2 L_2}(x+2 y-1)(d_1+d_4),\\
A^{3'}_9 &=&-\frac{2 m_Z{}^{9/2} N_0 \sqrt{r_3} }{L_2}T_c d_3,\\
A^{3'}_{10} &=&A^{3'}_{11}=\frac{2 m_Z{}^{9/2} N_0 }{L_2 \sqrt{r_3}}(r_1 T_b d_2- r_2 T_c d_3),\\
A^{3'}_{12} &=&-\frac{2 m_Z{}^{9/2} N_0 \sqrt{r_3} }{L_2}T_c d_4,\end{aligned}$$
The values of the coefficients $A^{2}_j$ and $A^{4'}_j$ are $$\begin{aligned}
A^2_1 &=&-\frac{L_2 m_Z{}^{7/2} }{\sqrt{r_3}}(r_3 (2 r_1^3-2 r_2 r_1^2+(2 u-x-3 y+1) r_1+r_2 y)d_1+(r_3 r_1(6r_1^2-2r_1 r_2) \nonumber\\
&&+2 (u-2 x) r_1^2+(2 r_2 (x-u)+r_3 (4 u-x-5 y+1)) r_1-2u x+r_2 r_3 y+2 x y)d_2 \nonumber\\
&&-((4 r_2 r_3-2 x) r_1^2+(2 r_2 r_3^2-(4 r_2^2+x+y-1) r_3+2 r_2 u)r_1-2 r_2^2 u+r_2 r_3 (4 u-3 y) \nonumber\\
&&+2 x (y-u))d_3+r_3(r_1^3-2 r_2 r_1^2+(r_2^2+r_3^2+2 u-x-y) r_1+r_2 (y-2 u))d_4),\\
A^2_2 &=&\frac{4 L_2 m_Z{}^{7/2} }{\sqrt{r_3}}(-r_1 r_3 T_b d_1+T_b (r_1(4 r_1-r_3)+4 (u-y))d_2 +T_c (r_1 (4 r_1-r_3)+4 (u-y))d_3-r_1 r_3 T_c d_4),\\
A^2_3 &=&\frac{4 L_2 m_Z{}^{7/2} }{\sqrt{r_3}}(- (r_1-r_2)r_3 T_b d_1+T_b (2x-2r_2-r_3)d_2 +T_c (2x-2r_2-r_3)d_3-(r_1-r_2) r_3 T_c d_4),\\
A^2_4 &=&\frac{8 L_2 m_Z{}^{7/2} }{\sqrt{r_3}}(T_b (x-1)d_2+T_c (x-1)d_3),\\
A^2_5 &=&-\frac{L_2 m_Z{}^{7/2}}{\sqrt{r_3}}( r_1 r_3 d_1+(r_1 (4 r_1- r_3)+2(u-y))(d_2-d_3)+ r_1 r_3 d_4),\\
A^2_6 &=&-L_2 m_Z{}^{7/2} (r_1-r_2) \sqrt{r_3}(d_1+d_2-d_3+d_4),\\
A^2_7 &=&2 L_2 m_Z{}^{7/2} r_1 \sqrt{r_3}(d_1+d_4),\\
A^2_8 &=&2 L_2 m_Z{}^{7/2} (r_1-r_2) \sqrt{r_3}(d_1+d_4),\\
A^2_9 &=&A^2_{10}=-\frac{8 L_2 m_Z{}^{7/2} }{\sqrt{r_3}}(T_b d_2+T_c d_3),\\
A^2_{11} &=&A^2_{12}=0,\\
A^{4'}_1 &=&\frac{m_Z^{9/2} N_0}{L_1 \sqrt{r_3}}(r_3 T_b (r_1^2-r_2 r_1+u+(-2 x-2 y+1) y)d_1 +T_b (r_3 r_1^2+(2 x (x+y-1)-r_2 r_3) r_1 +2 r_2 x y \nonumber\\
&&+r_3 (y+u-2 y^2-2 x y))d_2 +T_c ((r_2 r_3+2 x (x+y-1)) r_1-r_3 r_1^2+2 r_2 x y-r_3 (y+u-2 y^2-2 x y))d_3 \nonumber\\
&&+r_3 T_c ((y-1) r_1^2+r_2 r_1-u+(-r_2^2+r_3^2+2 u) y)d_4),\\
A^{4'}_2 &=&\frac{m_Z{}^{9/2} N_0 }{2 L_1 \sqrt{r_3}}( r_3 (y-r_1^2)d_1+(r_1 (r_1^2-r_2r_1+2 u+x-1)+(2 r_2-r_3) y)d_2 \nonumber\\
&&+ (r_2 r_1^2-(r_2^2+x-1) r_1+2 r_2 u-(2 r_2+r_3) y)d_3+r_3 (r_1^2-r_2 r_1+u)d_4),\\
A^{4'}_3 &=&\frac{m_Z{}^{9/2} N_0}{4 L_1 \sqrt{r_3}}(r_3 (2 r_1 (r_2-r_1)+2 y-1)d_1+ (-2 r_1r_3^2-2 y r_3+r_3+2 (r_1-r_2) x)d_2 \nonumber\\
&&+ (-2 r_2 r_3^2-2 y r_3+r_3+2 (r_2-r_1)x)d_3-r_3 (r_3^2-(r_1-r_2)^2)d_4),\\
A^{4'}_4 &=&\frac{m_Z{}^{9/2} N_0 }{4 L_1 \sqrt{r_3}}(r_3 d_1+(2 r_2-r_3+4 r_1 (x+y-1))d_2 +(2 r_1-r_3+4 r_2 (x+y-1))d_3+r_3 (2 x+2 y-1)d_4),\\
A^{4'}_5 &=&-\frac{2 m_Z{}^{9/2} N_0}{L_1 \sqrt{r_3}}( -r_3 T_b y d_1+T_b (r_1 (r_1^2-r_2r_1+u+x-1)+r_3 y)d_2+T_c (-r_2 r_1^2 \nonumber\\
&&+(r_2^2+x+y-1) r_1-r_2 u+(r_2+r_3)y)d_3-r_3 T_c (r_1^2-r_2 r_1+u)d_4),\\
A^{4'}_6 &=&\frac{m_Z{}^{9/2} N_0 \sqrt{r_3} }{L_1}(T_b (2 r_1 (r_1-r_2)+2 u+2 y-1)d_1+T_b(2 x+2 y-1)d_2 +(T_c-2 T_c y)d_3-4r_1 r_2 T_c d_4),\\
A^{4'}_7 &=&\frac{m_Z{}^{9/2} N_0}{L_1 \sqrt{r_3}}( r_3 (-T_b d_1 +T_b d_2+T_c d_3) +(2 x+4 y-1)(2T_b r_1 d_2 -2T_c r_2 d_3 -T_c r_3 d_4)),\\
A^{4'}_8 &=&-\frac{2 m_Z{}^{9/2} N_0 \sqrt{r_3} }{L_1}(x+2 y-1)(T_b d_1+T_c d_4),\\
A^{4'}_9 &=&-\frac{m_Z{}^{9/2} N_0 }{2 L_1 \sqrt{r_3}}(2r_1 d_2-(r_1-r_2)d_3),\\
A^{4'}_{10} &=&-\frac{m_Z{}^{9/2} N_0 }{2 L_1 \sqrt{r_3}}(r_1 d_2+r_2 d_3),\\
A^{4'}_{11} &=&\frac{m_Z{}^{9/2} N_0 \sqrt{r_3}}{2 L_1}d_1,\\
A^{4'}_{12} &=&\frac{m_Z{}^{9/2} N_0 \sqrt{r_3}}{2 L_1}d_4 .\end{aligned}$$
[99]{}
CDF Collaboraten, F. Abe, [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**81**]{}, 2432 (1998); Phys. Rev. [**D58**]{}, 112004 (1998).
Chao-Hsi Chang, Chafik Driouich, Paula Eerola and Xing-Gang Wu, Comput. Phys. Commun. [**159**]{}, 192(2004).
Chao-Hsi Chang, Jian-Xiong Wang and Xing-Gang Wu, Comput. Phys. Commun. [**174**]{}, 241(2006); Comput. Phys. Commun. [**175**]{}, 624(2006).
C.F. Qiao, C.S. Li and K.T. Chao, Phys.Rev. D[**54**]{}, 5606(1996).
Chao-Hsi Chang, Jian-Xiong Wang and Xing-Gang Wu, Phys.Rev. D[**77**]{}, 014022(2008).
Xing-Gang Wu, Phys.Lett. B[**671**]{}, 318(2009).
Peng Sun, Li-Ping Sun, Cong-Feng Qiao, arXiv:1003.5360 \[hep-ph\].
Chao-Hsi Chang and Yu-Qi Chen, Phys.Rev. D[**46**]{}, 3845(1992).
Chao-Hsi Chang and Yu-Qi Chen, Phys.Lett. B[**284**]{}, 127(1992).
G. Aarons et al., ILC collaboration, ‘International Linear Collider Reference Design Report Volume 2: PHYSICS AT THE ILC’, arXiv:0709.1893.
J. Erler, [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Lett. B[**486**]{}, 125 (2000).
Chao-Hsi Chang, Jian-Xiong Wang and Xing-Gang Wu, arXiv:1005.4723 \[hep-ph\].
E. Braaten, K. Cheung and T.C. Yuan, Phys.Rev. D[**48**]{}, 5049(1993).
G.T. Bodwin G.T., E. Braaten E. and G.P. Lepage, Phys. Rev. D [**51**]{}, 1125 (1995); Erratum Phys. Rev. D [**55**]{}, 5853 (1997).
E. Eichten, K. Gottfried, T. Kinoshita, K.D. Lane and T.M. Yan, Phys.Rev. D[**17**]{}, 3090(1978); ibid. [**21**]{}, 313(E)(1980); ibid.[**21**]{}, 203(1980).
W. Buchm${\rm \ddot{u}}$ller and S.-H.H. Tye, Phys.Rev. D[**24**]{}, 132(1981).
A. Martin, Phys.Lett. B[**93**]{}, 338(1980).
C. Quigg and J.L. Rosner, Phys.Lett. B[**71**]{}, 153(1977).
Y.Q. Chen and Y.P. Kuang, Phys.Rev. D[**46**]{}, 1165(1992); Erratum-ibid. D[**47**]{}, 350(1993).
E.J. Eichten and C. Quigg, Phys.Rev. D[**49**]{}, 5845(1994).
C. Amsler, [*et al.*]{}, Particle Data Group, Phys.Lett. B[**667**]{}, 1(2008).
[^1]: e-mail:[email protected]
[^2]: There are some typos in the formulae listed in the Appendix of Ref.[@chang1], the right ones are presented in the present Appendix B.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We study a noise-induced bifurcation in the vicinity of the threshold by using a perturbative expansion of the order parameter, called the Poincaré-Lindstedt expansion. Each term of this series becomes divergent in the long time limit if the power spectrum of the noise does not vanish at zero frequency. These divergencies have a physical consequence : they modify the scaling of all the moments of the order parameter near the threshold and lead to a multifractal behaviour. We derive this anomalous scaling behaviour analytically by a resummation of the Poincaré-Lindstedt series and show that the usual, deterministic, scalings are recovered when the noise has a low frequency cut-off. Our analysis reconciles apparently contradictory results found in the literature.'
author:
- 'Sébastien Auma\^ itre$^1$, Kirone Mallick$^2$, François Pétrélis$^1$'
title: 'Stochastic bifurcations: a perturbative study'
---
Introduction
============
A random noise can strongly affect the qualitative behaviour of a nonlinear dynamical system by shifting the bifurcation threshold, by modifying the characteristic exponents or by inducing unexpected transitions [@lefever; @anishchenko]. A straightforward approach to study the effect of noise on a bifurcation diagram would consist in analyzing the nonlinear Langevin equation that governs the system. However, the interplay between noise and nonlinearity results in subtle effects that make nonlinear stochastic differential equations hard to handle [@vankampen; @gardiner]. Therefore, most of the works either consider the linearized stochastic system in the neighbourhood of a stable manifold (the nonlinearity is thus eliminated) or analyze Fokker-Planck type evolution equations for the Probability Distribution Function (PDF) (the noise is thus integrated out by mapping a stochastic ordinary differential equation into a deterministic partial differential equation in the phase space of the system). Any type of noise can be studied by the linearization technique, however the behaviour of the linearized dynamics is in general different from that of the real nonlinear system. On the other hand, Fokker-Planck equations fully take into account the nonlinear dynamics but are valid only for white noise (the various ‘Effective Fokker-Planck Equations’ that have been proposed to treat colored noise have a restricted range of validity). The Fokker-Planck approach can not therefore be applied to a noise with an arbitrary spectrum.
The study of a nonlinear system subject to a deterministic forcing is a classical problem in the theory of dynamical systems (including, for example, the phenomenon of parametric resonance of an oscillator driven by a periodic modulation). Many mathematical methods have been developed to analyze this question, amongst them the Poincaré-Lindstedt expansion which is a systematic perturbative calculation free of secular divergences [@drazin; @kevorkian]. It is natural to try to adapt the Poincaré-Lindstedt expansion to the case of nonlinear system driven by a noise [@luecke1; @luecke2]: such an expansion is versatile enough to deal with a [*nonlinear*]{} system subject to a noise having [*an arbitrary spectrum*]{}, thus allowing one to study precisely the impact of the spectral properties of the noise on a stochastic bifurcation.
The aim of the present work is to apply the Poincaré-Lindstedt technique to the study of a stochastic Hopf bifurcation and to determine the scaling exponents in the vicinity of the bifurcation threshold. We shall show that the characteristics of the noise have a strong influence on the scaling behaviour. In particular the existence of low frequencies in the noise power spectrum results in multifractality. The perturbative expansion also explains the crossover between normal scaling and anomalous scaling and allows to resolve some controversial claims in the literature.
The plan of this work is as follows: In section \[sec:Poincare\], we define the model under study, carry out the Poincaré-Lindstedt expansion and find the conditions under which this expansion becomes divergent. In section \[sec:resumation\], we extract the leading term of this expansion to all orders and show that after resummation the normal scaling behaviour is replaced by multifractality. Concluding remarks are given in the last section.
Perturbative analysis of a noisy Hopf bifurcation {#sec:Poincare}
=================================================
The random dynamical system we study here has been widely discussed as a paradigm for a noise-induced bifurcation [@lefever; @graham] and is gouverned by the following stochastic equation : $$\dot{x} =
\left( \epsilon + \Delta \xi(t) \right) x - x^{2p+1} \, ,
\label{eq:Hopf}$$ where $p$ is a strictly positive integer and the noise $\xi(t)$ is a Gaussian stationary random process with zero mean value and with a correlation function given by $$\langle \xi(t) \xi(t') \rangle = {\mathcal D}(|t - t'|) \, .
\label{eq:corr}$$ The power spectrum of the noise is the Fourier transform of the correlation function $$\hat{\mathcal D}(\omega) = \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} {\rm d}t \exp(i\omega t)
\langle \xi(t) \xi(0) \rangle =
\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} {\rm d}t \exp(i\omega t)
{\mathcal D}(|t|) \, .
\label{eq:PSD}$$ When the noise $\xi(t)$ is white, the correlation function ${\mathcal D}$ is a Dirac delta function and the power spectrum is a constant. We also recall that, because of the Wiener-Khinchin theorem [@vankampen], the function $\hat{\mathcal D}(\omega)$ is non-negative.
Applying elementary dimensional analysis to equation (\[eq:Hopf\]), we obtain the following scaling relations: $$x \sim t^{{1}/{(2p)}} \, , \,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,
\xi \sim t^{-1/2} \, , \,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,
\epsilon \sim \Delta^2 \sim t^{-1 } \, .
\label{eq:dimensions}$$ The dimension of the noise $\xi$ is so chosen as to render the power spectrum $\hat{\mathcal D}(\omega)$ a dimensionless function.
The white noise case
--------------------
When $\xi(t)$ is a Gaussian white noise, the stationary solution of the Fokker-Planck equation corresponding to equation (\[eq:Hopf\]) is given by $$P_{{\rm stat}}(x) = \frac{ 2p}
{\Gamma( \alpha) (p\Delta^2)^{\alpha} }
x^{2p\alpha -1}
\exp\left(-\frac{x^{2p}}{p\Delta^2} \right) \,\,\, \,\,\,
{\rm with } \,\,\, \alpha = \frac{\epsilon}{p\Delta^2} \, ,
\label{eq:PDFblanc}$$ and where $\Gamma$ represents the Euler Gamma-function. The bifurcation threshold is given by $\epsilon = 0$; for $\epsilon < 0 $, the solution (\[eq:PDFblanc\]) is not normalizable : the stationary PDF is the Dirac distribution $\delta(x)$ localized at the absorbing fixed point $x =0$. For $\epsilon > 0 $, the solution (\[eq:PDFblanc\]) is normalizable and is the extended stationary PDF. In this case, the moments of $x$ are given by $$\langle x^{2n} \rangle = \frac{ \Gamma( \alpha + n/p) }
{\Gamma( \alpha) } (p\Delta^2)^{n/p} \, .
\label{eq:momentblanc}$$ In the vicinity of the threshold, $\epsilon$ is small and we find that the moments scale linearly with $\epsilon$, [*i.e.*]{}, $$\langle x^{2n} \rangle \simeq \epsilon \, (p\Delta^2)^{n/p -1}
\Gamma(n/p) \, .
\label{eq:scalmomentblanc}$$ In the following, we shall find the characteristics of the noise for which such an anomalous scaling is valid.
The threshold shift
-------------------
The presence of noise can modify the bifurcation threshold which is given by $\epsilon = 0$ in the deterministic case. For the stochastic differential equation (\[eq:Hopf\]) subject to an arbitrary noise $\xi(t)$, the critical value $\epsilon_c(\Delta)$ that separates a localised PDF from an extended PDF, is determined by the vanishing of the Lyapunov exponent associated with the fixed point $x = 0$. We linearize equation (\[eq:Hopf\]) around $x = 0$, $$\frac{ {\rm d}{ \delta{x}} }{{\rm d}t} =
\left( \epsilon + \Delta \xi(t) \right) \delta{x} \, ,$$ and find the Lyapunov exponent $\Lambda$ to be $$\Lambda = \lim_{ t \to \infty} \frac{ {\rm d}}{{\rm d}t}
\langle \ln( \delta{x} ) \rangle =
\langle \frac{ \frac{ {\rm d} {\delta{x}} }{{\rm d}t} }
{\delta{x} } \rangle = \epsilon \, .$$ This result is valid regardless of the nature of the noise $\xi$ (we have only used the fact that the mean value of $\xi$ vanishes). The Lyapunov exponent vanishes when $\epsilon = 0$. Thus, for the first order equation (\[eq:Hopf\]), there is no threshold shift due to the presence of noise and we always have $\epsilon_c(\Delta) = 0$.
The Poincaré-Lindstedt expansion
--------------------------------
In order to to simplify the general treatment, we shall study the case of a cubic nonlinearity, [*i.e.*]{}, we take $p=1$ in equation (\[eq:Hopf\]). The Poincaré-Lindstedt method [@drazin; @kevorkian; @luecke1; @luecke2] consists in writing two expansions : one for the solution $x(t)$ of equation (\[eq:Hopf\]) and another for the deviation from threshold $(\epsilon - \epsilon_c(\Delta))$, both as power series of a formal parameter $\lambda$, $$\begin{aligned}
x(t) &=& \lambda x_1(t) + \lambda^2 x_2(t) + \lambda^3 x_3(t)
+ \lambda^4 x_4(t) + \ldots \, ,
\label{PLE1} \\
\epsilon - \epsilon_c(\Delta) &=& \lambda
\epsilon_1 + \lambda^2 \epsilon_2 + \lambda^3\epsilon_3 +
\lambda^4 \epsilon_4 + \ldots \, \label{PLE2} \, .\end{aligned}$$ By substituting the expansions (\[PLE1\] and \[PLE2\]) in equation (\[eq:Hopf\]) we observe that $x(t)$ and $(\epsilon - \epsilon_c(\Delta))$ are, respectively, odd and even in $\lambda$ (because equation (\[eq:Hopf\]) is antisymmetric under $x \to -x$). The Poincaré-Lindstedt expansion thus reduces to (using the fact that $ \epsilon_c(\Delta) = 0$) $$\begin{aligned}
x(t) &=& \lambda \left( x_1(t) + \lambda^2 x_3(t) + \lambda^4 x_5(t)
+ \ldots \right) \, ,
\label{PL1} \\
\epsilon &=& \lambda^2 \left(
\epsilon_2 + \lambda^2 \epsilon_4 + \lambda^4\epsilon_6 +
\ldots \right) \, \label{PL2} \, .\end{aligned}$$ Substituting these formal expansions in equation (\[eq:Hopf\]) and identifying the terms order by order in $\lambda$, we obtain a hierarchy of first order differential equations for the functions $x_{2i+1}(t)$ $${\mathcal L}x_{2i+1}(t) = {\mathcal P} \left( x_1, x_3, \ldots,
x_{2i-1}, \epsilon_2, \ldots, \epsilon_{2i} \right) \, ,
\label{eq:hierarchy}$$ where ${\mathcal P}$ is a polynomial function and $ {\mathcal L}$ a linear differential operator : $${\mathcal L} = \frac{ {\rm d}}{ {\rm d}t} - \Delta \xi(t) \, .
\label{eq:defL}$$ The hierarchy (\[eq:hierarchy\]) is solved with the initial conditions $$x_1(0) = 1 \, , \hbox{ and } \,\,\,\,\,\,
x_{2i +1}(0) = 0 \hbox{ for all } i \ge 1 \, .
\label{eq:init}$$ These conditions imply that $x(0) = \lambda$ : the formal parameter $\lambda$ is simply equal to the value of $x$ at time $t =0$ and, therefore, has the dimensions $$\lambda \sim t^{{1}/{2}} \, .
\label{eq:dimlambda}$$ Besides, the numbers $\epsilon_i$ appear as parameters in equation (\[eq:hierarchy\]) and are determined recursively thanks to the solvability condition that we now derive. Let us call $y_1(t)$ the solution of the adjoint equation ${\mathcal L}^ \dagger y_1 = 0 $, which is given by $$y_1(t) = \exp\left( - \Delta \int_0^t \xi(u){\rm d}u\right) \, .
\label{eq:defy1}$$ Multiplying equation (\[eq:Hopf\]) by the function $y_1$ and taking average values, we obtain $$\langle y_1 {\mathcal L} x_1 \rangle =
\langle \epsilon y_1 x_1 - y_1 x_1^3 \rangle \, .$$ Integrating the left hand side of this equation by parts and taking into account the fact that $y_1$ is in the kernel of the adjoint operator ${\mathcal L}^ \dagger$, we derive the following relation $$\epsilon = \frac{ \langle y_1 x_1^3 \rangle }
{ \langle y_1 x_1\rangle } \, .
\label{eq:solvability}$$ By virtue of this solvability condition, the hierachy of equations (\[eq:hierarchy\]) is defined without ambiguity. The functions $x_i$ and the parameters $\epsilon_i$ are determined recursively in a unique manner using the initial conditions (\[eq:init\]).
Eliminating $\lambda$ from equations (\[PL1\]) and (\[PL2\]) leads to the required expansion of $x(t)$ in terms of $\epsilon$.
Calculation of the first terms in the expansion
-----------------------------------------------
We now calculate the first terms of the Poincaré-Lindstedt expansion by applying the procedure described above. It will be useful to introduce the following auxiliary random variable $B_t$ : $$B_t = \int_0^t \xi(u){\rm d}u \, .
\label{eq:defB}$$ Because $\xi$ is taken to be a Gaussian random process, $B_t$ is also Gaussian. The lowest order terms in the Poincaré-Lindstedt expansion are then given by $$\begin{aligned}
x_1(t) &=& \exp\left( \Delta B_t \right) \label{eq:x1} \, ,\\
x_3(t) &=& x_1(t) \left( \epsilon_2 t -
\int_0^t x_1^2((u){\rm d}u \right) \, ,
\label{eq:x3} \end{aligned}$$ and the parameters $\epsilon_2$, $\epsilon_4$ are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\epsilon_2 &=& \langle x_1^2(t) \rangle =
\langle \exp\left( 2 \Delta B_t \right) \rangle \label{eq:e2} \, ,\\
\epsilon_4 &=& 3 \langle x_1x_3 \rangle -
\epsilon_2 \Big\langle \frac{x_3}{x_1} \Big\rangle
\label{eq:e4} \, , \end{aligned}$$ where the expectation value $\langle . \rangle$ is taken over all the possible histories between times 0 and $t$.
Behaviour of the moments
------------------------
We now determine the behaviour of the moments of $x$, such as $\langle x^{2n} \rangle $, in the vicinity of the threshold, [*i.e.*]{}, when $\epsilon \to 0$. In the Poincaré-Lindstedt expansion, this corresponds to the formal parameter $\lambda$ converging to 0. In this limit, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\langle x^{2n} \rangle &=& \lambda^{2n}
\left( \langle x_1^{2n} \rangle + 2n \lambda^2
\langle x_1^{2n-1} x_3 \rangle + \ldots \right)
\simeq \lambda^{2n}
\langle \exp\left( 2n \Delta B_t \right)\rangle
= \lambda^{2n} \exp\left( 2n^2 \Delta^2 \langle B_t^2 \rangle \right)
\, , \label{eq:nmom}\\
\epsilon &=& \lambda^2
\left(\epsilon_2 + \lambda \epsilon_4
+ \ldots \right) \simeq \lambda^2
\langle \exp\left( 2\Delta B_t \right)\rangle
= \lambda^2 \exp\left( 2 \Delta^2 \langle B_t^2 \rangle \right) \, .
\label{eq:epsmom}\end{aligned}$$ The last equality is derived by using the fact that $B_t$ is a Gaussian random process. Eliminating $\lambda$ from equations (\[eq:nmom\]) and (\[eq:epsmom\]), we obtain $$\langle x^{2n} \rangle \simeq \epsilon^n
\exp\left( 2(n^2 -n) \Delta^2 \langle B_t^2 \rangle \right) \, .
\label{eq:scalmom}$$ This equation predicts a normal scaling behaviour identical to that of the deterministic case. In fact, this scaling is merely a logical consequence of the formal structure of the Poincaré-Lindstedt expansion : indeed, we have $ \langle x^{2n} \rangle \sim \lambda^{2n}$ and $\epsilon \sim \lambda^2$ and therefore $ \langle x^{2n} \rangle \sim \epsilon^n$. However, the proportionality factor between $ \langle x^{2n} \rangle $ and $\epsilon^n $ in equation (\[eq:scalmom\]) can be divergent when $t \to \infty$. Such a divergence can change the scaling behaviour of the moments in the large time limit.
Importance of low frequencies in the noise spectrum
---------------------------------------------------
In order to determine the multiplicative factor of $\epsilon^n $ in equation (\[eq:scalmom\]), we must calculate the variance of the random variable $B_t$ : $$\begin{aligned}
\langle B_t^2 \rangle =
\int_0^t\int_0^t \langle \xi(u) \xi(v) \rangle{\rm d}u {\rm d}v
= \int_0^t\int_0^t {\mathcal D}(|u-v|) \rangle{\rm d}u {\rm d}v
= \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}
\frac{ 1 - \cos\omega t}{\omega^2} \,\,
\frac{ \hat{\mathcal D}(\omega) {\rm d}\omega}{\pi}\, .
\label{eq:varB}\end{aligned}$$ The last integral is well defined at $\omega = 0$ (the time $t$ introduces an effective low frequency cut-off for $\omega \sim 1/t$). The behaviour of $\langle B_t^2 \rangle$ for $t \to \infty$ depends on the behaviour of $\hat{\mathcal D}(\omega)$ at $\omega \to 0$. The following two cases must be distinguished :
\(i) The spectrum of the noise vanishes at low frequencies, [*i.e.*]{}, ${\mathcal D}(0) = 0$. Because $\hat{\mathcal D}(\omega)$ is an even function of $\omega$, we suppose that $\hat{\mathcal D}(\omega) \sim \omega^2 $ for $\omega \sim 0$ (we disgard non-analytic behaviour of the power spectrum at the origin. Such non-analyticity would correspond to long tails in the correlation function of the noise).
\(ii) The power spectrum of the noise is finite at $\omega = 0$, [*i.e.*]{}, ${\mathcal D}(0) > 0$.
In case (i), the long time limit of equation (\[eq:varB\]) is readily derived and we obtain (by using the Riemann-Lebesgue lemma) $$\langle B_t^2 \rangle \rightarrow \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}
\frac{ \hat{\mathcal D}(\omega) {\rm d}\omega}{ \pi \, \omega^2} \,\,\,\,\,
\hbox{ when } \,\,\,\,\, t \to \infty \,.$$ The variance of $B_t$ has a [*finite*]{} limit at large times and, therefore, the prefactor of $\epsilon^n$ in equation (\[eq:scalmom\]) converges to a finite number when $ t \to \infty$, for all $ n \ge 1$. Thus, the Poincaré-Lindstedt expansion, used at the first order, leads to a well-defined asymptotic behaviour for $\langle x^{2n}\rangle $ and allows us to recover the ’normal’ scaling behaviour which was predicted in [@luecke1] for the random frequency oscillator. Higher order terms in the expansion do not affect the scaling exponents and modify the prefactors only. The next order term was studied in [@luecke2].
In case (ii), the integral on the right hand side of equation (\[eq:varB\]) diverges when $ t \to \infty$ and its leading behaviour is $$\langle B_t^2 \rangle = \frac{ t }{\pi } \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}
\frac{ 1 - \cos u }{ u^2} \,\,
\hat{\mathcal D}\left(\frac{u}{t}\right) {\rm d}u
\rightarrow \hat{\mathcal D}(0) t \, .$$ The variance of $B_t$ grows linearly with time in the long time limit. Thus, for $n \ge 2$, the coefficient of $\epsilon^n$ in equation (\[eq:scalmom\]) grows exponentially with time. Such a divergence of a prefactor is an indication of anomalous scaling. This anomalous scaling was not found in [@luecke2] where the authors analyzed only the first few terms of the Poincaré-Lindstedt expansion and supposed, in order to avoid divergencies, that the noise spectrum has a low frequency cut-off $\omega_<$ ([*i.e.*]{}, $\hat{\mathcal D}(\omega) = 0$ for $\omega \le \omega_<$). We will show in the next section that even when low frequencies are present, the Poincaré-Lindstedt expansion can be used to extract sound results and to predict anomalous scaling.
Resummation, Anomalous scaling and Intermittency {#sec:resumation}
================================================
When the power spectrum at $\omega = 0$ is finite ([*i.e.*]{}, $ \hat{\mathcal D}(0) > 0$), all the coefficients of the Poincaré-Lindstedt series (\[PL1\],\[PL2\]) blow up when time goes to infinity. This divergence, that appears even for the lowest order, seemingly implies that the expansion breaks down when $t \to \infty$. We now show that it is still possible to use the Poincaré-Lindstedt expansion and to extract from it by resummation the multifractal behaviour found in [@seb1].
Resummation of the Poincaré-Lindstedt series
--------------------------------------------
Without loss of generality, we suppose in the sequel that $\hat{\mathcal D}(0) = 1$; this amounts simply to redefining $\Delta$ as $\Delta/\sqrt{\hat{\mathcal D}(0)}$. We first analyse the lowest order terms in the Poincaré-Lindstedt expansion (\[PL2\],\[eq:e2\], \[eq:e4\]) of $\epsilon$. If we retain only the most divergent contribution when $ t \to \infty$, we obtain $$\epsilon_2 \simeq \exp(2 \Delta^2 t) \, , \,\,\,\,\,\,
\epsilon_4 \simeq - \frac{ \exp(8 \Delta^2 t) }{ 2\Delta^2 }
\, , \,\,\,\,\,\,
\epsilon_6 \simeq \frac{3}{8} \, \frac{ \exp(18 \Delta^2 t) }
{ (2\Delta^2)^2 } \, .
\label{devepsi}$$ We now investigate the general structure of the Poincaré-Lindstedt séries (\[PL2\]), retaining for each order only the most divergent term. From dimensional analysis (equations (\[eq:dimensions\]) and (\[eq:dimlambda\])), the dimensionless variable ${\epsilon}/{\Delta^2}$ can be written in terms of the dimensionless expansion parameter ${\lambda}/{\Delta}$ as follows $$\frac{\epsilon}{\Delta^2} = \sum_{k=1}^{\infty}
(-1)^{k-1} a_k \left( \frac{\lambda^2}{\Delta^2}\right)^{k}
\exp( 2k^2 \Delta^2 t )\, ;
\label{eq:serieseps}$$ using equation (\[devepsi\]), we find $a_1 = 1, a_2 = 1/2 , a_3 = 3/32$. In fact, the general formula for the $k$-th coefficient $a_k$ can be obtained recursively using equation (\[eq:hierarchy\]) $$a_k = \frac{k}{ 4^{k-1} (k-1)!} \,.
\label{eq:formak}$$ We emphasize that the series (\[eq:serieseps\]) is divergent: its radius of convergence is strictly 0. However, it is possible to make a resummation of this divergent expansion by using the following representation for the exponential term $$\exp( k^2) = \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} \frac{{\rm d}u }{\sqrt{\pi}}
\exp( -u^2 + 2ku) \, .
\label{eq:sommation}$$ Inserting this identity in equation (\[eq:serieseps\]), we obtain $$\frac{\epsilon}{\Delta^2} = \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}
\frac{{\rm d}u }{\sqrt{2\pi}} \exp\left( - \frac{u^2}{2}\right)
\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}
(-1)^{k-1} a_k \left( \frac{\lambda^2}{\Delta^2}\right)^{k}
\exp( 2k \Delta \sqrt{ t} u ) \, .
\label{eq:ressumingeps}$$ The series under the integral sign has generically a non-zero radius of convergence that depends on the coefficients $a_k$. Defining $$F(z) = \sum_{k=1}^{\infty} (-1)^{k-1} a_k z^k \, ,
\label{eq:defF}$$ and substituting in this equation the expression (\[eq:formak\]) for the $a_k$’s, we obtain $$F(4z) = 4z( 1 - z)\exp(-z) \, .
\label{eq:Fexplicit}$$ Equation (\[eq:ressumingeps\]) can now be written as follows $$\frac{\epsilon}{\Delta^2} = \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}
\frac{{\rm d}u }{\sqrt{2\pi}} \exp\left( - \frac{u^2}{2}\right)
F\left(\frac{\lambda^2}{\Delta^2}
\exp(2 \Delta \sqrt{ t} u ) \right) \, .
\label{eq:ressumingeps2}$$
A resummation can be performed along the same lines for the mean value of $x^{2n}$ : starting from the Poincaré-Lindstedt expansion (\[PL1\]), we find that $$\frac{\langle x^{2n} \rangle}{\Delta^{2n}} = \sum_{k=0}^{\infty}
(-1)^{k} b_k^{(n)} \left( \frac{\lambda}{\Delta}\right)^{2(n+k)}
\exp( 2(n+k)^2 \Delta^2 t )\, .
\label{eq:seriesmom}$$ Using equation (\[eq:sommation\]) this divergent series is transformed as $$\frac{\langle x^{2n} \rangle}{\Delta^{2n}} = \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}
\frac{{\rm d}u }{\sqrt{2\pi}} \exp\left( - \frac{u^2}{2}\right)
G_n\left(\frac{\lambda^2}{\Delta^2}
\exp(2 \Delta \sqrt{ t} u ) \right) \, ,
\label{eq:ressumingmom}$$ where we have introduced the new function $$G_n(z) = \sum_{k=0}^{\infty} (-1)^{k} b_k^{(n)} z^{n+k} \, .$$
To summarize, we have resummed the Poincaré-Lindstedt series and obtained the following relations : $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\epsilon}{\Delta^2} &=
{\mathcal F}\left(\frac{\lambda^2}{\Delta^2}, \Delta \sqrt{ t} \right)
\,\,\, &\hbox{ where } \,\,\,
{\mathcal F}(z, w) \sim z \,\,\, \,\,\, \hbox{ when } \,\,\,
z \to 0 \hbox{ and $w$ is finite}
\, , \label{ResumPLeps} \\
\frac{\langle x^{2n} \rangle}{\Delta^{2n}} &=
{\mathcal G}_n\left(\frac{\lambda^2}{\Delta^2}, \Delta \sqrt{ t} \right)
\,\,\, &\hbox{ where } \,\,\,
{\mathcal G}_n(z, w) \sim z^n \,\, \hbox{ when } \,
z \to 0 \hbox{ and $w$ is finite}
\, . \label{ResumPLmom}
\end{aligned}$$ The scaling behaviour of $\langle x^{2n} \rangle$ as a function of $\epsilon$ in the vicinity of the bifurcation threshold is obtained by eliminating $\lambda$ between these two equations.
Anomalous scaling
-----------------
The functions ${\mathcal F}$ and ${\mathcal G}_n$ that appear in equations (\[ResumPLeps\] and \[ResumPLmom\]) have a singular behaviour when $\lambda \to 0$ and $ t \to \infty$ : these two limits [*do not commute*]{}. However, thanks to the expressions given in equations (\[ResumPLeps\], \[ResumPLmom\]), we can disentangle these two limits.
If we take $\lambda \to 0$ for a large but fixed value of $t$, we find from equations (\[ResumPLeps\]) and (\[ResumPLmom\]) that $\langle x^{2n} \rangle \sim \epsilon^n$. Normal scaling is therefore recovered, in agreement with equation (\[eq:scalmom\]).
However, taking the limit $ t \to \infty$ first and keeping the value of $\lambda$ fixed and small, we obtain from equation (\[eq:ressumingeps2\]), $$\frac{\epsilon}{\Delta^2} =
\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} \frac{{\rm d}v}{2 \Delta \sqrt{2\pi t} } \,
\exp\left( - \frac{v^2}{8\Delta^2 t }\right)
F\left(\frac{\lambda^2}{\Delta^2} \exp(v ) \right)
\simeq
\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} \frac{ {\rm d}v }{2 \Delta \sqrt{2\pi t} }
F\left(\frac{\lambda^2}{\Delta^2} \exp(v ) \right)
= \frac{\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} {\rm d}v \,F\left(\exp(v ) \right)}
{2 \Delta \sqrt{2\pi t} } \, ,
\label{eq:limeps}$$ where the last equality is obtained by the translation $ v \to v - \log({\lambda^2}/{\Delta^2})$. Using the explicit expression (\[eq:Fexplicit\]) for $F(z)$ we verify that the integral on the right-hand side of equation (\[eq:limeps\]) is a strictly positive real number, [*i.e.,*]{} it is neither zero nor infinite. We have thus shown that $$\frac{\epsilon}{\Delta^2} \simeq \frac{ e_0 }{ \Delta \sqrt{2\pi t} }
\, ,
\label{eq:limeps2}$$ where $e_0 > 0\,.$ In a similar manner, using equation (\[eq:ressumingmom\]), we find that the asymptotic behaviour of the $2n$-th moment of $x$ is given by $$\frac{\langle x^{2n} \rangle}{\Delta^{2n}}
\simeq \frac{ c_n }{ \Delta \sqrt{2\pi t} } \, .
\label{eq:limmom}$$ Eliminating $t$ from equations (\[eq:limeps2\]) and (\[eq:limmom\]) provides us the scaling behaviour of the moments of $x$ in the vicinity of the bifurcation threshold $${\langle x^{2n} \rangle} \simeq C_n
\epsilon \Delta^{2n -2} \, .
\label{eq:anomscaling}$$ In the vicinity of $ \epsilon = 0$ all the moments scale linearly with $\epsilon$. This equation generalizes the calculation of the white noise case (\[eq:scalmomentblanc\]) to an [*arbitrary* ]{} noise with non-vanishing zero-frequency power spectrum. We have thus shown, using the Poincaré-Lindstedt expansion, that the low frequency of the noise strongly affect the scaling of the order parameter in the vicinity of the threshold of a stochastic bifurcation and induces a multifractal behaviour; a qualitative explanation of this effect was given in [@seb1].
Discussion of the random frequency oscillator {#sec:model}
---------------------------------------------
The above analysis can be applied to more general random dynamical systems such as the parametrically driven damped anharmonic oscillator that naturally appears in the study of many instabilities [@fauve]. Such a system is described by the following equation : $$m \ddot{x} + m \gamma \dot{x} =
\left(\epsilon + \Delta \xi(t) \right) x - x^3 \, ,
\label{eq:Lucke1}$$ where $\epsilon$ is the control parameter and the modulation $\xi(t)$ is of arbitrary dynamics and statistics: it can be a periodic function or a random noise. For small driving amplitudes $\Delta$, Lücke and Schank [@luecke1] have performed a Poincaré-Lindstedt expansion, and obtained an expression for the threshold $\epsilon_c(\Delta)$ (at first order in $\Delta$). Their result has been verified both numerically and experimentally and is also in agreement with the exact result obtained for the Gaussian white noise (in this case a closed formula is available for $\epsilon_c(\Delta)$ for arbitrary values of $\Delta$). Another result obtained in [@luecke1; @luecke2] is the scaling of the moments near the threshold, $$\langle x^{2n} \rangle = s_n
\left( \epsilon - \epsilon_c(\Delta) \right)^{n}
+ {\mathcal O}\left( ( \epsilon - \epsilon_c)^{n + 1} \right) \, ,
\label{eq:Luckemoment}$$ where the constant $s_n$ depends on $\xi(t)$ and on $\Delta$. The moments have a [*normal scaling*]{} behaviour : $ \langle x^{2n} \rangle$ scales as $\langle x^2 \rangle^n$. The bifurcation scaling exponent is equal to 1/2 and is the same as that of a deterministic Hopf bifurcation. However, this expression does not agree with the results for random iterated maps, for the random parametric oscillator and with recent studies on On-Off intermittency [@pikovsky; @philkir1; @seb1]. These works predict that the variable $x$ is intermittent and that the moments of $x$ exhibit [*anomalous scaling*]{}, $$\langle x^{2n} \rangle \simeq \kappa_n (\epsilon - \epsilon_c)
\,\,\, \hbox{ for all } \,\,\, n >0 \, ,
\label{eq:anomalous}$$ [*i.e.*]{}, all the moments grow linearly with the distance from threshold. This multifractal behaviour, confirmed by numerical simulations for a Gaussian white noise, was derived using effective Fokker-Planck equations.
The origin of the contradiction between equations (\[eq:Luckemoment\]) and (\[eq:anomalous\]) lies in the divergences that appear in the Poincaré-Linsdtedt expansion. This fact, identified in [@luecke2], implies that the results of [@luecke1] are valid only for noises that do not have low frequencies. We have shown by studying a model technically simpler than equation (\[eq:Lucke1\]), that the perturbative Poincaré-Lindstedt expansion can be used for any kind of noise by resumming the divergent terms to all orders. This resummation allows to recover the scaling exponents for all the cases, and describes the crossover between the scalings given in equations (\[eq:Luckemoment\]) and (\[eq:anomalous\]).
Conclusion
==========
In this work, we have shown that the Poincaré-Lindstedt expansion, a classical perturbative technique extensively used in the field of nonlinear dynamical systems, can be successfully adapted to analyze a stochastic model that plays the role of a paradigm for noise-induced bifurcations. These perturbative expansions for stochastic dynamics were studied in [@luecke1], but, due to the presence of divergent terms, were applied only to random noises with vanishing power spectrum at low frequencies (e.g., noises with a low frequency cut-off) [@luecke2]. However, we have shown here that, by a resummation of the divergent terms, the Poincaré-Lindstedt method can be used for [*any type of noise*]{}. Moreover, the divergences that appear in the Poincaré-Lindstedt expansion are not mathematical artefacts but have genuine physical consequences : the presence of low frequencies in the noise spectrum (that leads to these divergences) modifies the scaling behaviour of the order parameter in the vicinity of the bifurcation threshold. If low frequencies are absent from the noise spectrum, the order parameter has the same scaling as that of a deterministic bifurcation. In contrast, if the power spectrum does not vanish at zero frequency, the order parameter exhibits anomalous scaling in agreement with recent results for white and harmonic noise.
Our work has allowed us to analyze precisely the role of low frequencies of the noise in a first order random dynamical system. The resummation technique we have used is fairly general and we believe that the results we have derived remain valid for systems of higher order in the vicinity of a stochastic Hopf bifurcation.
[article]{} H. Horsthemke and R. Lefever, [*Noise Induced Transitions*]{} (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1984). V.S. Anishchenko, V.V. Astakhov, A.B. Neiman, T.E. Vadivasova and L. Schimansky-Geier, [*Nonlinear Dynamics of Chaotic and Stochastic Systems*]{} (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2002). N.G. van Kampen, [*Stochastic Processes in Physics and Chemistry*]{} (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1992). C. W. Gardiner, [*Handbook of stochastic methods*]{} (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1994). P.G. Drazin, [*Nonlinear systems* ]{}, Cambridge Texts in Applied Mathematics (Cambridge, 1994). J. Kevorkian and J. D. Cole, [*Perturbation Methods in Applied Mathematics*]{}, (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1981). M. Lücke and F. Schank, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**54**]{}, 1465 (1985) M. Lücke, in [*Noise in Dynamical Systems, Vol. 2: Theory of Noise-induced Processes in Special Applications*]{}, edited by F. Moss and P.V.E. Mc Clintock (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1989). A. Schenzle, H. Brand, Phys. Rev. A, [**20**]{}, 1628 (1979); R. Graham, A. Schenzle, Phys. Rev. A [**26**]{}, 1676 (1982). A. Pikovsky, Phys. Lett. A [**165**]{} 33 (1992) K. Mallick and P. Marcq, Eur. Phys. J. B [**36**]{}, 119 (2003); K. Mallick and P. Marcq, Eur. Phys. J. B [**38**]{}, 99 (2004). S. Aumaître, F. Pétrélis and K. Mallick, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**95** ]{}, 064101 (2005) R. Berthet, S. Residori, B. Roman and S. Fauve, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**33**]{}, 557 (2002); F. Pétrélis, S. Aumaître, Eur. Phys. J. B [**34**]{} 281 (2003)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We follow the longterm evolution of the dynamic ejecta of neutron star mergers for up to 100 years and over a density range of roughly 40 orders of magnitude. We include the nuclear energy input from the freshly synthesized, radioactively decaying nuclei in our simulations and study its effects on the remnant dynamics. Although the nuclear heating substantially alters the longterm evolution, we find that running nuclear networks over purely hydrodynamic simulations (i.e. without heating) yields actually acceptable nucleosynthesis results. The main dynamic effect of the radioactive heating is to quickly smooth out inhomogeneities in the initial mass distribution, subsequently the evolution proceeds self-similarly and after 100 years the remnant still carries the memory of the initial binary mass ratio. We also explore the nucleosynthetic yields for two mass ejection channels. The dynamic ejecta very robustly produce ‘strong’ r-process elements with $A>130$ with a pattern that is essentially independent of the details of the merging system. From a simple model we find that neutrino-driven winds yield ‘weak’ r-process contributions with $50 < A <
130$ whose abundance patterns vary substantially between different merger cases. This is because their electron fraction, set by the ratio of neutrino luminosities, varies considerably from case to case. Such winds do not produce any $^{56}$Ni, but a range of radioactive isotopes that are long-lived enough to produce a second, radioactively powered electromagnetic transient in addition to the ‘macronova’ from the dynamic ejecta. While our wind model is very simple, it nevertheless demonstrates the potential of such neutrino-driven winds for electromagnetic transients and it motivates further, more detailed neutrino-hydrodynamic studies. The properties of the mentioned transients are discussed in more detail in a companion paper.
author:
- |
S. Rosswog$^{1}$[^1], O. Korobkin$^{1}$, A. Arcones$^{2,3}$, F.-K. Thielemann$^{4}$, T. Piran$^{5}$\
$^{1}$The Oskar Klein Centre, Department of Astronomy, AlbaNova, Stockholm University, SE-106 91 Stockholm, Sweden\
$^{2}$Institut f[ü]{}r Kernphysik, Technische Universit[ä]{}t Darmstadt, 64289 Darmstadt, Germany\
$^{3}$GSI Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforschung, Planckstr. 1, 64291 Darmstadt, Germany\
$^{4}$Department of Physics, University of Basel, Klingelbergstrasse 82, CH-4056 Basel, Switzerland\
$^{5}$Racah Institute of Physics, The Hebrew University, Jerusalem 91904, Israel\
date: 'Accepted 2013. Received 2013; in original form 2013'
title: ' The long-term evolution of neutron star merger remnants – I. The impact of r-process nucleosynthesis'
---
\[firstpage\]
nuclear reactions, nucleosynthesis, abundances, transients, gamma-ray bursts
Introduction
============
The importance of compact binary mergers as sources of gravitational waves [GW; e.g. @cutler94; @maggiore08] and as central engines of short Gamma-ray bursts [@eichler89; @narayan91; @piran04; @nakar07; @lee07] has been appreciated for decades. Maybe more surprising is the fact that compact binary mergers have only been considered [*seriously*]{} as a possible production site of rapid neutron capture (‘r-process’) elements in roughly the last decade. This is particularly astonishing since there is general agreement that the final fate after their inspiral is a violent event in an extremely neutron-rich environment, exactly what is recognized to be needed as a cauldron to forge r-process elements. Moreover, [@lattimer74] had pointed out this possibility and they discussed its impact on cosmic nucleosynthesis even before the first binary neutron star had been discovered. In [@lattimer77] r-process nucleosynthesis is discussed in the context of a cold decompression of neutron star matter. In the last decade a number of studies found core-collapse supernovae to be seriously challenged in providing suitable conditions to produce heavy r-process elements [e.g. @arcones07; @fischer10; @huedepohl10; @roberts10][^2]. In parallel, several studies found that a robust r-process occurs in the dynamic ejecta of neutron star mergers [@freiburghaus99b; @goriely11a; @roberts11; @korobkin12a]. These developments have changed the general perceptions and nowadays, neutron stars are accepted at least as serious contenders of core-collapse supernovae if not even [*the*]{} major candidate sites for the production of the heaviest, ‘strong r-process’ elements ($A \ga 130$). Even if the latter is true, at least one but probably more r-process sites must exist in addition. The dynamic ejecta of neutron star mergers are probably not a source of ‘weak r-process’ [@sneden08], but the neutrino-driven winds that emerge in the aftermath of a merger [@dessart09] could plausibly contribute to this r-process component. A third process by which neutron-rich matter may be shed in substantial amounts is the final disintegration of an accretion disc that occurs after many viscous time-scales ($\sim$ seconds) when viscous dissipation and the recombination of nucleons into light nuclei conspire to unbind a substantial fraction of whatever is left from the disc at that time [@lee07; @beloborodov08; @metzger08; @metzger09b; @lee09]. Recent work [@fernandez13] suggests that $\sim 10^{-2}$ become unbound with $Y_e\sim0.2$, in addition to the dynamic ejecta and the wind material. Nucleosynthesis features of such disc ejecta (partially also invoking neutrino flavour oscillations) have been studied by [@surman08], [@caballero12], [@wanajo12] and [@malkus12].\
The astrophysical relevance of the dynamic ejecta from compact binary mergers, however, goes beyond their roles as promising nucleosynthesis site. They are believed to also trigger short-lived electromagnetic transients powered by radioactivity, so-called ‘macronovae’ [@li98; @kulkarni05; @rosswog05a; @metzger10b; @roberts11; @goriely11a; @metzger12a; @kelley12; @rosswog13a; @piran13a; @barnes13a]. As we will discuss below, also the neutrino-driven winds may actually produce radioactively powered transients, though with different nuclear and electromagnetic properties than those from the dynamic ejecta. Both the LIGO and Virgo GW detectors are currently being upgraded [@abbott09a; @smith09; @sengupta10] to a more than 10 times better sensitivity than the original versions of the instruments. This will increase the volume of accessible astrophysical sources by more than a factor of 1000 reaching a detection horizon of a few hundred Mpc for nsns mergers and about a Gpc for nsbh mergers [@abadie10]. Since the first events are expected to be around or even below threshold, accompanying electromagnetic signatures, such as r-process powered macronovae, could substantially boost the confidence in such a marginal detection [@nissanke13; @kasliwal13]. The heating from the nuclear decay may also suspend fallback accretion [@metzger10a] and thus cause a gap between prompt and late-time activity in short GRBs. Months after the merger, the dynamic ejecta may trigger radio flares when they dissipate their kinetic energies in the ambient medium [@nakar11a; @piran13a] and this could possibly provide lower limits on the merger rates even before the GW detectors are fully operational.\
In this paper we present a new study of neutron star merger ejecta that goes beyond previous work in several ways. First, rather than performing hydrodynamic simulations for $\sim 20$ ms and then extrapolating the thermodynamic ejecta histories to $\sim 10$ s [@freiburghaus99b; @goriely11a; @roberts11; @korobkin12a], our simulations directly follow the hydrodynamic evolution of the ejecta for time-scales as long as 100 years after the merger. We stop our simulations at this point since, by this time, the ejecta likely have swept up an amount of mass from the ambient medium that is comparable to their own mass and so they start to slow down. Where and when exactly this will happen depends sensitively on the environment in which the merger occurs. This, in turn, depends on the kick velocity and the inspiral time of the particular binary system. The ejecta from mergers that occur in the galactic plane may be braked much earlier than those of mergers occuring a few kpc outside of their host galaxies, see the estimates below.\
{width="50.00000%"} {width="50.00000%"}
{width="90.00000%"}
{width="90.00000%"}
{width="90.00000%"}
![Density distribution (50 bins for each case) inside the remnants at chosen snapshots. For each time label, the closest available data set was used. Depending on the exact merger environment, the late-time evolution may be impacted by ambient medium effects.[]{data-label="fig:density_evolution"}](density_evolution){width="56.00000%"}
Secondly, all existing studies have assumed that the energetic feedback from nuclear reactions on the hydrodynamic evolution can be neglected, and that it is safe to just post-process given trajectories for nucleosynthesis. The standard approach is to ignore nuclear energy release in the hydrodynamics part of the calculation, subsequently run nuclear networks along given density trajectories and finally to reconstruct the temperature histories from the entropy that was generated in nuclear reactions [@freiburghaus99b]. In other words, it is usually assumed that the nuclear energy input does not substantially impact on the density evolution. Analytic one-zone models [@goriely11b] seem to support this assumption, but as we will show below, the nuclear feedback has indeed a serious impact on the longterm evolution of neutron star merger remnants. Nevertheless, on the short time-scales on which the r-process occurs ($\sim$ seconds) its impact is still small enough so that post-processing hydrodynamic trajectories is an admissible procedure which yields acceptable nucleosynthesis results.\
Third, we are able to follow the ejecta through the times when radioactively powered transients should peak ($\sim$ days) and up to the point when the radio flares from the interaction with the ambient medium are expected ($\sim$ years). The available geometric information allows us to abandon the assumption of spherical symmetry that was adopted in all previous calculations of ‘macronovae’ light curves. This complements recent approaches by [@barnes13a] and [@kasen13a] who use sophisticated radiative transfer, but make strongly simplifying assumptions about the ejecta geometry. These results are discussed in a companion paper [@grossman13a], subsequently referred to as ‘Paper II’.\
This paper is structured as follows. In Sec. \[sec:sims\] we briefly summarize our simulations and in Sec. \[sec:remnant\] we discuss the remnant structure and its close-to-homologous evolution during the first century after the merger where we pay particular attention to the effects of radioactive heating. In Sec. \[sec:nucleo\] the nucleosynthesis from both dynamic ejecta and neutrino-driven winds is discussed, the corresponding radioactively powered electromagnetic signals are examined in detail in Paper II. We summarize our results in Sec. \[sec:discussion\].
Simulations {#sec:sims}
===========
When to stop?
-------------
In our simulations we follow the ejecta of neutron star mergers as they expand into vacuum. In Nature, a merger is engulfed by an external, though dilute medium of a density $\rho_{\rm amb}= m_{\rm p} n_{\rm amb}$ that depends on the actual merger location. Mergers that occur early after the neutron star binaries have formed take place close to the midplane of their host galaxies where the density may be $n \sim 1$ cm$^{-3}$. On the other hand, binary systems that had time to travel a few kpc out of the midplane [@narayan92; @fryer99a; @bloom02; @rosswog03c; @fong10] may occur in a much lower density surrounding. The initial expansion stages will be unaffected by the ambient medium, but once the swept up amount of matter is comparable to the ejected mass, $m_{\rm su} \approx m_{\rm ej}$, the ejecta start to slow down. This transition defines the deceleration radius of $$R_{\rm dec}= 0.5 \; {\rm pc} \left( \frac{m_{\rm ej}}{10^{-2} M_\odot} \;
\frac{1 \: {\rm cm}^{-1/3}}{n_{\rm amb}} \right)^{1/3},
\label{eq:r_dec}$$ which is reached after the deceleration time $$\tau_{\rm dec}=
15 \; {\rm yr} \; \left( \frac{m_{\rm ej}}{10^{-2} M_\odot} \;
\frac{1 \: {\rm cm}^{-1/3}}{n_{\rm amb}} \right)^{1/3}
\left( \frac{0.1 \: {\rm c}}{v_{\rm ej}} \right).
\label{eq:tau_dec}$$ Both estimates are rather insensitive to the poorly known ambient matter density. Thus, ambient matter effects start to become noticeable after 15 (150) years in an environment of $n= 1 (10^{-3})$ cm$^{-3}$. Since the effects from an ambient medium are not taken into account in our study, we stop the simulations 100 years after the coalescence.
[@rccccccccccccccc@]{} Run & $m_1\quad m_2$ & $N_{\rm SPH}$ & $t_{\rm end}$ & $m_{\rm ej}$ & $E_{\rm kin}\quad E_{\rm nuc}$ & $L_{\nu_e}\quad L_{\bar{\nu}_e}$& $\langle E \rangle_{\nu_e}\quad\langle E \rangle_{\bar{\nu}_e}$ & $Y_e^{\rm fin, wind}$ &\
\
& () & $(10^6)$ & (ms) & ($10^{-2}$) & ($10^{50}$ erg) & ($10^{52}$ erg/s) & (MeV) & (MeV) & &\
\
A & $1.4\quad1.4$ & 1.0 & 13.4 & 1.3 & $2.6\qquad0.8$ & $3.0\;\;\quad6.1 $& $7.8\qquad14.3$ & 0.28\
B & $1.3\quad1.4$ & 2.7 & 20.3 & 1.4 & $2.4\qquad0.9$ & $3.1\;\;\quad6.0 $& $8.0\qquad14.4$ & 0.30\
C & $1.6\quad1.2$ & 1.0 & 14.8 & 3.3 & $6.8\qquad2.1$ & $7.0\;\;\;\;11.0$ & $9.5\qquad15.0$ & 0.36\
D & $1.8\quad1.2$ & 1.0 & 21.4 & 3.4 & $7.5\qquad2.2$ & $5.0\;\;\quad7.2 $& $9.4\qquad13.6$ & 0.40\
{width="1.\textwidth"}
{width="1.\textwidth"}
Hydrodynamic simulations {#sub:hydrosim}
------------------------
Typically neutron star merger simulations are only performed up to $\sim 20$ ms, mainly because of serious time-step restrictions due to the Courant–Friedrichs–Lewy stability criterion. The simulations that are presented here, in contrast, are performed up to 100 years after the coalescence. Therefore, we have information on the remnant geometry throughout the phases where the major electromagnetic emission – from radioactivity in the neutrino-driven winds and dynamic ejecta and the interaction with ambient material– is expected.\
The simulations of this paper start from the final matter distributions of the runs presented in [@rosswog13a] and [@rosswog13b]. These simulations were performed with a 3D, Smooth Particle Hydrodynamics (SPH) code whose implementation details have been described in the literature [@rosswog00; @rosswog02a; @rosswog03a; @rosswog07c]. For a general overview over the SPH method, see, for example, the recent reviews of [@monaghan05], [@rosswog09b] and [@springel10].\
The code that we use for the subsequent longterm evolution of the ejecta is a variant of the above described SPH code, but with different units and physics ingredients [@rosswog08b]. Since the ejecta densities change in the first $\sim$ 100 years by as many as $\sim$40 orders of magnitude (!) special attention has to be paid to the equation of state (EOS). The initial merger simulations make use of the Shen-EOS [@shen98a; @shen98b], the longterm evolution is followed using the Helmholtz EOS [@timmes00a] which is the state-of-the-art for matter at roughly white dwarf densities. It uses in particular a completely general electron EOS which is recovered via a sophisticated interpolation scheme from pre-calculated tables. When the density and temperature drop during the matter expansion to values near the lower limits of the Helmholtz EOS, we smoothly switch over to a Maxwell–Boltzmann gas plus radiation.\
Our main interest here is the long-term evolution of the dynamically ejected matter. As stated above, this material cannot be evolved for long time-scales together with the dense inner parts of the remnant since the high sound speed near nuclear matter density ($\sim 0.3$ c) enforces prohibitively small numerical time-steps. Therefore, we replace the inner part of the remnant at the end of the initial simulation ($\sim 18$ ms) by a point mass. This inner part is defined by a radius that safely includes all matter with close to zero and negative radial velocity, typically this radius is $R_{\rm cut}= 300$ km. Apart from reducing the SPH particle number, this configuration now allows for much larger (and increasing!) numerical time-steps which make this long-term simulation feasible in the first place.\
We follow the evolution of the ejecta including the radioactive heating for a number of exemplary systems: a) an equal mass merger with $2 \times 1.4$ , b) a merger with a slight asymmetry, 1.4 and 1.3 , c) a merger of a 1.6-1.2 system and finally d) the merger of a 1.8 ns with a 1.2 ns (see Tab. \[tab:runs\]). For all systems the simulations stop 100 years after the merger.\
For the involved nucleosynthesis calculations we make use of the nuclear reaction network of Winteler [@winteler12; @winteler12b] which represents an update of the BasNet network [@thielemann11].
Implementation of the r-process heating
---------------------------------------
During the hydrodynamical evolution we include the heating due to radioactive decays. We had recently explored the nucleosynthesis in neutron star merger ejecta [@korobkin12a] and found that, in agreement with the findings of other groups [@metzger10b; @roberts11; @goriely11a], the heating history is rather insensitive to details of both the merging system and the individual matter trajectory can be well-fit as a function of time. In the current study, we use fit formulae for the radioactive energy input, $\dot{\epsilon}_{\rm nuc}$, and for the average nucleon and proton number, $\bar{A}$ and $\bar{Z}$, that are needed to call the EOS. The expressions that we use in this study are provided in Appendix A. The energy produced by the r-process comes mainly from beta decays [@metzger10b]. Initially, the r-process path stays far from stability due to the high neutron densities. During this phase, the neutron separation energy for the nuclei in the r-process path is $S_n \sim 2 - 3$ MeV, which is significantly smaller than the typical beta-decay Q-values around 10 MeV. Fission can be very important in neutron star mergers [@freiburghaus99b]; however it provides significantly less energy than the beta decays [@metzger10b]. Therefore, the energy generation is dominated by beta decays and initially stays approximately constant because the high neutron density and fission cycling maintain the matter at a given path far from stability where all beta decay rates are similar. After the neutrons have run out the r-process matter decays to stability and the contribution of beta decays to the energy generation is proportional to $t^{-\alpha}$ [@metzger10b; @korobkin12a]. For the phase of constant energy generation we have tried different values of $\dot{\epsilon}_{\mathrm{nuc}}$ in post-processing calculations and find that the evolution of temperature does not strongly vary for rates between 2 and 8 MeV nuc$^{-1}$s$^{-1}$. In addition, only an upper limit can be determined for the energy that contributes to heat the matter because an unknown part of it escapes in the form of electron antineutrinos.\
To account for neutrino energy losses associated with $\beta$-decays, we introduce a heating efficiency parameter $\epsilon_{\rm th}$ which denotes the fraction of nuclear power which is retained in the matter. [@metzger10b] argue that this fraction must be $\epsilon_{\rm th} \approx 0.25 ... 1$. Here and in Paper II we adopt a value of $\epsilon_{\rm th} = 0.5$.\
While details may benefit from an even more accurate heating treatment, we consider our prescription accurate enough for this first study to explore whether and where heating by radioactive decay makes a noticeable difference with respect to the purely hydrodynamic evolution. We include the heating term explicitly in our energy equation and since the typical heating time-scales are similar to the hydrodynamic time-step, we can use a single time integration scheme for the whole system of equations. This is different from the case where a nuclear network is coupled to the hydrodynamics. The latter case usually requires operator splitting techniques (e.g. Sec. 2 in [@rosswog09a]), since the nuclear and hydrodynamic time-scales can differ by many orders of magnitude.
{height="3.7cm"} {height="3.7cm"} {height="3.7cm"} {height="3.7cm"}
{height="3.7cm"} {height="3.7cm"} {height="3.7cm"} {height="3.7cm"}
{height="3.7cm"} {height="3.7cm"} {height="3.7cm"} {height="3.7cm"}
{height="3.7cm"} {height="3.7cm"} {height="3.7cm"} {height="3.7cm"}
Heating prescription in previous studies
----------------------------------------
The rate of nuclear energy generation as a result of r-process nucleosynthesis in the ejecta is a crucial input for macronova models. It is directly reflected in the light curves and hence it has a decisive impact on their detectability. Therefore, it is worth briefly comparing the heating rates that have been employed in the different approaches. [@tanaka13a] use an energy generation rate that is based on the result of running a nuclear reaction network [@metzger10b] over the thermodynamic trajectory of a single SPH particle from an early neutron star merger simulation [@rosswog99]. Since at that time no electron-/positron-captures were included in the models the electron fractions in the ejecta were considered as rather uncertain, although by now it has turned out that the $\beta$-captures only cause minor changes and the ejecta-$Y_e$ stays close to the initial, cold $\beta$-equilibrium value. For that reason, [@metzger10b] adopted an initial value of $Y_e=0.1$ to determine the energy generation rate. [@barnes13a] used the heating rates from the work of [@roberts11] where the initial electron fraction of the ejecta was fixed to a value of $Y_e=0.2$. Our calculations [@rosswog13a; @rosswog13b], in contrast, start from a realistic cold $\beta$-equilibrium and allow for $Y_e$-changes due to electron-/positron-captures. We find some trajectories with higher $Y_e$, but the large majority is ejected with a very low value of $Y_e \approx 0.03$. While all of these values may appear reasonable, it actually turns out that the initial value of the electron fraction does matter and the lower initial electron fraction leads to a lower energy production at late times. To illustrate this, we perform a simple experiment: we take the average trajectory from our reference case, run B, and calculate the energy generation rate once from our best estimate (=0.04) and once with an artificially increased value of $Y_e=0.2$. The first is shown as red, and the second one as the dashed green line in Fig. \[fig:compare\_edot\]. Overall there is reasonably good long-term agreement as can be seen in the left panel. However, after a few days, at the time when the macronovae are expected to peak, the artificially increased $Y_e$-case overproduces the heating by a factor of 2–3. As can be seen in Fig. \[fig:compare\_edot\], such high $Y_e$ also results in a less steep decay (with power-law index of 1.2 instead of 1.3). The rate from [@tanaka13a], see the blue dotted line, exceeds our heating rate by nearly a factor of $4$. These differences will have significant implications on the detectability of the macronovae signals, as we discuss in section 6 of Paper II. For now, we can only speculate that this effect may be due to the less neutron-rich ejecta producing on average lighter radioactive elements with longer half-lives which consequently release their energy later. This question is left for future work.
Impact of the heating on the remnant structure {#sec:remnant}
==============================================
To explore the impact that the continuous energy injection has on the remnant morphology we study the evolution of the remnant from a 1.3 and a 1.4 ns (run B in Tab. \[tab:runs\]), once with and once without nuclear energy input (see Fig. \[fig:heating\_vs\_no\_heating1\] left and right column; as explained above, the innermost matter has been cut out and replaced by a point mass). Total nuclear energy which does not escape in the form of neutrinos can be roughly estimated as [cf. @metzger10a]: $$\begin{aligned}
E_{\rm nuc}\approx
\epsilon_{\rm th} X_n ((B/A)_r-\Delta_n)
\approx 3.6 X_n\;{\rm MeV}\;{\rm nucleon}^{-1},\end{aligned}$$ where $(B/A)_r$ $\approx$ 8 ${\rm MeV}\;{\rm nucleon}^{-1}$ is an approximate average binding energy of the r-process nuclei, $\Delta_n\approx0.782$ MeV is the Q-value of neutron decay, and $\epsilon_{\rm th}=0.5$ is the adopted value for thermal efficiency (see Sec. \[sub:hydrosim\]). The quantity $X_n$ is the initial mass fraction of neutrons, which is determined from nuclear statistical equilibrium (NSE) and turns out to be around $X_n\approx0.89$ under typical thermodynamical conditions encountered in the dynamical ejecta.
Table \[tab:runs\] lists more accurate estimates of the total retained nuclear energy $E_{\rm nuc}$, taken directly from the nucleosynthesis network calculations. It is non-negligible in comparison to the kinetic energy and, indeed, the continuous energy injection smoothes out initial inhomogeneities and bloats up the remnant in comparison to the purely adiabatic evolution. We illustrate the density evolution of the ejecta during the first 100 years by taking the SPH particle distributions at the data outputs closest to prescribed times ($t_0$: start of longterm evolution, 1 d, 1 month, 100 years) and we show 50 bins of masses and radii in Fig. \[fig:density\_evolution\]. The average densities drop within years by 36 (40) orders of magnitude with respect to the longterm simulation start (the initial densities inside the neutron stars).\
Again for our reference case with 1.3 and a 1.4 ns (run B in Tab. \[tab:runs\]), we gauge the impact of the heating on temperature and density evolution. We monitor the maximum and average values of density and temperature, each time with and without heating (see Figs. \[fig:heating\_vs\_no\_heating2\_T\] and \[fig:heating\_vs\_no\_heating2\_rho\]).
If heating is ignored, both peak (diamond symbol) and average temperatures (dashed line) decrease monotonically due to $P dV$ work, while the nuclear energy release from radioactive decays leads to a temperature increase up to $\sim 10^9$ K after about 0.5 s. For $t \ga 1$ s the temperatures obtained with heating are typically an order of magnitude larger than in the case when heating is ignored. The density evolution for both cases is qualitatively similar, but at any given point in time the density in the heating case is approximately an order of magnitude lower.\
Fig. \[fig:remnant\_structure\] shows snapshots of the remnant column density after 1 d (a typical time for ‘macronovae’ to peak) and also after 1 and 100 years (at these times, depending on the ambient medium density and the exact ejecta properties, see equation (\[eq:tau\_dec\]), the remnant starts becoming decelerated and should produce radio flares). All remnants expand in a nearly perfectly homologous manner. In the symmetric case ($2 \times 1.4$ ) matter is ‘donut-shaped’ after one day and keeps expanding self-similarly up to 100 years, when it reaches a radius of $r_{\rm cyl} \sim 8$ pc and a hight $z\sim 3$ pc. In other words sphericity has not been reached and the remnant still clearly remembers the original orbital plane. So 100 years after the merger the remnant still carries the imprint of the initial binary mass ratio, equal (two-armed spiral) and unequal mass systems (one-armed spiral) can still be clearly distinguished.
To quantify the deviations from a perfectly homologous evolution we introduce a homology parameter $$\chi(t)\equiv\bar at/\bar v$$ with $\bar v$ and $\bar a$ being the average velocity and acceleration. In the case of perfectly homologous expansion, this parameter should be equal to zero. Fig. \[fig:homology\] depicts the evolution of $\chi(t)$ for the considered cases. After an initial increase, $\chi(t)$ reaches a maximum at $t\sim1$ s, the time when the ejecta have maximal acceleration due to the radioactive heating. After $t= 100$ s the unequal mass cases are homologous to better than 1 per cent, while the equal-mass case of 1.4–1.4 reaches the same degree only after about 2000 s. At the times that are relevant for our macronova calculations ($\sim$1 d), the expansion is homologous to 0.01 per cent in all cases.
![ Time evolution of the homology parameter, defined as the relative change of velocity due to dynamic acceleration: $\chi(t)\equiv\frac{\bar at}{\bar v}$. Distributions become homologous up to 1 per cent after about 100 s for all non-equal mass cases, and after about 2000 s for the symmetric case of 1.4-1.4 . []{data-label="fig:homology"}](homology-parameter){width="50.00000%"}
{width="9.5cm"} {width="9.5cm"}
Nucleosynthesis {#sec:nucleo}
===============
How accurate are nucleosynthesis calculations with post-processed temperatures?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is of particular interest to see whether a consistent accounting for the heating in the hydrodynamics is crucial for the final r-process abundance distribution. So far, starting with [@freiburghaus99b] most existing studies have simply post-processed existing trajectories with nuclear networks to estimate temperatures, thereby implicitly assuming that the accelerated expansion due to the nuclear heating is negligible. A notable exception is the study by [@goriely11b], which has studied the effect by means of a one-zone dynamical model with nuclear heating feedback on the density, therefore accounting for an additional expansion. However, in their model the observed effect on the density evolution was very small. By inspecting randomly chosen trajectories from our reference run B (with/without heating), we find that the post-processed temperatures are actually rather accurate. In Fig. \[fig:orig\_vs\_postprocessed\], left panel, we compare the different temperature evolutions for the case of an exemplary particle trajectory: once with heating ignored and temperature evolution determined entirely by adiabatic expansion (dashed, blue, ‘hydro, heating ignored’), once with the temperature directly taken from the hydrodynamic evolution including heating (as detailed in Appendix A; solid, red, ‘hydro + nuclear heating’) and once as reconstructed by running a nuclear network over a purely hydrodynamic trajectory (as detailed in [@freiburghaus99b]; solid, green, ‘temperature from post-processing’). This post-processed temperature actually agrees closely with the one found when heating is accounted for properly. Since the additional expansion due to the radioactive heating is ignored, the post-processing approach slightly overestimates the temperatures. Given that the nuclear energy release has a substantial impact on the long-term matter evolution, see below, it is not self-evident that abundances can be reliably calculated in this ad hoc manner. Nevertheless, it turns out that the final abundance patterns closely agree with each other (see Fig. \[fig:orig\_vs\_postprocessed\]).
Dynamic ejecta versus neutrino-driven winds
-------------------------------------------
We had recently explored the nucleosynthesis inside the dynamic ejecta of compact binary mergers [@korobkin12a] and found that all of the ejecta matter undergoes a very robust, ‘strong’ r-process [also confirmed in @bauswein13a]. The abundance patterns showed some sensitivity to the nuclear physics input, but are essentially independent of the parameters of the binary system: all coalescences produced practically identical abundance patterns beyond $A= 130$, it does not even matter whether a nsns or a nsbh system is merging.\
But as pointed out above, compact binary mergers also eject matter via different channels. With neutrino luminosities of $\sim 10^{53}$ erg/s, neutron star merger remnants drive strong baryonic winds [@ruffert97a; @rosswog02b; @rosswog03b; @rosswog03c; @dessart09], similar to new-born neutron stars [@duncan86; @qian96b]. This is an additional mass-loss channel and it can very plausibly complement the heavy element nucleosynthesis and produce additional electromagnetic transients.\
The total amount of mass that is ejected by such winds is not trivial to estimate. [@dessart09] find overall mass-loss rates of $\dot{M}^{\rm wind} \sim 10^{-3}$ /s. Once the central object collapses to a black hole this rate is expected to drop abruptly since a substantial part of the neutrino emission comes from its surface layers. For an assumed collapse after 100 ms [@dessart09] estimate $< 10^{-4}$ to be ejected by winds. This number, however, is rather uncertain and could be easily substantially larger for a number of reasons. First, the time scale for the collapse is not well known and with recent estimates of the minimum, cold neutron star mass around 2.0 [@antoniadis13] the differentially rotating central core with temperatures in excess of 10 MeV could be stable for much longer. In fact, it is entirely plausible that the low mass end of the neutron star binary population could produce a very massive neutron star as final product rather than a black hole. The wind would then have a substantially longer duration, comparable to the Kelvin-Helmholtz time scale of many seconds. For such cases, however, it remains an open question whether/how baryonic pollution could be avoided and a (short) GRB could be launched. Secondly, neutron stars are endowed by possibly strong initial magnetic fields and the dynamics during a merger offers ample opportunities to amplify these initial seeds [@price06; @liu08; @anderson08b; @rezzolla11; @giacomazzo11; @zrake13] to substantial fractions of the equipartition strength. A merger remnant rotating at $\sim 1$ ms with a strong magnetic field ($\sim 10^{16}$ G) could easily increase the amount of launched mass by orders of magnitude [@thompson03b]. For these reasons, we parametrize the mass in these winds in a range from $10^{-4}$ to $10^{-2}$ .\
In the following we apply a very simple wind model. It is meant to illustrate basic features of the nucleosynthesis and to discuss the plausibility of a second radioactively powered transient beside the usual ‘macronovae’ from the dynamic ejecta (see Paper II). This topic deserves more work beyond our simple model, ideally with multi-dimensional neutrino-hydrodynamic simulations.\
In our simple approach we calculate the bulk properties of $\nu$-driven winds by means of the estimates from [@qian96b]. The asymptotic value of the wind electron fraction can be estimated as $$Y_e^{\rm fin, wind} \approx \left( 1 + \frac{L_{\bar{\nu}_e}}{L_{\nu_e}}
\frac{\epsilon_{\bar{\nu}_e} - 2 \Delta + 1.2 \Delta^2/\epsilon_{\bar{\nu}_e}}
{\epsilon_{\nu_e} + 2 \Delta + 1.2 \Delta^2/\epsilon_{\nu_e}} \right)^{-1},$$ where $L_{\nu_e}/L_{\bar{\nu}_e}$ are the luminosities of electron neutrinos and anti-neutrinos, $\epsilon= \langle E^2 \rangle/\langle E \rangle$, $E$ being the neutrino energy, and $\Delta$ the neutron-proton mass energy difference of 1.293 MeV. To estimate $\epsilon$ we simply multiply our values for $\langle E \rangle$ by a factor of 1.3, as appropriate for Maxwell-Boltzmann distributions. If the neutrino properties from the simulations are inserted (see Table \[tab:runs\]), one finds values between $Y_e^{\rm fin, wind}= 0.28$ and 0.40. Interestingly, the asymptotic electron fraction increases with decreasing mass ratio, so that the symmetric system produces the lowest $Y_e$ values. Again based on [@qian96], we find that the average entropies in the wind are very close to 8 $k_B$ per baryon for all our cases.\
In our simple model, we produce a synthetic trajectory with a linear expansion profile $\rho(t) = \rho_0 (1 + vt/R_0)^{-3}$, starting from the entropy $s_0 = 8\;k_B/{\rm baryon}$ and a range of electron fractions, corresponding to the runs A-D. Based on the results of [@dessart09], their fig. 2, we select the initial density $\rho_0=5\times10^7\;{\rm g}{\rm cm}^{-3}$ and the characteristic radius $R_0=200\;{\rm km}$ in a way that temperature is safely above the NSE threshold. We then run the nucleosynthesis network, using the calculated values of $\rho(t)$ and self-consistently incrementing the entropy in the same way as described above for the dynamical ejecta case. The temperature of the trajectory at every time is calculated using the Helmholtz EOS and the needed values of $\bar{A}$ and $\bar{Z}$ are computed from the network. For the expansion velocity, we use the escape velocity from the launch region ($v = 0.11c$).\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --
![Robustness versus variability in the abundance patterns: final abundances from both the dynamic ejecta (blue) and the neutrino-driven wind (red) for our four simulations (each of the abundance curves is normalized separately, $\sum_i A_i Y_i=1$). The numbers in the legend indicate the neutron star masses in units of 0.1 , i.e. ns13 ns14 refers to a system with a 1.3 and a 1.4 neutron star. Note that dynamic ejecta produce an extremely robust abundance pattern for $A > 110$, while the patterns in neutrino-driven winds vary strongly between different merger events.[]{data-label="fig:robust_vs_variable"}](Final_abundances_wind_vs_dyn_ejecta "fig:"){width="48.00000%"}
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --
{width="95.00000%"}
We find element distributions between $A=50$ and 130 in a weak r-process. In Fig. \[fig:robust\_vs\_variable\] we show the resulting nucleosynthesis for all four runs and each time we distinguish between the dynamic ejecta (blue) and the $\nu$-wind (red). Note that this shows the individual compositions for these two types of ejecta, not considering how much ejecta mass is involved in each of them. As pointed out by [@korobkin12a], the dynamic ejecta abundances for $A \ga 130$ hardly vary at all from case to case. The $\nu$-wind abundances, in contrast, produce matter in the range from $A=50$ to 130 with substantial variations between different merger cases. The latter is due to the sensitivity of the nucleosynthesis to $Y_e$, which, in turn, is set by the neutrino properties. In Fig. \[fig:AbundancesDynejWinds\] we show the abundances for both wind and dynamic ejecta. We use the simulation results for the masses of the dynamic ejecta and $10^{-4}$, $10^{-3}$ and $10^{-2}$ for the masses in the wind. The differences in the abundances below the second peak will naturally lead to variations in the relative abundances between heavy r-process elements and elements with $A<130$, and this is important to understand the role of neutron star mergers in the chemical history of our galaxy.\
We also note that the neutrino-driven winds produce a range of radioactive isotopes (though no $^{56}$Ni) that are long-lived enough to still be present when the wind matter becomes transparent, i.e. one can expect a second, radioactively powered transient. Its details are discussed in Sec. 5 of Paper II. It turns out that our simple neutrino-driven wind model produces an electromagnetic transient that is more promising for coincident detection with a GW signal than the ‘macronova’ signal from the dynamic ejecta, mainly due to the different opacities [@kasliwal13].
Summary and discussion {#sec:discussion}
======================
In this work we have focused on the long-term evolution of the dynamic ejecta of a neutron star merger and in particular on the role that the freshly synthesized and radioactively decaying r-process elements play. We have included the energetic feedback from radioactive decays based on nuclear network calculations into the hydrodynamic evolution. Contrary to existing simulations which typically stop after $\sim$ 20 ms, we follow the ejecta evolution through all phases where electromagnetic emission is expected to occur and we only stop the simulations after 100 years. At this time (at latest) the ejecta should have swept up ambient matter comparable to their own mass and start becoming decelerated, a process that is not modelled here. These simulations allow us to accurately quantify how homologous the expansion actually is. We find that in all cases the degree of homology after $10^4$ s is better than 0.1 per cent (see Fig. \[fig:homology\]).\
We find that the radioactive heating has a substantial impact on the morphology and efficiently smoothes out initial inhomogeneities. Although the nuclear energy input does alter dynamics and morphology it does not erase the memory of the initial binary system parameters. For example, the remnant matter keeps its ‘donut shape’ in the case of a perfectly symmetric ($q=1$) merger until at least 100 years after the coalescence, while asymmetric mergers still carry the imprint of their initial mass ratio.\
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --
![Abundance ratios of representative elements with respect to Eu for the sum of dynamic ejecta and neutrino-driven winds. The error bars reflect the estimated uncertainty in the mass ejected in neutrino-driven winds, which is varied from $10^{-4}$ and $10^{-2}$ . Ba and Pt represent strong r-process components and exhibit very little scatter with respect to both the merging system, and the unknown mass of the wind component. Sr, Y and Zr are the weak r-process elements, which are very sensitive to the merging system, in particular the electron fraction. Fe and Zn represent the iron group elements; they are under-produced for all combinations of masses and merging systems.[]{data-label="fig:abundance_ratios"}](AbundanceRatios "fig:"){width="48.00000%"}
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --
A number of recent studies \[[@panov08], [-@goriely11a], [@goriely11b; @roberts11; @korobkin12a; @bauswein13a]\] have dealt with the dynamic ejecta of neutron star mergers. Most studies have simply post-processed the temperature along trajectories of prescribed density, thereby ignoring the effect of the radioactive heating on the density evolution. Only [@goriely11b] have investigated this effect by means of a one-zone expansion model. None of the studies that we are aware of has included the energetic feedback from nuclear reactions in a 3D hydrodynamic simulation. But despite the large impact in the long-run, we find that such post-processed nucleosynthesis results agree actually well with those calculated including nuclear heating. This is mainly because in the early stages where the r-process takes place (seconds), the impact of the energy release on the density evolution is still small.\
While each of the above mentioned studies had their specific focus and contribution, they all agree with the basic picture outlined in [@freiburghaus99b]: the dynamic ejecta seem to naturally produce the ‘strong’ r-process component and the ejected amounts of matter are consistent with contributing a major part to the overall galactic r-process inventory. The resulting abundance pattern is essentially independent of the exact system that merges [@korobkin12a], i.e. it hardly matters whether two neutron stars of different masses or even a neutron star black hole system merges. All these events produce essentially identical abundance signatures above $A \ga 130$, this is illustrated for runs A-D in Fig. \[fig:robust\_vs\_variable\] (blue curves).\
For two reasons we consider the conclusion that the dynamic ejecta are excellent candidates for the ‘strong’ r-process as very robust. First, the ejecta amounts found by different groups are not identical, but given the large uncertainties in the merger rates all of them are consistent with being an important r-process source. For nsns mergers we found a range from $8 \times 10^{-3}$ - $4 \times 10^{-2}$ [@rosswog13b], approximate GR calculations find $10^{-3} - 2 \times 10^{-2}$ [@bauswein13a] and full GR calculations [@hotokezaka13] find $10^{-4} - 10^{-2}$ . Even the results for our Newtonian nsbh calculations agree quite well with the GR results \[see Tab. 1 in [@rosswog13b] and [@kyutoku13]\]. Secondly, the robustness of the abundance pattern is due to the extreme neutron-richness of the ejecta, we find typical values of $Y_e\approx 0.03$ [@korobkin12a; @rosswog13a]. This value is determined by the cold $\beta$-equilibrium in the initial neutron star and it could change for stars of different compactness (say, due to a different EOS or a different treatment of gravity). But in this range even $Y_e$-variations by factors of a few hardly change the resulting abundance pattern. Only at values beyond $Y_e\approx 0.18$ does the pattern of the heaviest elements ($A \ga 130$) become sensitive to the exact value of $Y_e$ (see fig. 8 in [@korobkin12a]). This makes compact binary mergers natural candidates for the sources of the robust, ‘strong’ r-process component. Whether neutron star mergers can also produce the earliest enrichments of galaxies with r-process elements remains to be further investigated, though.\
We have also briefly investigated the nucleosynthesis in the neutrino-driven winds from a neutron star merger remnant. The nucleosynthesis therein is mainly determined by the asymptotic electron fraction $Y_e$, which, in turn, is set by the neutrino properties. These winds produce a weak r-process with elements from $A=50$ to 130 and the abundance patterns vary substantially between different merging systems. We stress once more that the model discussed here is very simple, but it indicates that this topic is worth more detailed neutrino-hydrodynamics studies.\
Observations of low-metallicity stars give an indication that the r-process elements related to the production of the heaviest elements (an indicator is the r-process element Eu) are not correlated with the Fe-group, i.e. Fe is not co-produced in events responsible for the Eu production, or provides at most a minor contribution [@cowan05]. Intermediate-heavy elements like Sr, Y, Zr (also called LEPP elements) show a weak correlation [@cowan05], i.e. can be co-produced, but probably have their dominant contribution from a different process ($\nu$-p process, weak r-process, charged particle process, see e.g. [@qian07; @qian08]). The co-production with Eu for those stars most strongly enriched in this heavy r-process element, seems to give a contribution of about 5–10 per cent to the total Sr, Y, Zr and Ag production (see fig. 1 in [@montes07]). On the other hand, Ba, La, Ce, Nd and Sm, as signatures of a strong r-process, are all co-produced in their solar r-process contribution.\
If neutron star mergers are the source of this heavy element r-process, we expect a similar behaviour in their ejecta. Fig. \[fig:abundance\_ratios\] gives an indication of exactly this behaviour with a Ba/Eu ratio equaling the solar r-process pattern, while Sr, Y, Zr ratios are down by a factor of 10-100, and the Fe-group shows a negligible contribution. Note that in (total) solar abundances Ba is dominated by the s-process. This explains the difference between \[Ba/Eu\] and \[Pt/Eu\] in Fig. \[fig:abundance\_ratios\], which in dynamic merger ejecta are produced in their solar ‘r-process contribution’ (see Fig. \[fig:AbundancesDynejWinds\]). Thus, even for the highest possible contribution of wind ejecta, weak or strong correlations are not destroyed and neutron star mergers provide exactly the behaviour required from the strong r-process source.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
We would like to thank C. Winteler for providing his nucleosynthesis network code and for his continued support. This work has also benefited from the stimulating discussions at the MICRA workshop in 2013. This work was supported by DFG grant RO-3399, AOBJ-584282 and by the Swedish Research Council (VR) under grant 621-2012-4870. The simulations of this paper were performed on the facilities of the Höchstleistungsrechenzentrum Nord (HLRN). A.A. is supported by the Helmholtz-University Young Investigator grant No. VH-NG-825. F.-K. T. gratefully acknowledges support from the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF), both S.R and F.-K. T. have been supported by Compstar. A.A. and F.-K. T. are part of Collaborative Research Program Eurogenesis/MASCHE funded by the European Science Foundation. T.P. is supported by an ERC advanced grant (GRBs) and by the I-CORE Program of the Planning and Budgeting Committee and The Israel Science Foundation (grant No 1829/12).\
Fit formulae for the heating due to nuclear reactions
=====================================================
The call of the Helmholtz equation of state requires $$\begin{aligned}
\bar{A} &=& \left(\sum_i \frac{X_i}{A_i}\right)^{-1}\label{eq:Abar}\\
\bar{Z} &=& \bar{A} \sum_i Y_i Z_i\label{eq:Zbar}\end{aligned}$$ on input, where the index runs over all nuclear species including neutrons and protons. From our study [@korobkin12a] we have deduced the following fit formulae: $$\begin{aligned}
\hspace*{-0.4cm}\bar{A}(t)\hspace*{-0.2cm}&=& \hspace*{-0.2cm}\left\{
\begin{array}{ l l l}
\hspace*{-0.3cm}A_0 + A_1(t_0-t)^{\alpha_1}\quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \; \; \; t \le t_0\\
\hspace*{-0.3cm}A_\infty + A_2(t-t_1)^{\alpha_2} + C_1 e^{-\frac{t}{\tau_1}} + C_2 e^{-\frac{t}{\tau_2}} \; t > t_0
\end{array} \right.\\
\hspace*{-0.4cm}\bar{Z} (t)\hspace*{-0.2cm}&=& \hspace*{-0.2cm} \left\{
\begin{array}{ l l l}
\hspace*{-0.3cm}Z_0 + B_1(t_0-t)^{\beta_1}\quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad t \le t_0\\
\hspace*{-0.3cm}Z_\infty + B_2 t^{\beta_2} + B_3 t^{\beta_3} \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad t > t_0
\end{array} \right.\end{aligned}$$ and $$\dot{\epsilon}(t) = 2 \times 10^{18} \frac{\rm erg}{\rm g\cdot s}\left(\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{\pi}
\arctan{\frac{t-1.3\;{\rm s}}{0.11\;{\rm s}}}\right)^{1.3}
\times\left(\frac{\epsilon_{th}}{0.5}\right)$$ with the fit parameters having the following values: $t_0= 1.07$ s, $t_1$= 0.4 s, $\tau_1= 7.83 \times 10^{8}$ s, $\tau_2=1.12 \times 10^{5}$ s, $A_0= 0.69$, $A_1= 0.4922$, $\alpha_1= -1.328$, $A_\infty= 149.5000$, $A_2= 16.7200$, $\alpha_2= -1.9100$, $C_1= 2.1370$, $C_2=0.6838$, $Z_0=-0.2100$, $B_1= 0.2783$, $\beta_1=-1.5373$, $Z_\infty= 61.2000$, $B_2= -3.0000$, $\beta_2=-0.1500$,$B_3=8.8650$, $\beta_3= -3.7970$.
\[lastpage\]
[^1]: E-mail: [email protected]
[^2]: A possible exception may be stars with the particular, and probably rare, combination of fast rotation and very large pre-collapse magnetic field [@winteler12b].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We use $N$-body simulations to explore the influence of orbital eccentricity on the dynamical evolution of star clusters. Specifically we compare the mass loss rate, velocity dispersion, relaxation time, and the mass function of star clusters on circular and eccentric orbits. For a given perigalactic distance, increasing orbital eccentricity slows the dynamical evolution of a cluster due to a weaker mean tidal field. However, we find that perigalactic passes and tidal heating due to an eccentric orbit can partially compensate for the decreased mean tidal field by energizing stars to higher velocities and stripping additional stars from the cluster, accelerating the relaxation process. We find that the corresponding circular orbit which best describes the evolution of a cluster on an eccentric orbit is much less than its semi-major axis or time averaged galactocentric distance. Since clusters spend the majority of their lifetimes near apogalacticon, the properties of clusters which appear very dynamically evolved for a given galactocentric distance can be explained by an eccentric orbit. Additionally we find that the evolution of the slope of the mass function within the core radius is roughly orbit-independent, so it could place additional constraints on the initial mass and initial size of globular clusters with solved orbits. We use our results to demonstrate how the orbit of Milky Way globular clusters can be constrained given standard observable parameters like galactocentric distance and the slope of the mass function. We then place constraints on the unsolved orbits of NGC 1261,NGC 6352, NGC 6496, and NGC 6304 based on their positions and mass functions.'
author:
- |
Jeremy J. Webb$^{1}$, Nathan Leigh$^{2}$, Alison Sills$^{1}$, William E. Harris$^{1}$, Jarrod R. Hurley $^{3}$ [^1]\
$^{1}$McMaster University, Department of Physics and Astronomy, 1280 Main St. W., Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, L8S 4M1\
$^{2}$European Space Agency, Space Science Department, Keplerlaan 1, 2200 AG Noordwijk, The Netherlands\
$^3$Centre for Astrophysics and Supercomputing, Swinburne University of Technology, P.O. Box 218, VIC 3122, Australia
title: The Effect of Orbital Eccentricity on the Dynamical Evolution of Star Clusters
---
\[firstpage\]
globular clusters: general – stellar dynamics – stars: statistics – methods: statistical – stars: star formation.
Introduction {#intro}
============
Massive star clusters in the Milky Way (MW), called globular clusters (GCs), have typical total masses and ages ranging from $\sim$ 10$^4$ - 10$^6$ M$_{\odot}$ and $\sim$ 10-12 Gyrs, respectively [@harris96; @marinfranch09]. They have had time for their structural properties and stellar mass functions (MFs) to have been modified from their primordial forms due to both stellar evolution and stellar dynamics. Thus, in order to constrain the initial cluster conditions and mass function, simulations are needed to rewind their dynamical clocks.
The dominant mechanisms which drive the dynamical evolution of star clusters are:
- Stellar Evolution
- Two-body Relaxation
- Tidal Stripping
- Tidal Heating
- Disk Shocking
Stellar evolution is initially the main driver of dynamical evolution in a cluster as significant mass loss occurs when massive stars quickly evolve off the main sequence and go supernova. After 2-3 Gyr, two-body relaxation, the cumulative effects of long-range gravitational interactions between stars acting to alter stellar orbits within the cluster, becomes dominant [e.g. @henon61; @henon73; @spitzer87; @heggie03; @gieles11]. The most massive stars accumulate in the central cluster regions, and the lowest mass stars are dispersed to wider orbits. The re-distribution of low and high mass stars, known as mass segregation, is also a source of mass loss with the probability of ejection past the tidal boundary increasing with decreasing stellar mass. Therefore, two-body relaxation will slowly modify the distribution of stellar masses within clusters, and can cause very dynamically evolved clusters to appear severely depleted of their low-mass stars [e.g. @vonhippel98; @koch04; @demarchi10].
Tidal stripping is the removal of stars from a cluster by the host galaxy. The galactic potential imposes a theoretical boundary around a globular cluster, known as the tidal radius $r_t$ or the Jacobi radius $r_J$. Beyond $r_t$, a star will feel a greater acceleration towards the galaxy center than it feels towards the center of the cluster, and will therefore escape [@binney08]. For clusters subject to a strong tidal field, stripping serves to both accelerate mass loss and minimize cluster size.
Tidal heating is an effect only experienced by clusters which experience a non-static tidal field, and so only applies to clusters with eccentric orbits or circular orbits in non-spherically symmetric potentials. The non-static tidal field injects energy into the stellar population of a globular cluster and the kinetic energy of individual stars increases. Energy injection leads to both the energization of stars to larger orbits and the ejection of stars that would otherwise remain bound to the cluster. The effects of energy injection are strongest during a perigalactic pass where the cluster experiences a sudden and dramatic increase in the local potential [@spitzer87; @webb13]. Disk shocking is a specific and extreme form of tidal heating, similar to a perigalactic pass, as the local potential changes dramatically when the cluster passes through the Galactic disk.
While stellar evolution, two-body relaxation and tidal stripping have all been well studied for GCs in isolation and on circular orbits in realistic potentials, how these mechanisms change as a function of orbital eccentricity remains unclear. The purpose of this study is to determine how tidal heating, due to a non-circular orbit in a disk potential, and energy injection during perigalactic passes can influence both relaxation and mass loss due to tidal stripping. All of the Galactic GCs with solved orbits are non-circular [@dinescu99; @dinescu07; @dinescu13], therefore understanding the effects of orbital eccentricity are key to any future studies of GCs.
We evolve model $N$-body clusters for 12 Gyr with a range of orbits in a Milky Way-like potential. Clusters with different orbits experience different degrees of tidal stripping and tidal heating, which can have significant effects on both the low-mass stellar population in the outer regions of the cluster and cluster density. In Section \[nbody\] we discuss the $N$-body models used in this paper. To study how orbital eccentricity can alter the dynamical evolution of a cluster, we investigate the effect that tidal heating has on cluster mass loss rate (Section \[mloss\]), velocity dispersion (Section \[vdis\]), relaxation time (Section \[strh\]), and the stellar MF (Section \[smfunc\]). Within Section \[smfunc\], the evolution of the MF in different regions of the cluster is also discussed. Finally in Section \[mwapp\], we illustrate how present day characteristics of GCs can be used to provide constraints on cluster orbits. We then place constraints on the orbits of specific GCs that remain unsolved. We summarize our results in Section \[summary\].
N-body models {#nbody}
=============
We use the NBODY6 direct $N$-body code [@aarseth03] to study the evolution of model star clusters over 12 Gyr. The models in this study begin with 96000 single stars and 4000 binaries and have a total initial mass of $6 \times 10^4 M_\odot$. Since we are only concerned with the influence of orbital eccentricity on cluster evolution, only the initial position and initial velocity vary from model to model while all other parameters remain unchanged.
A @kroupa93 IMF between 0.1 and 30 $M_{\odot}$ is used to assign masses to individual stars, all with a metallicity of $Z=0.001$. For binary stars, the total mass of the binary is set equal to the mass of two randomly selected stars. The mass-ratio between the primary and secondary masses is then randomly selected from a uniform distribution. The distribution of @duquennoy91 is used to set the initial period of each binary and orbital eccentricities are assumed to follow a thermal distribution [@heggie75]. Initial positions and velocities of the stars are based on a Plummer density profile [@plummer11; @aarseth74] with a cut-off at $\sim 10 \ r_m$ to avoid the rare case of stars positioned at large cluster-centric distances. The initial half-mass radius $r_{m,i}$ of each model is 6 pc. The algorithms for stellar and binary evolution are described in @hurley08a [@hurley08b].
The Galactic potential is made up of a $1.5 \times 10^{10} M_{\odot}$ point-mass bulge, a $5 \times 10^{10} M_{\odot}$ @miyamoto75 disk (with $a=4.5\,$kpc and $b=0.5\,$kpc), and a logarithmic halo potential [@xue08]. The combined mass profiles of all three components force a circular velocity of 220 km/s at a galactocentric distance of $8.5\,$kpc. The incorporation of the Galactic potential into NBODY6 is described by @aarseth03 and @praagman10. In order for the model clusters to experience a spherically symmetric tidal field they were set to orbit in the plane of the disk, eliminating factors such as disk shocking or tidal heating due to a non-spherically symmetric potential.
Since we are only focussed on stars that are energetically bound to the cluster, the simulation eliminates stars with $r > 2 \ r_t$, where $r_t$ is the @king62 tidal radius. We then calculate the total energy of each star given its kinetic energy, the potential energy due to all other stars in the cluster, and the tidal potential [@bertin08; @webb13]. Stars with $E > 0$ are considered to be unbound, and are not included in calculations of cluster parameters. It should be noted that a star with $E > 0$ can be recaptured at a later time if it does not travel beyond $2 \ r_t$.
We first simulate three clusters with orbital eccentricities of 0 (circular orbit), 0.5, and 0.9, where eccentricity is defined as $e = \frac{R_{a}-R_p}{R_{a}+R_p}$. $R_{a}$ and $R_{p}$ are the apogalactic and perigalactic distance of the orbit, respectively. All three models have an $R_{p}$ equal to 6 kpc and are located at $R_p$ at time zero. For comparison purposes we also simulate two additional models with circular orbits at the apogalacticon of the $e = 0.5$ and $e = 0.9$ models, corresponding to orbits at 18 kpc and 104 kpc, respectively. Therefore we can directly compare the properties of a cluster on an eccentric orbit to clusters on circular orbits at both $R_p$ and $R_a$.
The initial model parameters are summarized in Table \[table:modparam\], with model names based on orbital eccentricity (e.g. e05) and either circular radius or radius at apogalacticon (e.g. r18).
---------------- --------------- ----------- ---------------- -------
[Model Name]{} [$r_{m,i}$]{} [$R_p$]{} [$v_p$]{} [e]{}
[ ]{} [pc]{} [kpc]{} [km/s]{} [ ]{}
e0r6 6 6 212 0
e05r18 6 6 351.5 0.5
e0r18 6 18 232 0
e09r104 6 6 543.5 0.9
e0r104 6 104 225.25 0
---------------- --------------- ----------- ---------------- -------
: Model Input Parameters[]{data-label="table:modparam"}
Mass Loss Rate {#mloss}
==============
The most important characteristic of a globular cluster is its total mass, as it sets $r_t$, the relaxation time $t_{rh}$ and velocity dispersion $\sigma_V$ of the cluster. Since our models all start with the same initial mass, the key feature which sets the models apart is their mass loss rate. Mass loss due to stellar evolution will be identical from model to model, however mass loss due to tidal stripping is orbit dependent since $r_t$ is a function of the instantaneous galactocentric distance $R_{gc}$ of a cluster. The total mass (left panel) and mass loss rate (right panel) of each model is plotted in Figure \[fig:mloss\].
![Mass (left) and mass loss rate (right) of each model cluster as a function of time. Models are separated by colour as indicated.[]{data-label="fig:mloss"}](f1.eps){width="\columnwidth"}
In Figure \[fig:mloss\], the mass loss rate of a GC on a circular orbit increases with decreasing $R_{gc}$, resulting in the present day mass of inner clusters (e0r6) to be much less than outer clusters (e0r104). The relationship between mass loss rate and $R_{gc}$ is expected as $r_t$ decreases linearly with $R_{gc}$. A stronger tidal field and smaller $r_t$ results in outer stars being easily removed from the cluster. The only exception to this rule is when a cluster is not tidally filling.
As shown in [@webb13], clusters fill their instantaneous tidal radius at all times, independent of their orbital phase. That is to say there will always be energetically bound stars at or near $r_t$. However the degree to which a cluster is tidally filling depends on the ratio $\frac{r_h}{r_t}$, where a cluster can be approximated to be tidally filling if $\frac{r_h}{r_t} > 0.145$ [@henon61]. The fraction $\frac{r_h}{r_t}$ indicates whether the bulk of the cluster is centrally concentrated and only a few outer stars are affected by the tidal field (tidally under-filling) or if stars are more uniformly spread out between the cluster center and $r_t$. $\frac{r_h}{r_t}$ is plotted as a function of time for each model cluster in Figure \[fig:rfill\].
![Ratio of $\frac{r_h}{r_t}$ as a function of time. Models are separated by colour as indicated. The dotted line indicates a value of 0.145.[]{data-label="fig:rfill"}](f2.eps){width="\columnwidth"}
Tidally under-filling clusters, like e0r014, will therefore have a lower mass loss rate at a given $R_{gc}$ than if $\frac{r_h}{r_t} > 0.145$. Mass loss in under-filling GCs is primarily driven by stellar evolution and close two-body interactions occurring primarily in the dense cluster core.
The mass loss rate of a GC on an eccentric orbit can be much higher than if it had a circular orbit where it is currently observed, which is most likely near $R_a$. For example, in the left panel of Figure \[fig:mloss\] the final masses of e05r18 and e09r104 are significantly less than the apogalactic cases of e0r18 and e0r104 respectively. So despite spending the majority of its lifetime near $R_a$, an eccentric cluster will be lower in mass than a cluster with a circular orbit at $R_a$. Periodic episodes of enhanced mass loss (right panel of Figure \[fig:mloss\]) during a perigalactic pass are greater than the mass gained from recapturing stars as the instantaneous $r_t$ increases while the GC travels to $R_a$.
It is interesting to note that e09r104 has a lower mass loss rate than e0r18 during the majority of its orbit, but e09r104 undergoes periodic episodes of mass loss at $R_p$ that results in similar mass profiles during the first 12 Gyr of their lifetime. e0r18 and e09r104 having similar mass profiles is in disagreement with the relationship between dissolution time and cluster orbit given by @baumgardt03. The results of @baumgardt03 suggest that a cluster with an orbital eccentricity of 0.9 and perigalactic distance of 6 kpc would behave as if it had a circular orbit between 10.5 and 11.5 kpc and that e0r18 will take between 1.4 and 1.7 times longer to reach dissolution than e09r104. However, evolving our model clusters beyond 12 Gyr and defining the dissolution time as the time it takes for clusters to reach $35\%$ of their initial mass, we find that the mass profiles eventually diverge and e0r18 takes 1.35 times longer to reach dissolution than e09r104. The slight discrepancy between our models and the results of @baumgardt03 can easily be attributed to our clusters having different initial conditions and orbiting in a different tidal field than those presented in @baumgardt03. e09r104 having a similar mass profile to e0r18 can be attributed to the clusters undergoing non-linear mass loss rates which result in both models losing similar amounts of mass over the first 12 Gyr of cluster evolution and different amounts of mass beyond 12 Gyr. Therefore we consider e09r104 to have an *effective circular orbit $R_e$* near 18 kpc. $R_e$ can be thought of qualitatively as the circular orbit distance that an eccentric cluster could have and undergo the same dynamical evolution. [^2]
e09r104 has a semi-major axis of 60 kpc and a time average galactocentric distance (*$<R_{gc}>=\frac{1}{12 Gyr} \int_0^{12 Gyr} R_{gc}(t) dt$*) of 73 kpc, both significantly larger than $R_e$. Even the time averaged galactic potential experienced by e09r104 (*$<\Psi>=\frac{1}{12 Gyr} \int_0^{12 Gyr} \Psi(t) dt$*), which is the exact same as a cluster with a circular orbit at 62 kpc, is larger than $R_e$. The circular orbit distance which experiences the same $<\Psi>$ as an eccentric cluster will be referred to as *$R_\Psi$*, such that $\Psi(R_\Psi) = <\Psi>$. Hence perigalactic mass loss leads to the mass loss rate of an eccentric cluster being higher than if the cluster had a circular orbit at $<R_{gc}> $, $R_\Psi$ or with the same semi-major axis.
It should be noted that we consider e0r6 and e05r18 to be tidally filling, while e09r104 is only tidally filling near $R_p$. e0r18 is marginally filling, so while it is still subject to the effects of the tidal field, tidal heating and stripping will be less efficient than in tidally filling clusters. e0r104 is the only cluster that can be considered to be truly tidally under-filling over 12 Gyr, and its evolution independent of the tidal field.
Velocity Dispersion {#vdis}
===================
An observable parameter that is commonly used to study the dynamical state of a globular cluster is its global line of sight velocity dispersion $\sigma_V$ (Equation \[sigv\])
$$\label{sigv}
\sigma_V=\sqrt{\frac{\sum\limits_{i=1}^N v_i^2}{N}}$$
where $v_i$ is the line of sight velocity of individual stars. We have plotted the evolution of the global line of sight velocity dispersion of each model as a function of both time (left panel) and fraction of initial mass $\frac{M}{M_0}$ (right panel) in Figure \[fig:sigv\]. The velocity dispersion was calculated along a random line of sight at each time step. Comparing model clusters as a function of fraction of initial mass is equivalent to comparing clusters on the same evolutionary timescale, as the fraction of initial mass lost from the system per relaxation time due to energy equipartition-driven dynamical evolution should be approximately the same for all clusters independent of their mass, as shown by @lamers13. It should be noted that since the model clusters are only simulated to 12 Gyr and not to dissolution, each model cluster will have lost a different fraction of its initial mass by the end of the simulation.
The trend is for the velocity dispersion of all models to decrease as they evolve, primarily due to mass loss over time. Since velocity dispersion is proportional to cluster mass and inversely proportional to size, both of which are dependent on orbit, it is difficult to relate velocity dispersion to cluster orbit when plotted as a function of time (Figure \[fig:sigv\] left panel). However, if we plot velocity dispersion versus the fraction of initial mass (Figure \[fig:sigv\] right panel) we are comparing clusters at the same mass. Since GC $r_h$ decreases with decreasing $R_{gc}$, we expectedly see a higher $\sigma_V$ for clusters with circular orbits that experience a stronger tidal field for a given fraction of initial mass.
![Velocity dispersion as a function of time (left panel) and fraction of initial mass (right panel). Models are separated by colour as indicated.[]{data-label="fig:sigv"}](f3.eps){width="\columnwidth"}
While stronger Galactic tides increase the velocity dispersion of a GC on a circular orbit, tidal heating due to a non-circular orbit can play a secondary role. In Figure \[fig:sigv\] we see that the velocity dispersion of GCs with eccentric orbits spikes during perigalactic passes as tidal heating injects all stars with additional energy [@spitzer87; @gnedin99], with the line of sight velocity dispersion deviating by up to 0.15 km/s and the three dimensional velocity dispersion deviating by up to 0.3 km/s. When this energy is injected into the cluster, the acceleration (and hence energy) imparted to these stars will push them outwards as they move closer to being energetically unbound and can even strip outer low-mass stars from the cluster if their initial binding energy is low enough, in agreement with @webb13.
Even though the majority of the high velocity stars will escape the cluster and not be recaptured, some stars will remain bound. The periodic process of increasing the velocity dispersion during a perigalactic pass acts to slow the decrease in $\sigma_V$ compared to if it had a circular orbit at $<R_{gc}>$, $R_\Psi$, the semi-major axis of the eccentric cluster, or $R_a$. Therefore for two given clusters that are equal in mass at the same $R_{gc}$, a higher velocity dispersion will indicate an eccentric orbit assuming the eccentric cluster is located near apogalacticon.
Relaxation {#strh}
==========
We next wish to examine how cluster orbit affects the timescale over which the distribution of stellar energies approaches equilibrium, known as the relaxation time *$t_{rh}$* [@heggie03; @trenti13]. $t_{rh}$ is given by Equation \[trh\] [@meylan01], where M is the total GC mass, $\bar{m}$ is the mean stellar mass, and $r_h$ is the half-light radius.
$$\label{trh}
t_{rh}[yr]=(8.92 \times 10^5) \frac{(M / M_{\odot})^{\frac{1}{2}}}{(\bar{m} / M_{\odot})} \frac{(r_h / 1 pc)^{\frac{3}{2}}}{log(0.4 M / \bar{m})}$$
The relaxation time, plotted as a function of time (left panel) and fraction of initial mass (right panel) in Figure \[fig:trh\], is dependent on all three of the previously discussed cluster characteristics; mass, $r_h$, and velocity dispersion.
![Half-mass relaxation time of each model cluster as a function of time (left panel) and fraction of initial mass (right panel). Models are separated by colour as indicated.[]{data-label="fig:trh"}](f4.eps){width="\columnwidth"}
As previously discussed, a cluster which experiences a strong tidal field will have a higher mass loss rate, higher velocity dispersion and be smaller in size than a cluster which experiences a weaker tidal field. While a larger velocity dispersion will increase the relaxation time of a GC, differences in $\sigma_V$ due to cluster orbit are minimal compared to the differences in mass and size of clusters in different tidal fields. Therefore the relaxation and segregation times of a cluster are primarily dependent on cluster size and density, both of which are proportional to $R_{gc}$. With the exception of e0r104, $t_{rh}$ decreases with time after its initial expansion while each cluster loses mass and contracts. Since e0r104 is undergoing a near-zero mass loss rate and still expanding, $t_{rh}$ continues to increase.
Figure \[fig:trh\] indicates that a cluster with an eccentric orbit relaxes on a timescale between that of GCs with circular orbits at $R_p$ and $R_a$. Increasing eccentricity increases $t_{rh}$ relative to the $R_p$ case, primarily due to the eccentric cluster having a larger $r_h$. Therefore for two clusters at the same $R_{gc}$, the cluster with a more eccentric orbit which brings it deeper into the galactic potential will have a shorter relaxation time and be more mass segregated than a cluster with a near-circular orbit. Similar to the evolution of total mass and $\sigma_V$ in Figures \[fig:mloss\] and \[fig:sigv\], model e09r104 has a relaxation time profile that overlaps with e0r18.
Evolution of the Mass Function {#smfunc}
==============================
The overall effect of orbital eccentricity on the dynamical evolution of GCs is observed in the stellar MF. Increased tidal stripping results in eccentric clusters being severely depleted of mass segregated low-mass stars compared to clusters with circular orbits near the same $R_{gc}$. Hence studying the stellar MF of a GC allows for constraints to be placed on its orbital eccentricity.
Evolution of $\alpha$ {#alpha}
---------------------
We quantify the evolution of the MF by calculating the exponent $\alpha$, where $\alpha$ is defined in Equation \[dndm\].
$$\label{dndm}
\frac{dN}{dm} \propto m^\alpha$$
In this form, the traditional Salpeter initial MF has $\alpha$ = -2.35 [@salpeter55]. For each model, $\alpha$ is the best fit slope to a plot of $log(\frac{dN}{dm})$ versus $log(m)$, calculated over mass bins greater than $0.15 M_{\odot}$ and less than the main sequence turn-off. The evolution of the global $\alpha$ for each of our models is plotted in Figure \[fig:alpha\] as a function of time (left panel) and fraction of initial mass (right panel).
![ The evolution of the global $\alpha$ is plotted as a function of time (left panel) and fraction of initial mass (right panel). Models are separated by colour as indicated.[]{data-label="fig:alpha"}](f5.eps){width="\columnwidth"}
Almost immediately, $\alpha$ decreases from its initial value due to both stellar evolution and the breaking up of binaries which are assumed to be unresolved. After 1000-2000 Myr $\alpha$ begins to increase as a function of time at a faster rate for GCs which experience a stronger tidal field. The accelerated evolution of $\alpha$ is a direct result of increased mass loss due to tidal stripping producing a lower mass cluster with a shorter relaxation time and a smaller scale size ($r_t \propto M^{\frac{1}{3}} R_{gc}^{\frac{2}{3}}$). As a function of fraction of initial mass, all models again undergo a similar initial evolution in $\alpha$. It is not until after the first 1000 Myr and each cluster has completed multiple orbits and experienced the combined effects of the galactic potential that the evolution of $\alpha$ becomes orbit dependent. For a given fraction of initial mass, $\alpha$ will then be higher for a cluster with a large $<R_{gc}>$ as the weaker tidal field can only remove the least massive of the low mass stars. A stronger tidal field can remove stars over a larger mass range, slowing the evolution of $\alpha$.
We have already shown that tidal heating, on top of the lower mass and smaller scale size of an eccentric cluster, accelerates its dynamical evolution compared to a GC with a circular orbit and either the same semi-major axis, the same $<R_{gc}>$ or the same $R_\Psi$. Comparing GCs as a function of initial mass, $\alpha$ increases at a faster rate with increasing eccentricity (for a given $R_p$) because the weaker tidal field again can only remove the lowest of low mass stars. Since clusters with higher orbital eccentricities are subject to increased tidal heating and a tidal shock at $R_p$, a larger fraction of low-mass stars populating the outer regions have the potential to be tidally stripped.
Radial Dependence of the Mass Function
--------------------------------------
It is often the case that the slope of the mass function for a given GC is measured in a specific region of the GC [@demarchi10 e.g.]. Therefore, to properly compare with observable parameters we consider the evolution of $\alpha$ for stars in different radial regions of the cluster. Specifically we focus on stars within the $10 \%$ Lagrangian radius ($r_{10}$), stars between $r_{10}$ and the half mass radius ($r_m$), and bound stars beyond $r_m$. For our purposes, $r_m$ is used as a substitute for $r_h$ because it undergoes a smoother evolution from time step to time step than $r_h$.
![Slope of the mass function ($\alpha$) for stars within $r_{10}$ (left), stars between $r_{10}$ and $r_m$ (center), and bound stars beyond $r_m$ (right). Models are separated by colour, as indicated in the right panel.[]{data-label="fig:alpharad"}](f6.eps){width="\columnwidth"}
The slope of the mass function in all radial bins (Figure \[fig:alpharad\]) follows the same trend as the global mass function, however within observational uncertainties the inner mass function appears to be independent of orbit. The orbital independence is due to two-body interactions being the dominant physical process in the core of a GC relative to tidal stripping. Assuming a Universal IMF, the nearly orbit independent evolution of $\alpha$ for $r < r_{10}$ could be used to solve for the initial MF and hence total initial mass of MW GCs given their core mass function [@leigh12].
For the intermediate mass function, we begin to see a clear separation in the evolution of $\alpha$ for GCs with different orbits. $\alpha$ increases at a slower rate than the inner region, primarily because both two-body relaxation and tidal stripping are in effect. The removal of low mass stars via tidal stripping slows the evolution of $\alpha$ compared to if just two-body relaxation was occurring.
In the outer region we see an initial decrease in $\alpha$ as mass segregation results in high mass stars migrating to the inner region of the GC. However, $\alpha$ quickly begins to increase for tidally filling clusters (e0r6, e05r18) as they lose mass. Unlike the inner region of the cluster, tidal stripping is now the dominant mechanism and can produce significantly different values of $\alpha$ based on cluster orbit. Specifically the difference between e0r6 and e05r18 is larger in the outer region than the intermediate region. With observational uncertainties in $\alpha$ typically ranging from $2$ to $15 \%$ [@demarchi10; @paust10], discrepancies of this magnitude should be measurable in high quality observations. For the outer regions of clusters e0r18, e09r104, and e0r104, $\alpha$ is still decreasing as the cluster relaxes. Since outer clusters are either barely tidally filling or not at all (see Figure \[fig:rfill\]), two-body interaction is the only mechanism affecting the outer region of the GC and the evolution of $\alpha$ is not accelerated due to tidal stripping. Unfortunately, the outer mass functions of Galactic GCs are difficult to measure due to low number statistics and field contamination, and we are forced to rely on mass functions measured near $r_h$.
In principle, the ratio of $\alpha$ in the core to $\alpha$ in the outskirts could put very tight constraints on orbital eccentricity. Consider two clusters with the exact same mass, $r_h$, $R_{gc}$ and value of $\alpha$ in their outskirts. While one may conclude these two clusters must have similar orbits, this conclusion would be incorrect if the clusters had different sizes or masses at birth. The evolution of $\alpha$ in the core on the other hand is independent of cluster orbit, and only depends on the initial mass and size of the cluster of birth as these properties are what govern the time it takes for the core to relax. Therefore normalizing by the value of $\alpha$ in the core is analagous to normalizing by the initial cluster conditions. In the current example, the cluster with the smaller core $\alpha$ was likely more massive and larger than the other cluster at birth and took longer to relax. To have the same value of $\alpha$ in the outskirts, the cluster with the higher initial mass and size must have an eccentric orbit and be near $R_a$ in order to have lost a higher fraction of its initial mass. Additional simulations of clusters with different initial conditions are required to further explore the usefulness of the ratio of $\alpha$ in the core to $\alpha$ in the outskirts.
Application to Milky Way Globular Clusters {#mwapp}
==========================================
Our models demonstrate that the periodic perigalactic passes and tidal heating experienced by GCs with eccentric orbits can lead to enhanced mass loss, increased velocity dispersions, and shorter relaxation times than if the cluster had a circular orbit at $R_a$, $<R_{gc}>$, $R_\Psi$, or with the same semi-major axis. All of these effects combine to alter the stellar MF of a GC in a predictable manner. Assuming a universal IMF, which is consistent with the results of @leigh12, the possibility then arises to relate the observationally determined MF of GCs to the tidal field, and thereby constrain GC orbits. A universal IMF is consistent with results of @leigh12. Below, we use our model results and the MFs of GCs with solved orbits to illustrate how GC orbits can be constrained given $\alpha$ and $R_{gc}$.
In Figure \[fig:mwalpha\], we plot $\alpha$ from @demarchi10 versus current $R_{gc}$, $R_p$, orbital eccentricity, and the ratio $\frac{r_h}{r_t}$ [@harris96] for Galactic GCs with solved orbits [@dinescu99; @dinescu07; @dinescu13]. Cluster tidal radii are calculated at their current $R_{gc}$ given the formalism of @bertin08. The vertical dotted line in the bottom right panel corresponds to $\frac{r_h}{r_t} = 0.145$, where clusters with $\frac{r_h}{r_t} > 0.145$ are considered to be tidally filling and clusters with $\frac{r_h}{r_t} < 0.145$ are considered to be tidally under-filling [@henon61]. Clusters in the @demarchi10 dataset with unsolved orbits are plotted in Panels A and D as large green crosses. For comparison purposes, NGC 7078 (black triangle), NGC 6809 (blue filled circle) and NGC 2298 (red filled squares) have been singled out as they cover the full range in $R_{gc}$, eccentricity, and $\alpha$. It should be noted that values of $\alpha$ taken from @demarchi10 were measured near the effective radius of the cluster. Therefore differences between eccentric and non-eccentric clusters should follow the behaviour described in the centre panel of Figure \[fig:alpharad\].
![Slope of the mass function ($\alpha$) compared to the present $R_{gc}$ (Panel A), $R_p$ (Panel B), orbital eccentricity (Panel C), and $\frac{r_h}{r_t}$ (Panel D) for Galactic GCs with solved orbits. In Panel D, the vertical line corresponds to $\frac{r_h}{r_t} = 0.145$. NGC 7078 (black triangle), NGC 6809 (blue filled circle) and NGC 2298 (red filled squares) have been highlighted. In Panels A and D, large green crosses mark the clusters in the @demarchi10 dataset with unsolved orbits.[]{data-label="fig:mwalpha"}](f7.eps){width="\columnwidth"}
Clusters with Solved Orbits
---------------------------
### NGC 7078 (M15)
NGC 7078 (black triangle) has the steepest mass function (most negative $\alpha$) of all the GCs with solved orbits, suggesting it is the least dynamically evolved. Without any prior knowledge about the orbit, this cluster appears at face-value to represent an anomaly as its present day $R_{gc}$ is approximately the mean $R_{gc}$ of all clusters in the dataset. We conclude, based solely on the mass function of NGC 7078, that it has a low orbital eccentricity and a correspondingly large perigalactic distance. Taking into consideration the cluster’s known orbital parameters, NGC 7078 actually has one of the largest perigalactic distances of all clusters with solved orbits. Therefore, it experiences a weaker mean tidal field than the majority of GCs. Compared to other clusters with large values of $R_p$, NGC 7078 is very tidally under-filling. Being smaller in size and tidally under-filling, combined with experiencing a weaker mean tidal field, means that NGC 7078 has a very low mass loss rate and has likely retained the majority of its stars. Furthermore, its lower orbital eccentricity means that tidal heating plays a near negligible role.
### NGC 6809 (M55)
NGC 6809 (blue filled circle) represents the inner most cluster in the dataset with a present day $R_{gc}$ of 4 kpc, however it is less dynamically evolved than one would expect given the strong tidal forces it must experience. Its tidal and effective radii suggest that the cluster has expanded enough such that it is almost tidally filling and stars should be able to be stripped from the outskirts. Therefore we would conclude that the cluster must actually spend more time beyond 4 kpc than within 4 kpc, so it must have a moderate to high orbital eccentricity and be located near $R_p$. This statement is consistent with the solved orbit for this cluster. The cluster has an orbital eccentricity near 0.5 and an $R_p$ of approximately 2 kpc, meaning that the cluster is currently closer to $R_p$ than $R_a$, such that its current position does not represent the mean tidal field it experiences. The weaker than expected tidal forces experienced by NGC 6809 result in a lower mass loss rate and larger relaxation time, both of which help to account for the relatively unevolved (i.e. steep) slope of the MF.
### NGC 2298
Finally, NGC 2298 (red filled squares) is very dynamically evolved as it has an inverted mass function with a large positive value of $\alpha$. Again, without prior orbital information, this cluster would appear to be too dynamically evolved as the weak tidal forces it experiences at its current $R_{gc}$ should not have been able to remove enough stars to invert the mass function. Panel D suggests that NGC 2298 is also very tidally under-filling, so one would expect that it would not be strongly affected by tidal forces. Hence the only way NGC 2298 can be so dynamically evolved given its current $R_{gc}$ would be if it has a highly eccentric orbit that brings it deep into the tidal field of the galaxy. Furthermore, NGC 2298 must be near $R_a$ to explain its extremely low $\frac{r_h}{r_t}$. Our conclusion is confirmed by noting NGC 2298 has an orbital eccentricity of 0.78 (Figure \[fig:mwalpha\]), a $R_a$ of 15.3 kpc, and a current $R_{gc}$ of 14.4 kpc. Periodic episodes of enhanced mass loss during each perigalactic passes have stripped the majority of low mass stars from the outer regions of NGC 2298 leaving it to appear tidally under-filling when near $R_a$.
Note that a similar argument can be made for NGC 288 and Pal5, which despite having $R_{gc}$’s greater than 10 kpc, both appear to be quite dynamically evolved with an $\alpha$ of 0. With orbital eccentricities greater than 0.68, perigalactic passes bring both clusters deep into the Galactic potential to $R_p$’s less than 2 kpc. Enhanced mass loss and energy injection have accelerated each cluster’s evolution compared to if they had circular orbits at their current $R_{gc}$’s.
Clusters with Unsolved Orbits
-----------------------------
We have demonstrated that an understanding of how orbital eccentricity can influence the dynamical evolution of GCs can be used to make predictions of a GC’s orbit based on its $R_{gc}$ and $\alpha$. While it is difficult to predict cluster orbit based solely on $R_{gc}$ and $\alpha$ without additional simulations to explore possible degeneracies between orbit, initial size, and initial mass, we can make some general statements about the remaining clusters in the @demarchi10 dataset with unsolved orbits (plotted as green crosses in Figure \[fig:mwalpha\]):
- NGC 1261 is tidally under- filling, has the largest $R_{gc}$, and has one of the least negative values of $\alpha$ of the remaining clusters suggesting it is similar in nature to NGC 2298. Therefore NGC 1261 is likely located near $R_a$ and has a large (e $>$ 0.7) orbital eccentricity. Its high-e orbit causes NGC 1261 to be subject to significant tidal heating and large injections of energy during perigalactic passes, accelerating its dynamical evolution compared to if it had a circular orbit at its current $R_{gc}$.
- NGC 6352 and NGC 6496 both have similar values of $\alpha$ to NGC 1261 but are located in the inner region of the MW ( 3 kpc $< R_{gc} < $ 5 kpc). Therefore their orbital eccentricities are likely less than NGC 2298 or NGC 6809 (e $<$ 0.5), and are currently located somewhere between $R_p$ and $R_a$. Since NGC 6352 is tidally filling, it is likely closer to $R_p$. Similarly since NGC 6496 is tidally under-filling it is likely closer to $R_a$.
- NGC 6304 is tidally filling, but has an extremely negative $\alpha$ considering it is located deep in the galactic potential of the MW ($R_{gc} \sim 2$ kpc). NGC 6304 is comparable to the previously discussed NGC 6809, and likely has a moderate to high (e $\sim$ 0.5) orbital eccentricity and is currently located near $R_p$. Hence its very negative $\alpha$ can be explained by the fact that NGC 6304 spends the majority of its time beyond its current $R_{gc}$.
- Unfortunately no firm conclusions can be made regarding the orbit of NGC 6541 as it is both extremely tidally under-filling and located at a small $R_{gc}$. Hence the evolution of its mass function is likely independent of its orbit. Its extremely negative $\alpha$ suggests the cluster has retained the majority of its stars over its lifetime and likely formed extremely compact relative to other GCs. Due to its low $R_{gc}$, it is also possible that the cluster is near $R_p$ and has a low eccentricity orbit which brings the cluster slightly farther out in the galactic potential. However the fact that it is so tidally under-filling is surprising given its low $R_{gc}$. It may instead be the case that NGC 6541 is a recently accreted GC or the nucleus of a dwarf galaxy, and did not evolve at its current location in the Milky Way . Further simulations of tidally under-filling clusters on eccentric orbits are required to explore these hypotheses.
Summary
=======
Our simulations show that orbital eccentricity can play an important role in the dynamical evolution of a star cluster. Our models demonstrate that for two GCs located at the same $R_{gc}$, one with a circular orbit and one with an eccentric orbit and $R_a = R_{gc}$, the GC with an eccentric orbit will have:
- increased mass loss rate
- smaller size
- increased velocity dispersion
- shorter relaxation time
- shallower mass function
The same conclusion would be reached by comparing a cluster with a circular orbit at a smaller $R_{gc}$ to the cluster with a circular orbit at $R_a$. However, the non-static tidal field and periodic perigalactic passes experienced by a cluster with an eccentric orbit produce second order effects.
The first effect of an eccentric orbit is periodic episodes of enhanced mass loss during perigalactic passes. So while the mass loss rate that an eccentric cluster experiences for most of its lifetime may correspond to $<R_{gc}>$, the enhanced episodes of mass loss produce a higher overall mass loss rate. The second effect of perigalactic passes is the energization of inner region stars to larger orbits, as first discussed in @webb13. The periodic injection of energy into the cluster, combined with additional energy due to tidal heating from a non-static tidal field, increases the kinetic energy of individual stars. Therefore inner region stars will be pushed to larger orbits and stars in the outskirts will be able to escape, decreasing the relaxation time and mass segregation time of the cluster. The combined effects of orbital eccentricity serve to partially balance the decreased tidal field strength the eccentric cluster experiences during the majority of its orbit, such that its evolution is comparable to a cluster with a circular orbit at a distance much less than $R_\Psi$, $<R_{gc}>$, or with the semi-major axis of the eccentric cluster. The recurring example discussed in this paper involves model e09r104, which undergoes a similar dynamical evolution as a cluster with a circular orbit at 18 kpc.
The influence of tidal heating and perigalactic passes are reflected in the global mass function of eccentric GCs, as it will be flatter (less negative slope) than would be expected given the clusters current $R_{gc}$. A flatter mass function is the direct result of increased tidal stripping of outer region stars that are preferentially low in mass due to mass segregation. Conversely, the inner mass function appears to be independent of cluster orbit as the effects of tidal heating are negligible compared to two-body relaxation. Hence the inner mass functions of Galactic GCs may instead be used to constrain the initial mass and size of the GC, and the ratio of $\alpha$ in the core to $\alpha$ in the outskirts could serve as a tracer of orbital eccentricity.
We make use of the measured mass functions of 33 GCs by @demarchi10, 28 of which have solved orbits [@dinescu99; @dinescu07; @dinescu13], to demonstrate how $\alpha$ and $R_{gc}$ can be used to constrain cluster orbit. We then put constraints on the orbital eccentricity of the remaining clusters with unsolved orbits based on their $\alpha$ and $R_{gc}$:
- NGC 1261 has $e > 0.7$, and is currently located near $R_a$
- NGC 6352 has $ e < 0.5$, and is currently located near $R_p$
- NGC 6496 has $ e < 0.5$, and is currently located near $R_a$
- NGC 6304 has $e \sim 0.5$, and is currently located near $R_p$
- NGC 6541 is extremely under-filling with a low $R_{gc}$, so its $\alpha$ must be orbit independent. To be under-filling with such a small $R_{gc}$, it is likely that NGC 6541 either formed extremely compact and is currently located near $R_p$ with a low e, is a captured GC, or is a dwarf galaxy remnant.
Additional simulations, specifically exploring the influence of orbital inclination, initial size, and initial mass on the dynamical evolution of GCs, will help explain the current dynamical state of all Galactic GCs. Isolating the effects of orbital eccentricity, however, is an important first step towards understanding the different ways tidal heating and periodic perigalactic passes can influence cluster evolution. A complete suite of simulations will allow for specific constraints to be placed on the orbits of GCs that have yet to be solved.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We would like to thank the referee for constructive comments and suggestions regarding the presentation of the paper. JW, AS, and WEH acknowledge financial support through research grants and scholarships from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. JW also acknowledges support from the Dawes Memorial Fellowship for Graduate Studies in Physics.
[99]{}
Aarseth, S.J. 2003, Gravitational $N$-body Simulations: Tools and Algorithms (Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Aarseth, S., Hénon, M., Wielen, R., 1974, A&A, 37, 183 Baumgardt H., Makino J. 2003, MNRAS, 340, 227 Bertin, G. & Varri, A. L. 2008, ApJ, 689, 1005 , J. & [Tremaine]{}, S. 2008, [Galactic dynamics second edition]{} (Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press, 1987, 747 p.) Casetti-Dinescu, D.I., Girard, T.M., Herrera, D., van Altena, W.F., López, C.E., Castillo, D.J. 2007, AJ, 134, 195 Casetti-Dinescu, D.I., Girard, T.M., Jíková, L., van Altena, W.F., Podestá, F., López, C.E. 2013, AJ, 146, 33 De Marchi G., Paresce F., Portegies Zwart S. 2010, ApJ, 718, 105 Dinescu, D.I., Girard, T.M., van Altena, W.E. 1999, AJ, 117, 1792 Duquennoy, A. & Mayor, M. 1991, A&A, 248, 485 Gieles M., Heggie D., Zhao H. 2011, MNRAS, 413, 2509 Gnedin, O.Y., Lee, H. M., Ostriker, J. P., 1999, ApJ, 522, 935 Harris, W. E. 1996, AJ, 112, 1487 (2010 update) Heggie, D.C. 1975, MNRAS, 173, 729 Heggie D. C., Hut P. 2003, The Gravitational Million-Body Problem: A Multidisciplinary Approach to Star Cluster Dynamics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) Henon M. 1961, Annales d’Astrophysique, 24, 369 Henon M. 1973, Dynamical Structure and Evolution of Dense Stellar Systems, ed. L. Martinet & M. Mayor (Geneva Obs.) Hurley, J.R. 2008a, Lecture Notes in Physics, 760, The Cambridge $N$-body Lectures. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, p.283 Hurley, J.R. 2008b, Lecture Notes in Physics, 760, The Cambridge $N$-body Lectures. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, p.321 King, I. R. 1962, AJ, 67, 471 Koch, A., Grebel, E. K., Odenkirchen, M., Martínez-Delgado, D., Caldwell, J. A. R., 2004, AJ, 128. 2274 Kroupa, P., Tout C.A., Gilmore, G. 1993,MNRAS, 262, 545 Lamers, H. J. G. L. M., Baumgardt, H., Gieles, M., 2013, MNRAS, 433, 1378 Leigh N. W., Umbreit S., Sills A., Knigge C., de Marchi G., Glebbeek E., Sarajedini A. 2012, MNRAS, 422, 1592 Marín-Franch, A., Aparicio, A., Piotto, G., Rosenberg, A., Chaboyer, B., Sarajedini, A., Siegel, M., Anderson, J., Bedin, L. R., Dotter, A., Hempel, M., King, I., Majewski, S., Milone, A. P., Paust, N., Reid, I. N. 2009, ApJ, 694, 1498 Meylan, G., Sarajedini, A., Jablonka, P., Djorgovski, S.G., Bridges, T., Rich, R.M., 2001, AJ, 122, 830 Miyamoto, M. & Nagai, R. 1975, PASJ, 27, 533 Paust, N. E. Q., Reid, I. N., Piotto, G., et al. 2010, AJ, 139, 476 Plummer, H.C. 1911, MNRAS, 71, 460 Praagman, A., Hurley, J., Power C. 2010, New Astron., 15, 46 Salpeter, E.E. 1955, ApJ, 121, 161 Spitzer L. Jr. 1987, Dynamical Evolution of GCs (Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press) Tremaine S. D., Ostriker J. P., Spitzer L. Jr. 1975, ApJ, 196, 407 Trenti M., van der Marel, R. 2013, MNRAS, 435, 3272 Tutukov A. V. 1978, A&A, 70, 57 von Hippel T., Sarajedini A. 1998, AJ, 116, 1789 Webb, J.J., Harris, W.E., Sills, A., Hurley, J.R. 2013, ApJ, 764, 124 Xue, X.X. et al., 2008, ApJ, 684, 1143
\[lastpage\]
[^1]: E-mail: [email protected] (JW), [email protected] (NL)
[^2]: Unfortunately, no quantitative relationship between the orbit of e09r104 and its apparent $R_e$ of 18 kpc could be established.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We study the mass distribution in the late-type dwarf galaxy NGC 2976 through stellar kinematics obtained with the VIRUS-P integral-field spectrograph and anisotropic Jeans models as a test of cosmological simulations and baryonic processes that putatively alter small-scale structure. Previous measurements of the H$\alpha$ emission-line kinematics have determined that the dark matter halo of NGC 2976 is most consistent with a cored density profile. We find that the stellar kinematics are best fit with a cuspy halo. Cored dark matter halo fits are only consistent with the stellar kinematics if the stellar mass-to-light ratio is significantly larger than that derived from stellar population synthesis, while the best-fitting cuspy model has no such conflict. The inferred mass distribution from a harmonic decomposition of the gaseous kinematics is inconsistent with that of the stellar kinematics. This difference is likely due to the gas disk not meeting the assumptions that underlie the analysis such as no pressure support, a constant kinematic axis, and planar orbits. By relaxing some of these assumptions, in particular the form of the kinematic axis with radius, the gas-derived solution can be made consistent with the stellar kinematic models. A strong kinematic twist in the gas of NGC 2976’s center suggests caution, and we advance the mass model based on the stellar kinematics as more reliable. The analysis of this first galaxy shows promising evidence that dark matter halos in late-type dwarfs may in fact be more consistent with cuspy dark matter distributions than earlier work has claimed.'
author:
- 'Joshua J. Adams, Karl Gebhardt, Guillermo A. Blanc, Maximilian H. Fabricius, Gary J. Hill, Jeremy D. Murphy, Remco C. E. van den Bosch, Glenn van de Ven'
bibliography:
- 'NGC2976\_DM.bib'
title: The central dark matter distribution of NGC 2976
---
Introduction {#sec_intro}
============
The observations of kinematics in low surface brightness (LSB) and dwarf-late type galaxies have stubbornly resisted giving clear evidence for the cuspy Navarro-Frenk-White (NFW) dark matter (DM) halo profiles that N-body simulations with $\Lambda$CDM inputs predict [@Nava96a]. Instead, most LSBs and late type dwarfs suggest cored DM halos [e.g. @Oh08; @deBl08; @Kuzi08; @Span08; @Oh10] or the observations are not constraining enough to rule out cusps [@Swat03; @Simo05]. Some simulations have produced cored DM halos by rapidly removing the baryonic disk which causes the DM halo to expand to a cored equilibrium [@Nava96b], initializing numerical simulations with a primordial bar that forms a resonance with and disrupts the cusp [@Wein02], or by implementing a supernova feedback recipe in high-resolution hydrodynamical simulations [@Gove10]. This puzzle has also motivated proposals for additional particle properties of dark matter beyond the weakly interacting, cold paradigm such as collisional dark matter [e.g. @Sper00], warm dark matter [e.g. @Hoga00], and ultra-light boson fluid models [e.g. @Peeb00; @Good00; @Rind11]. Other questions critically rely on knowing the DM density structure in galaxies, such as the prospects of DM annihilation searches that depend sensitively on the true density profile in galaxies [e.g. @Diem08]. Most of the extant attempts to determine DM radial profiles rely on gas as the dynamical tracer. A number of works have studied nearby disk galaxy kinematics with longslit stellar kinematics to infer DM halo profiles [@Cors99; @Corb07] or stellar mass-to-light ratios for isothermal sheet models [@vdKr84; @Bahc84; @vdKr86; @Bott87; @Bott89a; @Bott89b; @Bott90; @Bott91; @Bott92; @Swat99], but better structure constraints come from 2D spectroscopy [e.g. @Copi04; @Kraj05; @Capp06; @vdBo08; @Weij09; @Murp11].
NGC 2976 has made one of the cleanest cases for a cored DM halo via its gaseous kinematics [@Simo03 hereafter SBLB03]. In our first attempt to derive DM mass profiles from stellar kinematics we chose NGC 2976 due to several of its properties. (1) NGC 2976 is an SAc dwarf galaxy in the M81 group. There are some dynamical indications [@Spek07] and photometric indications [@Mene07] that a weak bar may be present, but NGC 2976 is usually given an unbarred designation [@deVa91]. (2) NGC 2976 has some dark patches that are likely due to dust, but its dust content is modest for its Hubble class and distributed rather regularly. A full treatment regarding the potential impact of dust on the measured kinematics is beyond the scope of this work, but several literature estimates of the dust content exist. @Will10 fit star-formation history models from the broadband colors of resolved stars in the Advanced Camera for Surveys Nearby Galaxy Survey Treasury (ANGST) [@Dalc09] by modelling 0.8 magnitudes of differential extinction in the V-band for ages above 100 Myr, 0.5 magnitudes for younger ages, and a foreground screen of 0.46 magnitudes. Our data lie within the “INNER-1” region of that work. @Pres07 use Spitzer 24$\mu$m data to estimate A$_B\sim$1.5. The lowest estimates comes from SBLB03 with A$_B\sim$0.23 based on an inclination proscription [@Saka00]. Although there is a large range in the estimated extinctions, the values from each method are on the low end for the late-type dwarf population. (3) NGC 2976 appears to be dark matter dominated at r$>$500 pc according to SBLB03 (although @deBl08 disagree), so the impact of stellar population synthesis (SPS) mass-to-light ($\Upsilon_*$) uncertainties is minimized in this target. (4) The stellar surface brightness profiles in many bands are very smooth and indicate a bulgeless disk with a small nuclear star cluster and a break to an outer disk at $\sim$1.2 kpc (SBLB03).
The distance to NGC 2976 from the tip of the red giant branch method is 3.56$\pm$0.38 Mpc [@Kara02]; we adopt a distance of 3.45 Mpc and a scale conversion of 16.7 pc arcsec$^{-1}$ in this work for consistency with SBLB03. The total mass of NGC 2976 is estimated to be 3.5$\times$10$^{9}$ M$_{\odot}$ based on the inclination-corrected line width of 165 km s$^{-1}$ (SBLB03). The inclination is variously estimated as 615 [@deVa91], 614 (SBLB03), and 645 [@deBl08]. The HI heliocentric velocity is 4.0$\pm$2.0 km s$^{-1}$ [@Stil02b]. The stellar velocity dispersion in NGC 2976 has not previously been reported. Measurement attempts were made in @Ho09, but the results were unresolved in the presence of the best $\sigma_{inst}=$ 42 km s$^{-1}$ instrumental resolution and unreported. They estimate $\sigma=$36.0$\pm$16.8 km s$^{-1}$ from a correlation for their sample with the measured \[NII\]6583Å line width.
We present observations of NGC 2976 with the large field-of-view fiber fed Visible Integral field Replicable Unit Spectrograph Prototype (VIRUS-P) [@Hill08a] to concurrently measure the gaseous and stellar kinematics, fit mass models, and study the dark matter halo profile shape in the context of the “core-cusp” controversy with a collisionless tracer. Our data reduction and kinematic measurements are described in §\[sec\_data\]. We fit the stellar kinematic data with anisotropic Jeans models in §\[sec\_Jeans\]. We perform fits to our \[OII\] rotation curve and the SBLB03 H$\alpha$ rotation curve in §\[sec\_gasfit\]. In §\[sec\_BC\], we investigate the constraints on $\Upsilon_*$ through matching SPS models to our spectral data and its effect on the mass models. Finally, we review our conclusions in §\[sec\_concl\]. As is customary, all values of $\Upsilon_*$ are given in solar units for the indicated band with the “\*” indicating a mass exclusively for the stellar component. We adopt an absolute solar magnitude in the R-band of M$_{\odot,R}=4.42$ throughout this work [@Binn98].
Observations and data reduction {#sec_data}
===============================
Over April 27 through May 1 of 2009, we took 18 hours of science pointings on NGC 2976 with the VIRUS-P instrument and the 2400 lines mm$^{-1}$ VP2 grating on the McDonald Observatory’s 2.7m Harlan J. Smith telescope under non-photometric conditions. Transparency was continuously monitored by stars in the guider camera’s data, which was read out and saved every five seconds and used to make relative flux calibrations. The seeing ranged from 14-30 full-width-half-maximum (FWHM). The VIRUS-P field-of-view covers $1\farcm61\times1\farcm65$ with fibers projected to on-sky diameters of 4235. VIRUS-P has a one-third filling factor, so we spread three dithers across the galaxy to maintain continuous spatial coverage in the middle and to maximize the spatial extent. We set the instrument to measure 3680-4400Å with R=2400, nominally. The spectral data were taken under 1$\times$1 binning, yielding four pixels sampling the instrumental FWHM. Individual exposures were of 30 minute duration. We took 20 minute sky nods offset from the galaxy by 10 between the science data frames. Our best stellar kinematics come from around the G-band at 4300Å and its many surrounding, mostly Fe, features. We also measured the \[OII\]$\lambda\lambda$3726, 3729 lines and all Balmer lines higher than and including H$\gamma$. The data were reduced with the [vaccine]{} pipeline described in @Adam10a. We have corrected all observations to the heliocentric frame. The instrumental wavelength zeropoint is observed to drift by $\sim$10 km s$^{-1}$ over normal swings in nightly operating conditions. We track this and correct the zeropoint by fitting the 4358.3Å Hg I skyline in every nodded sky exposure. Quoted wavelengths are not corrected to vacuum conditions.
Binning {#sec_bin}
-------
We have, in total, 738 spectra with signal-to-noise (S/N) ranging up to 60 per pixel. In order to extract reliable stellar velocity dispersions under high S/N conditions, we bin our data as shown in Figure \[fig\_layout\]. Constant sized bins were chosen for simplicity. The stacks are made with one interpolation to a common, linear wavelength scale considering the different wavelength solutions in each fiber and the individual heliocentric corrections. Membership in a bin was determined solely from each fibers’ central position; fibers extended over multiple bins were not given partial weights. We tested extractions using partial weights, and the results agreed to those presented to within the estimated errors. This is expected since the square bins are considerably larger than the fibers, and the usual fractional area that seeps in and out of the square bin for a collection of fibers is only 10%. The spectra were not degraded to have a common instrumental resolution prior to binning. We made this choice to minimize the covariance between spectral channels. Instead, the average instrumental resolution was associated to each bin. We compared the kinematics derived from making resolution-matched stacks and from simply degrading the kinematic template spectra to the average instrumental resolution in each bin. The two methods agreed, on average, and only displayed differences within the estimated errors. Adaptive binning strategies were not adopted, so there is a significant range of S/N in the binned spectra. The mean S/N per pixel is 29 with a dispersion of 23. We test whether this range in S/N influences our extracted velocities in §\[sec\_stel\_kin\] and find no impact. In the case of NGC 2976, adaptive spatial binning is not ideal and would lead to the loss of spatial resolution in the outer parts where the contribution of $V_{los}$ to $V_{rms}$ is significant. The analysis of the stellar kinematics is made with these 16$\times$16bins, while the analysis of the gas kinematics is made under the native fiber diameters of 4235.
Spectral resolution
-------------------
Our observations were taken with an instrumental dispersion of between 40-60 km/s across different fibers and wavelengths. We measure this resolution to 0.5 km s$^{-1}$ uncertainty in every fiber and wavelength with our twilight flats and high resolution solar spectrum data [@Kuru84]. Finally, the binning process combines fibers with different instrumental resolutions, per our dithering scheme. We average the instrumental resolution for each bin. A fit to one fiber is shown in Figure \[fig\_inst\_res\]. The fit to all bins is summarized in Figure \[fig\_fib\_res\]. The solutions agree with arc lamp data, although the sparse number of available arc lamp lines leads to a less constrained solution. We also took spectra of a number of template stars [@Prug01] to test our instrumental resolution and find agreement. We experiment with degrading all the data in a bin to the maximum instrumental resolution prior to stacking, but we find differences only at levels far smaller than the formal errors. \[sec\_spec\_res\]
Gaseous kinematics
------------------
We measure the gaseous kinematics through the \[OII\]$\lambda\lambda$3726.032, 3728.815 doublet. Without binning and in each fiber, we simultaneously fit two Gaussian functions over an 18Å window. Five parameters are fit through a least-squares minization: the intensities of each emission line, a constant continuum, the radial velocity, and the line width. The best fit models are perturbed with the estimated flux uncertainties in Monte Carlo realizations to generate velocity uncertainties. The median measured intrinsic line width is $\sigma$ = 20.4 km s$^{-1}$ with no strong spatial gradients. We make models of the circular velocity profile from the line-of-sight velocity measurements in §\[sec\_gasfit\].
Stellar kinematics extraction {#sec_stel_kin}
-----------------------------
We fit the stellar kinematics in each bin with a maximum penalized likelihood estimate of the Gaussian line-of-sight velocity distribution (LOSVD) in pixel space via code described in @Gebh00a. We use the empirical, R = 10k stellar templates of @Prug01 (ELODIEv3.1) convolved to the instrumental resolution of each bin. All data and templates are normalized prior to convolution by running two boxcars over each spectra. The first boxcar has a 40Å width. All pixels deviating from the smoothed continuum estimate by $>1.5\sigma$ are masked in the second boxcar, which has a 14Å width. The specifics of this normalization have little impact, as judged by varying the normalization parameters, on the convolution since both the flux-calibrated VIRUS-P and ELODIE spectra hava very shallow slopes over the extracted wavelengths.
The choice of templates is made from amongst the 1959 available, although only a small number are required to describe the data. The membership is determined by manually iterating the list to find a local miminum in root-mean-square (rms). Several such minima can be found, but the exact choice is unimportant so long as similar stellar types are included. We list our chosen, final set in Table \[tab\_kintemp\]. A Wolf-Rayet star takes on a significant weight. However, its only function over this wavelength range is to lower the combined equivalent width of absorption features and is degenerate with, say, the A7m star HD003883. The metallicity has been modeled by ANGST at \[M/H\]=-0.12 for this region and by imposing a constraint that metallicity grows with time. Most of the F and G giants in our template list have higher metallicity. However, experiments including the template HD148856, a G8III at \[Fe/H\]=-0.26, do not improve the fit.
Although we track formal uncertainties, we also tally an empirically determined, systematic uncertainty as the rms from the best-fit model. The two generally agree, expect at high S/N where template mismatch becomes evident. All further uncertainties are based on the empirical uncertainty, although these may overestimate the actual uncertainty. Uncertainties in velocity are determined by making Monte Carlo realizations of the best-fitting model with simulated noise determined from the residuals.
Tests are run to determine the limits of reliable kinematic extraction under a range of S/N and intrinsic velocity dispersions. First, a subset of the template spectra are combined, then convolved by a simulation dispersion and the instrumental resolution, and noise is added. The extraction of the velocity dispersion is shown in Figure \[fig\_disp\_test1\]. The errors are accurately estimated, and no systematic effects are seen down to S/N$>$5 and $\sigma>10$ km s$^{-1}$. Next, a similar test is made to capture the possibility of template mismatch. We combine the ELODIE templates for HD000432, HD068380, and HD081809 in a 21:53:27% ratio. The stars are not part of our fitting template, but they have similar spectral types. The extractions of velocity dispersion are shown again in Figure \[fig\_disp\_test1\]. The errors are marginally larger, but again they are accurately estimated and without systematic trends.
Representative spectra and their best-fit models are given in Figure \[fig\_stelkin\]. Several additional corrections are made. The instrumental resolution uncertainty, estimated as 0.5 km s$^{-1}$, is propogated as a random error to V$_{rms}$ along with the statistical errors. The ELODIE headers quote broadening of the stellar features for some stars beyond their R = 10k resolution; we are not certain whether this broadening is physical, such as by binaries, or a spurious artifact. The average value for our templates is $\sigma=5.2$ km s$^{-1}$. We treat the broadening as physical and subtract off the ELODIE instrumental resolution and the average broadening in quadrature from our VIRUS-P instrumental resolution prior to template convolution. However, the effect is small compared to the final uncertainties. Additionally, the systemic velocity is estimated directly from our data. The inverse-variance weighted average of our stellar bins is 4.60 km s$^{-1}$, consistent with an earlier optical determination of 3$\pm$5 km s$^{-1}$ @deVa91 and the HI measurement of 4$\pm$2 km s$^{-1}$ @Stil02b. This is subtracted from the line-of-sight velocities before forming V$_{rms}$. The line-of-sight velocity and velocity dispersion for each bin, with uncertainties, are given in Table \[tab\_stelkin\]. Figure \[fig\_velmap\] shows the maps of line-of-sight velocity, velocity dispersion, and uncertainties that we measure from the data. The final velocity dispersions are not allowed to fall below 10 km s$^{-1}$ in order for their error estimates to impact the error on V$_{rms}$. This is consistent with the lowest velocity dispersions that we can reliably extract in simulated data.
Jeans models make predictions for the projected, second velocity moment. For a Gaussian kernel, the second-moment is simply V$_{rms}=\sqrt{V_{los}^2+\sigma^2}$. The chosen spectral window fit is 4110Å$<\lambda<$4340Å which includes the G-band, a strong Ca absorption line at 4227Å [@Wort94], and a large number of weak Fe features. Fits to the spectral window 3980Å$<\lambda<$4100Å give similar measurements, although noisier due to the smaller bandpass and less prominent features. We show the consistency between spectral regions in Figure \[fig\_vrms\_comp\].
A careful viewing of the velocity dispersion map in Figure \[fig\_velmap\] shows a profile that is nearly flat, but perhaps contains higher velocity dispersions in the northerly direction. This pattern remains whether we remeasure the instrumental resolution within each night’s data or adopt a resolution fixed with time. However, the evidence for a velocity dispersion gradient is within the noise.
Stellar population synthesis constraints {#sec_BC}
========================================
A loose but independent estimate on $\Upsilon_*$ can be made by comparing stellar population models to Spectral Energy Distribution (SED) data, either photometrically [e.g. @Bell01] or spectrophotometrically. Substantial systematic uncertainties in, for instance, the initial mass function (IMF) and the properties of thermally pulsing asymptotic giant branch (TP-AGB) stars [e.g. @Mara05] at NIR wavelengths limit the precision of M/L constraints from SED fits. Experiments designed to provide optimal observational constraints on stellar M/L’s by applying isothermal sheet relations are underway [@Herr09; @Bers10a; @Bers10b], but the goal of this work is instead to model and fit all mass components simultaneously. Specific to NGC 2967, SBLB03 found tension in the maximal disk value of $\Upsilon_{*,K}<0.09^{+0.15}_{-0.08}$ compared to the higher values implied by some SED fits (one of their models has $\Upsilon_{*,K}=$2).
We analyze the stellar population by fitting spectra with stellar population synthesis (SPS) models from @Bruz03 and the preliminary release of their 2007 version that incorporates new TP-AGB values [@Bruz07]. We use the Padova 1994 [@Alon93; @Bres93; @Fago94a; @Fago94b; @Gira96] and Marigo 2007 [@Mari07] evolutionary tracks, respectively. Both Chabrier and Salpeter IMF’s are tried, which represent reasonable lower and upper bounds on $\Upsilon_*$. To achieve robust star formation histories, we use the same 39 templates as @Trem04 which entail combinations of three metallicities ($Z=0.2,1,2.5 Z_{\odot}$) and a variety of star formation histories (instantaneous bursts of age 0.005, 0.025, 0.10, 0.29, 0.64, 0.90, 1.4, 2.5, 5, and 11 Gyr; a 6 Gyr old population under a constant star formation rate, and two tau models sampled at a 12 Gyr age with $\tau_{SFR}=5,9$ Gyr). We further add a grid of dust extinction with the form of @Calz00 over 21 values of E$_s$(B-V) uniformly spaced from 0 to 1. We resample our spectra to the rest frame, convolve the templates to match the 8Å FWHM SINGS instrumental resolution, and mask out windows 4Å wide around each of the Balmer lines, \[OII\], and \[NeIII\]3869. Repeated observations of spectrophotometric standards stars with VIRUS-P have shown the relative flux calibration to be accurate to better than 10% [@Adam10a]. The match to the SINGS 20$\times$20drift-scan spectrum is excellent as shown in Figure \[fig\_stelpop\]. Due to the larger bandpass, we quote values by fitting to the SINGS spectrum. Similar, but less constrained, values result from the VIRUS-P data. The templates’ normalizations are fit through least-square minimization, first individually and then in all 334,971 two-component combinations from the metallicity, star formation history, and dust grids. The relative probability of each model is calculated as $\exp(-\chi^2/2)$ [e.g. @Kauf03]. All quoted $\Upsilon_*$ values include the effects of dust. The 1$\sigma$ confidence intervals centered on the highest probability $\Upsilon_{*,R}$ are 0.63$\pm$0.39, 1.23$\pm$0.52, 1.04$\pm$0.23, and 1.42$\pm$0.42 for the BC03/Chabrier, BC03/Salpeter, CB07/Chabrier, and CB07/Salpeter models respectively. Given the tight ranges from the statistical errors alone, the M/L uncertainty is dominated by systematic uncertainties. We consider $\Upsilon_{*,R}=$1.1$\pm$0.8, the mean and the symmetric uncertainty that encompasses the 1$\sigma$ confidence intervals for all four estimates, as the best spectrophotometric limit; therefore we present mass models with $\Upsilon_{*,R}$ both freely fit and penalized by this conservative confidence interval in §\[sec\_stelfit\] and \[sec\_gasfit\].
Finally, we investigate the $\Upsilon_*$ limits enabled by broad-band photometry. We use the optical-through-2MASS datapoints of SBLB03 by assuming 10$\%$ errors and two IRAC datapoints of @Dale07 for NGC 2976 without any aperture corrections as shown in Figure \[fig\_BB\_SED\]. The same stellar population models are fit through the EAZY package [@Bram08]. The best-fit value of $\Upsilon_*$ is consistent with our spectral fits. However, it is starkly inconsistent with the SPS value used by @deBl08 and calibrated in @Oh08 that renders NGC 2976 to be dominated by the baryonic mass. The relation derived there is based on SPS models that have aged 12 Gyr and does not match the observed colors of NGC 2976. Our fit to the SED proscribes $\Upsilon_{*,R}=$ 0.64 and $\Upsilon_{*,3.6\mu m}=$ 0.18 while the @deBl08 model proscribes $\Upsilon_{*,3.6\mu m}=$ 0.66.
Jeans models {#sec_Jeans}
============
The minimally necessary components to the NGC 2976 mass model are a stellar disk with a spatially uniform mass-to-light ratio, atomic hydrogen, and a dark matter halo under a power-law parameterization. We use extant photometry to infer the distribution of the first two, and we use kinematic measurements and Jeans model solutions to infer the latter.
HI deprojection
---------------
We use the robust weighting (${\cal R} = +0.5$), zeroth moment map of 21cm atomic hydrogen in NGC 2976 from The HI Nearby Galaxy Survey [THINGS, @Walt08] to characterize the HI mass model. The HI distribution is highly clumped around the two off-center star forming complexes and unlikely to be axisymmetric. Nevertheless, we perform Multi-Gaussian Expansion [MGE, @Capp02] fits to the data, subject to the axisymmetric limitations of this work’s modelling and calculate a resultant circular velocity profile [Appendix A, @Capp02]. SBLB03 have shown that HI is a dynamically somewhat important component at r $>80$, but that H$_2 $ (from CO measurements) is a minor contributor to the gravitational potential at all radii. Therefore, we neglect the molecular component. SBLB03 fit the HI from an older dataset [@Stil02a] and by assuming an infinitely thin disk; they present a circular velocity profile that is in general a factor of two times larger than our derived values. We apply the MGE mass model to the fits of §\[sec\_stelfit\] and §\[sec\_gasfit\], although the presence of the HI component does not strongly influence our final results. The contribution from HI to the circular velocity is given in Table \[tab\_gas\_rot\].
Stellar deprojection {#sec_stel_depr}
--------------------
We use the R-band image taken at the Kitt Peak National Observatory’s 2.1m telescope from the Spitzer Infrared Nearby Galaxies Survey [SINGS, @Kenn03] to model the stellar mass distribution. The MGE fit is shown in Figure \[fig\_HI\_mass\] with the terms listed in Table \[tab\_MGE\]. The MGE model fits both the nuclear star cluster and the inner and outer disks well. The inferred vertical-to-radial scale length is 1:8 at a nominal $i=63\arcdeg$ over most of the radial range, although it is near-circular for the nuclear star cluster. Strong color gradients are not seen in NGC 2976 (SBLB03), so we limit our analysis to a single value of $\Upsilon_{*,R}$ for all components. There is some debate as to the best filter to use for accurate recovery of stellar mass. Thermally pulsing asymptotic giant branch stars and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons disfavor the NIR. Dust extinction, varieties of star formation history, and nebular emission disfavor the optical. The studies on NGC 2976 of SBLB03 and @deBl08 used K$_s$ and Spitzer 3.6 $\mu$m data, respectively. @Port04 advocates i-band photometry and @Zibe09 calibrates for combinations of i and H band photometry. We chose to use the available R-band image primarily for its depth and resolution in this work. However, that our fits to the spectral energy distribution are consistent across multiple bandpasses (§\[sec\_BC\]) means this choice is unimportant for the analysis of NGC 2976.
Best-fitting dark matter halo {#sec_bestfit}
-----------------------------
We use the Jeans Anisotropic MGE modelling package [JAM @Capp08] to fit the binned stellar kinematic field in NGC 2976 in lieu of more computationally intensive Schwarzschild modelling [@Schw79]. The fits are made to the projected, second-moment velocity ($V_{rms}=\sqrt{V_{los}^2+\sigma^2}$). We make models assuming a single anisotropy parameter ($\beta_z=1-(\sigma_z/\sigma_R)^2$) and a spatially constant $\Upsilon_{*}$. The spherical DM halo’s radial profile is approximated as a power law $$\label{eq_pl}
\rho(r) = \rho_0\times (r/1\mbox{ pc})^{-\alpha}$$ while the NFW function has the form of $$\label{eq_NFW}
\rho(r) = \frac{\rho_i}{(r/r_s)(1+r/r_s)^2}$$ with $r_s$ being a scale radius and $\rho_i$ being a density related to the critical density and the halo overdensity.
The power-law approximiation is justified since the core radius of NGC 2976 is likely to lie at $r_s \sim 2.5$ kpc (SBLB03, Appendix B), and our stellar data do not extend into the asymptotic region of the rotation curve. This choice also aids comparison to previous work whereas SBLB03 also used this parameterization and most models for NGC 2976 in @deBl08 minimized to solutions with lower limits on radial scale parameters that then reduce to the power-law form. We place the JAM code within a non-linear least-squares minimzation package (`MPFITv.1.64`) to reach our optimal solutions.
The best-fit, five-parameter model has a shallow minimum at $\Upsilon_{*,R}$=3.49, $i=$63.3$\arcdeg$, $\beta_z=$0.432, $\rho_0(r=1 pc)=$0.260 M$_{\odot}$ pc$^{-3}$, and $\alpha=$0.235 at $\chi^2_{\nu=87}=$77.0. The second-moment model and residuals are shown in Figure \[fig\_JAM\_model2\]. The enclosed mass distribution for this model is shown in Figure \[fig\_mm4\]. The anisotropy we measure is larger than the $\beta_z\sim0.3$ commonly fit by the same method in E’s and SO’s [@Capp07; @Thom09] and slightly below the $\beta_z\sim0.5-0.8$ range commonly found in large spirals [@vdKr99; @Shap03; @Bers11]. We test an isotropic solution as well, and find a similar solution in the remaining parameters. The kinematically determined inclination is marginally above the value in @deVa91 based on photometric ellipticity ($i=61.5$). However, we find $i=$64.6$\pm$1.5 from our \[OII\] tilted ring \[OII\] fit §\[sec\_gasfit\], so the kinematically determined value is reasonable. Inclinations are often poorly constrained by kinematic fits [@Kraj05] and can have a strong degeneracy with $\beta_z$. There is tension in the $\Upsilon_*$ value compared to that which we determine from the stellar population synthesis (SPS) fits presented in §\[sec\_BC\]. Using the constraint we derive from SPS, we add an additional $\chi^2$ term containing $\Delta\Upsilon_{*,R}$=0.8 with a central value of $\Upsilon_{*,R}$=1.1 to the $\chi^2$ values from the kinematics per $$\label{eq_twochisq}
\chi^2=\left( \frac{\Upsilon_*-\hat{\Upsilon}_*}{\Delta\Upsilon_*}\right)^2+\sum_{i=1}^{N_{bins}}\left( \frac{v_{i,rms}-v_{i,model}}{\Delta v_{i,rms}}\right)^2.$$
The parameters then reach a minimum at $\Upsilon_{*,R}$=1.158, $i=$65.0, $\beta_z=$0.450, $\rho_0(r=1 pc)=$45.7 M$_{\odot}$ pc$^{-3}$, and $\alpha=$0.90 at $\chi^2_{\nu=88}=$77.1. By marginalizing over the other four parameters, the data disfavor $\alpha$=1 at 0.8$\sigma$ significance, $\alpha$=0.6 at 1$\sigma$ significance, and $\alpha$=0 at 2.2$\sigma$ significance. The $V_{rms}$ map and residuals are shown in Figure \[fig\_JAM\_model2\]. The enclosed mass model is shown for the joint constraint in Figure \[fig\_mm4\]. This solution is within the 1$\sigma$ confidence interval from the kinematic data only. Finally, we fix $\Upsilon_{*,R}$=1 and $\alpha=$0.1 as an illustration of a cored DM model. The $V_{rms}$ map and residuals are shown in Figure \[fig\_JAM\_model2\]. After optimizing the remaining three variables, this model yields $\chi^2_{\nu=88}=$93.9 and is excluded with high confidence. The crucial difference between this final model and the data is in the generally more circular V$_{rms}$ contour in the former.
\[sec\_stelfit\]
Parameter degeneracies {#sec_param_deg}
----------------------
We here investigate the degeneracy between $\alpha$ and $\Upsilon_*$. By our parameterization, there is an obvious degeneracy between $\rho_0$ and $\alpha$ with a weaker degeneracy on $\Upsilon_*$ (Figure \[fig\_param\_deg\]). The most important degeneracy for the purpose of constraining the mass budget is that betweeen $\Upsilon_*$ and $\alpha$. In NGC 2976, they anti-correlate. A similar exercise is done with the joint kinematic and SPS likelihoods by which the cored DM fit is excluded at 2$\sigma$ significance but a pure cusp is permitted. We conclude that honoring even a loose $\Upsilon_*$ limit makes a DM halo measurement entirely consistent with the NFW form. The cored model is disfavored at modest significance but amenable to stricter limits through more extended instrument pointings and higher S/N data.
Other DM distributions {#sec_ps_model}
----------------------
We apply the power-law function as the primary DM density distribution, but we briefly test and discuss alternatives. The pseudo-isothermal function is commonly applied to DM halo data as a well-fitting cored model, although it lacks theoretical motivation. The pseudo-isothermal function $$\label{eq_pseudo}
\rho(r)=\frac{\rho_0}{1+(r/r_c)^2}$$ contains a central DM space density of $\rho_0$ and scale length of $r_c$. In the limit of $r_c$ significantly larger than the datapoints, a power-law function with $\alpha=0$ mimics this function. However, the added flexibility of the scale length term can diminish the capability to discriminate between cores and cusps. The best-fit, five-parameter model with the SPS penalty has a minimum at $\Upsilon_{*,R}$=1.37, $i=$66.4$\arcdeg$, $\beta_z=$0.390, $\rho_0=$0.198 M$_{\odot}$ pc$^{-3}$, and $r_c=$1.0 kpc at $\chi^2_{\nu=88}=$78.3. The steep, power-law model is still preferred, but the cored model is statistically viable. Data at larger radii are necessary to better test for the presence of a large core.
Next, we test a six parameter model with the NFW form. A minimization of the full NFW function requires a large scale radius, $r_s$, for a quality fit. Only models with $r_s>10$ kpc fit well where the power-law approximation becomes highly precise. This results in an enormous DM virial mass ($\sim2\times10^{11}
M_{\odot}$), but data at larger radii are necessary to make a reliable estimate of the virial mass.
Models from gas kinematics {#sec_gasfit}
==========================
The \[OII\] data are fit with a tilted ring (TR) [@Rogs74; @Rogs76] and harmonic decomposition (HD) algorithm to determine a rotation curve assuming an infinitely thin geometry for the gas. The code is the same as used and described in @Fath05. The HD model and terms are shown in Figure \[fig\_gas\_hd\] as is the TR model. Driven by the same complex structures and kinematic twists as discussed by SBLB03 for the H$\alpha$ in this galaxy, we have make harmonic fits through the $m=3$ terms. SBLB03 only present circular and radial terms, however. Our TR fit is allowed a position angle that varies with radius which can also explain the kinematic twist. The \[OII\] rotation curves are given in Table \[tab\_gas\_rot\] and shown in Figure \[fig\_gas\_rot\]. The asymmetric drift correction for the ionized gas in NGC 2976 has been calculated in SBLB03, found to be small, and not used in their analysis because of substantial uncertainties in its exact value. Similarly, we do not apply an asymmetric drift correction to our gas rotation curve fits. There is consistency between the shapes of our \[OII\] rotation curve and the H$\alpha$ rotation curve of SBLB03. The irregular structure in the curve at r$=30$ and r$=60$ is found in both datasets, particularly in our tilted ring fit.
We next fit a velocity power law of the form $v_{circ,DM}\propto r^{\beta}$ added in quadrature to the stellar and HI component circular velocities. The circular velocity of a power law density profile is a power law with a different index. The well-known relation for the density and circular velocity indices for power laws of $\alpha=2\times(1-\beta)$ (e.g. SBLB03 Appendix B) is used. A variety of $\Upsilon_*$ values are tested as detailed in Table \[tab\_gas\_fit\], some fixed and some fit live. We also refit the SBLB03 data of their Table 3 in the same manner, taking their mass model rotation curves and trying their maximal disk value of M$_*$/L$_K=0.19$. The residuals from the best fit were used to estimate the uncertainty in the rotation curve; these systematic uncertainties are larger than the statistical errors and included in the error determination of $\alpha$.
The estimates of $\alpha$ from the gas kinematics are presented in Table \[tab\_gas\_fit\] for a variety of datasets and assumptions on $\Upsilon_*$. The HD fits to the \[OII\] data require a cored DM halo, regardless of the $\Upsilon_*$ assumptions. The \[OII\] TR fits require DM slopes that are steeper than the HD fits at 3$\sigma$ significance, but still deviating from NFW expectations at 1.5$\sigma$ significance. The harmonic decomposition can fit for radial infall or outflow, but some other motions may be degenerate with rotation such as the motions due to a bar-like potential [@Spek07]. A bar is expected to show power in the third order terms, and our m = 3 sine term does show some power at large radius. Finally, we fit the harmonic decomposition data of SBLB03 in the same manner. From their fits with a range in M/L chosen to represent maximal and submaximal disks, SBLS03 reach ranges of 0.01$<\alpha<$0.17. We find agreement with their determinations. We find a larger, but still deviating from a cusp by 5$\sigma$ significance, DM halo slope when we constrain the disk to have no mass. We conclude that a mass model based on the gas data with a single position angle and harmonic terms favors a cored DM halo, but that this result is not robust against an equally viable model that fits the data with a twist in the position angle. The mass profile conclusions drawn from the gas kinematics in this object are subject to severe dependencies in the modelling choices.
A comparison between the gas velocity field in Figure \[fig\_gas\_hd\] and the stellar line-of-sight velocity in Figure \[fig\_velmap\] shows that the zero velocity contours in both are twisted in the same way and with similar magnitude along the minor axis. This may be an important clue to the cause of the non-regular motions as collisional processes are expected to not twist the stellar zero velocity contour. One explanation may be that both the stars and gas have their angular momentum vectors perturbed at small radius, perhaps by bending in a weak bar potential. In this case, the stellar models are more immune to a warp as the Jeans models compare to V$_{rms}$ instead of simply V$_{los}$, and we measure a stellar velocity dispersion that is larger than line-of-sight rotation out to R$_{maj}\sim$ 60. With the current level of stellar, observational errors, the axisymmetric models we present are statistically sufficient to describe the galaxy. Better data, taken in the future, may merit analysis with non-axisymmetric orbit-based models.
Conclusions {#sec_concl}
===========
We present two-dimensional maps of stellar and gaseous kinematics in the late-type dwarf galaxy NGC 2976. Theoretical models of collisionless, cold dark matter predict a cuspy dark matter halo to exist in low mass halos when gravity alone is simulated. Baryonic feedback processes have been proposed as a mechanism to create a cored halo, which observations such as ours may constrain. The leverage of the stellar kinematics as a collisionless tracer is a major advantage to our work. We fit the stellar kinematics with an axisymmetric, semi-isotropic Jeans model to measure the DM profile and constrain $\Upsilon_{*}$. The Jeans model permits both a cored or cuspy halo with a mild preference for a cored, high $\Upsilon_{*,R}$. We next fit a suite of stellar population histories to an optical spectrum with a broader bandpass. We find a limit of $\Upsilon_{*,R}$=1.1$\pm$0.8 driven primarily by uncertainty in the initial mass function. This limit in combination with the kinematic data provides a much tighter certainty on the DM profile. The combined fit suggests a DM cusp ($\alpha=0.90\pm0.15$ at 1$\sigma$) and excludes a DM core at 2$\sigma$ significance. NGC 2976 is dark matter dominated everywhere outside of the nuclear star cluster and requires no history of baryonic feedback or non-standard particle properties to explain the dark matter halo profile. The gaseous kinematics, in concordance with earlier work, imply a cored dark matter halo when modeled with a harmonic decomposition method and a single position angle. A tilted-ring fit with a variable position angle instead excludes the cored model and is compatible with the models fit by the stellar kinematics. A larger sample with stellar kinematics is motivated to compare with the vast literature on gaseous kinematics and reassess the quantity and distribution of dark matter and possible correlations with central density slope in late-type dwarf galaxies. This work comes with two primary caveats that can be improved upon. First, our results are strongest for a DM density power-law approximation, and a DM density model with a large core under a different parameterization cannot be strictly excluded with the current data as discussed in §\[sec\_ps\_model\]. Data at larger radii, such as $>$2 kpc, will close this uncertainty but require a deeper flux limit. Second, a crucial barrier to achieving lower statistical errors in this work has been the large instrumental resolution relative to the intrinsic dispersion. In future works, we will use the newly available Visible Integral field Replicable Unit Spectrograph Wendelstein (VIRUS-W) [@Fabr08] at a resolution of $R=6800$ to circumvent this limitation. JJA acknowledges a National Science Foundation Graduate Student Fellowship and a UT Harrington Endowment Dissertation Fellowship that have supported him through this work. KG acknowledges support from NSF-0908639. We are grateful to Josh Simon for providing important suggestions during this paper’s editing. We thank George and Cynthia Mitchell for funding the VIRUS-P instrument. This research has made use of the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED) which is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. We have used MGE and JAM as written and distributed by Michele Cappellari; we thank him for his fine work. This work made use of THINGS, ‘The HI Nearby Galaxy Survey’, and SINGS, the ‘Spitzer Infrared Nearby Galaxies Survey’; we thank them for their public data release. We note that the public availability of the @Simo03 CO data and tabular rotations curves were used here for comparison and appreciated. Finally, we thank an anonymous referee for important improvements to this work. [*Facilities:*]{} .
![The SINGS R-band image of NGC 2976 overlayed with the VIRUS-P fiber positions. The numbered squares show the spatial bins used in the extraction of the stellar kinematics. The arrow indicates the major axis with a scale of 120 (2 kpc at our assumed distance).[]{data-label="fig_layout"}](gal_layout.eps)
\
\
\
\
\
\
[lrrrrr]{} 00672 & HD181214 & F8III & -0.01 & 0.086 & 30.8\
01269 & HD058923 & F0III & 0.21 & 0.185 & 0\
01286 & HD062509 & K0IIIb & 0.02 & 0.006 & 11.1\
01298 & HD068017 & G4V & -0.41 & 0.067 & 10.6\
01322 & HD073667 & K1V & -0.55 & 0.032 & 10.9\
01359 & HD088609 & G5IIIwe & -2.67 & 0.197 & 12.3\
01366 & HD089744 & F7V & 0.11 & 0.008 & 15.3\
01733 & HD169985 & G0III+ & 0.34 & 0.138 & 12.3\
01828 & HD193793 & WC+ & 0.77 & 0.280 & 0\
[lrrrrrr]{} 1 & -48.1 & -62.5 & -34.53 & 26.29 & 10.00 & 49.63\
2 & -57.7 & -49.7 & -55.44 & 15.52 & 10.00 & 34.29\
3 & -67.3 & -37.0 & -34.53 & 18.81 & 48.27 & 24.73\
4 & -76.9 & -24.2 & -45.49 & 3.90 & 10.00 & 18.03\
5 & -86.5 & -11.4 & -51.80 & 5.01 & 10.00 & 19.68\
6 & -96.2 & 1.3 & -62.00 & 4.67 & 10.00 & 19.78\
7 & -105.8 & 14.1 & -65.17 & 7.47 & 10.00 & 23.18\
8 & -35.3 & -52.9 & 27.51 & 9.08 & 10.00 & 26.72\
9 & -44.9 & -40.1 & -11.36 & 5.43 & 24.54 & 12.43\
10 & -54.5 & -27.3 & -14.32 & 4.37 & 30.58 & 7.89\
11 & -64.2 & -14.6 & -32.05 & 3.31 & 29.10 & 6.55\
12 & -73.8 & -1.8 & -43.70 & 3.18 & 46.88 & 5.49\
13 & -83.4 & 11.0 & -42.71 & 4.22 & 22.76 & 10.50\
14 & -93.0 & 23.8 & -45.30 & 10.15 & 56.69 & 17.22\
15 & -3.3 & -68.8 & -26.18 & 15.56 & 10.00 & 32.14\
16 & -12.9 & -56.0 & -6.00 & 9.61 & 39.36 & 11.88\
17 & -22.5 & -43.2 & -1.24 & 5.14 & 16.88 & 12.89\
18 & -32.1 & -30.5 & -9.45 & 2.73 & 26.91 & 7.21\
19 & -41.8 & -17.7 & -18.39 & 1.71 & 30.71 & 5.34\
20 & -51.4 & -4.9 & -26.85 & 1.43 & 31.07 & 4.85\
21 & -61.0 & 7.9 & -29.12 & 1.50 & 34.13 & 4.89\
22 & -70.6 & 20.6 & -25.46 & 3.28 & 39.24 & 5.65\
23 & -80.3 & 33.4 & -39.14 & 9.02 & 43.85 & 13.96\
24 & 9.5 & -59.1 & -11.57 & 6.45 & 15.23 & 13.59\
25 & -0.1 & -46.4 & -12.83 & 4.69 & 31.38 & 7.91\
26 & -9.7 & -33.6 & 1.99 & 2.61 & 22.52 & 7.57\
27 & -19.4 & -20.8 & -8.08 & 1.64 & 32.75 & 4.94\
28 & -29.0 & -8.0 & -12.27 & 1.40 & 32.78 & 4.62\
29 & -38.6 & 4.7 & -14.64 & 1.35 & 34.33 & 4.71\
30 & -48.3 & 17.5 & -12.42 & 1.73 & 32.77 & 5.03\
31 & -57.9 & 30.3 & -9.70 & 3.21 & 45.44 & 5.29\
32 & -67.5 & 43.1 & -7.36 & 8.60 & 48.44 & 14.59\
33 & 31.9 & -62.3 & -11.61 & 5.59 & 35.13 & 10.25\
34 & 22.3 & -49.5 & -1.60 & 3.29 & 33.96 & 7.72\
35 & 12.7 & -36.7 & 1.96 & 2.54 & 22.54 & 7.65\
36 & 3.0 & -24.0 & 1.11 & 1.85 & 26.62 & 5.67\
37 & -6.6 & -11.2 & -6.59 & 1.73 & 25.43 & 5.62\
38 & -16.2 & 1.6 & -7.58 & 1.54 & 27.82 & 5.04\
39 & -25.9 & 14.4 & -4.36 & 1.32 & 32.51 & 4.59\
40 & -35.5 & 27.2 & -7.92 & 1.84 & 32.87 & 4.89\
41 & -45.1 & 39.9 & -10.69 & 3.90 & 25.57 & 8.49\
42 & -54.7 & 52.7 & -26.01 & 8.98 & 38.92 & 16.60\
43 & 44.7 & -52.7 & 9.80 & 5.35 & 41.22 & 9.30\
44 & 35.1 & -39.9 & 7.40 & 3.25 & 24.71 & 7.73\
45 & 25.4 & -27.1 & 3.85 & 1.69 & 23.17 & 6.58\
46 & 15.8 & -14.3 & 5.60 & 1.86 & 31.52 & 4.77\
47 & 6.2 & -1.5 & 6.45 & 1.43 & 30.24 & 4.65\
48 & -3.5 & 11.2 & 5.29 & 1.50 & 28.17 & 4.99\
49 & -13.1 & 24.0 & 7.00 & 1.74 & 28.55 & 5.06\
50 & -22.7 & 36.8 & 5.31 & 1.93 & 29.17 & 6.11\
51 & -32.4 & 49.6 & -2.15 & 5.02 & 18.75 & 12.36\
52 & -42.0 & 62.4 & -7.00 & 19.10 & 45.28 & 28.29\
53 & 57.5 & -43.0 & 11.07 & 3.43 & 38.57 & 6.14\
54 & 47.8 & -30.2 & 15.94 & 2.74 & 31.43 & 6.30\
55 & 38.2 & -17.5 & 13.44 & 1.52 & 25.29 & 5.70\
56 & 28.6 & -4.7 & 16.54 & 1.54 & 34.99 & 4.28\
57 & 18.9 & 8.1 & 20.57 & 1.43 & 26.04 & 5.32\
58 & 9.3 & 20.9 & 14.82 & 1.53 & 25.41 & 5.78\
59 & -0.3 & 33.7 & 7.83 & 2.53 & 29.96 & 5.51\
60 & -10.0 & 46.4 & -1.65 & 4.03 & 34.12 & 6.17\
61 & -19.6 & 59.2 & 34.47 & 7.82 & 27.31 & 17.13\
62 & -29.2 & 72.0 & 43.28 & 66.67 & 10.00 & 44.09\
63 & 70.2 & -33.4 & 25.36 & 3.12 & 27.98 & 6.72\
64 & 60.6 & -20.6 & 25.45 & 2.55 & 42.12 & 4.86\
65 & 51.0 & -7.8 & 22.35 & 1.68 & 36.79 & 4.00\
66 & 41.3 & 5.0 & 19.14 & 1.46 & 36.58 & 4.02\
67 & 31.7 & 17.7 & 18.32 & 1.47 & 33.43 & 4.37\
68 & 22.1 & 30.5 & 9.92 & 1.62 & 34.08 & 4.60\
69 & 12.4 & 43.3 & 4.18 & 3.05 & 31.55 & 5.96\
70 & 2.8 & 56.1 & -5.93 & 6.36 & 10.00 & 18.74\
71 & 83.0 & -23.8 & 44.14 & 3.44 & 39.98 & 6.14\
72 & 73.4 & -11.0 & 37.15 & 2.95 & 10.00 & 14.62\
73 & 63.7 & 1.8 & 32.91 & 2.67 & 36.58 & 6.40\
74 & 54.1 & 14.6 & 32.88 & 1.79 & 27.56 & 5.30\
75 & 44.5 & 27.4 & 20.85 & 2.07 & 32.52 & 4.91\
76 & 34.8 & 40.2 & 7.99 & 2.92 & 37.76 & 5.12\
77 & 25.2 & 53.0 & 5.11 & 4.08 & 10.00 & 15.89\
78 & 15.6 & 65.7 & -7.83 & 6.33 & 23.54 & 11.61\
79 & 95.8 & -14.1 & 44.77 & 3.09 & 24.18 & 7.57\
80 & 86.2 & -1.3 & 44.70 & 2.81 & 26.93 & 6.62\
81 & 76.5 & 11.4 & 37.63 & 3.08 & 39.61 & 4.68\
82 & 66.9 & 24.2 & 31.54 & 2.88 & 45.35 & 4.49\
83 & 57.3 & 37.0 & 31.35 & 4.23 & 38.50 & 6.47\
84 & 47.6 & 49.8 & 19.65 & 7.23 & 25.00 & 13.79\
85 & 38.0 & 62.6 & -5.33 & 11.58 & 37.91 & 17.95\
86 & 108.6 & -4.5 & 38.98 & 7.02 & 27.43 & 11.96\
87 & 98.9 & 8.3 & 43.17 & 7.08 & 44.62 & 9.69\
88 & 89.3 & 21.1 & 22.96 & 5.53 & 40.10 & 8.91\
89 & 79.7 & 33.9 & 40.93 & 12.32 & 48.21 & 16.14\
90 & 70.0 & 46.7 & 2.96 & 8.51 & 39.16 & 17.83\
91 & 60.4 & 59.4 & -16.52 & 8.01 & 35.10 & 19.13\
92 & 50.7 & 72.2 & 20.40 & 40.00 & 25.82 & 24.16\
[lrrrrr]{} 14.1 & 15.6 $\pm$ 0.8 & 10.6 $\pm$ 0.8 & 5.2 $\pm$ 0.4 & 9.5 & 1.5\
19.1 & 32.4 $\pm$ 0.5 & 24.6 $\pm$ 1.0 & 9.0 $\pm$ 0.6 & 11.2 & 2.0\
24.1 & 39.4 $\pm$ 0.9 & 31.4 $\pm$ 2.5 & 11.0 $\pm$ 0.7 & 13.0 & 2.5\
29.1 & 45.7 $\pm$ 0.8 & 32.1 $\pm$ 1.6 & 6.4 $\pm$ 1.5 & 15.0 & 3.0\
34.1 & 40.0 $\pm$ 0.4 & 32.4 $\pm$ 5.9 & 6.7 $\pm$ 1.6 & 16.9 & 3.5\
39.1 & 43.5 $\pm$ 1.1 & 39.7 $\pm$ 2.9 & 7.4 $\pm$ 1.8 & 18.8 & 3.9\
44.1 & 51.6 $\pm$ 0.6 & 44.7 $\pm$ 3.3 & 2.0 $\pm$ 1.8 & 20.5 & 4.4\
49.1 & 55.9 $\pm$ 0.7 & 47.7 $\pm$ 3.3 & 3.8 $\pm$ 1.3 & 22.1 & 4.9\
54.1 & 59.7 $\pm$ 1.0 & 51.7 $\pm$ 0.8 & 3.3 $\pm$ 1.0 & 23.5 & 5.3\
59.1 & 56.2 $\pm$ 0.5 & 51.0 $\pm$ 2.8 & 2.5 $\pm$ 5.5 & 24.8 & 5.7\
64.1 & 57.3 $\pm$ 0.2 & 53.7 $\pm$ 0.4 & -0.3 $\pm$ 0.9 & 25.9 & 6.1\
69.1 & 63.4 $\pm$ 0.3 & 61.8 $\pm$ 0.8 & -2.2 $\pm$ 2.1 & 26.8 & 6.5\
74.1 & 66.7 $\pm$ 0.4 & 64.4 $\pm$ 0.8 & 0.1 $\pm$ 1.1 & 27.6 & 6.9\
79.1 & 69.9 $\pm$ 0.2 & 72.4 $\pm$ 4.8 & -4.0 $\pm$ 2.3 & 28.2 & 7.2\
84.1 & 75.6 $\pm$ 0.5 & 73.8 $\pm$ 0.9 & -3.5 $\pm$ 2.7 & 28.7 & 7.6\
89.1 & 73.7 $\pm$ 0.5 & 75.5 $\pm$ 3.2 & -6.7 $\pm$ 5.3 & 29.0 & 7.9\
94.1 & 71.3 $\pm$ 0.6 & 68.9 $\pm$ 1.6 & -4.2 $\pm$ 2.1 & 29.2 & 8.2\
99.1 & 79.9 $\pm$ 0.5 & 78.1 $\pm$ 13.8 & -17.2 $\pm$ 10.0 & 29.4 & 8.5\
104.1 & 80.5 $\pm$ 0.9 & 82.5 $\pm$ 8.4 & -14.8 $\pm$ 7.7 & 29.4 & 8.7\
109.1 & 74.5 $\pm$ 2.1 & 69.0 $\pm$ 10.9 & -10.8 $\pm$ 3.8 & 29.3 & 9.0
[crrrr]{} Stellar & 1 & 2298.3 & 0.28 & 1.00\
& 2 & 68.9 & 0.99 & 1.00\
& 3 & 27.8 & 6.36 & 1.00\
& 4 & 117.8 & 49.89 & 0.48\
& 5 & 19.6 & 108.26 & 0.54\
HI & 1 & 8.0 & 84.80 & 0.70\
& 2 & 1.3 & 291.13 & 0.75
[lrrr]{} $\Upsilon_{*}=$0 & 0.80 $\pm$ 0.08 & 0.31 $\pm$ 0.13 & 0.43 $\pm$ 0.06\
$\Upsilon_{*}$ fixed & 0.84 $\pm$ 0.10 & 0.14 $\pm$ 0.17 & 0.16 $\pm$ 0.08\
freely fit $\Upsilon_{*}$ & 0.81 $\pm$ 2.20 & 0.31 $\pm$ 0.98 & 0.12 $\pm$ 0.44\
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We show that the mixing times of random walks on compact groups can be used to obtain concentration inequalities for the respective Haar measures. As an application, we derive a concentration inequality for the empirical distribution of eigenvalues of sums of random hermitian matrices, with possible applications in free probability. The advantage over existing techniques is that the new method can deal with functions that are non-Lipschitz or even discontinuous with respect to the usual metrics.'
address: '367 Evans Hall \#3860Department of StatisticsUniversity of CaliforniaBerkeley, CA 94720-3860 '
author:
- Sourav Chatterjee
title: 'Concentration of Haar measures, with an application to random matrices'
---
Introduction and results {#intro}
========================
Much attention has been paid to the derivation of concentration inequalities through logarithmic Sobolev inequalities, semigroup or transportation methods. Let us refer to the monograph of Ledoux [@ledoux01] for an extensive survey. On the other hand, starting with the pioneering work of Diaconis and Saloff-Coste [@ds96a; @ds96] (see also [@saloffcoste97]), it is known that the rate of convergence to equilibrium of certain ergodic Markov semigroups or of random walks on compact groups involve logarithmic Sobolev constants. In this paper we make an explicit connection between the mixing time of a random walk on a compact group and the concentration property of the Haar measure. In other words the rate of convergence to equilibrium and the rate of concentration are directly connected. This is made precise in Theorem \[gpaction\] below.
We demonstrate that this new approach to concentration can be succesfully applied to random matrices. The gain as compared to previous methods is that it allows to deal with functions that are possibly non-Lipschitz with respect to the Hilbert-Schmidt norm.
The new method can be called an extension of Stein’s method of exchangeable pairs [@stein86], as developed by the author in his Ph.D. thesis [@chatterjee05]. From a different angle, it can also be viewed as a discrete analog of the semigroup tool for measure concentration (see Ledoux [@ledoux01], section on ‘semigroup tools’; see also the discussion in Subsection \[outline\] of this paper). Some other applications of our method can be found in [@chatterjee06].
The paper is organized as follows. We begin with the random matrix example (Theorem \[free\]), followed by the statement of the main result (Theorem \[gpaction\]), and a sketch of the proofs (Subsection \[outline\]). Section \[intro\] ends with a brief discussion of the literature. Proofs of Theorems \[gpaction\] and \[free\] are given in Section \[proof\].
A random matrix example
-----------------------
Let $M$ be an $n \times n$ complex hermitian (i.e. self-adjoint) matrix. The following terminology is standard.
1. The [*empirical spectral measure*]{} of $M$ is the probability measure on $\rr$, denoted by $\mu_M$, which puts $1/n$ on each eigenvalue of $M$, repeated by multiplicities.
2. The [*empirical distribution function*]{} of $M$, denoted by $F_M$, is the cumulative probability distribution function corresponding to the empirical spectral measure.
3. Any hermitian matrix that has the same spectrum as $M$ can be written as $UM U^*$ for some unitary matrix $U$. Thus, the Haar measure on the group of unitary matrices of order $n$ naturally induces a ‘uniform distribution’ on the set of all hermitian matrices with the same spectrum as $M$. We denote this probability measure by $\rho_M$.
\[free\] Let $M$ and $N$ be two hermitian matrices of order $n$. Suppose $A \sim \rho_M$ and $B\sim \rho_N$ are two independent random hermitian matrices. Let $H = A+B$. Then, for every $x\in \rr$, $\var(F_H(x)) \le \kappa n^{-1}\log n$, where $\kappa$ is a universal constant depending on $n$, $M$, $N$ or $x$. Moreover, we also have the concentration inequality $$\pp\{|F_H(x)-\ee(F_H(x))| \ge t\} \le 2\exp\biggl(-\frac{nt^2}{2\kappa\log n}\biggr)$$ for every $t\ge 0$, where $\kappa$ is the same constant as in the variance bound.
A remarkable aspect of Theorem \[free\] is that the constant $\kappa$ is just a numerical constant independent of everything else. Note also that $H\mapsto F_H(x)$ is a discontinuous map. We believe that such a result cannot be established via gaussian type concentration of measure for orthogonal and unitary matrices (Gromov & Milman [@gromovmilman83] and Szarek [@szarek90]).
Incidentally, Voiculescu used the results of Gromov-Milman and Szarek in his celebrated work [@voiculescu91] that connected free probability theory with random matrices. That is an example of an area where concentration results such as Theorem \[free\] may be relevant.
The main result
---------------
Let $G$ be a compact topological group. Then there exists a $G$-valued random variable $X$ with the properties that for any $x\in G$, the random variables $xX$, $Xx$ and $X^{-1}$ all have the same distribution as $X$. The distribution of $X$ is called the (normalized) Haar measure on $G$. The existence and uniqueness of the Haar measure is a classical result (see e.g. Rudin [@rudin73], Theorem 5.14). Let $Y$ be another $G$-valued random variable with the following properties:
1. The random variable $Y^{-1}$ has the same distribution as $Y$; that is, the law of $Y$ is [*symmetric*]{}.
2. For any $x\in G$, $xYx^{-1}$ has the same distribution as $Y$. In other words, the distribution of $Y$ is ‘constant on the conjugacy classes of $G$’.
Recall that for two random variables $U$ and $V$ taking value in some separable space $\xx$, the supremum of $|\pp(U\in B) - \pp(V\in B)|$ as $B$ ranges over all Borel subsets of $\xx$ is called the total variation distance between the laws of $U$ and $V$, often denoted simply by $d_{TV}(U,V)$.
\[gpaction\] Let $G, X, Y$ be as above, with $X$ and $Y$ independent. Let $f:G \ra \rr$ be a bounded measurable function such that $\ee f(X) = 0$. Let $\|f\|_\infty = \sup_{x \in G} |f(x)|$ and $$\|f\|_Y := \sup_{x\in G} \bigl[\ee(f(x)-f(Yx))^2\bigr]^{1/2}.$$ Let $Y_1,Y_2,\ldots,$ be i.i.d. copies of $Y$. Suppose $a$ and $b$ are two positive constants such that $d_{TV}(Y_1Y_2\cdots Y_k, X) \le ae^{-bk}$ for every $k$, where $d_{TV}$ is the total variation metric. Let $A$ and $B$ be two numbers such that $\|f\|_\infty \le A$ and $\|f\|_Y \le B$. Let $$C = \frac{B^2}{b}\biggl[\biggl(\log \frac{4aA}{B}\biggr)^+ + \frac{b}{1-e^{-b}}\biggr].$$ Then $\var(f(X))\le C/2$, and for any $t\ge 0$, $\pp\{|f(X)|\ge t\} \le 2e^{-t^2/C}$.
The main term in the bound is $B^2/b$; the term within the brackets will always contribute just a ‘factor of $\log n$’ in applications (see discussion in the next subsection).
Recall that if $ae^{-bt}$ expresses the correct rate of decay of the total variation distance, then $\tau := b^{-1}\log a$ is the mixing time of the Markov chain. Thus, the theorem roughly says the following: the deviation of $f(X)$ from its mean is of the order of $B\sqrt{\tau}$, where $B$ is a bound on the size of $f(x)-f(Yx)$, and $\tau$ is the mixing time of the Markov chain induced by $Y$.
Outline of the proofs {#outline}
---------------------
Given a reversible Markov kernel $P$ and a function $f$ on the state space, the function $$\label{fdefn}
F(x,y) := \sum_{k=0}^\infty (P^k f(x) - P^k f(y))$$ has the properties that $F(x,y) = -F(y,x)$, and $$\ee(F(X_0,X_1)|X_0) = f(X_0) - \ee f(X_0),$$ where $X_0, X_1,\ldots$ is a stationary Markov chain from the kernel $P$. Using these two properties and some intuition from Stein’s method, we show that $$\label{varexpress}
\var (f(X_0)) = \frac{1}{2}\ee\bigl((f(X_0)-f(X_1)) F(X_0,X_1)\bigr).$$ For a continuous Markov semigroup $(P_t)_{t\ge 0}$ with unique invariant measure $\mu$, the above identity is easily seen to be equivalent to $$\var_\mu(f) = \int_0^\infty \mathcal{E}(f, P_t f) dt,$$ where $\mathcal{E}$ is the Dirichlet form corresponding to the pair $((P_t)_{t\ge 0},\mu)$. Identities like this form the basis of the semigroup method for measure concentration.
Now suppose we can produce a number $B$ such that for all $k$, and all $x,y$ such that $y$ can be reached from $x$ in one step of the chain (i.e. $x$ and $y$ are ‘neighbors’), we have $$\label{naivebd}
|P^k f(x) - P^k f(y)| \le B.$$ As $k$ increases beyond the mixing time $\tau$, $P^k f(x) - P^k f(y)$ vanishes exponentially fast. Combining, we see from the definition of $F$ that $$\label{naivebd2}
|F(x,y)|\lesssim \tau B.$$ Using and with $k=0$ in , we get $$\var(f(X_0)) \lesssim \frac{B^2\tau }{2}.$$ This is the essence of the variance bound in Theorem \[gpaction\]. The concentration inequality is obtained along a similar line.
In practice, an inequality like is not very easy to establish. In fact, in the proof of Theorem \[gpaction\] we are only able to prove in an average sense. The ‘constant on conjugacy classes’ condition imposed on the random walk is required for our proof of . The key idea is to construct a coupling such that if two chains are started at neighboring sites, they continue to be on neighboring sites at each step.
[*The log factor.*]{} The $\log$ factor in Theorem \[gpaction\] arises from the $\log n$ terms appearing in the mixing times of random walks. In the above sketch, we used the fact that $P^k f(x) - P^k f(y)$ vanishes rapidly beyond $k > \tau$. Now, if $x$ and $y$ are neighboring states, this vanishing probably happens quicker, typically in $n$ steps instead of $n\log n$. But this is not stated in the standard theorems on Markov chain mixing. Any result in this direction (e.g. via path coupling) will suffice to remove the $\log$ factor from the statement of Theorem \[gpaction\].
The proof of Theorem \[free\] is a direct application of Theorem \[gpaction\], proceeding as follows. First, we fix $x\in \rr$ and two matrices $M$ and $N$ as in the statement of Theorem \[free\]. It is not difficult to see that the law of $F_H(x)$ is the same as that of $F_{UMU^* + N}(x)$, where $U$ is a Haar distributed unitary matrix. Accordingly, the state space is taken to be the set of $n\times n$ unitary matrices $\mathcal{U}_n$, and the function $f$ is defined as $$f(U) = F_{UMU^* + N}(x).$$ We consider a random walk on $\mathcal{U}_n$ generated by conjugation with certain [*random reflections*]{}. The total variation rate of convergence to equilibrium for this walk is directly available from the literature [@porod96].
Discussion of existing literature
---------------------------------
There is not much literature on the concentration of Haar measures. One early result is due to Maurey [@maurey79], who investigated the Haar measure on the group $S_n$ of permutations of $n$ elements. The setting in Maurey’s theorem is a particular case of ours, with $Y$ being a random transposition of two elements.
Maurey’s result was generalized in the lecture notes of Milman and Schechtman ([@milmanschechtman86], Theorem 7.12) using a martingale argument. Talagrand, in his famous treatment [@talagrand95], made a substantial improvement on Maurey’s result that allows one to go beyond ‘bounded differences’. The recent paper of Luczak and McDiarmid [@luczakmcdiarmid03] is also worthy of note.
The other group that has been studied for concentration of measure is the special orthogonal group $SO_n$, i.e., the group of $n\times n$ orthogonal matrices with determinant $1$. The chief result about the concentration of Haar measure on this group is due to Gromov & Milman [@gromovmilman83]. As mentioned before, this result was used by Voiculescu [@voiculescu91] is his work connecting random matrix theory with free probability.
However, other than the results about $S_n$ and $SO_n$ mentioned above, there is very little of general theory about the concentration of Haar measures. Theorem \[gpaction\] is possibly the first result of its kind, and also the first result that connects rates of convergence to stationarity of random walks on groups with concentration of the invariant measures. Random walks on groups have received extensive attention following the pioneering works of Diaconis and Shahshahani [@diaconis81] and Diaconis and Saloff-Coste [@ds96]. Theorem \[gpaction\] allows us to translate results about the rate of convergence to stationarity of random walks on groups which are ‘constant on conjugacy classes’ to concentration inequalities under the Haar measure. Indeed, we will use one such available result [@porod96] to obtain the concentration of the Haar measure on the group of unitary matrices of order $n$ with respect to the rank distance for $n\times n $ matrices (the rank distance is defined as $d(A,B) := \mathrm{rank}(A-B)$).
Finally, let us clarify that the ‘concentration property of groups’ as defined by Gromov & Milman [@gromovmilman83] and investigated by Pestov (see, e.g. [@pestov02]) is not related to the sort of things that we are investigating.
Proofs {#proof}
======
Proof of Theorem \[gpaction\]
-----------------------------
We begin with the observation that $Y$ defines a reversible Markov kernel $P$ in a natural way: For any $f:G\ra \rr$ such that $\ee|f(X)|<\infty$, let $$\label{ykernel}
Pf(x) := \ee f(Yx) = \ee f(xx^{-1}Yx) = \ee f(xY).$$ The reversibility of this kernel can be proved as follows: Since $yX$ has the same distribution as $X$ for any $y\in G$, and $X,Y$ are independent, therefore $Y$ and $YX$ are also independent. Also, $Y^{-1}$ has the same distribution as $Y$. Hence, the pair $(X,Y)$ has the same distribution as $(YX, Y^{-1})$. Consequently, the pairs $(X,YX)$ and $(YX, Y^{-1}YX) = (YX,X)$ also have the same distribution. In other words, $(X,YX)$ is an exchangeable pair of random variables. This is equivalent to saying that $P$ is a reversible Markov kernel. The following lemma gives the most important information about this kernel that we require.
\[lm1\] Under the hypothesis of Theorem \[gpaction\], and with $P$ defined in , we have $$\begin{aligned}
&\sum_{k=0}^\infty \ee|(f(x)-f(Yx)(P^kf(x)-P^kf(Yx))| \\
&\le \frac{B^2}{b}\biggl[\biggl(\log \frac{4aA}{B}\biggr)^+ + \frac{b}{1-e^{-b}}\biggr].\end{aligned}$$
Note that for any $x\in G$, $$\begin{aligned}
|P^k f(x)| &= |P^k f(x) - \ee f(X)| = |\ee f(Y_1\cdots Y_k x) - \ee f(Xx)|\\
&\le 2\|f\|_\infty d_{TV}(Y_1\cdots Y_k, X) \le 2\|f\|_\infty a e^{-bk}.\end{aligned}$$ This shows, in particular, that for any $x\in G$, we have $$\label{sumcond}
\sum_{k=0}^\infty |P^k f(x)|\le \frac{2\|f\|_\infty a }{1-e^{-b}} < \infty.$$ More importantly, it gives the bound $$\label{min1}
\begin{split}
&\ee|(f(x)-f(Yx))(P^kf(x)-P^kf(Yx))| \\
&\le 4\|f\|_\infty a e^{-bk} \ee|f(x)-f(Yx)| \le 4\|f\|_\infty a e^{-bk} \|f\|_Y.
\end{split}$$ Now recall the assumption 2 that for any $y\in G$, $y^{-1}Yy$ has the same distribution as $Y$. Thus, for any $x,y\in G$, $$Pf(yx) = \ee f(Yyx) = \ee f(y y^{-1}Yyx) = \ee f(yYx).$$ So, if we let $Y^\prime$ be an independent copy of $Y$, then $$\begin{aligned}
\ee(Pf(x)-Pf(Yx))^2 &= \ee(\ee(f(Y^\prime x) - f(YY^\prime x)|Y)^2) \\
&\le \ee(f(Y^\prime x) - f(YY^\prime x))^2 \\
&\le \sup_{y^\prime\in G} \ee(f(y^\prime x) - f(Yy^\prime x))^2 = \|f\|_Y^2.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, $\|Pf\|_Y \le \|f\|_Y$. Continuing by induction, we get $\|P^k f\|_Y \le \|f\|_Y$. This gives $$\begin{aligned}
\label{min2}
&\ee|(f(x)-f(Yx)(P^kf(x)-P^kf(Yx))| \nonumber \\
&\le \bigl(\ee(f(x)-f(Yx))^2\bigr)^{1/2}\bigl(\ee(P^kf(x)-P^kf(Yx))^2\bigr)^{1/2} \nonumber \\
&\le \|f\|_Y \|P^k f\|_Y \le \|f\|_Y^2.\end{aligned}$$ Using and , we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{vx1}
&\ee|(f(x)-f(Yx)(P^kf(x)-P^kf(Yx))| \nonumber \\
&\le \sum_{k=0}^\infty \min\{\|f\|_Y^2, 4a \|f\|_\infty\|f\|_Y e^{-bk}\}\nonumber\\
&\le \sum_{k=0}^\infty \min\{B^2, 4a ABe^{-bk}\}\nonumber = B^2\sum_{k=0}^\infty \min\{1, 4aAB^{-1} e^{-bk}\}.\end{aligned}$$ We shall now compute a bound on the above sum. For ease of notation let $\beta = 4aAB^{-1}$, and let $\gamma = b^{-1}\log \beta$. If $\beta < 1$, the sum is just a geometric series which is easy to evaluate. Now assume $\beta\ge 1$. Then $\gamma$ is nonnegative. Now, an easy verification shows that $\beta e^{-b\gamma} = 1$, and $1 \ge \beta e^{-bk}$ if and only if $k \ge \gamma$. Let $k_0$ be the integer such that $k_0-1< \gamma \le k_0$. Then $$\sum_{k=0}^\infty \min\{1, \beta e^{-bk}\} \le k_0+ \sum_{k\ge k_0} \beta e^{-bk} = k_0 + \frac{\beta e^{-bk_0}}{1-e^{-b}}.$$ Now the function $$g: x\mapsto x+\frac{\beta e^{-bx}}{1-e^{-b}}$$ is convex and is therefore upper bounded by $\max\{g(\gamma), g(\gamma+1)\}$ on the interval $[\gamma,\gamma+1]$. A simple verification now shows that $$g(\gamma)=g(\gamma+1) = \gamma + \frac{1}{1-e^{-b}}.$$ This completes the proof of the lemma.
Now define the function $F:G^2 \ra \rr$ as $$F(x_1,x_2) := \sum_{k=0}^\infty (P^k f(x_1)-P^k f(x_2)),$$ where $f$ is the function under consideration in Theorem \[gpaction\]. By , the sum converges everywhere. The following lemma establishes the relevant properties of $F$.
\[lm2\] The function $F$ satisfies $F(x_1,x_2)=-F(x_2,x_1)$ $$\ee(F(x,Yx)) = f(x).$$
The first property is obvious. Now, $\ee(P^k f(Yx)) = P^{k+1}f(x)$. Thus, for any $N$, we have $$\sum_{k=0}^N \ee(P^kf(x)-P^k f(Yx)) = f(x) - P^{N+1}f(x).$$ Now, by , we have $\lim_{N\ra \infty} P^{N+1} f(x)=0$. The uniform bound in also allows us to use the dominated convergence theorem. This completes the proof of the lemma.
We are now ready to finish the proof of Theorem \[gpaction\]. First, let us define the function $$\begin{aligned}
v(x) &:= \ee|(f(x)-f(Yx))F(x,Yx)|. \end{aligned}$$ By Lemma \[lm2\] and the independence of $X$ and $Y$, we get $$\label{step1}
\ee (f(X)^2) = \ee(f(X)F(X,YX)).$$ Since $F(x_1,x_2)\equiv -F(x_2,x_1)$, we also get $\ee(f(X)^2)=-\ee(f(X)F(YX,X))$. Now, as proved in the beginning of this section, $(X,YX)$ is an exchangeable pair of random variables. Thus, $$\label{step2}
\ee(f(X)^2) = - \ee(f(X)F(YX,X)) = -\ee(f(YX)F(X,YX)).$$ Combining and , we get $$\ee(f(X)^2) =\frac{1}{2}\ee\bigl((f(X)-f(YX))F(X,YX)\bigr) \le \frac{1}{2} \ee( v(X)).$$ By Lemma \[lm1\], $|v(x)|\le C$ for each $x$, where $C$ is as defined in the statement of Theorem \[gpaction\]. This proves the second moment bound.
For the exponential inequality, let us define $\varphi(\theta) := \ee(e^{\theta f(X)})$ for each $\theta \in \rr$. Since $f$ is a bounded function, therefore $\varphi$ is differentiable and $$\varphi^\prime (\theta) = \ee(e^{\theta f(X)} f(X)) = \ee(e^{\theta f(X)} F(X,YX)).$$ Proceeding exactly as before, we get $$\varphi^\prime(\theta)=\frac{1}{2} \ee\bigl((e^{\theta f(X)} - e^{\theta f(YX)})F(X,YX)\bigr).$$ Now, for any $u,v\in \rr$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\biggl|\frac{e^u-e^v}{u-v}\biggr| &=\int_0^1 e^{tu + (1-t)v}dt \le \int_0^1 (te^u+(1-t)e^v)dt
= \frac{1}{2}(e^u + e^v).\end{aligned}$$ Using this, and the exchangeability of $(X,XY)$ and the symmetry of $|F|$, we get $$\begin{aligned}
|\varphi^\prime(\theta)| &\le \frac{|\theta|}{4}\ee((e^{\theta f(X)} + e^{\theta f(YX)})|(f(X)-f(YX)) F(X,YX)|) \\
&\le \frac{|\theta|}{2} \ee(e^{\theta f(X)} |(f(X)-f(YX)) F(X,YX)|)\\
&= \frac{|\theta|}{2} \ee(e^{\theta f(X)} v(X)) \le \frac{C|\theta| \varphi(\theta)}{2}.\end{aligned}$$ This gives $\varphi(\theta)\le C\theta^2/4$ for all $\theta$. The proof can now be easily completed via routine arguments.
Proof of Theorem \[free\]
-------------------------
Throughout this subsection, $\uu_n$ will denote the group of unitary matrices of order $n$. To prove Theorem \[free\], we first need to establish a theorem about the concentration of the Haar measure on $\uu_n$. Existing results of the type discussed in Section \[intro\] cannot give concentration bounds for $F_H$, since they are based on the Hilbert-Schmidt distance, which is not suitable for this purpose. Instead, we shall work with the [*rank distance*]{}, defined as $d(M,N) := \mathrm{rank}(M-N)$. The empirical distribution function is well-behaved with respect to this metric, as shown by the following lemma of Bai [@bai99]:
\[bailmm\] Let $M$ and $N$ be two $n\times n$ hermitian matrices, with empirical distribution functions $F_M$ and $F_N$. Then $$\|F_M-F_N\|_\infty \le \frac{1}{n}\mathrm{rank}(M-N).$$
This lemma is an easy consequence of the interlacing inequalities for eigenvalues of hermitian matrices. (It seems possible that this already existed in the literature before [@bai99], but we could not find any reference.)
To find the concentration of the Haar measure on $\uu_n$ with respect to the rank distance, we need a random walk which takes ‘small steps’ with respect to this metric.
Let $G = \uu_n$ and $X$ be a Haar-distributed random variable on $\uu_n$. We define the r.v. $Y$ required for generating the random walk for Theorem \[gpaction\] as follows: Let $Y= I-(1-e^{i\varphi})uu^*$, where $u$ is drawn uniformly from the unit sphere in $\cc^n$, and $\varphi$ is drawn independently from the distribution on $[0, 2\pi)$ with density proportional to $(\sin(\varphi/2))^{n-1}$. Multiplication by $Y$ represents a random reflection across a randomly chosen subspace. It is easy to verify that $Y\in \uu_n$. Now, $Y^{-1}= Y^* = I - (1-e^{-i\varphi})uu^* = I-(1-e^{i(2\pi - \varphi)})uu^*$ has the same distribution as $Y$, since $2\pi -\varphi$ has the same distribution as $\varphi$. Also, for any $U\in \uu_n$, $$UYU^* = I- (1-e^{i\varphi})(Uu)(Uu)^*,$$ and $Uu$ is again uniformly distributed over the unit sphere in $\cc^n$. Hence $Y$ satisfies all the properties required for Theorem \[gpaction\].
Following a sketch of Diaconis & Shahshahani [@diaconis86], Ursula Porod [@porod96] proved the following result about the rate of convergence to stationarity of the random walk induced by $Y$:
Let $X,Y$ be as above. Let $Y_1,Y_2,\ldots,$ be i.i.d. copies of $Y$. There exists universal constants $\alpha, \beta, c_0$, such that whenever $n \ge 16$ and $k \ge \frac{1}{2}n\log n + c_0n$, we have $$\label{alphabeta}
d_{TV}(Y_1\cdots Y_k, X) \le \alpha n^{\beta/2} e^{-\beta k/n},$$ where $d_{TV}$ denotes the total variation distance.
Substituting $k=\frac{1}{2}n\log n + c_0 n$, we get $\alpha e^{-\beta c_0}$ on the right hand side. Thus by suitably increasing $\alpha$ such that $\alpha e^{-\beta c_0} \ge 1$, we can drop the condition that $k\ge \frac{1}{2}n\log n + c_0n$. Combining Porod’s theorem with Theorem \[gpaction\], we get the following result about concentration of the Haar measure on $\uu_n$. .2in
\[unitary\] Let $G=\uu_n$ and $X,Y$ be as above, with $n\ge 16$. Let $f:\uu_n \ra\rr$ be a function such that $\ee f(X)=0$. Let $\|f\|_Y = \sup_{U\in \uu_n} [\ee(f(U)-f(YU))^2]^{1/2}$. Let $A$ and $B$ be constants such that $\|f\|_\infty \le A$ and $\|f\|_Y \le B$. Let $$C = \frac{nB^2}{\beta}\biggl[\biggl(\log \frac{4\alpha n^\beta A}{B}\biggr)^+ + \frac{\beta/n}{1-e^{-\beta/n}}\biggr],$$ where $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are as in . Then $\var(f(X))\le C/2$, and for any $t\ge 0$, we have $\pp\{|f(X)|\ge t\} \le 2e^{-t^2/C}$.
.3in We are now ready to finish the proof of Theorem \[free\].
Suppose $U$ and $V$ are independent Haar-distributed random unitary matrices of order $n$, and $H=UMU^* + VNV^*$. The matrix $V^*HV = V^*UM U^*V + N$ has the same spectrum as $H$. Also, $V^*U$ is again Haar distributed. Hence, we can consider, without loss of generality, the spectrum of $$H = XM X^* + N,$$ where $X$ follows the Haar distribution on $\uu_n$. Now let $$H^\prime = (YX) M (YX)^* + N.$$ Recall that $Y = I-(1-e^{i\varphi})uu^*$, where $u$ is drawn from the uniform distribution on the unit sphere in $\cc^n$, and $\varphi$ is drawn independently from the distribution on $[0,2\pi)$ with density proportional to $(\sin(\varphi/2))^{n-1}$. Let $\delta = 1-e^{i\varphi}$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
H-H^\prime &= XM X^* - (I-\delta uu^*)XM X^*(I-\bar{\delta} uu^*)\\
&=\delta Huu^* + \bar{\delta} uu^*H - |\delta|^2 uu^*Huu^*.\end{aligned}$$ The three summands are all of rank $1$ and thus $\mathrm{rank}(H-H^\prime) \le 3$. Thus by Lemma \[bailmm\], we see that $$\label{fdiff}
\|F_H - F_{H^\prime}\|_\infty\le \frac{3}{n}.$$ Now fix a point $x\in \rr$, and let $f:\uu_n \ra \rr$ be the map which takes $X$ to $F_H(x)$. Then by , we have $$|f(X)-f(YX)| \le \frac{3}{n} \ \ \text{ for all possible values of $X$ and $Y$.}$$ Thus, $\|f\|_Y \le 3/n$. Also, $\|f\|_\infty \le 1$. Thus, in Proposition \[unitary\], we get $C \le \kappa \log n + c$ for some universal constants $\kappa$ and $c$. By choosing $\kappa$ large enough, we can drop the assumption that $n\ge 16$ and also put $c=0$. This completes the proof.
.3in [**Acknowledgments.**]{} The author thanks the referee for several useful comments and corrections, and a small improvement in Theorem \[gpaction\]. Sincere thanks are also due to Persi Diaconis, Yuval Peres, and Assaf Naor for reading the manuscript and providing advice.
[99]{}
Methodologies in spectral analysis of large-dimensional random matrices, a review. [*Statist. Sinica*]{} [**9**]{} No. 3, 611–677.
Ph.D. thesis. Department of Statistics, Stanford University.
Stein’s method for concentration inequalities. To appear in [*Probab. Theory Related Fields.*]{}
and [Saloff-Coste, L. (1996).]{} Nash inequalities for finite Markov chains. [*J. Theoret. Probab.*]{} [**9**]{} no. 2, 459–510.
and [Saloff-Coste, L. (1996). ]{} Logarithmic Sobolev inequalities for finite Markov chains. [*Ann. Appl. Probab.*]{} [**6**]{} No. 3, 695–750.
and [Shahshahani, M. (1981).]{} Generating a random permutation with random transpositions. [*Z. Wahrsch. Verw. Gebiete*]{} [**57**]{} No. 2, 159–179.
and [Shahshahani, M. (1986).]{} Products of random matrices as they arise in the study of random walks on groups. [*Random matrices and their applications (Brunswick, Maine, 1984),*]{} 183–195, Contemp. Math., [**50**]{}, [*Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI.*]{}
and [Milman, V. D. (1983). ]{} A topological application of the isoperimetric inequality. [*Amer. J. Math.* ]{} [**105** ]{} No. 4, 843–854.
Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI.
and [McDiarmid, C. (2003).]{} Concentration for locally acting permutations. [*Discrete Math.*]{} [**265**]{} no. 1–3, 159–171.
Construction de suites symétriques. [*C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris Sér. A-B*]{} [**288**]{} No. 14, A679–A681.
and [Schechtman, G. (1986).]{} Asymptotic theory of finite-dimensional normed spaces. Lecture Notes in Math., [**1200**]{}. [*Springer-Verlag, Berlin.*]{}
Ramsey-Milman phenomenon, Urysohn metric spaces, and extremely amenable groups. [*Israel J. Math.*]{} [**127**]{} 317–357.
The cut-off phenomenon for random reflections. II. Complex and quaternionic cases. [*Probab. Theory Related Fields*]{} [**104**]{} No. 2, 181–209.
McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York-Düsseldorf-Johannesburg.
Lecture notes on finite Markov Chains, LNM [**1665**]{}, 301–413, Springer.
IMS Lecture Notes—Monograph Series, [**7**]{}.
Spaces with large distance to $l\sp n\sb \infty$ and random matrices. [*Amer. J. Math.*]{} [**112**]{} No. 6, 899–942.
Concentration of measure and isoperimetric inequalities in product spaces. [*Inst. Hautes Études Sci. Publ. Math.*]{} [**81**]{} 73–205.
Limit laws for random matrices and free products. [*Inv. Math.*]{} [**104**]{} 201–220.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- Jennifer Cano
- Barry Bradlyn
- Zhijun Wang
- 'L. Elcoro'
- 'M. G. Vergniory'
- 'C. Felser'
- 'M. I. Aroyo'
- 'B. Andrei Bernevig'
bibliography:
- 'NewTIs.bib'
title: Supplemental Material for Topology of Disconnected Elementary Band Representations
---
[^1]
Nearest neighbor Hamiltonian for $p_{x,y}$ orbitals on the honeycomb lattice {#sec:pxyHam}
============================================================================
We choose the lattice basis vectors: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{e}_1 &= \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}\hat{\mathbf{x}} + \frac{1}{2} \hat{\mathbf{y}} \nonumber\\
\mathbf{e}_2 &= \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}\hat{\mathbf{x}} - \frac{1}{2} \hat{\mathbf{y}},\end{aligned}$$ which are shown in [Fig. 1]{} with their reciprocal lattice vectors, $\mathbf{g}_i$, which satisfy $\mathbf{g}_i\cdot \mathbf{e}_j = 2\pi \delta_{ij}$. Sites on the $A(B)$ sublattice sit at positions $\mathbf{R} + \mathbf{r}_{A(B)}$, where $\mathbf{R}$ denotes a lattice translation and $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{r}_A &= \frac{2}{3}\mathbf{e}_1 - \frac{1}{3}\mathbf{e}_2\nonumber\\
\mathbf{r}_B &= \frac{1}{3}\mathbf{e}_1 - \frac{2}{3}\mathbf{e}_2\end{aligned}$$ In this basis, the symmetry generators of the honeycomb lattice act as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
C_{3z} &: (\mathbf{e}_1 , \mathbf{e}_2) \rightarrow (-\mathbf{e}_2, \mathbf{e}_1 - \mathbf{e}_2) \nonumber\\
C_{2z} &: (\mathbf{e}_1 , \mathbf{e}_2) \rightarrow (-\mathbf{e}_1 , -\mathbf{e}_2) \nonumber\\
m_{1\bar{1}} &: (\mathbf{e}_1 , \mathbf{e}_2) \rightarrow (\mathbf{e}_2 , \mathbf{e}_1),\end{aligned}$$ where the subscript $1\bar{1}$ indicates that the mirror plane has normal vector $\mathbf{e}_1 - \mathbf{e}_2$. For $p_{x,y}$ orbitals, we choose the following matrix representation, in which the Pauli matrices $\tau$ act in sublattice space and the $\sigma$ matrices act in orbital space: $$\begin{aligned}
U_{C_{3z}} &= \tau_0 \otimes \left(-\frac{1}{2}\sigma_0 + i \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}\sigma_y\right) \nonumber\\
U_{C_{2z}} &= -\tau_x \otimes \sigma_0 \nonumber\\
U_{m_{1\bar{1}}} &= \tau_0 \otimes \sigma_z,
\label{eq:unitarygensxy}\end{aligned}$$ The orbital term for a rotation by an angle $\theta$ about an axis $\hat{\mathbf{n}}$ is represented by $e^{i\theta \hat{\mathbf{n}} \cdot \mathbf{S}}$, projected onto the $p_{x,y}$ orbitals; $\mathbf{S}$ is the vector of spin-1 matrices. A Hamiltonian, $H_\mathbf{k}$, that respects the lattice symmetry must satisfy: $$H_\mathbf{k} = U_R^\dagger H_{R\mathbf{k}} U_R,$$ for each generator, $R$, of the honeycomb lattice.
Denoting the annihilation operator on site $\mathbf{r}$ by $c_{\mathbf{r},a}$, where $a = x,y$ indicates the $p_x$ or $p_y$ orbital, the nearest neighbor Hamiltonian is given by: $$H = \sum_{\mathbf{R}}\sum_{a,b} \sum_{\mathbf{\delta}_i} t_{ab}(\delta_i) c_{\mathbf{R} +\mathbf{r}_A, a}^\dagger c_{\mathbf{R} + \mathbf{r}_A+ \delta_i, b} + {\rm h.c.},
\label{eq:pxyHamreal}$$ where the three nearest neighbors to a site at $\mathbf{R}+\mathbf{r}_A$ sit at $\mathbf{R}+\mathbf{r}_A + \delta_i$ (the vectors $\delta_i$ are depicted in [Fig. 1]{}) and $t_{ab}(\delta_i)$ is given by one of the Slater-Koster terms:[@SlaterKoster] $$\begin{aligned}
t_{xx}( \delta_i ) &= \frac{1}{3}\left[ (\delta_i \cdot \hat{\mathbf{x}})^2 t_\sigma + (\delta_i \cdot \hat{\mathbf{y}})^2 t_\pi \right] \nonumber\\
t_{yy}( \delta_i ) &= \frac{1}{3} \left[ (\delta_i \cdot \hat{\mathbf{y}})^2 t_\sigma + (\delta_i \cdot \hat{\mathbf{x}})^2 t_\pi \right] \nonumber\\
t_{xy}( \delta_i ) &= \frac{1}{3} (\delta_i \cdot \hat{\mathbf{x}})(\delta_i \cdot \hat{\mathbf{y}})(t_\sigma - t_\pi) = t_{yx}( \delta_i),
\label{eq:hopping}\end{aligned}$$ where $t_{\sigma(\pi)}$ are free parameters that describe $\sigma(\pi)$-bonds. Notice that $\mathbf{r}_A+\delta_i$ is always a site on the $B$ sublattice. Using the Fourier transform, $$c_{\mathbf{k},L,a} = \sum_\mathbf{R} e^{i\mathbf{k} \cdot (\mathbf{R}+\mathbf{r}_{L}) }c_{\mathbf{R} + \mathbf{r}_L,a}$$ where $L=A,B$ denotes the sublattice and $a=x,y$ denotes the orbital, the real space Hamiltonian in Eq (\[eq:pxyHamreal\]) is rewritten: $$H = \sum_\mathbf{k} \sum_{a,b}\sum_{\delta_i} c_{\mathbf{k},A,a}^\dagger c_{\mathbf{k},B,b}e^{-i\mathbf{k}\cdot \delta_i} t_{ab}(\delta_i) + {\rm h.c.},
\label{eq:pxyHam1}$$ Plugging Eq (\[eq:hopping\]) into Eq (\[eq:pxyHam1\]) yields $$H^0 =\sum_\mathbf{k} \psi_\mathbf{k}^\dagger H_\mathbf{k}^0 \psi_\mathbf{k} \equiv \sum_\mathbf{k} \psi_\mathbf{k}^\dagger \begin{pmatrix} 0 & h_\mathbf{k} \\ h_\mathbf{k}^\dagger & 0 \end{pmatrix} \psi_\mathbf{k}$$ where $\psi_\mathbf{k} = \begin{pmatrix} c_{\mathbf{k},A,x} & c_{\mathbf{k},A,y} & c_{\mathbf{k},B,x} & c_{\mathbf{k},B,y} \end{pmatrix}^T$ contains the annihilation operators for $p_{x,y}$ orbitals on the $A$ and $B$ sublattices and $h_\mathbf{k}$ is given by [Eq. (3)]{}.
Phase diagram of $H_\mathbf{k}^0 + xH_\mathbf{k}^1$ {#sec:tciphase}
---------------------------------------------------
As described in the main text, a necessary condition to reach the gapped TCI phase is that the two-fold degeneracy at $K$ is higher or lower in energy than the other two bands. The eigenvalues of $H_{\mathbf{k}=K}^0 + x H_{\mathbf{k}=K}^1$ are $-\frac{3\sqrt{3}}{8}x$ (2-fold degenerate) and $\frac{3}{8}(\pm 4(t_\pi - t_\sigma)+\sqrt{3}x )$; thus, the TCI phase requires: $$|x|> \frac{2}{\sqrt{3}}|t_\pi - t_\sigma|
\label{eq:TCIcond}$$ However, there are further constraints: band crossings along the paths connecting $\Gamma$ and $M$ can prevent the system from opening a gap even when the energy ordering at $K$ allows it. Consider the two lines $\Sigma = \alpha \mathbf{g}_1$ and $\Lambda = \beta(\frac{1}{3}\mathbf{g}_1 + \frac{2}{3} \mathbf{g}_2)$, which are invariant under $C_{3z}m_{1\bar{1}}$ and $C_{2z}C_{3z}m_{1\bar{1}}$, respectively. As $\alpha$ goes from $0$ to $\frac{1}{2}$, $\Sigma$ connects $\Gamma$ to $M$. As $\beta$ goes from $0$ to $\frac{3}{2}$, $\Lambda$ connects $\Gamma$ to $M + \mathbf{g}_2$ (passing through $K'$ at $\beta = 1$). We can then track the respective mirror eigenvalues along these lines to find constraints on connectivity. The BANDREP application on the BCS server shows that the $\Gamma_5$ and $\Gamma_6$ irreps appear at $\Gamma$ in our model ($p_{x,y}$ orbitals on the honeycomb correspond to the irrep $E$ at Wyckoff position $2b$). In the $\Gamma_5$ and $\Gamma_6$ irreps, the character of each mirror is zero: this means that the doubly-degenerate bands that comprise the $\Gamma_5$ irrep will split into two bands along $\Sigma$, one of which is even under $C_{3z}m_{1\bar{1}}$ and one of which is odd (and same for $\Gamma_6$). Thus, $\Gamma_5$ must connect to two irreps at $M$ which have opposite parity under $C_{3z}m_{1\bar{1}}$. Similarly, the $\Gamma_5$ irrep will split into two bands along $\Lambda$, one of which is even under $C_{2z}C_{3z}m_{1\bar{1}}$ and one of which is odd; thus, $\Gamma_5$ must connect to two irreps at $M$ which have opposite parity under $C_{2z}C_{3z}m_{1\bar{1}}$. Without loss of generality, assume the $\Gamma_5$ irrep is higher in energy than $\Gamma_6$; then in order for the system to be an insulator, the two bands that are highest in energy at $M$ must have opposite $C_{3z}m_{1\bar{1}}$ eigenvalues and also opposite $C_{2z}C_{3z}m_{1\bar{1}}$ eigenvalues.
Referring to Table \[tab:Meigs\], a gapped band structure requires one of the two following conditions to be satisfied: $$\begin{aligned}
E_{M1,M2} > E_{M3,M4} \Rightarrow 3t_\sigma < t_\pi < \frac{1}{3}t_\sigma \label{eq:pxygap1}\\
E_{M1,M2} < E_{M3,M4} \Rightarrow \frac{1}{3}t_\pi < t_\sigma < 3t_\pi \label{eq:pxygap2}\end{aligned}$$ If neither Eq (\[eq:pxygap1\]) or (\[eq:pxygap2\]) is satisfied, there will be a band crossing along $\Gamma-M$, as shown in Fig \[fig:Weyl\].
The $C_{2z}$ eigenvalues at $\Gamma$ are shown in Table \[tab:Geigs\]. By comparing Table \[tab:Meigs\] with Table \[tab:Geigs\], one can check that in the gapped phase, when either Eq (\[eq:pxygap1\]) or (\[eq:pxygap2\]) is satisfied, the $C_{2z}$ eigenvalues at $\Gamma$ are always opposite those at $M$ (unlike the usual time-reversal $\mathbb{Z}_2$ invariant, here we are referring to the $C_{2z}$ eigenvalues themselves, not their product. This guarantees that the Wilson loop in [Fig. 1d]{} always winds in the gapped phase.[@Alexandradinata14] We note that it could be possible with longer range hopping terms to reach a gapped phase where the $C_{2z}$ eigenvalues of the two lower bands at $\Gamma$ are the same as those at $M$ (this is symmetry-allowed according to possible decompositions of the EBR induced from $p_{x,y}$ orbitals listed on the BCS Server[@GroupTheoryPaper]). However, this phase is not accessible within our nearest-neighbor model.
Energy at $M$ $C_{3z}m_{1\bar{1}}$ eig. $C_{2z}C_{3z}m_{1\bar{1}}$ eig. $C_{2z}$ eig.
-------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------- --------------------------------- ---------------
$E_{M1}\equiv \frac{t_\pi}{2} - \frac{3t_\sigma}{2}$ $-1$ $1$ $-1$
$E_{M2}\equiv -\frac{3t_\pi}{2} + \frac{t_\sigma}{2}$ $1$ $-1$ $-1$
$E_{M3} \equiv \frac{3t_\pi}{2} - \frac{t_\sigma}{2}$ $1$ $1$ $+1$
$E_{M4} \equiv -\frac{t_\pi}{2} + \frac{3t_\sigma}{2}$ $-1$ $-1$ $+1$
: Energies, mirror, and $C_{2z}$ eigenvalues for each of the eigenstates at $M$. The $C_{2z}$ eigenvalue is a product of the two mirror eigenvalues.[]{data-label="tab:Meigs"}
Energy at $\Gamma$ $C_{2z}$ eig.
------------------------------------------------ ---------------
$E_{\Gamma 1}= -\frac{3}{2}(t_\pi + t_\sigma)$ $+1, +1$
$E_{\Gamma 2}= \frac{3}{2}(t_\pi + t_\sigma)$ $-1, -1$
: Energies and $C_{2z}$ eigenvalues for the two-fold degenerate eigenstates at $\Gamma$.[]{data-label="tab:Geigs"}
Irreps at high-symmetry points {#sec:pxyirreps}
------------------------------
Using the notation on BANDREP application of the BCS[@GroupTheoryPaper], the Hamiltonian $H_\mathbf{k}^0 + xH_\mathbf{k}^1$ can realize two possible sets of valence bands: $(\Gamma_5, K_3, M_3, M_4)$ or $(\Gamma_6, K_3, M_1, M_2)$, assuming, without loss of generality, that the $K_3$ irrep appears in the valence bands instead of the conduction bands. (As noted at the end of the last section, there are two other disconnected phases listed in the BANDREP application that that our model does not realize and which differ in the $C_{2z}$ eigenvalues of occupied bands; presumably they require longer range hopping). By comparing to the list of band representations induced from Wyckoff positions in $P6mm$ (SG 183) (which describes layers of the honeycomb lattice with no additional symmetry in the $z$ direction), we see that the irreps in $A_1\uparrow G$ or $B_2\uparrow G$ from the $1a$ position are $(\Gamma_1, K_1, M_1)$ or $(\Gamma_3, K_1, M_3)$, respectively, while the irreps in $A_1\uparrow G$ on the $3c$ position are $(\Gamma_1, \Gamma_5, K_1, K_3, M_1, M_3, M_4)$ and the irreps in $B_1\uparrow G$ on the $3c$ position are $(\Gamma_3, \Gamma_6, K_1, K_3, M_1, M_2, M_3)$. Thus, we see that for each of the possible sets of valence bands in our model, the irreps that appear are obtained from subtracting the irreps of one of the EBRs induced from the $1a$ position from one of the EBRs induced from the $3c$ position. A classification scheme that only looks at the irreps at high-symmetry points will classify our valence bands as trivial. It was noted in Ref that some topologically nontrivial bands will be included in the trivial class; our model is an example of this phenomenon.
Phase diagram with SOC {#sec:SOCxy}
----------------------
Including SOC, $\Gamma_{5} \rightarrow \bar{\Gamma}_7 \oplus \bar{\Gamma}_{8}$, $\Gamma_6\rightarrow \bar{\Gamma}_7 \oplus \bar{\Gamma}_{9}$ and $K_{1} \rightarrow \bar{K}_6$, $K_{2} \rightarrow \bar{K}_6$, $K_3 \rightarrow \bar{K}_4\oplus \bar{K}_5 \oplus \bar{K}_6$. Thus, the irreps that appear in a model with spinful $p_{x,y}$ orbitals on the honeycomb lattice are $$2\bar{\Gamma}_7\oplus \bar{\Gamma}_8\oplus\bar{\Gamma}_9 \text{ and }3\bar{K}_6\oplus\bar{K}_4\oplus\bar{K}_5
\label{eq:pxyirreps}$$ As mentioned in the main text, they belong to a sum of three EBRs, $^1\bar{E}\uparrow G$, $^2\bar{E}\uparrow G$, and $\bar{E}_1\uparrow G$, induced from the $2b$ position. The double-valued EBRs for SG 183 are listed in Table \[tab:183EBRs\]. (Since there is only one double-valued irrep of the little group at $M$, it cannot be used to distinguish EBRs and we do not need to consider it here.) Since the $\bar{E}_1\uparrow G$ EBR is decomposable, generically, the band structure splits into four groups of bands. One possibility is that one branch contains the irreps $\bar{\Gamma}_8$ and $\bar{K}_6$, another contains $\bar{\Gamma}_9$ and $\bar{K}_6$, another contains $\bar{\Gamma}_7$ and $\bar{K}_6$ and the last contains $\bar{\Gamma}_7$ and $\bar{K}_4\oplus \bar{K}_5$. In this case, each branch has the same irreps at high-symmetry points as an EBR listed in Table \[tab:183EBRs\], but the EBR might come from orbitals on the $1a$ position. In the language of Ref , a branch that contains the same irreps as an EBR induced from orbitals located at a different site than the atoms is called an “obstructed atomic limit.” An obstructed atomic limit can have localized Wannier functions, but since those Wannier functions are not located where the atoms are located, a gap must close in order to reach the phase where the Wannier functions and the atomic orbitals are localized at the same sites.
The other possibility is that the bands disconnect in such a way that some branches do not have the same irreps as an EBR; this can happen if a branch contains $\bar{\Gamma}_8$ or $\bar{\Gamma}_9$ and $\bar{K}_{4}\oplus \bar{K}_5$. A branch that does not have the same irreps as an EBR does not correspond to an atomic limit and cannot yield maximally localized Wannier functions that obey the crystal symmetry, centered at any position.
Wyckoff EBR $\bar{\Gamma}$ irreps $\bar{K}$ irreps No. bands
--------- ----------------------- --------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------- -----------
$1a$ $\bar{E}_1\uparrow G$ $\bar{\Gamma}_9$ $\bar{K}_6$ 2
$1a$ $\bar{E}_2\uparrow G$ $\bar{\Gamma}_8$ $\bar{K}_6$ 2
$1a$ $\bar{E}_3\uparrow G$ $\bar{\Gamma}_7$ $\bar{K}_4\oplus \bar{K}_5$ 2
$2b$ $^1\bar{E}\uparrow G$ $\bar{\Gamma}_7$ $\bar{K}_6$ 2
$2b$ $^2\bar{E}\uparrow G$ $\bar{\Gamma}_7$ $\bar{K}_6$ 2
$2b$ $\bar{E}_1\uparrow G$ $\bar{\Gamma}_8\oplus \bar{\Gamma}_9$ $\bar{K}_4\oplus \bar{K}_5\oplus \bar{K}_6$ 4
: Double-valued EBRs in SG 183, obtained from the BANDREP application.[@GroupTheoryPaper][]{data-label="tab:183EBRs"}
When time-reversal symmetry is imposed, we can compute the $\mathbb{Z}_2$ index. Let us first consider the case when SOC is spin-conserving; following Ref , we refer to this as “Haldane” SOC, as opposed to Rashba SOC, which, by our definition, is any SOC term that does not conserve spin. An SOC term that conserves spin will also preserve inversion symmetry (the inversion operator is exactly the tensor product of the spinless $C_{2z}$ operator in Eq (\[eq:unitarygensxy\]) and the identity in spin space). We can compute the $\mathbb{Z}_2$ index[@Fu2007] from the product of $C_{2z}$ eigenvalues at $\Gamma$ and $M$, since each band in the spinless model gives rise to a Kramers pair with SOC, whose inversion eigenvalue is the same as the spinless $C_{2z}$ eigenvalue. The eigenvalues of $C_{2z}$ are given in Tables \[tab:Meigs\] and \[tab:Geigs\] and the product for each band is tabulated in Table \[tab:C2zeigs\] for all parameter regimes. (Note: there are three inequivalent $M$ points, but they share the same $C_{2z}$ eigenvalues). The ordered lists of $C_{2z}$ eigenvalues in the last column of Table \[tab:C2zeigs\] reflect the particle-hole symmetry of our simplistic model; however, terms that break the particle-hole symmetry without inverting bands at $\Gamma$ or $M$ will not change the order of eigenvalues. The fact that some particle-hole symmetric arrangements do not appear (namely, $+1,+1,+1,+1$ and $+1, -1, -1, +1$, is a surprising feature of our simple model.) Since the product of $C_{2z}$ eigenvalues of the lowest band is always $-1$, whenever SOC opens a gap to the lowest energy band, it is a topological gap. If there is a gap at half-filling, there are two possibilities: if the gap was open before SOC was added, then the parameters $t_{\sigma,\pi}$ are constrained by Eqs (\[eq:pxygap1\])–(\[eq:pxygap2\]); comparing to Table \[tab:C2zeigs\] reveals that this gap will have a trivial $\mathbb{Z}_2$ index (consistent with the fact that a spinless model must have a trivial $\mathbb{Z}_2$ index.) On the other hand, in the parameter regime that violates Eqs (\[eq:pxygap1\])–(\[eq:pxygap2\]), the spinless system will be gapless at half-filling; if SOC opens a gap, then Table \[tab:C2zeigs\] shows that the gap has a nontrivial $\mathbb{Z}_2$ index.
We now consider non-spin-conserving (Rashba) SOC and examine each of the high-symmetry points. First, Rashba SOC cannot open a gap at $M$ since each spinless band is non-degenerate (when SOC is turned on, it will become a Kramers pair.) Second, Rashba SOC cannot open a gap at $K$: if two bands are degenerate at $K$ in the spinless model, then they are in the $K_3$ representation, which we showed in the supplement of Ref (Sec IIID) can only be gapped if the strength of Haldane SOC exceeds that of Rashba SOC. Third, we examine the $\Gamma$ point. In the spinless model, bands come in degenerate pairs, which are described by the $\Gamma_{5}$ or $\Gamma_6$ representation, where $C_{2z}$ is represented by $\pm \mathbb{I}$. When we consider spin, $C_{2z}$ is represented by $\pm \mathbb{I} \otimes i s_z$, where $s_z$ is the Pauli matrix describing the spin degrees of freedom. A term that breaks spin conservation will not commute with $\mathbb{I} \otimes i s_z$. Hence, no Rashba term can appear at the $\Gamma$ point because it will break $C_{2z}$ symmetry. We conclude from examining all three high-symmetry points that any gap that is opened by small SOC is adiabatically related to a gap that is opened by spin-conserving SOC and hence the $\mathbb{Z}_2$ topological index obtained from inversion eigenvalues still holds.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parameter regime Prod. $C_{2z}$ eigs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------
$\begin{aligned} $-1,+1,+1,-1$
t_\pi& < -t_\sigma\\
t_\pi & <3t_\sigma\end{aligned} \Rightarrow \begin{cases} E_{\Gamma 2} < E_{\Gamma 1} \\ E_{M3}\!<\! E_{M1}\! <\! E_{M4}\! <\! E_{M2} \end{cases} $
\[10pt\] $\begin{aligned} $-1,-1,-1,-1$
t_\pi &> 3t_\sigma \\
t_\pi &< \frac{1}{3}t_\sigma \end{aligned} \Rightarrow \begin{cases} E_{\Gamma 2} < E_{\Gamma 1} \\ E_{M3,M4}<E_{M1,M2} \end{cases} $
$\begin{aligned} $-1,+1,+1,-1$
t_\pi &< -t_\sigma \\
t_\pi &> \frac{1}{3}t_\sigma
\end{aligned} \Rightarrow \begin{cases} E_{\Gamma 2} < E_{\Gamma 1} \\ E_{M4}\! < \! E_{M2}\! < \! E_{M3}\! < \! E_{M1} \end{cases}$
$\begin{aligned} $-1,+1,+1,-1$
t_\pi &> -t_\sigma \\
t_\pi &> 3t_\sigma
\end{aligned} \Rightarrow \begin{cases} E_{\Gamma 1} < E_{\Gamma 2} \\ E_{M2}\! < \! E_{M4}\! < \! E_{M1}\! < \! E_{M3} \end{cases}$
\[10pt\] $\begin{aligned} $-1,-1,-1,-1$
t_\pi &> \frac{1}{3}t_\sigma \\
t_\pi &< 3t_\sigma \end{aligned} \Rightarrow \begin{cases} E_{\Gamma 1} < E_{\Gamma 2} \\ E_{M1,M2}<E_{M3,M4} \end{cases} $
$\begin{aligned} $-1,+1,+1,-1$
t_\pi &> -t_\sigma \\
t_\pi &< \frac{1}{3}t_\sigma
\end{aligned} \Rightarrow \begin{cases} E_{\Gamma 1} < E_{\Gamma 2} \\ E_{M1}\! < \! E_{M3}\! < \! E_{M2}\! < \! E_{M4} \end{cases}$
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: Product of $C_{2z}$ eigenvalues at $\Gamma$ and $M$ in order of increasing energy, for all possible parameter regimes. According to Eqs (\[eq:pxygap1\]) and (\[eq:pxygap2\]), the spinless model can only be gapped in the parameter regimes corresponding to the second or fifth row.[]{data-label="tab:C2zeigs"}
$d_{z^2}$ and $d_{x^2-y^2}$ orbitals in $P4_232$ {#sec:208symmetries}
================================================
Since the lattice of $P4_232$ (SG 208) is primitive cubic, the lattice vectors are $\mathbf{e}_1=\hat{\mathbf{x}}, \mathbf{e}_2=\hat{\mathbf{y}}, \mathbf{e}_3=\hat{\mathbf{z}}$. A unit cell is drawn in [Fig. 3a]{}; we take the origin to be one of the corners of the cube. Our model consists of $d_{z^2}$ and $d_{x^2-y^2}$ orbitals sitting at the corners and center of the cube. These orbitals transform as representations of $T$ (generated by $C_{2z}$ and $C_{3,111}$), which is the “site-symmetry group” of the origin:[@ITA] that is, $T$ is the largest subset of $P4_232$ that leaves the origin invariant. The $d_{z^2}$ and $d_{x^2-y^2}$ orbitals transform as the one-dimensional irreps, $^1E$ and $^2E$, of $T$.[@Bilbao3] Since they are time-reversed partners, they transform as a single irrep under the symmetries of $T$ and time-reversal. (We also note that the tensor product of the spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ representation with $d_{z^2}$ and $d_{x^2-y^2}$ orbitals yields the two-dimensional irreps, $^1F_{3/2}$ and $^2F_{3/2}$.[@PointGroupTables]) Instead of choosing the diagonal set of matrix representatives, we choose a physically motivated basis, where a rotation by an angle $\theta$ about an axis $\hat{\mathbf{n}}$ is represented by $e^{i\theta \hat{\mathbf{n}}\cdot \mathbf{S}}$, projected onto the $d_{z^2}$ and $d_{x^2-y^2}$ orbitals. This yields $C_{2z} = C_{2x} = C_{2y} = \sigma_0$, and $$C_{3,111} = -\frac{1}{2}\mathbb{I} + \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}(i\sigma_y) = \begin{pmatrix} -\frac{1}{2} & \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2} \\ - \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2} & -\frac{1}{2} \end{pmatrix}$$
The screw operation $\tilde{C}_{2,110}\equiv \{ C_{2,110}|\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2} \}$ mixes the two sublattices consisting of sites at the origin and sites at the center, $(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2} )$, of each unit cell. The full representation of the symmetry operations is given by: $$\begin{aligned}
U_{C_{2z}} &= U_{C_{2y}} = \tau_0 \otimes \sigma_0 \nonumber\\
U_{C_{3,111}}& = \tau_0\otimes (-\frac{1}{2}\sigma_0 + \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}i\sigma_y )\nonumber\\
U_{\tilde{C}_{2,110},\mathbf{k}} &= e^{-\frac{i}{2}(k_x+k_y-k_z)}\tau_x\otimes \sigma_z,
\label{eq:208rep}\end{aligned}$$ where the $\tau$ matrices act in the sublattice space. Time-reversal is implemented by complex conjugation. Since the representation cannot be reduced without breaking time-reversal symmetry, it is “physically irreducible.”[@Bilbao1]
Symmetry constraints on the Wilson loop in $P4_2 32$ (SG 208) {#sec:208wilsonsymm}
=============================================================
We show how the symmetries of $P4_232$ constrain the $z$-directed Wilson loop defined in [Eq. (1)]{}; we will always take the base point $k_{z0}=0$. We will frequently utilize the transformation of the Wilson loop under a non-symmorphic unitary symmetry, $\{ D_g |(\delta_x,\delta_y,\delta_z)\}$, such that $D_g$ acts in momentum space by $(k_\perp,k_z)\rightarrow (D_gk_\perp,-k_z)$, then $$\mathcal{W}_{(D_gk_\perp,k_{z0})} = e^{2\pi i \delta_z}\tilde{U}_g(k_\perp,k_{z0}) \mathcal{W}^\dagger_{(k_\perp,-k_{z0})}(\tilde{U}_g(k_\perp,k_{z0}))^\dagger,
\label{eq:wilsnonsymm}$$ where $$\left[\tilde{U}_g(\mathbf{k})\right]_{nm}\equiv \langle u^n(D_g\mathbf{k}) | U_g |u^m(\mathbf{k})\rangle
\label{eq:utilde}$$ This is a variation of Eq (B19) in Ref or Eq (D8) in Ref . If $D_g$ does not invert $k_z$, then there is no dagger on $\mathcal{W}$ on the right-hand side of Eq (\[eq:wilsnonsymm\]).
Wilson eigenvalues along $\bar{\Gamma}-\bar{X}-\bar{M}-\bar{Y}-\bar{\Gamma}$ {#sec:208wilsongapped}
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let us first consider the eigenvalues of the Wilson matrix at $\bar{\Gamma}$. Enforcing $C_{2x}$ symmetry, (recall, $U_{C_{2x}}=\mathbb{I}_{4\times 4}$ from Eq (\[eq:208rep\])), Eq (\[eq:utilde\]) shows that $\tilde{U}_{C_{2x}}(\Gamma) = \mathbb{I}_{2\times 2}$; then Eq (\[eq:wilsnonsymm\]) yields $\mathcal{W}_{(\bar{\Gamma},0)} = \mathcal{W}^\dagger_{(\bar{\Gamma},0)}$. This forces the eigenvalues of $\mathcal{W}_{(\bar{\Gamma},0)}$ to be real. Enforcing $\tilde{C}_{2,110}$ symmetry (which has $\delta_z = \frac{1}{2}$), Eq (\[eq:wilsnonsymm\]) yields $\mathcal{W}_{(\bar{\Gamma},0)}=-\tilde{U}_{\tilde{C}_{2,110}}\mathcal{W}_{(\bar{\Gamma},0)}^\dagger \tilde{U}_{\tilde{C}_{2,110}}^\dagger$, which shows that the eigenvalues of $\mathcal{W}_{(\bar{\Gamma},0)}$ must be equal to $+1$ and $-1$.
Along the segment $\bar{\Gamma}-\bar{X}$, even without knowing $\tilde{U}_{C_{2x}}(\mathbf{k})$, we can utilize Eq (\[eq:wilsnonsymm\]) to deduce that the eigenvalues of $\mathcal{W}_{(k_x,0,0)}$ are equal to those of $\mathcal{W}_{(k_x,0,0)}^\dagger$. Consequently, the eigenvalues of $\mathcal{W}_{(k_x,0,0)}$ must either come in complex conjugate pairs or be real. However, since the eigenvalues of $\mathcal{W}_{(0,0,0)}$ are $+1$ and $-1$, the eigenvalues of $\mathcal{W}_{(k_x,0,0)}$ must also be fixed to $+1$ and $-1$ along the entire line, since there is no way for them to smoothly vary while satisfying the constraints of $C_{2x}$.
Applying the same logic along $\bar{X}-\bar{M}$ and $\bar{Y}-\bar{\Gamma}$ with $C_{2y}$ symmetry shows that the eigenvalues of $\mathcal{W}_{(\pi,k_y,0)}$ and $\mathcal{W}_{(0,k_y,0)}$ must also be pinned to $+1$ and $-1$. Finally, applying $C_{2x}$ to $\bar{M}-\bar{Y}$ to the eigenvalues of $\mathcal{W}_{(k_x,\pi,0)}$, we deduce that the eigenvalues of the $z$-directed Wilson matrix are equal to $+1$ and $-1$ along the entire loop $\bar{\Gamma}-\bar{X}-\bar{M}-\bar{Y}-\bar{\Gamma}$.
Protected band crossing along $\bar{\Gamma}-\bar{M}$ {#sec:208wilsoncrossing}
----------------------------------------------------
Applying Eq (\[eq:wilsnonsymm\]) with $\tilde{C}_{2,110}$ symmetry to the line $\bar{\Gamma}-\bar{M}$ shows that the eigenvalues of $\mathcal{W}_{(k,k,0)}$ are the same as the eigenvalues of $-\mathcal{W}_{(k,k,0)}^\dagger $; hence, the eigenvalues of $\mathcal{W}_{(k,k,0)}$ are either pure imaginary or come in pairs $$\lambda(k),-\lambda(k)^*
\label{eq:Wkk0eigs}$$ We showed in Sec \[sec:208wilsongapped\] that the eigenvalues of $\mathcal{W}_{(0,0,0)}$ (and $\mathcal{W}_{(\pi,\pi,0)}$) are $+1$ and $-1$; this rules out the first possibility and hence the eigenvalues of $\mathcal{W}_{(k,k,0)}$ come in pairs $(\lambda(k), -\lambda(k)^*)$, which are degenerate when $\lambda(k) = \pm i$. We now show that such a degeneracy can occur without any fine-tuning and that the parity of the number of degeneracies between $k=0$ and $k=\pi$ constitutes a topological invariant.
To see this, we rely on an anti-unitary symmetry of the Hamiltonian: $\mathcal{A} \equiv \mathcal{T}\tilde{C}_{2,110}^{-1}C_{2z}= \mathcal{T}\{C_{2,1\bar{1}0}|\bar{\frac{1}{2}}\bar{\frac{1}{2}}\frac{1}{2}\}$, satisfying $\mathcal{A}^2 = 1$. Since $\mathcal{A}$ leaves $(k,k,k_z)$ invariant, the (antiunitary) generalization of Eq (\[eq:wilsnonsymm\]) is: $$\mathcal{W}_{(k,k,k_{z0})} = -\tilde{U}_A(k,k,k_{z0})K \mathcal{W}_{(k,k,k_{z0})}K(\tilde{U}_A(k,k,k_{z0}))^\dagger,
\label{eq:Wdiag}$$ where the minus sign comes from the fact that $\mathcal{A}$ includes a $\frac{1}{2}$ translation in the $\hat{z}$ direction ($e^{2\pi i \delta_z}=-1$), $K$ is the complex conjugation operator, and $$\left[\tilde{U}_A(\mathbf{k})\right]_{nm}\equiv \langle u^n(\mathbf{k}) | \mathcal{A} |u^m(\mathbf{k})\rangle
\label{eq:atilde}$$ Notice that $(\tilde{U}_AK)^2=\mathbb{I}_{2\times 2}$, from which it follows that $\tilde{U}_A(\mathbf{k}) = e^{ib_0(\mathbf{k}) + ib(\mathbf{k})(\cos\theta(\mathbf{k}) \sigma_x + \sin\theta(\mathbf{k}) \sigma_z)}$. Importantly, $\sigma_y$ does not appear in the exponential. Consequently $\tilde{U}_A$ is diagonalized by $\tilde{U}_A(\mathbf{k}) = e^{ib_0(\mathbf{k})}O(\mathbf{k})D(\mathbf{k})O(\mathbf{k})^T$, where $O(\mathbf{k})$ is a real orthogonal matrix and $D(\mathbf{k}) = {\rm Diag}[e^{-ib(\mathbf{k})}, e^{ib(\mathbf{k})} ]$. Defining $$W_k = O(k,k,0)^T\mathcal{W}_{(k,k,0)}O(k,k,0),$$ Eq (\[eq:Wdiag\]) yields $$W_k = -D(k,k,0)W_k^* D(k,k,0)^*
\label{eq:wconstraint}$$
Since $W_k$ has the same eigenvalues as $\mathcal{W}_{(k,k,0)}$, whose eigenvalues must come in pairs given by Eq (\[eq:Wkk0eigs\]), $W_k$ can be written as $$W_k = ie^{i\mathbf{a}(k)\cdot\sigma}$$ for a smooth vector function $\mathbf{a}(k) = (a_x(k),a_y(k),a_z(k))$. Eq (\[eq:wconstraint\]) then places the following constraints at each $\mathbf{k}$: $$\begin{aligned}
a_z\sin |\mathbf{a}| &= 0 = (a_y\sin b + a_x\cos b)\cos|\mathbf{a}|\end{aligned}$$
Since $\mathbf{a}(k)$ is a smoothly varying function, there are two possibilities: either $\cos |\mathbf{a}(k)|=0$ for all $k$ (in which case the eigenvalues of $W_k$ are fixed to $\pm 1$) or $\sin |\mathbf{a}(k)|\neq 0$, $\cos |\mathbf{a}(k)|\neq 0$ except at isolated points, in which case, $a_x(k) \propto a_y(k), a_z(k)=0$. (We rule out the case where $\sin |\mathbf{a}(k)|=0$ for all $k$ because it is inconsistent with the fact that the eigenvalues of $W_{k=0}$ are equal to $\pm 1$.) The condition $a_x(k) \propto a_y(k), a_z(k)=0$ means that degeneracies in the spectrum of $W_k$ (and hence $\mathcal{W}_{(k,k,0)}$) occur when $a_x(k)=0$, which forces $a_y(k)=0$. If such a degeneracy is present and linear in $k$, then it is not fine-tuned, in the sense that smoothly deforming $a_x(k)$ will move the degeneracy, but not remove it; such degeneracies can only be removed pairwise.
Since at both $\bar{\Gamma}$ and $\bar{M}$, the eigenvalues of $W_k$ are fixed to $+1$ and $-1$, the parity of the number of linear crossings is a topological invariant, that cannot be changed without closing the gap in the bulk band spectrum. Returning to the possibility that $\cos |\mathbf{a}(k)|=0$ for all $k$: since in this case the eigenvalues of $W_k$ are never degenerate, it trivially follows that the parity of linear in $k$ band crossings cannot be changed without closing the bulk gap.
Winding of the bent Wilson loop {#sec:208bentwinding}
-------------------------------
The product of $C_{2x}$ and $\tilde{C}_{2,110}$ yields the screw symmetry, $\tilde{C}_4 \equiv \{C_{4z} | \frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2} \}$. Applying Eq (\[eq:wilsnonsymm\]) with $\delta_z = \frac{1}{2}$, and removing the dagger on the righthand side of Eq (\[eq:wilsnonsymm\]) because $\tilde{C}_4$ leaves $k_z$ invariant, requires that the eigenvalues of $\mathcal{W}_{(k,k,k_{z0})}$ are exactly opposite those of $\mathcal{W}_{(-k,k,k_{z0})}$.
If there is an odd number of linear band crossings in the spectrum of $\mathcal{W}_{(k,k,k_{z0})}$ for $0\leq k\leq \pi$, then one band must have eigenvalue $e^{i\varphi(k)}$, where $\varphi(0) = 0$ and $\varphi(\pi) = \pi$. The eigenvalue of the other band is given by $e^{i\pi - i\varphi(k)}$, according to Eq (\[eq:Wdiag\]). Then $\tilde{C}_4$ requires that one band of $\mathcal{W}_{(-k,k,k_{z0})}$ has eigenvalue $-e^{i\pi - i\varphi(k)} = e^{-i\varphi(k)}$; we use this band to define $\varphi(k)$ when $-\pi < k <0$, i.e., $\varphi(-k) = -\varphi(k)$. Thus, if we plot $\varphi(k)$ from $-\pi < 0 < \pi$, it “winds” from $-\pi $ to $\pi$. This is exactly what is shown in [Fig. 3b]{}. Applying the same logic to the other band shows that it winds in the opposite direction.
Wilson-of-Wilson loop {#sec:wilsofwils}
=====================
Let $C$ be the closed path in the surface Brillouin zone that traverses $\bar{\Gamma}-\bar{X}-\bar{M}-\bar{Y}-\bar{\Gamma}$ and, for each $k_\perp \in C$, let $|v_{1,2}(k_\perp)\rangle$ by the eigenstates of $\mathcal{W}_{(k_\perp,0)}$ with energies $-1$ and $+1$, respectively. We define the Berry phase of the Wilson loop (the “Wilson-of-Wilson” loop) by $w = e^{i\oint_Cdk_\perp a(k_\perp)}$, where $a(k_\perp) = i\langle v_1(k_\perp)| \partial_{k_\perp} |v_1(k_\perp)\rangle $.
We show that the symmetry $C_{2z}\mathcal{T}$ requires $w = \pm 1$. In analogy to Eq (\[eq:Wdiag\]), the Wilson matrix satisfies, $$\mathcal{W}_{(k_\perp,0)}=\tilde{U}_{C_{2z}\mathcal{T}}(k_\perp,0) K\mathcal{W}_{(k_\perp,0)}^\dagger K\tilde{U}_{C_{2z}\mathcal{T}}(k_\perp,0)^\dagger,$$ where, $$\left[ \tilde{U}_{C_{2z}\mathcal{T}} (k_\perp,k_z) \right]_{nm}\equiv \langle u^n(k_\perp,-k_z)| C_{2z}\mathcal{T} | u^m(k_\perp,k_z)\rangle$$ When $k_\perp \in C$, $\mathcal{W}_{(k_\perp,0)}$ is Hermitian, as we showed in Sec \[sec:208wilsongapped\]. Hence, $\tilde{U}_{C_{2z}\mathcal{T}}(k_\perp,0)K$ is an anti-unitary symmetry that commutes with $\mathcal{W}_{(k_\perp,0)}$ and hence does not mix the two Wilson bands, which are gapped with eigenvalues $\pm 1$ along $C$. Thus, Eq (\[eq:Wdiag\]) can be applied with $\mathcal{W}$ replaced by $w$: $$w=e^{i\phi(\bar{\Gamma})}KwKe^{-i\phi(\bar{\Gamma})}
\label{eq:wofw}$$ and $$e^{i\phi(k_\perp)} = \langle v_1(k_\perp) | \tilde{U}_{C_{2z}\mathcal{T}}(k_\perp) | v_1(k_\perp)\rangle,$$ Eq (\[eq:wofw\]) shows that $w$ is real and equal to $\pm 1$.
[^1]: Permanent Address: Department of Physics, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey 08544, USA
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
-
-
bibliography:
- 'bib-sports.bib'
title: |
Judging the Judges: Evaluating the Performance\
of International Gymnastics Judges
---
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We introduce conferencing-based distributed channel quantizers for two-user interference networks where interference signals are treated as noise. Compared with the conventional distributed quantizers where each receiver quantizes its own channel independently, the proposed quantizers allow multiple rounds of feedback communication in the form of conferencing between receivers. We take the network outage probabilities of sum rate and minimum rate as performance measures and consider quantizer design in the transmission strategies of time sharing and interference transmission. First, we propose distributed quantizers that achieve the optimal network outage probability of sum rate for both time sharing and interference transmission strategies with an average feedback rate of only two bits per channel state. Then, for the time sharing strategy, we propose a distributed quantizer that achieves the optimal network outage probability of minimum rate with finite average feedback rate; conventional quantizers require infinite rate to achieve the same performance. For the interference transmission strategy, a distributed quantizer that can approach the optimal network outage probability of minimum rate closely is also proposed. Numerical simulations confirm that our distributed quantizers based on conferencing outperform the conventional ones.'
author:
- '\'
title: 'Distributed Channel Quantization for Two-User Interference Networks'
---
Introduction
============
Channel quantization in a network with multiple receivers is fundamentally different from that in a point-to-point system. In a point-to-point system, the receiver can acquire the entire channel state information (CSI) and send the corresponding quantized feedback information to the transmitter [@Quantization_Interference; @ErdemRelayFeedback; @BDRaoTransmitBeamforming; @ErdemQuantization]. On the other hand, in a network with multiple receivers, each receiver only has access to its own local CSI due to different geographical locations of the different receivers. Each receiver can thus quantize only a part of the entire global CSI, which results in a distributed quantization problem.
In the existing work on distributed quantization for networks [@Quantization_Interference; @Interference_Power_Control; @Interference_Throughput], each receiver first quantizes its local CSI independently and then sends a finite number of bits representing quantized information through feedback links to other terminals. After decoding feedback information from all receivers, each terminal reconstructs the quantized version of the global CSI. Afterwards, transmission methods such as beamforming or power control are adopted by treating the global quantized CSI as the exact unquantized CSI. For example, power control and throughput maximization for interference networks based on separate quantized feedback information from receivers are analyzed in [@Interference_Power_Control; @Interference_Throughput]. In [@Quantization_Interference], beamformers are designed for the $K$-user MIMO interference channels with independent quantized information from each receiver. The performance of these quantizers depend on the number of feedback bits assigned for quantization to each receiver and always suffer from some loss when compared with the optimal performance.
In this paper, we propose a novel distributed quantization strategy with multiple rounds of feedback communication in the form of conferencing between receivers. Through conferencing among receivers, partial CSI from other receivers can be utilized for a better overall quantizer performance. To illustrate this, we consider the distributed quantization problem for two-user interference networks with time sharing and interference transmission strategies. The network outage probability is the performance metric. We first propose a distributed quantizer that achieves the optimal network outage probability of sum rate in both time sharing and interference transmission with only two bits of feedback information. We also propose a distributed quantizer that attains the optimal network outage probability of minimum rate in time sharing with finite average feedback rate. For the optimal network outage probability of minimum rate in interference transmission, a distributed quantizer that can approach it closely is also proposed. By numerical simulations, we show the effectiveness of the proposed quantizers by comparing them with the conventional ones.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows: In Section \[secprelim\], we provide a description of the system model. In Sections \[secthree\] and \[secfour\], we introduce and analyze the distributed quantizers for time sharing and interference transmission strategies, respectively. Numerical simulations are provided in Section \[secnumresults\].
[**Notations:**]{} Bold-face letters refer to vectors or matrices. $\top$ denotes the matrix transpose. $\mathtt{C}$, $\mathtt{R}$ and $\mathtt{N}$ represent the sets of complex, real and natural numbers, respectively. The set of complex $n$-vectors is denoted by $\mathtt{C}^{n\times 1}$ and the set of complex $m\times n$ matrices is denoted by $\mathtt{C}^{m\times n}$. $\mathtt{CN}(a, b)$ represents a circulary-symmetric complex Gaussian random variable (r.v.) with mean $a$ and covariance $b$. $f_{X}(\cdot)$ is the probability density function (PDF) of a r.v. $X$. $\left|\mathcal{S}\right|$ is the cardinality of the set $\mathcal{S}$. For sets $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{B}$, $\mathcal{A} - \mathcal{B} = \left\{x \in \mathcal{A}, x \notin \mathcal{B}\right\}$. $\textmd{E}[\cdot]$ denotes the expectation and $\textmd{Prob}\{\cdot\}$ denotes the probability. For any $x \in \mathtt{R}$, $\lfloor x\rfloor$ is the largest integer that is less than or equal to $x$ and $\lceil x \rceil$ is the smallest integer that is larger than or equal to $x$. For any logical statement $\sf ST$, we let $\bf{1}({{\sf ST}})=1$ when ${\sf ST}$ is true, and $\bf{1}({{\sf ST}})=0$ when ${\sf ST}$ is false. Finally, for $b_1,\ldots,b_N\in\{0,1\},\,N\geq 1$, the real number $[0.b_1\cdots b_N]_2$ is the base-$2$ representation of the real number $\sum_{n=1}^{N} b_n2^{-n}$.
Preliminaries {#secprelim}
=============
System strategy
---------------
Consider an interference network where transmitters ${\sf S}_1$ and ${\sf S}_2$ send independent signals to receivers ${\sf D}_1$ and ${\sf D}_2$ concurrently. Both transmitters and receivers are equipped with only a single antenna. The channel gain from ${\sf S}_k$ to ${\sf D}_l$ is denoted by $h_{k, l}$ for $k, l = 1, 2$. We assume that $h_{1, 1}, h_{2, 2} \simeq \mathtt{CN}(0, 1)$ and $h_{1, 2}, h_{2, 2} \simeq \mathtt{CN}(0, \epsilon)$, where $\epsilon $ is the covariance of interference links. Let ${H}_{k, l} = \left|h_{k, l}\right|^2$. Then, ${\bf h}_k = \left[ H_{1, k}, H_{2, k}\right]^{\top}\in \mathtt{C}^{2\times 1}$ denotes the local CSI at receiver $k$, and ${\bf H} = \left[ {\bf h}_1, {\bf h}_2\right]\in \mathtt{C}^{2\times 2}$ represents the entire CSI. The additive noises at the receivers are distributed as $\mathtt{CN}(0, 1)$.
We assume a quasi-static block fading channel in which the channels vary independently from one block to another while remain constant within each block. Each receiver can perfectly estimate its local CSI and provide quantized instantaneous CSI to other terminals via error-free and delay-free feedback links.
Transmission strategies
-----------------------
We consider two transmission strategies in the two-user interference network, namely time sharing and interference transmission. Time sharing means either transmitter only occupies a proportion of the block to transmit while remains silent in the rest, thus no interference exists. Interference transmission refers to the scenario where both transmitters send signals within the entire block, thereby causing interference to each other. We assume that interference signals are dealt with as noises. Since we focus on the design of distributed quantizers based on conferencing, we also assume that only one strategy will be performed in the entire transmission for simplicity.
In time sharing, let $t_k \in [0, 1]$ be the percentage of time within the entire block in which only ${\sf S}_k$ is active for $k = 1, 2$ with $t_1 + t_2 = 1$. The instantaneous power used by ${\sf S}_k$ is $P_k = p_k P$, where $p_k \in [0, 1]$ and $P$ is the short-term power constraint. It is optimal for both transmitters to use full power under the condition of no interference. Therefore, for a given $\bf H$, the end-to-end rate at receiver $k$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\textit{R}_{{\sf ts}, k} (t_k) \triangleq t_k \log_2\left(1 + P H_{k, k}\right).\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ In interference transmission, for $k, l = 1, 2$ and $k \neq l$, the end-to-end rate at receiver $k$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\textit{R}_{{\sf it}, k} (p_1, p_2) \triangleq \log_2\left(1 + \frac{p_k P H_{k, k}}{p_l P H_{l, k} + 1}\right).\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
Network Outage Probability
--------------------------
Our performance measure is the network outage probability, which is the fraction of channel states at which the rate measure of the network falls below a target data rate $\rho$. Such a performance metric is well-suited for applications where a given constant data rate needs to be sustained for every channel state. Two kinds of rate measurements are considered, namely sum rate and minimum rate. Our goal is to design efficient distributed quantizers that can achieve the optimal network outage probability of sum rate or minimum rate for both time sharing and interference transmission strategies.
Distributed Quantization for Network Outage Probability of Sum Rate {#secthree}
===================================================================
We first design distributed quantizers for interference transmission. The sum rate is $\textit{SR}_{\sf it}\left(p_1, p_2\right) \triangleq \sum_{k = 1}^2 \textit{R}_{{\sf it}, k} (p_1, p_2)$. We define the network outage probability as[^1] $$\begin{aligned}
\textmd{OUT}_{\sf it}^{\sf sr} \triangleq \textmd{Pr}
\left\{
\textit{SR}_{\sf it}\left(p_1, p_2\right) < 2\rho
\right\}.\nonumber
\end{aligned}$$ It is proved in [@OptimalPowerControlSumRate] that the maximum sum rate is $\max\left\{\textit{SR}_{\sf it}\left(1, 0\right), \textit{SR}_{\sf it}\left(0, 1\right), \textit{SR}_{\sf it}\left(1, 1\right)\right\}$. Therefore, the optimal (minimum-achievable) network outage probability is $$\begin{aligned}
\textmd{OUT}_{{\sf sr}, \sf it}^{ {\sf opt}}\! =\!
\textmd{Pr}\left\{
\max\left\{\textit{SR}_{\sf it}\left(1, 0\right), \textit{SR}_{\sf it}\left(0, 1\right), \textit{SR}_{\sf it}\left(1, 1\right)\right\} \!<\! 2\rho
\right\}.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
In the following, we design a distributed quantizer, namely ${\textmd{\textit{DQ}}}_{{{{\sf sr}, {\sf it}}}}$, that can achieve $\textmd{OUT}_{{\sf sr}, \sf it}^{ {\sf opt}}$ with only $1$ feedback bit per receiver. The quantizer ${\textmd{\textit{DQ}}}_{{{{\sf sr}, {\sf it}}}}$ consists of two local encoders and a unique decoder. The $k$-th encoder $\textmd{ENC}_{{\sf sr}, {\sf it}, k}$ is located at receiver $k$ and the decoder $\textmd{DEC}_{{\sf sr}, {\sf it}}$ is shared by all terminals, for $k = 1, 2$. The components of ${\textmd{\textit{DQ}}}_{{{{\sf sr}, {\sf it}}}}$ operate as follows:
For $k = 1, 2$, $\textmd{ENC}_{{\sf sr}, {\sf it}, k}: \mathtt{C}^{2\times 1}\rightarrow \{0, 1\}$ maps ${\bf h}_k$ to $0$ or $1$ according to $\textmd{ENC}_{{\sf sr}, {\sf it}, k}\left({\bf h}_k\right)
=
{\bf 1}({\log_2\left(1 + P H_{k, k}\right) \geq 2\rho})$. Accordingly, receiver $k$ will send the feedback bit “1” if $\textmd{ENC}_{{\sf sr}, {\sf it}, k}\left({\bf h}_k\right) = 1$, and “0” otherwise. The decoder $\textmd{DEC}_{{\sf sr}, {\sf it}}$ decodes the bits fed back by receivers and recovers the values of $\textmd{ENC}_{{\sf sr}, {\sf it}, k}\left({\bf h}_k\right)$ for $k = 1, 2$. The interference transmission pair $\left(p_1, p_2\right)$ is decided based on Table 1.
$\textmd{ENC}_{{\sf sr}, {\sf it}, 1}\left({\bf h}_1\right)$ $\textmd{ENC}_{{\sf sr}, {\sf it}, 2}\left({\bf h}_2\right)$ $\left(p_1, p_2\right)$
-------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------
$1$ $0$ $\left(1, 0\right)$
$0$ $1$ $\left(0, 1\right)$
$1$ $1$ $\left(1, 0\right)$ or $\left(0, 1\right)$
$0$ $0$ $\left(1, 1\right)$
: Decision rule of ${\textmd{\textit{DQ}}}_{{{{\sf sr}}}}$.
Denote the network outage probability achieved by ${\textmd{\textit{DQ}}}_{{{{\sf sr}, {\sf it}}}}$ as $\textmd{OUT}\left({\textmd{\textit{DQ}}}_{{{{\sf sr}, {\sf it}}}}\right)$ and let $\textmd{FR}\left({\textmd{\textit{DQ}}}_{{{{\sf sr}, {\sf it}}}}\right)$ be the average feedback rate.[^2]
$\textmd{\rm OUT}\left({\mathtt{\textit{DQ}}}_{{{{\sf sr}, {\sf it}}}}\right) = \textmd{\rm OUT}_{{\sf sr}, \sf it}^{{\sf opt}}$ and $\textmd{\rm FR}\left({\mathtt{\textit{DQ}}}_{{{{\sf sr}, {\sf it}}}}\right) = 2$.
With ${\textmd{\textit{DQ}}}_{{{{\sf sr}, {\sf it}}}}$, an outage event occurs only when $\textit{SR}_{\sf it}(p_1, p_2) < 2\rho$ for every $(p_1, p_2)\in\{\left(1, 0\right), \left(0, 1\right)$, $\left(1, 1\right)\},$ or equivalently when both receivers feeds back “$0$” and the corresponding power vector $\left(1, 1\right)$ from Table [slowromancap1@]{} still results in outage. This shows that $\textmd{\rm OUT}\left({\mathtt{\textit{DQ}}}_{{{{\sf sr}, {\sf it}}}}\right) = \textmd{\rm OUT}_{{\sf sr}, \sf it}^{{\sf opt}}$. Since two bits are fed back in total (one bit for either receiver), the average feedback rate is two bits per channel state.
The design of ${\textmd{\textit{DQ}}}_{{{{\sf sr}, {\sf it}}}}$ utilizes the fact that checking whether $(p_1, p_2) = \left(1, 0\right)$ or $\left(0, 1\right)$ leads to an outage event only requires the knowledge of local CSI at either receiver. Thus two bits of conferencing between receivers provides adequate information to each other for choosing the right pair $(p_1, p_2)$ to achieve the optimal performance.
We now consider the design of disributed quantizers for the time sharing strategy. In this case, we can similarly define the network outage probability of sum rate as $ \textmd{OUT}_{{\sf sr}, \sf ts} \triangleq \textmd{Pr}
\left\{
\textit{SR}_{\sf ts}\left(t_1, t_2\right) < 2\rho
\right\},\nonumber
$ where $\textit{SR}_{\sf ts}\left(t_1, t_2\right) \triangleq \sum_{k = 1}^2\textit{R}_{{\sf ts}, k} (t_k)$. Under the constraint of $t_1 + t_2$ = 1, the maximum sum rate can easily be calculated to be $\max\left\{\textit{SR}_{\sf ts}\left(1, 0\right), \textit{SR}_{\sf ts}\left(0, 1\right)\right\}$. Therefore, the optimal network outage probability is $$\begin{aligned}
\textmd{OUT}_{{\sf sr}, \sf ts}^{ {\sf opt}} = \textmd{Pr}
\left\{
\textit{SR}_{\sf ts}\left(1, 0\right) < 2\rho, \textit{SR}_{\sf ts}\left(0, 1\right) < 2\rho
\right\}.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
Noticing that $\textit{SR}_{\sf ts}\left(1, 0\right) = \textit{SR}_{\sf it}\left(1, 0\right)$ and $ \textit{SR}_{\sf ts}\left(0, 1\right) = \textit{SR}_{\sf it}\left(0, 1\right) $ and using the same ideas as in the construction of $\textit{DQ}_{{\sf sr}, {\sf it}}$, we can design a distributed quantizer for time sharing that achieves $\textmd{OUT}_{{\sf sr}, \sf ts}^{ {\sf opt}}$ with only one bit of feedback per receiver (we omit the details). On the other hand, the equalities $\textit{SR}_{\sf ts}(1, 0) = \textit{SR}_{\sf it}(1, 0)$ and $\textit{SR}_{\sf ts}(0, 1) = \textit{SR}_{\sf it}(0, 1)$ also imply $\textmd{OUT}_{{\sf sr}, \sf ts}^{ {\sf opt}} \leq \textmd{OUT}_{{\sf sr}, \sf it}^{ {\sf opt}}$. Hence, we only need to consider interference transmission if our objective is to minimize the network outage probability of the sum rate.
Distributed Quantization for Network Outage Probability of Minimum Rate {#secfour}
=======================================================================
We now study the design of distributed quantizers that minimize the outage probability of minimum rate. First, we determine the optimal network outage probability with time sharing or interference transmission. For time sharing, we define the network outage probability as $$\begin{aligned}
\textmd{OUT}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf ts}} \triangleq \textmd{Pr}\left\{\textit{MR}_{\sf ts}(t_1, t_2) < \rho\right \},\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $\textit{MR}_{\sf ts}(t_1, t_2) \triangleq \min\left\{\textit{R}_{{\sf ts}, 1} (t_1), \textit{R}_{{\sf ts}, 2} (t_2)\right\}$ is the minimum achievable rate of the two transmitters. In interference transmission, the network outage probability is $$\begin{aligned}
\textmd{OUT}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf it}} \triangleq \textmd{Pr}\left\{\textit{MR}_{\sf it}(p_1, p_2) < \rho\right \},\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $\textit{MR}_{\sf it}(p_1, p_2) \triangleq \min\left\{\textit{R}_{{\sf it}, 1} (p_1, p_2), \textit{R}_{{\sf it}, 2} (p_1, p_2)\right\}$. Now, let $(t_1^{\star},t_2^{\star}) = \arg\max_{(t_1,t_2)}\textit{MR}_{\sf ts}(t_1, t_2)$ and $(p_1^{\star},p_2^{\star}) = \arg\max_{(p_1,p_2)}\textit{MR}_{\sf it}(p_1, p_2)$ denote the optimal time sharing and power pairs that achieve $\textmd{OUT}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf ts}}$ and $\textmd{OUT}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf it}}$, respectively. We have the following two results, whose proofs can be found in Appendix A.
We have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Optimal_Time_Sharing}
\begin{array}{l}
{t}_1^{\star} = \frac{ \log_2\left(1 + P H_{2, 2}\right)}{\log_2\left(1 + P H_{1, 1}\right) +\log_2\left(1 + P H_{2, 2}\right)},\\
{t}_2^{\star} = \frac{ \log_2\left(1 + P H_{1, 1}\right)}{\log_2\left(1 + P H_{1, 1}\right) +\log_2\left(1 + P H_{2, 2}\right)}.
\end{array}\end{aligned}$$
If $\frac{P H_{1, 1}}{P H_{2, 1} + 1} \geq \frac{P H_{2, 2}}{P H_{1, 2} + 1}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{First_p}
({p}_1^{\star},p_2^{\star}) = \textstyle \Biggl(\frac{\sqrt{\frac{4P^2 H_{1, 2} H_{2, 1} H_{2, 2} + 4P H_{2, 2} H_{1, 2}}{H_{1, 1}} + 1} - 1}{2PH_{1, 2}}, 1\Biggr),
\end{aligned}$$ and otherwise, if $\frac{P H_{1, 1}}{P H_{2, 1} + 1} < \frac{P H_{2, 2}}{P H_{1, 2} + 1}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Second_p}
({p}_1^{\star},p_2^{\star}) = \textstyle \Biggl( 1, \frac{\sqrt{\frac{4 P^2 H_{1, 1} H_{1, 2} H_{2, 1} + 4 P H_{1, 1} H_{2, 1}}{H_{2, 2}} + 1} - 1}{2P H_{2, 1} }\Biggr).
\end{aligned}$$
In particular, the optimal network outage probabilities of minimum rate for time sharing and interference transmission are given by $\textmd{OUT}_{{\sf mr}, \sf ts}^{ {\sf opt}}
= \textmd{Pr}\left\{\textit{MR}_{\sf ts}(t_1^{\star}, t_2^{\star}) < \rho\right \}$ and $\textmd{OUT}_{{\sf mr}, \sf it}^{ {\sf opt}}
= \textmd{Pr}\left\{\textit{MR}_{\sf it}(p_1^{\star}, p_2^{\star}) < \rho\right \}$, respectively.
We now propose two distributed quantizers, namely $\textmd{\textit{DQ}}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf ts}}$ and $\textmd{\textit{DQ}}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf it}}$. For the time sharing strategy, $\textmd{\textit{DQ}}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf ts}}$ will attain $\textmd{OUT}_{{\sf mr}, \sf ts}^{ {\sf opt}}$ exactly with a finite average feedback rate. For interference transmission, $\textmd{\textit{DQ}}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf it}}$ will approach $\textmd{OUT}_{{\sf mr}, \sf it}^{ {\sf opt}} $ tightly with a finite average feedback rate.
Time Sharing
------------
For a given ${\bf H}$, the minimum time percentage for receiver $k$ to prevent outage is given by $$\begin{aligned}
t_{k, \min} = \frac{\rho}{\log_2\left(1 + P H_{k, k}\right)},\nonumber
\end{aligned}$$ which can be calculated and known by receiver $k$, for $k = 1, 2$. Denote by $\textmd{\textit{DQ}}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf ts}}\left({\bf H}\right)$ the time sharing pair $(t_1, t_2)$ determined by $\textmd{\textit{DQ}}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf ts}}$. The first task of $\textmd{\textit{DQ}}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf ts}}$ is to determine whether or not $\textit{MR}_{\sf ts}\left(t_1^{\star}, t_2^{\star}\right) \geq \rho$ through feedback communication between receivers. The first task is essentially a distributed decision-making problem. If $\textit{MR}_{\sf ts}\left(t_1^{\star}, t_2^{\star}\right) \geq \rho$ holds, the second task is to find $\textmd{\textit{DQ}}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf ts}}\left({\bf H}\right)$ that also enables $\textit{MR}_{\sf ts}\left(\textmd{\textit{DQ}}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf ts}}\left({\bf H}\right)\right) \geq \rho$.
The quantizer $\textmd{\textit{DQ}}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf ts}}$ is composed by two local encoders with the $k$th encoder $\textmd{ENC}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf ts}, k}$ located at receiver $k$ and a unique decoder $\textmd{DEC}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf ts}}$ employed by all terminals. We add the superscript “$l$” to indicate their operations in the $l$-th round of conferencing for $l \in \mathtt{N}$. Also, four parameters ${t}_{k, \min}^{\textmd{lb}}, {t}_{k, \min}^{\textmd{ub}}$ for $k = 1, 2$ are stored and updated at all terminals. Let ${t}_{k, \min}^{\textmd{lb}, l}, {t}_{k, \min}^{\textmd{ub}, l}$ represent the values of ${t}_{k, \min}^{\textmd{lb}}, {t}_{k, \min}^{\textmd{ub}}$ after round $l$.
In round $0$, $\textmd{ENC}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf ts}, k}^{0}: \mathtt{C}^{2\times 1}\rightarrow \{0, 1\}$ maps ${\bf h}_k$ into $0$ or $1$ via $\textmd{ENC}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf ts}, k}^{0}\left({\bf h}_k\right) =
{\bf 1}(t_{k, \min} \geq 1)$, for $k = 1, 2$. Receiver $k$ will send the feedback bit “1” if $\textmd{ENC}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf ts}, k}^{0}\left({\bf h}_k\right) = 1$, and the feedback bit “0” otherwise. Then, $\textmd{DEC}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf ts}}^{0}$ decodes the bits fed back by receivers and recovers the values of $\textmd{ENC}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf ts}, k}^{0}\left({\bf h}_k\right) $ for $k = 1, 2$. [If $\textmd{ENC}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf ts}, 1}^{0}\left({\bf h}_1\right)= 1$ or $\textmd{ENC}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf ts}, 2}^{0}\left({\bf h}_2\right) = 1$, an outage event is sure to happen. Then we set $\left(0.5, 0.5\right)$ as the time sharing pair (in fact, any time sharing pair can be used as outage is inavoidable) and the conferencing process ends.]{} Otherwise, ${t}_{k, \min}^{\textmd{lb}}$ and ${t}_{k, \min}^{\textmd{ub}} = 1$ are updated as ${t}_{k, \min}^{\textmd{lb}, 0} = 0, {t}_{k, \min}^{\textmd{ub}, 0} = 1$ for $k = 1, 2$, then $\textmd{\textit{DQ}}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf ts}}$ continues to the next round.
In round $l$ where $l \in \mathtt{N} - \{0\}$, $\textmd{ENC}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf ts}, k}^{l}: \mathtt{C}^{2\times 1}\rightarrow \{0, 1\}$ maps ${\bf h}_k$ into $0$ or $1$ according to $$\begin{aligned}
\textmd{ENC}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf ts}, k}^{l}\left({\bf h}_k\right)
=
{\bf 1}\left(t_{k, \min} \geq \textstyle \frac{{t}_{k, \min}^{\textmd{lb}, l - 1} + {t}_{k, \min}^{\textmd{ub}, l - 1}}{2}\right),\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ for $k = 1, 2$. Receiver $k$ will send 1 bit of “1” if $\textmd{ENC}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf ts}, k}^{l}\left({\bf h}_k\right) = 1$, and “0” otherwise. Then $\textmd{DEC}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf ts}}^{l}$ decodes the bits fed back by receivers and recovers the values of $\textmd{ENC}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf ts}, k}^{l}\left({\bf h}_k\right) $ for $k = 1, 2$.
1. If $\textmd{ENC}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf ts}, 1}^{l}\left({\bf h}_1\right) = \textmd{ENC}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf ts}, 2}^{l}\left({\bf h}_2\right) = 1$, an outage event is inavoidable. We thus set $(0.5, 0.5)$ as the time sharing pair and conferencing ends.
2. If $\textmd{ENC}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf ts}, 1}^{l}\left({\bf h}_1\right) = \textmd{ENC}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf ts}, 2}^{l}\left({\bf h}_2\right) = 0$, we set $\textmd{\textit{DQ}}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf ts}}\left({\bf H}\right) = \left(\frac{{t}_{1, \min}^{\textmd{lb}, l -1} + {t}_{1, \min}^{\textmd{ub}, l - 1}}{2}, \frac{{t}_{2, \min}^{\textmd{lb}, l - 1} + {t}_{2, \min}^{\textmd{ub}, l - 1}}{2}\right)$ as the time sharing pair, and conferencing ends.
3. If $\textmd{ENC}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf ts}, 1}^{l}\left({\bf h}_1\right) =1$ and $ \textmd{ENC}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf ts}, 2}^{l}\left({\bf h}_2\right) = 0$, we let $t_{1, \min}^{\textmd{ lb}, l} = \frac{{t}_{1, \min}^{\textmd{lb}, l - 1} + {t}_{1, \min}^{\textmd{ub}, l - 1}}{2}$ and $t_{2, \min}^{\textmd{ub}, l} = \frac{{t}_{2, \min}^{\textmd{lb}, l - 1} + {t}_{2, \min}^{\textmd{ub}, l - 1}}{2}$. If $\textmd{ENC}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf ts}, 1}^{l}\left({\bf h}_1\right) =0$ and $\textmd{ENC}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf ts}, 2}^{l}\left({\bf h}_2\right) = 1$, we let $t_{1, \min}^{\textmd{ ub}, l} = \frac{{t}_{1, \min}^{\textmd{lb}, l - 1} + {t}_{1, \min}^{\textmd{ub}, l - 1}}{2}$ and $t_{2, \min}^{\textmd{lb}, l} = \frac{{t}_{2, \min}^{\textmd{lb}, l - 1} + {t}_{2, \min}^{\textmd{ub}, l - 1}}{2}$. In either case, conferencing continues to the next round.
Note that the condition $\textmd{MR}_{\sf ts}\left(\textmd{\textit{DQ}}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf ts}}\left({\bf H}\right)\right) < \rho$ is equivalent to $t_{1, \min} + t_{2, \min} > 1$, and $\textmd{\textit{DQ}}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf ts}}$ determines whether $t_{1, \min} + t_{2, \min} > 1$ holds or not. To accomplish this, either receiver quantizes its own $t_k$ in a finer and finer way when $l$ increases and tells the quantized feedback bits to others. The parameters ${t}_{k, \min}^{\textmd{lb}}, {t}_{k, \min}^{\textmd{ub}}$ serve as the lower and upper bounds on $t_{k, \min}$ updated by conferencing between receivers. The decision of whether $t_{1, \min} + t_{2, \min} > 1$ holds or not is made by jointly considering ${t}_{k, \min}^{\textmd{lb}}$ and $ {t}_{k, \min}^{\textmd{ub}}$. The inter-receiver conferencing process will continue until the exchanged feedback bits are adequate to make a precise decision about whether $t_{1, \min} + t_{2, \min} > 1$ holds or not.
Let $\textmd{OUT}\left(\textmd{\textit{DQ}}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf ts}}\right)$ and $\textmd{FR}\left(\textmd{\textit{DQ}}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf ts}}\right)$ denote the network outage probability and average feedback rate of $\textmd{\textit{DQ}}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf ts}}$, respectively. The following theorem shows that whenever the optimal time shairing pair $(t_1^{\star}, t_2^{\star})$ in Proposition 1 can avoid outage, the time sharing pair picked by $\textmd{\textit{DQ}}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf ts}}$ will also avoid outage with probability one, and that the average feedback rate of $\textmd{\textit{DQ}}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf ts}}$ is finite. The proof is provided in Appendix B.
For any $P > 0$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\textmd{\rm OUT}\left(\mathtt{\textit{DQ}}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf ts}}\right) = \textmd{\rm OUT}_{{\sf mr}, \sf ts}^{ {\sf opt}},\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{FR_Time_Sharing}
\textmd{\rm FR}\left(\mathtt{\textit{DQ}}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf ts}}\right) \leq 2 + 2 e^{-\frac{\rho \log 2}{P}}\left(1 + \frac{C_0}{P}\right),\end{aligned}$$ where $C_0$ is a bounded constant that is independent of $P$.[^3]
Theorem 2 shows zero-distortion in network outage probability actually can be achieved by finite average feedback rates, other than infinite number of feedback bits in the traditional view. This surprising result comes from our design for feedback communication between receivers based on conferencing.
Interference Transmission
-------------------------
For $k, l = 1, 2$ and $k \neq l$, the maximum allowed power of transmitter $k$ that will not cause outage to receiver $l$ when transmitter $l$ uses full power can be calculated to be $$\begin{aligned}
p_{k, \max} = \frac{H_{l, l}}{\left(2^{{\rho}}-1\right) H_{k, l}} - \frac{1}{P H_{k, l}}.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Note that $p_{k, \max}$ can be calculated at receiver $l$.
The proposed quantizer $\textmd{\textit{DQ}}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf it}}$ consists of two local encoders, two local compressors and a unique decoder. The $k$-th encoder $\textmd{ENC}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf it}, k}$ and $k$-th compressor $\textmd{CMP}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf it}, k}$ are located at receiver $k$, while the decoder $\textmd{DEC}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf it}}$ is used by all terminals. We add the superscript “$l$” to indicate their operations in the $l$-th round of conferencing for $l = 0, 1$.
For any $M \in \mathtt{N} - \{0\}$, let $\mathcal{C}_M = \left\{\frac{m}{M}: m = 0, \ldots, M\right\}$. Denote $\textmd{\textit{DQ}}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf it}}\left({\bf H}\right)$ as the interference transmission pair $(p_1, p_2)$ determined by $\textmd{\textit{DQ}}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf it}}$. There are at most two rounds of conferencing in $\textmd{\textit{DQ}}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf it}}$.
In round $0$, $\textmd{ENC}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf it}, 1}^{0}: \mathtt{C}^{2\times 1}\rightarrow \mathcal{C}_M$ maps ${\bf h}_1$ into a codeword in $\mathcal{C}_M$ according to $$\begin{aligned}
\textmd{ENC}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf it}, 1}^{0} \left({\bf h}_1\right) = \left\{
\begin{matrix}
0, &{p}_{2, \max} \leq 0,\\
\operatorname*{\arg\!\max}\limits_{x \in \mathcal{C}_M, x \leq {p}_{2, \max} } x, & {p}_{2, \max} >0.
\end{matrix}
\right.
\nonumber
\end{aligned}$$ Then $\textmd{CMP}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf it}, 1}^{0}: \mathcal{C}_M \rightarrow \mathcal{B}$ maps the index of $\textmd{ENC}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf it}, 1}^{0} \left({\bf h}_1\right)$ to a binary description in $\mathcal{B}$, a set of binary representations for codewords in $\mathcal{C}$. With fixed-length coding, $\left\lceil \log_2\left|\mathcal{C}\right|\right\rceil = \left\lceil \log_2(M + 1)\right\rceil$ bits indicating the index of $\textmd{ENC}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf it}, 1}^{0} \left({\bf h}_1\right)$ are fed back by receiver 1.[^4] $\textmd{DEC}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf it}}^{0}$ decodes them and recovers the value of $\textmd{ENC}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf it}, 1}^{0} \left({\bf h}_1\right)$, then receiver 2 will send one bit of “1” if $\log_2\left(1 + \frac{ \textmd{ENC}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf it}, 1}^{0} \left({\bf h}_1\right) P H_{2, 2}}{ P H_{1, 2} + 1}\right) \geq \rho$, and “0” otherwise. If “1” is fed back by receiver 2, $\textmd{\textit{DQ}}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf it}}\left({\bf H}\right) = \left(1, \textmd{ENC}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf it}, 1}^{0} \left({\bf h}_1\right) \right)$ is the decided pair and thus, conferencing for the current channel state finishes. Otherwise, conferencing will continue to the next round.
In round $1$, $\textmd{ENC}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf it}, 2}^{1}: \mathtt{C}^{2\times 1}\rightarrow \mathcal{C}_M$ maps ${\bf h}_2$ into a codeword in $\mathcal{C}_M$ according to $$\begin{aligned}
\textmd{ENC}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf it}, 2}^{1} \left({\bf h}_2\right) = \left\{
\begin{matrix}
0, &{p}_{1, \max} \leq 0,\\
\operatorname*{\arg\!\max}\limits_{x \in \mathcal{C}_M, x \leq {p}_{1, \max} } x, & {p}_{1, \max} >0.
\end{matrix}
\right.
\nonumber
\end{aligned}$$ Then $\textmd{CMP}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf it}, 2}^{1}: \mathcal{C}_M \rightarrow \mathcal{B}$ maps the index of $\textmd{ENC}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf it}, 2}^{1} \left({\bf h}_2\right)$ to a binary description in $\mathcal{B}$. $\left\lceil \log_2(M + 1)\right\rceil$ bits indicating the index of $\textmd{ENC}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf it}, 2}^{1} \left({\bf h}_2\right)$ are fed back by receiver 2. $\textmd{DEC}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf it}}^{1}$ decodes them and recovers the value of $\textmd{ENC}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf it}, 2}^{1} \left({\bf h}_2\right)$, and $\textmd{\textit{DQ}}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf it}}\left({\bf H}\right) = \left(\textmd{ENC}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf it}, 2}^{1} \left({\bf h}_2\right), 1 \right)$ is the final interference transmission pair.
The interference transmission pair decided by $\textmd{\textit{DQ}}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf it}}$ has at least one element equal to $1$, i.e., $p_1 = 1$ or $p_2 = 1$, which arises from the fact that the performance of any pair that does not satisfy this can be improved by multiplying the pair with a scaling factor until at least one element reaches $1$ [@OptimalPowerControlSumRate]. Therefore, the proposed quantizer only needs to work on the non-one element. To do this, either receiver tries to tell others the maximum power it can tolerate for preventing outage.
Denote the network outage probability and average feedback rate of $\textmd{\textit{DQ}}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf it}}$ by $\textmd{OUT}\left(\textmd{\textit{DQ}}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf it}}\right)$ and $\textmd{FR}\left(\textmd{\textit{DQ}}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf it}}\right)$, respectively. The following theorem provides upper bounds on $\textmd{OUT}\left(\textmd{\textit{DQ}}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf it}}\right)$ and $\textmd{FR}\left(\textmd{\textit{DQ}}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf it}}\right)$. The proof of the theorem is provided in Appendix D.
For any $P>0$ and $M \in \mathtt{N} - \{0\}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{DQ_OUT_OUT}
\textmd{\rm OUT}\left(\textmd{\textit{DQ}}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf it}}\right)
\leq \textmd{\rm OUT}_{{\sf mr}, \sf it}^{ {\sf opt}} + \frac{C_1}{M},\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{AFR_NOP}
\textmd{\rm FR}\left(\textmd{\textit{DQ}}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf it}}\right) \leq 2\log_2(M + 1) + 3,\end{aligned}$$ where $C_1 > 0$ is a bounded constant that is independent of $P$ and $M$.
From Theorem 3, it is seen that the distortion in network outage probability is inversely proportional to $M$, while the average feedback rate is bounded by a finite constant plus the term $2\log_2(M + 1)$ that scales as $O\left(\log(M)\right)$. Letting $M$ satisfy $2\log_2(M + 1) + 3 = \textit{R}$, we can observe that the loss in outage probability due to quantization decays at least exponentially with the total feedback rate $\textit{R}$ as $O\left(2^{-\frac{\textit{R}}{2}}\right)$.
Time Sharing or Interference Transmission?
------------------------------------------
We recall from Section [slowromancap3@]{} that for the network outage probability of sum rate, the interference transmission is always superior to time sharing. On the other hand, for the network outage probability of minimum rate, depending on the power constraing $P$, either one of two transmission strategies may be optimal. To illustrate this phenomenon, the network outage probabilities $\textmd{OUT}_{{\sf mr}, \sf ts}^{ {\sf opt}} $ and $\textmd{OUT}_{{\sf mr}, \sf it}^{ {\sf opt}}$ are plotted versus $P$ for various $\epsilon$ in Fig. 1. The target data rate is $\rho = 0.5$. We can observe from Fig. 1 that for any given $\epsilon$, there is a threshold power level $P_{\textmd{th}}$ (that depends on $\epsilon$) such that when $P \leq P_{\textmd{th}}$, $\textmd{OUT}_{{\sf mr}, \sf ts}^{ {\sf opt}} \leq \textmd{OUT}_{{\sf mr}, \sf it}^{ {\sf opt}}$, and when $P > P_{\textmd{th}}$, $\textmd{OUT}_{{\sf mr}, \sf ts}^{ {\sf opt}} > \textmd{OUT}_{{\sf mr}, \sf it}^{ {\sf opt}}$. In other words, we should use interference transmission when $P \leq P_{\textmd{th}}$, and otherwise, if $P > P_{\textmd{th}}$, we should utilize the time sharing strategy. The decision between time sharing and interference transmission only requires the knowledge of $P_{\textmd{th}}$, which can be a prior information known by all terminals. Although it is difficult to derive a closed-form expression of $P_{\textmd{th}}$, it can still be estimated through numerical simulations. For example, according to Fig. 1, we have $P_{\textmd{th}}\approx 2, 5, 12, 25$ dB when $\epsilon = 1, 0.5, 0.1$ and $0.01$, respectively.
Numerical Simulations {#secnumresults}
=====================
In this section, we present simulations to verify the theoretical results for $\textit{DQ}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf ts}}$ in time sharing and $\textit{DQ}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf it}}$ in interference transmission. For each instance of $P$ and $\epsilon$, a sufficient number of channel state realizations are generated to observe at least 5000 outage events. We have chosen $\rho = 0.5$.
We will compare the performance of the proposed quantizers with that of the conventional one [@Interference_Power_Control; @Interference_Throughput] denoted by $\textit{DQ}_{{\sf mr}}^{\sf conv}$ in time sharing and interference transmission, respectively. For readers’ convenience, we provide a brief description of the quantizer $\textit{DQ}_{{\sf mr}}^{\sf conv}$ as described in [@Interference_Power_Control; @Interference_Throughput]. For $k = 1, 2$, receiver $k$ employs $\frac{B_{\sf tot}}{4}$ bits to quantize $H_{1, k}$ and $H_{2, k}$ separately based on a scalar codebook generated by Lloyd Algorithm [@GLA] with the cardinality being $2^{\frac{B_{\sf tot}}{4}}$. All terminals decode the feedback bits and reconstruct the quantized $\bf H$ as $\hat{\bf H}$. In time sharing, ${t}_1^{\star}$ and ${t}_2^{\star}$ are calculated according to Proposition 1 by treating $\hat{\bf H}$ as ${\bf H}$, while in interference transmission, ${p}_1^{\star}$ and ${p}_2^{\star}$ are computed by Proposition 2 based on $\hat{\bf H}$. The average feedback rate of $\textit{DQ}_{{\sf mr}}^{\sf conv}$ is $B_{\sf tot}$ bits per channel state. We add the subscript of “$\sf ts$” or “$\sf it$” to $\textit{DQ}_{{\sf mr}}^{\sf conv}$ to distinguish when it is applied in time sharing or interference transmission, respectively.
In Fig. 2 (a), the network outage probabilities of minimum rate for $\textit{DQ}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf ts}}$, $\textit{DQ}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf ts}}^{\sf conv}$ (with $B_{\sf tot} = 16$) and the case with no feedback (where either transmitter consumes half of the entire block to transmit, i.e., $t_1 = t_2 = 0.5$) are plotted. It is shown that the network outage probabilities of the latter two scenarios are worse than that of $\textit{DQ}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf ts}}$ (the minimum one), which substantiates that feedback is necessary as well as the proposed quantizer based on conferencing is superior. Fig. 2 (b) plots the average feedback rate of $\textit{DQ}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf ts}}$, which is finite and small in the entire interval of $P$. Furthermore, when $P\rightarrow \infty$ or $0$, the average feedback rate approaches towards $4$ or $2$, respectively. This corresponds to the upper bound in Theorem 2 and it can be intuitively interpreted like this: when $P\rightarrow \infty$, the probability that $t_{k, \min} < \frac{1}{2}$ for $k = 1, 2$, is increasing towards $1$, then after two rounds, $\left(0.5, 0.5\right)$ will be chosen as $\textit{DQ}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf ts}}\left({\bf H}\right)$ most likely. On the other hand, when $P\rightarrow 0$, the probability that $t_{k, \min} > 1$ for $k = 1, 2$, also goes to $1$, thus after round $0$, the quantization process will finish because an outage event is inevitable almost surely.
In Fig. 3, we show the distortions of network outage probability for minimum rate of $\textit{DQ}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf it}} $, $\textit{DQ}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf it}}^{\sf conv}$ and the case with no feedback (where both transmitters will use full power, i.e., $p_1 = p_2 = 1$) versus $M$. For each $\epsilon$, we choose a value of $P$ smaller than $P_{\textmd{th}}$ thus interference transmission should be applied. In order to demonstrate that $\textit{DQ}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf it}}$ outperforms $\textit{DQ}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf it}}^{\sf conv}$ even when $\textit{DQ}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf it}}^{\sf conv}$ has a higher feedback rate, we choose the number of feedback bits assigned to $\textit{DQ}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf it}}^{\sf conv}$ as is $B_{\sf tot} = 4 \left\lceil \frac{2\log_2 (M + 1) + 3}{4} \right\rceil $. Note that $B_{\sf tot} = 8$ when $1 \leq M \leq 4$ and $12$ when $5\leq M \leq 8$. The distortions of $\textit{DQ}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf it}}$ and $\textit{DQ}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf it}}^{\sf conv}$ versus both $P$ and the average feedback rate are also shown in Fig. 4 for different values of $\epsilon$. It can be observed that in interference transmission, (i) the distortion of $\textit{DQ}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf it}}$ decreases almost linearly with increasing $M$ in the $\log$-scale, which corresponds to the upper bound derived in Theorem 3; (ii) the decreasing speed of the distortion for $\textit{DQ}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf it}}$ in regard to $M$ or the average feedback rate is much faster than that of $\textit{DQ}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf it}}^{\sf conv}$; (ii) the distortion of $\textit{DQ}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf it}}$ is much smaller than those of $\textit{DQ}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf it}}^{\sf conv}$ and the case with no feedback, which verifies that feedback is necessary and our proposed distributed quantizer based on conferencing outperforms the conventional distributed quantizer.
Conclusions and Future Work
===========================
We have introduced conferencing-based distributed channel quantizers for a two-user interference network where interference signals are treated as noise. We have shown that the proposed distributed quantizers can achieve or closely approach the optimal network outage probabilities of sum rate and minimum rate in time sharing or interference transmission with finite average feedback rates.
So far, we have studied the scenario where only one transmission strategy (interference transmission or time sharing) is used for every channel state. We note that utilizing different transmission strategies for different channel states will result in a better performance. The design and analysis of distributed quantizers for such an adaptive system is an interesting future research direction.
Acknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered}
===============
This work was supported in part by the NSF Award CCF-1218771.
Proofs of Propositions 1 and 2
==============================
The optimal time sharing pair $(t_1^{\star}, t_2^{\star})$ that minimizes $\textmd{OUT}_{\sf ts}^{\sf mr}$ also maximizes $\textit{MR}_{\sf ts}(t_1, t_2)$. Substituting $t_2 = 1 - t_1$ into $\textit{MR}_{\sf ts}(t_1, t_2)$, the problem that maximizes $\textit{MR}_{\sf ts}(t_1, t_2)$ becomes $\operatorname*{max\,min}\limits_{0 \leq t_1\leq 1}\left\{ t_1\log_2\left(1 + P {H_{1, 1}}\right), (1 - t_1)\log_2\left(1 + P {H_{2, 2}}\right) \right\}$. The first term is increasing in $t_1$ while the second term is decreasing in $t_1$. Therefore, the maximum is reached when $t_1\log_2\left(1 + P {H_{1, 1}}\right) = (1 - t_1)\log_2\left(1 + P {H_{2, 2}}\right)$, yielding $t_1^{\star}$ and $t_2^{\star}$ given in .
The optimal interference transmission pair $(p_1^{\star}, p_2^{\star})$ that minimizes $\textmd{OUT}_{\sf it}^{\sf mr}$ also maximizes $\textit{MR}_{\sf it}(p_1, p_2)$. We first show $p_1^{\star} = 1$ or $p_2^{\star} = 1$. Assume by contradiction that $0< p_1^{\star}, p_2^{\star} < 1$. Let $\beta = \min\left\{\frac{1}{p_1^{\star}}, \frac{1}{p_2^{\star}}\right\} > 1$, then $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Optimality_One}
{{\textit{MR}}}_{\sf it}\left(\beta p_1^{\star}, \beta p_2^{\star}\right)
& =\min
\left\{
\log_2\left(1 + \frac{P \beta p_1^{\star} H_{1, 1}}{P \beta p_2^{\star} H_{2, 1} + 1}\right),
\log_2\left(1 + \frac{P \beta p_2^{\star} H_{2, 2}}{P \beta p_1^{\star} H_{1, 2} + 1}\right)
\right\}
\nonumber\\
&=\min
\left\{
\log_2\left(1 + \frac{P p_1^{\star} H_{1, 1}}{P p_2^{\star} H_{2, 1} + \frac{1}{\beta}}\right),
\log_2\left(1 + \frac{P p_2^{\star} H_{2, 2}}{P p_1^{\star} H_{1, 2} + \frac{1}{\beta}}\right)
\right\}
\nonumber\\
&>
\min
\left\{
\log_2\left(1 + \frac{P p_1^{\star} H_{1, 1}}{P p_2^{\star} H_{2, 1} + 1}\right),
\log_2\left(1 + \frac{P p_2^{\star} H_{2, 2}}{P p_1^{\star} H_{1, 2} + 1}\right)
\right\}
\nonumber\\
& ={{\textit{MR}}}_{\sf it}\left(p_1^{\star}, p_2^{\star}\right),\end{aligned}$$ which contradicts the assumption that $\left(p_1^{\star}, p_2^{\star}\right)$ is optimal. Therefore, $p_1^{\star} = 1$ or $p_2^{\star} = 1$.
When $p_1^{\star} = 1$, the problem that maximizes $\textit{MR}_{\sf it}\left(p_1, p_2\right)$ is equivalent to $\operatorname*{max\,min}\limits_{0< p_2 \leq 1}
\left\{
\frac{P H_{1, 1}}{P p_2 H_{2, 1} + 1},
\frac{P p_2 H_{2, 2}}{P H_{1, 2} + 1}
\right\}$, where $\frac{P H_{1, 1}}{P p_2 H_{2, 1} + 1}$ is decreasing in $p_2$ and $\frac{P p_2 H_{2, 2}}{P H_{1, 2} + 1}$ is increasing in $p_2$. Letting $\frac{P H_{1, 1}}{P p_2 H_{2, 1} + 1} = \frac{P p_2 H_{2, 2}}{P H_{1, 2} + 1}$, the positive root is $\tilde{p}_2 = \frac{\sqrt{\frac{4 P^2 H_{1, 1} H_{1, 2} H_{2, 1} + 4 P H_{1, 1} H_{2, 1}}{H_{2, 2}} + 1} - 1}{2P H_{2, 1} }$. Note that $0<\tilde{p}_2 < 1$ holds only when $\frac{P H_{1, 1}}{P H_{2, 1} + 1} <\frac{H_{2, 2}}{P H_{1, 2} + 1}$. Thus, when $\frac{P H_{1, 1}}{P H_{2, 1} + 1} <\frac{H_{2, 2}}{P H_{1, 2} + 1}$, $p_1^{\star} = 1$ and $p_2^{\star} = \tilde{p}_2 $. Similarly, when $p_2^{\star} = 1$, we derive the positive root of $\frac{P p_1 H_{1, 1}}{P H_{2, 1} + 1} = \frac{P H_{2, 2}}{P p_1 H_{1, 2} + 1}$ as $\tilde{p}_1 = \frac{\sqrt{\frac{4P^2 H_{1, 2} H_{2, 1} H_{2, 2} + 4P H_{2, 2} H_{1, 2}}{H_{1, 1}} + 1} - 1}{2PH_{1, 2}}$. Note that $0< \tilde{p}_1 < 1$ holds when $\frac{P H_{1, 1}}{P H_{2, 1} + 1} \geq \frac{H_{2, 2}}{P H_{1, 2} + 1}$. Hence, when $\frac{P H_{1, 1}}{P H_{2, 1} + 1} \geq \frac{H_{2, 2}}{P H_{1, 2} + 1}$, $p_1^{\star} = \tilde{p}_1$ and $p_2^{\star} = 1$.
Proof of Theorem 2
==================
Let $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{array}{l}
\mathcal{H}_{1} = \left\{{\bf H}: t_{1, \min} + t_{2, \min} > 1, t_{1, \min}, t_{2, \min} > 0\right\},\nonumber\\
\mathcal{H}_{2} = \left\{{\bf H}: t_{1, \min} + t_{2, \min} = 1, t_{1, \min}, t_{2, \min} > 0\right\}, \nonumber\\
\mathcal{H}_{3} = \left\{{\bf H}: t_{1, \min} + t_{2, \min} < 1, t_{1, \min}, t_{2, \min} > 0\right\}.\nonumber
\end{array}\end{aligned}$$ Note that $t_{1, \min} + t_{2, \min} = \frac{\rho}{\log_2\left(1 + P H_{1, 1}\right)} + \frac{\rho}{\log_2\left(1 + P H_{2, 2}\right)} = \frac{\rho}{\frac{{\log_2\left(1 + P H_{1, 1}\right)} {\log_2\left(1 + P H_{2, 2}\right)}}{{\log_2\left(1 + P H_{1, 1}\right)} + {\log_2\left(1 + P H_{2, 2}\right)}}} = \frac{\rho}{\textit{MR}_{\sf it}\left(t_1^{\star}, t_2^{\star}\right)}$. Then $\textmd{OUT}
\left(
{\textit{DQ}}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf ts}}
\right)$ and $\textmd{OUT}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf ts}}^{\sf opt}$ can be rewritten as $$\begin{aligned}
\textmd{OUT}
\left(
{\textit{DQ}}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf ts}}
\right)
& =
\underbrace{\textmd{Prob}
\left\{
{\bf H} \in \mathcal{H}_1,
{\textit{DQ}}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf ts}} \left({\bf H}\right) < \rho
\right\}}_{ = \textmd{OUT}_1}
\nonumber\\
& +
\underbrace{\textmd{Prob}
\left\{
{\bf H} \in \mathcal{H}_2,
{\textit{DQ}}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf ts}} \left({\bf H}\right) < \rho
\right\}}_{ = \textmd{OUT}_2}
\nonumber\\
& +
\underbrace{\textmd{Prob}
\left\{
{\bf H} \in \mathcal{H}_3,
{\textit{DQ}}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf ts}} \left({\bf H}\right) < \rho
\right\}}_{ = \textmd{OUT}_3},
\nonumber\\
\textmd{OUT}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf ts}}^{\sf opt}
& =
\textmd{Prob}
\left\{
{\bf H} \in \mathcal{H}_1
\right\}.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ To prove $\textmd{OUT}
\left(
{\textit{DQ}}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf ts}}
\right) = \textmd{OUT}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf ts}}^{\sf opt}$, it is sufficient to prove $\textmd{OUT}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf ts}}^{\sf opt} = \textmd{OUT}_1$ and $\textmd{OUT}_2 = \textmd{OUT}_3 = 0$.
For any ${\bf H} \in \mathcal{H}_1$, $t_{1, \min} + t_{2, \min} > 1$ is equivalent to $\textit{MR}_{\sf it}\left(t_1^{\star}, t_2^{\star}\right) < \rho$, then ${\bf 1}\left({{\bf H} \in \mathcal{H}_1}\right) = {\bf 1}\left({{\bf H} \in \mathcal{H}_1, \textit{DQ}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf ts}}({\bf H}) < \rho}\right)$. Thus $\textmd{OUT}_1 = \textmd{E}\left[{\bf 1}\left({{\bf H} \in \mathcal{H}_1, \textit{DQ}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf ts}}({\bf H}) < \rho}\right)\right] = \textmd{E}\left[{\bf 1}\left({ {\bf H} \in \mathcal{H}_1}\right)\right] = \textmd{OUT}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf ts}}^{\sf opt}$.
Besides, $\textmd{OUT}_2 \leq \textmd{Prob}\left\{t_{1, \min} + t_{2, \min} = 1\right\} = \textmd{Prob}\left\{\textit{MR}_{\sf it}\left(t_1^{\star}, t_2^{\star}\right) = \rho\right\} = 0$, which is from the fact that the probability of a continuous r.v. assuming a specific value is zero. Since $\textmd{OUT}_2 \geq 0$, $\textmd{OUT}_2 = 0$.
To prove $\textmd{OUT}_3=0$, it is sufficient to show for any ${\bf H} \in \mathcal{H}_{3}$, ${\textit{MR}_{\sf ts}\left( {\textit{DQ}}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf ts}}\left({\bf H}\right)\right) \geq \rho}$. Let $t_{k, \min} = \left[0.b_{k, 1}b_{k, 2}\cdots\right]_{2}$.
For any ${\bf H} \in \mathcal{H}_3$, $\textmd{\rm ENC}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf ts}, k}^l \left({\bf h}_k\right) = b_{k, l}$, $t_{k, \min}^{{\sf lb}, l} = \left[0.b_{k, 1} b_{k, 2}\cdots b_{k, l}\right]_{2}$ and $t_{k, \min}^{{\sf ub}, l} = t_{k, \min}^{{\sf lb}, l} + 2^{-l}$ when $k = 1, 2$ and $l \in \mathtt{N} - \{0\}$.
The proof of Lemma 1 is given in Appendix C. Since $t_{1, \min} + t_{2, \min} < 1$, there must exist $\hat{l}\in\mathtt{N}$ such that $t_{1, \min} + t_{2, \min} \leq 1 - 2^{-\hat{l}}$, or equivalently, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Violation}
\left[0.b_{1, 1}b_{1, 2}\cdots b_{1, \hat{l}}\cdots\right]_{2} + \left[0.b_{2, 1}b_{2, 2}\cdots b_{2, \hat{l}}\cdots\right]_{2} \leq \left[0.\underbrace{11\cdots 1}_{\hat{l}}\right]_{2}.
\end{aligned}$$ All $(t_{1, \min}, t_{2, \min})$s satisfying can be categorized into the following two types:
1. $\exists 1 \leq l^{'} \leq \hat{l}$ such that $\left(b_{1, l^{'}}, b_{2, l^{'}}\right) = (0, 0)$ and $\left(b_{1, l}, b_{2, l}\right) \in \left\{(0, 1), (1, 0)\right\}$ for $l = 1, \ldots, l^{'} - 1$;
2. $\left(b_{1, l}, b_{2, l}\right) \in \left\{(0, 1), (1, 0)\right\}$ for any $l\leq \hat{l}$ and $\left(b_{1, \hat{l} + 1}, b_{2, \hat{l} + 1}\right) =(0, 0)$.
For 1), by Lemma 1, $\textmd{\rm ENC}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf ts}, 1}^{{l}^{'}} \left({\bf h}_k\right) = \textmd{\rm ENC}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf ts}, 2}^{{l}^{'}} \left({\bf h}_k\right) = 0$, then the distributed quantization process will stop at round $l^{'}$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\textit{DQ}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf ts}}\left({\bf H}\right) &= \left(\frac{t_{1, \min}^{{\sf lb}, l^{'} - 1} + t_{1, \min}^{{\sf ub}, l^{'} - 1}}{2}, \frac{t_{2, \min}^{{\sf lb}, l^{'} - 1} + t_{2, \min}^{{\sf ub}, l^{'} - 1}}{2}
\right)
\nonumber\\& = \left(\left[0. b_{1, 1}\cdots b_{1, {l^{'}-1}} 1\right]_{2}, \left[0. b_{2, 1}\cdots b_{2, {l^{'}-1}} 1\right]_{2}
\right).\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Since $t_{k, \min} \leq \left[0. b_{k, 1}\cdots b_{k, {l^{'}-1}} 1\right]_{2}$, ${\textit{MR}_{\sf ts}\left( {\textit{DQ}}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf ts}}\left({\bf H}\right)\right) \geq \rho}$.
For 2), by Lemma 1, $\textmd{\rm ENC}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf ts}, 1}^{\hat{l} + 1} \left({\bf h}_k\right) = \textmd{\rm ENC}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf ts}, 2}^{\hat{l} + 1} \left({\bf h}_k\right) = 0$, then the distributed quantization process will stop at round $\hat{l} + 1$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\textit{DQ}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf ts}}\left({\bf H}\right) &= \left(\frac{t_{1, \min}^{{\sf lb}, \hat{l}} + t_{1, \min}^{{\sf ub}, \hat{l}}}{2}, \frac{t_{2, \min}^{{\sf lb}, \hat{l}} + t_{2, \min}^{{\sf ub}, \hat{l}}}{2}
\right)
\nonumber\\& = \left(\left[0. b_{1, 1}\cdots b_{1, \hat{l}} 1\right]_{2}, \left[0. b_{2, 1}\cdots b_{2, \hat{l}} 1\right]_{2}
\right).\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Since $t_{k, \min} \leq \left[0. b_{k, 1}\cdots b_{k, {l^{'}}} 1\right]_{2}$, ${\textit{MR}_{\sf ts}\left( {\textit{DQ}}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf ts}}\left({\bf H}\right)\right) \geq \rho}$. Therefore, for any ${\bf H} \in \mathcal{H}_3$, ${\textit{MR}_{\sf ts}\left( {\textit{DQ}}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf ts}}\left({\bf H}\right)\right) \geq \rho}$ and $\textmd{OUT}_3 = 0$. To summarize, $\textmd{OUT}
\left(
{\textit{DQ}}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf ts}}
\right) = \textmd{OUT}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf ts}}^{\sf opt}$.
Now, let’s prove the upper bound given in . Let $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal{{R}}}_l = \left\{{\bf H}: \text{ the quantization process of } {\textit{DQ}}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf ts}} \text{ will stop after round } l \right\},\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ for $l \in \mathtt{N}$. From Lemma 1 and the description of $\textit{DQ}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf ts}}$, for $l \geq 1$, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{R}_l = \left\{{\bf H}: (b_{1, l}, b_{2, l}) = (0, 0) \text{ or } (1, 1), (b_{1, m}, b_{2, m}) \in\{(0, 1), (1, 0)\}, m = 1, \ldots, l - 1\right\}.\nonumber
\end{aligned}$$ More specifically, ${\mathcal{{R}}}_l = \bigcup_{q = 0}^{2^{l} - 1} \left\{{\mathcal{{R}}}_{l, q}^{(1)}\cup{\mathcal{{R}}}_{l, q}^{(2)}\right\}$, where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{DCP_1}
\begin{array}{l}
\mathcal{R}_{l, q}^{(1)}
= \left\{{\bf H}: \frac{2q}{2^{l}} \leq t_{1, \min} \leq \frac{2q+1}{2^{l}}, 1 - \frac{2q+2}{2^{l}} \leq t_{2, \min}\leq 1-\frac{2q+1}{2^{l}}, 0 < t_{1, \min}, t_{2, \min} < 1\right\}
\\
\hspace{8.5mm}-\left\{{\bf H}: t_{1, \min} = \frac{2q+1}{2^{l}}, t_{2, \min} = 1-\frac{2q+1}{2^{l}}\right\},
\\
\mathcal{R}_{l, q}^{(2)}
= \left\{{\bf H}: \frac{2q + 1}{2^{l}} \leq t_{1, \min} \leq \frac{2q+2}{2^{l}}, 1 - \frac{2q+1}{2^{l}} \leq t_{2, \min} \leq 1 - \frac{2q}{2^{l}}, 0 < t_{1, \min}, t_{2, \min} < 1\right\}
\\
\hspace{8.5mm}- \left\{{\bf H}: t_{1, \min} = \frac{2q+1}{2^{l}}, t_{2, \min} = 1-\frac{2q+1}{2^{l}}\right\}.
\end{array}\end{aligned}$$ It follows from that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Compound_R_W}
\begin{array}{l}
\bigcup_{w = l}^{\infty} {\mathcal{R}}_{w} \subseteq \left\{\bigcup_{u=0}^{2^{l-1}-1}\left\{{\bf H}: \frac{1}{2} - \frac{u + 1}{2^{l}} \leq t_{1, \min} \leq \frac{1}{2} - \frac{u}{2^l}, \frac{1}{2} + \frac{u }{2^{l}} \leq t_{2, \min}\leq \frac{1}{2} + \frac{u + 1}{2^l}\right\}\right. \\
\left.
\hspace{21.5mm}\cup
\bigcup_{u=0}^{2^{l-1}-1}\left\{{\bf H}: \frac{1}{2} + \frac{u }{2^{l}} \leq t_{1, \min}\leq \frac{1}{2} + \frac{u + 1}{2^l}, \frac{1}{2} - \frac{u + 1}{2^{l}} \leq t_{2, \min} \leq \frac{1}{2} - \frac{u}{2^l}\right\}
\right\}.
\end{array}\end{aligned}$$ Since $2(l+1)$ bits are fed back in total after round $l$, the average feedback rate is given as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{DQ_FR_Temp}
\textmd{FR}
\left({\textit{DQ}}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf ts}}\right) & = \sum_{l = 0}^{\infty} 2(l+1)\textmd{Prob}\left\{{\bf H} \in {\mathcal{{R}}}_l\right\},\nonumber
\\
& =
2 \textmd{Prob}\left\{{\bf H} \in {\mathcal{{R}}}_0\right\}
+
4 \textmd{Prob}\left\{{\bf H} \in {\mathcal{{R}}}_1\right\}
+
\sum_{l = 2}^{\infty} (2l+2) \textmd{Prob}\left\{{\bf H} \in {\mathcal{{R}}}_l \right\}
\nonumber\\
& =
2
+
2 \textmd{Prob}\left\{{\bf H} \in {\mathcal{{R}}}_1\right\}
+
2 \sum_{l = 2}^{\infty} l \times\textmd{Prob}\left\{{\bf H} \in {\mathcal{{R}}}_l \right\}
\nonumber\\
&\leq 2
+
2 \textmd{Prob}\left\{{\bf H} \in {\mathcal{{R}}}_1\right\}
+
2\sum_{l = 2}^{\infty}l \times \textmd{Prob}\left\{{\bf H} \in \bigcup_{w = l}^{\infty} {\mathcal{{R}}}_w \right\}.\end{aligned}$$ It is trivial to obtain the PDF of $t_{k, \min}$ as $f_{t_{k, \min}}(x) = \frac{\rho \log 2 }{P x^2 } e^{-\frac{e^{\frac{\rho \log 2}{x} - 1}}{P}} e^{\frac{\rho \log 2}{x}}, x > 0$ for $k = 1, 2$. Since ${\mathcal{{R}}}_1 \subseteq \left\{{\bf H}: 0 \leq t_{1, \min}, t_{2, \min} \leq \frac{1}{2} \text{ or } \frac{1}{2} \leq t_{1, \min}, t_{2, \min} \leq 1 \right\}$, the upper bound on $\textmd{Prob}\left\{{\bf H} \in {\mathcal{{R}}}_1\right\}$ is derived as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Temp_Prob}
\textmd{Prob}\left\{{\bf H} \in {\mathcal{{R}}}_1\right\}
& \leq \int_0^{\frac{1}{2}} f_{t_{1, \min}}(x_1) {\rm d}x_1\int_0^{\frac{1}{2}} f_{t_{2, \min}}(x_2) {\rm d}x_2
+
\int_{\frac{1}{2}}^1 f_{t_{1, \min}}(x_1) {\rm d}x_1\int_{\frac{1}{2}}^1 f_{t_{2, \min}}(x_2) {\rm d}x_2
\nonumber\\
& \leq \int_0^{1} f_{t_{1, \min}}(x_1) {\rm d}x_1 = e^{-\frac{e^{\rho\log 2}-1}{P}} \leq e^{-\frac{{\rho\log 2}}{P}},\end{aligned}$$ where the inequalities arise from $\int_0^{\frac{1}{2}}
f_{t_{2, \min}}(x_2){\rm d}x_2 \leq 1$, $\int_{\frac{1}{2}}^1
f_{t_{2, \min}}(x_2){\rm d}x_2 \leq 1$, and $e^x - 1 \geq x$ for $x\geq 0$.
When $l \geq 2$, from , $\textmd{Prob}\left\{{\bf H} \in \bigcup_{w = l}^{\infty} {\mathcal{{R}}}_w \right\}$ can be bounded by $$\begin{aligned}
\textmd{Prob}
\left\{
{\bf H} \in \bigcup_{w = l}^{\infty}{\mathcal{R}}_{w}
\right\}
& \leq
\sum_{u = 0}^{2^{l-1}-1}
\int_{\frac{1}{2} - \frac{u + 1}{2^{l}}}^{\frac{1}{2} - \frac{u}{2^l}}
f_{t_{1, \min}}(x_1){\rm d}x_1
\int_{\frac{1}{2} + \frac{u }{2^{l}}}^{\frac{1}{2} + \frac{u + 1}{2^l}}
f_{t_{2, \min}}(x_2){\rm d}x_2
\nonumber\\
& +
\sum_{u = 0}^{2^{l-1}-1}
\int_{\frac{1}{2} + \frac{u }{2^{l}}}^{\frac{1}{2} + \frac{u + 1}{2^l}}
f_{t_{1, \min}}(x_1){\rm d}x_1
\int_{\frac{1}{2} - \frac{u + 1}{2^{l}}}^{\frac{1}{2} - \frac{u}{2^l}}
f_{t_{2, \min}}(x_2){\rm d}x_2
\nonumber\\
& =
2\sum_{u = 0}^{2^{l-1}-1}
\int_{\frac{1}{2} - \frac{u + 1}{2^{l}}}^{\frac{1}{2} - \frac{u}{2^l}}
f_{t_{1, \min}}(x_1){\rm d}x_1
\int_{\frac{1}{2} + \frac{u }{2^{l}}}^{\frac{1}{2} + \frac{u + 1}{2^l}}
f_{t_{2, \min}}(x_2){\rm d}x_2.
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ When $\frac{1}{2} + \frac{u }{2^{l}} \leq x_2 \leq \frac{1}{2} + \frac{u + 1}{2^l}$, $\frac{1}{2}\leq x_2 \leq 1$, thus $f_{t_{2, \min}}(x_2) = \frac{\rho \log 2 }{P x_2^2 } e^{-\frac{e^{\frac{\rho \log 2}{x_2} - 1}}{P}} e^{\frac{\rho \log 2}{x_2}} \leq \frac{4 \rho \log 2 }{P } e^{-\frac{e^{{\rho \log 2} - 1}}{P}} e^{{2 \rho \log 2}}$. Then the upper bound on $\textmd{Prob}\left\{{\bf H} \in \bigcup_{w = l}^{\infty} {\mathcal{{R}}}_w \right\}$ is further derived as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Temp_Tail}
\textmd{Prob}
\left\{
{\bf H} \in \bigcup_{w = l}^{\infty}{\mathcal{R}}_{w}
\right\}
& \leq
\frac{8\rho \log 2}{P}\sum_{u = 0}^{2^{l-1}-1}
\int_{\frac{1}{2} - \frac{u + 1}{2^{l}}}^{\frac{1}{2} - \frac{u}{2^l}}
f_{t_{1, \min}}(x_1) {\rm d}x_1
\int_{\frac{1}{2} + \frac{u }{2^{l}}}^{\frac{1}{2} + \frac{u + 1}{2^l}}
{e^{-\frac{e^{{\rho}{\log 2} - 1}}{P}} e^{{2\rho}{\log 2}}} {\rm d}x_2
\nonumber\\
& \leq
\frac{8\rho \log 2}{P}\sum_{u = 0}^{2^{l-1}-1}
\int_{\frac{1}{2} - \frac{u + 1}{2^{l}}}^{\frac{1}{2} - \frac{u}{2^l}}
f_{t_{1, \min}}(x_1) {\rm d}x_1
\int_{\frac{1}{2} + \frac{u }{2^{l}}}^{\frac{1}{2} + \frac{u + 1}{2^l}}
{e^{-\frac{{{\rho}{\log 2}}}{P}} e^{{2\rho}{\log 2}}} {\rm d}x_2
\nonumber\\
& =
{8\rho e^{{2\rho}{\log 2}}}{\log 2}\times \frac{e^{-\frac{\rho \log 2}{P}}}{P}
\times \frac{1}{2^l}\sum_{u = 0}^{2^{l-1}-1}
\int_{\frac{1}{2} - \frac{u + 1}{2^{l}}}^{\frac{1}{2} - \frac{u}{2^l}}
f_{t_{1, \min}}(x_1) {\rm d}x_1
\nonumber\\
& =
{8\rho e^{{2\rho}{\log 2}}}{\log 2}\times \frac{e^{-\frac{\rho \log 2}{P}}}{P}
\times \frac{1}{2^l} \int_0^{\frac{1}{2}} f_{t_{1, \min}}(x_1) {\rm d}x_1
\nonumber\\
& \leq
{8\rho e^{{2\rho}{\log 2}}}{\log 2}\times \frac{e^{-\frac{\rho \log 2}{P}}}{P}
\times \frac{1}{2^l}.\end{aligned}$$ Subsituting , into and using the fact that $\sum_{l = 2}^{\infty}\frac{l}{2^l}$ is finite yield the upper bound in .
Proof of Lemma 1
================
Based on the procedures in $\textit{DQ}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf ts}}$, $t_{k, \min}^{{\sf lb}, l} \leq t_{k, \min} \leq t_{k, \min}^{{\sf ub}, l}$ for $l \in \mathtt{N} - \{0\}$.
It is straightforward to verify Lemma 1 holds when $l = 1$. By induction, assume Lemma 1 holds when $l \leq m$ where $m \geq 2$. For $l = m + 1$,[^5] according to $\textit{DQ}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf ts}}$, $\textmd{\rm ENC}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf ts}, k}^{m + 1} \left({\bf h}_k\right) = {\bf 1}\left({t_{k, \min} \geq \frac{t_{k, \min}^{{\sf lb}, m} + t_{k, \min}^{{\sf ub}, m}}{2}}\right)$, and $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{t_{k, \min}^{{\sf lb}, m} + t_{k, \min}^{{\sf ub}, m}}{2} = \left[0.b_{k, 1} b_{k, 2}\cdots b_{k, m}\right]_{2} + 2^{-m-1} = \left[0.b_{k, 1} b_{k, 2}\cdots b_{k, m} 1\right]_{2}.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
If ${t_{k, \min} \geq \left[0.b_{k, 1} b_{k, 2}\cdots b_{k, m} 1\right]_{2} =\frac{t_{k, \min}^{{\sf lb}, m} + t_{k, \min}^{{\sf ub}, m}}{2}}$, it must have $b_{k, m + 1} = 1 = \textmd{\rm ENC}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf ts}, k}^{m + 1} \left({\bf h}_k\right)$. Then $t_{k, \min}^{{\sf lb}, m + 1} = \frac{t_{k, \min}^{{\sf lb}, m} + t_{k, \min}^{{\sf ub}, m}}{2} = \left[0.b_{k, 1} b_{k, 2}\cdots b_{k, m} b_{k, m + 1}\right]_{2}$ and $t_{k, \min}^{{\sf ub}, m + 1} = t_{k, \min}^{{\sf ub}, m } = t_{k, \min}^{{\sf lb}, m } + 2^{-m} = t_{k, \min}^{{\sf lb}, m+1 } + 2^{-m - 1}$.
If ${t_{k, \min} < \left[0.b_{k, 1} b_{k, 2}\cdots b_{k, m} 1\right]_{2} =\frac{t_{k, \min}^{{\sf lb}, m} + t_{k, \min}^{{\sf ub}, m}}{2}}$, since $t_{k, \min}\geq t_{k, \min}^{{\sf lb}, m} = \left[0.b_{k, 1} b_{k, 2}\cdots b_{k, m}\right]_{2}$, it must have $b_{k, m + 1} = 0 = \textmd{\rm ENC}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf ts}, k}^{m + 1} \left({\bf h}_k\right)$. Then $t_{k, \min}^{{\sf lb}, m + 1} = t_{k, \min}^{{\sf lb}, m } =\left[0.b_{k, 1} b_{k, 2}\cdots b_{k, m} 0\right]_{2} = \left[0.b_{k, 1} b_{k, 2}\cdots b_{k, m} b_{k, m + 1}\right]_{2}$ and $t_{k, \min}^{{\sf ub}, m + 1} = \frac{t_{k, \min}^{{\sf lb}, m} + t_{k, \min}^{{\sf ub}, m}}{2} = \left[0.b_{k, 1} b_{k, 2}\cdots b_{k, m} 1\right]_{2} =t_{k, \min}^{{\sf lb}, m + 1} + 2^{-m-1} $. Therefore, Lemma 1 holds when $l = m + 1$. In conclusion, Lemma 1 holds for any $l \in \mathtt{N} - \{0\}$.
Proof of Theorem 3
==================
For a given $M \in \mathtt{N} - \{0\}$, define a global quantizer which selects the interference transmission pair that maximizes $\textit{MR}_{\sf it}\left(p_1, p_2\right)$ among the codebook $\mathcal{C}_{{\sf unif}}$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\textit{GQ}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf it}}\left({\bf H}\right)
=
\operatorname*{\arg\!\max}\limits_{(p_1, p_2) \in \mathcal{C}_{{\sf unif}}}
\textit{MR}_{\sf it}\left(p_1, p_2\right),\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathcal{C}_{{\sf unif}} = \left\{(1, 1), (1, \frac{m}{M}), (\frac{m}{M}, 1): m = 1, \ldots, M - 1\right\}$.
Let $\textmd{OUT}
\left(\textit{GQ}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf it}}\right)
=
\textmd{Prob}
\left\{
\textit{MR}_{{\sf it}}\left(\textit{GQ}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf it}}\left({\bf H}\right) \right)< \rho
\right\}$. First, let us show that $\textmd{OUT}
\left({\textit{DQ}}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf it}}\right) = \textmd{OUT}
\left(\textit{GQ}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf it}}\right)$.
According to ${\textit{GQ}}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf it}}$, an outage event happens if and only if $\textit{MR}_{{\sf it}}\left(p_1, p_2\right) < {\rho}$ for any $(p_1, p_2) \in \mathcal{C}_{{\sf unif}}$. In ${\textit{DQ}}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf it}}$, an outage occurs if and only if the following conditions are satisfied: (i) receiver 2 sends “0” after round $0$; (ii) $\log_2\left(1 + \frac{\textmd{ENC}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf it}, 2}^{1} \left({\bf h}_2\right) P H_{1, 1}}{ P H_{2, 1} + 1}\right) < \rho$. (i) happens because $\log_2\left(1 + \frac{ \textmd{ENC}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf it}, 1}^{0} \left({\bf h}_1\right) P H_{2, 2}}{ P H_{1, 2} + 1}\right) < \rho$. It means for $x \in\mathcal{C}_{M}$, $\log_2\left(1 + \frac{ P H_{1, 1}}{ x P H_{2, 1} + 1}\right) \geq \rho$ and $\log_2\left(1 + \frac{ x P H_{2, 2}}{ P H_{1, 2} + 1}\right) \geq \rho$ cannot hold simultaneously, or equivalently, ${{\textit{MR}}}_{\sf it}\left(p_1, p_2\right) < {\rho}$ for $(1, p_2) \in \mathcal{C}_{{\sf unif}}$. Similarly, (ii) means $\log_2\left(1 + \frac{ x P H_{1, 1}}{ P H_{2, 1} + 1}\right) \geq \rho$ and $\log_2\left(1 + \frac{ P H_{2, 2}}{ x P H_{1, 2} + 1}\right) \geq \rho$ cannot stand at the same time for $x\in\mathcal{C}_{M}$, which is to say, ${{\textit{MR}}}_{\sf it}\left(p_1, p_2\right) < {\rho}$ for $(p_1, 1) \in \mathcal{C}_{\textmd{unif}}$. Thus, (i) and (ii) both happen means ${{\textit{MR}}}_{\sf it}\left(p_1, p_2\right) < {\rho}$ for any $(p_1, p_2)\in \mathcal{C}_{\textmd{unif}}$. i.e., ${\bf 1}\left({\textit{MR}_{{\sf it}}\left(\textit{GQ}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf it}}\left({\bf H}\right) \right)< \rho}\right)={\bf 1}\left({\textit{MR}_{\sf it}\left( {\textit{DQ}}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf it}}\left({\bf H}\right)\right) < \rho}\right)$. Hence, we have $\textmd{OUT}
\left({\textit{DQ}}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf it}}\right)= \textmd{OUT}
\left(\textit{GQ}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf it}}\right)$ since $\textmd{OUT}
\left({\textit{DQ}}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf it}}\right)
=
\textmd{E}\left[{\bf 1}\left({\textit{MR}_{\sf it}\left( {\textit{DQ}}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf it}}\left({\bf H}\right)\right) < \rho}\right)\right]$ and $\textmd{OUT}
\left(\textit{GQ}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf it}}\right)
=
\textmd{E}\left[{\bf 1}\left({\textit{MR}_{{\sf it}}\left(\textit{GQ}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf it}}\left({\bf H}\right) \right)< \rho}\right)\right]$.
To prove , it is sufficient to show $\textmd{OUT}
\left(\textit{GQ}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf it}}\right) \leq \textmd{OUT}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf it}}^{\sf opt} + \frac{C_1}{M}$. Define another quantizer $\tilde{\textit{GQ}}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf it}}$ that selects the interference transmission pair according to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{OUT_Sub_TPV}
\tilde{\textit{GQ}}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf it}}\left({\bf H}\right) =
\left\{
\begin{matrix}
\left(\hat{p}_1, 1
\right), & \frac{{H}_{1, 1}}{ {H}_{2, 1} + \frac{1}{P}} \geq \frac{{H}_{2, 2}}{ {H}_{1, 2} + \frac{1}{P}},\\
\left(1, \hat{p}_2
\right), & \frac{{H}_{1, 1}}{ {H}_{2, 1} + \frac{1}{P} } < \frac{{H}_{2, 2}}{ {H}_{1, 2} + \frac{1}{P}},
\end{matrix}
\right.\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{hat_p}
\hat{p}_1 =
\max\limits_{
\begin{subarray}{c}
x\in \mathcal{C}_M, x\leq {p}_1^{\star}
\end{subarray}} x, \hat{p}_2 =
\max\limits_{
\begin{subarray}{c}
x\in\mathcal{C}_M, x\leq {p}_2^{\star}
\end{subarray}} x.\end{aligned}$$ The network outage probability of minimum rate achieved by $\tilde{\textit{GQ}}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf it}}$ is $\textmd{OUT}
\left(\tilde{\textit{GQ}}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf it}}\right)
=
\mathtt{Prob}
\left\{
\tilde{\textit{GQ}}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf it}}\left({\bf H}\right) < \rho
\right\}$. Since ${\textit{GQ}}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf it}}\left({\bf H}\right) \geq \tilde{\textit{GQ}}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf it}}\left({\bf H}\right)$, $\textmd{OUT}
\left(\textit{GQ}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf it}}\right) \leq \textmd{OUT}
\left(\tilde{\textit{GQ}}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf it}}\right)$. Hence, to prove , it is sufficient to prove $\textmd{OUT}
\left(\tilde{\textit{GQ}}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf it}}\right) - \textmd{OUT}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf it}}^{\sf opt} \leq \frac{C_1}{M}$.
Let $\bar{\rho} = 2^{\rho}-1$, $H_{121} = \frac{{H}_{1, 1}} {{H}_{2, 1} + \frac{1}{P}}$, $H_{212} = \frac{{H}_{2, 2}} {{H}_{1, 2} + \frac{1}{P}}$, and $\alpha = \frac{1}{M}$. When $M = 1$, $\textmd{OUT}
\left(\tilde{\textit{GQ}}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf it}}\right) = \textmd{Prob}\left\{\textit{MR}_{\sf it}(1, 1) < \rho\right\}$. Let $C_2 = \textmd{Prob}\left\{\textit{MR}_{\sf it}(1, 1) < \rho\right\}$, then $\textmd{OUT}
\left(\tilde{\textit{GQ}}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf it}}\right) \leq \frac{C_2}{M}$. When $M\geq 1$, $0 < \alpha \leq \frac{1}{2} < 1$. $\textmd{OUT}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf it}}^{\sf opt}$ and $\textmd{OUT}
\left(\tilde{\textit{GQ}}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf it}}\right)$ are rewritten as $$\begin{aligned}
\textmd{OUT}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf it}}^{\sf opt}&
= \textmd{Prob}\left\{H_{121} \geq H_{212}, p_1^{\star} H_{121} <\bar{\rho}\right\} + \textmd{Prob}\left\{H_{121} < H_{212}, p_2^{\star} H_{212} < \bar{\rho}\right\}, \nonumber\\
\textmd{OUT}
\left(\tilde{\textit{GQ}}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf it}}\right)
& = {\textmd{Prob}
\left\{
H_{121} \geq H_{212},
\hat{p}_1 H_{121} < \bar{\rho}
\right\}}
+
{\textmd{Prob}
\left\{
H_{121} < H_{212},
\hat{p}_2 H_{212} < \bar{\rho}
\right\}}, \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ then $\textmd{OUT}
\left(\tilde{\textit{GQ}}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf it}}\right) - \textmd{OUT}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf it}}^{\sf opt}$ is derived as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{OUT_UB_1}
& \textmd{OUT}
\left(\tilde{\textit{GQ}}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf it}}\right) - \textmd{OUT}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf it}}^{\sf opt}
\nonumber\\
& =
{\textmd{Prob}
\left\{
H_{121} \geq H_{212}, p_1^{\star} H_{121} \geq \bar{\rho},
\hat{p}_1 H_{121} < \bar{\rho}
\right\}}
\nonumber\\
& +
{\textmd{Prob}
\left\{
H_{121} < H_{212},
p_2^{\star} H_{212} \geq \bar{\rho},
\hat{p}_2 H_{212} < \bar{\rho}
\right\}}\nonumber\\
& =
2 {\textmd{Prob}
\left\{
H_{121} \geq H_{212},
p_1^{\star} H_{121} \geq \bar{\rho},
\hat{p}_1 H_{121} < \bar{\rho}
\right\}}
\nonumber\\
& \leq
2 {\textmd{Prob}
\left\{
H_{121} \geq H_{212}, p_1^{\star} H_{121} \geq \bar{\rho},
\left(p_1^{\star} - \alpha\right) H_{121} < \bar{\rho}
\right\}}
\nonumber\\
& =
2 {\textmd{Prob}
\left\{
H_{121} \geq H_{212},
\frac{\bar{\rho}}{H_{121}} \leq p_1^{\star} < \frac{\bar{\rho}}{H_{121}} + \alpha
\right\}},\end{aligned}$$ where the first inequality is from ${p}_1^{\star} - \hat{p}_1 \leq \alpha$ by . Let $A = \frac{\bar{\rho}}{H_{121}}$ and $B = A + \alpha$. The PDFs of $H_{k, l}$ are $f_{H_{1, 1}}(x) = f_{H_{2, 2}}(x) = e^{-x}$ and $f_{H_{1, 2}}(x) = f_{H_{2, 1}}(x) = \frac{1}{\epsilon}e^{-\frac{x}{\epsilon}}$, $x > 0$, for $k, l = 1, 2$. Then the PDFs of $H_{121}$ and $H_{212}$ are easily obtained as $f_{H_{121}}(x) = f_{H_{212}}(x) = \frac{e^{-\frac{x}{P}}}{P(\epsilon x + 1)} + \frac{\epsilon e^{-\frac{x}{P}}}{(\epsilon x + 1)^2}$, $x > 0$. From , ${p}_1^{\star}$ is rewritten as ${p}_1^{\star}
=
\frac
{\sqrt{\frac{4P^2 }{H_{121}} {H}_{2, 2}{H}_{1, 2} + 1} - 1}
{2P {H}_{1, 2}}$. Since $0\leq p_1^{\star}\leq 1$, it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{I_1_OUT}
& \textmd{OUT}
\left(\tilde{\textit{GQ}}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf it}}\right) - \textmd{OUT}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf it}}^{\sf opt}
\nonumber\\
& \leq
2\textmd{Prob}
\left\{
H_{121} \geq H_{212}, A \leq 1, B > 1, A \leq p_1^{\star}
\right\}
+
2\textmd{Prob}
\left\{
H_{121} \geq H_{212}, B \leq 1,
A
\leq
p_{1}^{\star}
<
B
\right\}
\nonumber\\
& \leq
2\textmd{Prob}
\left\{
H_{121} \geq H_{212}, \bar{\rho} \leq H_{121} < \frac{\bar{\rho}}{1 - \alpha},
A
\leq
\frac
{\sqrt{\frac{4P^2 }{H_{121}} {H}_{2, 2}{H}_{1, 2} + 1} - 1}
{2P {H}_{1, 2}}
\right\}
\nonumber\\
& +
2\textmd{Prob}
\left\{
H_{121} \geq H_{212}, H_{121} \geq \frac{\bar{\rho}}{1 - \alpha},
A
\leq
\frac
{\sqrt{\frac{4P^2 }{H_{121}} {H}_{2, 2}{H}_{1, 2} + 1} - 1}
{2P {H}_{1, 2}}
<
B
\right\}
\nonumber\\
& \leq
2\underbrace{\textmd{Prob}
\left\{
\bar{\rho} \leq H_{121} < \frac{\bar{\rho}}{1 - \alpha},
H_{121} A^2 {H}_{1, 2} + \frac{A}{P}H_{121}
\leq
{H}_{2, 2} < H_{121} {H}_{1, 2} + \frac{H_{121} }{P}
\right\}}_{ = I_{1}}
\nonumber\\
& +
2\underbrace{\textmd{Prob}
\left\{
H_{121} \geq \frac{\bar{\rho}}{1 - \alpha},
H_{121} A^2 {H}_{1, 2} + \frac{A}{P}H_{121}
\leq
{H}_{2, 2} < H_{121} B^2 {H}_{1, 2} + \frac{B}{P} H_{121}
\right\}.}_{= I_{2}}\end{aligned}$$ The upper bound on $I_{1}$ can be derived as $$\begin{aligned}
I_{1}
\leq
\textmd{Prob}
\left\{
\bar{\rho} \leq H_{121} \leq \frac{\bar{\rho} }{1 - \alpha}
\right\}
=
\int_{\bar{\rho}}^{\frac{\bar{\rho} }{1 - \alpha}}
f_{H_{121}}(x){\rm d}x
=
\frac
{e^{-\frac{\bar{\rho}}{P}}}
{\epsilon \bar{\rho} + 1}
\left(
1 -
\frac
{\epsilon \bar{\rho} + 1}
{\epsilon \frac{\bar{\rho}}{1 - \alpha} + 1}
e^{-\frac{\bar{\rho}}{P (1 - \alpha)}\alpha}
\right).\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Since $1 - x e^{-y} \leq 1 - x + xy$ when $0 < x \leq 1, y >0$, $\epsilon \bar{\rho} + 1 \geq 1$, $\frac{1}{1 - \alpha}\geq 1$, and $1 - \alpha \geq \frac{1}{2}$, $I_{1}$ is further bounded by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{I_11_OUT}
I_{1}
& \leq
\frac
{{e^{-\frac{\bar{\rho}}{P}}}}
{{{\epsilon \bar{\rho} + 1}}}
\left(
1 -
\frac
{\epsilon \bar{\rho} + 1}
{\epsilon \frac{\bar{\rho}}{1 - \alpha} + 1}
+
\frac
{\epsilon \bar{\rho} + 1}
{ \epsilon\frac{\bar{\rho}}{{1 - \alpha}} + 1}
\times
{ \frac{\bar{\rho}}{P {(1 - \alpha)}}\alpha}
\right)
\nonumber\\
& \leq
e^{-\frac{\bar{\rho}}{P}}
\left(
1 -
\frac
{\epsilon \bar{\rho} + 1}
{\epsilon \frac{\bar{\rho}}{1 - \alpha} + 1}
+
\frac
{\epsilon \bar{\rho} + 1}
{ \epsilon \bar{\rho} + 1}
\times
{ \frac{\bar{\rho}}{P \times { \frac{1}{2}}}\alpha}
\right)
\nonumber\\
& \leq
{{e^{-\frac{\bar{\rho}}{P}}}}
\left[1 + \frac{2\bar{\rho}}{P}\right] \alpha \leq C_3 \alpha,\end{aligned}$$ where $C_3 = 2$. The last inequality arises from $e^{-x}(1 + 2x) \leq 2 e^{-\frac{1}{2}}\leq 2$ for $x \geq 0$. Subsequently, $I_{2}$ is upper-bounded by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{sum_I_2}
I_{2}
& =
\frac{1}{\epsilon}
\int_{\underbrace{\frac{\bar{\rho}}{1 - \alpha}}_{\geq \bar{\rho}}}^{\infty}
f_{H_{121}}(x)
\int_0^{\infty}
e^{-\frac{H_{1, 2}}{\epsilon}}
\int_{x A^2 {H}_{12} + \frac{A}{P}x}^{x B^2 {H}_{12} + \frac{B}{P}x}
e^{-H_{2, 2}}
{\rm d}H_{2, 2}
{\rm d}H_{1, 2}
{\rm d}x
\nonumber\\
& \leq
\frac{1}{\epsilon}
\int_{{\bar{\rho}}}^{\infty}
f_{H_{121}}(x)
\int_0^{\infty}
e^{-\frac{H_{1, 2}}{\epsilon}}
\int_{x A^2 {H}_{12} + \frac{A}{P}x}^{x B^2 {H}_{12} + \frac{B}{P}x}
e^{-H_{2, 2}}
{\rm d}H_{2, 2}
{\rm d}H_{1, 2}
{\rm d}x
\nonumber\\
& =
\frac{1}{\epsilon}
\int_{\bar{\rho}}^{\infty}
f_{H_{121}}(x)
\left(
\frac
{e^{-\frac{A}{P}x}}
{x A^2 + \frac{1}{\epsilon}}
-
\frac
{e^{-\frac{B}{P}x}}
{x B^2 + \frac{1}{\epsilon}}
\right)
{\rm d}x
\nonumber\\
& =
\frac{1}{\epsilon}
\int_{\bar{\rho}}^{\infty}
f_{H_{121}}(x)
\frac
{\overbrace{\left(\frac{e^{-\frac{A}{P}x}}{\epsilon}\right)}^{\leq 1}\overbrace{\left(1 - e^{-\frac{\alpha}{P}x}\right) }^{\leq \frac{\alpha}{P} x}}
{\underbrace{\left(x A^2 + \frac{1}{\epsilon}\right)\left(x B^2 + \frac{1}{\epsilon}\right)}_{\geq \frac{1}{\epsilon^2}}}
{\rm d}x
+
\frac{1}{\epsilon}
\int_{\bar{\rho}}^{\infty}
f_{H_{121}}(x)
\frac
{B^2 x \overbrace{e^{-\frac{A}{P}x}}^{\leq 1}\overbrace{\left(1 - \frac{A^2}{B^2}e^{-\frac{\alpha}{P}x}\right)}^{\leq 1 - \frac{A^2}{B^2} + \frac{A^2}{B^2} {\frac{\alpha}{P}x}} }
{\left(x A^2 + \frac{1}{\epsilon}\right)\left(x B^2 + \frac{1}{\epsilon}\right)}
{\rm d}x
\nonumber\\
& \leq \frac{1}{\epsilon}
\int_{\bar{\rho}}^{\infty}
f_{H_{121}}(x)
\frac
{\frac{1}{\epsilon}\left(\frac{\alpha}{P} x\right) }
{\frac{1}{\epsilon^2 }}
{\rm d}x
+
\frac{1}{\epsilon}
\int_{\bar{\rho}}^{\infty}
f_{H_{121}}(x)
\frac
{B^2 x \left(1 - \frac{A^2}{B^2} + \frac{A^2}{B^2} {\frac{\alpha}{P}x}\right) }
{\underbrace{\left(x A^2 + \frac{1}{\epsilon}\right)\left(x B^2 + \frac{1}{\epsilon}\right)}_{\geq \frac{A^2 x}{\epsilon}}}
{\rm d}x
\nonumber\\
&\leq \frac{1}{\epsilon}
\int_{\bar{\rho}}^{\infty}
f_{H_{121}}(x)
\frac
{\frac{1}{\epsilon}\left(\frac{\alpha}{P} x\right) }
{\frac{1}{\epsilon^2 }}
{\rm d}x
+
\frac{1}{\epsilon}
\int_{\bar{\rho}}^{\infty}
f_{H_{121}}(x)
\frac
{B^2 x \left(1 - \frac{A^2}{B^2} \right) }
{\left(x A^2 + \frac{1}{\epsilon}\right)\left(x B^2 + \frac{1}{\epsilon}\right)}
{\rm d}x
+
\frac{1}{\epsilon}
\int_{\bar{\rho}}^{\infty}
f_{H_{121}}(x)
\frac
{B^2 x \left(\frac{A^2}{B^2} {\frac{\alpha}{P}x}\right) }
{ \frac{A^2 x}{\epsilon}}
{\rm d}x
\nonumber\\
& =
\underbrace{\int_{\bar{\rho}}^{\infty}
f_{H_{121}}(x) \frac{2\alpha x}{P} {\rm d}x}_{ = I_{2, 1}}
+
\frac{1}{\epsilon}
\underbrace{\int_{\bar{\rho}}^{\infty}
f_{H_{121}}(x)
\frac
{ (B^2 - A^2 ) x }
{{\left(x A^2 + \frac{1}{\epsilon}\right)\left(x B^2 + \frac{1}{\epsilon}\right)}}
{\rm d}x.}_{ = I_{2, 2}}\end{aligned}$$ The upper bound on $I_{2, 1}$ is derived as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{I_121_OUT}
I_{2, 1}
& \leq
\int_{\bar{\rho}}^{\infty}
f_{H_{121}}(x) \frac{2\alpha x}{P} {\rm d}x
=
\frac{2\alpha }{P}
\textmd{E}\left[\frac{H_{1, 1}}{H_{2, 1} + \frac{1}{P}}\right]
=
\frac{2\alpha }{\epsilon P}
\int_0^{\infty}
e^{-H_{1, 1}}
\int_0^{\infty}
e^{-\frac{H_{2, 1}}{\epsilon}}
\frac{H_{1, 1}}{H_{2, 1} + \frac{1}{P}}
{\rm d}H_{1, 1} {\rm d}H_{2, 1}
\nonumber\\
& =
\frac{2\alpha }{\epsilon P}
\int_0^{\infty}
\frac{e^{-\frac{H_{2, 1}}{\epsilon}}}{H_{2, 1} + \frac{1}{P}}
{\rm d}H_{2, 1}
=
\frac{2\alpha e^{\frac{1}{\epsilon P}}}{\epsilon P}
\int_\frac{1}{\epsilon P}^{\infty}
\frac{e^{-z}}{z}
{\rm d}z
\leq
\frac{2\log(1 + \epsilon P)}{\epsilon P}\alpha \leq C_4 \alpha,\end{aligned}$$ where $C_4 = 2$. The last inequality is from the exponential integral $\int_x^{\infty}\frac{e^{-y}}{y}{\rm d}y \leq e^{-x} \log\left(1 + \frac{1}{x}\right)$ [@Handbook] as well as $\log(1 + x) \leq x$ for $x\geq 0$.
Substituting $A = \frac{\bar{\rho}}{x}$ $ B = A + \alpha$, and $f_{H_{121}}(\cdot)$ into $I_{2, 2}$ yields $$\begin{aligned}
\label{I_122_OUT}
I_{2, 2}
& =
\underbrace{\frac{1}{\epsilon }
\int_{\bar{\rho}}^{\infty}
\left[\frac{ e^{-\frac{x}{P}}}{P (\epsilon x + 1)} + \frac{\epsilon e^{-\frac{x}{P}}}{(\epsilon x + 1)^2}\right]
\frac
{ \alpha^2 x }
{{\left(x A^2 + \frac{1}{\epsilon }\right)\left(x B^2 + \frac{1}{\epsilon }\right)}}
{\rm d}x}_{=I_{2, 2, 1}}
\nonumber\\
& +
\underbrace{\frac{1}{\epsilon }
\int_{{\bar{\rho}}}^{\infty}
\left[\frac{e^{-\frac{x}{P}}}{P (\epsilon x + 1)} + \frac{\epsilon e^{-\frac{x}{P}}}{(\epsilon x + 1)^2}\right]
\frac
{ 2 \alpha \bar{\rho} }
{{\left(x A^2 + \frac{1}{\epsilon }\right)\left(x B^2 + \frac{1}{\epsilon }\right)}}
{\rm d}x}_{=I_{2, 2, 2}}.\end{aligned}$$ $I_{2, 2, 1}$ is bounded by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Final_I_1221}
I_{2, 2, 1}
& =
\frac{1}{\epsilon }
\int_{\bar{\rho}}^{\infty}
\frac{ {e^{-\frac{x}{P}}}}{P\underbrace{ (\epsilon x + 1)}_{\geq \epsilon x}}
\frac
{ \alpha^2 x }
{\underbrace{\left(x A^2 + \frac{1}{\epsilon }\right)\left(x B^2 + \frac{1}{\epsilon }\right)}_{\geq \frac{1}{\epsilon^2}}}
{\rm d}x
+
\frac{1}{\epsilon }
\int_{\bar{\rho}}^{\infty}
\frac{\epsilon \overbrace{e^{-\frac{x}{P}}}^{\leq 1}}{(\epsilon x + 1)^2}
\frac
{ \alpha^2 x }
{{\left(x A^2 + \frac{1}{\epsilon }\right)\left(x B^2 + \frac{1}{\epsilon }\right)}}
{\rm d}x
\nonumber\\
& \leq
\frac{1}{\epsilon }
\int_{0}^{\infty}
\frac{ e^{-\frac{x}{P}}}{P \epsilon x }
\frac
{ \alpha^2 x }
{{\frac{1}{\epsilon^2}}}
{\rm d}x
+
\frac{1}{\epsilon }
\int_{0}^{\infty}
\frac{\epsilon }{(\epsilon x + 1)^2}
\frac
{ \alpha^2 x }
{{\left(x A^2 + \frac{1}{\epsilon }\right)\left(x B^2 + \frac{1}{\epsilon }\right)}}
{\rm d}x
\nonumber\\
& =
{\alpha^2
\int_{0}^{\infty}
\frac{e^{-\frac{x}{P}}}{P }
{\rm d}x }
+ {\alpha^2
\int_{0}^{\infty}
\frac{1}{(\epsilon x + 1)^2}
\frac
{ x }
{{\left(x A^2 + \frac{1}{\epsilon}\right)\left(x \underbrace{B^2}_{\geq \alpha^2} + \frac{1}{\epsilon}\right)}}
{\rm d}x }
\nonumber\\
& \leq
\alpha ^2 +
\alpha^2
\int_{0}^{\infty}
\frac{1}{(\epsilon x + 1)^2}
\frac
{ x }
{{\left(x \left(\frac{\bar{\rho}}{x}\right)^2 + \frac{1}{\epsilon}\right)\left(x \alpha ^2 + \frac{1}{\epsilon}\right)}}
{\rm d}x
\nonumber\\
& =
\alpha^2 +
\frac{1}{\epsilon}
\int_{0}^{\infty}
\frac{1}{\left( x + \frac{1}{\epsilon}\right)^2}
\frac
{ x^2 }
{{\left(x + \epsilon \bar{\rho}^2\right)\left(x + \frac{1}{\epsilon \alpha^2}\right)}}
{\rm d}x
\nonumber\\
& \leq
\alpha^2 +
\frac{1}{\epsilon}
\int_{0}^{\infty}
\frac
{ 1 }
{{\left( x + \frac{1}{\epsilon}\right)\left(x + \frac{1}{\epsilon \alpha^2}\right)}}
{\rm d}x
=
\alpha^2 +
\frac
{\alpha^2 \log\frac{1}{\alpha^2}}
{1 - \alpha^2}
\leq\frac{\alpha}{2} + \frac{\alpha^2 \left(\frac{1}{\alpha^2}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}}{\frac{1}{2}\left(1 - \frac{1}{4}\right)} =C_5 \alpha,\end{aligned}$$ where $C_5 = \frac{7}{8}$. The last inequality is because $\alpha \leq \frac{1}{2}$ and $\log x \leq 2 {x^{\frac{1}{2}}}$ for $x>0$.
The upper bound of $I_{2, 2, 2}$ is derived as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{I_1222}
I_{2, 2, 2}
& =
\frac{1}{\epsilon }
\int_{{\bar{\rho}}}^{\infty}
\frac{e^{-\frac{x}{P}}}{P \underbrace{(\epsilon x + 1)}_{\geq \epsilon x}}
\frac
{ 2 \alpha \bar{\rho} }
{\underbrace{\left(x A^2 + \frac{1}{\epsilon }\right)\left(x B^2 + \frac{1}{\epsilon }\right)}_{\geq \frac{1}{\epsilon^2}}}
{\rm d}x
+
\frac{1}{\epsilon }
\int_{{\bar{\rho}}}^{\infty}
\frac{\epsilon \overbrace{e^{-\frac{x}{P}}}^{\leq 1}}{\underbrace{(\epsilon x + 1)^2}_{\geq \epsilon^2 x^2}}
\frac
{ 2 \alpha \bar{\rho} }
{\underbrace{\left(x A^2 + \frac{1}{\epsilon }\right)\left(x B^2 + \frac{1}{\epsilon }\right)}_{\geq \frac{1}{\epsilon^2}}}
{\rm d}x
\nonumber\\
& \leq
\frac{1}{\epsilon }
\int_{{\bar{\rho}}}^{\infty}
\frac
{ e^{-\frac{x}{P}} \times 2 \alpha \bar{\rho} }
{P \times \frac{x}{\epsilon}}
{\rm d}x
+
\frac{1}{\epsilon }
\int_{{\bar{\rho}}}^{\infty}
\frac
{ \epsilon \times 2 \alpha \bar{\rho} }
{x^2 }
{\rm d}x
=
\frac{2 \alpha \bar{\rho}}{P}
\int_{{\bar{\rho}}}^{\infty}
\frac
{ e^{-\frac{x}{P}} }
{{ x}}
{\rm d}x
+
2 \alpha \bar{\rho}
\int_{{\bar{\rho}}}^{\infty}
\frac
{1}
{{x^2}}
{\rm d}x \nonumber\\
& =
\frac{2 \alpha \bar{\rho}}{P}
\int_{\frac{\bar{\rho}}{P}}^{\infty}
\frac
{ e^{-z} }
{{ z}}
{\rm d}z
+
2
\alpha
\leq \left[{2 e^{-\frac{\bar{\rho}}{P}}}\frac{ \log\left(1 + \frac{P}{\bar{\rho}}\right)}{\frac{P}{\bar{\rho}}}+2\right] \alpha \leq C_6 \alpha,\end{aligned}$$ where $C_6 = 4$. After substituting and into , $I_{ 2, 2} \leq C_7 \alpha$, where $C_7 = C_5 + C_6$. Combined with , , and , $I_{2} \leq C_8 \alpha$ and $\textmd{OUT}
\left(\tilde{\textit{GQ}}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf it}}\right) - \textmd{OUT}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf it}}^{\sf opt} \leq 2(I_{1} + I_{2}) \leq C_9 \alpha$ when $M \geq 2$, where $C_8 = C_4 + C_7$ and $C_9 = 2 \left(C_3 + C_8\right)$. Letting $C_1 = \max\{C_2, C_9\}$, $\textmd{OUT}
\left(\tilde{\textit{GQ}}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf it}}\right) - \textmd{OUT}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf it}}^{\sf opt} \leq \frac{C_1}{M}$ for any $M \in \mathtt{N} - \{0\}$.
The upper bound on the average feedback rate of $\textit{DQ}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf it}}$ is derived as $\textmd{FR}\left(\textit{DQ}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf it}}\right)
\leq 1 + 2\left\lceil \log_2\left(M + 1\right) \right\rceil
\leq 2\log_2\left(M + 1\right) + 3$, which completes the proof.
[1]{} K. Anand, E. Gunawan, and Y. L. Guan, “Beamformer design for the [MIMO]{} interference channels under limited channel feedback,” *IEEE Trans. Commun.*, vol. 61, no. 8, pp. 3246$-$3258, August 2013. E. Koyuncu and H. Jafarkhani, “Distributed beamforming in wireless multiuser relay-interference networks with quantized feedback,” *IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory*, vol. 58, no. 7, pp. 4538$-$4576, July 2012. J. C. Roh and B. D. Rao, “Transmit beamforming in multiple-antenna systems with finite rate feedback: a VQ-based approach,” *IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory*, vol. 52, no. 3, pp. 1101$-$1112, Mar. 2006. E. Koyuncu and H. Jafarkhani, “Very low-rate variable-length channel quantization for minimum outage probability,” in *IEEE Data Compression Conference (DCC)*, Mar. 2013, pp. 261$-$270. H. Farhadi, C. Wang, and M. Skoglund, “Power control in wireless interference networks with limited feedback,” in *International Symposium on Wireless Communication Systems (ISWCS)*, Aug 2012, pp. 671$-$675. H. Farhadi, C. Wang, and M. Skoglund, “On the throughput of wireless interference networks with limited feedback,” in *IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT)*, July 2011, pp. 762$-$766. A. Gjendemsj[ø]{}, D. Gesbert, G. E. [Ø]{}ien and S. G. Kiani, “Optimal power allocation and scheduling for two-cell capacity maximization,” in *4th International Symposium on Modeling and Optimization in Mobile, Ad Hoc and Wireless Networks*, 2006, pp. 1$-$6. Y. Linde, A. Buzo, and R. M. Gray, “An algorithm for vector quantizer design,” in *IEEE Trans. Commun.*, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 84$-$95, 1980. M. Abramowitz and I. A. Stegun, “Handbook of mathematical functions,” 1964.
[^1]: We choose the sum-rate outage threshold to be $2\rho$ for a more fair comparison with the rate threshold $\rho$ that we shall specify for the minimum-rate outage threshold.
[^2]: The average feedback rate in this paper is the sum of the average number of feedback bits fed back by each receiver.
[^3]: Since we focus on showing the average feedback rate is finite for any $P$, it is beyond the scope of our paper to derive the tightest bound, i.e., the smallest value for $C_0$.
[^4]: The performance of $\textmd{\textit{DQ}}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf it}}$ can be improved by taking variable-length coding into consideration. We use fixed-length coding here for convenience.
[^5]: We assume the quantization process in $\textit{DQ}_{{\sf mr}, {\sf ts}}$ still continues in round $m + 1$. Otherwise, it is not necessary to consider Lemma 1 when $l = m + 1$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
address: |
[Department of Theoretical Physics, Faculty of Mathematics and Physics,]{}\
[Charles University, V Holešovičkách 2, 180 00 Prague 8, Czech Republic]{}\
[[email protected], [email protected], [email protected]]{}
author:
- 'Tom'' aš Ledvinka, Martin Žofka and Jiří Bičák'
title: 'Relativistic disks as sources of Kerr-Newman fields'
---
\#1\#2\#3\#4[[\#1]{} [**\#2**]{}, \#3 (\#4)]{}
\#1
Introduction
============
Although much effort has been devoted to discovering exact solutions of Einstein’s equations, there are only a few “physically acceptable” solutions available. What is in particular lacking are sources which would produce numerous known vacuum or electrovacuum metrics burdened by singularities.
Most vacuum [**static**]{} Weyl solutions can arise as the metrics of counter-rotating relativistic disks[@blbk; @blbp]. The method used to construct such sources resembles the method of images in electrostatics. Alternatively, it consists in first cutting out a portion of a stationary space-time “between” two hypersurfaces and then glueing suitably these hypersurfaces together. The jump in the normal derivatives of the resulting potentials induces a matter distribution in the disk which arises due to the identification. One has then to analyze whether the matter is physically acceptable.
Later the method has been used to construct physical disk sources of vacuum [**stationary**]{} space-times, in particular, of Kerr metrics[@bl; @lbp].
A similar procedure can be used to construct disk sources of stationary electrovacuum space-times as, for example, of Kerr-Newman fields. The resulting disks then contain rotating matter and also electric currents which arise due to the jumps of the (normal components of) electromagnetic fields.
Kerr-Newman Fields
==================
It is convenient to use the Weyl-Papapetrou (W-P) form of the line element ds\^2 = e\^[-2]{}-e\^[2]{}(dt+A d)\^2 , with the simple relation to Boyer-Lindquist (B-L) coordinates z = (r-M), = . Regarding these relations, functions $\nu,\zeta,A$ entering the metric can be found from the standard form of the K-N metric in B-L coordinates.
In the W-P coordinates we exclude the region $z\in[-b,b]$. Using then the formalism for thin shells[@baiz] which can carry an electric charge[@ku], we find that the disk has no radial pressure and the surface stress-energy tensor and electric current can simply be expressed in terms of the derivatives of the metric and electromagnetic potentials at $z=b$ (indices $a$,$b$ correspond to $t$,$\varphi$) \_[ab]{} = [8 ]{} ( [[ g]{}\_[ab]{}g\_]{})\_[,z]{} , \_[a]{} = -[1 2]{}( [ A]{}\_a )\_[,z]{} . The existence of dragging results in a non-diagonal stress-energy tensor. The following two models of the disk are considered. In the first model the disk is constructed from rings with internal pressure. The necessary condition is that ${ S}_{ab}$ can be diagonalized, i.e., one can find, at any radius, $\varphi$-isotropic observer (FIO) who sees only energy density and azimuthal pressure. In the charged case the rings are also charged and conduct a current to form the current density ${ J}_a$.
In the second model the disks are described as two counter-rotating streams of freely moving charged particles. The fact that in the static case their velocities must be identical and opposite, allows one to find $V_{\pm} = \pm \sqrt{S^\varphi_\varphi/S^t_t}$. When dragging is present, the stream velocities $U^a_\pm$ must be determined from the geodesic (or the electro-geodesic) equation \_ g\_[ab,()]{} U\^a\_U\^b\_= - \_ F\_[() c]{} U\^c\_. Although ${ S}^{ab}$ has three different components, the Einstein and contracted Gauss-Codazzi equations guarantee that the following decompositions can be made S\^[ab]{} = \_+ U\^a\_+ U\^b\_+ + \_- U\^a\_- U\^b\_- , J\^ = \_+ U\^a\_+ + \_- U\^a\_-.
Properties of the disks
=======================
The central mass densities and the central electric charge densities of the disks can be expressed in analytic forms \_c = [[[M]{}]{}]{}[[(b+M)\^2-a\^2-Q\^2(1+b/M)]{}]{} , \_c = [Q ]{} [[(b+M)\^2-a\^2]{}\^2]{} . Other physical properties of the disks can be best exhibited graphically. Here we limit ourselves to present just one example corresponding to the disk producing the Kerr-Newman gravitational and electromagnetic fields with $M=1$, $a=0.4$ and $Q=0.1$. In the figures the disks with $b/M=0.912, 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4,
1.5$ are considered. The disk with $b/M=0.912$ cannot be constructed from the counter-rotating streams, even though it satisfies both the weak and strong energy conditions. The disks become highly relativistic in central regions but they all have “classical” properties at large $R$ (proper circumferential radius). The mass and charge densities (as measured by FIOs) decrease rapidly with $R$. The disks have infinite extensions, their total mass, charge, and angular momentum are finite. They should have properties common with finite relativistic disks. And they represent the only physical sources of Kerr-Newman fields available today.
a aā a\
Figure 1. Radial distribution of mass Figure 2. Velocity of FIO with respect\
density as seen by FIO to LNRF and the ratio of azimuthal\
pressure to mass density (dashed)\
\
Figure 3. Distribution of mass density Figure 4. Distribution of charge density\
in both streams $\epsilon_+$ and $\epsilon_-$ (dashed) in both streams $\sigma_+$ and $\sigma_-$ (dashed)\
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
[99]{} J. Bičák, D. Lynden-Bell, and J. Katz, . J. Bičák, D. Lynden-Bell, and C.Pichon, . J. Bičák and T.Ledvinka, . C. Pichon and D. Lynden-Bell, . W. Israel, ; . K. Kuchař, .
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Examining textbooks of thermodynamics we have not able to find a proof of increasing of entropy under free adiabatic expansion in vacuum based on the state equation of the Van der Waals gas. This communication remedies the situation. During proving we faced with an amusing example of apparent violation of thermodynamics second law.'
address: 'General Physics Department, Faculty of Physics, M.V.Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia, 119992'
author:
- 'Yu.A.Koksharov'
title: Apparent violation of thermodynamics second law under Van der Waals gas expansion in vacuum
---
The paradoxes and mistakes are not rare in textbooks of thermodynamics \[1,2\]. Many of them are concerned with entropy and the second law of thermodynamics \[1-3\]. An analysis of thermodynamics paradoxes is instructive for students and can be usuful supplement to ordinary problems.
The second law is often deduced in classical thermodynamics as a principle of increasing of entropy in irreversible adiabatic processes \[4\]. For example, when a gas makes a free adiabatic expansion in vacuum its entropy $S$ should increase. This is true for any gas regardless of its state equation due to the following general formula \[5\]: $${\partial S\over \partial V}\Big|_{U}={p\over T}>0,$$ where $V$ is the system volume, $U$ is the internal energy, $T$ is the absolute temperature, $p$ is the pressure.
In case of an ideal gas the increase of entropy in the process of free adiabatic expansion in vacuum can be shown plainly using the first law of thermodynamics $$\delta Q=dU+\delta A,
\eqno(1)$$ where $\delta Q$ is the heat received by the gas from its surroundings, $\delta A$ is the work of external forces, which surroundings exert on the gas; the entropy definition $$dS={\delta Q\over T};
\eqno(2)$$ and the equation of state of an ideal gas $$pV=\nu RT,$$ where R is the gas constant, $\nu$ is the mole number.
Indeed, in that case any infinitesimal change of $S$ is equal to $$dS={1\over T}(dU+\delta A)=
{1\over T}(C_V dT + pdV)=
C_V{dT\over T}+\nu R{dV\over V},
\eqno(3)$$ where $C_V$ is the isovolumic specific heat.
The integration of equation (3) yields a change of the entropy when the ideal gas goes from an initial state 1 to a final state 2: $$\Delta S=C_V\ln({T_2\over T_1})+\nu R\ln({V_2\over V_1})
\eqno(4)$$
Note that though equations (2,3) are valid only for reversible processes, equation (4) is applicable also to non-reversible processes, if initial and final states are thermal equilibrium.
We consider the adiabatic process, and, therefore, $Q=0$. Besides, the total system volume $V_2=const$, and we get $ A=0$. Hence, $\Delta U=Q-A=0$ and for the ideal gas $$\Delta T={\Delta U\over C_V}=0 \rightarrow T_2=T_1 .$$
Using equation (2) and taking into account $V_2>V_1$, we get $$\Delta S=\nu R\ln({V_2\over V_1})>0.$$
A more complicate task is to develop a simple proof of entropy increasing under adiabatic expansion in vacuum in case of the Van der Waals gas. The state equation of the Van der Waals gas is written usually as \[6\] $$(p+{a\over V_\mu^2})(V_\mu-b)=RT,
\eqno(5)$$ where $V_\mu={V\over \nu}$ is the molar volume, $a,b$ are Van der Waals constants.
Using equations (1,5) we get formulas for changes of the entropy and the internal energy of the Van der Waals gas \[7\]: $$\Delta S=C_{\mu,V}\ln({T_2\over T_1})+
R\ln({V_{\mu,2}-b\over V_{\mu,1}-b})
\eqno(6)$$ $$\Delta U=C_{\mu,V}(T_2 - T_1)+
a({1\over V_{\mu,1}} - {1\over V_{\mu,2}}),
\eqno(7)$$ where $C_{\mu,V}$ is the isovolumic molar specific heat.
Since $\Delta U=0$, it follows from equation (5): $$T_2=T_1-{a(V_{\mu,2}-V_{\mu,1})\over C_{\mu,V}V_{\mu,1}V_{\mu,2}}
\eqno(8)$$
Using $V_{\mu,2}>V_{\mu,1}$, from equation (8) we get $T_2<T_1$, i.e., the Van der Waals gas always refrigerates under free adiabatic expansion in vacuum.
Substituting equation (8) for $T_2$ in equation (6), we obtain: $$\Delta S=C_{\mu,V}\ln(1-{a(V_{\mu,2}-V_{\mu,1})
\over C_{\mu,V}V_{\mu,1}V_{\mu,2}T_1})+
R\ln({V_{\mu,2}-b\over V_{\mu,1}-b})
\eqno(9)$$
Taking into account $V_{\mu,2}>V_{\mu,1}>b$, we conclude that in equation (9) the second item is always positive, while the first item is always negative. One would think, that assuming the values of $a,b,V_{\mu,1},V_{\mu,2}$ in equation (9) are fixed, we could choose $T_1$ sufficiently small, so that the sum (9) becomes negative (or equal to zero). However, [**this conclusion conflicts with the second thermodynamics law**]{}. Probably, our assumption is not correct. Let us prove that.
We begin with an inequality (see equation (6)): $$\Delta S=C_{V}\ln({T_2\over T_1})+
R\ln({V_{\mu,2}-b\over V_{\mu,1}-b})>0
\eqno(10)$$ From equation (10) it follows that: $$({T_2\over T_1})({V_{\mu,2}-b\over V_{\mu,1}-b})^{R\over C_V}>1 \rightarrow$$ $$T_2 (V_{\mu,2}-b)^{R\over C_V}> T_1 (V_{\mu,1}-b)^{R\over C_V}.
\eqno(11)$$
Substituting $T_2$ from equation (8) in equation (11), we get: $$T_1((V_{\mu,2}-b)^{R\over C_V} -(V_{\mu,1}-b)^{R\over C_V}) >
(V_{\mu,2}-b)^{R\over C_V} {a\over C_V}
{V_{\mu,2}-V_{\mu,1}\over V_{\mu,1}V_{\mu,2}}
\eqno(12)$$
Assuming $V_{\mu,2}=V_{\mu,1}+dV$, where $dV<<V_{\mu,1}$, from equation (12) we have: $${RT\over C_V}(V_{\mu}-b)^{{R\over C_V}-1}dV >
(V_{\mu}-b)^{R\over C_V}{a\over C_V}{dV\over V_{\mu}^2}\rightarrow$$ $$RT > a {V_{\mu}-b\over V_{\mu}^2},
\eqno(13)$$ where $V_{\mu}=V_{\mu,1}$, $T=T_1$.
However, from equation (5) it follows that $$a {V_{\mu}-b\over V_{\mu}^2}=RT-p(V_{\mu}-b)<RT,
\eqno(14)$$ when $p>0$ and $V_{\mu}-b>0$.
It remains to note that equations (13) and (14) are equivalent. Because all transformations from equation (10) to equation (13) are identical, we conclude that while the Van der Waals state equation (5) is valid, equation (10) is true also.
This completes the formal proof of increasing of the entropy of the Wan der Vaals gas in the infinitesimal process of the free adiabatic expansion in vacuum. The process with finite change of the volume can be regarded as an integral sum of corresponding infinitesimal processes. Hence, any process of free adiabatic expansion in vacuum for the Van der Waals gas is characterized by the entropy increase. Presupposed violation of thermodynamics second law is apparent since we can not vary parameters in equation (9) independently of one another.
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
[7]{}
Bazarov I P 1993 [*Mistakes and errors in thermodynamics*]{} (Moscow: Moscow University Press)
Bazarov I P 1964 [*Thermodynamics*]{} (Oxford: Pergamon Press)
Kvasnikov I A 2002 [*Thermodynamics and statistical physics*]{} (Moscow: Editorial URSS) vol 1
Lieb E and Yngvason J 1999 [*Physics Report*]{} [**310**]{} 1-69
Kubo R 1968 [*Thermodynamics*]{} ( Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company) p 170
Kubo R 1968 [*Thermodynamics*]{} ( Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company) p 15
Kubo R 1968 [*Thermodynamics*]{} ( Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company) p 119
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We develop a completely new and straightforward method for simulating the joint law of the position and running maximum at a fixed time of a general Lévy process with a view to application in insurance and financial mathematics. Although different, our method takes lessons from Carr’s so-called ‘Canadization’ technique as well as Doney’s method of stochastic bounds for Lévy processes; see Carr [@Carr] and Doney [@Don04]. We rely fundamentally on the Wiener-Hopf decomposition for Lévy processes as well as taking advantage of recent developments in factorisation techniques of the latter theory due to Vigon [@V] and Kuznetsov [@Kuz]. We illustrate our Wiener-Hopf Monte-Carlo method on a number of different processes, including a new family of Lévy processes called hypergeometric Lévy processes. Moreover, we illustrate the robustness of working with a Wiener-Hopf decomposition with two extensions. The first extension shows that if one can successfully simulate for a given Lévy processes then one can successfully simulate for any independent sum of the latter process and a compound Poisson process. The second extension illustrates how one may produce a straightforward approximation for simulating the two sided exit problem.
[Key words and phrases]{}: Lévy processes, exotic option pricing, Wiener-Hopf factorisation.
MSC 2000 subject classifications: 65C05, 68U20.
title: 'A Wiener-Hopf Monte-Carlo simulation technique for Lévy processes.'
---
[A. Kuznetsov]{}[^1], [A. E. Kyprianou]{}[^2], [J. C. Pardo]{}[^3], [K. van Schaik]{}[^4]
Introduction
============
Let us suppose that $X=\{X_{t}:t\geq 0\}$ is a general Lévy process with law $\mathbb{P}$ and Lévy measure $\Pi$. That is to say, $X$ is a Markov process with paths that are right continuous with left limits such that the increments are stationary and independent and whose characteristic function at each time $t$ is given by the Lévy-Khinchine representation \[eq1\] \[e\^[[i]{}X\_t]{}\]=e\^[-t()]{},, where $$\label{lrep}
\Psi(\theta) =
{\rm i}\theta a + \frac{1}{2}\sigma^2\theta^2+
\int\limits_{\r}(1-e^{{\rm i}\theta x}+
{\rm i}\theta x \mathbf{1}_{\{|x|<1\}})\Pi({\rm d}x)\,.$$ We have $a\in\mathbb{R}$, $\sigma^2\ge 0$ and $\Pi$ is a measure supported on $\mathbb{R}$ with $\Pi(\{0\})= 0$ and $\int_{\mathbb{R}}(x^2\wedge 1) \Pi({\rm d}x)<\infty$. Starting with the early work of Madan and Seneta [@MD], Lévy processes have played a central role in the theory of financial mathematics and statistics (see for example the books [@BL; @CT; @S; @SC]). More recently they have been extensively used in modern insurance risk theory (see for example Klüppelberg et al. [@KKM], Song and Vondraček [@SV]). The basic idea in financial mathematics and statistics is that the log of a stock price or risky asset follows the dynamics of a Lévy process whilst in insurance mathematics, it is the Lévy process itself which models the surplus wealth of an insurance company until ruin. There are also extensive applications of Lévy processes in queuing theory, genetics and mathematical biology as well as through their appearance in the theory of stochastic differential equations.
In both financial and insurance settings, a key quantity of generic interest is the joint law of the current position and the running maximum of a Lévy process at a fixed time if not the individual marginals associated with the latter bivarite law. For example, if we define $\overline{X}_t = \sup_{s\leq t}X_s$ then the pricing of barrier options boil down to evaluating expectations of the form $
\mathbb{E}[f(x+X_t) \mathbf{1}_{\{x+\overline{X}_t >b\}}]
$ for some appropriate function $f(x)$ and threshold $b>0$. Indeed if $f(x) = (K-e^x)^+$ then the latter expectation is related to the value of an ‘up-and-in’ put. In credit risk one is predominantly interested in the quantity $\widehat{\mathbb{P}}(\overline{X}_t <x)$ as a function in $x$ and $t$, where $\widehat{\mathbb{P}}$ is the law of the dual process $-X$. Indeed it is as a functional of the latter probabilities that the price of a credit default swap is computed; see for example the recent book of Schoutens and Cariboni [@SC]. One is similarly interested in $\widehat{\mathbb{P}}(\overline{X}_t \geq x)$ in ruin theory as these probabilities are also equivalent to the finite-time ruin probabilities.
One obvious way to do Monte-Carlo simulation of expectations involving the joint law of $(X_t, \overline{X}_t)$ that takes advantage of the stationary and independent increments of Lévy processes is to take a random walk approximation to the Lévy process, simulate multiple paths, taking care to record the maximum for each run. Whilst one is able to set things up in this way so that one samples exactly from the distribution of $X_t$, the law of the maximum of the underlying random walk will not agree with the law of $\overline{X}_t$.
Taking account of the fact that all Lévy processes respect a fundamental path decomposition known as the Wiener-Hopf factorisation, it turns out there is another very straightforward way to perform Monte-Carlo simulations for expectations involving the joint law of $(X_t, \overline{X}_t)$ which we introduce in this paper. Our method allows for exact sampling from the law of $(X_g, \overline{X}_g)$ where $g$ is a random time whose distribution can be concentrated arbitrarily close around $t$. There are several advantages of the technique we use which are discussed in detail in the subsequent sections of this paper. Firstly, when it is taken in context with very recent developments in Wiener-Hopf theory for Lévy processes, for example recent advances in the theory of scale functions for spectrally negative processes (see Kyprianou et al. [@KPR]), new complex analytical techniques due to Kuznetsov [@Kuz] and Vigon’s theory of philanthropy (see [@V]), one may quickly progress the algorithm to quite straightforward numerical work. Secondly, our Wiener-Hopf method takes advantage of a similar feature found in the, now classical, ‘Canadization’ method of Carr [@Carr] for numerical evaluation of optimal stopping problems. The latter is generally acknowledged as being more efficient than appealing to classical random walk approximation Monte-Carlo methods. Indeed, later in this paper, we present our numerical findings with some indication of performance against the method of random walk approximation. In this case, our Wiener-Hopf method appears to be extremely effective. Thirdly, in principle, our method handles better the phenomena of discontinuities which can occur with functionals of the form $
\mathbb{E}[f(x+X_t) \mathbf{1}_{\{x+\overline{X}_t >b\}}]
$ at the boundary point $x=b$. It is now well understood that the issue of regularity of the upper and lower half line for the underlying Lévy process (see Chapter 6 of [@Kypbook] for a definition) is responsible the appearance of a discontinuity at $x=b$ in such functions (cf. [@AK]). The nature of our Wiener-Hopf method naturally builds the distributional atom which is responsible for this discontinuity into the simulations.
Additional advantages to the method we propose include its simplicity with regard to numerical implementation. Moreover, as we shall also see in Section \[Sect:extensions\] of this paper, the natural probabilistic structure pertaining to Lévy processes that lies behind our so-called Wiener-Hopf Monte-Carlo method also allows for additional creativity when addressing some of the deficiencies of the method itself.
Wiener-Hopf Monte-Carlo simulation technique
============================================
The basis of the algorithm is the following simple observation which was pioneered by Carr [@Carr] and subsequently used in several contexts within mathematical finance for producing approximate solutions to free boundary value problems that appear as a result of optimal stopping problems that characterise the value of an American-type option.
Suppose that ${\mathbf{e}_1, \mathbf{e}_2, \cdots}$ are a sequence of i.i.d. exponentially distributed random variables with unit mean. Suppose they are all defined on a common product space with product law $\mathbf{P}$ which is orthogonal to the probability space on which the Lévy process $X$ is defined. For all $t>0$, we know from the Strong Law of Large Numbers that $$\sum_{i=1}^n \frac{t}{n}\mathbf{e}_i \rightarrow t \text{ as }n\uparrow\infty
\label{SLLN}$$ $\mathbf{P}$-almost surely. The random variable on the left hand side above is equal in law to a Gamma random variable with parameters $n$ and $n/t$. Henceforth we write it ${\bf g}(n, n/t)$. Recall that $(X, \mathbb{P})$ is our notation for a general Lévy process. Then writing $\overline{X}_t = \sup_{s\leq t}X_s$ we argue the case that, for sufficiently large $n$, a suitable approximation to $\mathbb{P}(X_t\in {\rm d}x, \, \overline{X}_t \in{\rm d}y)$ is $\mathbf{P}\times\mathbb{P}(X_{g(n,n/t)} \in {\rm d}x, \, \overline{X}_{g(n,n/t)} \in{\rm d}y)$.
This approximation gains practical value in the context of Monte-Carlo simulation when we take advantage of the fundamental path decomposition that applies to all Lévy processes over exponential time periods known as the Wiener-Hopf factorisation.
\[thm\_main\] For all $n\ge 1$ and $\lambda>0$ define $\mathbf{g}(n, \lambda) : = \sum_{i=1}^n\mathbf{e}_i/\lambda$. Then \[distr\_identity\] (X\_[(n,)]{}, \_[(n,)]{}) (V(n,), J(n,)) where $V(n,\lambda)$ and $J(n,\lambda)$ are defined iteratively for $n\ge 1$ as V(n,) &=& V(n-1,)+S\^[(n)]{}\_+ I\^[(n)]{}\_\
J(n, ) &=& ( J(n-1,), V(n-1,)+ S\^[(n)]{}\_) and $V(0,\lambda)=J(0,\lambda)=0$. Here, $S^{(0)}_\lambda = I^{(0)}_\lambda = 0$, $\{S^{(j)}_\lambda: j\ge 1\}$ are an i.i.d. sequence of random variables with common distribution equal to that of $\overline{X}_{\mathbf{e}_1/\lambda}$ and $\{I^{(j)}_\lambda : j\ge 1\}$ are another i.i.d. sequence of random variables with common distribution equal to that of $\underline{X}_{\mathbf{e}_1/\lambda}$.
Suppose we define $\overline{X}_{s,t} = \sup_{s\leq u\leq t}X_u$. Then it is trivial to note that $$\overline{X}_{\mathbf{g}(n,\lambda)} = \bigvee_{i=1}^n \overline{X}_{\mathbf{g}(i-1, \lambda), \mathbf{g}(i, \lambda)}
\label{max}$$ where $\mathbf{g}(0, \lambda) := 0$.
Next we prove by induction that for each $k =0,1,\cdots$ $$(X_{\mathbf{g}(n, \lambda)} : n\leq k) \stackrel{d}{=} \left(\sum_{j=1}^{n}\{S^{(j)}_\lambda+ I^{(j)}_\lambda\} : n\leq k\right).
\label{induction}$$ Note first that the above equality is trivially true when $k=1$ on account of the Wiener-Hopf factorisation. Indeed the latter tells us that $\overline{X}_{\mathbf{e}_1/\lambda}$ and $X_{\mathbf{e}_1/\lambda} -\overline{X}_{\mathbf{e}_1/\lambda}$ are independent and the second of the pair is equal in distribution to $\underline{X}_{\mathbf{e}_1/\lambda}$. Now suppose that (\[induction\]) is true for $k\geq 1$. Then stationary and independent increments of $X$ together with the Wiener-Hopf factorisation imply that $$X_{\mathbf{g}(k+1, \lambda)} \stackrel{d}{=} X_{\mathbf{g}(k,\lambda)} + X^{(k+1)}_{\mathbf{e}_{k+1}/\lambda}
= X_{\mathbf{g}(k,\lambda)} + S^{(k+1)}_\lambda + I_{\lambda}^{(k+1)}.$$ where $X^{(k+1)}$ is an independent copy of $X$, $S^{(k+1)}_\lambda : = \sup_{s\leq \mathbf{e}_{k+1}/\lambda}X^{(k+1)}_s$ and $I^{(k+1)}_\lambda : = \inf_{s\leq \mathbf{e}_{k+1}/\lambda}X^{k+1}_s$. The induction hypothesis thus holds for $k+1$.
For $n=0,1, \cdots$, stationary and independent increments of $X$ allows us to write $$\overline{X}_{\mathbf{g}(n, \lambda), \mathbf{g}(n+1, \lambda)}
\stackrel{d}{=} X_{\mathbf{g}(n, \lambda)} +\sup_{s\leq \mathbf{e}_{n+1}/\lambda}X^{(n+1)}_s
=X_{\mathbf{g}(n, \lambda)} + S_{\lambda}^{(n+1)}.$$ Hence for $k=0,1,\cdots$ $$(\overline{X}_{\mathbf{g}(n, \lambda), \mathbf{g}(n+1, \lambda)} : n\leq k) \stackrel{d}{=} \left( \sum_{j=1}^{n}\{S^{(j)}_\lambda+ I^{(j)}_\lambda\} + S^{(n+1)}_\lambda : n\leq k\right).$$ >From (\[max\]) and (\[induction\]) the result now follows.
Note that the idea of embedding a random walk into the path of a Lévy process with two types of step distribution determined by the Wiener-Hopf factorisation has been used in a different, and more theoretical context, by Doney [@Don04].
Given (\[SLLN\]) it is clear that the pair $(V(n, n/t), J(n, n/t))$ converges in distribution to $(X_t, \overline{X}_t)$. This suggests that we need only to be able to simulate i.i.d. copies of the distributions of $S_{n/t}: = S^{(1)}_{n/t}$ and $I_{n/t} : = I^{(1)}_{n/t}$ and then by a simple functional transformation we may produce a realisation of random variables $(X_{\mathbf{g}(n, n/t)},\overline{X}_{\mathbf{g}(n, n/t)})$. Given a suitably nice function $F$, using standard Monte-Carlo methods one estimates for large $k$ $$\mathbb{E}[F(X_t, \overline{X}_{t })] \simeq \frac{1}{k}\sum_{m=1}^k F(V^{(m)}(n, n/t), J^{(m)}(n, n/t))
\label{WH-MC}$$ where $(V^{(m)}(n, n/t), J^{(m)}(n, n/t))$ are i.i.d. copies of $(V(n,n/t), J(n, n/t))$. Indeed the strong law of large numbers implies that the right hand side above converges almost surely as $k\uparrow\infty$ to $\mathbf{E}\times\mathbb{E}(F(X_{\mathbf{g}(n,n/t)} , \overline{X}_{\mathbf{g}(n,n/t)} ) )$ which in turn converges as $n\uparrow\infty$ to $\mathbb{E}(F(X_t, \overline{X}_{t }))$.
The Central Limit Theorem indicates that the right hand side of (\[WH-MC\]) converges to $\mathbb{E}[F(V(n, n/t), J(n, n/t))]$ at rate $O(k^{-\frac{1}{2}})$. Below we give an indiction of the rate of convergence of $\mathbb{E}[F(V(n, n/t), J(n, n/t))]$ to the desired expectation $\mathbb{E}[F(X_t, \overline{X}_{t})]$.
\[rate\] Assume that function $F(x,y): \r^2 \mapsto \r$ belongs to the domain of ${\mathcal L}$, the infinitesimal generator of $(X_t,\overline{X}_t)$. Then as $ n\uparrow\infty$ \[asymptotic\_speed\] = + O(n\^[-12]{})
For $s>0$ and $y\ge x$ define $h(s,x,y)={\Bbb{E}}\left[ F(X_s, \overline{X}_s) | X_0=x, \overline{X}_0=y \right]$. The fact that $F(x,y)$ belongs to the domain of the infinitesimal generator guarantees that function $h(s,x,y)$ satisfies Kolmogorov equation $\partial_s h={\mathcal L} h$, in particular function $h(s)=h(s,0,0)$ is differentiable in the variable $s$. Using (\[distr\_identity\]) and the fact that $\mathbf{g}(n,n/t)$ is independent of $X_t$ we find $$\begin{aligned}
{\Bbb{E}}\left[ F(V(n, n/t), J(n, n/t)) \right]&=&{\Bbb{E}}\left[ F(X_{\mathbf{g}(n,n/t)}, \overline{X}_{\mathbf{g}(n,n/t)}) \right]\\
&=& \int\limits_{\r^+} {\Bbb{E}}\left[F(X_s, \overline{X}_s) \right] {\Bbb{P}}(\mathbf{g}(n,n/t) \in \d s)\\
&=&
\frac{n^n}{t^n (n-1)!}\int\limits_{\r^+} h(s) s^{n-1} e^{-\frac{ns}{t}} \d s.\end{aligned}$$ The remainder of the proof is a classical application of the stationary point method (see [@Dingle]). The right side of the above equation is equal to \[proof\_asympt1\] &&\
&&= ( + O(1/n) ) \_[-]{}\^ h(t+ ) e\^[-2]{} u where we have changed the variable of integration $s=t(1+u/\sqrt{n})$ and have used Stirling’s formula $n!=\sqrt{2\pi} n^{n+\frac12} e^{-n} (1+O(1/n))$. Next, using power series expansion $\ln(1+x)=x-x^2/2+x^3/3+...$ one can check that (2+n(1+ )-u )=(- +…)=1+ +O(1/n) and combining this with (\[proof\_asympt1\]) and the fact that $h(t+tu/\sqrt{n})=h(t)+h'(t)tu/\sqrt{n}+o(1/\sqrt{n})$ we obtain (\[asymptotic\_speed\]).
Implementation {#sec_impl}
==============
The algorithm described in the previous section only has practical value if one is able to sample from the distributions of $\overline{X}_{\mathbf{e}_1/\lambda}$ and $-\underline{X}_{\mathbf{e}_1/\lambda}$. It would seem that this, in itself, is not that much different from the problem that it purports to solve. However, it turns out that there are many tractable examples and in all cases this is due to the tractability of their Wiener-Hopf factorisations.
Whilst several concrete cases can be handled from the class of spectrally one-sided Lévy processes thanks to recent development in the theory of scale functions which can be used to described the laws of $\overline{X}_{\mathbf{e}_1/\lambda}$ and $-\underline{X}_{\mathbf{e}_1/\lambda}$ (cf. [@HK; @KR]), we give here two large families of two sided jumping Lévy processes that have pertinence to mathematical finance to show how the algorithm may be implemented.
$\beta$-class of Lévy processes
-------------------------------
The $\beta$-class of Lévy processes, introduced in [@Kuz], is a 10-parameter Lévy process which has characteristic exponent $$\begin{aligned}
\Psi(\theta) &=& {\rm i}a\theta + \frac{1}{2}\sigma^2 \theta^2 + \frac{c_1}{\beta_1} \left\{ {\textnormal{B}}(\alpha_1, 1-\lambda_1)-
{\textnormal{B}}\left( \alpha_1 - \frac{{\rm i}\theta}{\beta_1}, 1- \lambda_1\right)\right\}\\
&& + \frac{c_2}{\beta_2}\left\{ {\textnormal{B}}(\alpha_2, 1-\lambda_2) - {\textnormal{B}}\left( \alpha_2 + \frac{{\rm i}\theta}{\beta_2}, 1- \lambda_2\right)\right\}\end{aligned}$$ with parameter range $a,\sigma\in\mathbb{R}, \, c_1, c_2, \alpha_1, \alpha_2, \beta_1, \beta_2>0$ and $\lambda_1, \lambda_2\in(0,3)\setminus \{1,2\}$. Here ${\textnormal B}(x,y)=\Gamma(x)\Gamma(y)/\Gamma(x+y)$ is the Beta function (see [@Jef2007]). The density of the Lévy measure is given by $$\pi(x) = c_1\frac{e^{-\alpha_1 \beta_1 x}}{(1- e^{-\beta_1 x})^{\lambda_1}}\mathbf{1}_{\{x>0\}}
+ c_2 \frac{e^{\alpha_2\beta_2 x}}{(1- e^{\beta_2 x})^{\lambda_2}}\mathbf{1}_{\{x<0\}.}$$ Although $\Psi$ takes a seemingly complicated form, this particular family of Lévy processes has a number of very beneficial virtues from the point of view of mathematical finance which are discussed in [@Kuz]. Moreover, the large number of parameters also allows one to choose Lévy processes within the $\beta$-class that have paths that are both of unbounded variation (when at least one of the conditions $\sigma\neq 0$, $\lambda_1\in(2,3)$ or $\lambda_2\in(2,3)$ holds) and bounded variation (when all of the conditions $\sigma=0$, $\lambda_1\in(0,2)$ and $\lambda_2\in(0,2)$ hold) as well as having infinite and finite activity in the jumps component (accordingly as both $\lambda_1,\lambda_2\in(1,3)$ or not).
What is special about the $\beta$-class is that all the roots of the equation $\lambda+\Psi(\theta)=0$ are completly identifiable which leads to semi-explicit identities for the laws of $\overline{X}_{\mathbf{e}_1/\lambda}$ and $-\underline{X}_{\mathbf{e}_1/\lambda}$ as the following result lifted from [@Kuz] shows.
\[kuz1\] For $\lambda>0$, all the roots of the equation $$\lambda+\Psi(\theta) = 0$$ are simple and occur on the imaginary axis. They can be enumerated by $\{{\rm i}\zeta_n^+: n\geq 0\}$ on the positive imaginary axis and $\{{\rm i}\zeta_n^- : n\geq 0\}$ on the negative imaginary axis in order of increasing absolute magnitude where $$\begin{aligned}
&&\zeta^+_0 \in (0, \beta_2\alpha_2), \, \zeta^-_{0} \in (-\beta_1\alpha_1 , 0), \\
&&\zeta^+_n \in (\beta_2(\alpha_2 +n-1), \beta_2(\alpha_2+n))\text{ for }n\geq 1\\
&&\zeta^-_{n} \in (\beta_1(-\alpha_1 -n), \beta_1(-\alpha_1-n+1))\text{ for }n\geq 1. \end{aligned}$$ Moreover, for $x>0$, $$\mathbb{P}(\overline{X}_{\mathbf{e}_1 /\lambda}\in {\rm d}x) =
-\left(\sum_{k\geq 0} c_k^- \zeta_k^- e^{\zeta^-_k x}\right){\rm d}x
\label{max-density}$$ where $$c_0^- = \prod_{n\geq 1} \frac{1+ \frac{\zeta_0^-}{\beta_1(n-1+\alpha_1)}}{1- \frac{\zeta_0^-}{\zeta_n^-}}
\, \text{ and } \,
c_k^- =
\frac{1+ \frac{\zeta_k^-}{\beta_1(k-1+\alpha_1)}}{1- \frac{\zeta_k^-}{\zeta_0^-}}
\prod_{n\geq 1, n\neq k} \frac{1+\frac{\zeta_k^-}{\beta_1(n-1+\alpha_1)}}{1- \frac{\zeta_k^-}{\zeta_n^-}}.$$ A similar expression holds for $\mathbb{P}(-\underline{X}_{\mathbf{e}_1 /\lambda}\in {\rm d}x)$ with the role of $\{\zeta^-_n: n\geq 0\}$ being played by $\{- \zeta^+_n : n\geq 0\}$ and $\alpha_1, \beta_1$ replaced by $\alpha_2, \beta_2$.
Note that when $0$ is irregular for $(0,\infty)$ the distribution of $\overline{X}_{\mathbf{e}_1/\lambda}$ will have an atom at $0$ which can be computed from (\[max-density\]) and is equal to $1-\sum_{k\geq 0} c_k^-$. Alternatively, from Remark 6 in [@Kuz] this can equivalently be written as $\prod_{n\geq 0} (-\zeta^-_n) /\beta_1(n+\alpha_1)$. A similar statement can be made concerning an atom at $0$ for the distribution of $-\underline{X}_{\mathbf{e}_1/\lambda}$ when $0$ is irregular for $(-\infty,0)$. Conditions for irregularity are easy to check thanks to Bertoin [@irreg]; see also the summary in Kyprianou and Loeffen [@KL] for other types of Léy processes that are popular in mathematical finance.
By making a suitable truncation of the series (\[max-density\]) one may easily perform independent sampling from the distributions $\overline{X}_{\mathbf{e}_1 /\lambda}$ and $\underline{X}_{\mathbf{e}_1 /\lambda}$ as required for our Monte-Carlo methods.
Philanthropy and General Hypergeometric Lévy processes.
-------------------------------------------------------
The forthcoming discussion will assume familiarity with classical excursion theory of Lévy processes for which the reader is referred to Chapter VI of [@Bertbook] or Chapter 6 of [@Kypbook].
According to Vigon’s theory of philanthropy, a (killed) subordinator is called a [*philanthropist*]{} if its Lévy measure has a decreasing density on ${\mathbb{R}}_+$. Moreover, given any two subordinators $H_1$ and ${H_2}$ which are philanthropists, providing that at least one of them is not killed, there exist a Lévy process $X$ such that $H_1$ and ${H_2}$ have the same law as the ascending and descending ladder height processes of $X$, respectively. Suppose we denote the killing rate, drift coefficient and Lévy measures of $H_1$ and ${H_2}$ by the respective triples $(k,\delta,\Pi_{H_1})$ and $(\widehat{k},\widehat{\delta},\Pi_{{H_2}})$. Then [@V] shows that the Lévy measure of $X$ satisfies the following identity $$\label{phillm}
\overline{\Pi}^+_X(x)=\int_0^{\infty}\Pi_{H_1}(x+d u)\overline{\Pi}_{{H_2}}(u)+\widehat{\delta}\,\pi_{H_1}(x)+\widehat{k}\,\overline{\Pi}_{H_1}(x), \quad x>0,$$ where $\pi_{H_1}$ is the density of $\Pi_{H_1}$. By symmetry, an obvious analogue of (\[phillm\]) holds for the negative tail $\overline{\Pi}_X^-(x): = \Pi_X(-\infty, x)$, $x<0$.
A particular family of subordinators which will be of interest to us is the class of subordinators which is found within the definition of Kuznetsov’s $\beta$-class of Lévy processes. These processes have characteristics $(c, \alpha,\beta, \gamma)$ where $\gamma\in (-\infty,0) \cup (0,1) $, $\beta, c>0$ and $1-\alpha+\gamma>0$. The Lévy measure of such subordinators is of the type $$\label{mlls}
c\frac{e^{\alpha \beta x}}{(e^{\beta x}-1)^{1+\gamma}}1_{\{x>0\}}\,{\rm d}x.$$
>From Proposition 9 in [@Kuz], the Laplace exponent of a $\beta$-class subordinator satisfies \[kuz\] () =++ { [[B]{.nodecor}]{}(1-+, - ) - [[B]{.nodecor}]{}( 1-++/, - )} for $\theta\geq 0$ where $\delta$ is the drift coefficient and $\mathtt{k}$ is the killing rate.
Let $H_1$ and $H_2$ be two independent subordinators from the $\beta$-class where for $i=1,2,$ with respective drift coefficients $\delta_i\ge 0$, killing rates $\mathtt{k}_i\geq 0$ and Lévy measure parameters $(c_i,\alpha_i,\beta,\gamma_i)$. Their respective Laplace exponents are denoted by $\Phi_i$, $i=1,2$. In Vigon’s theory of philanthropy it is required that $\mathtt{k}_1\mathtt{k}_2=0$. Under this assumption, let us denote by $X$ the Lévy process whose ascending and descending ladder height processes have the same law as $H_1$ and ${H_2}$, respectively. In other words, the Lévy process whose characteristic exponent is given by $
\Phi_1(-{\rm i}\theta)\Phi_2({\rm i}\theta), \, \theta\in\mathbb{R}.
$ It is important to note that the Gaussian component of the process $X$ is given by $2\delta_1\delta_2$, see [@V]. >From (\[phillm\]), the Lévy measure of $X$ is such that $$\begin{split}
\overline{\Pi}^+_X(x)&=c_1c_2\int_x^{\infty}\frac{e^{\beta_1\alpha_1 u}}{(e^{\beta_1 u}-1)^{\gamma_1+1}}\int_{u-x}^{\infty}\frac{e^{\alpha_2\beta_2 z}}{(e^{\beta_2z}-1)^{\gamma_2+1}}dz\, du\\
&+\delta_2 c_1\frac{e^{\beta_1\alpha_1 x}}{(e^{\beta_1 x}-1)^{\gamma_1+1}}
+\mathtt{k}_2c_1\int_x^{\infty}\frac{e^{\beta_1\alpha_1 u}}{(e^{\beta_1 u}-1)^{\gamma_1+1}}\, {\rm d}x.
\end{split}$$ Assume first that $\gamma_2<0$, taking derivative in $x$ and computing the resulting integrals with the help of [@Jef2007] we find that for $x>0$ the density of the Lévy measure is given by (x)&=&-(,-\_2) e\^[-x (1+\_1-\_1)]{} \_2F\_1(1+\_1,;-\_2;e\^[-x]{})\
&+&c\_1 ([k]{}\_2 +(1+\_2-\_2,-\_2) ) - \_2 c\_1 where $\rho=2+\gamma_1+\gamma_2-\alpha_1-\alpha_2$. The validity of this formula is extended for $\gamma_2 \in (0,1)$ by analytical continuation. The corresponding expression for $x<0$ can be obtained by symmetry considerations.
We define a General Hypergeometric process to be the 13 parameter Lévy process with characteristic exponent given in compact form $$\label{compact}
\Psi(\theta) = \mathtt{d}{\rm i}\theta + \frac{1}{2}\sigma^2 \theta^2 + \Phi_1(-{\rm i}\theta)\Phi_2({\rm i}\theta), \, \theta\in\mathbb{R}$$ where $\mathtt{d},\sigma\in\mathbb{R}$. The inclusion of the two additional parameters $\mathtt{d}, \sigma$ is largely with applications in mathematical finance in view. Without these two additional parameters it is difficult to disentangle the Gaussian coefficient and the drift coefficients from parameters appearing in the jump measure. Note that the Gaussian coefficient in (\[compact\]) is now $\sigma^2/2 + 2\delta_1\delta_2$. The definition of General Hypergeometric Lévy processes includes previously defined Hypergeometric Lévy processes in Kyprianou et al. [@KPR], Caballero et al. [@CPP2] and Lamperti-stable Lévy processes in Caballero et al. [@CPP].
Just as with the case of the $\beta$-family of Lévy processes, because $\Psi$ can be written as a linear combination of a quadratic form and beta functions, it turns out that one can identify all the roots of the equation $\Psi(\theta)+\lambda=0$ which is again sufficient to describe the laws of $\overline{X}_{\mathbf{e}_1/\lambda}$ and $-\underline{X}_{\mathbf{e}_1/\lambda}$.
\[HG\] For $\lambda>0$, all the roots of the equation $$\lambda+\Psi(\theta) = 0$$ are simple and occur on the imaginary axis. Moreover, they can be enumerated by $\{{\rm i}\xi_n^+: n\geq 0\}$ on the positive imaginary axis and $\{{\rm i}\xi_n^- : n\geq 0\}$ on the negative imaginary axis in order of increasing absolute magnitude where $$\begin{aligned}
\xi^+_0\in\big(0,\beta(1+\gamma_2-\alpha_2)\big), \,\xi^-_0\in\big(-\beta(1+\gamma_1-\alpha_1),0\big)\\
\xi^+_n\in\big(\beta(\gamma_2-\alpha_2 +n),\beta(1+\gamma_2-\alpha_2 +n)\big)
&&\text{ for }n\geq 1\\
\xi^-_n\in\big(-\beta(1+\gamma_1-\alpha_1+n),-\beta(\gamma_1-\alpha_1+n)\big)&&\text{ for }n\geq 1. \end{aligned}$$ Moreover, for $x>0$, $$\mathbb{P}(\overline{X}_{\mathbf{e}_1/\lambda}\in {\rm d} x)= -\left(\sum_{k\ge 0}c^-_k\xi^-_{k}e^{{\xi^-_k}x}\right){\rm d}x,
\label{hypsup}$$ where $$c^-_0=\prod_{n\ge 1}\frac{1+\frac{\xi_0^-}{\beta(\gamma_1-\alpha_1+n)}}{1-\frac{\xi_0^-}{\xi^-_n}}\,\,\textrm{ and }\,\, c^-_k=\frac{1+\frac{\xi_k^-}{\beta(\gamma_1-\alpha_1+k)}}{1-\frac{\xi_k^-}{\xi^-_0}}\prod_{n\ge 1, n\ne k}\frac{1+\frac{\xi_k^-}{\beta(\gamma_1-\alpha_1+n)}}{1-\frac{\xi_k^-}{\xi^-_n}}.$$ Moreover, a similar expression holds for $\mathbb{P}(-\underline{X}_{\mathbf{e}_1/\lambda}\in{\rm d}x)$ with the role of $\{\xi^-_n: n\geq 0\}$ replaced by $\{-\xi^+_n:n\geq 0\}$ and $\alpha_1, \gamma_2$ replaced by $\alpha_2, \gamma_2$.
The proof is very similar to the proof of Theorem 10 in [@Kuz]. Formula (\[compact\]) and reflection formula for the Beta function (see [@Jef2007]) \[eq\_beta\_reflection\] [B]{}(-z;-)=[B]{}(1+z+;-) tell us that $\Psi(\i \theta) \to -\infty$ as $\theta \to \beta(1+\gamma_2 - \alpha_2)$, and since $\Psi(0)=0$ we conclude that $\lambda+\Psi(\i \theta)=0$ has a solution on the interval $\theta \in (0,\beta(1+\gamma_2 - \alpha_2))$. Other intervals can be checked in a similar way (note that $\Phi_i(z)$ are Laplace exponents of subordinators, therefore they are positive for $z>0$). Next we assume that $\sigma, \delta_1, \delta_2>0$. Using formulas (\[compact\]), (\[eq\_beta\_reflection\]) and an asymptotic result =z\^[a]{}+O(z\^[a-1]{}), z+ which can be found in [@Jef2007], we conclude that $\Psi(\i \theta)$ has the following asymptotics as $\theta\to +\infty$: (i)&=&-12 (\^2+2\_1 \_2) \^2+O(\^[1+\_2]{})\
&-& Using the above asymptotic expansion and the same technique as in the proof of Theorem 5 in [@Kuz] we find that as $n\to +\infty$ there exists a constant $C_1$ such that \_n\^+ = (n+1+\_2-\_2) + C\_1 n\^[\_2-1]{} + O(n\^[\_2-1-]{}) with a similar expression for $\xi_n^-$. Thus we use Lemma 6 from [@Kuz] (and the same argument as in the proofs of Theorems 5 and 10 in [@Kuz]) to show that first there exist no other roots of meromorphic function $\lambda+\Psi(\i z)$ except for $\{\xi_n^{\pm}\}$, and secondly that we have a factorisation =\_[n1]{}\_[n1]{}, The Wiener-Hopf factoris $\phi_q^{\pm}(\theta)$ are identified from the above equation with the help of analytical uniqueness result, Lemma 2 in [@Kuz]. Formula (\[hypsup\]) is obtained from the infinite product representation for $\phi_q^{+}(\theta)$ using residue calculus.
This ends the proof in the case $\sigma, \delta_1, \delta_2>0$, in all other cases the proof is almost identical, except that one has to do more work to obtain asymptotics for the roots of $\lambda+\Psi(\i \theta)=0$. We summarise all the possible asymptotics of the roots below \^+\_n= (n-\_2+\_2)+C n\^[\_2]{}+O(n\^[\_2-]{})n. where the coefficients $\omega_2, \varrho_2$ and $C$ are presented in Table \[table2\]. Corresponding results for $\xi_n^-$ can be obtained by symmetry considerations.
\[ht\]
------------------------------------------- -------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------
Case $\omega_2$ $C$ $\varrho_2$
\[0.5ex\] $\sigma^2, \delta_1,\delta_2>0$ $1+\gamma_2$ $\frac{2\delta_1c_2}{\beta\Gamma(1+\gamma_2)(\sigma^2+2\delta_1\delta_2)}$ $\gamma_2-1$
$\sigma=0, \delta_1,\delta_2>0$ $1+\gamma_2$ $\frac{c_2}{\beta\Gamma(1+\gamma_2)\delta_2}$ $\gamma_2-1$
$\sigma^2, \delta_2>0, \delta_1=0$ $1+\gamma_2$ $\frac{2c_1c_2\Gamma(1-\gamma_1)}{\beta^{3+\gamma_1-\gamma_2}\Gamma(1+\gamma_2)\gamma_1\sigma^2}$ $\gamma_1+\gamma_2-2$
$\sigma^2, \delta_1>0, \delta_2=0$ $1+\gamma_2$ $\frac{2\delta_1c_2}{\beta\Gamma(1+\gamma_2)\sigma^2}$ $\gamma_2-1$
$\delta_2>0, \sigma=\delta_1=0$ $1+\gamma_2$ $\frac{c_2}{\beta\delta_2\Gamma(1+\gamma_2)}$ $\gamma_2-1$
$\delta_1>0, \sigma=\delta_2=0$ $0$ $\frac{\sin(\pi\gamma_2)}{\pi}\frac{\beta^2\gamma_2(\mu+\mathtt{d})}{\delta_1c_2\Gamma(1-\gamma_2)}$ $-\gamma_2$
$\sigma^2>0, \delta_1=\delta_2=0$ $1+\gamma_2$ $\frac{2c_1c_2\Gamma(1-\gamma_1)}{\beta^{3+\gamma_1-\gamma_2}\Gamma(1+\gamma_2)\gamma_1\sigma^2}$ $\gamma_1+\gamma_2-2$
$\sigma=\delta_1=\delta_2=0$ $1$ $\frac{\beta^2\gamma_2}{c_2\Gamma(1-\gamma_2)}\frac{\sin(\pi\gamma_2)}{\pi}\Big(\mathtt{k}_2+\frac{c_2}{\beta}{\textrm B}(1+\gamma_2-\alpha_2;-\gamma_2)\Big) $ $-\gamma_2$
------------------------------------------- -------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------
: Coefficients for the asymptotic expansion of $\xi_n^{+}$.[]{data-label="table2"}
Similar remarks to those made after Theorem \[kuz1\] regarding the existence of atoms in the distribution of $\overline{X}_{\mathbf{e}_1/\lambda}$ and $-\underline{X}_{\mathbf{e}_1/\lambda}$ also apply here.
It is important to note that the hypergeometric Lévy process is but one of many examples of Lévy processes which may be constructed using Vigon’s theory of philanthropy. With the current Monte-Carlo algorithm in mind, it should be possible to engineer other favourable Lévy processes in this way.
Extensions {#Sect:extensions}
==========
Building in arbitrary large jumps
---------------------------------
The starting point for the Wiener-Hopf Monte-Carlo algorithm is the distribution of $\overline{X}_{\mathbf{e}_1/\lambda}$ and $\underline{X}_{\mathbf{e}_1/\lambda}$, and in section \[sec\_impl\] we have presented two large families of Lévy processes for which one can compute these distributions quite efficiently. We have also argued the case that one might engineer other fit-for-purpose Wiener-Hopf factorisations using Vigon’s theory of philanthropy. However, below, we present another alternative for extending the the application of the Wiener-Hopf Monte-Carlo technique to a much larger class of Lévy processes than those for which sufficient knowledge of the Wiener-Hopf factorisation is known. Indeed the importance of Theorem \[thm\_cmpnd\_Poisson\] below is that we may now work with any Lévy processes whose Lévy measure can be written as a sum of a Lévy measure from the $\beta$-family or hypergeometric family plus [**any**]{} other measure with finite mass. This is a very general class as a little thought reveals that many Lévy processes necessarily take this form. However there are obvious exclusions from this class, for example, cases of Lévy processes with bounded jumps.
\[thm\_cmpnd\_Poisson\] Let $Y = \{Y_t: t\geq 0\}$ be a sum of a Lévy process $X$ and a compound Poisson process such that for all $t\geq 0$, Y\_t=X\_t+\_[i=1]{}\^[N\_[t]{}]{} \_i where $N = \{N_t: t\geq 0\}$ is a Poisson process with intensity $\gamma$ and $\{\xi_i: i\ge 1\}$ is a sequence of i.i.d. random variables. Define iteratively for $n\ge 1$ V(n,) &=& V(n-1,)+S\^[(n)]{}\_[+]{}+ I\^[(n)]{}\_[+]{}+ \_n (1-\_n)\
J(n, ) &=& ( V(n,) , J(n-1,) , V(n-1,)+ S\^[(n)]{}\_[+]{} ) where $V(0,\lambda)=J(0,\lambda)=0$, sequences $\{S^{(j)}_{\lambda+\gamma}: n\ge 1\}$ and $\{I^{(n)}_{\lambda+\gamma}: n\geq 1\}$ are defined in Theorem \[thm\_main\], and $\{\beta_n: n\ge 1\}$ are an i.i.d. sequence of Bernoulli random variables such that ${\Bbb{P}}(\beta_n=1)=\lambda/(\gamma+\lambda)$. Then \[distr\_identity2\] (Y\_[(n,)]{}, \_[(n,)]{}) (V(T\_n,), J(T\_n,)) where $ T_n=\min \{ j\ge 1 \; : \; \sum\limits_{i=1}^{j} \beta_i=n \}$.
Consider a Poisson process with arrival rate $\lambda+\gamma$ such that points are independently marked with probability $\lambda/(\lambda+\gamma)$. Then recall that the Poisson Thinning Theorem tells us that the process of marked points is a Poisson process with arrival rate $\lambda$. In particular, the arrival time having index $T_1$ is exponentially distributed with rate $\lambda$.
Suppose that $\tau_1$ is the first time that an arrival occurs in the process $N$, in particular $\tau_1$ is exponentially distributed with rate $\gamma$. Let $\mathbf{e}_\lambda$ be another independent and exponentially distributed random variable, and fix $x\in\mathbb{R}$ and $y\geq 0$. Then making use of the Wiener-Hopf decomposition, $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{(x +Y_{\tau_1\wedge \mathbf{e}_\lambda},\max\{ y, x +\overline{Y}_ {\tau_1\wedge \mathbf{e}_\lambda}\})}&&\\
&&= \left\{
\begin{array}{cc}
(x +S^{(1)}_{\lambda}+ I^{(1)}_{\lambda}, \, \max\{ y, \, x +S^{(1)}_\lambda \}) & \text{ if }\mathbf{e}_\lambda < \tau_1\\
(x+ S^{(1)}_{\gamma}+ I^{(1)}_{\gamma} + \xi_n ,\, \max\{x+S^{(1)}_{\gamma}+ I^{(1)}_{\gamma} + \xi_n, \, y,\, x + S^{(1)}_\gamma\}) &\text{ if } \tau_1\leq \mathbf{e}_\lambda.
\end{array}
\right.\end{aligned}$$ If we momentarily set $(x,y) = (V(0,\lambda), J(0,\lambda)) = (0,0)$ then by the Poisson Thinning Theorem it follows that $(Y_{\tau_1\wedge \mathbf{e}_\lambda}, \overline{Y}_ {\tau_1\wedge \mathbf{e}_\lambda})$ is equal in distribution to $(V(1,\lambda), J(1,\lambda))$. Moreover, again by the Poisson Thinning Theorem, $(Y_{ \mathbf{e}_\lambda}, \overline{Y}_ { \mathbf{e}_\lambda})$ is equal in distribution to $(V(T_1,\lambda), J(T_1,\lambda))$. This proves the theorem for the case $n=1$.
In the spirit of the proof of Theorem \[thm\_main\], the proof for $n\geq 2$ can be established by an inductive argument. Indeed, if the result is true for $n=k-1$ then it is true for $n=k$ by taking $(x,y) = (V(k-1, \lambda), J(k-1, \lambda))$ then appealing to the lack of memory property, stationary and independent increments of $Y$ and the above analysis for the case that $n=1$. The details are left to the reader.
A particular example where the use of the above theorem is of pertinence is a linear Brownian motion plus an independent compound Poisson process. This would include for example the so-called Kou model from mathematical finance in which the jumps of the compound Poisson process have a two-sided exponential distribution. In the case that $X$ is a linear Brownian motion the quantities $\overline{X}_{\mathbf{e}_1/\lambda}$ and $-\underline{X}_{\mathbf{e}_1/\lambda}$ are both exponentially distributed with easily computed rates.
Approximate simulation of the law of $(X_t, \overline{X}_t, \underline{X}_t)$
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Next we consider the problem of sampling from the distribution of the three random variables $(X_t, \overline{X}_t, \underline{X}_t)$, which is also an important problem for applications, in particular with regard to the double-sided exit problem and, in particular, for pricing double barrier options. The following slight modification of the Wiener-Hopf Monte-Carlo technique allows us to obtain two estimates for this triple of random variables, which in many cases can be used to provide upper and lower bounds for certain functionals of $(X_t, \overline{X}_t, \underline{X}_t)$.
\[thm\_3d\_distr\] Given two sequences $\{S^{(n)}_\lambda : n\ge 1\}$ and $\{I^{(n)}_\lambda : n\ge 1\}$ introduced in Theorem \[thm\_main\] we define iteratively for $n\ge 1$ \[def\_5\_rand\_vrls\] V(n,) &=& V(n-1,)+S\^[(n)]{}\_+ I\^[(n)]{}\_\
J(n, ) &=& ( J(n-1,), V(n-1,)+ S\^[(n)]{}\_)\
K(n,) &=& ( K(n-1,), V(n,) )\
J(n, ) &=& ( J (n-1,), V(n,) )\
K(n,) &=& ( K(n-1,), V(n-1,)+ I\^[(n)]{}\_) where $V(0,\lambda)=J(0,\lambda)=K(0,\lambda)=\tilde J(0,\lambda)=\tilde K(0,\lambda)=0$. Then for any bounded function $f(x,y,z): \r^3 \mapsto \r$ which is increasing in $z$-variable we have \[ f(V(n,), J(n, ) , K(n,)) \] && \[f(X\_[(n,)]{},\_[(n,)]{},\_[(n,)]{}\] \[bias-1\]\
\[ f(V(n,), K(n,), J(n, )) \] && \[f(X\_[(n,)]{},\_[(n,)]{}, \_[(n,)]{}\] \[bias-2\]
From Theorem \[thm\_main\] we know that $(V(n,\lambda), J(n,\lambda))$ has the same distribution as $(X_{\mathbf{g}(n,\lambda)},\overline{X}_{\mathbf{g}(n,\lambda)})$, and, for each $n\geq 1$, $K(n,\lambda) = \min\{X_{\mathbf{g}(k,\lambda)}: k=0,1,\cdots n\}\geq \underline{X}_{\mathbf{g}(n,\lambda)}$. The inequality in (\[bias-1\]) now follows. The equality in (\[bias-2\]) is the result of a similar argument where now, for each $n\geq 1$, $\tilde{K}(n, \lambda) = \underline{X}_{\mathbf{g}(n,\lambda)}$ and $\tilde{J}(n,\lambda) = \max\{X_{\mathbf{g}(k, \lambda)}: k = 0,1,\cdots, n\}\leq \overline{X}_{\mathbf{g}(n,\lambda)}$.
Theorem \[thm\_3d\_distr\] can be understood in the following sense. Both triples of random variables $(V(n,\lambda), J(n,\lambda), K(n,\lambda))$ and $(V(n,\lambda), \tilde J(n,\lambda), \tilde K(n,\lambda))$ can be considered as estimates for $(X_{\mathbf{g}(n,\lambda)},\overline{X}_{\mathbf{g}(n,\lambda)},\underline{X}_{\mathbf{g}(n,\lambda)})$, where in the first case $K(n,\lambda)$ has a positive bias and in the second case $\tilde J(n,\lambda)$ has a negative bias. An example of this is handled in the next section.
Numerical results
=================
In this section we present numerical results. We perform computations for a process $X_t$ in the $\beta$-family with parameters (a,, \_1,\_1,\_1, c\_1, \_2,\_2,\_2, c\_2) = (a,, 1, 1.5, 1.5, 1, 1, 1.5, 1.5 , 1) where the linear drift $a$ is chosen such that $\Psi(-{\rm i})=-r$ with $r=0.05$, for no other reason that this is a risk neutral setting which makes the process $\{\exp(X_t-rt) : t \geq 0\}$ a martingale. We are interested in two parameter sets. Set 1 has $\sigma=0.4$ and Set 2 has $\sigma=0$. Note that both parameter sets give us proceses with jumps of infinite activity but of bounded variation, but due to the presence of Gaussian component the process $X_t$ has unbounded variation in the case of parameter Set 1.
As the first example we compare computations of the joint density of $(\overline{X}_1,\overline{X}_1-{X}_1)$ for the parameter Set 1. Our first method is based on the following Fourier inversion technique. As in the proof of Theorem \[thm\_main\], we use the fact that $\overline{X}_{\mathbf{e}_1/\lambda}$ and $X_{\mathbf{e}_1/\lambda} -\overline{X}_{\mathbf{e}_1/\lambda}$ are independent, and the latter is equal in distribution to $\underline{X}_{\mathbf{e}_1/\lambda}$, to write (\_[\_1/]{} x) (-\_[\_1/]{} y) &=& (\_[\_1/]{} x, \_[\_1/]{}-[X]{}\_[\_1/]{} y)\
&=& \_[\^+]{} e\^[-t]{} (\_t x,\_t-[X]{}\_t y) t Writing down the inverse Laplace transform we obtain \[eq\_Fourier\] (\_t x,\_t-[X]{}\_t y)= \_[\_0+i]{} (\_[\_1/]{} x) (-\_[\_1/]{} y) \^[-1]{} e\^[t]{} where $\lambda_0$ is any positive number. The values of analytical continuation of ${\Bbb{P}}(\overline{X}_{\mathbf{e}_1/\lambda} \in \d x)$ for complex values of $\lambda$ can be computed efficiently using technique described in [@Kuz]. Our numerical results indicate that the integral in (\[eq\_Fourier\]) can be computed very precisely, provided that we use a large number of discretization points in $\lambda$ space coupled with Filon-type method to compute this Fourier type integral. Thus first we compute the joint density of $(\overline{X}_1,\overline{X}_1-{X}_1)$ using (\[eq\_Fourier\]) and take it as a benchmark, which we use later to compare the Wiener-Hopf Monte-Carlo method and the classical Monte-Carlo approach. For both of these methods we fix the number of simulations $M=10^7$ and the number of time steps $N \in \{20,50,100\}$. For fair comparison we use $2N$ time steps for the classical Monte-Carlo, as Wiener-Hopf Monte-Carlo method with $N$ time steps requires simulation of $2N$ random variables $\{S^{(j)}_{\lambda},I^{(j)}_{\lambda} : j=1,2,..,N\}$. All the code was written in Fortran and the computations were performed on a standard laptop (Intel Core 2 Duo 2.5 GHz processor and 3 GB of RAM).
Figure \[fig\_2D\_density\] presents the results of our computations. In Figure \[fig\_2D\_density\_a\] we show our benchmark, a surface plot of the joint probability density function of $(\overline{X}_1,\overline{X}_1-{X}_1)$ produced using Fourier method (\[eq\_Fourier\]), which takes around 40-60 seconds to compute. Figures \[fig\_2D\_density\_b\], \[fig\_2D\_density\_c\] and \[fig\_2D\_density\_d\] show the difference between the benchmark and the Wiener-Hopf Monte-Carlo result as the number of time steps $N$ increases from 20 to 50 to 100. Computations take around 7 seconds for $N=100$, and 99% of this time is actually spent performing the Monte-Carlo algorithm, as the precomputations of the roots $\zeta_n^{\pm}$ and the law of $I_{\lambda}, S_{\lambda}$ take less than one tenth of a second. Figure \[fig\_2D\_density\_e\] shows the result produced by the classical Monte-Carlo method with $N=100$ (which translates into 200 random walk steps according to our previous convention); this computation takes around 10-15 seconds since here we also need to compute the law of $X_{1/N}$, which is done using inverse Fourier transform of the characteristic function of $X_t$ given in (\[eq1\]). Finally, Figure \[fig\_2D\_density\_f\] shows the difference between the Monte-Carlo result and our benchmark.
The results illustrate that in this particular example the Wiener-Hopf Monte-Carlo technique is superior to the classical Monte-Carlo approach. It gives a much more precise result, it requires less computational time, is more straightforward to programme and does not suffer from some the issues that plague the Monte-Carlo approach, such as the atom in distribution of $\overline{X}_1$ at zero, which is clearly visible in Figure \[fig\_2D\_density\_e\].
Next we consider the problem of pricing up-and-out barrier call option with maturity equal to one, which is equivalent to computing the following expectation: $$\label{barrier1}
\pi^{\textnormal{uo}}(s) = e^{-r} \mathbb{E} \left[ (se^{X_1}-K)^+ \mathbf{1}_{\{s\exp(\overline{X}_1)< b \}} \right].$$ Here $s \in [0,b]$ is the initial stock price. We fix the strike price $K=5$, the barrier level $b=10$. The numerical results for parameter Set 1 are presented in Figure \[fig\_barrier1\]. Figure \[fig\_barrier1\_a\] shows the graph of $\pi^{\textnormal{uo}}(s)$ as a function of $s$ produced with Fourier method similar to (\[eq\_Fourier\]), which we again use as a benchmark. Figures \[fig\_barrier1\_b\], \[fig\_barrier1\_c\] and \[fig\_barrier1\_d\] show the difference between the benchmark and results produced by Wiener-Hopf Monte-Carlo (blue solid line) and classical Monte-Carlo (red line with circles) for $N\in \{20,50,100\}$. Again we see that Wiener-Hopf Monte-Carlo method gives a better accuracy, especially when the initial stock price level $s$ is close to the barrier $b$, as in this case Monte-Carlo approach produces the atom in the distribution of $\overline{X}_1$ at zero which creates a large error.
Figure \[fig\_barrier2\] shows corresponding numerical results for parameter Set 2. In this case we have an interesting phenomenon of a discontinuity in $\pi^{\textnormal{uo}}(s)$ at the boundary $b$. The discontinuity should be there and occurs due to the fact that, for those particular parameter choices, there is irregularity of the upper half line. Irregularity of the upper half line is equivalent to there being an atom at zero in the distribution of $\overline{X}_{t}$ for any $t>0$ (also at independent and exponentially distributed random times). We see from the results presented in Figures \[fig\_barrier1\] and \[fig\_barrier2\] that Wiener-Hopf Monte-Carlo method correctly captures this phenomenon; the atom at zero is produced if and only if the upper half line is irregular, while the classical Monte-Carlo approach always generates an atom. Also, analyzing Figures \[fig\_barrier2\_b\], \[fig\_barrier2\_c\] and \[fig\_barrier2\_d\] we see that in this case classical Monte-Carlo algorithm is also doing a good job and it is hard to find a winner. This is not surprising, as in the case of parameter Set 2 the process $X_t$ has bounded variation, thus the bias produced in monitoring for supremum only at discrete times is smaller than in the case of process of unbounded variation.
Finally, we give an example of how one can use Theorem \[thm\_3d\_distr\] to produce upper/lower bounds for the price of the double no-touch barrier call option $$\label{barrier_dnt}
\pi^{\textnormal{dnt}}(s) = e^{-r} \mathbb{E} \left[ (se^{X_1}-K)^+ \mathbf{1}_{\{s\exp(\overline{X}_1)< \overline{b}\; ; \; s\exp(\underline{X}_1)>
\underline{b} \}}\right].$$ First, we use identity $\mathbf{1}_{\{ s\exp(\underline{X}_1)>
\underline{b} \}}=1-\mathbf{1}_{\{s\exp(\underline{X}_1)<
\underline{b} \}}$ and obtain \^[[dnt]{.nodecor}]{}(s) = \^[[uo]{.nodecor}]{}(s) - e\^[-r]{} . Function $f(x,y,z)=-(se^{x}-K)^+ \mathbf{1}_{\{s\exp(y)< \overline{b}\; ; \; s\exp(z)< \underline{b} \}}$ is increasing in both variables $y$ and $z$, thus using Theorem \[thm\_3d\_distr\] we find that \_1\^[[dnt]{.nodecor}]{}(s) &=& \^[[uo]{.nodecor}]{}(s) - e\^[-r]{}\
\_2\^[[dnt]{.nodecor}]{}(s) &=&\^[[uo]{.nodecor}]{}(s) - e\^[-r]{} are the lower/upper bounds for $\pi^{\textnormal{dnt}}(s)$. Figure \[barrier\_dnt1\] illustrates this algorithm for parameter Set 1, the other parameters being fixed at $K=5$, $\underline{b}=3$, $\overline{b}=10$ and the number of time steps $N=200$ (400 for the classical Monte-Carlo). We see that Monte-Carlo approach gives a price which is almost always larger than the upper bound produced by the Wiener-Hopf Monte-Carlo algorithm. This is not surprising, as in the case of Monte-Carlo approach we would have positive (negative) bias in the estimate of infimum (supremum), and given that the payoff of the double no-touch barrier option is increasing in infimum and decreasing in supremum this amplifies the bias.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
AEK and KvS would also like to thank Alex Cox for useful discussions. AEK and JCP are grateful for support from EPSRC grant number EP/D045460/1. AEK and KvS gratefully acknowledge support form the AXA Research Fund, AK’s research is supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.
[99]{}
Alili, L. and Kyprianou.A.E. (2005) Some remarks on first passage of Lévy process, the American put and pasting principles. [*Ann. Appl. Probab.*]{} [**15**]{}, 2062–2080.
Bertoin, J. (1996) [*Lévy processes*]{}. Cambridge University Press.
Bertoin, J. (1997) Regularity of the half-line for Lévy processes. [*Bull. Sci. Math.*]{} [**121**]{}, 345–354.
Boyarchenko, S.I. and Levendorskii, S.Z. (2002). [*Non-Gaussian Merton– Black–Scholes theory*]{}. World Scientific, Singapore.
Caballero, M. E., Pardo, J. C. and Pérez, J. L. (2009) On the Lamperti stable processes [*To appear in Probability and Mathematical Statistics.*]{}
Caballero, M. E., Pardo, J. C. and Pérez, J. L. (2009) Explicit identities for Lévy processes associated to symmetric stable processes [*To appear in Bernoulli.*]{}
Carr, P. (1998) Randomization and the American Put. *Rev. Fin. Studies* **11**, 597–626.
Cont, R. and Tankov, P. (2003) [*Financial modelling with Jump Processes*]{}. Chapman & Hall / CRC Press.
Dingle, R. B. (1973) [*Asymptotic expansions: their derivation and interpretation*]{}. Academic Press.
Doney, R. A. (2004) Stochastic bounds for Lévy processes. [*Ann. Probab.*]{} [**32**]{}, 1545–1552.
Hubalek, F. and Kyprianou, A.E. (2010) Old and new examples of scale functions for spectrally negative Lévy processes. In [*Sixth Seminar on Stochastic Analysis, Random Fields and Applications, eds R. Dalang, M. Dozzi, F. Russo.*]{} Progress in Probability, Birkhäuser.
Jeffrey, A. (ed.) (2007) [*Table of integrals, series and products*]{}. 7-th edition, Academic Press.
Klüppelberg, C., Kyprianou, A.E. and Maller R. (2004) Ruin probabilties and overshoots for general Lévy insurance risk process. [**14**]{}, 1766-1801.
Kuznetsov (2009) Wiener-Hopf factorization and distribution of extrema for a family of Levy processes [*To appear in Ann. Appl. Probab.*]{}
Kyprianou, A.E. (2006) [*Introductory lectures on fluctuation theory of Lévy processes with applications*]{}. Universitext, Springer.
Kyprianou, A.E. and Loeffen, R. (2005) Lévy processes in finance distinguished by their coarse and fine path properties. In [*Exotic option pricing and advanced Lévy models Eds. A. Kyprianou, W. Schoutens and P. Wilmott.* ]{} Wiley
Kyprianou, A.E., Pardo, J.C. and Rivero, V. (2009) Exact and asymptotic n-tuple laws at first and last passage [*Ann. Appl. Probab.*]{} [**20**]{}, 522-564.
Kyprianou, A.E. and Rivero, V. (2008) Special, conjugate and complete scale functions for spectrally negative Lévy processes. [*Electron. J. Probab.*]{} Paper no 57, 1672-1701.
Madan D. and Seneta E. (1990) The variance gamma (V.G.) model for share market returns. [*Journal of Business*]{}, [**63**]{}, 511–524.
Schoutens, W. (2003) [*Lévy processes in finance: pricing financial derivatives.*]{} Wiley.
Schoutens, W. and Cariboni, J. (2009) [*Lévy processes in credit risk.*]{} Wiley.
Song, R. and Vondraček, Z. (2008) On suprema of Lévy processes and application in risk theory. [*Ann. Inst. H. Poincaré Probab. Statist.*]{} [**44**]{}, 977-986.
Vigon, V. (2002) [*Simplifiez vos Lévy en titillant la factorisation de Wiener-Hopf*]{}. Thèse. Laboratoire de Mathématiques de L’INSA de Rouen.
\
\
\
\
[^1]: [Department of Mathematics and Statistics, York University, Toronto, ON, M3J 1P3, Canada]{} E-mail: [email protected]
[^2]: [**Corresponding author.**]{} [Department of Mathematical Sciences, University of Bath, Claverton Down, Bath, BA2 7AY, U.K.]{} E-mail: [email protected]
[^3]: [Centro de Investigación en Matemáticas A.C. Calle Jalisco s/n. 36240 Guanajuato, México.]{} E-mail: [email protected]
[^4]: [Department of Mathematical Sciences, University of Bath, Claverton Down, Bath, BA2 7AY, U.K.]{} E-mail: [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
1.0cm
[**Higgs doublet as a Goldstone boson in perturbative\
extensions of the Standard Model**]{} 1.0cm [Brando Bellazzini$^a$, Stefan Pokorski$^b$, Vyacheslav S. Rychkov$^{a,b}$,\
Alvise Varagnolo$^{a,c}$]{}\
[*$^a$ Scuola Normale Superiore and INFN, Piazza dei Cavalieri 7, I-56126 Pisa, Italy*]{}\
[*$^b$ Institute of Theoretical Physics, Warsaw University, Hoza 69, 00-681 Warsaw, Poland*]{}\
[*$^c$ Dip. di Fisica, Univ. di Roma La Sapienza, P.le A. Moro, 2, I-00185 Rome, Italy*]{}\
1.0cm
Introduction
============
The idea of the Higgs doublet as a pseudo-Goldstone boson of some extended global symmetry has been proposed to ameliorate the hierarchy problem of the Standard Model (SM) [@early]. Usually, it is linked to a new strongly interacting sector, responsible for spontaneous breaking of the global symmetry [@contino],[@cont1],[@cont2]. There are interesting signatures of this idea, among others related to the unitarization procedure in WW scattering [@Rattazzi],[@Falkowski:2007iv]. However, there are strong constraints on the scale $f$ of the spontaneous breaking of global symmetry of the strong sector. Low values of $f$, say $f\lesssim500$ GeV, cannot be easily reconciled with electroweak precision tests and B-physics data [@extended], while larger $f$ reintroduces the hierarchy problem with the required finetuning growing as[^1] $\left( f/v\right) ^{2}$. So, in practice, models of this kind do not avoid certain tension.
There is some room for the idea of the Higgs doublet as a pseudo-Goldstone boson in *perturbative* extensions of the SM as well, with global symmetry broken in the perturbative regime. In general, one may expect such perturbative models to avoid excessive finetuning in the ElectroWeak Symmetry Breaking (EWSB) sector with no conflict with the electroweak precision data, generic for non-perturbative models. This possibility has been discussed in non-supersymmetric [@extended],[@csaki] and supersymmetric [@Birkedal:2004xi],[@Chankowski:2004mq],[@berezhiani],[@Roy:2005hg],[@Falkowski:2006qq],[@strumia] models, however for various reasons those models are not fully satisfactory. In the present paper we explore it further in supersymmetric (SUSY) models with extended global symmetry of the Higgs sector. We discuss two models which differ in various respects and illustrate various aspects of the general approach. As global symmetry we take $SU(3)$, the minimal one that can give Higgs doublet as a Goldstone boson in SUSY.
The first model (Model I) remains perturbative up to the GUT scale. The global symmetry and the electroweak symmetry are broken by radiative corrections to the mass parameters, generated by a large Yukawa coupling, similarly to the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM) (for earlier attempts, see [@berezhiani]). Stabilization of the global symmetry breaking scale $f$ can be achieved by quartic scalar coupling in large $\tan\beta$ regime. The model relies on the “double protection" mechanism, where the interplay between supersymmetry and an approximate global symmetry forbids the quadratic higgs term to receive a large logarithmic contribution from the UV cutoff $\Lambda\sim M_{\text{GUT}}$ which is actually replaced by the scale of global symmetry breaking $f$. Thus one may hope to get, for the same values of stop mass, much less finetuning than in the MSSM. The values $f\gtrsim2$ TeV minimize finetuning of the model, while at the same time allowing the physical Higgs boson mass above the experimental bound of $115$ GeV. Phenomenology of the Higgs sector of the model is very similar to the decoupling regime of the MSSM. In particular, for $f\gtrsim2$ TeV the WW scattering is unitarized almost completely by the lightest Higgs boson. The model is however distinguished by the presence of a relatively light doubly-charged Higgsino.
In our second example (Model II) supersymmetry provides a consistent framework for stabilizing the minimum of the global symmetry breaking. It is a supersymmetric version of the approach to the EWSB proposed in Ref. [@extended], with the breaking driven by a tadpole of the $SU(2)\times U(1)$ singlet component of the full scalar multiplet. An interesting point about this mechanism is that this tadpole, while being *linear* in the fundamental field, generates the Higgs *quartic* when the $\sigma$-model structure is taken into account. This quartic dominates the usual D-term quartic at low $\tan\beta$, so that the physical Higgs mass is determined by the soft SUSY breaking terms only. Modell II has a very different phenomenology with respect to MSSM since it allows for low $f$. However, it needs an UV completion at a scale $O(20$ TeV), where the SUSY model becomes strongly interacting. In both models finetuning is $O(10\%).$
Model I
=======
In the MSSM, the lightest Higgs boson mass is determined by the effective quartic coupling, which depends logarithmically on the stop mass. Large $\tan\beta$ is then favored, to minimize the value of the stop mass consistent with the experimental bound $m_{h}>115$ GeV, and the finetuning in the Higgs potential. The latter is proportional to $m_{\tilde{t}}^{2}{}\log\Lambda$ and for $\Lambda\sim M_{\text{GUT}}$ remains, unfortunately, of order of $1\%$.
The model we propose in this section retains the MSSM correlation between the stop mass and the Higgs boson mass, thus also requiring large $\tan\beta$ for reasonable values of $m_{\tilde{t}}$. However, it is based on the idea of the double protection of the Higgs potential [@Chankowski:2004mq],[@berezhiani] and gives, for the same values of $m_{\tilde{t}}$, factor $10$ less finetuning than MSSM.
We begin with the effective model below certain scale $F$ based on the symmetry $SU(2)_{L}\times U(1)_{y}$, where $SU(2)_{L}$ is gauged subgroup of a global $SU(3)$. Its UV completion (above $F)$ can be similar to that of [@berezhiani], and we will return to it below. The $SU(3)$-symmetric Higgs sector consists of a triplet $\mathcal{H}_{d}$ and an antitriplet $\mathcal{H}_{u}$, while the chiral fermion multiplets of the top sector are the triplet $\Psi=(Q,T)^{T}$ and quark singlets $t^{c}$ and $T^{c}.$
Under $SU(2)_{L}\times U(1)_{y}$ the triplets split into doublets $H_{u,d}$ and singlets $S_{u,d}$:[^2]$$\mathcal{H}_{d}^{T}=(H_{d}^{T},S_{d}),\quad\mathcal{H}_{u}=(H_{u}%
,S_{u}).\label{split}%$$ We look for a model in which the global $SU(3)$ is spontaneously broken by vacuum expectation values (VEVs) aligned so that $SU(2)_{L}\times U(1)_{y}$ gauge symmetry remains unbroken:$$\mathcal{H}_{d}^{T}=(0,0,f_{d}),\quad\mathcal{H}_{u}=(0,0,f_{u}),$$ and $\tan\beta\equiv f_{u}/f_{d}$ is large. We shall assume that the soft term mass scale $m_{\text{soft}}\sim f\ll F$. The minimum of the $SU(3)$-symmetric scalar potential at large $\tan\beta$ generically requires negative $\mathcal{H}_{u}$ mass squared, which leads to runaway directions, unless there is a stabilization mechanism. Stabilization by D-terms of some, e.g. $U(1)$, gauge interactions is not a satisfactory mechanism [@Chankowski:2004mq], while stabilization by the quartic coupling $\left\vert \mathcal{H}_{u}\right\vert
^{4}$ is constrained by the holomorphicity of the superpotential.
With two Higgs triplet chiral superfields, the minimal field content leading to stabilization by the quartic consists of two symmetric tensors $\mathcal{Z}_{1}$ and $\mathcal{Z}_{2}$,$$\mathcal{Z}_{i}=\left(
\begin{array}
[c]{c|c}%
T_{i} & H_{i}/\sqrt{2}\\\hline
H_{i}^{T}/\sqrt{2} & z_{i}%
\end{array}
\right) .$$ Here the $T_{i}$’s are $SU(2)$ triplets with $Y_{1,2}=\pm1$, $H_{i}$’s are doublets with $Y_{1,2}=\pm1/2$, and $z_{i}$’s are singlets. The superpotential of our model reads (in the following we anticipate large $\tan\beta$ solution)$$W=\lambda\mathcal{Z}_{2}\mathcal{H}_{u}\mathcal{H}_{u}+\mu\mathcal{H}%
_{u}\mathcal{H}_{d}+\mu_{Z}\mathcal{Z}_{1}\mathcal{Z}_{2}+y\mathcal{H}_{u}%
\Psi\,t^{c}+mT^{c}T. \label{W1}%$$ The last term breaks the global $SU(3)$ explicitly. It can originate from a UV completion as in [@berezhiani]. The scalar potential reads[^3]$$\begin{aligned}
V & =|\lambda\mathcal{H}_{u}\mathcal{H}_{u}+\mu_{Z}\mathcal{Z}_{1}%
|^{2}+|2\lambda\mathcal{Z}_{2}\mathcal{H}_{u}+\mu\mathcal{H}_{d}|^{2}+\mu
_{Z}^{2}|\mathcal{Z}_{2}|^{2}+\mu^{2}|\mathcal{H}_{u}|^{2}+V_{\text{soft}%
}\,,\nonumber\\
V_{\text{soft}} & =m_{d}^{2}|\mathcal{H}_{d}|^{2}+m_{u}^{2}|\mathcal{H}%
_{u}|^{2}+m_{Z1}^{2}|\mathcal{Z}_{1}|^{2}+m_{Z2}^{2}|\mathcal{Z}_{2}%
|^{2}-(m_{3}^{2}\mathcal{H}_{d}\mathcal{H}_{u}+\text{H.c.})\,. \label{V}%\end{aligned}$$
The soft terms in (\[V\]) depend on their initial values at the GUT scale and on the renormalization group (RG) running in the $SU(3)$-symmetric theory. We expect that the stop contribution will drive $m_{u}^{2}$ to negative values (while $m_{d}^{2},m_{Z1,Z2}^{2}>0$), and global $SU(3)$ is spontaneously broken. Minimizing the potential for small $m_{3}^{2}$ (see Appendix \[tech1\] for the running of $m_{3}^{2}$) and assuming $SU(3)$ to be broken in the $SU(2)$ singlet direction, we get$$\begin{aligned}
& \langle |\mathcal{H}_{u}|^{2} \rangle \equiv f_{u}^{2}\simeq-\frac{\mu_{u}^{2}}{2\lambda_{\text{eff}%
}^{2}}\label{Su}\\
& \frac{\langle |\mathcal{H}_{u}|\rangle}{\langle|\mathcal{H}_{d}|\rangle}\equiv\tan\beta\simeq\frac{\tilde{\mu}^{2}+m_{d}^{2}%
}{m_{3}^{2}}\gg1\nonumber\\
& \langle |\mathcal{Z}_{1}|\rangle \equiv f_{Z1}\simeq-\frac{\lambda\mu_{Z}f_{u}^{2}}{\mu_{Z}^{2}%
+m_{Z1}^{2}}\nonumber\\
& \langle |\mathcal{Z}_{2}|\rangle \equiv f_{Z2}\simeq-\frac{2\lambda\mu f_{u}f_{d}}{\mu_{Z}^{2}%
+m_{Z2}^{2}+4\lambda^{2}f_{u}^{2}}\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where$$\begin{aligned}
\mu_{u}^{2} & =m_{u}^{2}+\mu^{2}<0\text{ (by assumption)}\\
\lambda_{\text{eff}}^{2} & =\lambda^{2}\frac{m_{Z1}^{2}}{\mu_{Z}^{2}%
+m_{Z1}^{2}}\\
\tilde{\mu}^{2} & =\mu^{2}\frac{m_{Z2}^{2}+\mu_{Z}^{2}}{\mu_{Z}^{2}%
+m_{Z2}^{2}+4\lambda^{2}f_{u}^{2}}%\end{aligned}$$ The $SU(3)$ is broken dominantly by $f_{u}$ and $f_{Z1}$, with $f_{d}$ and $f_{Z2}$ suppressed by large $\tan\beta$. Relative contribution of $f_{Z1}$ versus $f_{u}$ decreases for smaller $\lambda$ and $\mu_{Z}$. The maximal value of $\lambda$ at the Fermi scale is constrained by the requirement of remaining perturbative up to the GUT scale (see Appendix \[tech1\] for the discussion of $\lambda$ running); we choose $\lambda=0.2$ in the following. The mass parameter $m_{u}^{2}$ gets $SU(3)$-symmetric negative contributions proportional to the Yukawa coupling $y$ and the coupling $\lambda$ (see Appendix \[tech1\]). In the following we will discuss the constraints on the parameter range following from the demand of no excessive finetuning in the potential for the $SU(3)$ breaking.
Spontaneous global $SU(3)$ breaking leads to five Goldstone bosons: an $SU(2)_{L}$ doublet $H$ and a real singlet $\eta$. The $H$ plays the role of the SM Higgs doublet. The singlet $\eta$ will not play any role in the following discussion; we will comment on its parametrization and physical effects below. For large $\tan\beta$ the Goldstones reside to a good approximation in the $\mathcal{H}_{u}$ and $\mathcal{Z}_{1}$. Up to terms of higher order in $H$, we have the following parametrization for the Goldstone bosons:$$\begin{aligned}
H_{d} & \simeq\alpha_{d}H,\quad H_{u}\simeq\alpha_{u}H^{\dagger}\nonumber\\
H_{1} & \simeq\alpha_{Z1}H^{\dagger},\quad H_{2}\simeq\alpha_{Z2}%
H\label{param}\\
T_{1} & \simeq\frac{f_{Z1}}{f^{2}}H^{\dagger}H^{\dagger},\quad T_{2}%
\simeq\frac{f_{Z2}}{f^{2}}H\,H\nonumber\\
S_{u,d} & \simeq f_{u,d}\text{,\quad}z_{1,2}\simeq f_{Z1,Z2}\text{,}%\end{aligned}$$ where$$\begin{aligned}
\alpha_{u,d} & =f_{u,d}/f,\quad\alpha_{Zi}=\sqrt{2}f_{Zi}/f,\\
f^{2} & =f_{u}^{2}+f_{d}^{2}+2f_{Z1}^{2}+2f_{Z2}^{2}\,.\end{aligned}$$ In this parametrization $H$ has canonical kinetic term. As we will see later, experimental limit on the Higgs mass requires $f_{Z1,Z2}\ll f_{u}\sim f.$
The global $SU(3)$ is explicitly broken by the last term in the superpotential (\[W1\]) and by the D-terms of $SU(2)\times U(1)$. Both terms contribute to the potential for the Goldstone boson $H$:$$V=\delta m_{H}^{2}|H_{u}|^{2}+(\lambda_{0}+\delta\lambda)|H_{u}|^{4}+\ldots,$$ where the $\delta m_{H}^{2}$ and $\delta\lambda$ are obtained from the one-loop effective potential and $\lambda_{0}$ comes from the D-terms. We first discuss the effective potential contribution as it is responsible for the VEV of $H$ and the EWSB by the top-stop loops. Diagonalizing the top mass matrix, for large $\tan\beta$ we find (we introduce dimensionless coupling $\tilde{y}$, $m=\tilde{y}\langle|S_{u}|\rangle$):$$\begin{aligned}
m_{t} & =y_{t}\langle |H_{u}|\rangle ,\quad y_{t}\equiv\frac{y\tilde{y}}{\sqrt{y^{2}%
+\tilde{y}^{2}}},\\
m_{T} & =\langle |S_{u}|\rangle \sqrt{y^{2}+\tilde{y}^{2}}.\end{aligned}$$ For the couplings $y$ and $\lambda$ to remain perturbative up to the GUT scale (see Appendix), we need $y\lesssim1.2$. Since $y_{t}\simeq1$ (for $\langle|H_{u}|\rangle\simeq v$) we get $\tilde{y}\gtrsim1.8$ and $m_{T}\gtrsim2.2\langle|S_{u}|\rangle$, somewhat stronger than the theoretical lower bound $m_{T}=2y_{t}\langle|S_{u}|\rangle$ realized for $y\simeq\tilde{y}\simeq\sqrt{2}$.
To realize the double protection mechanism, we assume that soft stop masses are $SU(3)$-symmetric at the scale $F$. To compute the effective potential, we assume for simplicity that these masses are universal: $$m_{Q}^{2}(|\tilde{Q}|^{2}+|\tilde{T}^{c}|^{2}+|\tilde{t}^{c}|^{2})\text{, }%$$ and we also neglect the possible left-right stop mixing. As in ref. [@berezhiani] we get the following result:$$\delta m_{H}^{2}=-\frac{3}{8\pi^{2}}y_{t}^{2}\left[ m_{Q}^{2}\ln\left(
1+\frac{m_{T}^{2}}{m_{Q}^{2}}\right) +m_{T}^{2}\ln\left( 1+\frac{m_{Q}^{2}%
}{m_{T}^{2}}\right) \right] +\Delta\text{,} \label{mass}%$$ where$$\Delta\supset\frac{3g_{2}^{2}M_{2}^{2}+g_{y}^{2}M_{y}^{2}}{8\pi^{2}}\ln
\frac{F}{M_{\text{soft}}}, \label{gtomass}%$$ the contribution due to $SU(2)\times U(1)_{y}$ gauginos with soft masses $M_{2}$,$M_{y}$. At the same time the dominant contribution to $\delta\lambda$ is given by[^4]$$\delta\lambda\simeq\frac{3}{16\pi^{2}}y_{t}^{4}\left[ \ln\frac{m_{Q}^{2}%
}{m_{t}^{2}(1+x)}-2x\ln(1+1/x)\right] ,\quad x=m_{Q}^{2}/m_{T}^{2}.
\label{quartic}%$$ Notice that this correction is *smaller* than the corresponding MSSM correction for the same value of the stop mass, which is due to the negative contribution of the heavy $T$ quark. In the $m_{T}\gg m_{Q}$ limit, which will turn out to be relevant below, we recover the standard MSSM equations, with the important difference that the scale of the logarithm in (\[mass\]) is given by $m_{T}$ instead of $M_{\text{GUT}}$.
The D-term potential reads:$$V_{D}=\frac{g^{2}+g_{y}^{2}}{8}\left( |H_{u}|^{2}-|H_{d}|^{2}+|H_{1}%
|^{2}-|H_{2}|^{2}\right) ^{2}=\frac{g^{2}+g_{y}^{2}}{8}(\alpha_{u}^{2}%
-\alpha_{d}^{2}+\alpha_{Z1}^{2}-\alpha_{Z2}^{2})^{2}|H|^{4}.$$ For the Higgs boson mass we get the following result:$$m_{h}^{2}\simeq\left( 1-v^{2}/f^{2}\right) \left[ M_{Z}^{2}(\alpha_{u}%
^{2}-\alpha_{d}^{2}+\alpha_{Z1}^{2}-\alpha_{Z2}^{2})^{2}+4\delta
\!\lambda\,\alpha_{u}^{4}\,v^{2}\right] . \label{Higgsmass}%$$ The overall suppression factor is due to the $\sigma$-model correction to the wavefunction normalization of the Higgs doublet; it can be derived by keeping track of terms higher order in $H$ which were omitted in (\[param\]). Considering the large $\tan\beta$ suppression resulting in $\alpha_{d}$ and $\alpha_{Z2}$ going to zero, we see that for a given $\delta\lambda$ the Higgs boson mass is maximized for $$\tan\beta\rightarrow\infty,\quad\alpha_{Z1}\rightarrow0,\quad f\rightarrow
\infty, \label{optimal}%$$ $$m_{h}^{\text{max}}=\left( M_{Z}^{2}+4\delta\!\lambda\,v^{2}\right) ^{1/2}.
\label{mhmass}%$$ Expanding in the small negative corrections appearing when these parameters deviate from their optimal values, (\[Higgsmass\]) can be numerically parametrized as follows $$m_{h}\simeq m_{h}^{\text{max}}-1\text{ GeV}\left[ \left( \frac{12}{\tan
\beta}\right) ^{2}+\left( \frac{1.3\text{ TeV}}{f}\right) ^{2}+\left(
\frac{\alpha_{Z1}}{0.15}\right) ^{2}\right] , \label{mcorr}%$$ where the first and the second corrections come from finite values of $\tan\beta$ and $f$ respectively, and the third from a nonzero $\alpha_{Z1}$. Since $m_{h}^{\text{max}}$ cannot be much above 115 GeV without a significant increase in finetuning (see Figs \[mhiggs-fig\], \[Delta1\] below), we should not allow the total loss in (\[mcorr\]) to exceed $1\div2$ GeV, which implies obvious constraints on the relevant parameters.
We now discuss the results for the Higgs boson mass and estimate the level of finetuning. In Fig. \[mhiggs-fig\] we plot the Higgs boson mass (\[mhmass\]) (i.e. without negative corrections given in (\[mcorr\])) as a function of $m_{Q}$ and $m_{T}$, using $\delta\lambda$ from eq. (\[quartic\]) with $m_{t}=172$ GeV. Similarly to the MSSM, the Higgs boson mass increases with $m_{Q}$. For a fixed $m_{Q}$, the correction is maximized in the $m_{T}\gg m_{Q}$ limit.
\[ptb\]
[mhiggs.eps]{}
In Fig. \[Delta1\] we plot the finetuning in the Higgs mass term $m^{2}|H|^{2}$ which is needed to compensate the top-stop contribution (\[mass\]):$$\text{FT}_{1}=\frac{\delta m_{H}^{2}|_{\Delta=0}}{ m_{h}^{2}/2} \,. \label{FT1}%$$
\[ptb\]
[Delta1.eps]{}
This finetuning increases quadratically with $m_{Q}$, but grows only logarithmically with $m_{T}$. Comparing Fig. \[mhiggs-fig\] with Fig. \[Delta1\], we see that $m_{Q}\sim800$ GeV and $m_{T}\gtrsim2.5$ TeV give $m_{h}>115$ GeV with about 10% finetuning (FT$_{1}=10$). Soft stop masses as small as $m_{Q}\sim600$ GeV are possible provided that $m_{T}$ is raised up to $4$ TeV.
Another source of finetuning in Model I is the $SU(3)$-symmetric top-stop contribution to the $m_{u}^{2}$ parameter of the scalar potential (\[V\]), which by (\[Su\]) should not exceed $2\lambda^{2}f_{u}^{2}.$ The corresponding finetuning parameter$$\text{FT}_{2}=\delta m_{u,stop}^{2}/(2\lambda^{2}f^{2}) \label{FT2}%$$ is plotted in the $m_{Q}-f$ plane in Fig. \[Delta2\], where we assume $y\simeq1,$ $\lambda=0.2$. We see that this finetuning is less than $20$% (FT$_{2}<5$) for $m_{Q}\sim800$ GeV and $f\gtrsim2$ TeV, which however translates into $m_{T}$ above $4$ TeV.
\[ptb\]
[Delta2.eps]{}
In general raising $f$ (and $m_{T}\simeq2f)$ we eliminate FT$_{2}$ while FT$_{1}$ grows only logarithmically. Unfortunately, in this limit the heavy top quark becomes undiscoverable at the LHC, and the scalar spectrum of the model resembles the standard MSSM at large $\tan\beta$ in the decoupling limit. In this case the only significant difference from the MSSM is the presence in the low-energy spectrum of states described by the tensors $\mathcal{Z}_{1}$ and $\mathcal{Z}_{2}$, i.e. triplets $T_{i}$, doublets $H_{i}$ and singlets $z_{i}$. The triplets contain doubly ($\tilde{T}^{++}_{1}$ or $\tilde{T}^{--}_{2}$) and singly ($\tilde{T}^{+}_{1}$ or $\tilde{T}^{-}_{2}$) charged and neutral ($\tilde{T}^{0}_{1}$ or $\tilde{T}^{0}_{2}$) higgsinos and their scalar partners. Doublets $H_i$ have the same composition as the Higgs chiral superfields $H_{u,d}$. All those fields have common supersymmetric mass parameter $\mu_Z$. It enters in the equation (\[Su\]) for the VEV of $z_{1}$ and is constrained by the requirement that no large negative $\alpha_{Z1}%
$-correction to the Higgs boson mass should be present in Eq. (\[mcorr\]). Assuming that all scalar soft masses are of the same order:$$M_{\text{SUSY}}\sim m_{u}\sim\sqrt{2}\lambda f\sim0.3f\text{,}%$$ $\mu_{Z}$ is bounded by$$\mu_{Z}\lesssim\alpha_{Z1}m_{\text{soft}}\lesssim f/20\text{.}%$$ This estimate, while being subject to significant uncertainty, does indicate that the masses of new fermions, in particular of the doubly charged Higgsinos, are expected to be below $200\div300$ GeV even for $f$ as high as $2$ TeV. We shall return to the phenomenological issues at the end of this section.
Finally, we need to comment on several other issues which are important for the consistency of our model. First, we note that the model can be UV completed as in Ref. [@berezhiani], with the gauge group $SU(3)\times
U(1)_{x}$ broken to the electroweak $SU(2)\times U(1)_{y}$ at the scale $F$. An extra pair of triplets $\Phi_{U,D}$ is responsible for this breaking, so that the full global symmetry of the scalar potential is $SU(3)\times
SU(3)$. The $SU(3)$-breaking term $mT^{c}T$ in the Model I superpotential (\[W1\]) originates naturally from an $SU(3)$-symmetric term $$y_{1}\Phi_{U}\Psi T^{c},\quad y_{1}\sim m/F=\tilde{y}f/F, \label{int1}%$$ of the UV completed superpotential. As explained in [@berezhiani], the soft mass terms of the $\Phi_{U}$ and $\Phi_{D}$ fields have to be very nearly universal at $F$, since their difference $m_{D}^{2}-m_{U}^{2}$ contributes to the mass term of the Higgs doublet via D-terms. Even assuming that these masses are universal at the GUT scale, superpotential interaction (\[int1\]) will contribute to the running of $m_{U}^{2}$, so that at $F$ the masses will be split by$$m_{D}^{2}-m_{U}^{2}\simeq\frac{3y_{1}^{2}}{8\pi^{2}}(m_{Q}^{2}+m_{T^{c}}%
^{2})\ln\frac{M_{\text{GUT}}}{F}%$$ This contribution must be $\lesssim v^{2}$ which can be achieved by choosing $F\gtrsim10f$ as can be seen from the second eq. in (\[int1\]).
On the other hand the $F$ scale cannot be too high because of the gaugino contributions to the Higgs mass, Eq. (\[gtomass\]).
For completeness we have to say a few words about the 5th Goldstone boson $\eta$, a gauge singlet axion, which appears in addition to the Higgs doublet when $SU(3)$ is broken spontaneously to $SU(2)$, as already mentioned above. This Goldstone is associated with a global $U(1)$ under which the gauge singlet components have charges $S_{u}(+1/2),S_{d}(-1/2),z_{1}(+1),z_{2}(-1)$, equal to the hypercharge of the upper components of the same $SU(3)$ multiplets; it resides mostly in the phase of $S_{u}$ whose VEV dominates the spontaneous symmetry breaking:$$S_{u}\simeq f_{u}\exp(i\eta/\sqrt{2}f_{u})\,.$$ The $\eta$ does not get mass from the $SU(3)$-breaking terms which we so far considered, since they preserve the above $U(1)$; it can however get mass if we add a small $SU(3)$-breaking tadpole$$\Delta V_{\text{soft}}=-m_{S}^{3}S_{u}+\text{H.c.,} \label{tadpole}%$$ which gives $m_{\eta}^{2}=m_{S}^{3}/f.$ This term breaks $S_{u}\rightarrow
-S_{u}$ symmetry and can be generated radiatively by adding to the superpotential a small term $\Delta W=m^{\prime}Tt^{c}$ breaking the same symmetry:$$m_{S}^{3}\simeq-\frac{3y}{2\pi^{2}}m^{\prime}m_{Q}^{2}\ln\frac{M_{\text{GUT}}%
}{F}.$$ It should be noticed however that the discussed axion, even if exactly massless, would not be in conflict with experiment [@berezhiani], since it couples very weakly to the ordinary matter (such a coupling could for example proceed via mixing with heavy fermions which are needed to implement the $SU(3)$ symmetry in the first and second generations).
Our last comment concerns the impact of the triplets $T_{1},$ $T_{2}$ on the precision electroweak observables. According to Eq. (\[param\]) they get VEVs, $T_{i}^{11}\simeq f_{Zi}\frac{v^{2}}{f^{2}}$. Since according to our discussion below Eq. (\[mcorr\]) we need $f_{Z1}<0.1f$ (and $f_{Z2}$ is even smaller), the contribution of the triplets to the $\rho$ parameter is sufficiently suppressed: $$\delta\rho=-2\frac{(T_{1}^{11})^{2}}{v^{2}},\quad|\delta\rho|<10^{-4}\left(
\frac{1.7\text{ TeV}}{f}\right) ^{2}.$$
We conclude that Model I is a fully consistent example of a supersymmetric model with a Higgs doublet as a Goldstone boson of extended global symmetry, perturbative up to the GUT scale and with large $\tan\beta$. Its phenomenology is similar to phenomenology of the MSSM in the decoupling limit, but finetuning in the Higgs potential is diminished by at least a factor $10$ compared to MSSM. The lightest Higgs mass is expected to be just above $115$ GeV, with stop around $800$ GeV, and the new top quark above $3\div4$ TeV, probably unreachable at the LHC. However, stabilization of the $SU(3)$ breaking potential requires new states. The extended scalar sector of Model I is unlikely to manifest itself at the LHC, since these particles are expected to be quite heavy (apart from the decoupled axion $\eta$), while their couplings to $WW$ and $t\bar{t}$ are suppressed due to large $\tan\beta$ and $f/v$ ratio.
Among new fermions, there are those with the same quantum numbers of MSSM chargino and neutralino states. However, the mixing between MSSM states and these new fermions is small because $f_{Zi}\ll f$ and the mass eigenstates remain almost MSSM-like. The new mass eigenstates, including $\tilde{T}^{\pm\pm}$ and $\tilde z_{i}$’s, are almost degenerate in mass, with masses $m\approx \mu_Z \approx 200$ GeV. The details of the mass spectrum depend on the details of the mixing. Thus we expect new light fermions doubling the MSSM states, but the best chance to see a trace of the $SU(3)$ structure is probably the doubly charged Higgsino. At the LHC, this double-chargino $\tilde{T}^{\pm\pm}$ will be pair-produced via the Drell-Yan process. It will most likely undergo a chain decay into $\tilde{T}^{\pm}$ and $W$ and finally into the lightest neutralino and two same sign $W$ bosons. Because of an approximate degeneracy of the mass spectra the decay products are likely to be off-shell. The double-chargino is likely to be long-lived and the decay vertex may be displaced. In any case, we expect events with two opposite-hemisphere pairs of same-sign leptons and missing transverse energy in the final state. We are not aware of experimental studies for signals of this type[^5]. By analogy with Drell-Yan chargino-neutralino searches, we can optimistically estimate the LHC integrated luminosity required for the discovery of $\tilde{T}^{\pm\pm}$ to be $O(100)$ fb$^{-1}$. The fermionic neutral singlets $\tilde{z}_{i}$’s may also be phenomenologically interesting. Depending on the details of the mass spectrum one of them may be the LSP and a potential candidate for dark matter particle. Our model provides then a concrete example of a spectrum going beyond the MSSM spectrum. More detailed phenomenological study of such and similar spectra are of experimental interest but beyond the scope of this paper.
Model II
========
It has been emphasized in [@extended] (following an earlier observation in [@contino]), that in models with extended global symmetry there exists also a mechanism for EWSB and the Higgs boson mass generation based on a tadpole contribution of an $SU(2)\times U(1)$ singlet component of the full scalar multiplet. This mechanism necessarily requires a small value of $f$, to minimize finetuning in the Higgs potential. In turn, this implies large quartic coupling and low UV cutoff. On the other hand, high enough Higgs boson mass can be produced even for moderate $\tan\beta$.
The simplest model achieving stabilization of $SU(3)$ breaking at small $f$ includes two Higgs triplets $\mathcal{H}_{d}$ and $\mathcal{H}_{u}$, same as in Model I, and an $SU(3)$ singlet $N$, with the superpotential$$W=\kappa N\mathcal{H}_{u}\mathcal{H}_{d}.$$ As we will see, it generically leads to low values of $\tan\beta$. We must have $\kappa\leq2$ for the Landau pole to be above $\Lambda_{\text{UV}}=20-30$ TeV; we will choose $\kappa=2$ in what follows. All RG runnings below are considered from $\Lambda_{\text{UV}}$ down to the Fermi scale, $\log
\frac{\Lambda_{\text{UV}}}{M_{\text{SUSY}}}\simeq3$ for $M_{\text{SUSY}}\sim1$ TeV.
The scalar potential reads:$$\begin{aligned}
V & =\kappa^{2}[|\mathcal{H}_{u}\mathcal{H}_{d}|^{2}+|N|^{2}(|\mathcal{H}%
_{u}|^{2}+|\mathcal{H}_{d}|^{2})]+V_{\text{soft}}\nonumber\\
V_{\text{soft}} & =m_{u}^{2}|\mathcal{H}_{u}|^{2}+m_{d}^{2}|\mathcal{H}%
_{d}|^{2}+m_{N}^{2}|N|^{2}-(A^{3}N+m_{3}^{2}\mathcal{H}_{u}\mathcal{H}%
_{d}+\text{H.c.}) \label{V2}%\end{aligned}$$ The masses $m_{u,d}^{2},m_{N}^{2}$ need to be positive to avoid runaway. We use $m_{3}^{2}$ to break $SU(3)$ spontaneously, while $A^{3}$ will give a VEV to $N$ and generate an effective $\mu$-term (chargino mass). It is consistent to assume that all terms which are not included at the tree level remain small or vanish. E.g. $A^{\prime}NH_{1}H_{2}$ term is generated by gaugino masses,$$\delta A^{\prime}\sim\frac{g^{2}\kappa M_{2}}{16\pi^{2}}\times3\sim
0.02M_{2}\,.$$ Possible modifications of the model can be obtained by adding $\mu
\mathcal{H}_{u}\mathcal{H}_{d}$ and/or $\kappa F^{2}N$ terms to the superpotential, as well as $N\mathcal{H}_{u}\mathcal{H}_{d}$ term to $V_{\text{soft}}$. These modifications lead to models of comparable quality", and we will not consider them.
Minimization of the potential (\[V2\]) in the gauge singlet direction gives$$\begin{aligned}
\langle|\mathcal{H}_{u,d}|\rangle & \equiv f_{u,d},\quad f^{2}\equiv f_{u}^{2}+f_{d}^{2}=\frac
{m_{3}^{2}-\mu_{u}\mu_{d}}{\kappa^{2}\sin\beta\cos\beta},\quad\tan\beta
\equiv\frac{f_{u}}{f_{d}}=\frac{\mu_{d}}{\mu_{u}},\label{minII}\\
\mu_{u,d}^{2} & \equiv m_{u,d}^{2}+\mu^{2},\quad\mu\equiv\kappa f_{N},\quad
\langle|N|\rangle\equiv f_{N}=\frac{A^{3}}{m_{N}^{2}+\kappa^{2}f^{2}},\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where we continue using notation of section \[split\] for the components of $\mathcal{H}_{d}$ and $\mathcal{H}_{u}$.
As in Model I, spontaneous breaking of $SU(3)$ to $SU(2)$ generates five Goldstone bosons, a doublet $H$ and an axion. $SU(3)$ symmetry must then be broken also explicitly, to get a potential for $H$, which will break electroweak symmetry. In this model the presence of the soft term $m_{3}^{2}$ results in nonvanishing VEVs $f_{u,d,N}$ breaking the global $SU(3)$. To avoid any risk of destabilization of the $SU(3)$ breaking potential by a negative $m_{u}^{2}%
$, we keep the top-stop sector as in MSSM. Thus, $SU(3)$ is explicitly broken by the top-stop sector. The standard RG running from $\Lambda_{\text{UV}}$ generates a negative contribution to the Higgs mass squared $$-\delta m_{H}^{2}|H_{u}|^{2}\equiv-\delta m_{H}^{2}\left( |\mathcal{H}%
_{u}|^{2}-|S_{u}|^{2}\right) \label{dmH}%$$ Another source of the explicit $SU(3)$ breaking is a tadpole contribution $m_{S}^{3}S_{u}$, which, we assume, is generated by strong dynamics at $\Lambda_{\text{UV}}$[^6]. Making use of (\[dmH\]), we can write the full $SU(3)$ breaking potential as a function of $S_{u}$: $$\Delta V=m_{H}^{2}|S_{u}|^{2}-\left( m_{S}^{3}S_{u}+\text{H.c.}\right)
\text{,} \label{po-br}%$$ which has the clear advantage of completely decoupling the $SU(3)$-symmetric potential minimization and vacuum disalignment. In this parametrization, we view the $|\mathcal{H}_{u}|^{2}$ contribution in (\[dmH\]) as a renormalization of $m_{u}^{2}$ parameter in (\[V2\]). Minimizing the CP-even part of (\[po-br\]), we find the VEV of $S_{u}$: $$\langle|S_{u}|\rangle=\frac{m_{S}^{3}}{m_{H}^{2}}\text{,}%$$ where we have to assume that the found minimum satisfies $|S_{u}|<f_{u}$, otherwise the true minimum will be at $S_{u}\simeq\pm f_{u}$ with no EWSB. On the other hand, $|S_{u}|<f_{u}$ means vacuum disalignment, with the Higgs VEV$$\langle|H_{u}|^{2}\rangle\equiv v_{u}^{2}=f_{u}^{2}-\langle|S_{u}|^{2}\rangle \label{Higgs-vev}%$$ and the EWSB scale given by$$v^{2}=v_{u}^{2}+v_{d}^{2}=f^{2}\left[ 1-\left( \frac{m_{S}^{3}}{f_{u}%
m_{H}^{2}}\right) ^{2}\right] . \label{vev0}%$$ We see that $v\ll f$ can be obtained only at the price of finetuning the ratio $m_{S}^{3}/f_{u}m_{H}^{2}$ to $1$. To illustrate this finetuning more clearly, we can express (\[po-br\]) as a function of $|H_{u}|$ by expanding $S_{u}=\sqrt{|f_{u}|^{2}-|H_{u}|^{2}}$, which is a good approximation for $v\ll f$: $$\Delta V\simeq const-(m_{H}^{2}-m_{S}^{3}/f_{u})|H_{u}|^{2}+\lambda|H_{u}%
|^{4}+\ldots,\quad\lambda=\frac{m_{S}^{3}}{4f_{u}^{3}}\,. \label{expan}%$$ We now see the origin of finetuning: it appears since we are canceling the $O(f^{2})$ Higgs mass term with the quadratic term appearing in the expansion of $\sqrt{f_{u}^{2}-|H_{u}|^{2}}$, taking advantage of the non-linear structure of the $\sigma$-model.
The finetuning discussed above can be quantified by means of the usual logarithmic derivative, or by measuring the portion of the uniformly distributed parameter space satisfying $v\leq174$ GeV; we get [@extended][^7] $$\text{FT}\simeq\frac{2f^{2}}{v^{2}}\,. \label{FT-II}%$$ As a reference value we fix $f=350$ GeV, corresponding to $O(10)\%$ finetuning[^8].
Other potential sources of finetuning in Model II are related to the RG running of the $SU(3)$-symmetric potential parameters. According to Eq. (\[minII\]) to avoid large cancellations in the potential for $SU(3)$ breaking, we must have $$\mu_{u}\mu_{d}\lesssim\kappa^{2}f^{2}/2 \label{nat0}%$$ i.e. effectively $$\mu^{2},\,m_{u}^{2},\,m_{d}^{2}\lesssim\kappa^{2}f^{2}/4\,.$$ As mentioned above, the $|\mathcal{H}_{u}|^{2}$ in Eq. (\[dmH\]) effectively renormalizes $m_{u}^{2};$ naturalness thus requires that $$\delta m_{H}^{2}=\frac{3}{4\pi^{2}}y_{t}^{2}m_{\tilde{t}}^{2}\log\frac
{\Lambda_{\text{UV}}}{M_{\text{SUSY}}}\sim\frac{m_{\tilde{t}}^{2}}{4\sin
^{2}\beta}\lesssim m_{u}^{2}\lesssim\kappa^{2}f^{2}/4\,. \label{mhII}%$$ Thus we get $$m_{\tilde{t}}\lesssim\sin\beta\,\kappa f\,. \label{mstconstr}%$$
Finally, we discuss the Higgs boson mass. The same expansion of the square root which allows us to finetune $v\ll f$ in (\[expan\]), also generates a Higgs quartic $\lambda$. For small $\tan\beta$ this quartic easily dominates the standard $D$-term quartic; as a result the Higgs boson mass is solely determined by the soft terms and the coupling $\kappa$. Taking into account the $\sigma$-model wavefunction suppression and also using the exact expression of the Higgs potential (\[po-br\]) instead of expanding in $H_{u}$, we find the Higgs boson mass $$m_{h}=\sin\beta(m_{H}/f)v\,.$$ If we assume that $m_{H}^{2}$ is entirely generated by stop loops we get $$m_{h}=\frac{v}{2}\frac{m_{\tilde{t}}}{f}\,,$$ and thus $m_{\tilde{t}}\simeq\sqrt{2}f$ for $m_{h}\simeq120$ GeV, consistently with the constraint (\[mstconstr\]) on $m_{\tilde{t}}$ for low $\tan\beta$. The model then predicts a light Higgs boson since larger values of $m_{\tilde{t}}/f$ are inconsistent with the constraint (\[mstconstr\]).
We will discuss phenomenology of Model II for $f=350$ GeV, $1\leq\tan\beta
\leq2$, and $\kappa=2$.We choose the potential parameters as follows ($t\equiv\tan\beta$): $$\begin{aligned}
\mu^{2} & =m_{u}^{2}=\frac{\kappa^{2}f^{2}/2}{1+t^{2}},\quad\,m_{d}%
^{2}=\frac{2t^{2}-1}{t^{2}+1}\kappa^{2}f^{2}/2\,,\\
m_{3}^{2} & =\frac{2\kappa^{2}f^{2}}{t+t^{-1}},\quad m_{N}^{2}=6m_{u}%
^{2},\quad\,A^{3}=(m_{N}^{2}+\kappa^{2}f^{2})\frac{\mu}{\kappa}\,,\end{aligned}$$ which is consistent with naturalness and produces a minimum of the potential at the given values of $f$ and $\tan\beta$. We see that Higgsinos are expected to be light, $\mu\sim100\div200$ GeV, for $f=350$ GeV.
Furthermore, since $f$ is small, phenomenology of the model is strongly influenced by its non-linear structure. We recall that in the $\sigma$-model approximation $$\mathcal{H}_{u}=f_{u}\left(
\begin{array}
[c]{l}%
\frac{H}{|H|}\sin(\frac{|H|}{f})\\
\cos(\frac{|H|}{f})
\end{array}
\right) \label{Huparam}%$$ and similarly for $\mathcal{H}_{d}$ ($|H|=\sqrt{H^{\dagger}H}$). We also can parametrize the Higgs doublet $H$ nonlinearly: $$H=\Sigma\left(
\begin{array}
[c]{c}%
0\\
\bar{v}+h/\sqrt{2}%
\end{array}
\right) , \label{goldst}%$$ where $\Sigma=e^{iT^{a}G^{a}/v}$ is the pion field containing the Goldstone bosons eaten by the W and Z. The fields are canonically normalized. The true electroweak scale reads $v=f\sin(\bar{v}/f)$. Additional heavy scalar modes describe deviation from the $\sigma$-model structure (\[Huparam\]). For instance, fluctuations in the radial directions can be introduced by replacing$$f_{u,d}\rightarrow f_{u,d}+s_{u,d}/\sqrt{2}. \label{radial}%$$ We are interested in the couplings of the scalars $h$, $s_{u}$, $s_{d}$ to the vector boson pairs. By the equivalence theorem, these couplings can be obtained from the kinetic part of the Lagrangian for $\mathcal{H}_{u}$ and $\mathcal{H}_{d}$ inserting (\[goldst\]) into (\[Huparam\]). The couplings of $s_{u,d}$ are found using (\[radial\]). We get: $$\mathcal{L}=v^{2}|D_{\mu}\Sigma|^{2}+\sqrt{2}v|D_{\mu}\Sigma|^{2}\left[
\cos(\bar{v}/f)h+\frac{v}{f}(\cos\beta\,s_{u}+\sin\beta\,s_{d})\right]$$ We see that the $h$ coupling to pions, and hence to $WW,$ is suppressed by $\cos(\bar{v}/f)=\left( 1-v^{2}/f^{2}\right) ^{1/2}$, and $h$ unitarizes $WW$ amplitude only partially. Unitarization is completed by the exchange of the heavy scalars. The $s_{u,d}WW$ couplings appear because the radial directions obtain nonzero projection on the first two components of $\mathcal{H}_{u,d}$ when expanded around $v\neq0$.
The fields $s_{u}$ and $s_{d}$ are not mass eigenstates. In the mass matrix, they mix with each other and also with the radial excitation of $N$. Thus, three heavy mass eigenstates complete the unitarization of $WW$ scattering. Denoting the mass eigenstates by $S_{i}$, $i=1,2,3$, e.g. for $f=350$ GeV, $\kappa=2$ and $\tan\beta=2$ we get $m_{S_{i}}\simeq(290,850,1000)$ GeV$.$ The cubic $WW$-scalar interaction Lagrangian in this case is given by$$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L} & =g_{WWh}^{\text{SM}}[\cos(\bar{v}/f)h+(v/f)c_{i}S_{i}]W_{\mu
}^{2},\label{cubic}\\
c & \simeq(0.86,-0.13,-0.5),\quad c_{i}^{2}=1,\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ so that the $WW$ scattering is fully unitarized above $m_{S3}$.
Other important couplings are the $S_{i}\bar{t}t$ couplings as they determine the production rate of these scalars via the gluon fusion. They originate from the term $$y_{t}\frac{v}{f}\frac{s_{u}}{\sqrt{2}}t\bar{t},\quad y_{t}\equiv
\frac{m_{t}}{v\sin\beta},$$ which appears similarly to the $s_{u,d}WW$ couplings discussed above. Due to the $v/f$ coupling suppression, production rates of the heavy scalars via the gluon fusion, as well as via the vector boson fusion, will be suppressed by at least one order of magnitude with respect to the corresponding production rates for the SM Higgs boson of the same mass. Nevertheless, at least the lightest of these heavy scalars should be quite easy to discover at the LHC in the gold-plated decays $S_{1}\rightarrow
ZZ\rightarrow4l$.
Apart from the radial modes (\[radial\]), another interesting heavy mode is a longitudinal fluctuation orthogonal to the pseudo-Goldstone mode:$$H_{u}=\cos\beta\,H_{1},\quad H_{d}=-\sin\beta H_{1}. \label{long}%$$ The $SU(2)$ doublet $H_{1}$ does not get a VEV and is decoupled from the vector boson pairs; it is analogous to the heavy MSSM doublet in the decoupling limit. It describes a degenerate heavy multiplet ($H^{\pm}%
,H^{0},A^{0})$ of mass$$m_{H1}^{2}\simeq\frac{\mu_{u}\mu_{d}}{\sin\beta\cos\beta},$$ which can be found substituting (\[long\]) into the scalar potential. By (\[nat0\]), we expect $m_{H1}=O(\kappa f)\sim700$ GeV. The neutral members of this multiplet couple to $t\bar{t}$ with strength $\cot\beta$ times the SM Higgs coupling. They will be produced via gluon fusion and will be seen as narrow resonances decaying into $t\bar{t}$ pairs (total width around $30$ GeV). Using the model-independent analysis of [@walker], we can estimate that $O(10)$ fb$^{-1}$ of integrated luminosity could be enough for their discovery at the LHC.
Finally, we discuss the effect of the heavy scalars on the electroweak observables. As pointed out in Ref.[@extended], the relevant parameter is the effective Higgs boson mass, which in our case is given by $$m_{\text{EWPT}}=m_{h}\left( \frac{\bar{m}}{m_{h}}\right) ^{\frac{v^{2}%
}{f^{2}}},\quad\bar{m}=\prod\left( m_{S_{i}}\right) ^{c_{i}^{2}},$$ where the $c_{i}$ are the parameters appearing in the $WW$-scalar interaction Lagrangian (\[cubic\]). In our numerical example we get $\bar{m}=400$ GeV and $m_{\text{EWPT}}=155$ GeV for $m_{h}=115$ GeV. Thus, $m_{\text{EWPT}}$ is slightly above the $144$ GeV $95\%$ C.L. limit, but various other supersymmetric contributions can easily compensate its effect in the $(S,T)$ plane.
Conclusions
===========
We have presented two realistic supersymmetric models with Higgs doublet as Goldstone boson of a spontaneously broken extended global symmetry. Model I is perturbative up to the GUT scale and realizes large $\tan\beta$ scenario, while Model II requires a rather low UV cut-off ($\sim20$ TeV) and generically gives low $\tan\beta$. Both models avoid excessive finetuning in the Higgs potential and are in fact motivated by this requirement. Being perturbative up to much higher cut-off than so-called strongly interacting models, they do not lead to any serious tension with precision electroweak data. The two models illustrate two different mechanisms for EWSB and the Higgs mass generation. Their experimental signatures are quite different. Clearly, the price for a small finetuning is some complexity (e.g. compared to the MSSM). Our constructions supplement the list of previous proposals for ameliorating the supersymmetric little hierarchy problem. E.g. the Next-to-Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model easily solves the little hierarchy if its $SH_{u}H_{d}$ coupling $\lambda$ is allowed to become strong below the GUT scale (a possibility recently taken to the extreme in [@lsusy]). Its predictions are different from Model II as, for instance, it does not predict non-linear effects in the scalar couplings. We will wait and see what experiment tells us. For the moment, the main lesson of our constructions is that the possibility of the Higgs boson as a Goldstone boson in perturbative theories looks equally plausible as in non-perturbative scenarios with low cut-off and actually more predictive.
Acknowledgements
================
V.S.R. was supported by the EU under RTN contract MRTN-CT-2004-503369 and ToK contract MTKD-CT-2005-029466.
Technical details on Model I {#tech1}
============================
In this appendix we collect some technical details relevant for Model I. It is convenient to normalize all charges and couplings with the UV completion into $SU(3)\times U(1)_{x}$ in mind. For instance $\mathcal{H}_{u}$ has $SU(3)\times U(1)_{x}$ quantum numbers $3_{1/3}$, $$D\mathcal{H}_{u}=\left( W^{a}T^{a}+1/3B_{x}\right) \mathcal{H}_{u}\,.$$ The unbroken generator is $Y=\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}T^{8}+X$. The $SU(3)$ gauge coupling $g$ coincides at the scale $F$ with the $SU(2)$ gauge coupling $g_{2}$. The $U(1)_{y}$ coupling $g_{y}$ at $F$ is: $$g_{y}=\frac{gg_{x}}{\sqrt{g^{2}+g_{x}^{2}/3}}\,.$$ Numerical values of $g$ and $g_{x}$ are $0.65$ and $0.37$ respectively. The RG equation for $m_{3}^{2}$ in Eq. (\[V\]) valid above $F$ reads $$16\pi^{2}\frac{dm_{3}^{2}}{d\log\Lambda}=-\frac{16}{3}g^{2}M\mu+U(1)_{x}%
\text{-gaugino contribution.}%$$ Here $M$ is the $SU(3)$-symmetric gaugino mass. For the running from the GUT scale we get $$\delta m_{3}^{2}\sim0.4M\mu\,.$$ From (\[Su\]), the natural value of $\tan\beta$ is $m_{d}^{2}/\delta
m_{3}^{2}$. We see that $\tan\beta=O(10)$ is naturally allowed, provided that $m_{d}$ is a factor of a few larger than $M,\mu$. Running from $F$ down generates only $H_{u}H_{d}$ coefficient which is much smaller since the running is very short.
Other mass parameters whose running is of interest for the model are $m_{u}^{2}$ and $m_{Z2}^{2}$. For $\log M_{\text{GUT}}/F\sim30$ one gets $$\begin{aligned}
\delta m_{u}^{2} & =\frac{1}{16\pi^{2}}6y^{2}\left( m_{Q}^{2}+m_{T^{c}}%
^{2}+m_{u}^{2}\right) \times30+\frac{1}{16\pi^{2}}16\lambda
^{2}\left( m_{u}^{2}+m_{Z2}^{2}\right) \times30\\
\delta m_{Z2}^{2} & =\frac{1}{16\pi^{2}}4\lambda^{2}\left( m_{u}^{2}%
+m_{Z2}^{2}\right) \times30\end{aligned}$$ The dominant contribution comes from the term proportional to the Yukawa coupling. It makes $m_{u}^{2}$ negative and breaks the global $SU(3)$ symmetry radiatively.
Finally, we discuss the perturbativity constraint up to the GUT scale on the couplings $\lambda$ and $y$. The RG equations read: $$\begin{aligned}
16\pi^{2}\frac{dy}{d\log\Lambda} & =y\left( 7y^{2}+8\lambda^{2}-\frac
{16}{3}(g_{3}^{2}+g^{2})-O(g_{x}^{2})\right) \\
16\pi^{2}\frac{d\lambda}{d\log\Lambda} & =\lambda\left( 18\lambda
^{2}+6y^{2}-12g^{2}-\frac{4}{3}g_{x}^{2}\right)\end{aligned}$$ where $g_{3}$ is the strong coupling constant. One can check that the safe range for values of the couplings at the scale $F$ is $y\lesssim1.2$, $\lambda\lesssim0.3.$
[99]{}
D. B. Kaplan and H. Georgi, SU(2) X U(1) Breaking By Vacuum Misalignment, Phys. Lett. B **136**, 183 (1984). D. B. Kaplan, H. Georgi and S. Dimopoulos, Composite Higgs Scalars, Phys. Lett. B **136**, 187 (1984).
K. Agashe, R. Contino and A. Pomarol, The minimal composite Higgs model, Nucl. Phys. B **719**, 165 (2005) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0412089\].
R. Contino, L. Da Rold and A. Pomarol, “Light custodians in natural composite Higgs models,” Phys. Rev. D **75**, 055014 (2007) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0612048\].
R. Contino, T. Kramer, M. Son and R. Sundrum, “Warped/Composite Phenomenology Simplified,” JHEP **0705**, 074 (2007) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0612180\].
G. F. Giudice, C. Grojean, A. Pomarol and R. Rattazzi, The strongly-interacting light Higgs,JHEP **0706**, 045 (2007), arXiv:hep-ph/0703164.
A. Falkowski, S. Pokorski and J. P. Roberts, Modelling strong interactions and longitudinally polarized vector boson scattering, JHEP **0712**, 063 (2007) \[arXiv:0705.4653 \[hep-ph\]\].
R. Barbieri, B. Bellazzini, V. S. Rychkov and A. Varagnolo, The Higgs boson from an extended symmetry, Phys. Rev. D **76**, 115008 (2007) arXiv:0706.0432 \[hep-ph\].
C. Csaki, J. Heinonen, M. Perelstein and C. Spethmann, “A Weakly Coupled Ultraviolet Completion of the Littlest Higgs with T-parity,” arXiv:0804.0622 \[hep-ph\].
A. Birkedal, Z. Chacko and M. K. Gaillard, Little supersymmetry and the supersymmetric little hierarchy problem, JHEP **0410**, 036 (2004) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0404197\].
P. H. Chankowski, A. Falkowski, S. Pokorski and J. Wagner, Electroweak symmetry breaking in supersymmetric models with heavy scalar superpartners, Phys. Lett. B **598**, 252 (2004) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0407242\].
Z. Berezhiani, P. H. Chankowski, A. Falkowski and S. Pokorski, Double protection of the Higgs potential, Phys. Rev. Lett. **96**, 031801 (2006) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0509311\].
T. Roy and M. Schmaltz, Naturally heavy superpartners and a little Higgs, JHEP **0601**, 149 (2006) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0509357\].
C. Csaki, G. Marandella, Y. Shirman and A. Strumia, “The super-little Higgs,” Phys. Rev. D **73**, 035006 (2006) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0510294\].
A. Falkowski, S. Pokorski and M. Schmaltz, Twin SUSY, Phys. Rev. D **74**, 035003 (2006) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0604066\].
R. Barbieri, L. J. Hall and V. S. Rychkov, Improved naturalness with a heavy Higgs: An alternative road to LHC physics, Phys. Rev. D **74**, 015007 (2006) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0603188\].
V. Barger, T. Han and D. G. E. Walker, Top Quark Pairs at High Invariant Mass - A Model-Independent Discriminator of New Physics at the LHC, Phys. Rev. Lett. **100**, 031801 (2008) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0612016\].
R. Barbieri, L. J. Hall, Y. Nomura and V. S. Rychkov, “Supersymmetry without a light Higgs boson,” Phys. Rev. D **75**, 035007 (2007) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0607332\].
D. A. Demir, M. Frank, K. Huitu, S. K. Rai and I. Turan, “Signals of Doubly-Charged Higgsinos at the CERN Large Hadron Collider,” arXiv:0805.4202 \[hep-ph\].
[^1]: Here and throughout the paper $v$ is the electroweak scale in $v\simeq174$ GeV normalization.
[^2]: It’s useful to keep in mind that our doublet $H_{u}$ is related to the MSSM doublet $H_{u}$ via $H_{u\text{.our}%
}=\varepsilon\cdot H_{u\text{,MSSM}}$.
[^3]: The omitted soft terms $\mathcal{Z}_{1}\mathcal{Z}_{2}$ and $\mathcal{Z}%
_{2}\mathcal{H}_{u}\mathcal{H}_{d}$ will in general be produced by running from the GUT scale; we have checked that their typical generated values are small and do not affect the dynamics.
[^4]: The formula given in [@berezhiani] contains an extra $+3/2$ term in square brackets. Our formula is correct provided that $\delta\lambda$ is defined as the coefficient in the Higgs mass correction formula, Eq. (\[Higgsmass\]).
[^5]: In [@Demir:2008wt] doubly charged Higgsinos with a significant coupling to leptons were considered, so that a dominant decay mode is into slepton-lepton pairs, with the slepton subsequently decaying into a lepton plus neutralino. This gives rise to a practically background-free same-sign, same-flavor lepton pair and missing energy signature. Such couplings in our model would violate the lepton number conservation and are by no means necessary (if allowed at all). Our case is definitely more challenging experimentally.
[^6]: Perturbative origin of the tadpole could be engineered if desired by breaking $S_{u}\rightarrow-S_{u}$ symmetry in the superpotential, similarly to the generation of (\[tadpole\]) in Model I.
[^7]: This finetuning does not increase even if $m_{H}$ and $m_{S}$ are scaled up, because the Higgs quartic $\lambda$ in (\[expan\]) and, correspondingly, the Higgs mass (see below), increases in the same limit, improving naturalness" in the sense of [@IDM].
[^8]: Comparing with [@extended], notice a factor $\sqrt{2}$ difference in normalization of $f$ resulting from the change from real to complex fields. Our $f=350$ GeV gives the same finetuning as $f\simeq500$ GeV in [@extended].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
-
bibliography:
- 'references.bib'
title: Using Quantifier Elimination to Enhance the Safety Assurance of Deep Neural Networks
---
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
**[The Complement of Binary Klein Quadric as\
a Combinatorial Grassmannian]{}**
Metod Saniga
Institute for Discrete Mathematics and Geometry, Vienna University of Technology\
Wiedner Hauptstraße 8–10, A-1040 Vienna, Austria\
([email protected])
and
Astronomical Institute, Slovak Academy of Sciences\
SK-05960 Tatransk' a Lomnica, Slovak Republic\
([email protected])
[**Abstract**]{}
Given a hyperbolic quadric of PG(5,2), there are 28 points off this quadric and 56 lines skew to it. It is shown that the $(28_6, 56_3)$-configuration formed by these points and lines is isomorphic to the combinatorial Grassmannian of type $G_2(8)$. It is also pointed out that a set of seven points of $G_2(8)$ whose labels share a mark corresponds to a Conwell heptad of PG(5,2). Gradual removal of Conwell heptads from the $(28_6, 56_3)$-configuration yields a nested sequence of binomial configurations identical with part of that found to be associated with Cayley-Dickson algebras (arXiv:1405.6888).
[**Keywords:**]{} Combinatorial Grassmannian $-$ Binary Klein Quadric $-$ Conwell Heptad
Let $\mathcal{Q}^{+}(5,2)$ be a hyperbolic quadric in a five-dimensional projective space PG$(5,2)$. As it is well known (see, e.g., [@hir1; @hir2]), there are 28 points lying off this quadric as well as 56 lines skew (or, external) to it. If the equation of the quadric is taken in a canonical form $x_1x_2 + x_3x_4 + x_5x_6 = 0$, then the 28 off-quadric points are
No. $x_1$ $x_2$ $x_3$ $x_4$ $x_5$ $x_6$
------ -------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------
1 1 1 1 0 0 0
2 1 1 0 0 1 0
3 1 1 0 0 0 1
4 1 1 0 1 0 0
5 1 1 1 0 1 0
6 1 1 1 0 0 1
7 1 1 0 1 1 0
8 1 1 0 1 0 1
9 0 0 1 1 0 0
10 0 0 1 1 1 0
11 0 0 1 1 0 1
12 0 1 1 1 0 0
13 1 0 1 1 1 0
14 1 0 1 1 0 1
15 0 0 0 0 1 1
16 1 0 0 0 1 1
17 0 0 1 0 1 1
18 0 0 0 1 1 1
19 0 1 1 0 1 1
20 0 1 0 1 1 1
21 1 1 1 1 1 1
22 1 1 0 0 0 0
23 1 0 1 1 0 0
24 0 1 1 1 1 0
25 0 1 1 1 0 1
26 0 1 0 0 1 1
27 1 0 1 0 1 1
28 1 0 0 1 1 1
and the 56 external lines read
In the latter table, the ‘+’ symbol indicates which point lies on a given line; for example, line 1 consists of points 1, 4 and 9. As it is obvious from this table, each line has three points and through each point there are six lines; hence, these points and lines form a $(28_6, 56_3)$-configuration.
Next, a combinatorial Grassmannian $G_k(X)$ (see, e.g., [@praz; @owpr]), where $k$ is a positive integer and $X$ is a finite set, $|X| =
N$, is a point-line incidence structure whose points are $k$-element subsets of $X$ and whose lines are $(k + 1)$-element subsets of $X$, incidence being inclusion. Obviously, $G_k(N)$ is a $\left({N \choose k}_{N-k}, {N \choose
k+1}_{k+1}\right)$-configuration; hence, we have another $(28_6, 56_3)$-configuration, $G_2(8)$.
It is straightforward to see that the two $(28_6, 56_3)$-configurations are, in fact, isomorphic. To this end, one simply employs the following bijection between the 28 off-quadric points and the 28 points of $G_2(8)$ (here, by a slight abuse of notation, $X = \{1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8\}$)
off-$\mathcal{Q}$ $G_2(8)$ off-$\mathcal{Q}$ $G_2(8)$
------------------- ----------- ------------------- -----------
1 $\{1,4\}$ 15 $\{2,3\}$
2 $\{3,5\}$ 16 $\{4,7\}$
3 $\{2,5\}$ 17 $\{5,6\}$
4 $\{4,6\}$ 18 $\{1,5\}$
5 $\{2,6\}$ 19 $\{1,7\}$
6 $\{3,6\}$ 20 $\{6,7\}$
7 $\{1,2\}$ 21 $\{4,5\}$
8 $\{1,3\}$ 22 $\{7,8\}$
9 $\{1,6\}$ 23 $\{5,8\}$
10 $\{2,4\}$ 24 $\{3,8\}$
11 $\{3,4\}$ 25 $\{2,8\}$
12 $\{5,7\}$ 26 $\{4,8\}$
13 $\{3,7\}$ 27 $\{1,8\}$
14 $\{2,7\}$ 28 $\{6,8\}$
and verifies step by step that each of the above-listed 56 lines of PG(5,2) is also a line of $G_2(8)$; thus, line 1 of PG(5,2) corresponds to the line $\{1,4,6\}$ of $G_2(8)$, line 2 to the line $\{1,2,4\}$, line 3 to $\{1,3,4\}$, etc.
This isomorphism entails a very interesting property related to so-called Conwell heptads [@con]. Given a $\mathcal{Q}^{+}(5,2)$ of PG(5,2), a Conwell heptad is a set of seven off-quadric points such that each line joining two distinct points of the heptad is skew to the $\mathcal{Q}^{+}(5,2)$. There are altogether eight such heptads: any two of them have a unique point in common and each of the 28 points off the quadric is contained in two heptads. The points in the first table are arranged in such a way that, as it is obvious from the bottom part of the second table, the last seven of them represent a Conwell heptad. From the last table we read off that this particular heptad corresponds to those seven points of $G_2(8)$ whose representatives have mark ‘8’ in common. Clearly, the remaining seven heptads correspond to those septuples of points of $G_2(8)$ that share one of the remaining seven marks each. Finally, we observe that by removing from our off-quadric $(28_6, 56_3)$-configuration the seven points of a Conwell heptad and all the 21 lines defined by pairs of them one gets a $(21_5, 35_3)$-configuration isomorphic to $G_2(7)$; gradual removal of additional heptads and the corresponding lines yields the following nested sequence of configurations:
----------------- ---------------- ---------- ---------------
$\#$ of heptads Configuration CG Remark
removed
0 $(28_6, 56_3)$ $G_2(8)$
1 $(21_5, 35_3)$ $G_2(7)$
2 $(15_4, 20_3)$ $G_2(6)$ Cayley-Salmon
3 $(10_3, 10_3)$ $G_2(5)$ Desargues
4 $(6_2, 4_3)$ $G_2(4)$ Pasch
5 $(3_1, 1_3)$ $G_2(3)$ single line
6 $(1_0, 0_3)$ $G_2(2)$ single point
7 empty set
----------------- ---------------- ---------- ---------------
Remarkably, this nested sequence of binomial configurations is identical with part of that found to be associated with Cayley-Dickson algebras [@cd].
Acknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered}
==============
This work was partially supported by the VEGA Grant Agency, Project 2/0003/13, as well as by the Austrian Science Fund (Fonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung (FWF)), Research Project M1564–N27.
[10]{} =-2pt J. W. P. Hirschfeld, Finite projective spaces of three dimensions, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1985. J. W. P. Hirschfeld and J. A. Thas, General Galois geometries, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1991. M. Prażmowska, Multiplied perspectives and generalizations of Desargues configuration, Demonstratio Mathematica 39 (2006) 887–906. A. Owsiejczuk and M. Prażmowska, Combinatorial generalizations of generalized quadrangles of order (2,2), Des. Codes Cryptography 53 (2009) 45–57. G. M. Conwell, The 3-space PG(3,2) and its group, Ann. Math. 11 (1910) 60–76. M. Saniga, F. Holweck and P. Pracna, Cayley-Dickson algebras and finite geometry, arXiv:1405.6888.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'D. Cormier'
- 'V. Lebouteiller'
- 'S. C. Madden'
- 'N. Abel'
- 'S. Hony'
- 'F. Galliano'
- 'M. Baes'
- 'M. J. Barlow'
- 'A. Cooray'
- 'I. De Looze'
- 'M. Galametz'
- 'O. Ł. Karczewski'
- 'T. J. Parkin'
- 'A. R[é]{}my'
- 'M. Sauvage'
- 'L. Spinoglio'
- 'C. D. Wilson'
- 'R. Wu'
bibliography:
- '../../BIB/references.bib'
title: ' The nature of the interstellar medium of the starburst low-metallicity galaxy Haro11: a multi-phase model of the infrared emission [^1] '
---
[The low metallicity interstellar medium (ISM) is profoundly different from that of normal systems, being clumpy with low dust abundance and little CO-traced molecular gas. Yet many dwarf galaxies in the nearby universe are actively forming stars. As the complex ISM phases are spatially mixed with each other, detailed modeling is needed to understand the gas emission and subsequent composition and structure of the ISM.]{} [Our goal is to describe the multi-phase ISM of the infrared bright low-metallicity galaxy Haro11, dissecting the photoionised and photodissociated gas components.]{} [We present observations of the mid-infrared and far-infrared fine-structure cooling lines obtained with the [*Spitzer*]{}/IRS and [*Herschel*]{}/PACS spectrometers. We use the spectral synthesis code Cloudy to methodically model the ionised and neutral gas from which these lines originate.]{} [We find that the mid- and far-infrared lines account for $\sim$1% of the total infrared luminosity $\rm{L_{TIR}}$, acting as major coolants of the gas. Haro11 is undergoing a phase of intense star formation, as traced by the brightest line, \[O [iii]{}\] 88 $\mu$m, with $\rm{L_{[O~III]}/L_{TIR}}$ $\sim$ 0.3%, and high ratios of \[Ne [iii]{}\]/\[Ne [ii]{}\] and \[S [iv]{}\]/\[S [iii]{}\]. Due to their different origins, the observed lines require a multi-phase modeling comprising: a compact H [ii]{} region, dense fragmented photodissociation regions (PDRs), a diffuse extended low-ionisation/neutral gas which has a volume filling factor of at least 90%, and porous warm dust in proximity to the stellar source. For a more realistic picture of the ISM of Haro11 we would need to model the clumpy source and gas structures. We combine these 4 model components to explain the emission of 17 spectral lines, investigate the global energy balance of the galaxy through its spectral energy distribution, and establish a phase mass inventory. While the ionic emission lines of Haro11 essentially originate from the dense H [ii]{} region component, a diffuse low-ionisation gas is needed to explain the \[Ne [ii]{}\], \[N [ii]{}\], and \[C [ii]{}\] line intensities. The \[O [iii]{}\] 88 $\mu$m line intensity is not fully reproduced by our model, hinting towards the possible presence of yet another low-density high-ionisation medium. The \[O [i]{}\] emission is consistent with a dense PDR of low covering factor, and we find no evidence for an X-ray dominated component. The PDR component accounts for only 10% of the \[C [ii]{}\] emission. Magnetic fields, known to be strong in star-forming regions, may dominate the pressure in the PDR. For example, for field strengths of the order of 100 $\mu$G, up to 50% of the \[C [ii]{}\] emission may come from the PDR. ]{}
Introduction
============
Star formation in the most pristine environments of the early universe is poorly understood. The closest analogs to chemically unevolved systems are the low metallicity dwarf galaxies of our local universe. But even those well-studied nearby galaxies continue to plague us with fundamental questions on what triggers and regulates star formation in metal-poor gas-rich conditions. Certainly, from an observational point of view, at all wavelengths, local universe low-metallicity dwarf galaxies show dramatic differences compared to their more metal-rich counterparts [@kunth-2000 for a review], in the mid-infrared (MIR), far-infrared (FIR), and submillimeter (submm) wavelength regimes. These include the dearth of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs), prominent hot MIR-emitting dust, submm excess, and enhanced \[C [ii]{}\] 157 $\mu$m/CO(1-0) ratios [e.g. @madden-2008; @madden-2012a].
What physical properties, local as well as global, within the dwarf galaxies are we witnessing with these observational signatures? How do we turn these signatures into a realistic view of star formation under early universe conditions? How do basic local parameters, such as radiation field, density, compactness, filling factors, metallicity, etc. figure in the picture we have of star-forming dwarf galaxies? Much of the ambiguity surrounding these questions is due to the lack of understanding the precise role of critical diagnostics and of spatial resolution in the most nearby objects, especially in the FIR/submm, resulting in a mixture of different interstellar medium (ISM) phases in the integrated view of galaxies.
Low metallicity star-forming dwarf galaxies host young massive stellar clusters [e.g. @turner-2000; @beck-2000; @johnson-2003] which produce ultraviolet (UV) photons. Thus UV photons play an important role in the heating and the chemistry of the ISM, controlling the structure of H [ii]{} regions and photodissociation regions (PDRs). While the heating of the gas is mainly due to photoionisation and gas-grain collisions in the H [ii]{} regions and to the photoelectric effect and cosmic rays in the neutral phase, the cooling is normally dominated by radiative de-excitation of fine-structure lines, readily observed in the MIR and FIR/submm. The behavior of these tracers and their relationship to the star formation properties, have been extensively studied to access physical parameters in terms of the gas temperature, density, and the radiation field [@malhotra-2001; @hunter-2001; @brauher-2008 e.g.]. These sudies make use of photoionisation and PDR models at the scale of individual clouds [@kaufman-1999; @wolfire-1990; @ferland-1998; @abel-2005; @roellig-2006; @tielens-hollenbach-1985].
The \[C [ii]{}\] 157 $\mu$m line is an important FIR diagnostic often put forward as a star formation tracer [@stacey-2010; @boselli-2002; @delooze-2011]. It has been observed in many different object types, including dense star-forming regions [@stacey-1991], diffuse ionised and atomic regions [@madden-1993], and high-redshift galaxies [@maiolino-2009; @stacey-2010]. Since the \[C [ii]{}\] line is well-correlated with the $^{12}$CO(1-0) line and the FIR luminosity [e.g. @stacey-1991; @pierini-2003], it is generally considered that the \[C [ii]{}\] line traces massive star formation within the PDR paradigm. \[C [ii]{}\] is normally the brightest FIR cooling line, being much brighter than CO, and carrying about 0.1 to $\sim$0.5% of the FIR luminosity in metal-rich star-forming galaxies. In low metallicity dwarf galaxies, where CO(1-0) is not easily detected [e.g. @schruba-2012; @leroy-2011], \[C [ii]{}\] can be as high as 1% of the L$\rm{_{FIR}}$ and often 5 to 10 times brighter relative to CO than in dustier starburst galaxies [e.g. @poglitsch-1995; @madden-1995; @madden-2000; @hunter-2001; @cormier-2010]. The high \[C [ii]{}\]/CO(1-0) ratio in low-metallicity systems may be alerting us to the fact that the morphology of their PDRs and H [ii]{} regions and the relative filling factors of the various phases of dwarf galaxies differ from those of more metal-rich objects [e.g. @madden-2000; @kaufman-2006; @roellig-2006]. Even in the nearest neighboring dwarf galaxies, the picture of star formation – and what controls this star formation – is enigmatic.
However, using \[C [ii]{}\] alone can lead to ambiguous interpretation, particularly on the origin of the C$^+$ emission, which can arise from the ionised as well as neutral phases of the ISM. To employ the \[C [ii]{}\] line as a valuable star formation tracer, it is necessary to model the different phases on galaxy-wide scales. The challenge rests on the unavoidable fact that on the scale of galaxies, aside from the closest dwarf galaxies such as the LMC (50 kpc, 1/2 Z$_{\odot}$), SMC (60 kpc, 1/5 Z$_{\odot}$), NGC6822 (500 kpc, 1/4 Z$_{\odot}$), or IC10 (800 kpc, 1/3 Z$_{\odot}$), the phases of the ISM are mixed together in single telescope beams. When using a limited number of diagnostic lines, only a single galactic component can be modeled and average conditions derived, which is otherwise an ensemble of individual PDRs, ionised regions, etc. This requires modeling a comprehensive suit of tracers covering a range of critical densities and excitation potentials to characterise the dense H [ii]{} regions, the diffuse H [ii]{} regions, PDRs, etc. self-consistently. This approach allow us to grapple with degeneracies and ambiguities in the interpretation of these tracers. In this way, valuable observational diagnostics can be turned into a more accurate description of the multi-phase configuration of a full galaxy.
The [*Herschel*]{} Space Observatory [@pilbratt-2010] has brought the opportunity to obtain a wide range of valuable FIR fine-structure diagnostics never observed before in dwarf galaxies. The Dwarf Galaxy Survey (DGS; P.I. Madden) is surveying the dust and gas of a wide range of low metallicity galaxies in the local universe [@cormier-2010; @galametz-2010; @o'halloran-2010; @madden-2012b; @remy-2012] using PACS [@poglitsch-2010] and SPIRE [@griffin-2010]. The brightest low-metallicity galaxy of the DGS observed with the PACS spectrometer is , an infrared-luminous starburst galaxy with metallicity $\rm{Z=1/3~Z_{\odot}}$. Haro11 has the largest dataset obtained with PACS with observations of 7 FIR fine-structure lines: \[C [ii]{}\] 157, \[O [iii]{}\] 88, \[O [i]{}\] 63, \[O [i]{}\] 145, \[N [iii]{}\] 57, \[N [ii]{}\] 122, and \[N [ii]{}\] 205 $\mu$m. It has also been observed with the IRS spectrograph onboard [*Spitzer*]{}. Unresolved in the IR, Haro11 is an ideal candidate to conduct a study modeling an exhaustive set of gas tracers to retreive information about the structure of the multi-phase low metallicity ISM.
In this paper, we propose a systematic approach to model the multi-phase ISM of Haro11, focusing on the gas properties of the ionised and neutral ISM phases. We consider a set of 17 [*Herschel*]{} and [*Spitzer*]{} MIR and FIR ionic and atomic fine-structure cooling lines which trace a wide range of environmental conditions, spanning excitation potentials from 8 to 55 eV. With the spectral synthesis code Cloudy [@ferland-1998], we create a self-consistent model of the dominant ISM components from which these lines originate in order to understand the prevailing mechanisms and physical conditions. In Section \[sect:obs\], we present spectroscopic data from the [*Spitzer*]{} and [*Herschel*]{} observatories. Section \[sect:model\] explains the modeling strategy and assumed initial parameters. Section \[sect:results\], \[sect:diffus\], and \[sect:disc\] report the model results and conditions of the ISM components. This study establishes an encompassing picture of the dominant ISM phases in Haro11 and describes the mass budget of the various phases in our model (Section \[sect:buildup\]).
Studies of Haro11 {#sect:haro11}
-----------------
Several studies of Haro11 have highlighted its peculiarity as a galaxy and challenged our understanding of star formation. Haro11 – also know as ESO 350-IG38 – is a blue compact dwarf (BCD) galaxy at 84 Mpc, with M$\rm{_{B} =-20.3}$, and metallicity Z$\sim$1/3 Z$_{\odot}$ [@guseva-2012]. It is composed of 3 main star-forming regions, or knots, described in [@vader-1993] and [@kunth-2003], with a morphology presumably resulting from a merger event [@ostlin-2001]. The starbursting nature of Haro11 is visible in Figure \[fig:acs\] with a dominant bright stellar component and dust lanes in front of knot B. These knots host hundreds of young star clusters and $\sim$60 super star clusters (SSC) with ages between 1 and 100 Myr peaking at 3 Myr, and constituting a total stellar mass of $\rm{10^{10}~M_{\odot}}$ [@adamo-2010]. An older stellar population is also present, primarily in knots A and C, as seen in the red colors of the V-K bands, modeled in [@micheva-2010] by a metal-poor (Z=0.001) stellar population of age around 14 Gyr with standard Salpeter IMF, indicating that the galaxy is not undergoing its first star formation event. Ly$\alpha$ emission [@kunth-1998] and Lyman continuum leakage were investigated using UV and X-ray observations in [@bergvall-2006; @hayes-2007; @grimes-2007] and [@leitet-2011]. In [@leitet-2011], they estimated the leakage to be 3%. In particular, the discrepant location of Ly$\alpha$ and H$\alpha$ emission, originating in the ionised gas surrounding the star-forming regions, may be explained by a diffuse ionised ISM in the halo of the galaxy with internal resonant scattering at the surface of clumpy dense neutral clouds [@kunth-2003; @hayes-2007]. These properties have resulted in its popularity as a local analogue of the high-redshift Lyman-break galaxies [@overzier-2008], and therefore a must-study case to link nearby star formation to the distant universe and galaxy evolution.
In the IR, Haro11 is extremely bright compared to other nearby dwarf galaxies. IRAS measurements yielded a FIR luminosity L$\rm{_{FIR}}$ of 1 $\times$ 10$^{11}$ L$\rm{_{\odot}}$ [@sanders-2003] from 40 to 400 $\mu$m using the [@lonsdale-1985] prescription. Its spectral energy distribution (SED) shows a peculiar behavior. It peaks around 40 $\mu$m, indicating the prevalence of warm dust, and shows an excess of emission in the submm, as unveiled by [*APEX*]{}/LABOCA and [*Herschel*]{}, which is often seen in low metallicity starbursting dwarf galaxies [@galliano-2003; @galliano-2005; @galametz-2009; @galametz-2011; @remy-2012]. The origin of the excess is not well determined and several hypotheses described in [@galametz-2011], including a change of dust emissivity, spinning dust grains, or a cold dust component, are invoked in current dust models to explain the submm excess. [@galametz-2009] present a detailed dust modeling of Haro11 in which they derive a total dust mass of $\rm{6 \times 10^{6}~M_{\odot}}$ if the submm excess is ignored, and of $\rm{2 \times 10^{7}~M_{\odot}}$ if the submm excess is interpreted as cold dust. Assuming the excess as cold dust (T$\sim$10 K) is however difficult to reconcile with the observed dust and gas mass budgets, and the expected lower dust-to-gas mass ratios [DGR; @galametz-2011]. Integrating the SED from 3 to 1100 $\mu$m, the total IR luminosity L$\rm{_{TIR}}$ is 1.4 $\times$ 10$^{11}$ L$\rm{_{\odot}}$ [@galametz-2009]. We will use this value of L$\rm{_{TIR}}$ throughout this paper.
Spectroscopic observations show bright lines in the FIR with [*ISO*]{}/LWS, while both the H [i]{} 21-cm line, and the CO (J=1-0) line, the most common tracer of molecular gas in galaxies, are undetected [@bergvall-2000]. A detailed study of the neutral gas of the ISM of Haro11 by [@bergvall-2000] investigated the mass budget of the different ISM phases. They establish masses for each phase: M(H [i]{}) $\rm{< 10^{8}~M_{\odot}}$, with an upper limit on the atomic H [i]{}; M(PDR) of $\rm{2~\times~10^{8}~M_{\odot}}$ using the LWS \[C [ii]{}\] observations, the PDR mass being larger than the H [i]{} mass; and $\rm{M(H_{2}) \sim 10^{8}~M_{\odot}}$ for the molecular gas, using both a scaling of the PDR mass and the CO upper limit converted to H$\rm{_{2}}$ column density through the CO/H$\rm{_{2}}$ conversion factor ($X_{\rm CO}$). They used a Galactic value for $X_{\rm CO}$ [@strong-1988]: $X_{\rm CO, gal}=2.3 \times 10^{20}~\rm{cm^{-2}~(K~km~s^{-1})^{-1}}$. Therefore they describe the ISM structure as: very extended PDRs, in which the H [i]{} mass resides; a small fraction of the total ISM gas is left in atomic form; and the bulk of the gas, that is normally in neutral state, is ionised by the starburst. [@bergvall-2002] derive M(H [ii]{}) $\rm{\sim 10^{9}~M_{\odot}}$ from H$\alpha$ observations for the ionised gas. These masses are lower than the total stellar mass of $\rm{10^{10}~M_{\odot}}$ derived in [@adamo-2010].
However, important questions remain, particularly on the state of the ionised, neutral atomic, and molecular gas. While evidence for young massive stellar populations and SSCs exist from the optical and IR point of view, evidence for any substantial reservoir of neutral gas, in the form of either atomic or molecular, is non-existent to date. Where is the fuel for the vigorous star formation observed in Haro11? What is the state of the gas reservoirs in Haro11, residing in the ionised, neutral, and molecular form? This study, using a wide variety of tracers of neutral and ionised gas, aims for a more complete description of the enigmatic nature of the ISM of Haro11.
----------------------- ----------------------------------------------- ------------------
RA (J2000) 00h36$^{\prime}$52.5$^{\prime\prime}$ NED $^{(a)}$
Dec (J2000) -33$^{\circ}$33$^{\prime}$19$^{\prime\prime}$ NED
Distance 84 Mpc NED $^{(b)}$
12+log(O/H) 8.2 [@guseva-2012]
Optical size 0.4$^{\prime}$x0.5$^{\prime}$ NED
$L_{\rm TIR}$$^{(c)}$ 1.4 $\times \rm{10^{11}~L_{\odot}}$ [@galametz-2009]
$L_{\rm FUV}$ 2 $\times \rm{10^{10}~L_{\odot}}$ [@grimes-2007]
$L_{\rm X-rays}$ 4.4 $\times \rm{10^{7}~L_{\odot}}$ [@grimes-2007]
$L_{\rm Ly\alpha}$ 1.9 $\times \rm{10^{8}~L_{\odot}}$ [@hayes-2007]
$L_{\rm H\alpha}$ 8 $\times \rm{10^{8}~L_{\odot}}$ [@ostlin-1999]
----------------------- ----------------------------------------------- ------------------
: General properties of Haro11.
$(a)$ NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database. $(b)$ This distance is derived with a Hubble constant H$_0$ = 73 km/sec/Mpc. $(c)$ L$\rm{_{TIR}}$ is the integrated SED from 3 to 1100 $\mu$m. All luminosities are scaled to the distance chosen in this paper of 84 Mpc.
\[table:general\]
Observations {#sect:obs}
============
[*Spitzer*]{} data {#sect:irs}
------------------
Haro11 was observed with the Infrared Spectrograph [IRS; @houck-2004] on board the [*Spitzer*]{} Space Telescope [@werner-2004], on the 17th of July 2004 (P.I.: J. R. Houck). The 4 modules were used, i.e., the 2 high-resolution modules: Short-High SH ($\approx10-20~\mu$m) and Long-High LH ($\approx19-37~\mu$m) with $R\sim600$, and the 2 low-resolution modules: Short-Low SL ($\approx5-14~\mu$m) and Long-Low LL ($\approx14-37~\mu$m) with $R\sim60-120$. Observations were done in staring mode (AORKey 9007104). Figure \[fig:aors\] shows the slits of the high-resolution module on the sky.
![H$\alpha$ image of Haro11 from the Hubble Legacy Archive. The [*Spitzer*]{}/IRS high-resolution slits are overlaid in green and the [*Herschel*]{}/PACS array in red. The PACS beamsize at 150 $\mu$m is 11.5$^{\prime\prime}$. The IRS low-resolution slits are not shown. []{data-label="fig:aors"}](19818f02){width="8.8cm"}
The low-resolution spectra were retrieved from the CASSIS Atlas[^2] [@lebouteiller-2011], with a tapered spatial window that scales with wavelength to account for the broader PSF at longer wavelengths. The high-resolution spectra were obtained with SMART v8.2.2 [@lebouteiller-2010; @higdon-2004] from the full-slit extraction of SH and LH and assuming a point-like source calibration. The SL and SH spectra were stitched to LL and LH by applying the same factor $1.13$, which is due to the fact that the source is slightly extended for the SL and SH apertures ($3.7^{\prime\prime}$ and $4.7^{\prime\prime}$ height respectively), while it is point-like for the LL and LH apertures ($\approx11^{\prime\prime}$). Another factor of $1.15$ was applied to the low-resolution spectra to match the continuum of the high-resolution. The final rest-frame spectrum is displayed in Figure \[fig:irs\_spec\] ([*top*]{}), with a zoom on individual spectral lines ([*bottom*]{}). With a spectral resolution $\ge$500 km s$^{-1}$, the lines are not spectrally resolved.
Line fitting and flux measurements were also done in SMART. A Gaussian and second order polynomial function were fitted to the line and continuum. For total uncertainties, we added 10% of the line flux due to calibration uncertainties. The resulting fluxes and uncertainties of the most prominent lines are listed in Table \[table:lines\]. The fluxes agree within the uncertainties to those of [@wu-2006]. The \[Ne [iii]{}\] line at 36.0 $\mu$m was not observed as it falls out of the IRS spectral range.
{width="17cm"} {width="17cm"}
[*Herschel*]{} data {#sect:pacs}
-------------------
Haro11 was observed with the [PACS]{} spectrometer [@poglitsch-2010] on the 27th of June 2010, OD 409 of the [*Herschel*]{} mission [@pilbratt-2010] as part of the Guaranteed Time Key Program, the Dwarf Galaxy Survey (P.I.: S. C. Madden). The [PACS]{} array is composed of 5x5 spatial pixels each 9.4$^{\prime\prime}$ square, covering a total field-of-view of 47$^{\prime\prime}$. Haro11 was mapped with 2x2 rasters separated by 4.5$^{\prime\prime}$ in the 7 following fine-structure spectral lines: \[C [ii]{}\] 157 $\mu$m, \[O [iii]{}\] 88 $\mu$m, \[O [i]{}\] 145 $\mu$m (OBSID 1342199236), \[O [i]{}\] 63 $\mu$m, \[N [iii]{}\] 57 $\mu$m, \[N [ii]{}\] 122 $\mu$m (OBSID 1342199237), and \[N [ii]{}\] 205 $\mu$m (OBSID 1342199238), for a total of 7.2h. The \[N [ii]{}\] 205 $\mu$m line was also re-observed on OD 942 for 1.6h with a single pointing (OBSID 1342234063). The observations were done in chop-nod mode with a chop throw of 6$^{\prime}$ off the source. The chopped position is free of emission. The beam size is 9.5$^{\prime\prime}$ at 60 $\mu$m, and 11.5$^{\prime\prime}$ at 150 $\mu$m (diffraction limited above $\sim$100 $\mu$m). The spectral resolution is $\sim$ 90 km s$^{-1}$ at 60 $\mu$m, 125 km s$^{-1}$ at 90 $\mu$m, 295 km s$^{-1}$ at 120 $\mu$m, and 250 km s$^{-1}$ at 150 $\mu$m (PACS Observer’s Manual 2011 [^3]).
The data were reduced with the [*Herschel*]{} Interactive Processing Environment (HIPE) v7.0.1935 [@ott-2010]. We used standard scripts of the [PACS]{} spectrometer pipeline. The line fitting and map making were done using the software PACSman [@lebouteiller-2012]. The signal from each spatial position of the PACS array is fitted with a second order polynomial plus Gaussian for the baseline and line. For total uncertainties, we add 30% of the line flux due to calibration uncertainties [@poglitsch-2010]. The rasters are combined by drizzling to produce final reduced maps with pixel size of 3$^{\prime\prime}$.
With [*Herschel*]{}, all of the lines are well detected, at least in the central pixel of the PACS array, except the \[N [ii]{}\] 205 $\mu$m line. The \[N [ii]{}\] 205 $\mu$m line is located at the edge of the first grating order of the spectrometer and affected by spectral leakage, due to overlapping of the grating orders. It is contaminated by signal from the second grating order around 100 $\mu$m, and is therefore difficult to observe and to calibrate. The line profiles are displayed in Figure \[fig:pacs\_lines\]. The line centers range between -30 and +70 km s$^{-1}$ within the maps of all observed lines, and indicate a rotation around the north-south axis of both the ionised and neutral gas components, slightly tilted compared to the velocity structure of H${\rm{\alpha}}$ analysed in [@ostlin-1999]. All lines display broad profiles, with a broadening up to 300 km s$^{-1}$, which suggests that both the neutral and ionised gas are coming from several components with different velocities. However, with spectral resolution $>$100 km s$^{-1}$, the lines are well fitted by a single Gaussian and we cannot separate the different velocity components in the spectra. This suggested complex velocity structure is corroborated by studies of optical lines that show broad profiles as well [@kunth-1998; @ostlin-1999], and where the neutral gas is shifted compared to the ionised gas, expanding over few kpcs [@kunth-2003]. FUSE spectra in [@grimes-2007] show absorption lines of the ISM with FWHM 300 km s$^{-1}$ and blueshifted by 80 km s$^{-1}$. The higher ionisation lines can be stronger in galactic outflows [@contursi-2012].
{width="18cm"}
The \[C [ii]{}\] line shows a marginally extended emission at 157 $\mu$m, peaking at a signal-to-noise ratio of 50 in the center and dropping below detection at the edge of the map. The emission of the other lines is rather compact. The shape of the PACS spectrometer beam is not known well enough to measure an accurate source size if the source were slightly extended. Hence we cannot recover spatial information. To derive total line intensities, we integrated the fluxes over a circular aperture of diameter 30$^{\prime\prime}$ to encompass all the emission. The line intensities are listed in Table \[table:lines\]. Observations of the \[O [iii]{}\], \[C [ii]{}\], and \[O [i]{}\] 63 and 145 $\mu$m lines were also performed with the LWS instrument onboard [*ISO*]{} [@bergvall-2000; @brauher-2008; @vasta-2010]. The PACS intensities of the \[O [i]{}\] 63 $\mu$m and \[O [iii]{}\] lines agree within 40% with the LWS observations, although they are found to be lower with PACS. This may be attributed to a beam effect, the LWS beam size being $\sim$80$^{\prime\prime}$. However, we find that the \[C [ii]{}\] intensity is two times brighter with PACS compared to LWS. To understand this discrepancy, we have reduced the PACS data with different flat-field corrections, as well as with background normalization (PACS Data Reduction Guide). All these methods give the same final \[C [ii]{}\] flux as quoted in Table \[table:lines\] within 10%, ruling out a mis-calibration from PACS. Therefore we attribute the difference between the PACS and LWS fluxes to a calibration problem from the LWS instrument.
---------------------------- -------- ----------- ------- ------- ------- ------------------------------------------------------------
[*Spitzer*]{}/IRS
$\rm{[}$S [iv]{}$\rm{]}$ 10.51 5.37 0.66 34.79 1 369 5 $\times \rm{10^{4}}$ \[e\]
$\rm{[}$Ne [ii]{}$\rm{]}$ 12.81 3.53 0.43 21.56 1 123 7 $\times \rm{10^{5}}$ \[e\]
$\rm{[}$Ne [iii]{}$\rm{]}$ 15.56 12.3 1.5 40.96 925 3 $\times \rm{10^{5}}$ \[e\]
$\rm{[}$S [iii]{}$\rm{]}$ 18.71 5.79 0.72 23.34 769 2 $\times \rm{10^{4}}$ \[e\]
$\rm{[}$S [iii]{}$\rm{]}$ 33.48 5.85 0.69 ” 430 7 $\times \rm{10^{3}}$ \[e\]
$\rm{[}$Si [ii]{}$\rm{]}$ 34.82 6.21 0.75 8.15 413 3 $\times \rm{10^{5}}$ \[H\], 1 $\times \rm{10^{3}}$ \[e\]
Humphreys $\alpha$ 12.37 0.208 0.045 13.60 1 163 -
H[2]{} (0,0) S(0) 28.22 $<$ 0.62 - 4.48 510 7 $\times \rm{10^{2}}$ \[H\]
H[2]{} (0,0) S(1) 17.03 0.168 0.055 ” 1015 2 $\times \rm{10^{4}}$ \[H\]
H[2]{} (0,0) S(2) 12.28 0.101 0.013 ” 1682 2 $\times \rm{10^{5}}$ \[H\]
H[2]{} (0,0) S(3) 9.66 0.121 0.018 ” 2504 9 $\times \rm{10^{5}}$ \[H\]
$\rm{[}$Fe [iii]{}$\rm{]}$ 22.93 0.54 0.20 16.19 627 1 $\times \rm{10^{5}}$ \[e\]
$\rm{[}$O [iv]{}$\rm{]}$ 25.89 0.49 0.18 54.94 555 1 $\times \rm{10^{4}}$ \[e\]
$\rm{[}$Fe [ii]{}$\rm{]}$ 25.99 $<$ 0.25 - 7.90 554 2 $\times \rm{10^{6}}$ \[H\], 1 $\times \rm{10^{4}}$ \[e\]
$\rm{[}$Ar [iii]{}$\rm{]}$ 8.99 0.99 0.33 27.63 2 060 3 $\times \rm{10^{5}}$ \[e\]
$\rm{[}$Ar [ii]{}$\rm{]}$ 6.99 0.60 0.15 15.76 1 600 4 $\times \rm{10^{5}}$ \[e\]
$\rm{[}$Ne [v]{}$\rm{]}$ 14.32 $<$ 0.080 - 97.12 592 3 $\times \rm{10^{4}}$ \[e\]
[*Herschel*]{}/PACS
$\rm{[}$C [ii]{}$\rm{]}$ 157.74 7.4 2.2 11.26 91 3 $\times \rm{10^{3}}$ \[H\], 50 \[e\]
$\rm{[}$O [iii]{}$\rm{]}$ 88.36 18.0 5.4 35.12 163 5 $\times \rm{10^{2}}$ \[e\]
$\rm{[}$O [i]{}$\rm{]}$ 63.18 6.7 2.0 - 228 5 $\times \rm{10^{5}}$ \[H\]
$\rm{[}$O [i]{}$\rm{]}$ 145.52 0.56 0.17 - 99 1 $\times \rm{10^{5}}$ \[H\]
$\rm{[}$N [iii]{}$\rm{]}$ 57.32 2.50 0.78 29.60 251 3 $\times \rm{10^{3}}$ \[e\]
$\rm{[}$N [ii]{}$\rm{]}$ 121.9 0.31 0.10 14.53 118 3 $\times \rm{10^{2}}$ \[e\]
$\rm{[}$N [ii]{}$\rm{]}$ 205.18 $<$ 0.29 - ” 70 45 \[e\]
---------------------------- -------- ----------- ------- ------- ------- ------------------------------------------------------------
The [*ISO*]{}/LWS fluxes can be found in [@bergvall-2000], [@brauher-2008], and [@vasta-2010].\
${(a)}$ Upper limits are given as the 3-$\sigma$ uncertainty from the line fit.\
${(b)}$ Excitation potential. Energy to create an ion. For H$\rm{_2}$, it is the energy to photodissociate the molecule.\
${(c)}$ Excitation temperature. Temperature T=$\Delta$E/k required to populate the transition level.\
${(d)}$ Critical density n$_{crit}$ noted \[H\] for collisions with hydrogen atoms (T=100 K and T=300 K for the H$\rm{_2}$ lines), \[e\] with electrons (T=10 000 K). Values are from [@malhotra-2001], [@giveon-2002], and [@kaufman-2006]. \[table:lines\]
Spectral line description
-------------------------
The IRS and PACS spectra probe the ionised and neutral media. The IRS spectrum shows a wealth of MIR fine-structure lines, the brightest being (in order) \[Ne [iii]{}\] 15.6 $\mu$m, \[Si [ii]{}\] 34.8 $\mu$m, \[S [iii]{}\] 18.7 and 33.5 $\mu$m, \[S [iv]{}\] 10.5 $\mu$m, and \[Ne [ii]{}\] 12.8 $\mu$m. PAH features at 6.2, 7.7, 8.6, 11.2, and 12.8 $\mu$m are also present. The PACS spectrum also shows bright FIR lines, especially \[O [iii]{}\], \[C [ii]{}\], \[O [i]{}\] 63 $\mu$m, and \[N [iii]{}\]. The \[O [iii]{}\] line is the brightest of all, with \[O [iii]{}\]/\[C [ii]{}\] = 2.4. While \[C [ii]{}\] is the brighest FIR fine-structure line in normal and dusty starburst galaxies [@brauher-2008], we find that this is often not the case in low-metallicity dwarf galaxies [@hunter-2001; @cormier-2010; @cormier-2012b; @madden-2012b].
The young star-forming nature of this galaxy also agrees with intense \[Ne [iii]{}\] (41.0 eV), \[O [iii]{}\] (35.1 eV), \[S [iv]{}\] (34.8 eV), and \[N [iii]{}\] (29.6 eV) lines observed, arising from relatively highly ionised regions. \[O [iv]{}\] (54.9 eV) at 25.9 $\mu$m, which requires a relatively hard radiation field (Sect. \[sect:xrays\]), is also detected. The \[Ne [iii]{}\]/\[Ne [ii]{}\] ratio is 3.5, \[S [iv]{}\]/\[S [iii]{}\] is 0.9, and \[N [iii]{}\]/\[N [ii]{}\] is 8. These ratios are indicative of a hard radiation field typical of BCDs [@thornley-2000; @madden-2006]. While \[C [ii]{}\] can come from both the diffuse ionised phase and the neutral phase, \[O [i]{}\] traces only the neutral phase. The \[O [i]{}\] 63 $\mu$m/\[C [ii]{}\] ratio is 0.9, similar to that found in other dwarf galaxies and dustier galaxies [@hunter-2001; @brauher-2008]. Table \[table:lines\] lists the ionisation energies of the observed lines, as well as the excitation temperatures and critical densities (n$_{crit}$) of the transitions with collisions with H and/or e$^-$.
Comparing line luminosities to the TIR luminosity, we find L$\rm{_{[C~II]}}$/L$\rm{_{TIR}}$ = 0.1%, L$\rm{_{[O~III]}}$/L$\rm{_{TIR}}$ = 0.3%, and L$\rm{_{[O~I]}}$/L$\rm{_{TIR}}$ = 0.1%. Altogether, the FIR lines represent 0.6% of the TIR luminosity; and when adding the MIR lines, they represent 1.2% of L$\rm{_{TIR}}$. Together these lines are responsible for most of the gas cooling of the ISM. Such line-to-TIR ratios are typical of star-forming galaxies [@malhotra-2001; @brauher-2008][^4]. Similar L$\rm{_{[C~II]}}$/L$\rm{_{TIR}}$ ratios are found in several high-redshift galaxies [@maiolino-2009; @stacey-2010]. [@croxall-2012] find $\rm{L_{[C~II]}/L_{TIR}\sim0.5\%}$ and $\rm{L_{[O~I]}/L_{TIR}\sim0.1\%}$ in spatially resolved regions of the nearby spiral galaxy NGC 4559. There is observational evidence that L$\rm{_{[C~II]}}$/L$\rm{_{TIR}}$ tends to decrease in galaxies with warmer FIR-color, f$_{\nu}$(60 $\mu$m)/f$_{\nu}$(100 $\mu$m). Among other effects, this may be attributed to a less efficient photoelectric heating due to charged grains [@malhotra-2001; @croxall-2012], or to a UV-photon screening from large amounts of dust as in ultra-luminous IR galaxies (ULIRGs) [@abel-2009; @gracia-2011]. With observed FIR-color $\sim$1, Haro11 falls within the large spread of L$\rm{_{[C~II]}}$/L$\rm{_{TIR}}$ values and is not particularly \[C [ii]{}\] deficient nor \[C [ii]{}\] excessive, as often seen in low metallicity galaxies [@madden-2012b].
Photometry data
---------------
For the discussion on the SED of Haro11 in Section \[sect:sed\], we use broad-band data available from the X-ray to the radio regime, to assess how the models perform in reproducing the continuum emission. The photometry is taken from NED. In addition, we use the [*Spitzer*]{}/MIPS photometry from [@bendo-2012], the [*Herschel*]{}/PACS and SPIRE photometry from [@remy-2012], and the [*Spitzer*]{}/IRAC and LABOCA 870 $\mu$m photometry from [@galametz-2009]. All fluxes are summarized in Table \[table:phot\].
--------- -------------- ---------- ---------- ------
Chandra 2-10 keV 9.17e-09 1.03e-09 (1)
Chandra 0.5-2 keV 3.21e-08 0.43e-08 (1)
ROSAT 0.1-2 keV 4.41e-08 0.55e-08 (2)
FUSE 1150 Å 2.30e-03 0.33e-03 (3)
GALEX 1530 Å 3.63e-03 7e-05 (4)
GALEX 2315 Å 4.37e-03 4e-05 (4)
Cousins 0.439 $\mu$m 8.03e-03 0.69e-03 (5)
Cousins 0.639 $\mu$m 0.012 0.001 (5)
2MASS 1.25 $\mu$m 0.013 0.001 (6)
2MASS 1.64 $\mu$m 0.013 0.001 (6)
2MASS 2.17 $\mu$m 0.014 0.001 (6)
IRAC 3.6 $\mu$m 0.023 0.002 (7)
IRAC 4.5 $\mu$m 0.029 0.003 (7)
IRAC 5.8 $\mu$m 0.073 0.007 (7)
IRAC 8 $\mu$m 0.177 0.018 (7)
IRAS 12 $\mu$m 0.52 0.02 (8)
MIPS 24 $\mu$m 2.51 0.03 (9)
IRAS 25 $\mu$m 2.49 0.03 (8)
IRAS 60 $\mu$m 6.88 0.04 (8)
MIPS 70 $\mu$m 4.91 0.49 (9)
PACS 70 $\mu$m 6.08 0.18 (10)
IRAS 100 $\mu$m 5.04 0.03 (8)
PACS 100 $\mu$m 4.97 0.15 (10)
MIPS 160 $\mu$m 2.01 0.24 (9)
PACS 160 $\mu$m 2.43 0.12 (10)
SPIRE 250 $\mu$m 0.633 0.042 (10)
SPIRE 350 $\mu$m 0.231 0.013 (10)
SPIRE 500 $\mu$m 0.092 0.008 (10)
LABOCA 870 $\mu$m 0.040 0.006 (7)
--------- -------------- ---------- ---------- ------
: Photometry data.
\(1) [@hayes-2007]; (2) [@tajer-2005]; (3) [@grimes-2009]; (4) [@iglesias-2006]; (5) [@lauberts-1989]; (6) [@jarrett-2000]; (7) [@galametz-2009]; (8) [@soifer-2003]; (9) [@bendo-2012]; (10) [@remy-2012]. \[table:phot\]
Modeling strategy {#sect:model}
=================
Identification of the model components
--------------------------------------
We aim to model the IR emission from all 17 detected lines (except the MIR H$\rm{_2}$ lines which will be modeled in a coming paper) listed in Table \[table:lines\] to understand the conditions of the various media and the dominant processes at work in this low-metallicity starburst. The ISM is very heterogeneous, and over the scale of a galaxy, various phases with a wide range of conditions are mixed together.
In our spectral dataset, we notice that Haro11 is typified by very intense \[Ne [iii]{}\], \[Ne [ii]{}\], \[S [iii]{}\], \[S [iv]{}\], \[O [iii]{}\], and \[N [iii]{}\] lines. These high-excitation lines require a hard radiation field which is naturally encountered in a compact H [ii]{} region. Moreover, the high critical densities of these lines (except the \[O [iii]{}\] line) favor their origin at the same location. Therefore, the intensity of these lines demonstrates the importance of the dense H [ii]{} region in the global spectrum of Haro11. Moreover, the [*Herschel*]{} observations show bright \[O [i]{}\] and \[C [ii]{}\] lines, which are usual tracers of the neutral gas. In particular, the intensity of the \[O [i]{}\] lines indicates the presence of dense PDRs. These two dense (ionised and neutral) phases will be investigated first since they account for the emission of most of the spectral lines. Derived physical conditions are presented in Section \[sect:results\].
With low critical density ($\sim$300 cm$^{-3}$) and low ionisation potential (14.5 eV), the \[N [ii]{}\] 122 $\mu$m line is a tracer of low-excitation diffuse gas rather than the dense H [ii]{} region. The intensity of \[N [ii]{}\] demonstrates the need for an additional diffuse low-ionisation component that is investigated in Section \[sect:diffus\]. Our subsequent modeling also shows that this diffuse phase is the main contributor to the \[Ne [ii]{}\] and \[C [ii]{}\] lines.
Therefore, the three main phases that we identify as necessary model components to account for the observed emission lines are: 1) a dense ionised phase (Sect. \[sect:compact\]), 2) PDR (Sect. \[sect:pdr\]), 3) a diffuse low-ionisation medium (Sect. \[sect:diffus\]).
In addition, we discuss the possible presence of other model components that may influence the line predictions. The detection of the high-excitation \[O [iv]{}\] line is the driver of a discussion on the role of X-rays and XDRs in Section \[sect:xrays\]. The \[O [iii]{}\] line, which is the brighest of all MIR-FIR lines, has high excitation potential (35.1 eV) and low critical density ($\sim$500 cm$^{-3}$). Although it is accounted for by the dense H [ii]{} model, it may originate as well from diffuse high-excitation medium that we do not model but briefly discuss in Section \[sect:oiii\]. Finally, we investigate the influence of magnetic fields on the cloud density profile and their impact on the PDR predictions in Section \[sect:bmag\].
Method
------
We use the 1D spectral synthesis code Cloudy v10.00, last described by [@ferland-1998], which includes photoionisation and photodissociation treatment [@abel-2005], to model the multiple phases from which the emission lines originate. Since Haro11 is not resolved in most of the [*Spitzer*]{} and [*Herschel*]{} bands, we have no spatial constraints. Thus, the model is reduced to a central source of energy surrounded by a spherical cloud. In the case of Haro11, this central source is a starburst. The dense ionised gas that is closest to the central source with respect to the other phases that we model separately will yield the best constraints on the properties of the stellar cluster that is powering the model. Therefore we first derive the best fit model concentrating on the dense H [ii]{} region diagnostics, which are the \[Ne [ii]{}\] 12.8 $\mu$m, \[Ne [iii]{}\] 15.6 $\mu$m, \[S [iv]{}\] 10.5 $\mu$m, \[S [iii]{}\] 18.7 $\mu$m and 33.5 $\mu$m, and the \[N [iii]{}\] 57 $\mu$m lines. Moreover, the interpretation of these ionic lines is less ambiguous than, for example, the \[C [ii]{}\] line. Following this step, we will assess what this model predicts for the PDR phase.
The starburst ionises the inner edge of the cloud, where the H [ii]{} region begins, and the radiative transfer is computed step by step progressively into the cloud. The distance from the source to the inner edge of the cloud is the inner radius (r$\rm{_{in}}$). Depending on where the calculation is stopped, the ionised, atomic, and molecular phases can be treated as the model is computed within one Cloudy model. Here we stop the models until the molecular fraction H$\rm{_{2}}$/H reaches 50% such that both the ionised and PDR phases are computed within the same model. We opt to impose pressure equilibrium throughout the models. This is particularly important for the density profile between different phases. We will come back to this assumption in Sect. \[sect:pdr\].
### Parameter grid of the dense H [ii]{} region
We vary the following 3 physical parameters in order to calculate our model grid: the age of the burst (A$\rm{_{burst}}$), the initial hydrogen density at the inner edge of the cloud (n$\rm{_H}$), and r$\rm{_{in}}$, where the calculation starts (see Fig.\[fig:cloud\] for an illustration). The age is varied from 2.4 to 5.0 Myr (Sect. \[sect:age\]), r$\rm{_{in}}$ from $10^{20.0}$ to $10^{22.0}$ cm (or 30 pc to 3 kpc, Sect. \[sect:rin\]), and n$\rm{_H}$ from $10^{1}$ to $10^{4}$ cm$^{-3}$ (Sect. \[sect:hden\]). The step size for A$\rm{_{burst}}$ is 0.2 Myr (linear step), and for r$\rm{_{in}}$ and n$\rm{_H}$, we use 0.2 step sizes on a logarithmic scale.
![ Geometry of the Cloudy model with the three free parameter that we vary in the grid: the age of the burst (A$\rm{_{burst}}$), inner radius (r$\rm{_{in}}$), and initial hydrogen density (n$\rm{_{H}}$). Parameter boundaries and step sizes are also indicated. []{data-label="fig:cloud"}](19818f06){width="8.8cm"}
### $\chi^2$ evaluation
In order to find a solution for this ionised phase, we aim first to reproduce as best as possible the intensities of the ionic lines. For each individual model, the goodness of the fit is evaluated by computing the reduced $\chi^2$. The $\chi^2$ is measured from a set of selected lines. The lines we consider to constrain the fit are the following: \[Ne [ii]{}\] 12.8 $\mu$m, \[Ne [iii]{}\] 15.6 $\mu$m, \[S [iv]{}\] 10.5 $\mu$m, \[S [iii]{}\] 18.7 $\mu$m, and 33.5 $\mu$m, because they are the brightest and relatively well understood, as well as the \[N [iii]{}\] 57 $\mu$m line from PACS which is also bright and expected to arise from the same medium. With 6 observations and 3 free parameters to fit, the degree of freedom is $\rm{N = n_{obs} - n_{param} = 3}$. Best fit models are determined by minimising the reduced $\chi^2$. There are several lines that originate in part from the dense ionised gas that we do not consider when calculating the $\chi^2$, although we do discuss how the model predictions of these lines compare to the observations. We do not consider the high-excitation \[O [iv]{}\] line because it is faint and can be excited by several mechanisms (see Sect. \[sect:xrays\]). We do not include the \[O [iii]{}\] and \[N [ii]{}\] lines here as constraints for the dense H [ii]{} region because our subsequent modeling shows that a fraction of these lines arises from a low density ionised medium which we consider in a later step (see Sect. \[sect:diffus\]).
Setting the input fixed parameters
----------------------------------
### Incident radiation field {#sect:irf}
We use Starburst99 v6.0.2 [@leitherer-2010] to reproduce the incident, wavelength-dependent radiation field density of Haro11. Following the UV-optical studies by [@hayes-2007] and [@grimes-2007], we assume a Salpeter IMF from 0.1 to 100 M$_{\odot}$ and stellar tracks from Padova AGB with metallicity $\rm{Z = 0.004}$. According to [@adamo-2010], the stellar population of Haro11 is very young. The present starburst started less than 40 Myr ago, and shows a formation peak at about 3.5 Myr. Knot B is dominated by a young starburst of 3.5 Myr, and knot C contains an older starburst of 9.5 Myr (Fig. \[fig:acs\]). Therefore, we select the stellar spectrum of an instantaneous burst of a few Myr, letting the age of the burst be a free parameter, varying from 2.4 to 5.0 Myr. We also add to this the spectrum of an instantaneous burst of 9.5 Myr to account for the slightly older stellar population. We keep this age fixed since the ionising part of the stellar spectrum does not vary significantly for ages larger than 5 Myr, and will therefore not significantly affect the model predictions of the ionised gas. This starburst spectrum dictates the shape of the input energy source in Cloudy. The incident radiation field on the cloud is shown in purple in Figure \[fig:sed\]. For the input luminosity of the central source, we take the total observed infrared luminosity of Haro11: $\rm{L_{TIR} = 1.4 \times 10^{11}~L_{\odot}}$. This approximation assumes an energy balance between the UV and IR domains, i.e. that all of the UV photons are reprocessed in the IR by the gas and the dust. The emergent SED (bottom panel of Fig. \[fig:sed\]) shows that this approximation is reasonable since only 20% of the total emergent luminosity is emitted in the UV-optical, and 80% in the IR. We discuss in more details the energy balance in Sect \[sect:sed\].
Haro11 is detected in X-rays [e.g. @grimes-2007]. Previous studies on X-ray observations indicate the presence of soft ($\rm{L_{0.5-2 kev} = 1.9 \times 10^{8}~L_{\odot}}$) and hard ($\rm{L_{2-10 kev} = 2.6 \times 10^{8}~L_{\odot}}$) X-rays. Therefore we add to the input SED an X-ray component that reproduces the shape of the observed X-ray spectrum and of total luminosity $\rm{5 \times 10^{8}~L_{\odot}}$. The effects of the X-rays in the models are discussed in Section \[sect:xrays\].
### Elemental abundances
The elemental abundances directly impact on the predicted line intensities. To match the observed abundances in Haro11 as closely as possible, we use the abundances in the literature. Abundances of oxygen, nitrogen, neon, sulphur, and argon were obtained in knots B and C of Haro11 by [@guseva-2012] using [*VLT*]{}/X-shooter observations in the optical. In particular, they find an oxygen abundance 12+log(O/H) of 8.1 in knot B and 8.3 in knot C, giving a O/H twice as large as the value 12+log(O/H)=7.9 previously found by [@bergvall-2002], altering the determination of the metallicity from $\sim$1/6 to 1/3 Z$_{\odot}$. We use the abundances in [@guseva-2012], averaged over the two knots, which have similar luminosities, for our calculations. Uncertainties on these abundances are 10%. For neon and sulphur, [@guseva-2012] find similar values to those found in [@wu-2008a], derived from [*Spitzer*]{} data. The relatively high neon abundance is typical of BCDs [@izotov-1999]. For nitrogen, such high abundance is observed in a few BCDs [e.g. @thuan-1996; @izotov-1998; @pustilnik-2004], and can be explained by the presence of Wolf-Rayet stars [@bergvall-2002], which inject matter enriched in N and C into the ISM. For the other elements, we use gas-phase relative abundances typical of H [ii]{} regions, based on an average of the abundances in the Orion Nebula determined by [@baldwin-1991; @rubin-1991; @osterbrock-1992; @rubin-1993], and scaling them to the metallicity of Haro11. The resulting carbon abundance is $\mathrm{log(C/O)=-0.15}$, which is relatively high compared to [@izotov-1999], where $\mathrm{log(C/O)\sim-0.5}$. However, [@bergvall-2006] find that the ratio of C and O column densities is $\sim-0.3$ (log) from the analysis of absorption lines in IUE and FUSE data. Such high value may indicate an enrichment in C and agrees with our adopted carbon abundance (assuming Orion-like $\mathrm{C/O}$) within the uncertainties. For silicon, its abundance $\mathrm{Si/O}$ is low in the Orion abundance set compared to that usually found in BCDs, therefore we use the average abundance of $\mathrm{log(Si/O)=-1.5}$ from [@izotov-1999]. We consider the uncertainty on these theoretical abundances to be of a factor of 2. Table \[table:ab\] summarizes the elemental abundances (and uncertainties) we use in Cloudy. The lack of measured abundances for the other elements limits their use to constrain the models (e.g. Fe, Si).
------------------------ ----------------------------
O/H -3.79 (0.14)
N/H -4.64 (0.12)
Ne/H -4.44 (0.07)
S/H -5.57 (0.10)
Ar/H -6.20 (0.13)
C/H -3.92 (0.3)
Si/H -5.80 (0.3)
Fe/H -5.92 (0.3)
Carbonaceous 36%
Silicate 60%
PAH 4%
Dust-to-Gas mass ratio $\rm{2.64 \times 10^{-3}}$
------------------------ ----------------------------
: Elemental abundances set in Cloudy.
Abundances of oxygen, nitrogen, neon, sulphur, and argon are from [@guseva-2012], silicon from [@izotov-1999], and the others are average abundances of the Orion Nebula determined by [@baldwin-1991; @rubin-1991; @osterbrock-1992; @rubin-1993], scaled to the metallicity of Haro11.\
The main elemental composition O:C:Si:Fe in the grains is 4:9:1:1.
\[table:ab\]
### Dust properties {#sect:dustprop}
It is important to accurately set the dust properties for two reasons: (1) dust plays an important role in heating the gas through the photoelectric effect, which depends on the dust abundance and grain size distribution, and (2) the radiative transfer is strongly influenced by the properties of the grains. We first tried using the standard MRN grain size distribution [@mathis-1977], which failed to reproduce the observed dust emission in the MIR, falling below the photometry data by more than an order of magnitude. The MRN distribution underpredicts the number of small grains (minimum grain radius of 5 nm) and is usually not appropriate for modeling the MIR emission in galaxies. Standard dust models such as [@draine-2001] and [@zubko-2004] do include more small grains than the standard MRN model. Dust modeling of dwarf galaxies [e.g. @galliano-2003; @galliano-2005; @galametz-2011] also demonstrates the need for an increased abundance of smaller grains. Therefore, in Cloudy, we use the MRN distribution extended down to 1.1 nm to account for the very small grains. We also use PAHs as described in [@abel-2008]. Both grains and PAH abundances are scaled to the metallicity of Haro11 (1/3 Z$_{\odot}$), fixing the dust-to-gas mass ratio (D/G) to $\rm{2.64 \times 10^{-3}}$ ($\sim$1/400, the Galactic D/G is $\sim$1/150). This yields a ratio of visual extinction to hydrogen column density, A$_V$/N(H), of $\rm{10^{-22}~mag~cm^{-2}}$.
Limitations of the approach {#sect:limits}
---------------------------
Our first limitation lies on the geometry of our modeling that we aim to constrain as much as possible with diagnostics from a large set of spectral lines. Some of the derived parameters of the compact H [ii]{} region are strongly dependent on the (simple) geometry we impose on the model, which we will see is a recurring theme throughout the paper. The parameters that are best constrained, irrespective of the geometry, are the electron density, temperature and mass of ionised gas. As found in Section \[sect:rin\], the geometrically thin ionised gas shell, in combination with the large inner radius ($\sim$1 kpc) that describes the model solution of the dense H [ii]{} region, seems physically implausible. Despite the geometry of the model, we refer to it with the term compact since this model component represents what is observationally described as a compact H [ii]{} region. This is a direct result of assuming a single region with a single central source. Although we are aware that the knots B and C of Haro11 are spatially separated in the optical, we do not have the spatial resolution in the [*Spitzer*]{} and [*Herschel*]{} observations to treat them separately. If, for example, we were to construct a model as the sum of several regions – as seems reasonable when perusing the optical images – the inner radius of each region would have to decrease in order to obtain a similar effective $U$ parameter, while the shell thickness would increase in order to obtain the same gas mass, thus evolving towards a model with a more geometrically thick layout. It is impossible to obtain reliable and reproducible results using such a complex model, without better observational constraints on the actual source distribution, i.e. spatially resolved spectroscopy. In this paper we focus on the derived parameters that are least sensitive on the actual assumed geometry. In Section \[sect:sed\], we discuss the spectral energy distribution resulting from the combination of models of the various phases in terms of energy balance, but we do not pretend to accurately fit the total SED because of these geometry issues.
Our second limitation lies in the evalutation of the goodness of the fits. It is mainly weighted by the elemental abundance uncertainties, which can be up to a factor of 2, and by the observational uncertainties (up to 40%). Therefore, when comparing the model predictions to observed intensities, we aim for a match within a factor of 2.
A model of the H [ii]{} region and PDR: $\mathscr{C}$ {#sect:results}
=====================================================
The compact H [ii]{} region {#sect:compact}
---------------------------
The results of the computed grid are displayed in Figure \[fig:hiidiag\]. It shows the intensity predictions of the compact model labeled $\mathscr{C}$ for each ionic line as a function of density, n$\rm{_{H}}$, and inner radius, r$\rm{_{in}}$, for a starburst age of 3.7 Myr (age of the best fit model, see Sect. \[sect:age\]). In this section, we discuss the influence of each grid parameter on the model predicions and possible solution values. These parameters are linked via the quantity $U$, which is the ionisation parameter, defined as the dimensionless ratio of the incident ionising photon surface density to the hydrogen density n$\rm{_{H}}$: $U = \frac{Q(H)}{4\pi r_{\rm in}^{2}n_{H}c}$, where $Q(H)$ is the rate of hydrogen-ionising photons striking the illuminated face and $c$ is the velocity of light. $U$ describes how many ionising photons arrive per atom.
![Predicted intensities for model $\mathscr{C}$ (I$_{model}$) normalised by their observed value (I$_{obs}$) for all ionic lines considered, as a function of n$\rm{_{H}}$ and r$_{\rm in}$ for a given starburst age (of 3.7 Myr). The vertical dashed line shows the best fit model density n$\rm{_H}=$10$^{2.8}$ cm$^{-3}$, and the vertical dotted line the critical density of the ionic specie, if within the range displayed. The best fit inner radius is r$_{\rm in}=$10$^{21.4}$ cm (green symbols). []{data-label="fig:hiidiag"}](19818f07){width="8.8cm"}
### The density of the gas {#sect:hden}
In general terms the predicted line intensities are dependent on the gas density through both the critical density of each atom, and the ionisation parameter, $U$. Line intensities increase with increasing gas density until the critical density of a fine-structure line is reached. Above such critical density, the de-excitation process is dominated by collisions rather than radiative decay. Therefore the maximum gas density is well determined by the critical density of the brightest line tracers. The gas density also plays an important role in determining the population of the different ionisation stages. The ionisation parameter, $U$, is inversely proportional to the density (bottom right panel of Fig. \[fig:hiidiag\]).
We find that the minimum $\chi^2$ occurs for a solution with a density around 10$^{2.8}$ cm$^{-3}$ (dashed vertical line in Fig. \[fig:hiidiag\]). This derived gas density compares well with density diagnostics proposed in the literature, for example, based on the ratio of the \[S [iii]{}\] lines at 18.7 and 33.5 $\mu$m [@houck-1984]. This ratio is sensitive to the density since these lines originate from the same ion but with significantly different critical densities (Table \[table:lines\]). From [@abel-2005] and requiring $\mathrm{\frac{[S~III]~18~\mu\,m}{[S~III]~33~\mu\,m}\sim1.0}$, we obtain a density of the ionised gas of $\rm{n_{H} = 10^{2.7}~cm^{-3}}$. The value of the electron density predicted by the diagnostic plot in [@houck-1984] is also around $\rm{10^{2.8}~cm^{-3}}$. Following the method from @kingsburgh-1992 [@kingsburgh-1994] who use the programs $EQUIB$ and $RATIO$ (developed at UCL by I. D. Howarth and modified by S. Adams), we also find $\rm{n_{H}\sim10^{2.8}~cm^{-3}}$.
### The age of the burst {#sect:age}
The spectrum of the starburst (intensity and shape) changes drastically with time in the age range considered here. The age of the burst sets the hardness of the incident radiation field. Figure \[fig:hiiratios\] shows line ratios of \[Ne [iii]{}\]/\[Ne [ii]{}\], \[O [iv]{}\]/\[Ne [iii]{}\], \[O [iii]{}\]/\[N [iii]{}\], \[O [iii]{}\]/\[S [iv]{}\], and \[S [iv]{}\]/\[S [iii]{}\] 18.7 $\mu$m as a function of burst age. The observed ratios agree with an age of burst of 3.5-5 Myr. These values are also in agreement with the age of 3.5 Myr for the brightest knot B and 9 Myr for knot C, and a mixture of very young and older bursts, found in [@adamo-2010]. After 5 Myr, the ionising part of the burst spectrum decreases, the high ionisation lines start to disappear, and in particular the \[Ne [iii]{}\]/\[Ne [ii]{}\] ratio drops off (bottom panel of Fig. \[fig:hiiratios\]). This is why we do not compute models with A$\rm{_{burst} > 5~Myr}$ in our grid. The best fit on the neon lines favours a relatively young burst, of about 3 Myr. However, the emission of the highest excitation potential \[O [iv]{}\] line (54.9 eV) is rather favoured by models with ages between 3.7 and 4.7 Myr. Indeed this time frame corresponds to the time needed for the onset of Wolf-Rayet stars. A burst age of 4.7 Myr is also a good match to the \[Ne [iii]{}\]/\[Ne [ii]{}\] ratio, although it does not agree with the intensity of the \[S [iv]{}\] line, which is one of the lines that has the highest weight in the $\chi^2$. The best single solution model in that case has an age of burst of 3.7 Myr.
![Model predicted intensity ratios as a function of burst age A$\rm{_{burst}}$, for a hydrogen density of $\rm{10^{2.8}~cm^{-3}}$, and inner radius of 10$^{21.4}$ cm. The true burst age of these models is an average of A$\rm{_{burst}}$ and the older stellar population of 9.5 Myr, although the latter has a negligible influence on the high-ionisation lines considered here. The horizontal solid lines represent the observed ratios and the dashed lines the uncertainties on the ratios. The vertical dashed line shows the solution burst age of 3.7 Myr, and the vertical dotted lines the age of 3 Myr and 4.7 Myr that would better match the \[Ne [iii]{}\]/\[Ne [ii]{}\] ratio. []{data-label="fig:hiiratios"}](19818f08){width="8.8cm"}
### The inner radius {#sect:rin}
All lines are sensitive to the inner radius $\rm{r_{in}}$. Its choice has no direct influence on the hardness of the radiation field, but rather on its intensity. With increasing radius, the total input luminosity is distributed over a larger surface, decreasing the number of ionising photons per surface area, and therefore the ionisation rate. $U$ decreases as the inverse square of the radius. Intensities of species with a high ionisation potential, such as \[O [iv]{}\], decrease with increasing $\rm{r_{in}}$, and the inverse is observed for low ionisation species such as \[N [ii]{}\]. For r$\rm{_{in} < 10^{21.0}~cm}$, atoms are preferably present in high ionisation states. Models with such small r$\rm{_{in}}$ often predict too much \[O [iv]{}\] and \[S [iv]{}\], and not enough \[Ne [ii]{}\] and \[S [iii]{}\]. \[Ne [iii]{}\] and \[S [iv]{}\] intensities are constant at low r$\rm{_{in}}$ and then drop with increasing r$\rm{_{in}}$. \[S [iii]{}\], \[N [iii]{}\] and \[O [iii]{}\] intensities increase with low r$\rm{_{in}}$ ($<$ 10$^{21.5}$ cm) because of an ionisation balance between S$^{2+}$, N$^{2+}$, O$^{2+}$ and S$^{3+}$, N$^{3+}$, O$^{3+}$. Then their intensities drop with increasing r$\rm{_{in}}$. The opposite effect is observed for the lower ionisation state species such as \[Ne [ii]{}\] and \[N [ii]{}\] which increase with r$\rm{_{in}}$.
The observations are best matched for an inner radius of 10$^{21.4}$ cm (800 pc). At that distance, the model cloud is a very thin shell of large radius, at the center of which resides the central starburst. The resulting geometry is plane-parallel. This is not a realistic geometry, as discussed in Sect. \[sect:limits\], but we do not aim to model the spatial structures in Haro11.
### Parameters of the best fit model $\mathscr{C}_{HII}$
We have minimised the $\chi^2$ to find the parameters of the best fit model for the compact H [ii]{} region described above. Figure \[fig:chi2\] shows contour plots of the reduced $\chi^2$ computed for our grid of models. Contour levels at 1-$\sigma$, 3-$\sigma$, and 5-$\sigma$ from the minimum $\chi^2$ are displayed in orange. The intensities of the spectral lines included in the fit are best reproduced with the parameters: $\rm{n_{H} = 10^{2.8}~cm^{-3}}$, $\rm{A_{burst} = 3.7~Myr}$, and $\rm{r_{in} = 10^{21.4}}$ cm. The ionisation parameter is $\rm{U=10^{-2.5}}$. The reduced $\chi^2$ of this model solution, which has the minimum $\chi^2$, is 1.48. This value is close to 1, indicating that this model describes the data well, with a probability of $\sim$70%. For clarity throughout the following Sections, we will refer to this model solution of the compact H [ii]{} region as $\mathscr{C}_{HII}$.
![ Contour plots of the $\chi^2$ values of the 3D grid (log scale). The parameters are given in logarithmic values. Units are cm$^{-3}$ for the density, yr for the burst age, and cm for the inner radius. The minimum reduced $\chi^2$ found for $\mathscr{C}_{HII}$ is $\chi^2_{min}=1.48$. Contour levels at 1-$\sigma$, 3-$\sigma$, and 5-$\sigma$ from the minimum $\chi^2$ are displayed in orange. There are 5 other models within 3-$\sigma$ of $\chi^2_{min}$. The red color on the plots correspond to $>$1000-$\sigma$ level. [*Top:*]{} $\chi^2$ contours in the $\rm{n_{H}}$-$\rm{r_{in}}$ plane, for $\rm{A_{burst} = 3.7~Myr}$ (or 6.57 in log). [*Bottom:*]{} $\chi^2$ contours in the $\rm{n_{H}}$-$\rm{A_{burst}}$ plane, for $\rm{r_{in} = 10^{21.4}~cm}$. []{data-label="fig:chi2"}](19818f09 "fig:"){width="8.8cm"} ![ Contour plots of the $\chi^2$ values of the 3D grid (log scale). The parameters are given in logarithmic values. Units are cm$^{-3}$ for the density, yr for the burst age, and cm for the inner radius. The minimum reduced $\chi^2$ found for $\mathscr{C}_{HII}$ is $\chi^2_{min}=1.48$. Contour levels at 1-$\sigma$, 3-$\sigma$, and 5-$\sigma$ from the minimum $\chi^2$ are displayed in orange. There are 5 other models within 3-$\sigma$ of $\chi^2_{min}$. The red color on the plots correspond to $>$1000-$\sigma$ level. [*Top:*]{} $\chi^2$ contours in the $\rm{n_{H}}$-$\rm{r_{in}}$ plane, for $\rm{A_{burst} = 3.7~Myr}$ (or 6.57 in log). [*Bottom:*]{} $\chi^2$ contours in the $\rm{n_{H}}$-$\rm{A_{burst}}$ plane, for $\rm{r_{in} = 10^{21.4}~cm}$. []{data-label="fig:chi2"}](19818f10 "fig:"){width="8.8cm"}
With $\mathscr{C}_{HII}$, the strongest MIR line, \[Ne [iii]{}\], is reproduced within 15%, as well as the \[O [iv]{}\] line. The two \[S [iii]{}\] lines are achieved within 5% and their ratio within 1%. The modeled \[S [iv]{}\] and \[Ar [iii]{}\] lines deviate by 20%. The \[N [iii]{}\] line is reproduced within 40%. The \[Ne [ii]{}\] line, however, is under-predicted by a factor of 5 by $\mathscr{C}_{HII}$.
We then compare the line intensities predicted by $\mathscr{C}_{HII}$ to the PACS lines, \[O [iii]{}\] and \[N [ii]{}\] 122 $\mu$m, which were not used to constrain the model fit since they can originate from less dense ionised gas. We find that \[O [iii]{}\] is under-predicted by a factor of 2, which is within our expectations, while the \[N [ii]{}\] 122 $\mu$m is under-predicted by a factor of 4. The dense H [ii]{} region is not the primary source of \[N [ii]{}\]. The prediction for the \[N [ii]{}\] 205 $\mu$m line falls below its derived upper limit.
We discuss the origin of the \[Ne [ii]{}\] and \[N [ii]{}\] lines from diffuse low-ionisation gas in Sect. \[sect:diffus\] and the possible origin of the \[O [iii]{}\] emission from diffuse high-ionisation gas in Sect. \[sect:diffus\].
We also find that $\mathscr{C}_{HII}$ contributes very little to the \[O [i]{}\] emission (3%), as expected since the atomic oxygen is a tracer of the neutral gas. $\mathscr{C}_{HII}$ shows very little contribution to the \[C [ii]{}\] ($<$1%) and \[Si [ii]{}\] (11%) lines as well. The energy required to create C$^{++}$ ions is 24.4 eV, close to that of S$^{++}$, therefore when the radiation field is sufficiently hard, as is the case inside the H [ii]{} region, C is doubly rather than singly ionised.
The dense photodissociation regions: $\mathscr{C}_{PDR}$ {#sect:pdr}
--------------------------------------------------------
We subsequently investigate the properties of the neutral gas and compare model predictions to the \[C [ii]{}\] and \[O [i]{}\] 63 and 145 $\mu$m lines. To this end, we extend $\mathscr{C}_{HII}$ into the atomic phase and the outer envelope of the molecular phase, until the molecular fraction H$\rm{_{2}}$/H reaches 99%. The modeled shell is fully covered by the gas. The ionised cloud, with average density of 10$^{2.8}$ cm$\rm{^{-3}}$, transitions from the H [ii]{} region into a dense PDR, which is where the \[O [i]{}\] originates. This transition between these two phases in a constant pressure model translates into a jump of the gas density at the ionisation front. With this model, the average density of the PDR is 10$^{5.1}$ cm$\rm{^{-3}}$. The radiation field striking the PDR is: $\rm{G_{0} = 3.5 \times 10^{3}}$ Habing unit ($\rm{1.6 \times 10^{-3} ergs~cm^{-2}~s^{-1}}$). The heating of the gas in the PDR is dominated by grain photoelectric heating (85%), and there is a second order contribution from collisions with H$\rm{^0}$, He, and H$\rm{_2}$. The cooling is done by radiative de-excitation mainly of the \[O [i]{}\] 63 $\mu$m (65%), \[Si [ii]{}\] (20%), \[C [ii]{}\] 157 $\mu$m and \[O [i]{}\] 145 $\mu$m ($<$7% each) lines. At such low A$_v <$1, the \[O [i]{}\] lines are optically thin.
The \[O [i]{}\] 63 and 145 $\mu$m absolute intensities are over-estimated by a factor of 10, while their ratio is reproduced within 15% by this dense PDR component. Along with the \[O [i]{}\] 63 $\mu$m line, \[C [ii]{}\] 157 $\mu$m and \[Si [ii]{}\] 35 $\mu$m are the brightest PDR lines. While the \[Si [ii]{}\] line intensity is over-predicted by a factor of 2 by the dense model, the \[C [ii]{}\] line agrees with the observation within 10%.
The consistent over-prediction of the two \[O [i]{}\] lines may be explained by the fact that, in reality, the dense PDR does not cover the full dense H [ii]{} region. Assuming that all of the \[O [i]{}\] arises from a single dense phase (and not the diffuse gas, see Sect. \[sect:ciidiff\]), we reduce the covering factor of the dense PDR to only 10%, which is a proxy for dense clumps [@hunter-2001; @groves-2008]. The PDR model with a covering factor of 1/10 matches the observed \[O [i]{}\] emission, but under-estimates the \[C [ii]{}\] emission by an order of magnitude. The main conclusion from this is that the dense PDR component cannot account for the bulk of the \[C [ii]{}\] emission observed in Haro11, but only for 10%. This mismatch for the \[C [ii]{}\] is due to the relatively low critical density of \[C [ii]{}\] ($\rm{2 \times 10^{3}~cm^{-3}}$) compared to the high density reached in the PDR ($\rm{n_{PDR} = 10^{5.1}~cm^{-3}}$), generated by the pressure equilibrium and the drop of gas temperature between the ionised and neutral phases. Indeed, Cloudy PDR models with constant densities of $\sim$10$^{3.5}$ cm$^{-3}$ and a covering factor of unity would reproduce the absolute intensity of the two \[O [i]{}\] lines simultaneously, and yet under-predict the \[C [ii]{}\] by a factor of 2. Moreover, the H [i]{} mass of such models would exceed the upper limit of $\rm{10^{8}~M_{\odot}}$ found by [@bergvall-2000].
The small fraction of \[C [ii]{}\] that originates from the dense PDR is at odds with the finding of @bergvall-2000, who estimate that more than 80% of the observed \[C [ii]{}\] in Haro11 comes from the neutral gas. They use stellar clusters of T$\rm{_{eff}} \sim$ 35 000-40 000 K to account for the \[O [iii]{}\] 88 $\mu$m emission, which contributes less than 20% to the \[C [ii]{}\] emission, and they assume that the rest of the \[C [ii]{}\] ($>$80%) is associated with PDRs. Then, they find $\rm{n_{PDR} = 2 \times 10^{3}~cm^{-3}}$ using the [@kaufman-1999] model, which assumes a constant density. The much higher density that we find is compatible with the findings of [@vasta-2010] who analysed ISO observations with PDR models for several dwarf galaxies, including Haro11, and find PDR densities between $\rm{10^{4}}$ and $\rm{9 \times 10^{4}~cm^{-3}}$, and G$_0$ between 60 and $\rm{8 \times 10^{2}~Habing}$. They also estimate that 10 to 60% of \[C [ii]{}\] comes from the ionised gas, which is in agreement with the diffuse ionised model contribution to the \[C [ii]{}\] line that we discuss in Sect. \[sect:ciidiff\].
We have also explored the influence of cloud geometry on the line predictions by using the PDR model Kosma-$\tau$ [@roellig-2006], in which the illumination of the cloud is external, simulating a spherical cloud structure. At corresponding values of $\rm{n_{H}}$ (10$^{5.1}$ cm$\rm{^{-3}}$) and G$_0$ ($\rm{3.5 \times 10^{3}}$ Habing) found with Cloudy, Kosma-$\tau$ predicts ratios of \[O [i]{}\] 145 $\mu$m/\[C [ii]{}\]$\sim$1 and \[O [i]{}\] 145/63 $\mu$m$\sim$0.05. The \[O [i]{}\] 145 $\mu$m/\[C [ii]{}\] model ratios are over-predicted, as found with Cloudy, compared to our observed value of 0.08. However, if we attribute only 10% of the \[C [ii]{}\] emission to the PDR, then \[O [i]{}\] 145 $\mu$m/\[C [ii]{}\]$\rm{_{PDR}}\sim$ 0.1 from Kosma-$\tau$, which is in line with our observations. The spherical geometry affects both \[O [i]{}\] and \[C [ii]{}\] lines similarly to first order, and is not the primary reason for the discrepancy between observed and predicted \[C [ii]{}\] intensities.
We prefer to impose the pressure equilibrium between the compact H [ii]{} region and the dense PDR, because this gives physical insight into the presence of dense but fragmented PDRs [e.g. @hunter-2001]. Although the pressure equilibrium assumption is not valid on large scales (nor is the assumption of a constant density) and, in particular, is expected to break in molecular clouds, here we do not model the molecular phase. We are interested in the interface between the dense H [ii]{} region and the PDR, the presence for which there is observational evidence. This model solution of the dense PDR with covering factor of 10% is noted $\mathscr{C}_{PDR}$. Next, we will discuss possible ways to lower the density in the PDR to account for the \[C [ii]{}\] emission, by either combining a high density with a low density model (Sect. \[sect:ciidiff\]), representative of the multi-phase ISM of galaxies, or by including a magnetic field (Sect. \[sect:bmag\]).
A model for the diffuse medium: $\mathscr{D}$ {#sect:diffus}
=============================================
Need for a softer radiation field
---------------------------------
The major discrepancies between observations and model predictions in the ionised gas are seen for the \[Ne [ii]{}\] 12.6 $\mu$m and \[N [ii]{}\] 122 $\mu$m lines, which are both under-predicted by a factor of $\sim$5 in the dense H [ii]{} region model $\mathscr{C}_{HII}$, which is not unexpected. With excitation potentials of 14.5 and 21.6 eV respectively, emission of N$^+$ and Ne$^+$ originates only from the ionised gas, from both the dense H [ii]{} region and the diffuse medium. For \[N [ii]{}\] 122 $\mu$m, $\mathscr{C}_{HII}$ does not reproduce the observed value even when varying the 3 free parameters. Only $\rm{r_{in} > 10^{21.8}}$ cm may agree (bottom left panel of Fig. \[fig:hiidiag\]). The contribution of the compact H [ii]{} region to this line is thus marginal; mostly because the radiation field produced by the young starburst is too hard and favors the ionisation of N$^{++}$ rather than N$^+$. For the \[Ne [ii]{}\] line, a small change in the age of the burst would impact on its prediction, as discussed in Sect. \[sect:age\]. For the same values of density and inner radius, a model of age 3 Myr (instead of 3.7 Myr) would agree better with the observed intensity of \[Ne [ii]{}\]. For a burst age of 3.7 Myr, higher densities ($\rm{n_{H} > 10^{3}~cm^{-3}}$) and inner radii ($\rm{r_{in} > 10^{21.6}}$ cm) are required to reproduce the observed \[Ne [ii]{}\] (top right panel of Fig. \[fig:hiidiag\]). However, such values of $\rm{n_{H}}$ and $\rm{r_{in}}$ would no longer agree with the other ionic lines. In order to reconcile the modeled \[Ne [ii]{}\] and \[N [ii]{}\] with their observations, a component with softer radiation field is required. This highlights the fact that one component is not enough the account for the emission of all the observed lines due to the presence of several phases in the ISM of galaxies with different properties.
To model this additional ionised component we have tried three different methods: (1) set the cloud further away (higher r$\rm{_{in}}$) under the same starburst conditions, and allowing the density to be a free parameter, (2) stop $\mathscr{C}_{HII}$ before it reaches the ionisation front and take the output spectrum as the input spectrum of a lower density medium, (3) opt for a softer radiation field by including a scaled local interstellar radiation field. However, all of these methods fail to reproduce the observed line intensities. Either the radiation is still too hard (case (1) and (2) when stopping too early), or too soft (case (3) and (2) when stopping too close to the ionisation front).
The radiation field that works best to explain the observed \[Ne [ii]{}\] and \[N [ii]{}\] lines is a representative stellar SED from the Kurucz library of relatively low temperature (see next subsection). This is supported by the fact that more evolved stars producing low energy photons are present in Haro11 [@micheva-2010] but not accounted for in the compact model $\mathscr{C}$ ($\mathscr{C}_{HII}$+$\mathscr{C}_{PDR}$). This older population affects mainly the emission of \[N [ii]{}\], \[Ne [ii]{}\], and to a lesser extent \[S [iii]{}\].
Properties of the model $\mathscr{D}$
-------------------------------------
We ran constant density models of diffuse ionised gas, stopped at the ionisation front, with stellar temperature between 20 000 and 40 000 K. The best fit to the \[N [ii]{}\] 122 $\mu$m and \[Ne [ii]{}\] emission is obtained for a stellar temperature of 35 000 K. Figure \[fig:diffus\] shows how the \[N [ii]{}\], \[Ne [ii]{}\], \[S [iii]{}\], and \[C [ii]{}\] lines vary with density for several values of $\rm{r_{in}}$. We refer the reader to the Sections \[sect:hden\] and \[sect:rin\] for an interpretation of the behavior of the lines. The range of possible solutions for the \[N [ii]{}\] 122 $\mu$m emission are densities below $\rm{10^{3}~cm^{-3}}$ and $\rm{r_{in}}$ higher than $\rm{10^{21.0}~cm}$. \[Ne [ii]{}\] also agrees well with these conditions. At T$\rm{_{eff}}$ of 35 000 K, \[S [iii]{}\] also emits, but remains below its observed value. Very little \[N [iii]{}\], \[Ne [iii]{}\], \[O [iii]{}\], and \[S [iv]{}\] are produced in this diffuse component, and no \[O [iv]{}\]. Although \[N [ii]{}\] 122 $\mu$m has a relatively low critical density, the density of the N$^+$ emitting medium is usually well constrained by the \[N [ii]{}\] 205 $\mu$m line. Unfortunately, the \[N [ii]{}\] 205 $\mu$m line is difficult to observe with PACS because of spectral leakage (see Sect. \[sect:pacs\]). The upper limit on the \[N [ii]{}\] 205 $\mu$m line sets an upper limit on the ratio \[N [ii]{}\] 205/122 $\mu$m of 0.75 which corresponds to a lower limit on the density of the “diffuse” gas component of 10 cm$^{-3}$ [e.g. @rubin-1994; @oberst-2006]. The \[N [ii]{}\] 122 $\mu$m line critical density sets an upper limit of $\rm{10^{3}~cm^{-3}}$. Models with densities between 10 and $\rm{10^{3}~cm^{-3}}$ work equally well for the “diffuse” medium in acounting for the \[N [ii]{}\] 122 $\mu$m and \[Ne [ii]{}\] emission.
![ Predictions for the model $\mathscr{D}$ of the \[Ne [ii]{}\], \[C [ii]{}\], \[N [ii]{}\], and \[S [iii]{}\] line intensities (I$_{model}$), normalised by their observed value (I$_{obs}$) as a function of density $\rm{n_{H}}$. Models are for a diffuse ionised/neutral gas, with constant density, stellar temperature of 35 000 K, and are stopped when molecules start to form. The \[S [iii]{}\], \[Ne [ii]{}\] and \[N [ii]{}\] lines emit in the ionised phase. The contribution of the ionised phase to the \[C [ii]{}\] line is indicated with open circles. The vertical dashed lines indicate density values of the diffuse models $\mathscr{D}_{l}$ ($\rm{n_{H} = 10~cm^{-3}}$) and $\mathscr{D}_{h}$ ($\rm{n_{H} = 10^{3}~cm^{-3}}$) defined in Sect. \[sect:ciidiff\]. []{data-label="fig:diffus"}](19818f11){width="8.8cm"}
\[C [ii]{}\] contribution from the model $\mathscr{D}$ {#sect:ciidiff}
------------------------------------------------------
Since $\mathscr{C}_{PDR}$ predicts very little \[C [ii]{}\] 157 $\mu$m, we expect a significant contribution of the diffuse medium to the C$^{+}$ emission. C$^{+}$ is usually found in the surface layers of far-UV illuminated PDRs [@stacey-1991; @negishi-2001], but it can also come from the ionised gas, with a contribution up to 50% [@madden-1993; @carral-1994; @heiles-1994; @abel-2005]. With ionisation potentials lower than that of hydrogen, both C$^+$ and Si$^+$ can be produced by low energy photons or excited by collisions with electrons or hydrogen atoms, depending on the degree of ionisation from the emitting medium.
Figure \[fig:diffus\] shows the predicted \[C [ii]{}\] line intensities from the diffuse medium with a stellar temperature of 35 000 K, as a function of gas density. The contribution of the diffuse phase (ionised+neutral) is in filled circles, and the contribution of the ionised phase only shown by open circles. Calculations are stopped when molecules start to form and the fraction of $\rm{H_{2}}$/H reaches 10%. At low $\rm{n_{H}}$, the empty and filled circles are very close: a large fraction of the \[C [ii]{}\] can arise from the ionised phase, until \[C [ii]{}\] is collisionally de-excited by e$^-$ (n$_{crit}$ = 50 cm${\rm ^{-3}}$), and emits mostly in the neutral phase, its intensity then increasing with density. At $\rm{r_{in} = 10^{22.2} ~cm}$, the \[C [ii]{}\] predictions decrease for $\rm{n_{H} > 10^{2}~cm^{-3}}$, because the atomic phase is very thin as the material is cold and enters quickly into the molecular phase where the models stop. We disregard these models which do not predict enough \[C [ii]{}\]. The range of possible solutions for the \[C [ii]{}\] 157 $\mu$m emission are $\rm{r_{in}}$ higher than $\rm{10^{21.4} ~cm}$, and are degenerate in $\rm{n_{H}}$. We can set a low-density case where $\rm{n_{H} = 10~cm^{-3}}$ – for example. Then $\rm{r_{in} = 10^{21.8} ~cm}$ is the best fit, and \[C [ii]{}\] comes mostly from the ionised phase, accounting for $\sim$45% of the observed value. We also consider a high-density case where $\rm{n_{H} = 10^{3}~cm^{-3}}$, and $\rm{r_{in} = 10^{21.8} ~cm}$. In this case, \[C [ii]{}\] is mostly emitted in the neutral phase, accounting for $\sim$40% of the observed value. Both models fill a larger volume than the compact model $\mathscr{C}$.
### Constraint from the H [i]{} 21-cm line
The H [i]{} 21-cm mass upper limit of $\rm{10^{8}~M_{\odot}}$ from [@bergvall-2000] is an important gas diagnostic of the diffuse atomic gas and brings a strong constraint that we can use to differentiate between the low-density and high-density case models. The H [i]{} mass from $\mathscr{C}_{PDR}$ is $\rm{10^{7}~M_{\odot}}$. While the models from Fig. \[fig:diffus\] were stopped at a fraction of $\rm{H_{2}}$/H reaching 10% to compute entirely the ionised and atomic phases, most of those models exceed the H [i]{} mass upper limit. By stopping those models when the upper limit on the H [i]{} mass is reached, we find that the low-density case model contribution to the \[C [ii]{}\] line is unchanged since it comes from the ionised phase, while the high-density case model contributes to only $\sim$20% of the \[C [ii]{}\] line intensity, since the atomic phase is stopped at lower A$_V$ than previously computed.
For the rest of this study, we refer to the low-density case model as $\mathscr{D}_{l}$, and to the high-density case model as $\mathscr{D}_{h}$. We cannot exclude the presence of a diffuse neutral gas, but in all cases, there is a prominent contribution to the \[C [ii]{}\] from the ionised gas. We estimate that $\sim$40% originates in $\mathscr{D}_{l}$; the rest coming from $\mathscr{C}_{PDR}$ and little from $\mathscr{D}_{h}$. Moreover, the diffuse models do not contribute more than 15% to the \[O [i]{}\] lines, which are reliable tracers of the PDR.
Influence from other possible components {#sect:disc}
========================================
Magnetic fields {#sect:bmag}
---------------
Magnetic fields impact the model solution, dominating the pressure deep into the cloud, and they are expected to be important in star-forming regions [@shaw-2009]. [@robishaw-2008] found magnetic fields on the order of a few mG in ULIRGs, from OH Zeeman splitting. In local dwarf irregular galaxies, magnetic fields are found to be weak, of a few $\mu$G to 50 $\mu$G in more extreme cases [e.g. NGC 1569, NGC 4214; @chyzy-2011; @kepley-2010; @kepley-2011]. No study on magnetic fields has been conducted for Haro11, so we did not include them in our grid calculation. Nevertheless, in view of the fact that we have found that the density of the dense PDR plays a determining role in the predicted line fluxes, we investigate the influence of adding a magnetic field $B_{mag}$ of strength 1 $\mu$G to 3 mG to the solution model $\mathscr{C}$ described in Sect \[sect:results\].
Figure \[fig:bmag\] shows the predicted \[C [ii]{}\] and \[O [i]{}\] intensities with increasing $B_{mag}$. For low values of $B_{mag}$, thermal pressure, expressed as $P_{gas}~\propto~n_{H}~T_{gas}$, dominates and the densities in the PDR are high, with strong emission of \[O [i]{}\], as seen previously. With increasing $B_{mag}$, magnetic pressure starts to dominate over gas pressure and the transition into the PDR is smooth, resulting in lower densities in the PDR, and less emission of \[O [i]{}\]. The \[C [ii]{}\]/\[O [i]{}\] ratio increases with increasing $B_{mag}$. The \[C [ii]{}\] prediction falls between a factor of 0.5 and 1 of its observed value for all models. Values of $B_{mag}$ up to $\rm{10^{-3.75}~G}$ predict enough \[O [i]{}\] emission. For $B_{mag}$ $\rm{> 10^{-3.75}~G}$, the models under-predict the intensity of the PDR lines, which would require extra input power, although we are still within the errors (factor of 2).
However, when lowering the density, the size of the PDR layer increases, and the H [i]{} mass as well. With no magnetic field, we find M(H [i]{})$\rm{= 10^{7}~M_{\odot}}$ with a covering factor of $\sim$10%. For $B_{mag} > 10^{-4}$ G, we find M(H [i]{})$\rm{> 2 \times 10^{8}~M_{\odot}}$ for a covering factor of unity. By increasing the magnetic field strength, we go from a picture of small dense clumps to a more diffuse extended medium, which again does not agree with the observational upper limit on the H [i]{} mass. Moreover, high field strengths ($\rm{> 100~\mu G}$) may be found in the cores of star formation, but are unlikely to hold on galaxy-wide scales. Models with $B_{mag} > 10^{-4}$ G are therefore discarded and appear in the shaded grey area on Fig. \[fig:bmag\]. The model with $B_{mag}$ of $\rm{10^{-4}~G}$ is noted $\mathscr{C}_{B}$. Then, if we consider that all of the \[O [i]{}\] 145 $\mu$m emission originates in the PDR, we can consequently scale the \[C [ii]{}\] intensity and we estimate the contribution of the PDR to the \[C [ii]{}\] line to be from 10% up to at most 50% in strong magnetic field cases.
![ Influence of the magnetic field on the PDR lines. [*Top*]{}: Model predictions of the \[C [ii]{}\] and \[O [i]{}\] intensities (I$_{model}$) normalised by their observed value (I$_{obs}$) as a function of magnetic strength $B_{mag}$. The effective density in the PDR is indicated for each $B_{mag}$ value. [*Bottom*]{}: Fraction of \[C [ii]{}\] coming from the PDR, scaled to the \[O [i]{}\] 145 $\mu$m prediction, assuming that all of it originates in the PDR. Models in the shaded area are not valid with respect to the upper limit on the H [i]{} column density. []{data-label="fig:bmag"}](19818f12){height="10cm" width="8.8cm"}
Origin of the \[O [iii]{}\] 88 $\mu$m line {#sect:oiii}
------------------------------------------
Although emission from the \[O [iii]{}\] 88 $\mu$m line is expected in starburst galaxies, recent [*Herschel*]{} observations show that it is exceptionally bright in dwarf galaxies [@madden-2012b]. In Haro11, it is the brightest of all MIR and FIR lines. With an excitation potential of 35.1 eV and critical density, n$_{crit} {\rm= 5 \times 10^{2}~cm^{-3}}$, this line is expected to originate from a high ionisation and relatively low density medium. Effective temperatures, T$\rm{_{eff} > 40~000}$ K, are usually needed to explain the bright \[O [iii]{}\] emission in star-forming irregular galaxies [@hunter-2001]. When considering both models $\mathscr{C}_{HII}$ and $\mathscr{D}$, we find a good match between model predictions and observations for all ionic lines considered, although the \[O [iii]{}\] 88 $\mu$m line is under-predicted by the models by a factor of $\sim$2. $\mathscr{C}_{HII}$ accounts for 60% of the \[O [iii]{}\] 88 $\mu$m emission, and $\mathscr{D}$ does not predict any \[O [iii]{}\] emission; the ionising photons are not energetic enough. This factor of 2 is within the uncertainties of this study, however we discuss the possible origin of the \[O [iii]{}\] 88 $\mu$m line from a highly ionised more diffuse medium. Although the \[O [iii]{}\] emission is explained by $\mathscr{C}_{HII}$ in the extreme case of Haro11, this may not be the case in other metal-poor dwarf galaxies.
In the star-forming region N11-B of the Large Magellanic Cloud, [@lebouteiller-2012] find bright \[O [iii]{}\] 88 $\mu$m emission that originates from spatially extended high-excitation diffuse ionised gas, and can be modeled by O stars distributed across the region. In the case of Haro11, the density in $\mathscr{C}_{HII}$ is too high to fully reproduce the observed \[O [iii]{}\] 88 $\mu$m emission. As shown in Fig. \[fig:hiidiag\], lowering the density in $\mathscr{C}_{HII}$ to densities $\le$ 10$^{2}$ cm$^{-3}$ would better reproduce the observed \[O [iii]{}\] 88 $\mu$m intensity.
Given the two components that we have modeled $\mathscr{C}_{HII}$ and $\mathscr{D}$, we may consider a picture in which $\mathscr{C}_{HII}$ does not have a covering factor of unity, but is actually porous. This would allow some fraction of the ionising photons to escape the compact H [ii]{} region and travel further away in a lower density medium. Such a configuration could explain the \[O [iii]{}\] 88 $\mu$m emission, but would also lead to over-predicting several lines. In particular, in our case, predicted intensities of the \[S [iv]{}\], \[O [iv]{}\], and \[N [iii]{}\] lines would be a factor of $\sim$2 higher than their observed values.
Origin of the \[O [iv]{}\] line and X-rays {#sect:xrays}
------------------------------------------
With an ionisation potential of 54.9 eV, \[O [iv]{}\] can only be excited by high energy sources. Its origin has been discussed in [@lutz-1998; @schaerer-1999]. It can come from AGN activity (X-rays), very hot sources or shocks. In this Section, we explore the role of X-ray photons and/or shocks. In dwarf starbursting galaxies, a hot and young stellar population is usually responsible for the \[O [iv]{}\] emission. This has been confirmed by ISO observations of the dwarf galaxies IIZw40 and NGC5253 [@schaerer-1999]. Signatures of Wolf-Rayet stars in the optical and P Cygni profiles in the far-UV (O [vi]{} lines), revealing the presence of O supergiants and a very young burst in Haro11, were reported by [@bergvall-2006] and [@grimes-2007]. In the case of Haro11, we find that the young starburst containing Wolf-Rayet stars can indeed account for the \[O [iv]{}\] 25.9 $\mu$m line intensity. The luminosity of the \[O [iv]{}\] line is $\sim$0.006% of L$\rm{_{TIR}}$. [@spinoglio-2012] have compared the IR/submm emission lines to the IR luminosity in local samples of AGNs and starburst galaxies. They showed that the \[O [iv]{}\] line is weaker in starburst galaxies, about one order of magnitude less intense than in AGNs, and that starbursts follow the relation $\rm{L_{[O~IV]} \sim 10^{-4}~L_{TIR}}$ in the high IR luminosity range, which is consistent with that observed in Haro11. The \[Ne [v]{}\] (97.1 eV) at 14.3 $\mu$m is not detected in the [*Spitzer*]{}/IRS spectrum. The upper limit in Table \[table:lines\] is consistent with our model prediction. Its absence confirms the fact that there is no AGN activity nor intense hard X-ray emission in Haro11. The X-ray component discussed in Sect. \[sect:irf\] in our model has little effect on the intensities of the ionic lines. Around the parameters of $\mathscr{C}_{HII}$, adding X-rays to the radiation field increases the intensity of the \[O [iv]{}\] 25.9 $\mu$m line by only $\sim$1%. In the PDR, the X-rays have a moderate effect. They contribute up to 5% to the \[C [ii]{}\] intensity, and $\sim$10% to the \[O [i]{}\] intensities. X-rays play a second order role and the physics of the neutral gas is dominated by the FUV photons (PDR), not the X-rays (XDR).
Shocks are also not our prefered explanation for the \[O [iv]{}\] emission. [@o'halloran-2008] find that the emission of the \[Fe [ii]{}\] 26.0 $\mu$m line in low metallicity BCDs may be shock-derived or can result from a larger abundance of iron in the gas-phase as it is less depleted onto dust grains at low metallicity. However, the \[Fe [ii]{}\] 26.0 $\mu$m line is barely detected in Haro11. The observed ratio of \[Fe [iii]{}\]/\[Fe [ii]{}\] is $\sim$0.005, which also tends to rule out shocks as a major heating process here.
Multi-phase build-up of Haro11 {#sect:buildup}
==============================
We summarize the contributions of the different ISM phases that, when put together, account for the global MIR and FIR fine-structure line emission observed in Haro11 (Figure \[fig:multipic\]). The panel on the [*left*]{} is an illustration of this multi-phase build-up: the central starburst is surrounded by our main model $\mathscr{C}$ composed of a compact H [ii]{} region $\mathscr{C}_{HII}$ (red), with adjacent dense PDRs $\mathscr{C}_{PDR}$ (blue). The volume around this compact nucleus is filled by diffuse ionised/neutral gas $\mathscr{D}$ (yellow). We also add a low filling factor component of warm dust close to the starburst (black dots), the need for which we discuss (Sect. \[sect:sed\]). This scheme is the global picture (not to scale) that results from this modeling study. We remind the reader that the models $\mathscr{C}$ and $\mathscr{D}$ were computed separately. The panel on the [*right*]{} is a histogram indicating the contribution of each model to the line intensities, with identical color-coding. All 17 lines considered are reproduced by the 3 models $\mathscr{C}_{HII}$, $\mathscr{C}_{PDR}$, and $\mathscr{D}$ within a factor of 2. The model parameters of these phases and line predictions are also listed in Table \[table:sumup\]. In view of the results from Sect. \[sect:ciidiff\] and \[sect:bmag\], in which the upper limit on the H [i]{} mass limits the contribution from the diffuse neutral medium and from magnetic fields, the models $\mathscr{D}_{h}$ and $\mathscr{C}_{B}$ are not taken into account for our final build-up of the ISM of Haro11. The models we combine are:\
- a compact H [ii]{} region that dominates the emission of the ionic lines $\mathscr{C}_{HII}$,\
- a dense PDR of coverage $\sim$10% $\mathscr{C}_{PDR}$,\
- a diffuse low-ionisation medium $\mathscr{D}_{l}$.\
We analyse results from this build-up in terms of dust emission, extinction, and mass budget.
----------------------------------- ------------- -------------------------- --------------- ------------------- ------------- ------
Energy source Star 35 000 K Star 35 000 K Starburst 3.7 Myr
n$_{H}$ \[cm$^{-3}$\] 10$^{2.8}$ 10$^{5.1}$ ( 10$^{3.4}$) 10$^{1.0}$ 10$^{3.0}$ 10$^{1.5}$
r$_{in}$ \[cm\] 10$^{21.4}$ 10$^{21.4}$ 10$^{21.8}$ 10$^{21.8}$ 10$^{19.8}$
I(\[S \] 10.5)/I$_{obs}$ $^{(b)}$ 0.84 (0.34) - 0.06 - - 0.90
I(\[Ne \] 12.8)/I$_{obs}$ 0.20 (0.12) - 0.53 0.89 - 0.73
I(\[Ne \] 15.6)/I$_{obs}$ 1.13 (0.72) - - - - 1.13
I(\[S \] 18.7)/I$_{obs}$ 1.03 (0.59) - 0.26 0.16 - 1.29
I(\[S \] 33.5)/I$_{obs}$ 1.04 (0.75) - 0.61 0.14 - 1.65
I(\[Si \] 34.8)/I$_{obs}$ 0.11 (0.07) 0.24 (0.37) 0.04 0.24 - 0.39
I(Hu $\alpha$ 12.4)/I$_{obs}$ 1.28 (0.72) - 0.37 0.63 - 1.65
I(\[Fe \] 22.9)/I$_{obs}$ 0.49 (0.32) - 0.44 0.50 - 0.93
I(\[O \] 25.9)/I$_{obs}$ 1.18 (0.87) - - - 0.10 1.28
I(\[Ar \] 8.99)/I$_{obs}$ 1.49 (0.61) - 0.08 0.06 - 1.57
I(\[Ar \] 6.99)/I$_{obs}$ 0.12 (0.09) - 0.75 1.49 - 0.87
I(\[C \] 157)/I$_{obs}$ 0.01 (0.01) 0.07 (0.38) 0.40 0.19 - 0.48
I(\[O \] 88)/I$_{obs}$ 0.59 (0.52) - 0.02 - - 0.61
I(\[O \] 63)/I$_{obs}$ 0.03 (0.02) 1.11 (1.02) - 0.08 - 1.14
I(\[O \] 145)/I$_{obs}$ 0.03 (0.02) 0.95 (0.98) - 0.07 - 0.98
I(\[N \] 57)/I$_{obs}$ 1.41 (1.17) - 0.13 - - 1.44
I(\[N \] 122)/I$_{obs}$ 0.29 (0.28) - 1.46 0.46 - 1.75
----------------------------------- ------------- -------------------------- --------------- ------------------- ------------- ------
$(a)$ The total is taken as the sum of models $\mathscr{C}$, $\mathscr{D}_{l}$ and warm dust, which is what we consider for the final build-up in Sect. \[sect:buildup\]; although $\mathscr{D}_{h}$ and $\mathscr{C}_{B}$ may also alter the line predictions.\
$(b)$ Ratio of the predicted intensity of the model over the observed intensity (I$_{obs}$). Ratio values below 1% are not indicated. \[table:sumup\]
{height="8cm" width="11cm"}
The global SED {#sect:sed}
--------------
The proposed geometry also implies a prediction for the dust emission coming from the different ISM phases of Haro11. We compare the predicted SED of the multi-phase build-up with the observations of Haro11 in Figure \[fig:sed\]. The goal here is not to fit in detail the dust emission but rather to reproduce the global shape of the SED because it is sensitive to the temperature of the dust, which is one of the main predictions of the multi-phase model. The SED of the compact model $\mathscr{C}$ (both $\mathscr{C}_{HII}$ and $\mathscr{C}_{PDR}$) peaks at $\sim$40 $\mu$m (Fig. \[fig:sed\]), as in the observed SED. In particular, $\mathscr{C}_{PDR}$ is too dense to explain the FIR shape of the SED, which corroborates the presence of a more diffuse component. Indeed, the diffuse component $\mathscr{D}_{l}$ matches the temperature of Haro11 in the FIR, although the longest wavelengths, beyond 250 $\mu$m, are still under-predicted. Perhaps the most surprising result is that the multi-phase model fails completely to reproduce the UV-optical extinction and the MIR emission, despite the choice of a lower cut in the grain sizes (Sect. \[sect:dustprop\]). We discuss these two points in Sect. \[sect:uvopt\] and Sect. \[sect:sedmir\].
### Energy balance {#sect:uvopt}
In the UV-optical wavelength range, the total outward luminosity (Fig. \[fig:sed\]: bottom panel, black line) is 80% greater than the observed luminosity. Has the input energy in the UV-optical wavelength range been overestimated? We are confident about the shape of the input starburst spectrum since the spectral line ratios depend on the hardness of the radiation field and are well fitted by our models. Additional confidence draws from the right amount of input energy as the level of the NIR photometry, unaffected by the little extinction present in Haro11, is well matched.
The SED reflects the global energy balance of Haro11 and shows that a fraction of the total input energy injected in the UV-optical wavelength range is not absorbed. The models $\mathscr{C}_{HII}$ and $\mathscr{D}_{l}$ are responsible for the over-prediction in the UV-optical. We find the average extinction of the model to be A$_{V} = 0.15$ mag. The spectrum is dominated by emission from the ionised model components: $\mathscr{C}_{HII}$, of which 90% of the radiation escapes since the PDR covers only 10%, and $\mathscr{D}_{l}$. These models are computed separately and work as MIR-FIR emission line diagnostics, very little affected by dust attenuation, but we neglect their interaction. We can estimate the reddening needed to match the level of the model spectrum to the observed data points. Using the extinction law of [@calzetti-2000], with R$_{V} = 3.3$ set by the model, we find A$_{V} = 0.9$ mag, hence A$_{B} = 1.2$ mag and $\rm{E(B-V) = 0.3}$ mag. The reddened spectrum appears in dashed dark line on Fig. \[fig:sed\] ([*bottom*]{}). From UV continuum measurements and H$\alpha$/H$\beta$ ratio, [@bergvall-2002] estimate A$_{B} = 0.7$ mag. The optical image (Fig. \[fig:acs\]) shows a dust lane passing in front of knot B, where the extinction is known to be higher [@adamo-2010; @guseva-2012]. [@adamo-2010] find that $\rm{E(B-V)}$ is 0.4 towards knot B and 0.1 towards knot C.
On the contrary, in the MIR (5 to 40 $\mu$m), the predicted luminosity is twice lower than the observed luminosity. This emission in the MIR can be attributed to warm dust that we model in the following Section.
This suggests an interpretation in terms of geometry of the galaxy, in which a large number of ionising photons can travel far, but in the end, the different media (compact and diffuse) are well mixed together, yielding a significant dust column along most lines of sight. In particular, the warm dust component that we add close to the central starburst and emits in the MIR is likely responsible for the absorption of the UV-optical part of the $\mathscr{C}_{HII}$ spectrum which is the primary contributor to the total spectrum in this range.
### Warm dust component {#sect:sedmir}
To account for the observed warm dust that our models do not produce in the MIR range (Fig \[fig:sed\], [*top*]{} panel), we have examined two possible solutions that do not change the intrinsic properties of the dust grains (which are little known):\
[@galliano-2003] used this distribution, that may have been generated by supernova shocks, to model the dust in the dwarf galaxy NGC 1569. However we have been unable to satisfactorily fit the SED by changing the grain properties.\
2) add a warm dust component close to the central starburst. In this way we add to our picture a porous layer of dust particles close to the central starburst, which is not inconceivable for compact H [ii]{} regions. Models from [@groves-2008] show that the observed warm dust emission arises from hot dust embedded within the H [ii]{} region. This is also supported by spatially resolved observations of nearby galaxies. [@calzetti-2005] find that the 8 $\mu$m and 24 $\mu$m emission originate within the H [ii]{} regions.
We adopt a warm dust component, at a distance of $\rm{r_{in} = 10^{19.8}}$ cm, with density $\rm{n_{H} = 10^{1.5}~cm^{-3}}$ and covering factor 15% (orange spectrum on Fig \[fig:sed\]). These parameters are chosen to reproduce the level of the SED in the MIR. In these conditions grains can easily survive. [*This component has little or no effect on the discussed emission lines*]{} because of its compactness. The photons are predominantly absorbed by the dust, not the gas, and dust collisions are responsible for the cooling. This warm dust component may be regarded as an equivalent of an ultra-compact H [ii]{} region [@dopita-2003], or the hot spots described in [@siebenmorgen-2007]. This component takes away 15% of the input luminosity from the H [ii]{} region model. The amount of necessary energy and the hardness of the radiation field can be adjusted by modifying simultaneously the input luminosity, covering factor, and the inner radius in the code. Integrating the spectrum from 3 to 1100 $\mu$m gives $\rm{L_{TIR} = 1.7 \times 10^{11}~L_{\odot}}$, very close to the infered dust-model value of $\rm{1.4 \times 10^{11}~L_{\odot}}$ from [@galametz-2009; @remy-2012].
This warm dust model matches the continuum level in the NIR-MIR, but produces a silicate feature in emission at 9.7 $\mu$m, which is not seen in the [*Spitzer*]{}/IRS spectrum. This discrepancy is likely due to the fact that we have modeled the compact and diffuse phases of the ISM independently. Foreground dust from the other components may in turn extinguish the silicate seen in emission. Another factor at play is the adopted abundance of silicate grains. Quantitative surveys with [*Spitzer*]{} of AGB carbon and silicate dust production rates in the Magellanic Clouds find that carbon dust injection rates dominate over those of silicate [@matsuura-2009; @boyer-2012]. There may be a small effect from foreground cold dust from the molecular phase of Haro11 that we do not model, which would have low filling factor and high A$_V$.
{width="18cm"} {width="18cm"}
### FIR-mm wavelength range {#sect:sedfir}
The mismatch between the observed and predicted SED beyond 250 $\mu$m (Fig. \[fig:sed\]) may be attributed to colder dust in the molecular phase. With no molecular gas constraint, we cannot include a cold molecular phase in our modeling. However, as a first approximation on the required dust properties, we can continue $\mathscr{C}_{PDR}$ to higher A$_V$ and stop the model when it matches the submm temperature. This way, we estimate that the missing emission requires high A$_V$$\sim$40 mag and agrees with a grain temperature of $\sim$25 K, which would fit the SPIRE data to 500 $\mu$m but still under-predict the LABOCA 870 $\mu$m data (see Fig. \[fig:sedmol\] in Appendix \[sect:append\]). The latter is rather related to the submm excess introduced in Sect. \[sect:haro11\]. This excess is modeled by a cold dust component in [@galametz-2009].
Optical lines
-------------
Several optical lines, including H$\alpha$, H$\beta$, \[O [iii]{}\] 5007 Å, have been observed towards the central visual peak in [@bergvall-2002]. Because of the small aperture of the observations, $\rm{4 ^{\prime\prime} \times 4 ^{\prime\prime}}$, an absolute flux comparison cannot be made, except for H$\alpha$ which was fully mapped in [@ostlin-1999] with the ESO 3.6 m telescope. More recent observations were also performed with the [*VLT*]{}/X-shooter, in the wavelength range 3 000-24 000 Å, by [@guseva-2012]. In particular, they observed, in a slit of size $\rm{\sim 1 ^{\prime\prime} \times 11^{\prime\prime}}$, the H$\alpha$, H$\beta$, \[O [ii]{}\] 3727 Å, \[O [iii]{}\] 4959 and 5007 Å, \[S [ii]{}\] 6716 and 6731 Å, \[S [iii]{}\] 9069 and 9535 Å lines, in both knots B and C of Haro11. From these observations, they determined the metallicity of Haro11 and element abundances. Optical lines are affected by dust extinction, and comparison of the model predictions to the observations is very dependent on the adopted geometry. With Cloudy, we can compare the intrinsic emission predicted by our model to the extinction-corrected observations.
The ratio of the optical lines listed above to H$\beta$ are all well reproduced by our Cloudy models, within 40%, with contribution from both the H [ii]{} region and the diffuse medium (Table \[table:optlines\]). The only line which poses a problem is \[S [ii]{}\], which is over-estimated by a factor of 3 at 6716 Å, and 1.5 at 6731 Å. The Cloudy ratio of the two \[S [ii]{}\] lines is thus 0.9. The Cloudy models of [@guseva-2012] also over-predict the \[S [ii]{}\] lines by a factor of 2, but reproduce their observed ratio of 1.5. This ratio is sensitive to the electron density of the medium probed, which in their case is a density of 10 cm$^{-3}$. We find that our diffuse ionised model with density 10 cm$^{-3}$ does predict a \[S [ii]{}\] line ratio of 1.5. Concerning H$\alpha$, we compare its absolute flux and find that it emits from both the H [ii]{} region and the diffuse medium, with a total predicted luminosity of $\rm{7 \times 10^8~L_{\odot}}$, close to the observed value of [@ostlin-1999], $\rm{L_{H\alpha} = 8 \times 10^8~L_{\odot}}$.
--------------------------- -- -------- ------ --
$\rm{[}$O $\rm{]}$ 3727 Å 1.4 3.5
H$\beta$ 4861 Å 1.0 1.0
$\rm{[}$O $\rm{]}$ 4959 Å 1.7 0.08
$\rm{[}$O $\rm{]}$ 5007 Å 5.2 0.03
H$\alpha$ 6563 Å 2.6 2.0
$\rm{[}$N $\rm{]}$ 6583 Å 0.32 0.79
$\rm{[}$S $\rm{]}$ 6716 Å 0.07 0.03
$\rm{[}$S $\rm{]}$ 6731 Å 0.08 0.02
$\rm{[}$S $\rm{]}$ 9069 Å 0.17 0.13
$\rm{[}$S $\rm{]}$ 9532 Å 0.42 0.32
--------------------------- -- -------- ------ --
: Optical line predictions.
$(a)$ Ratio of the observed line intensity over H$\beta$ from [@guseva-2012]. The fluxes are extinction-corrected and averaged over the two knots B and C. $(b)$ Ratio of the intrinsic line intensity over H$\beta$ predicted by Cloudy. \[table:optlines\]
Mass budget
-----------
The gas mass of each ISM component can be calculated using the density profile in the cloud and integrating over the volume of each slice inside the cloud. We then multiply the gas mass by 1.36 to account for helium, and use the D/G mass ratio of the model ($\rm{2.64 \times 10^{-3}}$) to derive the dust mass. The masses of each component are summarized in Table \[table:mass\]. We find a mass of ionised gas ($\mathscr{C}_{HII}$+$\mathscr{D}_{l}$) of $\rm{5.8 \times 10^{8}~M_{\odot}}$, and a mass of neutral gas ($\mathscr{C}_{PDR}$+$\mathscr{D}_{l}$) of $\rm{2.4 \times 10^{8}~M_{\odot}}$. This neutral gas mass accounts for the H [i]{} mass as well as the mass of $\rm{H_2}$ formed in PDR envelopes before the CO formation. This $\rm{H_2}$ layer not traced by CO is referred as the “dark gas” [@wolfire-2010]. The PDR-$\rm{H_2}$ mass is $\rm{\sim 10^{8}~M_{\odot}}$ and comes from $\mathscr{C}_{PDR}$, while the H [i]{} mass comes essentially from the diffuse model $\mathscr{D}_{l}$ with M(H [i]{}) $\rm{\sim 10^{8}~M_{\odot}}$ fixed by its upper limit. As expected, the ionised phase is dominant in Haro11. The ionised gas and PDR masses are similar to that of [@bergvall-2000]. We derive a total dust mass of $\rm{2.1 \times 10^{6}~M_{\odot}}$, comparable to the value $\rm{6 \times 10^{6}~M_{\odot}}$ of [@galametz-2009].
-- --------------------------- ------------------------------- ------------------------------------
$\rm{3.0 \times 10^{7}}$ - $\rm{7.2 \times 10^{4}}$
- $\rm{1.2 \times 10^{8}}$ $\rm{3.2 \times 10^{5}}$
$\rm{5.5 \times 10^{8}}$ $\rm{1.2 \times 10^{8}}$ $\rm{1.7 \times 10^{6}}$
- - $\rm{8.5 \times 10^{3}}$
$\rm{5.8 \times 10^{8}}$ $\rm{2.4 \times 10^{8}}$ $\rm{2.1 \times 10^{6}}$
$\sim \rm{10^{9}}~^{(b)}$ $\rm{2 \times 10^{8}}~^{(c)}$ $\sim \rm{6 \times 10^{6}}~^{(d)}$
-- --------------------------- ------------------------------- ------------------------------------
: Mass budget in solar mass $\rm{M_{\odot}}$.
$(a)$ M(PDR) is the sum of the H [i]{} mass and the H$_{\rm 2}$ mass in the PDR envelope untraced by CO. $(b)$ [@bergvall-2002]. $(c)$ [@bergvall-2000], where they also report M(H [i]{}) $\mathrm{< 10^{8}~M_{\odot}}$. $(d)$ This is the dust mass without including the cold component of 10 K from [@galametz-2009]. Their total dust mass is $\rm{2 \times 10^{7}~M_{\odot}}$. \[table:mass\]
Conclusion {#sect:discussion}
==========
We have presented [*Spitzer*]{}/IRS and [*Herschel*]{}/PACS spectroscopic observations of the MIR-FIR fine-structure cooling lines in the starburst low-metallicity galaxy Haro11. Investigating the nature of the different gas phases in this galaxy, we have modeled the ISM phases of Haro11 step by step with the spectral synthesis code Cloudy. The major model results can be summarized as follows:
1. The IRS and PACS spectra show very bright MIR and FIR fine-structure cooling lines, the brightest of all being the \[O [iii]{}\] 88 $\mu$m line. The galaxy is undergoing young active star formation, as traced by the \[O [iii]{}\] 88 $\mu$m line (35.1 eV), which is about 3 times brighter than the classical neutral gas tracers \[C [ii]{}\] 157 $\mu$m and \[O [i]{}\] 63 $\mu$m. High line ratios of \[Ne [iii]{}\]/\[Ne [ii]{}\], \[S [iv]{}\]/\[S [iii]{}\], and \[N [iii]{}\]/\[N [ii]{}\] also trace the hard radiation field. We find L$\rm{_{[C~II]}}$/L$\rm{_{TIR}}$ = 0.1%, (L$\rm{_{[C~II]}}$+L$\rm{_{[O~I]}}$)/L$\rm{_{TIR}}$ = 0.2%, and altogether, the MIR and FIR lines represent 1.2% of L$\rm{_{TIR}}$.
2. We model our exhaustive dataset of 17 fine-structure lines with Cloudy and find the need to describe Haro11 with these component phases:\
- a dense H [ii]{} region, illuminated by a young starburst, from which most of the ionic lines originate,\
- adjacent dense PDR of low ($\sim$10%) covering factor,\
- an extended diffuse low-ionised/neutral medium,\
- a porous warm dust component close to the stars that accountes for the elevated MIR continuum.
3. Emission from the \[N [ii]{}\] 122 $\mu$m and \[Ne [ii]{}\] lines cannot be reconciled with the compact H [ii]{} region but are rather associated with a more diffuse low-ionisation medium.
4. We find that 10% of the \[C [ii]{}\] is associated with the dense PDR, and up to 50% when lowering the density. At least 50% of the \[C [ii]{}\] arises from a more diffuse ionised medium. The low extinction and low metallicity of Haro11 makes its ISM more leaky and the emitting region of \[C [ii]{}\] larger. The \[O [i]{}\] emission is fully associated with the PDR. The observed \[C [ii]{}\] luminosity is comparable to that of the \[O [i]{}\] 63 $\mu$m line. In the dense component we derive $\rm{L_{[C~II]}/L_{TIR}\sim0.05\%}$ and (L$\rm{_{[C~II]}}$+L$\rm{_{[O~I]}}$)/L$\rm{_{TIR}}$$\sim$1%, which is a common measure of the gas heating efficiency in the neutral gas, and in the diffuse component we find $\rm{L_{[C~II]}/L_{TIR}\sim0.1\%}$.
5. The only line that we do not completely reconcile with our model is the \[O [iii]{}\] 88 $\mu$m. Our compact H [ii]{} region model accounts for 50% of the emission of \[O [iii]{}\]. Our prefered explanation for the intense \[O [iii]{}\] emission is the presence of yet another additional diffuse component, filling the volume around the porous H [ii]{} region, and where the gas is heated by escaping UV photons.
6. We estimate the mass from each modeled phase. We find a mass of ionised gas of $\rm{6 \times 10^{8}~M_{\odot}}$, a PDR mass of $\rm{2 \times 10^{8}~M_{\odot}}$, and a dust mass (without submm constraints, because of the submm excess) of $\rm{3 \times 10^{6}~M_{\odot}}$. The ionised gas mass is larger than the atomic gas mass.
7. Finally, in terms of structure, the ISM of Haro11 appears to be mostly filled with extended diffuse gas. Our simple picture can reproduce the observations by a galaxy with a filling factor of diffuse neutral and ionised gas of at least 90%, a dense H [ii]{} region component of filling factor $\sim$0.2% and a PDR component of filling factor $<$0.01%. A radiative transfer model which takes into account clumpy source and gas structures would provide a more realistic picture of Haro11.
The authors would like to thank Albrecht Poglitsch and Alessandra Contursi for their help with the PACS data. Part of this work has been made possible by financial support from the CNRS/INSU programme PCMI. PACS has been developed by a consortium of institutes led by MPE (Germany) and including UVIE (Austria); KU Leuven, CSL, IMEC (Belgium); CEA, LAM (France); MPIA (Germany); INAF-IFSI/OAA/OAP/OAT, LENS, SISSA (Italy); IAC (Spain). This development has been supported by the funding agencies BMVIT (Austria), ESA-PRODEX (Belgium), CEA/CNES (France), DLR (Germany), ASI/INAF (Italy), and CICYT/MCYT (Spain). This research has made use of the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED) which is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Based on observations made with the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope, and obtained from the Hubble Legacy Archive, which is a collaboration between the Space Telescope Science Institute (STScI/NASA), the Space Telescope European Coordinating Facility (ST-ECF/ESA) and the Canadian Astronomy Data Centre (CADC/NRC/CSA).
SED including the cold molecular component {#sect:append}
==========================================
We model the SED beyond 250 $\mu$m by stopping the dense PDR model $\mathscr{C}_{PDR}$ at larger A$_V$ so that it predicts cold dust emission and matches the [*Herschel*]{}/SPIRE observations (as discussed in Sect. \[sect:sedfir\]). The resulting SED is sown in Fig. \[fig:sedmol\].
{width="18cm"}
[^1]: [*Herschel*]{} is an ESA space observatory with science instruments provided by European-led Principal Investigator consortia and with important participation from NASA.
[^2]: The Cornell Atlas of [*Spitzer*]{}/IRS Sources (CASSIS) is a product of the Infrared Science Center at Cornell University, supported by NASA and JPL.
[^3]: available at <http://herschel.esac.esa.int/Docs/PACS/html/pacs_om.html>
[^4]: Note that they use $\rm{L_{FIR}}$, determined from [*IRAS*]{} fluxes with the [@helou-1988] formula, and that $\rm{L_{TIR}}$ estimated as $\rm{2 \times L_{FIR}}$ [@hunter-2001] can be different from the true $\rm{L_{TIR}}$ when including submm observations.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We consider two particular 1D quantum many-body systems with local interactions related to the root system $C_N$. Both models describe identical particles moving on the half-line with non-trivial boundary conditions at the origin, and they are in many ways complementary to each other. We discuss the Bethe Ansatz solution for the first model where the interaction potentials are delta-functions, and we find that this provides an exact solution not only in the boson case but even for the generalized model where the particles are distinguishable. In the second model the particles have particular momentum dependent interactions, and we find that it is non-trivial and exactly solvable by Bethe Ansatz only in case the particles are fermions. This latter model has a natural physical interpretation as the non-relativistic limit of the massive Thirring model on the half-line. We establish a duality relation between the bosonic delta-interaction model and the fermionic model with local momentum dependent interactions. We also elaborate on the physical interpretation of these models. In our discussion the Yang-Baxter relations and the Reflection equation play a central role.'
---
May 12, 2004
[**Exact solutions of two complementary 1D quantum many-body systems on the half-line**]{}
[Martin Hallnäs and Edwin Langmann]{}\
\
Introduction
============
Quantum mechanical models with interactions are, in general, very difficult to solve, but there exist a few important cases where exact solutions are available, allowing them to be understood completely. A prominent example is the delta interaction in one dimension which, in the simplest two-particle case, is defined by the Hamiltonian $$\label{h1}
H=-\partial_x^2 + c\, \delta(x)$$ where $c$ is a real coupling constant and $x\in{{\mathbb R}}$ the relative coordinate of the two particles, $x=x_1-x_2$. This latter model is popular because it allows for an explicit solution by simple means: since the delta interaction is restricted to $x=0$, it only manifests itself in the non-trivial boundary conditions for eigenfunctions $\psi(x)$ of $H$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{bc1}
\psi(0^+) = \psi(-0^+){\nonumber \\ \nopagebreak}\psi'(0^+)-\psi'(-0^+) = c \, \psi(0^+) , \end{aligned}$$ and these can be easily accounted for (we write $\psi(\pm 0^+)$ short for the left-and right limits $\lim_{x\downarrow 0}\psi(\pm x)$, and similarly for the derivative $\psi'$). The natural generalization of this model to an arbitrary number $N$ of identical particles defines a prominent exactly solvable quantum many-body system which, in the boson case, was solved by Lieb and Liniger [@LL] and, for the general case of distinguishable particles, by Yang [@Y] in a seminal paper where the Yang-Baxter relations first appeared.
Interactions localized at points have been studied extensively using the mathematical theory of defect indices; see [@AGHH] and references therein. From these studies it is well-known that the delta interaction is only one of many possible local interactions, and a general such interaction can be characterized by four real coupling parameters. This can be easily understood as follows: for a 1D Hamiltonian $H=-\partial_x^2+\hat v$ with an interaction $\hat v$ localized at $x=0$ all eigenfunctions $\psi(x)$ should be smooth everywhere except at $x=0$, and $(H\psi)(x) = -\psi''(x)$ for non-zero $x$. Requiring $H$ to be self-adjoint leads to the following condition, $$\int_{|x|>0}{{\rm d}}x\, \Bigl( \overline{\phi''(x)} \psi(x)
-\overline{\phi(x)} \psi''(x) \Bigr) = 0$$ for arbitrary wave functions $\phi$ and $\psi$, or equivalently $$\label{cond}
[\overline{\phi'}\psi - \overline{\phi} \psi']_{x=0^+} =
[\overline{\phi'}\psi - \overline{\phi} \psi']_{x=-0^+} .$$ General boundary conditions are of the form $$\begin{aligned}
\psi(0^+) &=& u_{11} \psi(-0^+) + u_{12} \psi'(-0^+){\nonumber \\ \nopagebreak}\psi(0^+) &=& u_{21} \psi(-0^+) + u_{22} \psi'(-0^+)\end{aligned}$$ (and similarly for $\phi$, of course) and are thus parameterized by four complex parameters $u_{jk}$ which, when imposing (\[cond\]), are reduced to two complex, or equivalently, four real parameters. The boundary conditions in Eq. (\[bc1\]) are obviously contained in this class of boundary conditions, but there are others, most prominently $$\begin{aligned}
\label{bc2}
\psi'(0^+) = \psi'(-0^+){\nonumber \\ \nopagebreak}\psi(0^+) -
\psi(-0^+) = \lambda \psi'(0^+)\end{aligned}$$ which often has been referred to as delta-prime interaction; see e.g.Section I.4 in [@AGHH]. Recently it was shown that these latter boundary conditions arise naturally from the Hamiltonian $$\label{h2}
H=-\partial_x^2 + \lambda\partial_x\delta(x)\partial_x$$ where the second term has a physical interpretation as a local interaction depending also on the momentum $\hat p=-{{\rm i}}\partial_x$ [@GLP]. The $N$-body generalization of this model is exactly solvable by Bethe Ansatz in the indistinguishable particle case when the particles are either bosons or fermions [@GLP; @CS] but, different from the delta interaction case, not in the general case of distinguishable particles [@GLP]. Still, this model is complementary to the model with the delta interactions for at least three different reasons [@GLP]: firstly, for indistinguishable particles, the delta interaction model is known to be interesting only for bosons (since the delta interaction is trivial on fermion wave functions), whereas the $\hat p\delta\hat p$-interaction is trivial for bosons and non-trivial for fermions. Secondly, while the delta interaction model for bosons can be obtained as the non-relativistic limit of the quantum sine Gordon model, the $\hat p\delta\hat
p$-interaction model for fermions naturally arises as the non-relativistic limit of the massive Thirring model. Thirdly, there exists an interesting weak coupling duality between the fermionic $\hat p\delta\hat p$-interaction model and the bosonic delta-interaction model.
As is well-know, exactly solvable many-body systems of particles moving on the full real line are naturally associated with the root system $A_{N-1}$, and they often allow for extensions to other root systems such that the exact solubility is preserved [@OP]. An early example was given by Gaudin who solved the $C_N$ root system variant of the delta interaction model for bosons [@Ga], while the general case of this model for arbitrary root systems and distinguishable particles was treated by Sutherland [@Su]. As pointed out by Cherednik [@Ch], models related to the root system $C_N$ describe interacting particles on the half line, and the exact solubility requires the so-called Reflection equation to be added to the Yang-Baxter relations. The Reflection equation has played a central role in many exactly solvable systems with a boundary; see e.g. [@Sk] and the review [@K].
In this paper we consider the Bethe Ansatz solution of the $C_N$ versions of the models discussed above. Similarly as for the $A_{N-1}$ case we find that the delta interaction model is exactly solvable in this way even for distinguishable particles, but for the model with momentum independent interactions we obtain its exact solution only for indistinguishable particles. We also elaborate on the physical interpretation of these models as describing particles on the half-line with non-trivial boundary conditions at the origin.
To be more specific, the models we discuss in the paper are defined by the following Hamiltonians, $$\label{hamiltonianCN}
H = -\sum_{j=1}^N\partial_{x_j}^2 + 2c_1\sum_{j<k}\lbrack\delta(x_j -
x_k) + \delta(x_j + x_k)\rbrack + c_2\sum_{j=1}^N\delta(x_j)$$ (delta interactions) and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{hamiltonianCN2}
H & = & -\sum_{j=1}^N\partial_{x_j}^2 +
2\lambda_1\sum_{j<k}\lbrack (\partial_{x_j} -
\partial_{x_k})\delta(x_j - x_k)(\partial_{x_j} -
\partial_{x_k}) +\nonumber\\ && + (\partial_{x_j} +
\partial_{x_k})\delta(x_j + x_k)(\partial_{x_j} +
\partial_{x_k})\rbrack +
4\lambda_2\sum_{j=1}^N\partial_{x_j}\delta(x_j)\partial_{x_j}\end{aligned}$$ (local momentum dependent interactions). For simplicity we assume all coupling constants positive so that there are no bound states. Mathematically, the model in Eq. (\[hamiltonianCN\]) is the $C_N$ variant of the model solved by Yang [@Y], and Eq.(\[hamiltonianCN2\]) defines the $C_N$ variant of the model discussed in [@GLP].
The plan of the rest of this paper is as follows. In Section 2 we consider the $C_N$ delta-interaction model, starting by deriving the boundary conditions and thus turning the Schrödinger equation $H\psi=E\psi$ into a well-defined mathematical problem. We proceed to the Bethe Ansatz solution of this model where the Yang-Baxter relations and the Reflection equation play a central role. We conclude the section by elaborating on the physical interpretation of this model. In Section 3 we discuss the $C_N$ variant of the $p\delta
p$-interaction model, in large parts paralleling our discussion for the delta-interaction in Section 2. We also present a duality relation between the fermionic $p\delta p$-interaction model and the bosonic delta-interaction model. Appendix A gives some details on the verification of the Yang-Baxter relations and the Reflection equation. Appendix B contains a few mathematical facts about the Weyl group of $C_N$, and Appendix C gives some details on the physical interpretation of these models.
Delta-interaction
=================
In this section we provide the exact solution of the $C_N$ delta-interaction in the case of distinguishable particles and elaborate on its physical interpretation.
Boundary conditions
-------------------
The Hamiltonian (\[hamiltonianCN\]) defining the $C_N$ delta-interaction model is only formal, and to determine its eigenfunctions we must first convert it into a set of boundary conditions.
For completeness we start by discussing the Hamiltonian $H$ in Eq.(\[h1\]), which can be regarded also as the one-particle case of the Hamiltonian in Eq. (\[hamiltonianCN\]), $N=1$. The first step to find the eigenfunction $\psi$ of $H$ is to note that the equation $H\psi=E\psi$ for all $x$ is equivalent to $-\psi''=E\psi$ for $x\neq
0$ together with the boundary conditions in Eq. (\[bc1\]). These boundary conditions are obtained by integrating the equation $H\psi=E\psi$ twice: first from $x=-0^+$ to $x>0$ and then once more from $x=-0^+$ to $x=0^+$ yields the first condition in Eq.(\[bc1\]), and integrating from $x=-0^+$ to $x=0^+$ yields the second condition in Eq. (\[bc1\]). Thus in this case there are two regions free of interactions, $x<0$ and $x>0$, linked to each other by the boundary condition at $x=0$.
For general $N$, the interaction-terms of the Hamiltonian $H$ in Eq.(\[hamiltonianCN\]) are restricted to $x_j=\pm x_k$ and $x_j=0$ for $1\leq j<k\leq N$, and the eigenfunctions $\psi$ of $H$ therefore obey the simple equation $$\label{freeEq}
\left(\sum_{j=1}^N \partial_{x_j}^2 + E\right)\psi(x_1,\ldots,x_N) = 0
\quad \mbox{ for $x_j \neq \pm x_k$ and $x_j\neq 0$,}$$ and for each of the boundaries of the interaction free regions one gets a pair of boundary conditions similarly to the ones for $N=1$,
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{boundCond1}
\psi\arrowvert_{x_j = \pm x_k + 0^+} &=& \psi\arrowvert_{x_j =
\pm x_k - 0^+} {\nonumber \\ \nopagebreak}(\partial_{x_j} -
\partial_{x_k})\psi\arrowvert_{x_j = \pm x_k + 0^+} - (\partial_{x_j}
- \partial_{x_k})\psi\arrowvert_{x_j = \pm x_k - 0^+} &=&
2c_1\psi\arrowvert_{x_j = \pm x_k -0^+} \\ \label{boundCond5}
\psi\arrowvert_{x_j = + 0^+} &=& \psi\arrowvert_{x_j = -0^+} {\nonumber \\ \nopagebreak}\partial_{x_j}\psi\arrowvert_{x_j = 0^+} -
\partial_{x_j}\psi\arrowvert_{x_j = -0^+} &=& c_2\psi\arrowvert_{x_j
=0^+}\end{aligned}$$
(these conditions are obtained by a straightforward generalization of the $N=1$ argument above, using $\partial_{x_j} \pm \partial_{x_k} = 2\partial_{x_j\pm x_k}$).
Obviously there are now many more regions free of interactions. One such region is $0<x_1<x_2<\ldots < x_N ,$ and all others are obtained from this by permuting the particle labels, $j\to pj$ with $p\in S_N$ (= permutation group), and/or reflecting some of the coordinates, $x_j\to -x_j$. Thus all regions free of interactions can be characterized as follows, $$0< \sigma_1 x_{p1} < \sigma_2 x_{p2} < \ldots < \sigma_N
x_{pN} <\infty$$ where $\sigma_j=\pm 1$ and $p\in S_N$; we will refer to these regions as [*wedges*]{}. It is important to note that they can be labeled by elements $Q$ in the group $$\label{WN}
W_N \, := \, (\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z})^N\rtimes S_N$$ where the first factor corresponds to the reflections while the second factor corresponds to the permutations of the coordinates, $$\label{Qx}
x_{Qj} = \sigma_j x_{pj}\quad \mbox{ for
$Q=(\sigma_1,\ldots,\sigma_N;p)\in W_N$ with $\sigma_j\in\{ \pm 1\}$
and $p\in S_N$.}$$ In the sequel we will therefore use the following convenient notation for the wedges, $$\label{wedge}
\Delta_Q:\quad 0<x_{Q1}<x_{Q2}<\ldots <x_{QN}$$ with $Q\in W_N$. It is interesting to note that the group $W_N$ is isomorphic to the Weyl group of the root system $C_N$; see e.g. [@OP1].
Bethe Ansatz
------------
Using the boundary conditions deduced in the previous section we now proceed to determine all eigenfunctions of the $C_N$ delta-interaction, starting by recalling the physical motivation of the Bethe Ansatz below. For that we first consider the Hamiltonian $H$ in Eq. (\[h1\]). In this case there are eigenfunctions $\psi(x)=\exp({{\rm i}}kx)$ for $x<0$ which are equal to a particular linear combination of $\exp({{\rm i}}kx)$ and $\exp(-{{\rm i}}kx)$ for $x>0$. This can be interpreted as scattering by the delta interaction $\propto \delta(x)$ where a plane wave is partly transmitted and partly reflected. Regarding $H$ in Eq. (\[h1\]) as a two particle Hamiltonian with $x=x_1-x_2$ the relative coordinate and $k=(k_1-k_2)/2$ the relative momentum, we can interpret this very fact as scattering of a plane wave solution $\exp({{\rm i}}k_1 x_1 + {{\rm i}}k_2
x_2)$ into a linear combination of this wave and another one where the particle momenta $k_1$ and $k_2$ are exchanged, $\exp({{\rm i}}k_2 x_1 +
{{\rm i}}k_1 x_2)$. This suggests that an eigenfunction $\psi$ of the $N$-particle Hamiltonian in Eq. (\[hamiltonianCN\]) which is equal to a plane wave $\exp({{\rm i}}\sum_{j=1}^N k_j x_j)$ in one wedge $\Delta_Q$ (\[wedge\]) will be transformed into a linear combination of plane waves $\exp({{\rm i}}\sum_{j=0}^N \tilde k_j x_j )$ in any other wedge where $\tilde k_j = \sigma_j k_{pj}$, with $\sigma_j=\pm 1$ resulting from the interactions $\propto \delta(x_j)$ which can invert momenta, $k_j\to -k_j$, and $p\in S_N$ resulting from the interactions $\propto \delta(x_j - x_\ell)$ which can interchange momenta, $k_j
\leftrightarrow k_\ell$.
We thus see that the group in Eq. (\[WN\]) naturally appears again, $\tilde k_j = k_{Pj}$ for some $P\in W_N$, and the discussion above suggests the following Bethe Ansatz for the eigenfunctions of the Hamiltonian $H$ in Eq. (\[hamiltonianCN\]), $$\begin{aligned}
\label{betheAnsatz}
\psi(x) = \sum_{P\in W_N} A_P(Q)\,{{\rm e}^{{{\rm i}}k_P\cdot x_Q}}\quad
\mbox{ for $0<x_{Q1}<x_{Q2} < \ldots < x_{QN}$} \end{aligned}$$ with $x=(x_1,\ldots,x_N)$ and $k_P\cdot x_Q\equiv \sum_{j=1}^N k_{Pj}
x_{Qj}$, for all $Q\in W_N$. The corresponding eigenvalue is obviously $E=\sum_{j=1}^N k_j^2$.
One now has to take into account the boundary conditions in (\[boundCond1\],b). For each $Q\in W_N$, the wedge $\Delta_Q$ (\[wedge\]) participates in $N$ boundaries: $x_{Qi} = x_{Q(i+1)}$ for $i=1,2,\ldots (N-1)$ and $x_{Q1}=0$, and for each of these boundaries we will get two conditions. More specifically, the boundary at $x_{Qi} = x_{Q(i+1)}$ is between the wedges $\Delta_Q$ and $\Delta_{QT_i}$ where $T_i\in W_N$ is the transposition interchanging $i$ and $(i+1)$, and the conditions implied by Eq. (\[boundCond1\]) for $j=Qi$ and $k=Q(i+1)$ are
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{cc1a}
A_P(Q) + A_{PT_i}(Q) = A_{P}(QT_i) + A_{PT_i}(QT_i) {\nonumber \\ \nopagebreak}{{\rm i}}(k_{Pi} -k_{P(i+1)} ) [A_{PT_i}(QT_i) - A_P(QT_i) +
A_{PT_i}(Q) -A_P(Q) ] = 2 c_1 [ A_{P}(Q) + A_{PT_i}(Q)] .\end{aligned}$$
The boundary at $x_{Q1}=0$ is between the wedges $\Delta_{Q}$ and $\Delta_{QR_1}$ with $R_1\in W_N$ the reflection of the first argument, i.e., $x_{R_1 j} = x_j$ for $j\neq 1$ and $-x_j$ for $j=1$, and the conditions at $x_{Q1}=0$ implied by Eq. (\[boundCond5\]) for $j=Q1$ are, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{cc1b}
A_P(Q) + A_{PR_1}(Q) = A_{P}(QR_1) + A_{PR_1}(QR_1){\nonumber \\ \nopagebreak}{{\rm i}}k_{P1}[A_P(Q) - A_{PR_1}(Q) + A_P(QR_1) - A_{PR_1}(QR_1)] =
c_2\lbrack A_P(QR_1) + A_{PR_1}(QR_1)\rbrack . \end{aligned}$$
We thus have $2N(2^N N!)^2$ linear, homogeneous equations for the $(2^N N!)^2$ coefficients $A_P(Q)$. The following beautiful argument due to Yang [@Y] shows that this system of equations has enough non-trivial solutions and, at the same time, gives a recipe to compute all the $A_P(Q)$.
For that it is important to note that $W_N$ plays a third role: defining $$(\hat R)_{Q, Q^{\prime}} = \delta_{Q^{\prime},QR}$$ one can write $$\label{transPropCN}
A_P(QR) = \sum_{Q^{\prime}\in W_N}(\hat R)_{Q,
Q^{\prime}}A_P(Q^{\prime}) = (\hat RA_P)(Q)$$ where the first equality is a trivial consequence of the definition, and in the second we interpret $(\hat R)_{Q, Q^{\prime}}$ as elements of an $n\times n$ matrix $\hat R$ with $n=2^NN!$ the rank of $W_N$. These matrices obviously define a representation $R\to \hat R$ of $W_N$ acting on the coefficients $A_P(Q)$. It is worth noting that this is identical with the so called (right) regular representation of $W_N$.
We can therefore insert $A_{PT_i}(QT_i) = (\hat T_i A_{PT_i})(Q)$ in Eq. (\[cc1a\]), and by a simple computation show that these latter equations are equivalent to $$\label{yOpRel}
A_P=Y_i(k_{P(i+1)}-k_{Pi})A_{PT_i}$$ where we have introduced the operator $$\label{Yi1}
Y_i(u)=\frac{{{\rm i}}u\hat{T}_i + c_1\hat{I}}{{{\rm i}}u - c_1}$$ and interpret $A_P$ as a vector with $2^NN!$ elements $A_P(Q)$. In the same way we can rewrite the conditions in Eq. (\[cc1b\]) using $A_{PR_1}(QR_1) = (\hat{R}_1A_{PR_1})(Q)$, $$\label{zOpRel}
A_P = Z(2k_{P1})A_{PR_1}$$ with the operator $$\label{Z1}
Z(u) = \frac{{{\rm i}}u\hat{R}_1 + c_2\hat{I}}{{{\rm i}}u - c_2} .$$
It is well-known that the group $W_N$ is generated by the reflection $R_1$ and the transpositions $T_i$ (see e.g. page 21 in [@GP]). Thus one can use the identities in Eqs. (\[yOpRel\]), (\[zOpRel\]) and (\[transPropCN\]) to calculate recursively all coefficients $A_P(Q)$ from $A_I(I)$ using the operators $Z$ and $Y_i$ above. It is important to note that there is a possible inconsistency arising from the fact that the representation of an element $P$ in $W_N$ as a product of the $T_i$’s and $R_1$ is not unique. However, any two such representations can be converted into each other by using the defining relations of the group $W_N$,
$$\begin{aligned}
T_iT_i = 1,\qquad T_iT_j = T_jT_i,\qquad \textrm{for} \
|i-j|>1{\nonumber \\ \nopagebreak}T_iT_{i+1}T_i = T_{i+1}T_iT_{i+1}\\ R_1R_1 =
1,\qquad R_1T_i = T_iR_1,\qquad \textrm{for} \ i>1{\nonumber \\ \nopagebreak}R_1T_1R_1T_1 = T_1R_1T_1R_1.\end{aligned}$$
Thus no inconsistency can arise provided that
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{con1}
A_{PT_iT_i}(Q) = A_P(Q),\qquad A_{PT_iT_j}(Q) =
A_{PT_jT_i}(Q),\qquad \textrm{for} \ |i-j|>1{\nonumber \\ \nopagebreak}A_{PT_iT_{i+1}T_i}(Q) = A_{PT_{i+1}T_iT_{i+1}}(Q)\\
A_{PR_1R_1}(Q) = A_P(Q),\qquad A_{PR_1T_i}(Q) =
A_{PT_iR_1}(Q),\qquad \textrm{for} \ i>1{\nonumber \\ \nopagebreak}A_{PR_1T_1R_1T_1}(Q) = A_{PT_1R_1T_1R_1}(Q)\end{aligned}$$
for all $P, Q\in W_N$. Using the recurrence relations (\[yOpRel\]) and (\[zOpRel\]) one finds that these conditions hold true if and only if the following operator relations are fulfilled,
$$\begin{aligned}
Y_i(-u)Y_i(u) = I,\qquad Y_i(u)Y_j(v) = Y_j(v)Y_i(u),\qquad
\textrm{for} \ |i - j|>1{\nonumber \\ \nopagebreak}\label{yangBaxter}
Y_i(v)Y_{i+1}(u + v)Y_i(u) =
Y_{i+1}(u)Y_i(u + v)Y_{i+1}(v)\\ Z(-u)Z(u) =
I,\qquad Z(u)Y_i(v) = Y_i(v)Z(u),\qquad \textrm{for} \
i>1{\nonumber \\ \nopagebreak}\label{reflEq}
Z(2v)Y_1(u + v)Z(2u)Y_1(u - v) = Y_1(u -
v)Z(2u)Y_1(u + v)Z(2v)\end{aligned}$$
for all real $u$ and $v$. The validity of this system of equations is necessary and sufficient in order for the Bethe Ansatz above to be consistent and the model at hand to be exactly solvable. The first three relations are the so called [*Yang-Baxter relations*]{}, and the last one is the [*Reflection equation*]{}. The validity of these relations for arbitrary $\hat T_i$ and $\hat R_1$ can be checked by straightforward but somewhat tedious computations (of course, the validity of the Yang-Baxter relation in this case is known since a long time [@Y], and this seems to be the case also for the Reflection equation [@Su; @Sk], but for completeness we provide the essential steps in the verification in Appendix A.1).
Thus the Bethe Ansatz (\[betheAnsatz\]) is consistent even in the general case of distinguishable particles, and we can calculate all coefficients $A_P$ from $A_I$ using the recurrence relation $$\label{recurrenceRelCN}
A_P = \mathcal{W}_P(k)A_I$$ where $\mathcal{W}_P(k)$ is a product of the operators $Y_i(k_{P(i+1)}
- k_{Pi})$ and $Z(2k_{P1})$ obtained by using repeatedly (\[yOpRel\]) and (\[zOpRel\]).
Interesting special cases of this solution are when the particles are indistinguishable, i.e., when the particles are fermions of bosons. In the former case $\hat T_i=-I$, and Eq. (\[Yi1\]) implies $Y_i(u)=-I$ independent of the coupling constant $c_1$. This shows that the delta interaction is trivial for fermions. In the boson case we have $\hat
T_i=+I$, and $Y_i(u)$ is a non-trivial phase. As discussed in more detail below, there are two different boson cases with different physical interpretations, namely $\hat R_1= -I$ and $\hat R_1=+I$.
Physical interpretation
-----------------------
As is well-known, the $C_N$ delta-interaction model describe interacting particles on the half-line with particular boundary conditions at the origin [@Ch]. However, the general solution of the $C_N$ delta-interaction model without any restrictions includes many more eigenfunctions than any model on the half line, and the relation between these models is therefore not completely obvious. In this section we discuss the relation of these models in more detail. We also give a physical interpretation of the boundary conditions which occur as limits of particular external potentials restricting the particles to the half line.
As discussed in Appendix B, in any irrep of the group $W_N$ the reflections $R_j$ of the particle coordinate $x_j$ are represented either by $\hat R_j=+1$ or $-1$. For simplicity we now discuss in more detail the cases where all $\hat R_j$ are the same, either $+1$ or $-1$, which from a physical point of view are the most interesting cases. As discussed in Appendix B, these irreps of $W_N$ can be rather easily understood since they are related in a simple way to irreps of $S_N$. Thus we can impose the following restriction on the eigenfunctions $\psi$ of the Hamiltonian in Eq.(\[hamiltonianCN\]), $$\label{Rpm1}
(\hat R_j\psi)(x_1,\ldots,x_j,\ldots,x_N) \equiv
\psi(x_1,\ldots,-x_j,\ldots,x_N) = \pm
\psi(x_1,\ldots,x_j,\ldots,x_N) .$$ With that assumption we can restrict ourselves to $x_j>0$, and the boundary conditions in Eq. (\[boundCond1\]) and Eq. (\[boundCond5\]) reduce to
$$\begin{aligned}
\psi\arrowvert_{x_j = x_k + 0^+} &=& \psi\arrowvert_{x_j = x_k -
0^+}{\nonumber \\ \nopagebreak}(\partial_{x_j} - \partial_{x_k})\psi\arrowvert_{x_j =
x_k + 0^+} - (\partial_{x_j} -
\partial_{x_k})\psi\arrowvert_{x_j = x_k - 0^+} &=&
2c_1\psi\arrowvert_{x_j = x_k + 0^+} , \end{aligned}$$
and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{BCorigin}
{\begin{array}{rll}} 2\partial_{x_j}\psi\arrowvert_{x_j = 0^+} =&
c_2\psi\arrowvert_{x_j = 0^+} & \mbox{ for $\hat R_j=+1$} \\
\psi\arrowvert_{x_j = 0^+} =& 0 \quad & \mbox{ for $\hat
R_j=-1$} {\end{array}},\end{aligned}$$
respectively. These are exactly the boundary conditions obtained from the Hamiltonian $$H_{0} = -\sum_{j=1}^N\partial_{x_j}^2 + 2c_1\sum_{j<k}
\delta(x_j - x_k) \label{Hhalf}$$ describing particles on the half-line, $x_j>0$, and the boundary conditions at the origin given in Eq. (\[BCorigin\]).
It is also interesting to note that these later boundary conditions are obtained by allowing the particles to move on the full line, $x_j\in{{\mathbb R}}$, and adding a particular external potential $\sum_j V(x_j)$ to the Hamiltonian in Eq. (\[Hhalf\]) which effectively constrains the particles to the half line $x_j>0$. To be specific, these potentials are given by $$V(x) = \left\{ {\begin{array}{cc}} V_0\Theta(-x) +(c_2/2
-\sqrt{V_0})\delta(x) &\mbox{ if $\hat R_j=+1$ } \\ V_0\Theta(-x)
&\mbox{ if $\hat R_j=-1$} {\end{array}}\right. ,$$ where $\Theta(-x)$ is the Heaviside function (equal to one for $x<0$ and zero otherwise), and one has to take the strong coupling limit $V_0\to\infty$: as shown in Appendix C, in this latter limit the eigenfunctions of the Hamiltonian $H_0+ \sum_j V(x_j)$ on the full line, $x_j\in {{\mathbb R}}$, coincide with the ones of $H_0$ on the half-line, $x_j>0$, and the boundary conditions in Eq. (\[BCorigin\]).
As already mentioned, the most important cases in applications are the ones we have considered here, i.e., where all the $\hat R_j$ are the same. Nevertheless it would be of interest to consider the implications of allowing the $\hat R_j$ to take on different values, in effect dividing the particles into two groups distinguished by their interactions with the boundary.
Local momentum-dependent interaction
====================================
In this section we discuss the model with local momentum dependent interactions defined by the Hamiltonian in Eq.(\[hamiltonianCN2\]). While most of our discussion is in parallel with the one for the delta interaction model in the previous section, we find that the Bethe Ansatz is consistent only for the indistinguishable particle case. We also present a duality relation between fermionic variant of the model here and the bosonic model discussed in the previous section.
Boundary conditions
-------------------
We start by considering the $N=1$ Hamiltonian $H$ in Eq.(\[h2\]). To obtain the corresponding boundary conditions we first integrate from $x=-0^+$ to $x=0^+$ which yields the first condition in Eq. (\[bc2\]), and integrating from $x=-0^+$ to $x>0$ and then once more from $x=-0^+$ to $x=0^+$ yields the second condition. As in the delta interaction case, the eigenfunctions $\psi$ of $H$ are then determined by these conditions together with the equation $-\psi''=E\psi$ for $x\neq 0$. We note that the wave functions $\psi(x)$ on which $H$ in Eq. (\[h2\]) is defined can be discontinuous at $x=0$, and to make sense of the interactions we have implicitly used a regularization which amounts to replacing $\psi'(0)$ by $[\psi'(0^+)+\psi'(-0^+)]/2$ (this is discussed in more detail in [@GLP])
It is straightforward to generalize this argument to the $N$-particle case. Similarly as in the delta interaction case one finds that the eigenfunctions $\psi$ of the Hamiltonian in Eq.(\[hamiltonianCN2\]) are determined by Eq. (\[freeEq\]) together with the boundary conditions
$$\begin{aligned}
(\partial_{x_j} - \partial_{x_k})\psi\arrowvert_{x_j = \pm x_k
+ 0^+} &=& (\partial_{x_j} -
\partial_{x_k})\psi\arrowvert_{x_j = \pm x_k - 0^+}
\label{boundCond21}
{\nonumber \\ \nopagebreak}\psi\arrowvert_{x_j = \pm x_k + 0^+} -
\psi\arrowvert_{x_j = \pm x_k - 0^+} &=& 2\lambda_1(\partial_{x_j} -
\partial_{x_k})\psi\arrowvert_{x_j = \pm x_k - 0^+} \\
\partial_{x_j}\psi\arrowvert_{x_j = 0^+} &=&
\partial_{x_j}\psi\arrowvert_{x_j = -0^+}
\label{boundCond25}
{\nonumber \\ \nopagebreak}\psi\arrowvert_{x_j = 0^+} - \psi\arrowvert_{x_j = -0^+}
&=& 4\lambda_2\partial_{x_j}\psi\arrowvert_{x_j = 0^+}.\end{aligned}$$
Bethe Ansatz
------------
We now discuss the Bethe Ansatz for the eigenfunctions of the Hamiltonian $H$ defined in Eq. (\[hamiltonianCN2\]). Obviously much of what we said for the delta interaction case carries over straightforwardly to the present case. Due to the different boundary conditions in Eqs. (\[boundCond21\],b) Eqs. (\[cc1a\],b) are changed to
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{cc2a}
{{\rm i}}(k_{Pi} - k_{P(i+1)}) [A_{PT_i}(QT_i) - A_P(QT_i)] =
{{\rm i}}(k_{Pi} - k_{P(i+1)}) [ A_P(Q)- A_{PT_i}(Q)] {\nonumber \\ \nopagebreak}A_{P}(QT_i) +
A_{PT_i}(QT_i) - A_P(Q) - A_{PT_i}(Q) = 2\lambda_1 {{\rm i}}(k_{Pi} -
k_{P(i+1)}) [ A_P(Q) - A_{PT_i}(Q)] \\
\label{cc2b}
{{\rm i}}k_{P1}[A_P(Q) - A_{PR_1}(Q)] = {{\rm i}}k_{P1} [
A_{PR_1}(QR_1)-A_P(QR_1)]{\nonumber \\ \nopagebreak}A_P(Q) + A_{PR_1}(Q) - A_{P}(QR_1) -
A_{PR_1}(QR_1) = 4\lambda_2 {{\rm i}}k_{P1} [ A_P(QR_1)- A_{PR_1}(QR_1)]
.\end{aligned}$$
We now also use Eq. (\[transPropCN\]) to convert these in to the recurrence relations $$\label{yOpRel2}
A_P = Y_i(k_{P_{i+1}} - k_{P_i})A_{PT_i} ,$$ and similarly $$\label{zOpRel2}
A_P = Z(2k_{P_1})A_{PR_1}$$ where now $$\label{Yi2}
Y_i(u) = \frac{{{\rm i}}u\hat{I} - 1/\lambda_1\hat{T_i}}{{{\rm i}}u -
1/\lambda_1}$$ and $$\label{Z2}
Z(u) = \frac{{{\rm i}}u\hat{I} - 1/\lambda_2\hat{R}_1}{{{\rm i}}u - 1/\lambda_2}.$$ As in the delta interaction case these relations allow to recursively compute all coefficients $A_P$ in terms of $A_I$, and the conditions for the absence of inconsistencies are identical to (\[con1\],b) of the delta-interaction case, leading to the Yang-Baxter relations (\[yangBaxter\]) and Reflection equation (\[reflEq\]) but now with the operators (\[Yi2\]) and (\[Z2\]). In contrast to the delta-interaction case, we find that these consistency relations are valid only if $\hat T_i = \pm I$ for all $i$ (see Appendix A.2 for details). We thus conclude that [*the Bethe Ansatz is consistent only if the particles are indistinguishable, i.e., $A_I$ is chosen such that either $\hat T_i=I$ or $\hat T_i=-I$,*]{} and in these two cases we can compute all coefficients $A_P$ from $A_I$ as $$\label{recurrenceRelCN2}
A_P = \mathcal{W}_P(k)A_I$$ where $\mathcal{W}_P(k)$ is a product of operators $Y_i(k_{P_{i+1}} -
k_{P_i})$ and $Z(2k_{P_1})$ in Eqs. (\[Yi2\]) and (\[Z2\]) obtained by using repeatedly (\[yOpRel2\]) and (\[zOpRel2\]).
For $\hat T_i=+I$ we get from Eq. (\[Yi2\]) that $Y_i(u)=I$ independent of $\lambda_1$, and we conclude that [*the momentum-dependent interaction is trivial for bosons*]{}. However, for $\hat T_i=-I$ (fermions) the $Y_i(u)$ are nontrivial phases. There are two different fermions cases, namely $\hat R_1=\pm I$.
Duality
-------
It is interesting to note that there exists a simple duality relation between the fermionic $\hat p\delta \hat p$ model considered here and the bosonic $C_N$ delta-interaction model discussed in Section 2. Since the operators $Y_i(u)$ and $Z(u)$ for the latter model is identical with the ones of the fermions $\hat p\delta \hat p$ model upon the substitution $\lambda_1\rightarrow 1/c_1$ and $\lambda_2\rightarrow 1/c_2$ (compare Eqs. (\[Yi1\]) and (\[Z1\]) for $\hat T_i=R_1=+I$ and Eqs. (\[Yi2\]) and (\[Z2\]) for $\hat
T_i=R_1=-1$), Eqs. (\[recurrenceRelCN\]) and (\[recurrenceRelCN2\]) imply that $$A_P^\delta\arrowvert_{\hat T_i=\hat R_1=+I} = A_P^{\hat p\delta \hat
p}\arrowvert_{\hat T_i=\hat R_1= -I, \lambda_1\rightarrow
1/c_1, \lambda_2\rightarrow 1/c_2} ,$$ where $A_P^\delta$ are the coefficients of Section 2.2 and $ A_P^{\hat
p\delta \hat p}$ the ones in Section 3.2. This implies that [*the bosonic wave functions of the delta model in Section 2.2 and the fermionic wave functions of the $\hat p\delta\hat p$-model in Section 3.2 are identical when restricted to the fundamental wedge $$\Delta_I:\qquad 0<x_1<x_2<\ldots<x_N ,$$ provided that the coupling constants of these models are related as follows, $$\lambda_1=\frac1{c_1}\quad \mbox{ and } \quad \lambda_2=\frac1{c_2} .$$* ]{} This can be seen also more directly: assuming that the eigenfunction $\psi$ of the Hamiltonian in Eq. (\[hamiltonianCN\]) is bosonic, $\hat T_i=\hat R=I$, it is enough to determine it in the fundamental wedge. Moreover, the continuity conditions in Eqs.(\[boundCond1\],b) are fulfilled automatically for boson wave functions, whereas the conditions on the derivatives simplify to $$\begin{aligned}
(\partial_{x_j} - \partial_{x_{j+1}} - c_1)\psi\arrowvert_{x_j
= x_k + 0^+} = 0 {\nonumber \\ \nopagebreak}\label{boundCondAN}
(2\partial_{x_j} - c_2)\psi\arrowvert_{x_j = 0^+} = 0\end{aligned}$$ for all $x$ in the fundamental wedge. In a similar manner one finds that the fermionic eigenfunctions of the Hamiltonian in Eq.(\[hamiltonianCN2\]), $\hat T_i=\hat R=-I$, are determined by the very same conditions in Eq. (\[boundCondAN\]) with $c_{1,2}$ replaced by $1/\lambda_{1,2}$.
This generalizes the duality previously observed in the $A_{N-1}$ case [@GLP; @CS] to the $C_N$ case.
Physical interpretation
-----------------------
As in the delta interaction case, one can restrict the eigenfunctions $\psi$ of the Hamiltonian in Eq. (\[hamiltonianCN2\]) by imposing the conditions in Eq. (\[Rpm1\]), reducing the boundary conditions in Eqs. (\[boundCond21\],b) to
$$\begin{aligned}
(\partial_{x_j} - \partial_{x_k})\psi\arrowvert_{x_j = x_k +
0^+} = (\partial_{x_j} - \partial_{x_k})\psi\arrowvert_{x_j =
x_k - 0^+}{\nonumber \\ \nopagebreak}\psi\arrowvert_{x_j = x_k + 0^+} -
\psi\arrowvert_{x_j = x_k - 0^+} = 2\lambda_1(\partial_{x_j} -
\partial_{x_k})\psi\arrowvert_{x_j = x_k + 0^+}\end{aligned}$$
and $$\begin{aligned}
{\begin{array}{rll}} \partial_{x_j}\psi\arrowvert_{x_j = 0^+} =& 0
& \mbox{ for $\hat R_j=+1$} \\\psi\arrowvert_{x_j = 0^+} = &
2\lambda_2\partial_{x_j}\psi\arrowvert_{x_j = 0^+}
& \mbox{ for $\hat R_j=-1$} {\end{array}}\label{BCorigin1} \end{aligned}$$
where $x_j>0$. This shows that the eigenfunctions of the $C_N$ Hamiltonian in Eq. (\[hamiltonianCN2\]) with the restriction in Eq.(\[Rpm1\]) are identical to the ones of the $A_{N-1}$ Hamiltonian $$\label{Hhalf1}
H_0 = -\sum_{j=1}^N\partial_{x_j}^2 +
2\lambda_1\sum_{j<k} (\partial_{x_j} -
\partial_{x_k})\delta(x_j - x_k)(\partial_{x_j} -
\partial_{x_k})$$ restricted to the half-line, $x_j>0$, and the boundary conditions at the origin given in Eq. (\[BCorigin1\]).
Moreover, as shown in Appendix C.2, the eigenfunctions $\psi$ above restricted to $x_j>0$ become identical to the ones of the Hamiltonian $H_0 + \sum_j V(x_j)$ on the full real line, $x_j\in{{\mathbb R}}$, but with an external potential $$V(x) = \left\{ {\begin{array}{cc}} V_0\Theta(-x)
+\sqrt{V_0}\partial_x\delta(x) \partial_x &\mbox{ if $\hat
R_j=+1$ } \\ V_0\Theta(-x) +
2\lambda_2\partial_x\delta(x)\partial_x &\mbox{ if $\hat
R_j=-1$} {\end{array}}\right.$$ in the limit $V_0\to \infty$.
Concluding remark
=================
As discussed in the Introduction, there exists a 4-parameter family of local interactions [@AGHH], and the delta- and $\hat p\delta\hat
p$-interactions only correspond to one-parameter subfamilies each. It is therefore natural to ask: What about the other local interactions? Are there other cases leading to exactly solvable models? It is thus interesting to note that there is a simple physical interpretation of the four parameter family of local interactions which seems more natural than the ones given before [@AGHH]: in the simplest case they correspond to the following generalization of the Hamiltonians in Eqs. (\[h1\]) and (\[h2\]), $$\label{H4}
H = -\partial_x^2 + c\delta(x) + \lambda \partial_x
\delta(x)\partial_x + \gamma \partial_x \delta(x) -
\overline{\gamma} \delta(x) \partial_x ,$$ which obviously is the most general hermitian Hamiltonian with interactions localized in $x=0$ and containing only derivatives up to second order (higher derivatives than that do not lead to physically acceptable boundary conditions). This Hamiltonian is formally self-adjoint for arbitrary parameters $c,\lambda\in{{\mathbb R}}$ and $\gamma\in{{\mathbb C}}$, and it indeed corresponds to the 4-parameter family of local interactions mentioned above [@GHLP]. All these models have natural generalizations to the many-body case, but there is only one case where these latter models are known to be exactly solvable even for distinguishable particles by the coordinate Bethe Ansatz: $(c,\lambda,\gamma)=(c,0,0)$. It would be interesting to know if there are other exactly solvable cases. We plan to come back to this question elsewhere [@GHLP]. We only mention here that the many-body generalization of the Hamiltonian in Eq. (\[H4\]) describes identical particles only if $\gamma=0$, and to find exactly solvable case for non-zero $\gamma$ therefore requires an extension of Yang’s method of solution [@Y] (which only works for identical particle models).
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We would like to thank Harald Grosse, Jouko Mickelsson and Cornelius Paufler for helpful discussions. E.L. was supported in part by the Swedish Science Research Council (VR) and the Göran Gustafsson Foundation.
Appendix A. Verification of consistency relations {#appendix-a.-verification-of-consistency-relations .unnumbered}
=================================================
In this appendix we sketch the verification of the consistency relations in Eqs. (\[yangBaxter\],b) (Yang-Baxter relations and the Reflection equation).
A.1 Delta-interaction {#a.1-delta-interaction .unnumbered}
---------------------
We start by writing the operators $Y_i$ in the following way: $$\label{Yii}
Y_i(u) = a(u) + b(u)\hat T_i$$ where $$\label{A1}
a(u) = \frac{c_1}{{{\rm i}}u - c_1},\qquad b(u) = \frac{{{\rm i}}u
}{{{\rm i}}u - c_1}.$$ Inserting this expression into the equations in (\[yangBaxter\]) results in a number of relations between the coefficients $a(u)$ and $b(u)$, one for each equation and different permutation operator. Most of them are trivially fulfilled, but the following ones are non-trivial: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{check1}
a(-u)a(u) + b(-u)b(u) = 1{\nonumber \\ \nopagebreak}a(-u)b(u) + b(-u)a(u) = 0\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{check2}
b(v)a(u+v)a(u) + a(v)a(u+v)b(u) = a(u)b(u+v)a(v) . \end{aligned}$$ Inserting $a(u)$ and $b(u)$ from Eq. (\[A1\]) they can be verified by straightforward calculations. To verify Eq. (\[reflEq\]) we write the operator $Z$ as $$Z(u) = \tilde a(u) + \tilde b(u)\hat{R}_1 \label{ZZ}$$ where $$\tilde a(u) = \frac{c_2}{{{\rm i}}u - c_2},\qquad \tilde b(u) =
\frac{{{\rm i}}u}{{{\rm i}}u - c_2}.$$ Substituting this and Eq. (\[Yii\]) leads to the following non-trivial relation, $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde b(2v)b(u + v)\tilde a(2u)a(u - v) + \tilde b(2v)a(u +
v)\tilde a(2u)b(u - v) +\nonumber\\
+\ \tilde a(2v)a(u + v)\tilde b(2u)b(u -
v) = a(u - v)\tilde b(2u)b(u + v)\tilde a(2v)\end{aligned}$$ in addition to $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde a(-u)\tilde a(u) + \tilde b(-u)\tilde b(u) = 1{\nonumber \\ \nopagebreak}\tilde a(-u)\tilde b(u) + \tilde b(-u)\tilde a(u) = 0 , \end{aligned}$$ the validity of which follow from straightforward calculations.
We conclude that the Bethe Ansatz is consistent even for distinguishable particles.
A.2 Local momentum-dependent interaction {#a.2-local-momentum-dependent-interaction .unnumbered}
----------------------------------------
In this case we get $Y_i(u)$ as in Eq. (\[Yii\]) but with $$\label{A2}
a(u) = \frac{{{\rm i}}u}{{{\rm i}}u - 1/\lambda_1},\qquad b(u) =
\frac{-1/\lambda_1 }{{{\rm i}}u - \lambda_1}.$$ With that the two equations in (\[check1\]) hold true but the equation in (\[check2\]) does not. We therefore conclude that [*the Bethe Ansatz is not consistent for distinguishable particles*]{}.
For indistinguishable particles we have $\hat T_i=\pm I$ and the Yang-Baxter relations in Eq. (\[yangBaxter\]) are trivially fulfilled. Moreover, in this case it is also easy to check that the relations (\[reflEq\]) hold true for $\hat R_1=\pm I$.
We conclude that the Bethe Ansatz is consistent in the indistinguishable particle case but not in general.
Appendix B. Representations of the group $W_N$ {#appendix-b.-representations-of-the-group-w_n .unnumbered}
==============================================
In this appendix we discuss the irreducible representations of the group $W_N\equiv (\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z})^N\rtimes S_N$. In particular we will show the following.
[**Fact:**]{} [*There exists a set of irreducible representations of $W_N$ isomorphic to the irreducible representations $\chi_{\pm}\otimes \rho$, where $\chi_{\pm}$ is a character (irreducible representation) of the (normal) abelian subgroup $(\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z})^N$ such that $\chi_{\pm}(R_j) = \pm 1$ for all $j=1,2,\ldots,N$ (same sign for all $j$) and $\rho$ is an arbitrary irreducible representation of the permutation group $S_N$*]{}.
To show this we will use the notion of induced representations, following Section 8.2 of [@Serre]. We start by determining the group of characters $X =
\textrm{Hom}((\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z})^N,\mathbb{C})$ of the subgroup $(\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z})^N$. The fact that it is generated by the reflections $R_j$ obeying the relations (see e.g. page 21 in [@GP]) $$R_j^2 = I,\qquad j=1,2,\ldots,N$$ implies that the characters $\chi\in X$ are functions such that $$\chi(R_j) = e^{in_j\pi},\qquad n_j\in\mathbb{Z}$$ for all $j=1,2,\ldots,N$. The group $W_N$ acts on these characters by $$(w\chi)(R) = \chi(w^{-1}Rw),\qquad {\forall} w\in W_N, \chi\in
X, R\in (\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z})^N.$$ We now determine the orbits of the action of $S_N$ in $X$, represented by a set $\chi_i$ where $i\in X/S_N$. Using the fact that the adjoint action of $S_N$ permutes the reflections $R_j$, $T_{jk}R_jT_{jk} =
R_k$ with $T_{jk}$ the transposition interchanging $j$ and $k$, we conclude that the orbits of $S_N$ in $X$ can be represented by the characters $$\chi_k(R_j) =
\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
1, & j>k\\
-1, & j\leq k\end{array}\right.$$ where $j,k=1,2,\ldots,N$. For each $i$ let $(S_N)_i$ be that subgroup of $S_N$ consisting of all $P\in S_N$ such that $P\chi_i = \chi_i$, and let further $\tilde W_i = (\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z})^N\cdot
(S_N)_i$. The structure of $\chi_i$ implies that $(S_N)_i = S_i\times
S_{N-i}$. The character $\chi_i$ can be extended to all of $\tilde
W_i$ by setting $$\chi_i(RP) = \chi(R),\qquad R\in (\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z})^N,
P\in (S_N)_i.$$ Now let $\rho_i$ be an irreducible representation of $(S_N)_i$ and combine it with the canonical projection $\tilde W_i\rightarrow
(S_N)_i$ to yield an irreducible representation $\tilde{\rho}_i$ of $\tilde W_i$. By taking the tensor product of $\chi_i$ and $\tilde{\rho}_i$ we can now construct a set of irreducible representations $\chi_i\otimes \rho_i$ of $\tilde W_i$. We denote the corresponding induced representation of the whole of $W_N$ by $\theta_{i,\rho_i}$. It follows from Proposition 25 in [@Serre] that all irreducible representations of $W_N$ are isomorphic to such a representation $\theta_{i,\rho_i}$. In particular setting $i=0$ and $i=N$ we arrive at the claim stated in the Fact at the beginning of the section.
Appendix C. Physical interpretation of boundary conditions {#appendix-c.-physical-interpretation-of-boundary-conditions .unnumbered}
==========================================================
In this appendix we substantiate the physical interpretation of the boundary conditions of the $C_N$ models given in Sections 2 and 3 in the main text.
C.1 Delta-interaction {#c.1-delta-interaction .unnumbered}
---------------------
We first recall the eigenfunctions $\psi$ of the one particle Hamiltonian in Eq. (\[h1\]). Since this Hamiltonian is invariant under the reflection $x\rightarrow -x$ these eigenfunctions can be chosen such that $\psi(x) = \pm\psi(-x)\equiv \psi_\pm(x)$, and they can be computed using the Ansatz $$\psi_{\pm}(x) = \left\{ {\begin{array}{ll}} {{\rm e}^{-{{\rm i}}kx}} + A_\pm{{\rm e}^{{{\rm i}}kx}} &
\mbox{ for $x>0$ } \\ \pm \left( {{\rm e}^{{{\rm i}}kx}} +
A_\pm{{\rm e}^{-{{\rm i}}kx}} \right) & \mbox{ for $x<0$ }{\end{array}}\right. ,
\label{scatteringAnsatz}$$ and the boundary conditions in Eq. (\[bc1\]) determine the constants $A_\pm$ as follows, $$A_+ = \frac{{{\rm i}}k + c/2}{{{\rm i}}k - c/2},\qquad A_- = -1$$ with $A_-$ being independent of $c$ corresponding to the fact that the delta interaction is trivial (i.e. invisible) for fermions. Obviously, these eigenfunctions obey $$-\psi''_+(x) = k^2\psi_+(x) \quad \mbox{ for $x> 0 $ and } \quad
\psi'(0^+) = (c/2) \psi(0^+)$$ and $$-\psi''_-(x) = k^2\psi_-(x) \quad \mbox{ for $x> 0 $ and } \quad
\psi_- (0^+) = 0 ,$$ which is the simplest non-trivial case $N=1$ of the general relation between the $C_N$ model and the $A_{N-1}$ model discussed in Section 4.1.
We now show that these eigenfunctions $\psi_\pm(x)$ for $x>0$ are identical to the ones of the Hamiltonians $$H_\pm = -\partial_x^2 + V_0\Theta(-x) + g_\pm \delta(x)$$ with $$g_+ = c/2 -\sqrt{V_0}\quad \mbox{ and } \quad g_- = 0 \label{gpm}$$ in the limit $V_0\to\infty$. To show this we determine the eigenfunctions $\phi_\pm$ of $H_\pm$ with the Ansatz $$\label{scatteringAnsatz2}
\phi_\pm =
\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
{{\rm e}^{-{{\rm i}}kx}} + B_\pm {{\rm e}^{{{\rm i}}kx}}, & \mbox{ for $x>0$} \\
C_\pm e^{\omega x}, & \mbox{ for $x<0$}
\end{array}\right.,$$ and by straightforward computations we find $$B_\pm = \frac{{{\rm i}}k + (\omega + g_\pm)}{{{\rm i}}k - (\omega +
g_\pm)}\quad \mbox{ and } \quad \omega = \sqrt{V_0 - k^2}$$ for $V_0>k^2$. We thus see that $$A_\pm = \lim_{V_0\to\infty} B_\pm$$ provided that $g_\pm$ are chosen as in Eq. (\[gpm\]). This shows that the eigenfunctions $\phi_+$ of the Hamiltonian $H_+$ on the full line in the limit $V_0\to\infty$ become equal to $\psi_+(x)$ for $x>0$ (and zero otherwise), and similarly for $\phi_-$, $\psi_-$ and $H_-$.
This computation substantiates the physical interpretation of the $C_N$ model in case $N=1$. However, since this interpretation only involves the boundary conditions at $x_j=0$ which are not affected by the inter-particle interactions, this argument immediately generalizes to the $N>1$ particle case.
C.2 Local momentum dependent interaction {#c.2-local-momentum-dependent-interaction .unnumbered}
----------------------------------------
The discussion for the Hamiltonian in Eq. (\[h2\]) is completely analogous to the one for the Hamiltonian in Eq. (\[h1\]) given above, and we therefore only write down the formulas which change.
Eq. (\[scatteringAnsatz\]) determining the even and odd eigenfunctions $\psi_\pm$ remains the same but $A_+$ and $A_-$ are (essentially) interchanged, $$A_+ = 1 ,\quad A_- = \frac{{{\rm i}}k + 1/2\lambda}{{{\rm i}}k - 1/2\lambda} ,$$ where now the boson eigenfunction is unaffected by the interaction. Moreover, these eigenfunctions solve the following problems on the half axis, $$-\psi''_+(x) = k^2\psi_+(x) \quad \mbox{ for $x> 0 $ and } \quad
\psi'_+(0^+) = 0$$ and $$-\psi''_-(x) = k^2\psi_-(x) \quad \mbox{ for $x> 0 $ and } \quad
\psi'_- (0^+) = 2\lambda \psi_-(0^+) .$$ The physical interpretation of these boundary conditions is provided by the following Hamiltonians with external fields, $$H_\pm = -\partial_x^2 + V_0\Theta(-x) + \tilde g_\pm
\partial_x\delta(x)\partial_x$$ which has eigenfunctions as in Eq. (\[scatteringAnsatz2\]) but with $$B_\pm = \frac{{{\rm i}}k + \omega/(1+\omega \tilde g_\pm) }{{{\rm i}}k
- \omega/(1+\omega \tilde g_\pm)} \quad \mbox{ and } \quad \omega =
\sqrt{V_0 - k^2},$$ which converge to $A_\pm$ for $V_0\to\infty$ provided that, for example, $$\tilde g_+ = \sqrt{V_0} \quad \mbox{ and } \quad \tilde g_- =
2\lambda .$$
[99]{} E. H. Lieb and W. Liniger, Exact analysis of an interacting Bose gas. I. The general solution and the ground state, Phys. Rev. [**130**]{}, 1605 (1963) C. N. Yang, Some exact results for the many-body problem in one dimension with repulsive delta-function interaction, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**19**]{}, 1312 (1967) S. Albeverio, F. Gesztesy, R. H[ø]{}egh-Krohn, and H. Holden, [*Solvable Models in Quantum Mechanics*]{}, Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg (1988) H. Grosse, E. Langmann and C. Paufler, Exact solution of a 1D many-body system with momentum dependent interactions, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. [**37**]{}, 4579 (2004); corrected version on arXiv:math-ph/0401003 T. Cheon and T. Shigehara, Fermion-boson duality of one-dimensional quantum particles with generalized contact interactions, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**82**]{}, 2536 (1999) M. A. Olshanetsky and A. M. Perelomov, Quantum completely integrable systems connected with semisimple Lie algebras, Lett.Math. Phys. [**2**]{} (1977) 7 M. Gaudin, Boundary energy of a bose gas in one dimension, Phys. Rev. A [**4**]{} (1971) 386 B. Sutherland, Nondiffractive scattering from kaleidoscopes, J. Math. Phys. [**21**]{} (1979) 1770 I. V. Cherednik, Factorizing particles on a half line and root systems, Theor. Math. Phys. [**61**]{} (1984) 977 \[Teor. Mat.Fiz. [**61**]{} (1984) 35\] E. K. Sklyanin, Boundary conditions for integrable quantum systems, J. Phys. A [**21**]{} (1988) 2375 P. P. Kulish, Yang-Baxter equation and reflection equations in integrable models, in: H. Grosse and L. Pittner (eds.), [*Low-dimensional models in statistical physics and quantum field theory*]{}, Lecture Notes in Physics, Springer-Verlag (1996) 125–144 \[arXiv:hep-th/9507070\] M. A. Olshanetsky and A. M. Perelomov, Quantum integrable systems related to Lie algebras, Phys. Rept. [**94**]{} (1983) 313 M. Geck and G. Pfeiffer, [*Characters of Coxeter Groups and Iwahori-Hecke Algebras*]{}, Oxford science publications, Oxford (2000) M. Hallnäs, E. Langmann and C. Paufler (in preparation) J. -P. Serre, [*Linear representations of finite groups*]{}, Springer-Verlag, New York (1977)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We propose a new approach to combine Restricted Boltzmann Machines (RBMs) that can be used to solve combinatorial optimization problems. This allows synthesis of larger models from smaller RBMs that have been pretrained, thus effectively bypassing the problem of learning in large RBMs, and creating a system able to model a large, complex multi-modal space. We validate this approach by using learned representations to create “invertible boolean logic”, where we can use Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) approaches to find the solution to large scale boolean satisfiability problems and show viability towards other combinatorial optimization problems. Using this method, we are able to solve 64 bit addition based problems, as well as factorize 16 bit numbers. We find that these combined representations can provide a more accurate result for the same sample size as compared to a fully trained model.'
author:
- |
Saavan Patel, & Sayeef Salahuddin\
Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science\
University of California, Berkeley\
Berkeley, CA 94720, USA\
`{saavan,sayeef}@berkeley.edu`\
bibliography:
- 'iclr2019\_conference.bib'
title: Combining Learned Representations for Combinatorial Optimization
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
The Ising Problem has long been known to be in the class of NP-Hard problems, with no exact polynomial solution existing. Because of this, a large class of combinatorial optimization problems can be reformulated as Ising problems and solved by finding the ground state of that system [@barahona_computational_1982; @kirkpatrick1983optimization; @lucas_ising_2014]. The Boltzmann Machine [@ackley_learning_1987] was originally introduced as a constraint satisfaction network based on the Ising model problem, where the weights would encode some global constraints, and stochastic units were used to escape local minima. The original Boltzmann Machine found favor as a method to solve various combinatorial optimization problems [@korst1989combinatorial]. However, learning was very slow with this model due to the difficulties with sampling and convergence, as well as the inability to exactly calculate the partition function. More recently, the Restricted Boltzmann Machine (RBM) has experienced a resurgence as a generative model that is able to fully approximate a probability distribution over binary variables due to its ease of computation and training via the contrastive divergence method [@hinton_training_2002]. The success of the RBM as a generative model has been limited due to the difficulties in running the Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) algorithm to convergence [@tieleman_training_2008; @tieleman_using_2009].
In this work, we propose a generative model composed of multiple learned modules that is able to solve a larger problem than the individually trained parts. This allows us to circumvent the problem of training large modules (which is equivalent to solving the optimization problem in the first place, as we are simply providing the correct answers to the module as training data), thus minimizing training time. As RBMs have the ability to fill in partial values and solutions, this approach is very flexible to the broad class of combinatorial optimization problems which can be composed of individual atomic operations or parts. Most notably, we show that our approach of using “invertible boolean logic” is a method of solving the boolean satisfiability problem, which can be mapped to a large class of combinatorial optimization problems directly [@Cook1971; @karp1972reducibility]. The ability of RBMs to fully model a probability distribution ensures model convergence and gives ideas about the shape of the underlying distribution. Many other generative models, such as Generative Adverserial Neural Networks (GANs), [@goodfellow2014generative] Generative Stochastic Networks [@alain_gsns_2015] and others do not explicitly model the probability distribution in question, but rather train a generative machine to draw samples from the desired distribution. Although these can be useful for modeling high dimensional data, they do not provide the same guarantees that RBMs do. Because we use an RBM as our generative model we can perform a full Bayesian analysis, and condition on any subset of the variables to solve a variety of problems. This leads to increased model flexibility, and the ability to generalize the learned models further.
Related Work
============
People have shown that learned and trained features have the ability to outperform hand calculated features in a variety of tasks, from image classification to speech detection and many others. In addition, other network architectures, such as Recurrent Neural Networks (RNNs) have been shown to be Turing complete, and posses the ability to be used as a conventional Turing machine [@graves_neural_2014; @zaremba_learning_2014]. However, these architectures have mostly been used as generalized computers, rather than to solve specific problems. Deterministic, feedforward neural networks have also been used to solve factorization problems, but their approach does not solve the factors for as high bit numbers as presented here, and is not flexible enough to be used in problems outside of prime factorization [@jansen2005neural]. In addition, these models are not generative or reversible.\
Many attempts have also been made to use quantum computers to solve such Ising model based problems. Large scale realizations of quantum computers, however, are still far from completion [@whitfield_ground-state_2012; @lucas_ising_2014; @roland_quantum_2002; @xu_quantum_2012]. Therefore, methods than can exploit a classical hardware are of critical importance.\
In this regard, one recent work has proposed the use of “p-bits”, to realize a form of Boltzmann Machine [@camsari_stochastic_2017]. The work by [@traversa_polynomial-time_2017] similarly tries to create an “invertible boolean logic”, but does so in a deterministic manner, rather than the probabilistic one presented in this work.\
Our approach falls within the broad category of transfer learning and compositional learning. There have been other works on using combinations of RBMs for object recognition and computer vision tasks [@ranzato_factored_2010], and on combinations of RBMs with weight sharing for collaborative filtering [@salakhutdinov_restricted_2007]. Nonetheless, the specific method presented here, as described in the following sections, to the best of our knowledge has not been used before.\
Approach {#sec:approach}
========
![Merging procedure to combine RBMs. This combination scheme retains both the bipartite nature of the graph, as well as the product of experts nature. This allows the combined model to retain the sharp distributions of the original models.[]{data-label="fig:mergeRBM"}](RBM_Merge.pdf){width="0.95\linewidth"}
An RBM is a binary stochastic neural network, which can be understood as a Markov random field of binary variables divided into a bipartite graph structure, where all of the visible units are conditionally independent of each other given the hidden unit states, and all hidden units are conditionally independent given the visible unit states. Here we denote $v$ as the visible state, $h$ as the hidden states, and $E(v, h)$ as the energy associated with those states. The probability assigned to a given state $p(v, h) = \frac{1}{Z} e^{-E(v, h)}$ where $Z = \sum_{v, h} e^{-E(v, h)}$ is the normalizing constant of the distribution.
The general approach to solving these combinatorial optimization problems is to recognize the atomic unit necessary to solve the problem, and use this as a base trained unit (this is discussed further later in the approach section). We combine these units by performing a merge operation of different RBMs. If we know two different units share a connection (such as the output of one logical unit being the input of another, or two cities being identical in a TSP), then these units would be merged to create a larger unit (see Figure \[fig:mergeRBM\] and explanation with weight matrices and biases below).\
The probabilities and energies of the two RBMs are dictated by their weight matrices, $W_A \in {\mathbb{R}}^{n\times r}$ and $W_B \in {\mathbb{R}}^{m\times s}$, visible biases $b_A \in {\mathbb{R}}^{n}$ and $b_B \in {\mathbb{R}}^{m}$, and hidden biases $a_A \in {\mathbb{R}}^{r}$ and $a_B \in {\mathbb{R}}^{s}$. The energies and probabilities of these are as follows: $$\label{eq:energies}
\begin{split}
E_A(v, h) &= -v^TW_Ah - a_A^Th - b_A^Tv; \;\; p_A(v, h) = \frac{1}{Z_A} e^{-E_A(v, h)} \\
E_B(v, h) &= -v^TW_Bh - a_B^Th - b_B^Tv; \;\; p_B(v, h) = \frac{1}{Z_B} e^{-E_B(v, h)}
\end{split}$$
We can write the weight matrices as a series of row vectors corresponding to one visible units connections to a set of hidden units.
$$\label{eq:weights}
\begin{split}
W_A = \begin{bmatrix} \rule[.5ex]{1em}{0.4pt} w^A_1 \rule[.5ex]{1em}{0.4pt} \\
\vdots \\
\rule[.5ex]{1em}{0.4pt} w^A_n \rule[.5ex]{1em}{0.4pt} \end{bmatrix}, \;\;
W_B = \begin{bmatrix} \rule[.5ex]{1em}{0.4pt} w^B_1 \rule[.5ex]{1em}{0.4pt} \\
\vdots \\
\rule[.5ex]{1em}{0.4pt} w^B_m \rule[.5ex]{1em}{0.4pt} \end{bmatrix}, \;\; \\
\end{split}$$
With this definition, the merge operation is shown below. If units $k$ of RBM $A$ is merged with unit $l$ of RBM $B$ the associated weight matrix $W_{A+B} \in {\mathbb{R}}^{(n+m-1)\times (r+s)}$ , visible bias $v_{A+B} \in {\mathbb{R}}^{n+m - 1}$ and hidden bias $h_{A+B} \in {\mathbb{R}}^{r+s}$ dictate the probabilities and energies for the merged RBM. Merging multiple units between these two RBMs corresponds to moving multiple row vectors from $W_B$ to $W_A$, which creates the associated decrease in dimensionality of $W_{A+B}$ and $b_{A+B}$ (where $W_{A+B} \in {\mathbb{R}}^{(n+m-d)\times (r+s)}$ and $v_{A+B} \in {\mathbb{R}}^{n+m - d}$ where $d$ is the number of merged units.
$$\label{eq:mergedweights}
W_{A+B} =
\left[\begin{array}{@{}c | c@{}}
\mbox{\normalfont $W_A$}
& \begin{matrix}
\mbox{\normalfont 0} \\
\rule[.5ex]{1em}{0.4pt} w^B_l \rule[.5ex]{1em}{0.4pt} \\
\mbox{\normalfont 0} \\
\end{matrix} \\
\hline
{\mbox{\normalfont\Large 0}}&
\mbox{\normalfont $W_{B\setminus l}$}
\end{array}\right] =
\left[\begin{array}{@{}c | c@{}}
\begin{matrix}
\rule[.5ex]{1em}{0.4pt} w^A_1 \rule[.5ex]{1em}{0.4pt} \\
\vdots \\
\rule[.5ex]{1em}{0.4pt} w^A_k \rule[.5ex]{1em}{0.4pt} \\
\vdots \\
\rule[.5ex]{1em}{0.4pt} w^A_n \rule[.5ex]{1em}{0.4pt} \\
\end{matrix}
& \begin{matrix}
{\mbox{\normalfont\Large 0}}\\ \\
\rule[.5ex]{1em}{0.4pt} w^B_l \rule[.5ex]{1em}{0.4pt} \\ \\
{\mbox{\normalfont\Large 0}}\\
\end{matrix} \\
\hline
{\mbox{\normalfont\Large 0}}&
\begin{matrix}
\rule[.5ex]{1em}{0.4pt} w^B_1 \rule[.5ex]{1em}{0.4pt} \\
\vdots \\
\rule[.5ex]{1em}{0.4pt} w^B_{l-1} \rule[.5ex]{1em}{0.4pt} \\
\rule[.5ex]{1em}{0.4pt} w^B_{l+1} \rule[.5ex]{1em}{0.4pt} \\
\vdots \\
\rule[.5ex]{1em}{0.4pt} w^B_m \rule[.5ex]{1em}{0.4pt} \\
\end{matrix}
\end{array}\right] \;\; b_{A+B} = \begin{bmatrix} b^A_1 \\ \vdots \\ b^A_k + b^B_l \\ \vdots \\ b^A_n \\ b^B_1 \\ \vdots \\ b^B_{l-1} \\ b^B_{l+1} \\ \vdots \\ b^B_{m} \\ \end{bmatrix} \; \;
a_{A+B} = \begin{bmatrix} a^A_1 \\ \vdots \\ a^A_r \\ a^B_1 \\ \vdots \\ \\ a^B_{s} \\ \end{bmatrix}$$
Below, we show how this relates to the original energies and probabilities. The vectors $v$ and $h$ corresponds to the visible vector put into the combined RBM, while $v_A$, $v_B$, $h_A$ and $h_B$ correspond to the equivalent state vectors that would be inputted into the single RBMs. Using these equations, we can see that the combined RBM energy factorizes into a sum of the original RBM energies and the probability is the product of the original probabilities.
$$\label{eq:mergedvis}
v = \begin{bmatrix} v_1 \\ \vdots \\ v_{n+m-1}\end{bmatrix} \;\;
h = \begin{bmatrix} h_1 \\ \vdots \\ h_{r+s} \end{bmatrix} \;\; v_A = \begin{bmatrix} v_1 \\ \vdots \\ v_l \\ \vdots \\ v_n\end{bmatrix}, v_B = \begin{bmatrix} v_{n+1} \\ \vdots \\ v_{n+l-1} \\ v_{l} \\ v_{n+l} \\ \vdots \\ v_{n+m - 1}\end{bmatrix}, h_A = \begin{bmatrix} h_1 \\ \vdots \\ h_r \end{bmatrix} h_B = \begin{bmatrix} h_{r+1} \\ \vdots \\ h_{r+s} \end{bmatrix} \\$$
$$\label{eq:mergedEnergy}
E_{A+B}(v, h) = E_A(v_A, h_A) + E_B(v_B, h_B),$$
$$\label{eq:mergedprobs}
p_{A + B}(v, h) = \frac{1}{Z_{A+B}} e^{-E_{A+B}(v, h)} \propto p_A(v_A, h_A)p_B(v_B, h_B)$$
An alternative way of viewing the merged probability distribution is to multiply the distributions of the original RBMs, and marginalize over all states where the merged units are different.\
Because of the probabilities approximately multiplying, we can also say that if each of the distributions differed from the “ideal” distribution (denoted here by $q$), then we can expect the error (as measured by the KL divergence) to increase approximately linearly with the number of connections. This shows that the error should increase with the number of connected units, rather than directly with the number of bits. This is especially important with combinatorial optimization problems where the deterministic algorithm run time increases exponentially with the number of bits. However, we note that as the number of connections between the units increases, the KL divergence increasingly diverges from linear. $$\KL(q \| p) \approx \KL(q_A \| p_A) + \KL(q_B \| p_B);$$ $$\quad p=p_A(v_A, h_A)p_B(v_B, h_B),\;\; q=q_A(v_A, h_A)q_B(v_B, h_B)$$
Many combinatorial optimization problems can be broken down into associated sub-problems, and solved using a greedy approach (i.e. using the nearest neighbor approach in the Travelling Salesman Problem, or multiplying single digits in a larger multiplication, or evaluating one Boolean logic statement in a Boolean satisfiability problem). Using a greedy approach (such as used in the travelling salesman problem with nearest neighbors) can produce non-optimal results, and evaluating all permutations of possible solutions to find the most optimal can be computationally intractable in a large problem space. By combining these sub-problems using the method proposed here, we bypass the problems associated with those two approaches. We encode possible solutions as a probability indicating its local optimality, and combine these sub problems by merging the visible units of their RBMs as shown. The approach is that each sub-problem has overlapping units that share the same value, allowing them to be combined. This combination mechanism multiplies the probabilities such that the solution with global optimality is encoded as the mode of the distribution modeled by the larger RBM. As the combination method shown here still keeps the less optimal local solutions as a possible part of a global solution, we effectively bypass the problem of locally optimal solutions not solving the globally optimal problem. In addition, as the phase space of the problem space is $2^{v}$ where $v$ is the number of visible units, we can also encode a large problem space using minimal units and decrease the amount of computation. In this work we show a usage of this structure to solve a variant of the Boolean satisfiability problem by combining multiple trained logic gates, and use this to perform integer factorization and other arithmetic tasks. As the Boolean satisfiability problem can be mapped to solving a variety of NP-Hard problems [@Cook1971; @karp1972reducibility], we believe variants of this approach can be used to solve other tasks. As an example, a usage for this approach to solve the Travelling Salesman Problem (TSP) might be to have an atomic unit that is the one step (or few) transitions between cities, and the global problem solved by combining these one (or few) step transition RBMs to create a full tour.\
Solving a given optimization problem is equivalent to sampling from the model distribution of the RBM and finding the mode of that distribution. The RBM is partially clamped to values given in the problem statement, and samples are generated via MCMC as explained and examined below.\
Convergence of MCMC {#sec:mixing}
-------------------
As sampling from the full distribution of an RBM is intractable due to the the partition function, a Markov chain Monte Carlo based technique is used to generate samples from the model distribution during inference both while training and while solving. Due to the bipartite graph nature of RBMs, Gibbs sampling is computationally efficient and can be done in 2 steps. Gibbs sampling converges to the model distribution in a geometric number of steps [@Bremaud1999]. Exact estimates of the convergence rate is intractable, as it involves calculating the SLEM (Second Largest Eigenvalue Modulus) of the gibbs transition matrix. However, a theoretical bound can be analyzed using Dobrushin’s Ergodic Coefficient [@dobrushin1956] as shown below. A similar derivation is also shown in [@Bremaud1999].
$$\label{eq:convergence}
|\mu P^n - \pi| \leq \frac{1}{2}|\mu - \pi| (1 - e^{-2\Delta})^n$$
$$\Delta = \sup_{x,y\in \{0, 1\}^N} \{|E(x_v, x_h) - E(y_v, y_h))|\}$$
A proof of this is shown in the Appendix, Section \[sec:proof\]. In this equation, $\mu$ is the starting distribution (or starting point) $P$ is the transition probability matrix (represented by applying the gibbs transition operator on all units), $\pi$ is the stationary distribution and $n$ is the number of transition steps taken. The convergence parameter $\Delta$ represents the maximum energy difference between two states in the RBM, where we denote the to states $x$ and $y$, with visible and hidden states $(x_v, x_h)$ and $(y_v, y_h)$ respectively.\
From our derivation above, we can estimate the effects of merging on the upper bound of convergence rate. If we combine two RBMs $A$ and $B$, with parameters labeled as such the highest energy states correspond to “correct” answers ($E_A^{max}$, $E_B^{max}$) and the lowest energy states correspond to “incorrect” answers ($E_A^{min}$, $E_B^{min}$). Denote the maximum and minimum energy of the combined RBM as $E_{comb}^{max}$ and $E_{comb}^{min}$, and $\Delta_{comb}$ as the convergence coefficient for the combined RBM.
$$E_{comb}^{max} \leq E_A^{max} + E_B^{max}; \;\;\; E_{comb}^{min} \geq E_A^{min} + E_B^{min}$$ $$\Delta_{comb} \leq \Delta_A + \Delta_B$$ $$|\mu P^n - \pi| \leq \frac{1}{2}|\mu - \pi| (1 - e^{-2\Delta_{comb}})^n \leq \frac{1}{2}|\mu - \pi| (1 - e^{-2(\Delta_A + \Delta_B)})^n$$ This implies a considerable decrease in convergence rate over the original RBMs, amounting to an exponential increase in the upper bound of convergence constant as more RBMs are combined together. We note that this is meant to be a theoretical upper bound on convergence, and thus the bound is never tight. Empirical results show that in many cases, this bound tends to be very loose, even while merging. For this reason, an empirical study is necessary to understand the effects of merging RBMs. We explain some of the empirical effects and their causes below.\
The autocorrelation coefficient ($AR(k)$) is a good proxy for empirically measuring rate of convergence, as it measures how correlated samples from subsequent steps are. When $AR(k) \approx 0$ samples separated by $k$ steps are expected to be independent. There are many things that can effect the convergence rate of the Markov chain, such as the magnitude of the weight matrices, the modality of the phase space, and the sparsity of the weight matrix.\
### Weight Matrix Magnitude
Large magnitude weights and biases create higher and lower energy states, and thus a higher $\Delta$. This is a well known phenomenon, and effects RBMs during both training and inference. The magnitude of the weights can be controlled by using finite weight decay during training [@hinton_training_2002; @tieleman_training_2008].\
### State Space & Model Modality
Many combinatorial optimization problems are highly multimodal, which can lead to problems of getting stuck in local minima and spurious modes during MCMC. This problem can manifest itself in a large combined structure, where there are many low energy states caused by the low energy states of the individual RBMs. Once the MCMC algorithm finds a low energy mode it tends to stay around it. To leave the mode, the Markov Chain must do a traversal from one of these modes to another, which goes as $p^n$ where $p$ is the probability of transition between states and $n$ is the number of transitions needed to go from one mode to another. As the distribution becomes increasingly multimodal, pseudo-convergence of the MCMC becomes a problem.\
### Sparsity
A very sparse weight matrix (as is pictured in Figure \[fig:weights\]) can cause a relatively sparse 1 step transition probability matrix while running MCMC (we note that a precisely 0 transition would only occur with infinite energies, we mean that the probability of transitioning between two states becomes small). This means that for visible units on the either end of the model to mix, they would have to cross a large number of intermediate states. This can be seen in figure \[fig:weights\] where in the 16 bit adder composed of multiple one 1 bit adders, there is no hidden unit directly connecting the first full adder to the last full adder. Thus, for information about the change of state in the first full adder must pass through all of the individual adders before it can manifest itself as a change in the last full adder. This means additional gibbs sampling steps must be taken, causing a slower convergence rate for the RBM during inference. This effect is partially mitigated by the fact that very sparse matrices can be more computationally efficient for matrix multiplications, causing the actual computation time to be less.
![Weights matrices for a 16 bit adder circuit created by directly training the device (top left), combination of 8 bit units (top right), combinations of 4 bit units (bottom left) and combination of 1 bit units (bottom right). The $x$ axis enumerates hidden units, and $y$ axis visible units. The sparsity can cause matrix multiplication to be more efficient, but can also lead to poor mixing between states. []{data-label="fig:weights"}](weights.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
Training vs. setting model parameters
-------------------------------------
If we are aware of the exact distribution we are trying to model, we can also directly set the weight matrix and biases for the RBM instead of training using samples from this exact distribution. As the RBM is a universal function approximator, we are guaranteed to have the correct distribution for an arbitrary sized model. Using the method outlined in the proof of universal function approximation in [@le_roux_representational_2008] we can create an “ideal” RBM for this problem, and merge copies of these ideal RBMs together. We note that using these directly calculated RBMs can allow for further guarantees for convergence rates, but suffers in other ways [@Bremaud1999].\
There are a few problems with this method, most notably that directly calculated RBMs are not compact function approximators. To exactly model these distributions, 1 hidden unit is needed to approximate every data vector meaning the number of hidden units would scale as $2^n$ for multiplier and adder units. This type of scaling is not expected for most highly structured problems, as many combinatorial optimization tasks are. The directly calculated RBM is more susceptible to being trapped in local minima than a trained RBM is due to poor mixing between modes. This is because they have a uniformly low probability in states that are not exactly part of the data distribution as described above. This is also seen in Figure \[fig:TimeSeries\] where the directly calculated unit has a slower convergence rate, owing to the slower decay to an autocorrelation of 0.\
Experiments
===========
To experimentally demonstrate the viability of this method of combination, we have used it to create “invertible boolean logic”, which is a form of solving the boolean satisfiability problem. With this, we are able to create logical units of varying sizes, and combine them to create adders and multipliers. We could also combine these logical units to solve other types of boolean satisfiability problems, but we do explain that further here. Using the property of RBMs that they can partially fill in visible units conditioned on the values of other units, we can use these adder RBMs to solve addition, subtraction, reverse sum carry, and combine these adders with multiplier RBMs to solve multiplication, division, and factorization tasks. Precisely, we train the RBMs on the joint distribution of $n$-bit addition (or multiplication), then clamp some of the values to data and perform gibbs sampling on the others conditioned on the partial data. We are able to use a circuit that is traditionally used to multiply numbers to also divide, factorize, and solve any problem involving partial multiplication and division, as we are just sampling from the joint distribution of variables over multiplication and conditioning over variables we are interested in.\
Performance on these various tasks was characterized by using Gibbs sampling, and taking samples from the distribution conditioned on partial inputs. After a number of samples, we check the mode of the distribution against the expected minimal energy state. As described in Section \[sec:approach\] the sampled distribution converges in distribution to the model distribution in a geometric number of steps, at which point the mode is guaranteed to be correctly identified.\
![Probability distributions calculated for a trained full adder, as well as a full adder composed of merged logical units as shown on the left using the method in Section \[sec:approach\]. The comparison shows that merging units can approach similar performance to a fully trained unit, with similar error levels even with a reasonable number of merged units. These probabilities were directly calculated and normalized by the exact partition function (no gibbs sampling was done). We also show directly calculated (as described in @le_roux_representational_2008) units have the distribution closest to the ideal distribution. We note that this is exactly solving the boolean satisfiability problem over the boolean circuit shown on the left, and thus inherently solves the boolean satisfiability problem. []{data-label="fig:FAMerge"}](FAMerge.pdf){width="0.95\linewidth"}
![Autocorrelation coefficients (above) and time series (below) of MCMC algorithm comparison. All three units are attempting to model the behavior of a full adder circuit using either Merged Logical Units, a fully trained unit, or a directly calculated unit. The probability distribution modeled by all of these units is seen in Figure \[fig:FAMerge\]. We can see that the convergence rate for a fully trained unit is much faster than that of both a directly calculated unit and of merged logical units as the autocorrelation coefficient quickly decays to 0 for this case. From the time series analysis below we can also see that the merged logical units take a longer time to visit the entirety of the state space, as is expected by the autocorrelation coefficients.[]{data-label="fig:TimeSeries"}](TimeSeries.pdf){width="0.95\linewidth"}
This merging method is validated by the equilibrium distributions of a merged adder vs. a trained adder in Figure \[fig:FAMerge\]. We compare the performance of an RBM created by merging individually trained logic units (AND, XOR, OR, etc.) to the performance of a full adder. When we sample from the full joint distribution, we are solving the boolean satisfiability problem on the network, by finding all possible solutions to the given boolean statement. The equilibrium distributions are very similar, but the two distributions mix very differently. The trained full adder mixes rapidly between modes while the full adder composed of merged logical units is more likely to get stuck in a one mode. This condition can be mitigated by starting multiple chains from various starting locations in the state space and combining their distributions using a type of mulistart heuristic [@brooks_handbook_2011]. However, it is better practice to design the weight matrix to have better mixing properties and to use more advanced sampling techniques other than Gibbs Sampling.
![Diagram of the creation of larger logical units by combining smaller individual units. We can create a $n$-bit adder can be created by cascading $n$ copies of a 1 bit adder (or $n/2$ copies of a 2 bit adder etc.) as in A). To create a multiplier, we divide n bit multiplication as described in D) into $n/2$ bit multiplication by dividing the problem into multiplication as in B) along with addition of partial sums, as in C). This can also be extended to create $n$-bit multiplication using smaller units. []{data-label="fig:mult"}](MultMerge.pdf){width="0.95\linewidth"}
Adders
------
Multi bit adders were created using the combination scheme outlined in Figure \[fig:mult\]. From the data based on trained and merged 64 bit adders, we are unable to improve performance by training larger individual units. One of the biggest issues is the exponential growth in the size of the training space (and time) needed to effectively train larger units. As the training set grows as $2^n$, training on the entirety of an addition dataset becomes intractable at 16 bit adders, where a training set that would encompass the entire space would contain $2^{33} \approx$ 8 billion training examples. Even though we expect these models to generalize effectively, training a good model becomes increasingly difficult as the dataset grows. This can be seen in greater degree in the 32 bit adder unit, whose performance is significantly worse than merged units even after training the model for over a week. We attempted to train a 64 bit adder unit but were unsuccessful in reducing the error by any reasonable amount, so these results were not included.\
We note the relative success of merging addition models in comparison to multiplication models. This can be explained by the fact that addition models are less prone to getting stuck in local minima, as each of the adders is clamped to a piece of the data in all modes of operation (addition, subtraction and reverse sum carry). The 64 bit adder unit can explore a state space of $2^{64} \approx 2\times 10^{19}$ states, and find the exact answer within only $\approx 10^{3}$ samples, showing a remarkably fast convergence rate. We also note that the adders converge significantly faster than the upper bound of the convergence rate given in Section \[sec:mixing\].
Multipliers
-----------
Multi bit multipliers were created by the combination scheme outlined in Figure \[fig:mult\], similar to Adders. Multipliers require heterogeneous integration of different components (adders and multipliers), which means that the magnitude of multiple different weight matrices need to be matched to get good mixing and to ensure there are minimal spurious modes.\
The design of bitwise multipliers faces more challenging issues than that of adders. The state space of multipliers is much sparser, tends to have more spurious modes, is larger for the same number of bits. For an adder, the state space is $2^{3n+2}$ states ($2\times n$ inputs, $n$ output, 1 $C_{in}$, 1 $C_{out}$) with $2^{2n+1}$ of those states representing valid answers to the addition problem. However, the multiplier has a state space that is $2^{4n}$ ($2 \times n$ inputs, $2 \times n$ outputs) and $2^{2n}$ of them are valid answers. This means that an 8 bit multiplier has a state space that is 128 times sparser than an 8 bit adder, and that the sparsity of an adder scales as $\approx 2^{n}$ while the sparsity of a multiplier scales as $\approx 2^{2n}$. This increased sparsity makes mixing between modes more difficult, as there are larger areas of low probability space in between modes.\
Multipliers have a more complex state space that leads them to get stuck in spurious modes. This is due to the fact that not all units in the multiplier are clamped to pieces of the data distribution, and intermediate units have many equivalent local minima. Because of this, individual units may be in local minima where their individual constraints are satisfied (i.e. an adder satisfies the condition that its inputs add to its outputs, or a multiplier satisfies the constraints that the output is equal to the two inputs are multiplied together), but the global constraint that the output is equal to the inputs multiplied together is unsatisfied. This can be because one of the units is in an incorrect state, or the local minima of the other units corresponds to an unsatisfiable constraint on one of the units (i.e. an adder that is forced into a state where the numbers cannot add up to one another, or a multiplier that is forced to factorize a number whose factors are outside the input bit range).\
Even with the complexities of multipliers, we have shown that an 16 bit multiplier created from trained and merged is able to outperform a multiplier created just by training, as can be seen in Figure \[fig:performance\]. Currently, the number of samples needed to compute the factors is not competitive with a direct search. However, we believe that this situation will be significantly improved by engineering of the convergence rate of the MCMC algorithm, and using more advanced sampling techniques (as mentioned below in Section \[sec:conclusion\]).
![In both the factorization and addition problems, as we approach higher bit problems it becomes increasingly difficult to fully train a module. At 16 bits for factorization (8 bit factors, 16 bit number) and 64 bits for addition (64 bit inputs), it becomes clear that merged logical units can outperform fully trained units. There is a clear trade off between the ability to train the model and number of samples needed to perform accurate inference. The legends indicate the number of bits the base trained model (before combination) is using, i.e. “FA8” corresponds to combined 8 bit adders, “FA4” is 4 bit adders, “log” refers to merged logical units. Further results are presented in the Appendix, Section \[sec:furtherData\][]{data-label="fig:performance"}](performance.pdf){width="0.95\linewidth"}
Conclusion & Future Work {#sec:conclusion}
========================
In this work we have shown the viability of merging RBMs of individually trained distributions and using this merged RBM to solve combinatorial optimization tasks. Although mixing in these merged RBMs is a problem, these merged representations can outperform fully trained structures on tasks where training is difficult. We have used boolean satisfiability and factorization as an example problem to validate this technique. However, the approach is generally applicable to a variety of other combinatorial optimization tasks.\
One of the biggest challenges in making this approach viable as a stochastic optimization algorithm is to improve the convergence rate of the merged RBMs. In addition to the weight decay approaches already implemented in this work, significant improvement in this regard is expected from using advanced sampling techniques such as tempered transitions [@desjardins_tempered_2010], fast weight decay [@tieleman_using_2009], adaptive MCMC [@salakhutdinov_learning_2010], annealed importance sampling [@neal_annealed_2001], parallel tempering [@cho_parallel_2010], or using a different transition operation for the RBM [@brugge_flip--state_2013]. It will also be necessary to develop mathematical models that can describe the differences in the convergence rate of the merged model as compared to that of the constituent units.\
RBMs have been used for classical combinatorial optimization problems such as the travelling salesman [@shim2012hybrid; @aarts1989boltzmann]. The method presented here is generally applicable to all such combinatorial optimization tasks. We have outlined how such an approach could be done in Section \[sec:approach\]. As a specific example, a natural application for the adders, that we used as an example case, could be to solve 3SUM and subset sum problems . There have already been initial results on these problems using cascaded, fully connected Boltzmann Machines [@hassan2018voltage].\
### Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
This work was funded through the ASCENT center, one of the six centers within the DARPA/SRC JUMP initiative.
Appendix
========
Proof of Equation \[eq:convergence\] {#sec:proof}
------------------------------------
This proof follows a similar structure to [@Bremaud1999], but has further simplifications and additions due to the conditional independence structure of the RBM.
Gibbs Transitions over the RBM can be be factored into two stages, a transition probability distribution over visible units, and a transition probability distribution over hidden units. The respective transition matrices are multiplied to yield the full state transition matrix. We will call $\mathbf{P}$ the full transition matrix with elements $p_{xy}$, and $\mathbf{P}_v$, $\mathbf{P}_h$ the visible and hidden transitions with elements $p^v_{xy}$ and $p^h_{xy}$ respectively.
$$\mathbf{P} = \mathbf{P}_v \mathbf{P}_h$$
$$p_{xy}^v = \frac{e^{-E(y_v, x_h)}}{\sum_v{e^{-E(v, x_h)}}}, \;\;\;
p_{xy}^h = \frac{e^{-E(x_v, y_h)}}{\sum_h{e^{-E(x_v, h)}}}$$
The states $x$ and $y$ are parameterized as $x = (x_v, x_h)$ with visible ($x_v$) and hidden ($x_h$) portions. The individual transition probabilities $p^v_{xy}$ represent the probability of transitioning from state $x$ to state $y$, when only changing the visible states of $x$. Thus, the entry $p^v_{xy}$ in $\mathbf{P}_v$ is nonzero iff $x_h = y_h$.\
Starting with the convergence inequality from [@dobrushin1956].
$$|\mu P^n - \pi| \leq \frac{1}{2}|\mu - \pi| (\mathbf{\delta(P})^n$$ $$\mathbf{\delta(P)} = 1 - \inf_{x, y \in \{0, 1\}^N}\sum_{k\in \{0, 1\}^N}{\min(p_{xk}, p_{yk})}$$
From here, we can take further bounds on the ergodic coefficient: $$\mathbf{\delta(P)} \leq 1 - 2^N\inf_{x, y}p_{xy}$$
Defining $m_v(h) = \inf_{v \in \{0, 1\}^{N_v}}(E(v, h))$ and $m_h(v) = \inf_{h \in \{0, 1\}^{N_h}}(E(v, h))$, these represent the states with lowest transition probability from a given input state. The variables $N_v$ and $N_h$ represents the number of visible and hidden units respectively. $$p_{xy}^v = \frac{e^{-(E(y_v, x_h) - m_v(x))}}{\sum_v{e^{-(E(v, x_h) - m_v(x))}}} \geq \frac{e^{-\delta_v}}{2^{N_v}}$$ $$\delta_v = \sup_{h \in \{0, 1\}^{N_h}}{(|E(v', h) - E(v, h)|; v, v' \in \{0, 1\}^{N_v})}$$ $$p_{xy}^h = \frac{e^{-(E(x_v, y_h) - m_h(x))}}{\sum_h{e^{-(E(x_v, h) - m_h(x))}}} \geq \frac{e^{-\delta_h}}{2^{N_h}}$$ $$\delta_h = \sup_{v \in \{0, 1\}^{N_v}}{(|E(v, h') - E(v, h)|; h, h' \in \{0, 1\}^{N_h})}$$
In words, $\delta_v$ is the maximal energy difference between two states that have the same hidden states, and $\delta_h$ is the maximal energy difference between two states that have the same visible states. Using this definition, we can define
$$\inf_{x, y}p_{xy} \geq \frac{e^{-(\delta_v + \delta_h)}}{2^N} \geq \frac{e^{-2\Delta}}{2^N}$$ $$\Delta = \sup_{x,y\in \{0, 1\}^N} \{|E(x_v, x_h) - E(y_v, y_h))|\}$$
And finally $$\mathbf{\delta(P}) \leq 1 - 2^N \inf_{x, y}p_{xy} \leq 1 - e^{-2\Delta}$$ $$|\mu P^n - \pi| \leq \frac{1}{2}|\mu - \pi| (\mathbf{\delta(P}))^n \leq \frac{1}{2}|\mu - \pi| (1 - e^{-2\Delta})^n$$
Training {#sec:training}
--------
In this paper we trained the RBMs by contrastive divergence as described by @hinton_training_2002. Each of the models in this paper were validated by checking their performance on the problem they were trying to solve (i.e addition and subtraction for an adder, multiplication and factorization for a multiplier). This method was also used to assess model complexity (i.e number of hidden units) and evaluate learning parameters (learning rate, batch size, etc.). The final results for RBM sizes are shown below.\
Training was conducted on a computer with 2 Intel Xeon E5-2620 processors, and 2 Nvidia Titan V GPUs with 128Gb RAM. Each RBM was trained for 10 epochs, where an epoch was 4 copies of the full state space, with a learning rate of 1. After 10 epochs, the CDk of learning was increased to combat the worse mixing as the weight matrix increases, with an initial CDk of 2. This process was repeated until the test error stopped decreasing. In the case that the state space was too large to train on all of it (such as the 16 bit and 32 bit adders), a random sample of the training set was used, and a new random sample was reinitialized every epoch of training.\
[ccc]{} & &\
\
1 bit Adder & 6 & 1\
2 bit Adder & 28 & 13.5\
4 bit Adder & 64 & 133\
8 bit Adder & 96 & 201\
16 bit Adder & 128 & 321\
32 bit Adder & 192 & 13000 (approx)\
1 bit Multiplier & 4 & 1\
2 bit Multiplier & 12 & 46\
4 bit Multiplier & 64 & 655\
8 bit Multiplier & 96 & 2794\
The training time tends to increase with the number of bits in the adder or multiplier due to both the size of the data set (which increases exponentially with the number of bits) and the number of hidden and visible units (which both increase approximately linearly). The slower increase of training time for adders after the 4 bit adder is due to the usage of GPUs to increase the parallelism.\
At the 16 bit adder level, the size of the data set was so large that the entire data set could not be used for training ($\approx 8$ billion data points) and a randomized sample of the set had to be taken. As generalization is not perfect, we can attribute the decrease in their performance (as described in Figures \[fig:performance\] \[fig:FA32\] \[fig:FA64\]) to this fact. For the 32 bit adder, this problem was exacerbated, and the 32 bit adder was outperformed by most units even after training for a full week.\
For multipliers, the 8 bit multiplier has a tractable amount of data, but a good joint density model could not be formed even after a large training time. We believe this is due to an inherent difficult in the multiplication problem that is not present in the addition problem. As there is not as distinct of a correlation between higher level bits in the 8 bit multiplication problem as there is in the addition problem, first level correlations (as an RBM with 1 layer of hidden units would find) are more difficult to find. We believe that using deep boltzmann machines might help fix the problem of training in large multipliers.
Further Data {#sec:furtherData}
------------
![A comparison of probability of being correct vs. number of samples taken for a 64 bit adder unit composed of smaller merged units. It is clear from these figures that smaller bit units that can be trained better outperform larger, harder to train units. []{data-label="fig:FA64"}](FA64Compare.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
![A comparison of probability of being correct vs. number of samples taken for a 32 bit adder unit composed of smaller merged units compared to a fully trained model. The joint density model for the 32 bit adder is an intractable training problem due to the size of the data set ($2^{66}$ datapoints). []{data-label="fig:FA32"}](FA32Compare.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
![A comparison of probability of being correct vs. number of samples for an 16 bit multiplier unit. Here we compare using a fully trained unit, vs. composing it of 8 bit trained multiplier and adder units, vs. composing it with 8 bit directly calculated unit. The trained unit outperforms both of these units, even after extensive training of the 16 bit multiplier unit (see above \[sec:training\])[]{data-label="fig:Mult8"}](Mult8Compare.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
![An example output from a factorization problem for the merged 8 bit multiplier formed from 4 bit units. This is an example of the probability distribution generated by MCMC after 100000 samples. In this example, we are trying to find the coprimes that multiply to 35621. The factors it should find are 179 and 199, which it correctly identifies as the most likely factors. []{data-label="fig:factors"}](Mult8Factors.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
![A comparison of probability of being correct vs. number of samples for an 8 bit multiplier unit. Training of an 8 bit multiplier is a tractable problem, and we can see that both the trained and the directly calculated models outperform the merged models. This can be understood as a consequence of worse mixing present in the merged models. (see above \[sec:training\])[]{data-label="fig:Mult4"}](Mult4Compare.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We study the Wigner function for massive spin-1/2 fermions in electromagnetic fields. The covariant Wigner function is a four by four matrix function in 8-dimensional phase space $\{x^{\mu},p^{\mu}\}$, whose components give various physical quantities such as the particle distribution, the current density, and the spin distribution, etc.. The kinetic equations for the Wigner function are obtained from the Dirac equation. We derive the Dirac form equations with first order differential operators, as well as the Klein-Gordon form equations with second order differential operators, both are matrix equations in Dirac space. We prove that some component equations are automatically satisfied if the rest are fulfilled, which means both the Dirac form and the Klein-Gordon form equations have redundancy. In this thesis two methods are proposed for calculating the Wigner function, which are proved to be equivalent. In addition to the covariant Wigner function, the equal-time Wigner function will also be introduced. The equal-time one is a function of time and 6-dimensional phase space variables $\{\mathbf{x},\mathbf{p}\}$, which can be derived from the covariant one by taking an integration over energy $p^{0}$. The equal-time Wigner function is not Lorentz-covariant but it is a powerful tool to deal with dynamical problems. In this thesis, it is used to study the Schwinger pair-production in the presence of an electric field.
The Wigner function can be analytically calculated following the standard second-quantization procedure. We consider three cases: free fermions with or without chiral imbalance, and fermions in constant magnetic field with chiral imbalance. The computations are achieved via firstly deriving a set of orthonormal single-particle wavefunctions from the Dirac equation, then constructing the quantized field operator, and finally inserting the field operator into the Wigner function and determine the expectation values of operators under the wave-packet description. The Wigner functions are computed to leading order in spatial gradients. In Strong electric field the vacuum can decay into a pair of particle and anti-particle. The pair-production process is studied using the equal-time Wigner function. General solutions are obtained for pure constant electric fields and for constant parallel electromagnetic fields. We also solve the case of a Sauter-type electric field numerically.
For an arbitrary space-time dependent electromagnetic field, the Dirac equation does not have an analytical solution and neither has the Wigner function. A semi-classical expansion with respect to the reduced Planck’s constant $\hbar$ are performed for the Wigner function as well as the kinetic equations. We calculate the Wigner function (and all of its components equivalently) to leading order in $\hbar$, in which order the spin component start playing a role. Up to this order, the Wigner function contains four independent degrees of freedoms, three of which describe the polarization density and the remaining one describes the net particle number density. A generalized Bargmann-Michel-Telegdi (BMT) equation and a generalized Boltzmann equation are obtained for these undetermined parts, which can be used to construct spin-hydrodynamics in the future.
Using analytical results and semi-classical solutions, we compute physical quantities in thermal equilibrium. In semi-classical expansion, we introduce the chiral chemical potential $\mu_{5}$ in the thermal distribution. This naive treatment is straightforward extension of the massless case but provides a good estimate of physical quantities when $\mu_{5}$ is comparable or smaller than the typical energy scale, i.e., the temperature in a thermal system. Meanwhile, by making comparison of the results of the semi-classical expansion and the ones in a constant magnetic field, we find that the semi-classical method works well for the chiral effects, including the Chiral Magnetic Effect, the Chiral Separation Effect, as well as the energy flux along the direction of the magnetic field. But when the mass and chemical potentials are much larger than the temperature, the semi-classical results over estimate these chiral effects. The magnetic field strength dependence of physical quantities is discussed. If we fix the thermodynamical variables, the net fermion number density, energy density, and the longitudinal pressure are proportional to the field strength, while the axial-charge density and the transverse pressure are inversely proportional to it.
Schwinger pair-production rates in a thermal background are computed for a Sauter-type electric field and a constant parallel electromagnetic field, respectively. For the Sauter-type field, the total number of newly generated pairs is proportional to the field strength and the life time of the field. On the other hand, a parallel magnetic field will enhance the pair-production rate. Due to Pauli’s exclusion principle, the creation of pairs is forbidden for particles already exsiting in the same quantum state. Thus in both cases, the pair-production rate is proved to be inversely proportional to the chemical potential and temperature.
$\textbf{Keywords:}$ Wigner function, electromagnetic fields, chiral effect, pair-production.
author:
- 'Xin-li Sheng'
bibliography:
- 'References.bib'
date: '07/24/19'
title: 'Wigner function for spin-1/2 fermions in electromagnetic fields'
---
{width="18cm"}
In dieser Arbeit haben wir uns mit dem Wignerfunktionsansatz für Spin-1/2-Teilchen beschäftigt und diese Herangehensweise verwendet, um die chiralen Effekte und die Paarbildung in Gegenwart eines elektromagnetischen Feldes zu untersuchen. Die Wignerfunktion ist als Quasiverteilungsfunktion im Phasenraum definiert. Die Wignerfunktion ist eine komplexe $4 \times 4$-Matrix, die in die Generatoren der Clifford-Algebra $\Gamma_{i}$ zerlegt werden kann. Die Zerlegungskoeffizienten werden gemä[ß]{} ihrer Transformationseigenschaften unter Lorentz-Transformationen und Paritätsinversion jeweils als Skalar, Pseudoskalar, Vektor, Axialvektor und Tensor identifiziert. Sie können nach Integration über den Impuls mit verschiedenen Arten von makroskopischen physikalischen Grö[ß]{}en wie dem Fermionstrom, der Spinpolarisation und dem magnetischen Dipolmoment in Beziehung gesetzt werden. Sie werden also als die Dichten im Phasenraum interpretiert.
Da die Wignerfunktion mit Hilfe des Dirac-Feldes konstruiert wird, haben wir die kinetischen Gleichungen für die Wignerfunktion aus der Dirac-Gleichung erhalten. In dieser Arbeit haben wir die Dirac-Form-Gleichung abgeleitet, die im Differentialoperator linear ist. Daneben haben wir auch die Klein-Gordon-Form-Gleichung erhalten, die die Operatoren zur zweiten Ordnung enthält. Diese Gleichungen werden dann wie auch die Wignerfunktion selbst in $\Gamma_{i}$ zerlegt, sodass sie ein System mehrerer partieller Differentialgleichungen (PDG) liefern. Glücklicherweise sind die zerlegten Gleichungen nicht unabhängig voneinander. Durch Eliminieren der redundanten Gleichungen erhielten wir zwei Möglichkeiten, die Lösung für die Wignerfunktion im massiven Fall zu bestimmen. Diese Redundanz beruht auf der Tatsache, dass die Vektor- und Axialvektorkomponenten $\mathcal{V}^{\mu}$, $\mathcal{A}^{\mu}$ der Wignerfunktion in Form der Skalar-, Pseudoskalar- und Tensorkomponenten $\mathcal{F}$, $\mathcal{P}$, $\mathcal{S}^{\mu \nu}$ ausgedrückt werden können oder umgekehrt. Ein Ansatz zur Lösung des PDG-Systems besteht daher darin, $\mathcal{V}^{\mu}$, $\mathcal{A}^{\mu}$ als Basisfunktionen zu verwenden und sich auf ihre Massenschalenbedingungen zu konzentrieren. Daneben besteht der andere Ansatz darin, $\mathcal{F}$, $\mathcal{P}$, $\mathcal{S}^{\mu \nu}$ als Basisfunktionen zu verwenden. Durch eine Entwicklung in $\hbar$, die als semiklassische Entwicklung bezeichnet wird, haben wir die allgemeine Lösung der Wignerfunktion bis zur ersten Ordnung in $\hbar$ erhalten. Es hat sich gezeigt, dass die beiden oben genannten Ansätze zu dem gleichen Ergebnis führen und somit äquivalent sind. Die endgültige Lösung hat nur vier unabhängige Freiheitsgrade, was durch eine Eigenwertanalyse bewiesen wird. Zur Ordnung $\hbar$ wird die übliche Massenschale $p^{2}-m^{2}=0$ durch die spinmagnetische Kopplung verschoben.
Wir haben weiterhin die Wignerfunktion für den masselosen Fall durch eine semiklassische Entwicklung reproduziert. Im masselosen Fall können die Fermionen nach ihrer Chiralität in zwei Gruppen eingeteilt werden. Unter Verwendung von $\mathcal{V}^{\mu}$ und $\mathcal{A}^{\mu}$ konstruierten wir die linkshändigen und rechtshändigen Ströme, die zur Ordnung $\hbar$ bestimmt werden. Die übrigen Komponenten $\mathcal{F}$, $\mathcal{P}$, $\mathcal{S}^{\mu \nu}$ sind proportional zur Teilchenmasse und verschwinden somit im masselosen Limes. In dieser Arbeit haben wir eine direkte Beziehung zwischen den masselosen und massiven Strömen $\mathcal{V}^{\mu}$, $\mathcal{A}^{\mu}$ gefunden. Dies könnte darauf hinweisen, dass unsere massiven Ergebnisse allgemeiner sind als die chirale kinetische Theorie.
In dieser Arbeit haben wir mehrere analytisch lösbare Fälle diskutiert. In den folgenden drei Fällen konnten aus der Dirac-Gleichung analytisch Einteilchenwellenfunktionen bestimmt werden, aus denen die Wignerfunktion abgeleitet wird. Wir haben nur den Beitrag zur führenden Ordnung in räumlichen Gradienten der Wignerfunktionen aufgelistet, aber auch einen potentiellen Ansatz gefunden, um Beiträge höherer Ordnung abzuleiten.
1\. Quantisierung der ebenen Wellen: In diesem Fall enthält die Dirac-Gleichung keine äu[ß]{}ere Wechselwirkung und wird somit durch freie ebene Wellen gelöst. Die Ergebnisse dieses Ansatzes bilden den Grundstein für die Methode der semiklassischen Entwicklung: Sie dienen als Lösungen nullter Ordnung in $\hbar$, während solche höherer Ordnung automatisch Ordnung für Ordnung erscheinen.
2\. Chirale Quantisierung: In diesem Fall haben wir $\mu$ und $\mu_{5}$ als konstante Variablen für die Selbstenergie eingeführt. Diese Variablen tragen in Form von $\mu \hat{\mathbb{N}} + \mu_{5}\hat{\mathbb{N}}_{5}$ zum gesamten Hamiltonian bei, wobei $\hat{\mathbb{N}}$ und $\hat{\mathbb{N}}_{5}$ Operatoren für Teilchenzahl und Axialladungszahl sind. Im masselosen Limes konnten wir $\mu$ als das chemische Vektorpotential und $\mu_{5}$ als das chirale chemische Potential identifizieren. Wir betonen, dass das chirale chemische Potenzial im massiven Fall nicht wohldefiniert ist, da die konjugierte Grö[ß]{}e, die Axialladung, nicht erhalten ist. Im massiven Fall ist $\mu_{5}$ also nur eine Variable, die das Spin-Ungleichgewicht beschreibt. Der modifizierte Hamilton-Operator führt zu einer neuen Dirac-Gleichung, die gelöst werden könnte, wenn wir annehmen, dass $\mu$ und $\mu_{5}$ Konstanten sind. Die Wignerfunktion wird dann durch Einteilchenwellenfunktionen konstruiert. Da jedoch das Vorhandensein von $\mu$ und $\mu_{5}$ die Dirac-Gleichung ändert, müssen auch die kinetischen Gleichungen für die Wignerfunktion weiter modifiziert werden. Darüber hinaus können wir die Einteilchenlösung für allgemeine raum- / zeitabhängige $\mu$ und $\mu_{5}$ nicht erhalten. Die Methode der chiralen Quantisierung dient somit nur als Gegenprobe für die Methode der semiklassischen Entwicklung. Hier sind die elektromagnetischen Felder noch nicht enthalten.
3\. Landau-Quantisierung: Basierend auf dem Fall 2 führen wir weiterhin ein konstantes Magnetfeld ein. Die Energieniveaus werden dann durch die Landau-Niveaus mit Modifikation von den chemischen Potentialen $\mu$ und $\mu_{5}$ beschrieben. In diesem Fall können wir die Phänomene im Magnetfeld wie CME, CSE und anomalen Energiefluss explizit untersuchen. Da das Feld das Energiespektrum ändert, haben wir festgestellt, dass die Gesamtfermionzahldichte, die Energiedichte und der Druck von der Stärke des Magnetfelds abhängen.
Darüber hinaus haben wir basierend auf der Quantisierung der ebenen Wellen eine semiklassische Entwicklung in der reduzierten Plancksche Konstante $\hbar$ durchgeführt. Die Wignerfunktion wird dann bis zur Ordnung $\hbar$ gelöst. Man beachte, dass die Methode der semiklassischen Entwicklung für ein elektromagnetisches Feld mit beliebiger Raum-/Zeitabhängigkeit verwendet werden kann. Bei dieser Methode setzen wir $\mu$ und $\mu_{5}$ in die thermischen Gleichgewichtsverteilungen anstatt in die Hamilton-Verteilung ein und machen Gebrauch von der spezifischen Annahme, dass alle Fermionen in longitudinaler Richtung polarisiert sind. Dieses Verfahren stellt eine naive Erweiterungen des Verfahrens f ür den masselosen Fall dar. Numerische Berechnungen zeigen, dass die auf diese Weise erhaltene Gesamtfermionzahldichte und Axialladungsdichte mit denjenigen aus der chiralen Quantisierung übereinstimmen, wenn $\mu_{5}$ und Masse $m$ vergleichbar mit der oder kleiner als die Temperatur sind. Gleichzeitig zeigen die Energiedichten und Drücke bei diesen beiden Methoden ebenfalls Übereinstimmungen.
Neben den obigen drei analytisch lösbaren Fällen haben wir auch die Wignerfunktion im elektrischen Feld diskutiert. Basierend auf den Ergebnissen der Quantisierung der ebenen Wellen und der Landauquantisierung erhalten wir durch dynamische Betrachtungen jeweils Wignerfunktionen in Gegenwart eines konstanten elektrischen Feldes. Anschlie[ß]{}end werden Paarproduktionen berechnet, die, wie bewiesen wird, durch ein paralleles Magnetfeld verstärkt, durch Temperatur und chemisches Potential dagegen unterdrückt werden. Die Unterdrückung der Paarproduktion im thermischen System wird auf das Pauli’sch Ausschlussprinzip zurückgeführt.
Die Methode der semiklassischen Entwicklung bietet eine allgemeine Möglichkeit, die Spinkorrektur zu berechnen. Zu nullter Ordnung in $\hbar$ haben wir die klassische spinlose Boltzmann-Gleichung reproduziert. Zur Ordnung $\hbar$ treten automatisch Spinkorrekturen wie die Energieverschiebung durch spin-magnetische Kopplung auf. In dieser Arbeit haben wir eine allgemeine Boltzmann-Gleichung und eine allgemeine BMT-Gleichung erhalten, die jeweils die Entwicklungen der Teilchenverteilung und der Spinpolarisationsdichte bestimmen. Kollisionen zwischen Teilchen sind jedoch noch nicht enthalten. Nach der Methode der Momente könnten wir die semiklassischen Ergebnisse zu einer hydrodynamischen Beschreibung ausweiten, was unsere zukünftige Arbeit wäre. Allerdings erscheinen bei der Methode der semiklassischen Entwicklung die elektromagnetischen Felder zur Ordnung $\hbar$, was für den Limes schwacher Feldstärke gilt. Im Anfangsstadium von Schwerionenkollisionen ist die Magnetfeldstärke jedoch vergleichbar mit $m_{\pi}^{2}$. Auch in späteren Stadien können die Schwankungen der elektromagnetischen Felder $m_{\pi}^{2}$ erreichen. In der starken Laserphysik sind die elektromagnetischen Felder von erheblicher Stärke, aber es gibt fast keine Teilchen. Ob die semiklassische Entwicklung in diesen Fällen eingesetzt werden kann oder nicht, bedarf einer genaueren Diskussion. Die Untersuchungen des konstanten Magnetfeldes in dieser Arbeit können als Ausgangspunkt der kinetischen Theorie in einem starken Hintergrundfeld dienen.
Eine weitere mögliche Erweiterung dieser Arbeit ist die Axialladungserzeugung. Bei Vorhandensein paralleler elektrischer und magnetischer Felder erzeugt das elektrische Feld Teilchenpaare aus dem Vakuum und die neu erzeugten Paare werden durch das Magnetfeld polarisiert. Infolgedessen trägt die Paarproduktion auf dem niedrigsten Landau-Niveau zur axialen Ladungsdichte bei. Die Realzeitaxialladungserzeugung von massiven Teilchen im thermischen Hintergrund wurde noch nicht gelöst. Und der Wignerfunktionsansatz in dieser Arbeit könnte einen möglichen Zugang zu diesem Ziel liefern.
$\ $
Introduction
============
Chiral effects and pair-production
----------------------------------
The quark-gluon plasma (QGP) is a new state of matter created in relativistic heavy-ion collisions. It is the hot and dense matter of strong interaction governed by quantum chromodynamics (QCD). The universe is in the QGP phase in its early stage. Thus creating and studying the QGP helps us to better understand both the properties of QCD and the evolution of the universe. There are two big collider experiments for heavy-ion collisions that are running in the world: the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN [@LHC:website] and the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) at BNL [@RHIC:website]. There are also other colliders under construction: the Facility for Antiproton and Ion Research (FAIR) at GSI [@FAIR:website], Nuclotron-based Ion Collider fAcility (NICA) at Dubna, etc..
The evolution of the QGP is dominated by the strong interaction. The interaction rate is sufficiently large such that the plasma reaches hydrodynamization rapidly after its generation [@Busza:2018rrf]. Here, hydrodynamization means the QGP can be accurately described by relativistic hydrodynamics. In non-central collisions, a strong magnetic field is generated by the fast-moving protons. The field strength depends on the type of colliding nuclei and the center-of-mass collision energy. For example, in Au+Au collisions at RHIC with collision energy $\sqrt{s}=200\mathrm{GeV}$ per nucleon, the magnetic field can reach several $m_{\pi}^{2}\sim10^{18}\mathrm{G}$ [@Skokov:2009qp; @Bzdak:2011yy; @Voronyuk:2011jd; @Deng:2012pc], which is the strongest field that humans have ever made. The magnetic field decays quickly because it is mainly generated by the spectators which move far away from the interaction region soon after the collision moment. Most simulations use the Lienard-Wiechert potential, developed by A. M Lienard in 1898 and E. Wiechert in 1900, to describe the electromagnetic field of a moving point charge in vacuum. However, the QGP is a conducting medium, with the conductivity having been calculated via lattice QCD [@Ding:2010ga; @Aarts:2014nba] and holographic models [@Finazzo:2013efa]. A non-vanishing electrical conductivity will significantly extend the life-time of the magnetic field [@McLerran:2013hla; @Tuchin:2013apa]. Recently, an analytical formula has been derived for the electromagnetic field generated by a moving point charge in a medium with constant electrical conductivity $\sigma$ and chiral magnetic conductivity $\sigma_{\chi}$ [@Tuchin:2014iua; @Li:2016tel], which can serve for numerical simulations in the future.
For massless particles, the chirality operator is commutable with the Hamiltonian. One can then separate the massless particles into the right-handed (RH) ones and left-handed (LH) ones according to their chirality. In the QGP, an imbalance between RH and LH particles can be generated by topological fluctuations of the gluonic sector, fluctuations of the quark sector, or glasma flux tubes [@Kharzeev:2001ev; @Kharzeev:2004ey; @Kharzeev:2007tn; @Kharzeev:2007jp; @Fukushima:2010vw]. The corresponding thermodynamic states can be specified by a chiral chemical potential $\mu_{5}$, which is defined as the parameter conjugate to the topological charge. A nonzero topological charge breaks the charge-parity symmetry locally and induces a charge current along the direction of the magnetic field, i.e. Chiral Magnetic Effect (CME) [@Vilenkin:1980fu; @Kharzeev:2007jp; @Fukushima:2008xe]. The CME can also be understood through Landau quantization: In the presence of a magnetic field, charged particles will occupy energy states with specific spin and orbital angular momentum, which are called Landau levels. The ground state, i.e., the lowest Landau level is occupied by positively charged particles whose spins are parallel to the magnetic field, or negatively charged particles whose spins are anti-parallel to the magnetic field. Such a spin configuration is required by the principle of minimum energy. Because of the nonzero topological charge, the momentum of positively (or negatively) charged particle has a preference direction with respect to its spin and thus generates a collective current. The CME is proportional to the magnetic field and the chiral chemical potential $\mu_{5}$ [@Fukushima:2008xe; @Landsteiner:2012kd], $$\mathbf{J}=\frac{\mu_{5}}{2\pi^{2}}q\mathbf{B},$$ where $q$ is the electric charge of particles. For systems with multiple species of particles, we need to take a sum over all species.
In heavy-ion collision experiments, the chiral imbalance can be spontaneously generated in the initial stage of the collision [@Kharzeev:2001ev; @Kharzeev:2004ey; @Kharzeev:2007tn; @Kharzeev:2007jp; @Fukushima:2010vw; @Hirono:2014oda]. Thus, the CME is expected to be observed in non-central collisions through the azimuthal distribution of charge [@Voloshin:2004vk], $$\frac{dN}{d\phi}\propto1+2\sum_{n}\left\{ v_{n}\cos\left[n\left(\phi-\Psi_{\text{RP}}\right)\right]+a_{n}\sin\left[n\left(\phi-\Psi_{\text{RP}}\right)\right]\right\} ,$$ where $v_{n}$ and $a_{n}$ denote the parity-even and parity-odd Fourier coefficients and $\phi-\Psi_{\text{RP}}$ is the azimuthal angle with respect to the reaction plane. In experiments, the reaction plane cannot be detected directly, thus in practice we use the event plane $\Psi_{\text{EP}}$ as an approximation. Here the event plane is determined by the beam direction and the direction of maximal energy density. The CME was first expected to be observed through the charge correlation [@Voloshin:2004vk; @Abelev:2009ac], $$\gamma_{\alpha\beta}=\left\langle \cos\left(\phi_{\alpha}+\phi_{\beta}-2\Psi_{\text{EP}}\right)\right\rangle ,$$ where $\alpha,\ \beta$ denote particles with the same or opposite charge sign and $\left\langle \cdots\right\rangle $ means average over all the particles. Moreover, the determination of the event plane is not necessary: $\Psi_{\text{EP}}$ can be replaced by a third particle, which gives the three-particle correlation [@Voloshin:2004vk; @Abelev:2009ad], $$\gamma_{\alpha\beta}=\frac{1}{v_{2,c}}\left\langle \cos\left(\phi_{\alpha}+\phi_{\beta}-2\phi_{c}\right)\right\rangle .$$ In the CME, the correlation for the same charge sign is observed to be positive while that for the opposite sign is negative, at RHIC [@Abelev:2009ad; @Abelev:2009ac; @Adamczyk:2014mzf] and at LHC [@Abelev:2012pa; @Khachatryan:2016got; @Acharya:2017fau]. However, these correlation functions have significant background contributions from the cluster particle correlations [@Wang:2009kd] and the coupling between local charge conservation and $v_{2}$ of the QGP [@Schlichting:2010qia]. Meanwhile, the difference between same-charge-sign correlations and opposite-charge-sign correlations, $\Delta\gamma\equiv\gamma_{SS}-\gamma_{OS}$, are of the same magnitude in Pb+Pb and p+Pb collisions at LHC [@Khachatryan:2016got]. This is a challenge for the CME interpretation of the charge correlation because the magnetic field in p+Pb collisions is expected to be much smaller than in Pb+Pb collisions. On the other hand, the direction of magnetic field is random with respect to the reaction plane in p+Pb collisions according to the Glauber Monte Carlo simulation [@Alver:2008aq; @Khachatryan:2016got], thus the event-by-event average of the CME contribution is expected to be small, which indicates that the large part of observables measured in Pb+Pb collisions may come from the background instead of the CME. Various new methods are proposed to isolate the CME from the background [@Skokov:2016yrj; @Zhao:2017nfq; @Magdy:2017yje; @Xu:2017qfs]. Isobaric collisions have been proposed at RHIC for this purpose [@Skokov:2016yrj]. The isobars are chosen to be $\,_{44}^{96}\text{Ru}$+$\,_{44}^{96}\text{Ru}$ and $\,_{40}^{96}\text{Zr}$+$\,_{40}^{96}\text{Zr}$ since they have the same nucleon number but different proton number. Due to different proton numbers in collisions of two isobars, the magnetic field would be $10\%$ different and so is the CME signal, while the backgrounds are expected to be of the same magnitude because they are dominated by the strong interaction. Thus, the isobaric collisions would provide controlled experiment for the CME [@Skokov:2016yrj].
In non-central collisions, the colliding nuclei carry large orbital angular momentum. For example, the total angular momentum is about $10^{6}\hbar$ for Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=200$ GeV and $b=10$ fm [@Becattini:2007sr; @Deng:2016gyh]. Most of the total orbital momentum will be taken away by spectators while about 10% is left in the QGP [@Deng:2016gyh]. The rotation of QGP can be described by a kinematic vorticity $\boldsymbol{\omega}=\frac{1}{2}\boldsymbol{\nabla}\times\mathbf{v}$, where $\mathbf{v}$ is the fluid velocity. Analogous to the CME, the vorticity can also induce an electrical current along its direction because of the spin-orbit coupling, which is known as the Chiral Vortical Effect (CVE) [@Banerjee:2008th; @Son:2009tf]. In the massless case, $2/3$ of the total CVE is attributed to the magnetization current and the remaining $1/3$ is attributed to the modified particle distribution because of the spin-vorticity coupling [@Becattini:2013fla; @Chen:2014cla; @Gao:2018jsi]. Since the CVE is blind to the charge, it can induce a separation of baryons. Thus, the CVE is expected to be detected through baryon-baryon correlations [@Kharzeev:2010gr; @Zhao:2014aja].
Because of the spin-magnetic-field and spin-vorticity couplings, both the magnetic field and vorticity can polarize particles, known as the Chiral Separation Effect (CSE) [@Son:2004tq; @Metlitski:2005pr] and the Axial Chiral Vortical Effect (ACVE) [@Banerjee:2008th; @Erdmenger:2008rm; @Son:2009tf]. Note that these two effects exist even if the chiral imbalance vanishes, i.e. $\mu_{5}=0$. The ACVE can induce a global polarization of hyperons, which has been observed through the polarization of $\Lambda$ hyperon at STAR [@STAR:2017ckg; @Adam:2018ivw]. Here the $\Lambda$ decays into proton and $\pi^{-}$ through weak interaction, which breaks the parity symmetry. The spin of the $\Lambda$ can then be detected by the azimuthal distribution of daughter protons.
Since the CME depends on the axial-charge imbalance and induces an electrical current, while the CSE depends on the electrical charge imbalance and induces an axial current, the interplay between the CME and the CSE will generate a propagating wave along the direction of the magnetic field, the so-called Chiral Magnetic Wave [@Kharzeev:2010gd]. Analogously, the interplay between the CVE and the ACVE excites collective flow along the vorticity called the Chiral Vortical Wave [@Jiang:2015cva].
In the past few years, a lot of progress has been made in the chiral effects in heavy-ion collisions, see e.g. Ref. [@Kharzeev:2015znc; @Huang:2015oca] for a recent review. Note that the QGP is a complicated many-particle system, in which the chiral conductivities receive many corrections [@Jensen:2013vta; @Gorbar:2013upa]. Thus a self-consistent kinetic theory is needed for numerical simulations. Recent works along this line include the kinetic theory with Berry curvature [@Son:2012zy; @Son:2012bg; @Son:2012wh; @Chen:2012ca; @Chen:2013iga], the Chiral Kinetic Theory [@Stephanov:2012ki; @Chen:2015gta; @Hidaka:2016yjf; @Hidaka:2017auj; @Gao:2017gfq; @Huang:2018wdl], and Anomalous Hydrodynamics [@Son:2009tf; @Neiman:2010zi; @Kharzeev:2011ds; @Hirono:2014oda; @Hidaka:2017auj; @Gorbar:2017toh; @Florkowski:2017ruc] but most of these works are for massless particles. Even through the $u,d$ quarks are almost massless compared with the typical temperature of the QGP, the $s$ quarks are quite massive. The Wigner-function method in this thesis provides a possible way to develop the kinetic theory for massive spin-1/2 particles [@Gao:2019znl; @Weickgenannt:2019dks; @Hattori:2019ahi; @Wang:2019moi].
In addition to the physics related to the magnetic field and vorticity, we also study the effects of the strong electric field in the QGP. This electric field is induced by the fast decreasing magnetic field according to the Maxwell’s equation. It is of the same magnitude as the magnetic field and both of them are sufficiently large in the initial stage of heavy-ion collisions, see Refs. [@Deng:2012pc; @Li:2016tel] for some numerical simulations. In a strong electric field, the QED vacuum becomes unstable due to fermion/anti-fermion pair-production, the so-called Schwinger process [@Schwinger:1951nm]. The pair-production rate was first derived by Julian Schwinger in 1951 via quantum field theory [@Schwinger:1951nm] and then reproduced through various kinds of methods, such as the WKB method [@Brezin:1970xf; @Popov:1971iga; @Popov:1973az], instanton method [@Affleck:1981bma; @Kim:2000un; @Dunne:2006ur], holographic method [@Ambjorn:2011wz; @Sato:2013pxa; @Sato:2013dwa], and the Wigner-function method [@BialynickiBirula:1991tx; @Hebenstreit:2010vz; @Kohlfurst:2015niu; @Kohlfurst:2017git; @Sheng:2018jwf]. The pair-production process can be analytically solved for a constant electric field $\mathbf{E}(t)=\mathbf{E}_{0}$ or a Sauter-type field $\mathbf{E}(t)=\mathbf{E}_{0}\text{sech}^{2}(t/\tau)$ using the quantum kinetic theory [@Smolyansky:1997fc; @Kluger:1998bm]. In heavy-ion collisions, the electric field strongly depends on the space and time. One may estimate the pair-production rate via firstly dividing the whole space into small cells, and then applying the pair-production rate for constant electric field in each cell. However, in the instanton method [@Dunne:2005sx], one can show that spatial inhomogeneities tend to suppress the pair-production while the temporal ones tend to enhance it. Thus it is difficult to judge whether the constant-field approximation overestimates or underestimates the total pair-production rate. Some methods such as the Wigner-function method [@Hebenstreit:2010vz; @BialynickiBirula:2011uh; @Kohlfurst:2015niu; @Kohlfurst:2017git; @Sheng:2018jwf] can deal with space- and time-dependent electric fields, but one has to solve a system of non-linear partial differential equations. Thanks to the development of computing power, the pair-production for more general field configurations becomes numerically solvable [@Blinne:2013via; @Berenyi:2013eia; @Kasper:2014uaa; @Buyens:2016hhu].
Moreover, the thermal background and strong magnetic field makes the calculation of pair-production more challenging in a medium than in the vacuum. In a thermal system, the existing particles prohibit the creation of new particles with the same quantum number because of the Pauli exclusion principle. Thus the pair-production will be suppressed in thermal systems [@Gies:1999vb; @Kim:2007ra; @Kim:2008em; @Gould:2017fve; @Sheng:2018jwf]. Meanwhile, the magnetic field can increase the pair-production rate if it is parallel to the electric field. This enhancement has been analytically shown many years ago through the proper-time method [@Nikishov:1969tt; @Bunkin:1970iz; @Popov:1971iga] and recently been reproduced in string theory [@Lu:2017tnm; @Lu:2018nsc], holographic theory [@Cai:2016jgr], and the Wigner function approach [@Sheng:2018jwf]. On the other hand, due to the fact that particles in the lowest Landau level behave like chiral fermions, the pair-production in parallel electromagnetic fields is related to the production of axial charge [@Fukushima:2010vw; @Cai:2016jgr; @Copinger:2018ftr] and to the pseudoscalar condensation [@Cao:2015cka; @Fang:2016uds].
Non-central heavy-ion collisions always lead to strong electromagnetic fields. The study of fermions (quarks) in an electromagnetic field will help us to better understand the early-stage evolution of the QGP. In central collisions, the event-by-event average of the field is zero but its fluctuation is sufficiently large [@Deng:2012pc]. Although the chiral effects and the pair-production, have been extensively studied for many years, they have not yet been fully understood in terms of experimental observables. For example, how to extract the very weak signal out of large backgrounds is still unsolved [@Skokov:2016yrj; @Zhao:2017nfq; @Magdy:2017yje; @Xu:2017qfs]. As another example, the $\Lambda$ polarization in the longitudinal and the transverse directions: the results of hydrodynamical calculation [@Becattini:2017gcx; @Wei:2018zfb; @Xia:2018tes] have opposite sign with respect to the experiment data [@Adam:2018ivw; @Adam:2019srw]. Thus deeper and more extensive studies about fermions in electromagnetic and vorticity fields are necessary in the frontier of high-energy physics.
Wigner-function method
----------------------
In classical statistical theory, a multi-particle system is described by a classical particle distribution $f(t,\mathbf{x},\mathbf{p})$, as a function of the time $t$, the spatial coordinates $\mathbf{x}$, and the 3-momentum $\mathbf{p}$ of the particle. This description is valid because the spatial position and 3-momentum of a classical particle can be determined simultaneously to arbitrary precision. However, in quantum mechanics, the classical distribution $f(t,\mathbf{x},\mathbf{p})$ is not well-defined because Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle states that the more precisely the momentum of one particle is determined, the more uncertainty is its position, and vice versa. This principle was firstly proposed by Werner Heisenberg [@aHeisenberg:1927zz] in 1927 and then mathematically derived by Earle Kennard [@kennard1927quantenmechanik] and Hermann Weyl [@weyl1928gruppentheorie], $$\sigma_{x}\sigma_{p}\geq\frac{\hbar}{2},\label{eq:Heisenberg uncertainty principle}$$ where $\sigma_{x(p)}$ is the standard deviation when measuring the position $x$ or the momentum $p$, and $\hbar$ is the reduced Planck’s constant. In 1932, Eugene Wigner introduced a quasi-probability distribution to study quantum statistical mechanics [@Wigner:1932eb], which is now called the Wigner function (or Wigner quasi-probability distribution). The Wigner function is derived from a two-point correlation function by taking the Fourier transform with respect to the distance between the two points, so the Wigner function is a function in phase space $\left\{ x^{\mu},p^{\mu}\right\} $. The spatial densities of physical observables can be derived form the Wigner function by integrating over the 4-momentum $p^{\mu}$[@Vasak:1987um]. A more detailed discussion of the Wigner function will be presented in Sec. \[subsec:Definition-of-Wigner\]. For spin-1/2 particles, the Wigner function is defined using the Dirac field operator, thus the kinetic equations for the Wigner function can be derived from the Dirac equation without loss of generality [@Vasak:1987um].
The Wigner function can be analytically computed only in very limited cases, such as in constant electromagnetic fields [@Hebenstreit:2010vz; @Gorbar:2017awz; @Sheng:2017lfu; @Sheng:2018jwf]. Meanwhile, the numerical calculation is challenging because the parameter space is $8$-dimensional, which is too large for finite-difference methods. A general way to deal with the Wigner function is to treat the space-time derivative and electromagnetic field as small quantities and expand all the Wigner function as well as all the operators in terms of $\hbar$. This method is known as the semi-classical expansion [@Vasak:1987um; @Zhuang:1995pd]. Since $\hbar$ is the unit of the angular momentum, the expansion in $\hbar$ is also an expansion in spin. Up to $\mathcal{O}(\hbar)$, general solutions for the Wigner function have been obtained, in both the massless [@Gao:2012ix; @Chen:2012ca; @Hidaka:2016yjf; @Huang:2018wdl] and the massive [@Gao:2019znl; @Weickgenannt:2019dks; @Hattori:2019ahi; @Wang:2019moi] case. In the massless case, the Chiral Kinetic Theory can be obtained from the Wigner-function approach [@Hidaka:2016yjf; @Hidaka:2017auj; @Gao:2017gfq; @Huang:2018wdl]. The chiral effects are successfully reproduced at the order $\mathcal{O}(\hbar)$ [@Gao:2012ix; @Chen:2012ca; @Hidaka:2016yjf; @Gao:2017gfq; @Huang:2018wdl]. In the massive case, kinetic equations are obtained which agree with the relativistic Boltzmann-Vlasov equation and the Bargmann-Michel-Telegdi (BMT) equation in the classical limit [@Gao:2019znl; @Weickgenannt:2019dks; @Hattori:2019ahi; @Wang:2019moi] and recover the Chiral Kinetic Theory in the massless limit [@Weickgenannt:2019dks; @Hattori:2019ahi; @Wang:2019moi].
On the other hand, the equal-time Wigner function can be derived from the covariant one by integrating out the energy $p^{0}$ [@BialynickiBirula:1991tx; @Zhuang:1998bqx; @Gorbar:2017awz]. The equal-time formula only depends on $\left\{ t,\mathbf{x},\mathbf{p}\right\} $, thus is suitable for time-dependent problems, such as out-of-equilibrium physics [@Guo:2017dzf] and pair-production [@Hebenstreit:2010vz; @BialynickiBirula:2011uh; @Kohlfurst:2015niu; @Kohlfurst:2017git; @Sheng:2018jwf].
System of units, notations and conventions\[subsec:System-of-Units,\]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In this subsection, we declare the system of units, notations and conventions we will use throughout this thesis. In the International System of Units (SI), the reduced Planck’s constant, the speed of light, and the electron volt are $$[\hbar]=[kg\cdot m^{2}\cdot s^{-1}],\ \ [c]=[m\cdot s^{-1}],\ \ [\text{eV}]=[kg\cdot m^{2}\cdot s^{-2}].\label{eq:SI units}$$ Here the square bracket $[\cdots]$ represents the unit or the dimension, and $m$, $kg$, $s$ are meter, kilogram and second, the unit of mass, length, and time, respectively. On the other hand, from Eq. (\[eq:SI units\]), we can express the units of mass, length and time in terms of $\hbar$, $c$ and eV, $$[kg]=[c^{-2}\cdot\text{eV}],\ \ [m]=[\hbar\cdot c\cdot\text{eV}^{-1}],\ \ [s]=[\hbar^{2}\cdot c\cdot\text{eV}^{-2}].$$ Natural units are convenient to us, in which the units of physical quantities are selected as physical constants. For example, the speed of light is the natural unit of speed. In natural units, the values of the reduced Planck’s constant $\hbar$ and the speed of light $c$ are set to $1$, while the unit of energy is set to eV. In SI units, the unit of any physical quantity can be expressed as $m^{a}\cdot s^{b}\cdot kg^{c}$, with some rational numbers $a,\ b,\ c$. Then it can be rewritten as $\mathrm{eV}^{c-a-2b}$ in natural units, where $\hbar$ and $c$ are hidden because they are set to $1$. If we consider, for example, a charged particle in a static electric field, the unit of electric force is given by $$[qE]=[kg\cdot m\cdot s^{-2}]=[\hbar^{-1}\cdot c^{-1}\cdot\text{eV}^{2}].$$ Thus in natural units, $qE$ has the unit of energy squared, $\text{eV}^{2}$. Here $q$ denotes the charge of the particles considered. As a convention, $q$ always comes in front of the gauge potential $\mathbb{A}^{\mu}$, electric and magnetic fields $E^{\mu}$, $B^{\mu}$ and the field strength tensor $F^{\mu\nu}$. In the thesis, we only consider charged fermions of one species, where the charge of fermions is $+1$ (and $-1$ for anti-fermions). Thus we can absorb the charge $q$ in the definition of the electromagnetic field tensor $F^{\mu\nu}$ and the gauge potential $\mathbb{A}^{\mu}$.
Since the spin has the unit of $\hbar$, we will use $\hbar$ as a parameter to label its quantum nature. In the calculation of the Wigner function, we will recover $\hbar$ in Sec. \[sec:Overview-of-Wigner\] and treat $\hbar$ as an expansion parameter in Sec. \[sec:Semi-classical-expansion\]. This method is already known as the semi-classical expansion [@Vasak:1987um; @Zhuang:1995pd], which at leading order in $\hbar$ can reproduce the classical results.
Throughout this thesis, we assume the mass $m$ of a particle is constant. We use natural units $\hbar=c=k_{B}=1$ but show $\hbar$ explicitly in Sec. \[sec:Semi-classical-expansion\] since $\hbar$ is used as a parameter for power-counting in that section. We work in Minkowski space with the metric tensor $g^{\mu\nu}=\text{diag}(1,-1,-1,-1)$ and the Levi-Civita symbol $\epsilon^{0123}=-\epsilon_{0123}=1$. We use bold symbols such as $\mathbf{p}$ to represent 3-dimensional vectors. The electromagnetic potential is denoted by $\mathbb{A}^{\mu}$ in order to distinguish it from the axial-vector component of the Wigner function. The electric charge $q$ is set to $+1$ for fermions and $-1$ for anti-fermions and thus $q$ will be hidden in this thesis. The operators in the Dirac theory, such as the Dirac field operator, the Hamiltonian operator, etc., are denoted with hat. Meanwhile, operators constructed by the space-time derivative $\partial_{x}^{\mu}$ and the momentum derivative $\partial_{p}^{\mu}$ are denoted without hat. The components of a Lorentz vector are labeled by $\left\{ 0,x,y,z\right\} $, for example, the 4-momentum is denoted as $p^{\mu}=(p^{0},p^{x},p^{y},p^{z})^{T}$. Sometime we use the transpose operation to change a 4-momentum in the line vector into a column vector. In this thesis we also used $M^{-1}$ to denote the inverse of the matrix $M$. The unit matrix is denoted by $\mathbb{I}_{n}$, with $n$ being the dimension of the matrix.
Outline
-------
In this thesis we will first give an overview of the Wigner-function method in Sec. \[sec:Overview-of-Wigner\]. This section includes the definition of the covariant Wigner function and its kinetic equations. Two kinds of kinetic equations are obtained, one of which is the analog of the Dirac equation and the other one is the analog of the Klein-Gordon equation. These equations are differential equations of first order and second order in time, respectively. The Wigner function, as well as its kinetic equations, are then decomposed in terms of the generators of the Clifford algebra, i.e., the gamma matrices $\{\mathbb{I}_{4},\ i\gamma^{5},\ \gamma^{\mu},\ \gamma^{5}\gamma^{\mu},\ \frac{1}{2}\sigma^{\mu\nu}\}$. The equal-time Wigner function is also introduced in Sec. \[sec:Overview-of-Wigner\]. In Sec. \[sec:Analytically-solvable-cases\] we focus on several analytically solvable cases:
1. Free fermions, without electromagnetic field and without chiral imbalance.
2. Without electromagnetic field, but a chiral imbalance is introduced in the Dirac equation as a self-energy correction.
3. A constant magnetic field, otherwise as in case 2.
4. A constant electric field, otherwise as in case 1.
5. Constant electromagnetic fields added to case 1, where the electric and magnetic fields are assumed to be parallel to each other.
In the cases 1, 2, and 3, the Dirac equation has analytical single-particle solutions, which are then used to derive the Wigner functions. Note that the magnetic field and the additional self-energy term break the Lorentz symmetry. For example, if we take a Lorentz boost along the direction perpendicular to the magnetic field, we find that an electric field automatically appears in the new frame. That is, the magnetic field itself is not Lorentz covariant. Meanwhile, chemical potentials also breaks the Lorentz covariance. So for cases 2 and 3, we are working in specific frames in which the chemical potential $\mu$ is the conjugate parameter for the net particle number and $\mu_{5}$ is the one for the axial charge. In the presence of an electric field, i.e., cases 4 and 5, the existing particles will be accelerated and new fermion/anti-fermion pairs will be excited from the vacuum. Thus systems in an electric field are evolving over time and the equal-time Wigner function is used for these systems. In Sec. \[sec:Analytically-solvable-cases\] we analytically solve the Wigner function for the case of a constant electric field. Meanwhile in subsection \[subsec:Solutions-for-Sauter-type\] we numerically calculate the solution for a Sauter-type electric field $E(t)=E_{0}\text{sech}^{2}(t/\tau)$. A more general field configuration is considered in Sec. \[sec:Semi-classical-expansion\] using the method of semi-classical expansion. Solutions are obtained up to order $\hbar$ for both massless and massive particles. In Sec. \[sec:Physical quantities\] we relate the Wigner function with several physical quantities such as the net fermion current, spin polarization, energy-momentum tensor, etc.. The analytical results from Sec. \[sec:Analytically-solvable-cases\] are used under a thermal-equilibrium assumption. The physical quantities show a dependence with respect to the thermodynamical variables and the magnetic field. Different methods are used and compared with each other, which show both coincidences and differences. pair-production is also discussed in Sec. \[sec:Physical quantities\]. The results show that the magnetic field enhances the pair-production rate, while the thermal background suppresses it. A summary and outlook of this thesis are given in Sec. \[sec:Summary\]. In App. \[sec:Gamma-matrices\] we listed the gamma matrices and their properties. Other useful auxiliary functions are discussed in App. \[sec:Auxiliary-functions\], which appear when dealing with the Wigner function in constant electromagnetic fields. In App. \[sec:Wave-packet-description\] we present the standard wave-packet description for a quantum particle, which will be used when solving the Wigner function. The relation between the pair-production rate and the Wigner function is derived from a quantum field description in App. \[sec:Pair-production-in\].
$\ $
Overview of Wigner function\[sec:Overview-of-Wigner\]
=====================================================
Definition of Wigner function \[subsec:Definition-of-Wigner\]
-------------------------------------------------------------
In quantum mechanics, the space-time position $x^{\mu}$ and the 4-momentum $p^{\mu}$ cannot be specified simultaneously for a single particle, which is a straightforward consequence of the Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle [@aHeisenberg:1927zz; @kennard1927quantenmechanik; @weyl1928gruppentheorie]. Thus, the classical particle distribution function $f(t,\mathbf{x},\mathbf{p})$ is not well-defined in the quantum case. In order to find a proper way to describe quantum kinetics, we first consider a system of two particles, whose space-time coordinate operators are $\hat{x}_{1}^{\mu}$ and $\hat{x}_{2}^{\mu}$ and 4-momentum operators are $\hat{p}_{1}^{\mu}$ and $\hat{p}_{2}^{\mu}$, respectively. The uncertainty principle gives the following relations $$\left[\hat{x}_{a}^{\mu},\,\hat{p}_{b}^{\nu}\right]=-i\hbar g^{\mu\nu}\delta_{ab},\ \ \left[\hat{x}_{a}^{\mu},\,\hat{x}_{b}^{\nu}\right]=0,\ \ \left[\hat{p}_{a}^{\mu},\,\hat{p}_{b}^{\nu}\right]=0.\label{eq:commutators of two particles}$$ where $a,b=1,2$. We now define the center position and the relative momentum as $$\hat{x}^{\mu}\equiv\frac{1}{2}\left(\hat{x}_{1}^{\mu}+\hat{x}_{2}^{\mu}\right),\ \ \hat{p}^{\mu}\equiv\frac{1}{2}\left(\hat{p}_{1}^{\mu}-\hat{p}_{2}^{\mu}\right).$$ Then using the commutators in Eq. (\[eq:commutators of two particles\]) we can check that these two quantities are commutable with each other $$\left[\hat{x}^{\mu},\,\hat{p}^{\nu}\right]=0,\ \ \left[\hat{x}^{\mu},\,\hat{x}^{\nu}\right]=0,\ \ \left[\hat{p}^{\mu},\,\hat{p}^{\nu}\right]=0.$$ Thus according to the uncertainty principle, even if we can not determine the position and momentum simultaneously for each particle, the center position and relative momentum can specified simultaneously. Meanwhile, the relative position and the total momentum are defined as $$\hat{y}^{\mu}\equiv\hat{x}_{1}^{\mu}-\hat{x}_{2}^{\mu},\ \ \hat{q}^{\mu}\equiv\hat{p}_{1}^{\mu}+\hat{p}_{2}^{\mu}.$$ These operators also commute with each other $$\left[\hat{y}^{\mu},\,\hat{q}^{\nu}\right]=0,\ \ \left[\hat{y}^{\mu},\,\hat{y}^{\nu}\right]=0,\ \ \left[\hat{q}^{\mu},\,\hat{q}^{\nu}\right]=0,$$ and thus they are not constrained by the uncertainty principle. On the other hand, we have the following commutators $$\left[\hat{y}^{\mu},\,\hat{p}^{\nu}\right]=\left[\hat{x}^{\mu},\,\hat{q}^{\nu}\right]=-i\hbar g^{\mu\nu}\delta_{ab},$$ which indicates that the relative momentum is the conjugate variable of the relative position, while the total momentum is the conjugate variable of the center position.
The Wigner operator for a free Dirac field is defined from the two-point correlation function [@Wigner:1932eb], $$\hat{\mathcal{W}}_{\mathrm{free}}(x,p)\equiv\int\frac{d^{4}y}{(2\pi)^{4}}\exp\left(-iy^{\mu}p_{\mu}\right)\hat{\bar{\psi}}\left(x+\frac{y}{2}\right)\otimes\hat{\psi}\left(x-\frac{y}{2}\right),\label{def:free Wigner operator}$$ where the operator $\otimes$ represents the tensor product and $\hat{\psi}$ is the Dirac field operator. In this definition, the two field operators are defined at two different space-time points, $x^{\mu}\pm\frac{y^{\mu}}{2}$, where $x^{\mu}$ the center position and $y^{\mu}$ the relative position. A Fourier transform is taken with respect to $y^{\mu}$, whose conjugate momentum $p_{\mu}$ can be identified as the relative momentum of two fields in classical mechanics. According to discussion in previous paragraph, $p^{\mu}$ and $x^{\mu}$ can be determined simultaneously. Thus the Wigner operator is a well-defined quasi-distribution in phase-space $\{x^{\mu},p^{\mu}\}$. We will show in Sec. \[sec:Analytically-solvable-cases\] that the Wigner function is related to the classical distribution $f(t,\mathbf{x},\mathbf{p})$ at leading order in spatial gradients.
Note that the Wigner operator defined in Eq. (\[def:free Wigner operator\]) is not gauge-invariant. Under a local gauge transformation $\theta(x)$, the field operators transform as follows, $$\hat{\psi}\left(x-\frac{y}{2}\right)\rightarrow e^{i\theta(x-y/2)}\hat{\psi}\left(x-\frac{y}{2}\right),\ \ \hat{\bar{\psi}}\left(x+\frac{y}{2}\right)\rightarrow e^{-i\theta(x+y/2)}\hat{\bar{\psi}}\left(x+\frac{y}{2}\right),$$ and the Wigner operator transforms as $$\hat{\mathcal{W}}_{\mathrm{free}}(x,p)\rightarrow\exp\left[i\theta(x-y/2)-i\theta(x+y/2)\right]\hat{\mathcal{W}}_{\mathrm{free}}(x,p).$$ The exponential factor is not $1$ for general local transformation with $\theta(x-y/2)\neq\theta(x+y/2)$. Thus the Wigner operator in Eq. (\[def:free Wigner operator\]) is not gauge-invariant. In order to define a gauge-invariant quantity, we first express the Dirac field at the position $x-\frac{y}{2}$ in a Taylor expansion as follows, $$\hat{\psi}\left(x-\frac{y}{2}\right)=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{1}{n!}\left(-\frac{1}{2}y_{\mu}\partial_{x}^{\mu}\right)^{n}\hat{\psi}(x)=\exp\left(-\frac{1}{2}y_{\mu}\partial_{x}^{\mu}\right)\hat{\psi}(x).$$ In the presence of an electromagnetic field, we replace the ordinary derivative $\partial_{x}^{\mu}$ by the covariant one $D_{x}^{\mu}=\partial_{x}^{\mu}+i\mathbb{A}^{\mu}$ so that the gauge invariance is automatically ensured. Here $\mathbb{A}^{\mu}$ is the four-vector potential of the electromagnetic field. Inserting the field operator into Eq. (\[def:free Wigner operator\]), we define the following Wigner operator, $$\hat{\mathcal{W}}(x,p)\equiv\int\frac{d^{4}x}{(2\pi)^{4}}\exp\left(-iy^{\mu}p_{\mu}\right)\left[\exp\left(\frac{1}{2}y_{\mu}D_{x}^{\mu}\right)\hat{\psi}(x)\right]^{\dagger}\gamma^{0}\otimes\left[\exp\left(-\frac{1}{2}y_{\mu}D_{x}^{\mu}\right)\hat{\psi}(x)\right],\label{def:covariant Wigner function}$$ which is covariant and gauge-invariant.
Now we define the gauge link between two space-time points $$U(x_{2},x_{1})=\exp\left[-i\int_{x_{1}}^{x_{2}}dx^{\mu}\mathbb{A}_{\mu}(x)\right],$$ where the path of integration is taken as a straight line between two points. Then we obtain the gauge link between $x^{\mu}-\frac{1}{2}y^{\mu}$ and $x^{\mu}+\frac{1}{2}y^{\mu}$, $$U\left(x+\frac{y}{2},\,x-\frac{y}{2}\right)=\exp\left[-iy^{\mu}\int_{-1/2}^{1/2}ds\mathbb{A}_{\mu}(x+sy)\right],\label{eq:gauge link}$$ We can prove $$e^{\frac{1}{2}y_{\mu}D_{x}^{\mu}}=U\left(x,\,x+\frac{y}{2}\right)e^{\frac{1}{2}y_{\mu}\partial_{x}^{\mu}},\label{eq:gauge link relation}$$ with the help of two auxiliary functions $$\begin{aligned}
f(s) & \equiv & e^{sy_{\mu}D_{x}^{\mu}},\nonumber \\
g(s) & \equiv & U\left(x,\,x+sy\right)e^{sy_{\mu}\partial_{x}^{\mu}}.\label{def:auxiliary functions for gauge link}\end{aligned}$$ Their derivatives with respect to the parameter $s$ are
$$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d}{ds}f(s) & = & f(s)y_{\nu}D_{x}^{\nu},\nonumber \\
\frac{d}{ds}g(s) & = & U\left(x,\,x+sy\right)e^{sy_{\mu}\partial_{x}^{\mu}}y_{\nu}\partial_{x}^{\nu}+\left[\frac{d}{ds}U\left(x,\,x+sy\right)\right]e^{sy_{\mu}\partial_{x}^{\mu}}\nonumber \\
& = & U\left(x,\,x+sy\right)\left\{ e^{sy_{\mu}\partial_{x}^{\mu}}y_{\nu}\partial_{x}^{\nu}+\left[iy^{\nu}\mathbb{A}_{\nu}(x+sy)\right]e^{sy_{\mu}\partial_{x}^{\mu}}\right\} \nonumber \\
& = & g(s)y_{\nu}D_{x}^{\nu},\end{aligned}$$
which means the two functions defined in Eq. (\[def:auxiliary functions for gauge link\]) satisfy the same differential equation. Furthermore they also share the same value at point $s=0$, we conclude that they are equivalent for arbitrary $s$. Equation (\[eq:gauge link relation\]) is then proved by taking $s=\frac{1}{2}$. Substituting Eq. (\[eq:gauge link relation\]) into Eq. (\[def:covariant Wigner function\]), we obtain another form of the Wigner operator $$\hat{\mathcal{W}}(x,p)=\int\frac{d^{4}y}{(2\pi)^{4}}\exp\left(-iy^{\mu}p_{\mu}\right)U\left(x+\frac{y}{2},\,x-\frac{y}{2}\right)\hat{\bar{\psi}}\left(x+\frac{y}{2}\right)\otimes\hat{\psi}\left(x-\frac{y}{2}\right).$$ The Wigner function is then derived by taking the expectation value of the Wigner operator on the physical state of the system $|\Omega\rangle$ $$W(x,p)=\int\frac{d^{4}y}{(2\pi)^{4}}\exp\left(-iy^{\mu}p_{\mu}\right)U\left(x+\frac{y}{2},\,x-\frac{y}{2}\right)\left\langle \Omega\left|\hat{\bar{\psi}}\left(x+\frac{y}{2}\right)\otimes\hat{\psi}\left(x-\frac{y}{2}\right)\right|\Omega\right\rangle .\label{def:Wigner function}$$ Note that here we have taken the gauge link out of the expectation value. We treat the gauge field (i.e., the electromagnetic field in this thesis) as a classical C-number field, while the fermionic field as a quantum field. This is known as the Hartree approximation, which is valid when higher-loop corrections are negligible or the field is large enough.
The Wigner function in Eq. (\[def:Wigner function\]) is not Hermitian but it transforms as $$W^{\dagger}=\gamma^{0}W\gamma^{0},\label{prop:Hermitian property of Wigner}$$ which is the same as the property (\[eq:Cliddord algebra\]) of the generators of the Clifford algebra $\Gamma_{i}=\{\mathbb{I}_{4},\ i\gamma^{5},\ \gamma^{\mu},\ \gamma^{5}\gamma^{\mu},\ \frac{1}{2}\sigma^{\mu\nu}\}$, where $\sigma^{\mu\nu}=\frac{i}{2}\left[\gamma^{\mu},\gamma^{\nu}\right]$ and $\gamma^{5}=i\gamma^{0}\gamma^{1}\gamma^{2}\gamma^{3}$. Thus the Wigner function can be expanded in terms of $\Gamma_{i}$, $$W(x,p)=\frac{1}{4}\left(\mathbb{I}_{4}\mathcal{F}+i\gamma^{5}\mathcal{P}+\gamma^{\mu}\mathcal{V}_{\mu}+\gamma^{5}\gamma^{\mu}\mathcal{A}_{\mu}+\frac{1}{2}\sigma^{\mu\nu}\mathcal{S}_{\mu\nu}\right).\label{def:Wigner function decomposition}$$ The Wigner function has 16 independent components because it is a complex $4\times4$ matrix and Eq. (\[prop:Hermitian property of Wigner\]) provides 16 constraints, which correspond to $\Gamma_{i}$. Inserting the decomposition (\[def:Wigner function decomposition\]) into Eq. (\[prop:Hermitian property of Wigner\]) and using the property (\[eq:Cliddord algebra\]) of $\Gamma_{i}$, one can prove that all the coefficients in Eq. (\[def:Wigner function decomposition\]) are real functions.
The expansion coefficients can be derived from the Wigner function by multiplying the corresponding generators and then taking the trace, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{F} & = & \mathrm{Tr}(W),\nonumber \\
\mathcal{P} & = & -\mathrm{Tr}(i\gamma^{5}W),\nonumber \\
\mathcal{V}^{\mu} & = & \mathrm{Tr}(\gamma^{\mu}W),\nonumber \\
\mathcal{A}^{\mu} & = & \mathrm{Tr}(\gamma^{\mu}\gamma^{5}W),\nonumber \\
\mathcal{S}^{\mu\nu} & = & \mathrm{Tr}(\sigma^{\mu\nu}W).\label{eq:reproduce components of Wigner funtion}\end{aligned}$$ The tensor component is anti-symmetric and has 6 independent members. We can equivalently introduce two vector functions $$\mathcal{\boldsymbol{T}}=\frac{1}{2}\mathbf{e}_{i}\left(\mathcal{S}^{i0}-\mathcal{S}^{0i}\right),\ \ \mathcal{\boldsymbol{S}}=\frac{1}{2}\epsilon_{ijk}\mathbf{e}_{i}\mathcal{S}_{jk}.$$ By Lorentz and parity transformations, $\mathcal{F}$, $\mathcal{P}$, $\mathcal{V}^{\mu}$, $\mathcal{A}^{\mu}$, $\mathcal{S}^{\mu\nu}$ are the scalar, pseudo-scalar, vector, axial-vector, and tensor, respectively. The properties under charge conjugation, parity and time reversal are shown in Tab. \[tab:Transformation-properties\]. It has been shown in Ref. [@Vasak:1987um] that some components in Eq. (\[def:Wigner function decomposition\]) have obvious physical meaning. For example, the vector component is the fermion number current density and the axial-vector component is the polarization density. The physical meanings are listed in Tab. \[tab:Physical meanings\]. We will have a more detailed discussion in Sec. (\[sec:Physical quantities\]).
$\mathcal{F}(t,\mathbf{x})$ $\mathcal{P}(t,\mathbf{x})$ $\mathcal{V}_{\mu}(t,\mathbf{x})$ $\mathcal{A}_{\mu}(t,\mathbf{x})$ $\mathcal{S}_{\mu\nu}(t,\mathbf{x})$
----- ------------------------------- ------------------------------- -------------------------------------- -------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------
C $\mathcal{F}(t,\mathbf{x})$ $\mathcal{P}(t,\mathbf{x})$ $-\mathcal{V}_{\mu}(t,\mathbf{x})$ $\mathcal{A}_{\mu}(t,\mathbf{x})$ $-\mathcal{S}_{\mu\nu}(t,\mathbf{x})$
P $\mathcal{F}(t,-\mathbf{x})$ $-\mathcal{P}(t,-\mathbf{x})$ $\mathcal{V}_{\mu}(t,-\mathbf{x})$ $-\mathcal{A}_{\mu}(t,-\mathbf{x})$ $\mathcal{S}_{\mu\nu}(t,-\mathbf{x})$
T $\mathcal{F}(-t,\mathbf{x})$ $-\mathcal{P}(-t,\mathbf{x})$ $\mathcal{V}_{\mu}(-t,\mathbf{x})$ $\mathcal{A}_{\mu}(-t,\mathbf{x})$ $-\mathcal{S}_{\mu\nu}(-t,\mathbf{x})$
CPT $\mathcal{F}(-t,-\mathbf{x})$ $\mathcal{P}(-t,-\mathbf{x})$ $-\mathcal{V}_{\mu}(-t,-\mathbf{x})$ $-\mathcal{A}_{\mu}(-t,-\mathbf{x})$ $\mathcal{S}_{\mu\nu}(-t,-\mathbf{x})$
: Transformation properties of the components of the Wigner function under charge conjugation (C), parity (P), and time reversal (T). The dependence on the momentum $p^{\mu}$ is suppressed here.[]{data-label="tab:Transformation-properties"}
Component Physical meaning (distribution in phase space)
---------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------
$\mathcal{F}$ Mass
$\mathcal{P}$ Pesudoscalar condensate
$\mathcal{V}^{\mu}$ Net fermion current
$\mathcal{A}^{\mu}$ Polarization (or spin current, or axial-charge current)
$\mathcal{\boldsymbol{T}}$ Electric dipole-moment
$\mathcal{\boldsymbol{S}}$ Magnetic dipole-moment
: Physical meaning of the components of the Wigner function.[]{data-label="tab:Physical meanings"}
Equations for the Wigner function
----------------------------------
In this subsection we will derive kinetic equations for the Wigner function. The Wigner function is defined in Eq. (\[def:Wigner function\]) for spin-1/2 fermions, whose kinetic equation will be derived from the Dirac equation and its conjugate,
$$\begin{aligned}
[i\gamma^{\mu}(\overrightarrow{\partial}_{x\mu}+i\mathbb{A}_{\mu})-m\mathbb{I}_{4}]\psi & = & 0,\nonumber \\
\bar{\psi}[i\gamma^{\mu}(\overleftarrow{\partial}{}_{x\mu}-i\mathbb{A}_{\mu})+m\mathbb{I}_{4}] & = & 0.\label{eq:Dirac equation and conjugate}\end{aligned}$$
Note that we have adopted the Hartree approximation, in which the electromagnetic field is assumed to be a classical field instead of a quantum one. In these equations, $\psi$ and $\bar{\psi}$ represent either the field or the field operators after second quantization.
### Dirac form
In order to derive a Dirac form kinetic equation with the first order in the time derivative, we first act with $i\gamma^{\sigma}\partial_{x\sigma}$ on Eq. (\[def:Wigner function\]), $$\begin{aligned}
& & i\gamma^{\sigma}\partial_{x\sigma}W(x,p)\nonumber \\
& = & i\gamma^{\sigma}\int\frac{d^{4}y}{(2\pi)^{4}}\exp\left(-iy^{\mu}p_{\mu}\right)\left[\partial_{x\sigma}U\left(x+\frac{y}{2},\,x-\frac{y}{2}\right)\right]\left\langle \Omega\left|\hat{\bar{\psi}}\left(x+\frac{y}{2}\right)\otimes\hat{\psi}\left(x-\frac{y}{2}\right)\right|\Omega\right\rangle \nonumber \\
& & +\int\frac{d^{4}y}{(2\pi)^{4}}\exp\left(-iy^{\mu}p_{\mu}\right)U\left(x+\frac{y}{2},\,x-\frac{y}{2}\right)\left\langle \Omega\left|\left[\partial_{x\sigma}\hat{\bar{\psi}}\left(x+\frac{y}{2}\right)\right]\otimes i\gamma^{\sigma}\hat{\psi}\left(x-\frac{y}{2}\right)\right|\Omega\right\rangle \nonumber \\
& & +\int\frac{d^{4}y}{(2\pi)^{4}}\exp\left(-iy^{\mu}p_{\mu}\right)U\left(x+\frac{y}{2},\,x-\frac{y}{2}\right)\left\langle \Omega\left|\hat{\bar{\psi}}\left(x+\frac{y}{2}\right)\otimes\left[i\gamma^{\sigma}\partial_{x\sigma}\hat{\psi}\left(x-\frac{y}{2}\right)\right]\right|\Omega\right\rangle .\nonumber \\
\label{eq:i=00005Cgamma=00005CpartialW}\end{aligned}$$ In the second and third lines we have used the following property of the tensor product to put the gamma matrix into the expectation value, $$A(B\otimes C)=B\otimes(AC).$$ With this property, the operator $i\gamma^{\sigma}\partial_{x\sigma}$ in the last line of Eq. (\[eq:i=00005Cgamma=00005CpartialW\]) directly acts on $\psi\left(x-\frac{y}{2}\right)$ and thus the Dirac equation can be used for further simplification. On the other hand, the conjugate of the Dirac equation in Eq. (\[eq:Dirac equation and conjugate\]) cannot be directly used to simplify the second line of Eq. (\[eq:i=00005Cgamma=00005CpartialW\]) because $\gamma^{\sigma}$ does not come with $\partial_{x\sigma}\bar{\psi}\left(x+\frac{y}{2}\right)$. However, since the field operator $\hat{\bar{\psi}}\left(x+\frac{y}{2}\right)$ depends on $x^{\mu}+\frac{1}{2}y^{\mu}$, we can replace the derivative with respect to $x^{\mu}$ by that with respect to $y^{\mu}$, $$\partial_{x\sigma}\hat{\bar{\psi}}\left(x+\frac{y}{2}\right)=2\partial_{y\sigma}\hat{\bar{\psi}}\left(x+\frac{y}{2}\right).$$ Inserting this into Eq. (\[eq:i=00005Cgamma=00005CpartialW\]) and integrating by parts, we obtain
$$\begin{aligned}
i\gamma^{\sigma}\partial_{x\sigma}W(x,p) & = & -2\gamma^{\sigma}p_{\sigma}W(x,p)\nonumber \\
& & +i\gamma^{\sigma}\int\frac{d^{4}y}{(2\pi)^{4}}\exp\left(-iy^{\mu}p_{\mu}\right)\left[\left(\partial_{x\sigma}-2\partial_{y\sigma}\right)U\left(x+\frac{y}{2},\,x-\frac{y}{2}\right)\right]\nonumber \\
& & \quad\times\left\langle \Omega\left|\hat{\bar{\psi}}\left(x+\frac{y}{2}\right)\otimes\hat{\psi}\left(x-\frac{y}{2}\right)\right|\Omega\right\rangle \nonumber \\
& & +2\int\frac{d^{4}y}{(2\pi)^{4}}\exp\left(-iy^{\mu}p_{\mu}\right)U\left(x+\frac{y}{2},\,x-\frac{y}{2}\right)\nonumber \\
& & \quad\times\left\langle \Omega\left|\hat{\bar{\psi}}\left(x+\frac{y}{2}\right)\otimes\left[i\gamma^{\sigma}\partial_{x\sigma}\hat{\psi}\left(x-\frac{y}{2}\right)\right]\right|\Omega\right\rangle .\label{eq:after integrating by parts}\end{aligned}$$
Here we have dropped the boundary term which is assumed to vanish if we take an infinitely large volume. Now the Dirac equation (\[eq:Dirac equation and conjugate\]) can be used to further simplify the last term in Eq. (\[eq:after integrating by parts\]), $$\begin{aligned}
i\gamma^{\sigma}\partial_{x\sigma}W(x,p) & = & -2\gamma^{\sigma}p_{\sigma}W(x,p)+2m\mathbb{I}_{4}W(x,p)\nonumber \\
& & +\gamma^{\sigma}\int\frac{d^{4}y}{(2\pi)^{4}}\exp\left(-iy^{\mu}p_{\mu}\right)\left\langle \Omega\left|\hat{\bar{\psi}}\left(x+\frac{y}{2}\right)\otimes\hat{\psi}\left(x-\frac{y}{2}\right)\right|\Omega\right\rangle \nonumber \\
& & \quad\times\left[i\left(\partial_{x\sigma}-2\partial_{y\sigma}\right)+2\mathbb{A}_{\sigma}\left(x-\frac{y}{2}\right)\right]U\left(x+\frac{y}{2},\,x-\frac{y}{2}\right).\label{eq:kin equation 0}\end{aligned}$$ Using the definition of the gauge link in Eq. (\[eq:gauge link\]), we can explicitly calculate the derivative of the gauge link,
$$\begin{aligned}
& & \left[i\left(\partial_{x\sigma}-2\partial_{y\sigma}\right)+2\mathbb{A}_{\sigma}\left(x-\frac{y}{2}\right)\right]U\left(x+\frac{y}{2},\,x-\frac{y}{2}\right)\nonumber \\
& = & U\left(x+\frac{y}{2},\,x-\frac{y}{2}\right)\left[y^{\mu}\int_{-1/2}^{1/2}ds(1-2s)F_{\sigma\mu}(x+sy)\right].\label{eq:derivative of gauge link}\end{aligned}$$
Inserting Eq. (\[eq:derivative of gauge link\]) into Eq. (\[eq:kin equation 0\]) we can obtain $$\begin{aligned}
i\gamma^{\sigma}\partial_{x\sigma}W(x,p) & = & -2(\gamma^{\sigma}p_{\sigma}-m\mathbb{I}_{4})W(x,p)\nonumber \\
& & +\gamma^{\sigma}\int\frac{d^{4}y}{(2\pi)^{4}}\exp\left(-iy^{\mu}p_{\mu}\right)y^{\rho}\int_{-1/2}^{1/2}ds(1-2s)F_{\sigma\rho}(x+sy)\nonumber \\
& & \quad\times U\left(x+\frac{y}{2},\,x-\frac{y}{2}\right)\left\langle \Omega\left|\hat{\bar{\psi}}\left(x+\frac{y}{2}\right)\otimes\hat{\psi}\left(x-\frac{y}{2}\right)\right|\Omega\right\rangle .\end{aligned}$$ Due to the phase factor $\exp\left(-iy^{\mu}p_{\mu}\right)$, the relative coordinate $y^{\rho}$ can be replaced by the momentum derivative $i\partial_{p}^{\rho}$. Furthermore, the integral over the field tensor can be calculated using a Taylor expansion $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{-1/2}^{1/2}ds(1-2s)F_{\sigma\rho}(x+sy) & = & \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{1}{n!}(y^{\nu}\partial_{x\nu})^{n}F_{\sigma\rho}(x)\int_{-1/2}^{1/2}ds(1-2s)s^{n}\nonumber \\
& = & \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{1+(-1)^{n}(3+2n)}{(n+2)!2^{n+1}}(y^{\nu}\partial_{x\nu})^{n}F_{\sigma\mu}(x)\nonumber \\
& = & \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{1+(-1)^{n}(3+2n)}{(n+2)!2^{n+1}}(i\partial_{p}^{\nu}\partial_{x\nu})^{n}F_{\sigma\rho}(x).\end{aligned}$$ We now separate the even and odd terms in the series expansion, so the above formula can be written in a more concise form,
$$\begin{aligned}
& & \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{1+(-1)^{n}(3+2n)}{(n+2)!2^{n+1}}(i\partial_{p}^{\nu}\partial_{x\nu})^{n}\nonumber \\
& & \qquad\qquad=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{(-1)^{n}}{(2n+1)!2^{2n}}(\partial_{p}^{\nu}\partial_{x\nu})^{2n}-i\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{(-1)^{n}}{(2n+3)(2n+1)!2^{2n+1}}(\partial_{p}^{\nu}\partial_{x\nu})^{2n+1}\nonumber \\
& & \qquad\qquad=j_{0}\left(\frac{1}{2}\partial_{p}^{\nu}\partial_{x\nu}\right)-i\,j_{1}\left(\frac{1}{2}\partial_{p}^{\nu}\partial_{x\nu}\right),\end{aligned}$$
where the following spherical Bessel functions were used $$j_{0}(x)=\frac{\sin x}{x},\ \ j_{1}(x)=\frac{\sin x-x\cos x}{x^{2}}.$$ Thus we finally obtain the following kinetic equation $$\begin{aligned}
i\gamma^{\sigma}\partial_{x\sigma}W(x,p) & = & -2(\gamma^{\sigma}p_{\sigma}-m\mathbb{I}_{4})W(x,p)\nonumber \\
& & +i\gamma^{\sigma}\left[j_{0}\left(\frac{1}{2}\partial_{p}^{\nu}\partial_{x\nu}\right)F_{\sigma\rho}(x)-i\,j_{1}\left(\frac{1}{2}\partial_{p}^{\nu}\partial_{x\nu}\right)F_{\sigma\rho}(x)\right]\partial_{p}^{\rho}W(x,p).\end{aligned}$$ Defining the following operators $$\begin{aligned}
K^{\mu} & \equiv & \Pi^{\mu}+\frac{i}{2}\nabla^{\mu},\nonumber \\
\Pi^{\mu} & \equiv & p^{\mu}-\frac{1}{2}j_{1}(\Delta)F^{\mu\nu}(x)\partial_{p\nu},\nonumber \\
\nabla^{\mu} & \equiv & \partial_{x}^{\mu}-j_{0}(\Delta)F^{\mu\nu}(x)\partial_{p\nu},\label{def:operators K^=00005Cmu}\end{aligned}$$ with $\Delta\equiv\frac{1}{2}\partial_{p}^{\nu}\partial_{x\nu}$, the kinetic equation for the Wigner function can be written in a compact form, $$(\gamma^{\mu}K_{\mu}-m\mathbb{I}_{4})W(x,p)=0,\label{eq:Dirac equation for Wigner}$$ We note that the derivative $\partial_{x\nu}$ in the operator $\Delta$ only acts on $F^{\mu\nu}(x)$ but not on the Wigner function. The operators $\Pi^{\mu}$ and $\nabla^{\mu}$ are generalized 4-momentum and spatial-derivative operators, respectively, which can be reduced to the ordinary ones without the electromagnetic field. In the limit of vanishing electromagnetic field, the equation for the Wigner function in Eq. (\[eq:Dirac equation for Wigner\]) takes the same form as the Dirac equation. Note that Eq. (\[eq:Dirac equation for Wigner\]) is first order in space-time derivatives. Thus, in the remainder part of the thesis, we call Eq. (\[eq:Dirac equation for Wigner\]) the Dirac-form kinetic equation for the Wigner function.
Note that in Sec. \[sec:Semi-classical-expansion\] we will expand the Wigner function in powers of the Planck’s constant. To this end, we will show $\hbar$ explicitly. Recalling the discussions about natural units in Sec. \[subsec:System-of-Units,\], the product of $p^{\mu}$ and $x_{\mu}$ has the unit of $\hbar$. The field strength $F^{\mu\nu}$ has the unit $[kg\cdot m\cdot s^{-2}]$ in the SI units, thus $F^{\mu\nu}(x)\partial_{p\nu}$ has the unit $[s^{-1}]$. In order to make sure $K^{\mu}$ has the unit of momentum and $\Delta$ is unit-less, we recover $\hbar$ as follows, $$\begin{aligned}
K^{\mu} & \equiv & \Pi^{\mu}+\frac{i\hbar}{2}\nabla^{\mu},\nonumber \\
\Pi^{\mu} & \equiv & p^{\mu}-\frac{\hbar}{2}j_{1}(\Delta)F^{\mu\nu}(x)\partial_{p\nu},\nonumber \\
\nabla^{\mu} & \equiv & \partial_{x}^{\mu}-j_{0}(\Delta)F^{\mu\nu}(x)\partial_{p\nu},\label{def:operators Kmu with hbar}\end{aligned}$$ with the operator $\Delta\equiv\frac{\hbar}{2}\partial_{p}^{\nu}\partial_{x\nu}$.
### Klein-Gordon form
In the previous part of this subsection, we have derived the Dirac-form kinetic equation (\[eq:Dirac equation for Wigner\]), which is of first order in space-time derivatives. A second-order equation can be obtained by multiplying the Dirac-form equation (\[eq:Dirac equation for Wigner\]) with $\gamma^{\mu}K_{\mu}+m$ and using the following relation, $$\gamma^{\mu}\gamma^{\nu}=\frac{1}{2}\left\{ \gamma^{\mu},\gamma^{\nu}\right\} +\frac{1}{2}\left[\gamma^{\mu},\gamma^{\nu}\right]=g^{\mu\nu}-i\sigma^{\mu\nu}.$$ Then the new kinetic equation, which is called the Klein-Gordon-form kinetic equation, reads,
$$\left(K^{\mu}K_{\mu}-\frac{i}{2}\sigma^{\mu\nu}\left[K_{\mu},K_{\nu}\right]-m^{2}\right)W(x,p)=0,\label{eq:K-G equation for Wigner}$$
where $K^{\mu}$ is defined in Eq. (\[def:operators K\^=00005Cmu\]). Since both the Wigner function and the operators are complex matrices, taking the Hermitian conjugate of Eq. (\[eq:K-G equation for Wigner\]) and using the property (\[prop:Hermitian property of Wigner\]) of the Wigner function, we obtain the conjugate equation
$$\left[\left(K^{\mu}K_{\mu}\right)^{\ast}-m^{2}\right]W(x,p)+\frac{i}{2}\left[K_{\mu},K_{\nu}\right]^{\ast}W(x,p)\sigma^{\mu\nu}=0.\label{eq:Conjugate K-G equation}$$
Since $K^{\mu}$ is complex, one can separate the real and imaginary parts of $K^{\mu}K_{\mu}$ and $\left[K_{\mu},K_{\nu}\right]$ as $K^{\mu}K_{\mu}=\Re K^{2}+i\Im K^{2}$ and $[K_{\mu},K_{\nu}]=\Re K_{\mu\nu}+i\Im K_{\mu\nu}$. We will give the explicit expressions for these operators later. The Klein-Gordon-form equation (\[eq:K-G equation for Wigner\]) and its conjugate (\[eq:Conjugate K-G equation\]) now become $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\Re K^{2}-m^{2}\right)W+i\Im K^{2}W-\frac{i}{2}\Re K_{\mu\nu}\sigma^{\mu\nu}W+\frac{1}{2}\Im K_{\mu\nu}\sigma^{\mu\nu}W & = & 0,\nonumber \\
\left(\Re K^{2}-m^{2}\right)W-i\Im K^{2}W+\frac{i}{2}\Re K_{\mu\nu}W\sigma^{\mu\nu}+\frac{1}{2}\Im K_{\mu\nu}W\sigma^{\mu\nu} & = & 0.\end{aligned}$$ Note that the above two equations should be satisfied simultaneously. Thus we can form linear combinations by taking the sum and the difference,
$$\begin{aligned}
\left(\Re K^{2}-m^{2}\right)W-\frac{i}{4}\Re K_{\mu\nu}\left[\sigma^{\mu\nu},W\right]+\frac{1}{4}\Im K_{\mu\nu}\left\{ \sigma^{\mu\nu},W\right\} & = & 0,\nonumber \\
\Im K^{2}W-\frac{1}{4}\Re K_{\mu\nu}\left\{ \sigma^{\mu\nu},W\right\} -\frac{i}{4}\Im K_{\mu\nu}\left[\sigma^{\mu\nu},W\right] & = & 0.\label{eq:on-shell and Vlasov equations}\end{aligned}$$
The first equation obviously depends on the mass while the second one does not. These equations are the generalized on-shell condition and the Vlasov equation, respectively.
The operator $K^{\mu}$ is the linear combination of the generalized momentum operator $\Pi^{\mu}$ and the generalized space-time derivative operator $\nabla^{\mu}$, as defined in Eq. (\[def:operators Kmu with hbar\]). Using the operators $\Pi^{\mu}$ and $\nabla^{\mu}$, we obtain
$$\begin{aligned}
K^{\mu}K_{\mu} & = & \Pi^{\mu}\Pi_{\mu}-\frac{\hbar^{2}}{4}\nabla^{\mu}\nabla_{\mu}+\frac{i\hbar}{2}\left\{ \nabla^{\mu},\Pi_{\mu}\right\} ,\nonumber \\
\left[K_{\mu},K_{\nu}\right] & = & -\frac{\hbar^{2}}{4}\left[\nabla_{\mu},\nabla_{\nu}\right]+\left[\Pi_{\mu},\Pi_{\nu}\right]+\frac{i\hbar}{2}\left(\left[\Pi_{\mu},\nabla_{\nu}\right]-\left[\Pi_{\nu},\nabla_{\mu}\right]\right).\end{aligned}$$
Since both $\Pi^{\mu}$ and $\nabla^{\mu}$ are real-defined operators, one can read off the real and imaginary parts $$\begin{aligned}
\Re K^{2} & \equiv & \Pi^{\mu}\Pi_{\mu}-\frac{\hbar^{2}}{4}\nabla^{\mu}\nabla_{\mu},\nonumber \\
\Im K^{2} & \equiv & \frac{\hbar}{2}\left\{ \nabla^{\mu},\Pi_{\mu}\right\} ,\nonumber \\
\Re K_{\mu\nu} & \equiv & -\frac{\hbar^{2}}{4}\left[\nabla_{\mu},\nabla_{\nu}\right]+\left[\Pi_{\mu},\Pi_{\nu}\right],\nonumber \\
\Im K_{\mu\nu} & \equiv & \frac{\hbar}{2}\left(\left[\Pi_{\mu},\nabla_{\nu}\right]-\left[\Pi_{\nu},\nabla_{\mu}\right]\right).\label{eq:real and imaginary parts of second order operators}\end{aligned}$$ More detailed calculations give
$$\begin{aligned}
\Re K^{2} & = & p_{\mu}p^{\mu}-\frac{\hbar^{2}}{4}\partial_{x\mu}\partial_{x}^{\mu}-\hbar p^{\mu}\left[j_{1}(\triangle)F_{\mu\nu}\right]\partial_{p}^{\nu}\nonumber \\
& & +\frac{\hbar^{2}}{2}\left[j_{0}(\triangle)F_{\mu\nu}\right]\partial_{p}^{\nu}\left\{ \partial_{x}^{\mu}-\frac{1}{2}\left[j_{0}(\triangle)F^{\mu\alpha}\right]\partial_{p,\alpha}\right\} \nonumber \\
& & -\frac{\hbar^{2}}{4}\left\{ \left[j_{1}^{\prime}(\triangle)-j_{0}(\triangle)\right]\partial_{x}^{\mu}F_{\mu\nu}\right\} \partial_{p}^{\nu}\nonumber \\
& & +\frac{\hbar^{2}}{4}[j_{1}(\triangle)F_{\mu\nu}][j_{1}(\triangle)F^{\mu\alpha}]\partial_{p}^{\nu}\partial_{p,\alpha},\nonumber \\
\Im K^{2} & = & \hbar p_{\mu}\left\{ \partial_{x}^{\mu}-\left[j_{0}(\triangle)F^{\mu\alpha}\right]\partial_{p,\alpha}\right\} \nonumber \\
& & -\frac{\hbar^{2}}{2}\left\{ \partial_{x}^{\mu}-\left[j_{0}(\triangle)F^{\mu\alpha}\right]\partial_{p,\alpha}\right\} \left[j_{1}(\triangle)F_{\mu\nu}\right]\partial_{p}^{\nu},\nonumber \\
\Re K_{\mu\nu} & = & -\hbar\Delta j_{0}(\Delta)F_{\mu\nu}(x),\nonumber \\
\Im K_{\mu\nu} & = & -\hbar j_{0}(\triangle)F_{\mu\nu}+\hbar\triangle j_{1}(\triangle)F_{\mu\nu}.\end{aligned}$$
These expressions seem to be complicated but if we truncate $\mathcal{O}(\hbar^{2})$ and higher order terms, these operators become $$\begin{aligned}
\Re K^{2} & = & p^{2}+\mathcal{O}(\hbar^{2}),\nonumber \\
\Im K^{2} & = & \hbar p_{\mu}\left(\partial_{x}^{\mu}-F^{\mu\alpha}\partial_{p,\alpha}\right)+\mathcal{O}(\hbar^{2}),\nonumber \\
\Re K_{\mu\nu} & = & \mathcal{O}(\hbar^{2}),\nonumber \\
\Im K_{\mu\nu} & = & -\hbar F_{\mu\nu}+\mathcal{O}(\hbar^{2}),\end{aligned}$$ which are quite concise and will be useful in semi-classical expansion. Inserting the truncated operators into Eq. (\[eq:on-shell and Vlasov equations\]), we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\left(p^{2}-m^{2}\right)W-\frac{\hbar}{4}F_{\mu\nu}\left\{ \sigma^{\mu\nu},W\right\} & = & 0,\nonumber \\
p_{\mu}\left(\partial_{x}^{\mu}-F^{\mu\alpha}\partial_{p,\alpha}\right)W+\frac{i}{4}F_{\mu\nu}\left[\sigma^{\mu\nu},W\right] & = & 0.\label{eq:on-shell and Vlasov equations at order =00005Chbar}\end{aligned}$$ The first equation coincides with the on-shell condition, because if the electromagnetic field vanishes, the non-trivial solution of $W(x,p)$ should ensure $p^{2}=m^{2}$. Here the term $-\frac{\hbar}{4}F_{\mu\nu}\left\{ \sigma^{\mu\nu},W\right\} $ in the first equation plays the role of a coupling between the electromagnetic field and the dipole-moment. The second equation is the Vlasov equation. Note that the first equation does not contain any information on the dynamical evolution. Up to order $\hbar$, the evolution of the Wigner function is determined by the second equation (\[eq:on-shell and Vlasov equations at order =00005Chbar\]) while the first equation just provides a constraint.
Component equations
-------------------
In the previous subsection we have derived the Dirac form and Klein-Gordon form of the kinetic equation. In this subsection, we decompose the Wigner function into the scalar, pseudoscalar, vector, axial-vector, and tensor parts, as shown in Eq. (\[def:Wigner function decomposition\]) and derive the equations for all 16 independent components. Inserting the decomposition (\[def:Wigner function decomposition\]) into the Dirac-form equation (\[eq:Dirac equation for Wigner\]) and extracting the coefficients of different matrices $\Gamma_{i}$, we find following complex-valued equations $$\begin{aligned}
K^{\mu}\mathcal{V}_{\mu}-m\mathcal{F} & = & 0,\nonumber \\
K^{\mu}\mathcal{A}_{\mu}+im\mathcal{P} & = & 0,\nonumber \\
K_{\mu}\mathcal{F}+iK^{\nu}\mathcal{S}_{\nu\mu}-m\mathcal{V}_{\mu} & = & 0,\nonumber \\
iK_{\mu}\mathcal{P}+\frac{1}{2}\epsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}K^{\nu}\mathcal{S}^{\alpha\beta}+m\mathcal{A}_{\mu} & = & 0,\nonumber \\
-iK_{[\mu}\mathcal{V}_{\nu]}-\epsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}K^{\alpha}\mathcal{A}^{\beta}-m\mathcal{S}_{\mu\nu} & = & 0,\label{eq:kinetic equations for components}\end{aligned}$$ where $A_{[\mu}B_{\nu]}\equiv A_{\mu}B_{\nu}-A_{\nu}B_{\mu}$. Since all components $\left\{ \mathcal{F},\mathcal{P},\mathcal{V}^{\mu},\mathcal{A}^{\mu},\mathcal{S}^{\mu\nu}\right\} $ are real functions and the operator $K^{\mu}$ is given by Eq. (\[def:operators Kmu with hbar\]), the real and imaginary parts of the above equations can be easily separated and the real parts read $$\begin{aligned}
\Pi^{\mu}\mathcal{V}_{\mu}-m\mathcal{F} & = & 0,\nonumber \\
\frac{\hbar}{2}\nabla^{\mu}\mathcal{A}_{\mu}+m\mathcal{P} & = & 0,\nonumber \\
\Pi_{\mu}\mathcal{F}-\frac{\hbar}{2}\nabla^{\nu}\mathcal{S}_{\nu\mu}-m\mathcal{V}_{\mu} & = & 0,\nonumber \\
-\frac{\hbar}{2}\nabla_{\mu}\mathcal{P}+\frac{1}{2}\epsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}\Pi^{\nu}\mathcal{S}^{\alpha\beta}+m\mathcal{A}_{\mu} & = & 0,\nonumber \\
\frac{\hbar}{2}\nabla_{[\mu}\mathcal{V}_{\nu]}-\epsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}\Pi^{\alpha}\mathcal{A}^{\beta}-m\mathcal{S}_{\mu\nu} & = & 0,\label{eq:real parts of kinetic equation}\end{aligned}$$ while the imaginary parts are $$\begin{aligned}
\hbar\nabla^{\mu}\mathcal{V}_{\mu} & = & 0,\nonumber \\
\Pi^{\mu}\mathcal{A}_{\mu} & = & 0,\nonumber \\
\frac{\hbar}{2}\nabla_{\mu}\mathcal{F}+\Pi^{\nu}\mathcal{S}_{\nu\mu} & = & 0,\nonumber \\
\Pi_{\mu}\mathcal{P}+\frac{\hbar}{4}\epsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}\nabla^{\nu}\mathcal{S}^{\alpha\beta} & = & 0,\nonumber \\
\Pi_{[\mu}\mathcal{V}_{\nu]}+\frac{\hbar}{2}\epsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}\nabla^{\alpha}\mathcal{A}^{\beta} & = & 0.\label{eq:imaginary parts of kinetic equation}\end{aligned}$$ Note that the real parts of these equations explicitly depend on the particle mass while the imaginary parts do not. Equations (\[eq:real parts of kinetic equation\]) and (\[eq:imaginary parts of kinetic equation\]) contains $32$ component equations in total, but they can be simplified in massless case. If the mass is zero, then the terms proportional to the mass in Eq. (\[eq:real parts of kinetic equation\]) vanish, while the imaginary parts (\[eq:imaginary parts of kinetic equation\]) do not change. Then the vector and axial-vector components decouple from the other components, the corresponding equations read, $$\begin{aligned}
\hbar\nabla^{\mu}\mathcal{V}_{\mu}=0, & & \hbar\nabla^{\mu}\mathcal{A}_{\mu}=0,\nonumber \\
\Pi^{\mu}\mathcal{V}_{\mu}=0, & & \Pi^{\mu}\mathcal{A}_{\mu}=0,\nonumber \\
\Pi_{[\mu}\mathcal{V}_{\nu]}+\frac{\hbar}{2}\epsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}\nabla^{\alpha}\mathcal{A}^{\beta}=0, & & \Pi_{[\mu}\mathcal{A}_{\nu]}+\frac{\hbar}{2}\epsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}\nabla^{\alpha}\mathcal{V}^{\beta}=0.\label{eq:massless equations}\end{aligned}$$ We observe that these equations are symmetric with respect to $\mathcal{V}^{\mu}\rightleftarrows\mathcal{A}^{\mu}$. This can be understood from another point of view: in the massless limit the chiral symmetry is restored, thus the net fermion number current $\mathcal{\ensuremath{V}^{\mu}}$ and the axial current $\mathcal{A}^{\mu}$ are related by chiral symmetry. The remaining equations are for the scalar, pseudoscalar and tensor parts $$\begin{aligned}
\Pi_{\mu}\mathcal{F}-\frac{\hbar}{2}\nabla^{\nu}\mathcal{S}_{\nu\mu}=0, & & \frac{\hbar}{2}\nabla_{\mu}\mathcal{F}+\Pi^{\nu}\mathcal{S}_{\nu\mu}=0,\nonumber \\
\Pi_{\mu}\mathcal{P}+\frac{\hbar}{4}\epsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}\nabla^{\nu}\mathcal{S}^{\alpha\beta}=0, & & -\frac{\hbar}{2}\nabla_{\mu}\mathcal{P}+\frac{1}{2}\epsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}\Pi^{\nu}\mathcal{S}^{\alpha\beta}=0.\end{aligned}$$
On the other hand, we can derive the on-shell conditions and Vlasov equations from Eq. (\[eq:on-shell and Vlasov equations\]). Combining commutators and anti-commutators between gamma matrices and $\sigma^{\mu\nu}$, which is listed in Eq. (\[eq:Commutators and anticommutators\]), with the decomposition (\[def:Wigner function decomposition\]), we have
$$\begin{aligned}
[\sigma^{\mu\nu},W(x,p)] & = & \frac{i}{2}\left\{ \gamma^{[\mu}\mathcal{V}^{\nu]}+\gamma^{5}\gamma^{[\mu}\mathcal{A}^{\nu]}+\frac{1}{2}\left(g^{\rho[\mu}\sigma^{\nu]\sigma}-g^{\sigma[\mu}\sigma^{\nu]\rho}\right)\mathcal{S}_{\sigma\rho}\right\} ,\nonumber \\
\left\{ \sigma^{\mu\nu},W(x,p)\right\} & = & \frac{1}{2}\biggl\{\sigma^{\mu\nu}\mathcal{F}-\frac{1}{2}\epsilon^{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}\sigma_{\alpha\beta}\mathcal{P}+\epsilon^{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}\gamma^{5}\gamma_{\beta}\mathcal{V}_{\alpha}+\epsilon^{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}\gamma_{\beta}\mathcal{A}_{\alpha}\nonumber \\
& & \quad+\frac{1}{2}\left(g^{\mu[\sigma}g^{\rho]\nu}+i\epsilon^{\mu\nu\sigma\rho}\gamma^{5}\right)\mathcal{S}_{\sigma\rho}\biggr\}.\end{aligned}$$
Inserting this into Eq. (\[eq:on-shell and Vlasov equations\]) and separating different coefficients of the matrices, we obtain the on-shell conditions
$$\begin{aligned}
\left(\Re K^{2}-m^{2}\right)\mathcal{F}+\frac{1}{2}\Im K_{\mu\nu}\mathcal{S}^{\mu\nu} & = & 0,\nonumber \\
\left(\Re K^{2}-m^{2}\right)\mathcal{P}+\frac{1}{4}\epsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}\Im K^{\mu\nu}\mathcal{S}^{\alpha\beta} & = & 0,\nonumber \\
\left(\Re K^{2}-m^{2}\right)\mathcal{V}_{\mu}+\Re K_{\mu\nu}\mathcal{V}^{\nu}-\frac{1}{2}\epsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}\Im K^{\alpha\beta}\mathcal{A}^{\nu} & = & 0,\nonumber \\
\left(\Re K^{2}-m^{2}\right)\mathcal{A}_{\mu}+\Re K_{\mu\nu}\mathcal{A}^{\nu}-\frac{1}{2}\epsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}\Im K^{\alpha\beta}\mathcal{V}^{\nu} & = & 0,\nonumber \\
\left(\Re K^{2}-m^{2}\right)\mathcal{S}_{\mu\nu}+\Re K_{\ [\mu}^{\alpha}\mathcal{S}_{\nu]\alpha}+\Im K_{\mu\nu}\mathcal{F}-\frac{1}{2}\epsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}\Im K^{\alpha\beta}\mathcal{P} & = & 0,\label{eq:decomposed on-shell}\end{aligned}$$
and the Vlasov equations $$\begin{aligned}
\Im K^{2}\mathcal{F}-\frac{1}{2}\Re K_{\mu\nu}\mathcal{S}^{\mu\nu} & = & 0,\nonumber \\
\Im K^{2}\mathcal{P}-\frac{1}{4}\epsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}\Re K^{\mu\nu}\mathcal{S}^{\alpha\beta} & = & 0,\nonumber \\
\Im K^{2}\mathcal{V}_{\mu}+\Im K_{\mu\nu}\mathcal{V}^{\nu}+\frac{1}{2}\epsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}\Re K^{\alpha\beta}\mathcal{A}^{\nu} & = & 0,\nonumber \\
\Im K^{2}\mathcal{A}_{\mu}+\Im K_{\mu\nu}\mathcal{A}^{\nu}+\frac{1}{2}\epsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}\Re K^{\alpha\beta}\mathcal{V}^{\nu} & = & 0,\nonumber \\
\Im K^{2}\mathcal{S}_{\mu\nu}+\Im K_{\ [\mu}^{\alpha}\mathcal{S}_{\nu]\alpha}-\Re K_{\mu\nu}\mathcal{F}+\frac{1}{2}\epsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}\Re K^{\alpha\beta}\mathcal{P} & = & 0.\label{eq:decomposed Vlasov}\end{aligned}$$ Here the operators $\Re K^{2}$, $\Im K^{2}$, $\Re K_{\mu\nu}$, $\Im K_{\mu\nu}$ are given in Eq. (\[eq:real and imaginary parts of second order operators\]). We observe that in these equations, the vector and axial-vector components $\mathcal{V}_{\mu}$, $\mathcal{A}_{\mu}$ decouple from all the other components $\mathcal{F}$, $\mathcal{P}$, $\mathcal{S}_{\mu\nu}$, in both the massive and the massless cases. We will show in the next subsection that, the scalar, pseudoscalar, and tensor components $\mathcal{F}$, $\mathcal{P}$, $\mathcal{S}_{\mu\nu}$ can be derived form the other components $\mathcal{V}_{\mu}$, $\mathcal{A}_{\mu}$, or vice versa. Thus the on-shell conditions and Vlasov equations for $\mathcal{F}$, $\mathcal{P}$, $\mathcal{S}_{\mu\nu}$ in Eqs. (\[eq:decomposed on-shell\]), (\[eq:decomposed Vlasov\]) can be obtained using the equations for components $\mathcal{V}_{\mu}$, $\mathcal{A}_{\mu}$ (and vice versa). This means that equations (\[eq:real parts of kinetic equation\]), (\[eq:imaginary parts of kinetic equation\]), (\[eq:decomposed on-shell\]), and (\[eq:decomposed Vlasov\]) are reducible: when solving for the Wigner function, it is not necessary to check that all these equations are fulfilled. More detailed arguments will be given in the next subsection.
Both the decomposed equations (\[eq:real parts of kinetic equation\]), (\[eq:imaginary parts of kinetic equation\]) and the above on-shell conditions (\[eq:decomposed on-shell\]) and Vlasov equations (\[eq:decomposed Vlasov\]) are derived from the Dirac-form equation for the Wigner function (\[eq:Dirac equation for Wigner\]). The difference is that Eqs. (\[eq:real parts of kinetic equation\]), (\[eq:imaginary parts of kinetic equation\]) are first-order equations with respect to the operators $\Pi^{\mu}$, $\nabla^{\mu}$ while Eqs. (\[eq:decomposed on-shell\]), (\[eq:decomposed Vlasov\]) are second-order ones. Analogous to the fact that the Klein-Gordon equation for fermions can be derived from the Dirac equation, one can reproduce Eqs. (\[eq:decomposed on-shell\]), (\[eq:decomposed Vlasov\]) from Eqs. (\[eq:real parts of kinetic equation\]), (\[eq:imaginary parts of kinetic equation\]) by multiplying with the appropriate operators and then taking linear combinations. Taking the on-shell and Vlasov equations for the scalar component $\mathcal{F}$ as an example, from the third line of Eq. (\[eq:real parts of kinetic equation\]) we express $\mathcal{V}_{\mu}$ in terms of $\mathcal{F}$ and $\mathcal{S}_{\nu\mu}$ $$\mathcal{V}_{\mu}=\frac{1}{m}\Pi_{\mu}\mathcal{F}-\frac{\hbar}{2m}\nabla^{\nu}\mathcal{S}_{\nu\mu}.\label{eq:derive V from F and S}$$ Multiplying the first line of Eq. (\[eq:real parts of kinetic equation\]) by the mass $m$ and using the above relation, an on-shell condition for the scalar component $\mathcal{F}$ is obtained, $$(\Pi^{\mu}\Pi_{\mu}-m^{2})\mathcal{F}-\frac{\hbar}{2}\Pi^{\mu}\nabla^{\nu}\mathcal{S}_{\nu\mu}=0.$$ Using the anti-symmetric property of $\mathcal{S}_{\mu\nu}$, the second term can be simplified as $$\begin{aligned}
-\frac{\hbar}{2}\Pi^{\mu}\nabla^{\nu}\mathcal{S}_{\nu\mu} & = & \frac{\hbar}{2}\left[\Pi^{\mu},\nabla^{\nu}\right]\mathcal{S}_{\mu\nu}+\frac{\hbar}{2}\nabla^{\nu}\Pi^{\mu}\mathcal{S}_{\mu\nu}\nonumber \\
& = & \frac{\hbar}{4}\left(\left[\Pi^{\mu},\nabla^{\nu}\right]-\left[\Pi^{\nu},\nabla^{\mu}\right]\right)\mathcal{S}_{\mu\nu}+\frac{\hbar^{2}}{4}\nabla^{\nu}\nabla_{\nu}\mathcal{F},\end{aligned}$$ where we have used the third line of Eq. (\[eq:imaginary parts of kinetic equation\]) in the last step. Comparing with the operators listed in Eq. (\[eq:real and imaginary parts of second order operators\]) we directly reproduce the first line in Eq. (\[eq:decomposed on-shell\]). On the other hand, inserting the relation (\[eq:derive V from F and S\]) into the first line of Eq. (\[eq:imaginary parts of kinetic equation\]) we obtain $$\frac{\hbar}{2}\nabla^{\mu}\Pi_{\mu}\mathcal{F}-\frac{\hbar^{2}}{4}\nabla^{\mu}\nabla^{\nu}\mathcal{S}_{\nu\mu}=0.\label{eq:temp equation-1}$$ Then multiplying the third line of Eq. (\[eq:imaginary parts of kinetic equation\]) with operator $\Pi^{\mu}$ gives $$\frac{\hbar}{2}\Pi^{\mu}\nabla_{\mu}\mathcal{F}+\Pi^{\mu}\Pi^{\nu}\mathcal{S}_{\nu\mu}=0.\label{eq:temp equation-2}$$ Taking the sum of Eqs. (\[eq:temp equation-1\]) and (\[eq:temp equation-2\]) and comparing with the operators in Eq. (\[eq:real and imaginary parts of second order operators\]), we reproduce the Vlasov equation for the scalar component $\mathcal{F}$, which is the first line of Eq. (\[eq:decomposed Vlasov\]). Similar procedures can be performed for all the other components of the Wigner function, which proves that the on-shell and Vlasov equations in (\[eq:decomposed on-shell\]), (\[eq:decomposed Vlasov\]) can be derived from Eqs. (\[eq:real parts of kinetic equation\]), (\[eq:imaginary parts of kinetic equation\]) without any additional assumptions.
Redundancy of equations
-----------------------
In this section we will prove that Eqs. (\[eq:real parts of kinetic equation\]), (\[eq:imaginary parts of kinetic equation\]) are reducible: the third and fourth lines of Eq. (\[eq:imaginary parts of kinetic equation\]) can be derived from the others and $\mathcal{F}$, $\mathcal{P}$, and $\mathcal{S}_{\mu\nu}$ can be expressed by $\mathcal{V}_{\mu}$ and $\mathcal{A}_{\mu}$, or vice versa. Thus the kinetic equations can be further simplified. Two approaches are proposed for solving the Wigner function: one approach is based on $\mathcal{V}_{\mu}$ and $\mathcal{A}_{\mu}$, and the other approach is based on $\mathcal{F}$, $\mathcal{P}$, $\mathcal{S}_{\mu\nu}$. In Sec. \[sec:Semi-classical-expansion\] both of these two methods are used and obtain the same results.
Now we prove that Eqs. (\[eq:real parts of kinetic equation\]), (\[eq:imaginary parts of kinetic equation\]) are not independent from each other for the massive case. We make the following combination using the first and last lines in Eq. (\[eq:real parts of kinetic equation\]) and Eq. (\[eq:imaginary parts of kinetic equation\]) $$\begin{aligned}
0 & = & \frac{\hbar}{2m}\nabla_{\mu}\left(\Pi^{\nu}\mathcal{V}_{\nu}-m\mathcal{F}\right)-\frac{1}{2m}\Pi_{\mu}\left(\hbar\nabla^{\nu}\mathcal{V}_{\nu}\right)\nonumber \\
& & -\frac{1}{m}\Pi^{\nu}\left(\frac{\hbar}{2}\nabla_{[\mu}\mathcal{V}_{\nu]}-\epsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}\Pi^{\alpha}\mathcal{A}^{\beta}-m\mathcal{S}_{\mu\nu}\right)\nonumber \\
& & +\frac{\hbar}{2m}\nabla^{\nu}\left(\Pi_{[\mu}\mathcal{V}_{\nu]}+\frac{\hbar}{2}\epsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}\nabla^{\alpha}\mathcal{A}^{\beta}\right).\end{aligned}$$ The right-hand-side vanishes because all the terms inside parentheses vanish. After some calculations we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\hbar}{2}\nabla_{\mu}\mathcal{F}+\Pi^{\nu}\mathcal{S}_{\nu\mu} & = & -\frac{\hbar}{2m}\left(\left[\Pi_{\mu},\nabla_{\nu}\right]+\left[\Pi_{\nu},\nabla_{\mu}\right]\right)\mathcal{V}^{\nu}+\frac{\hbar}{2m}\left[\Pi_{\nu},\nabla^{\nu}\right]\mathcal{V}_{\mu}\nonumber \\
& & +\frac{1}{2m}\epsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}\left(\left[\Pi^{\nu},\Pi^{\alpha}\right]+\frac{\hbar^{2}}{4}\left[\nabla^{\nu},\nabla^{\alpha}\right]\right)\mathcal{A}^{\beta}.\label{eq:reducible equation1}\end{aligned}$$ Using Eq. (\[def:operators Kmu with hbar\]) one can calculate the commutators $$\begin{aligned}
\left[\Pi_{\mu},\Pi_{\nu}\right] & = & -\hbar\left[j_{1}(\Delta)+\frac{1}{2}\Delta j_{1}^{\prime}(\Delta)\right]F_{\mu\nu},\nonumber \\
\left[\Pi_{\mu},\nabla_{\nu}\right] & = & \left[\Delta j_{1}(\Delta)-j_{0}(\Delta)\right]F_{\mu\nu},\nonumber \\
\hbar^{2}\left[\nabla_{\mu},\nabla_{\nu}\right] & = & 2\hbar\Delta j_{0}(\Delta)F_{\mu\nu},\end{aligned}$$ where $j_{1}^{\prime}(x)\equiv\frac{d}{dx}j_{1}(x)$. Thus we can find the following relations $$\begin{aligned}
\left[\Pi_{\mu},\nabla_{\nu}\right]+\left[\Pi_{\nu},\nabla_{\mu}\right] & = & \left[\Delta j_{1}(\Delta)-j_{0}(\Delta)\right]\left(F_{\mu\nu}+F_{\nu\mu}\right)=0,\nonumber \\
\left[\Pi_{\nu},\nabla^{\nu}\right] & = & \left[\Delta j_{1}(\Delta)-j_{0}(\Delta)\right]F_{\nu}^{\ \nu}=0,\nonumber \\
\left[\Pi_{\mu},\Pi_{\nu}\right]+\frac{\hbar^{2}}{4}\left[\nabla_{\mu},\nabla_{\nu}\right] & = & \frac{\hbar}{2}\left[\Delta j_{0}(\Delta)-2j_{1}(\Delta)-\Delta j_{1}^{\prime}(\Delta)\right]F_{\mu\nu}=0,\label{eq:commutators of operators Pi and Nabla}\end{aligned}$$ where we have used the anti-symmetry of $F_{\mu\nu}$ and the following relation for spherical Bessel functions $$xj_{0}(x)-2j_{1}(x)-xj_{1}^{\prime}(x)=0.$$ Inserting the commutators in Eq. (\[eq:commutators of operators Pi and Nabla\]) into Eq. (\[eq:reducible equation1\]), we confirm that the right-hand side vanishes and we obtain the third line of Eq. (\[eq:imaginary parts of kinetic equation\]). Analogously, we construct the following equation from the second and the last lines of Eqs. (\[eq:real parts of kinetic equation\]), (\[eq:imaginary parts of kinetic equation\]), $$\begin{aligned}
0 & = & \frac{1}{m}\Pi_{\mu}\left(\frac{\hbar}{2}\nabla^{\nu}\mathcal{A}_{\nu}+m\mathcal{P}\right)-\frac{\hbar}{2m}\nabla_{\mu}\left(\Pi^{\nu}\mathcal{A}_{\nu}\right)\nonumber \\
& & -\frac{\hbar}{4m}\epsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}\nabla^{\nu}\left(\frac{\hbar}{2}\nabla^{[\alpha}\mathcal{V}^{\beta]}-\epsilon^{\alpha\beta\rho\sigma}\Pi_{\rho}\mathcal{A}_{\sigma}-m\mathcal{S}^{\alpha\beta}\right)\nonumber \\
& & -\frac{1}{2m}\epsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}\Pi^{\nu}\left(\Pi^{[\alpha}\mathcal{V}^{\beta]}+\frac{\hbar}{2}\epsilon^{\alpha\beta\rho\sigma}\nabla_{\rho}\mathcal{A}_{\sigma}\right).\end{aligned}$$ After some calculations we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\Pi_{\mu}\mathcal{P}+\frac{\hbar}{4}\epsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}\nabla^{\nu}\mathcal{S}^{\alpha\beta} & = & -\frac{\hbar}{2m}\left(\left[\Pi_{\mu},\nabla_{\nu}\right]+\left[\Pi_{\nu},\nabla_{\mu}\right]\right)\mathcal{A}^{\nu}+\frac{\hbar}{2m}\left[\Pi_{\nu},\nabla^{\nu}\right]\mathcal{A}_{\mu}\nonumber \\
& & +\frac{1}{4m}\epsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}\left(\left[\Pi^{\nu},\Pi^{\alpha}\right]+\frac{\hbar^{2}}{4}\left[\nabla^{\nu},\nabla^{\alpha}\right]\right)\mathcal{V}^{\beta}.\end{aligned}$$ where the right-hand side vanishes according to (\[eq:commutators of operators Pi and Nabla\]). In this way we recover the fourth line in Eq. (\[eq:imaginary parts of kinetic equation\]). Thus according to the above discussions, the third and fourth lines in Eq. (\[eq:imaginary parts of kinetic equation\]) can be obtained from the other lines in Eqs. (\[eq:real parts of kinetic equation\]) and (\[eq:imaginary parts of kinetic equation\]).
Now we will construct a proper way for computing the Wigner function. As discussed in the previous subsection, the dynamical evolution and constraints of the Wigner function are determined by Eqs. (\[eq:real parts of kinetic equation\]) and (\[eq:imaginary parts of kinetic equation\]), or equivalently by Eqs. (\[eq:decomposed on-shell\]) and (\[eq:decomposed Vlasov\]). However, we note that according to the first, second, and last lines of Eq. (\[eq:real parts of kinetic equation\]), we can express the scalar, pseudo-scalar, and tensor components in terms of $\mathcal{V}^{\mu}$, $\mathcal{A}^{\mu}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{F} & = & \frac{1}{m}\Pi^{\mu}\mathcal{V}_{\mu},\nonumber \\
\mathcal{P} & = & -\frac{\hbar}{2m}\nabla^{\mu}\mathcal{A}_{\mu},\nonumber \\
\mathcal{S}_{\mu\nu} & = & \frac{\hbar}{2m}\nabla_{[\mu}\mathcal{V}_{\nu]}-\frac{1}{m}\epsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}\Pi^{\alpha}\mathcal{A}^{\beta},\label{eq:FPS from VA}\end{aligned}$$ Substituting $\mathcal{F}$, $\mathcal{P}$, $\mathcal{S}_{\mu\nu}$ into the third and fourth lines of Eq. (\[eq:real parts of kinetic equation\]) by Eq. (\[eq:FPS from VA\]), one obtains $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\Re K^{2}-m^{2}\right)\mathcal{V}_{\mu}+\Re K_{\mu\nu}\mathcal{V}^{\nu}-\frac{1}{2}\epsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}\Im K^{\alpha\beta}\mathcal{A}^{\nu} & = & 0,\nonumber \\
\left(\Re K^{2}-m^{2}\right)\mathcal{A}_{\mu}+\Re K_{\mu\nu}\mathcal{A}^{\nu}-\frac{1}{2}\epsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}\Im K^{\alpha\beta}\mathcal{V}^{\nu} & = & 0,\label{eq:on-shell of VA}\end{aligned}$$ where the operators $\Re K^{2}$, $\Im K^{2}$, $\Re K_{\mu\nu}$, $\Im K_{\mu\nu}$ are defined in Eq. (\[eq:real and imaginary parts of second order operators\]). These equations are nothing new but the vector and axial-vector components of the on-shell conditions in Eq. (\[eq:decomposed on-shell\]). The functions $\mathcal{V}^{\mu}$, $\mathcal{A}^{\mu}$ should satisfy the equations listed in Eq. (\[eq:imaginary parts of kinetic equation\]), $$\begin{aligned}
\hbar\nabla^{\mu}\mathcal{V}_{\mu} & = & 0,\nonumber \\
\Pi^{\mu}\mathcal{A}_{\mu} & = & 0,\nonumber \\
\Pi_{[\mu}\mathcal{V}_{\nu]}+\frac{\hbar}{2}\epsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}\nabla^{\alpha}\mathcal{A}^{\beta} & = & 0,\label{eq:constraints for VA}\end{aligned}$$ while the remaining two equations, i.e., the third and fourth lines of Eq. (\[eq:real parts of kinetic equation\]), are satisfied automatically according to the previous discussion. In the massless limit, we have chiral fermion whose spin is quantized along its momentum. We define spin-up and spin-down currents as $$\mathcal{J}_{\chi}^{\mu}\equiv\frac{1}{2}\left(\mathcal{V}^{\mu}+\chi\mathcal{A}^{\mu}\right),\label{def:left- and right-handed currents}$$ where $\chi=\pm$ labels chirality. Analogous to the massless case, we adopt the same definition (\[def:left- and right-handed currents\]) in the massive case. The corresponding on-shell conditions for $\mathcal{J}_{\chi}^{\mu}$ are derived from Eq. (\[eq:on-shell of VA\]), $$\left(\Re K^{2}-m^{2}\right)\mathcal{J}_{\chi}^{\mu}+\Re K^{\mu\nu}\mathcal{J}_{\chi\nu}-\frac{\chi}{2}\epsilon^{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}\Im K_{\alpha\beta}\mathcal{J}_{\chi\nu}=0.\label{eq:on-shell equation for f_pm}$$ We conclude that one method for computing the Wigner function is firstly solving $\mathcal{V}_{\mu}$, $\mathcal{A}_{\mu}$ from the on-shell equations (\[eq:on-shell equation for f\_pm\]) together with Eq. (\[eq:constraints for VA\]). Then the remaining components $\mathcal{F}$, $\mathcal{P}$, and $\mathcal{S}_{\mu\nu}$ are given by Eq. (\[eq:FPS from VA\]).
On the other hand, according to Eq. (\[eq:real parts of kinetic equation\]), we can prove that $\mathcal{V}^{\mu}$ and $\mathcal{A}^{\mu}$ can also be expressed by $\mathcal{F}$, $\mathcal{P}$, and $\mathcal{S}^{\mu\nu}$. This can be done by $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{V}_{\mu} & = & \frac{1}{m}\Pi_{\mu}\mathcal{F}+\frac{\hbar}{2m}\nabla^{\nu}\mathcal{S}_{\mu\nu},\nonumber \\
\mathcal{A}_{\mu} & = & \frac{\hbar}{2m}\nabla_{\mu}\mathcal{P}-\frac{1}{2m}\epsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}\Pi^{\nu}\mathcal{S}^{\alpha\beta}.\label{eq:VA from FPS}\end{aligned}$$ The functions $\mathcal{F}$, $\mathcal{P}$, and $\mathcal{S}^{\mu\nu}$ satisfy Eq. (\[eq:imaginary parts of kinetic equation\]), which gives the following constraints $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\hbar}{2}\nabla_{\mu}\mathcal{F}+\Pi^{\nu}\mathcal{S}_{\nu\mu} & = & 0,\nonumber \\
\Pi_{\mu}\mathcal{P}+\frac{\hbar}{4}\epsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}\nabla^{\nu}\mathcal{S}^{\alpha\beta} & = & 0.\label{eq:constraints of FPS}\end{aligned}$$ The other equations, i.e., the first, second, and last lines of Eq. (\[eq:imaginary parts of kinetic equation\]) are automatically fulfilled. In order to prove this, we form the combinations, $$\begin{aligned}
0 & = & \frac{1}{m}\Pi^{\mu}\left(-\frac{\hbar}{2}\nabla_{\mu}\mathcal{P}+\frac{1}{2}\epsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}\Pi^{\nu}\mathcal{S}^{\alpha\beta}+m\mathcal{A}_{\mu}\right)\nonumber \\
& & +\frac{\hbar}{2m}\nabla^{\mu}\left(\Pi_{\mu}\mathcal{P}+\frac{\hbar}{4}\epsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}\nabla^{\nu}\mathcal{S}^{\alpha\beta}\right),\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
0 & = & -\frac{\hbar}{m}\nabla^{\mu}\left(\Pi_{\mu}\mathcal{F}-\frac{\hbar}{2}\nabla^{\nu}\mathcal{S}_{\nu\mu}-m\mathcal{V}_{\mu}\right)\nonumber \\
& & +\frac{2}{m}\Pi^{\mu}\left(\frac{\hbar}{2}\nabla_{\mu}\mathcal{F}+\Pi^{\nu}\mathcal{S}_{\nu\mu}\right),\end{aligned}$$ together with $$\begin{aligned}
0 & = & -\frac{1}{m}\Pi_{[\mu}\left(\Pi_{\nu]}\mathcal{F}+\frac{\hbar}{2}\nabla^{\alpha}\mathcal{S}_{\nu]\alpha}-m\mathcal{V}_{\nu]}\right)\nonumber \\
& & -\frac{\hbar}{2m}\nabla_{[\mu}\left(\frac{\hbar}{2}\nabla_{\nu]}\mathcal{F}-\Pi^{\alpha}\mathcal{S}_{\nu]\alpha}\right)\nonumber \\
& & -\frac{1}{m}\epsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}\Pi^{\alpha}\left(\Pi^{\beta}\mathcal{P}+\frac{\hbar}{4}\epsilon^{\beta\gamma\rho\sigma}\nabla_{\gamma}\mathcal{S}_{\rho\sigma}\right)\nonumber \\
& & +\frac{\hbar}{2m}\epsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}\nabla^{\alpha}\left(-\frac{\hbar}{2}\nabla^{\beta}\mathcal{P}+\frac{1}{2}\epsilon^{\beta\gamma\rho\sigma}\Pi_{\gamma}\mathcal{S}_{\rho\sigma}+m\mathcal{A}^{\beta}\right).\end{aligned}$$ These equations are satisfied because the terms inside the parentheses are zero according to Eqs. (\[eq:VA from FPS\]), (\[eq:constraints of FPS\]).
After complicated but straightforward calculations and with the help of Eq. (\[eq:commutators of operators Pi and Nabla\]), we reproduce the first, second, and last lines of Eq. (\[eq:imaginary parts of kinetic equation\]). Meanwhile, substituting Eq. (\[eq:VA from FPS\]) into Eq. (\[eq:real parts of kinetic equation\]), one obtains the following on-shell conditions $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\Re K^{2}-m^{2}\right)\mathcal{F}+\frac{1}{2}\Im K_{\mu\nu}\mathcal{S}^{\mu\nu} & = & 0,\nonumber \\
\left(\Re K^{2}-m^{2}\right)\mathcal{P}+\frac{1}{4}\epsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}\Im K^{\mu\nu}\mathcal{S}^{\alpha\beta} & = & 0,\nonumber \\
\left(\Re K^{2}-m^{2}\right)\mathcal{S}_{\mu\nu}+\Re K_{\ [\mu}^{\alpha}\mathcal{S}_{\nu]\alpha}+\Im K_{\mu\nu}\mathcal{F}-\frac{1}{2}\epsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}\Im K^{\alpha\beta}\mathcal{P} & = & 0.\label{eq:on-shell of FPS}\end{aligned}$$ So we conclude that another approach for computing the Wigner function is: first obtain a solution for $\mathcal{F}$, $\mathcal{P}$, and $\mathcal{S}^{\mu\nu}$ which satisfies Eqs. (\[eq:constraints of FPS\]) and (\[eq:on-shell of FPS\]) and then derive $\mathcal{V}^{\mu}$ and $\mathcal{A}^{\mu}$ using Eq. (\[eq:VA from FPS\]).
Note that in the massless case, the above discussion seem to be useless because the mass appears in the denominators in Eqs. (\[eq:FPS from VA\]), (\[eq:VA from FPS\]) and $1/m$ will be divergent when $m\rightarrow0$. However, detailed calculations in the next section show that the numerators are also proportional to the mass, which leads to a finite quotient. In this way, the results in the massive case are expected to smoothly converge to the results in the massless case. For massless particles, the vector and axial-vector components $\mathcal{V}^{\mu}$ and $\mathcal{A}^{\mu}$ decouple from the other components, as given in (\[eq:massless equations\]). Adopting the definition (\[def:left- and right-handed currents\]) of spin-up/spin-down currents, the equations can be rewritten in a compact form, $$\begin{aligned}
& & \hbar\nabla_{\mu}\mathcal{J}_{\chi}^{\mu}=0,\ \ \Pi_{\mu}\mathcal{J}_{\chi}^{\mu}=0,\nonumber \\
& & \Pi_{[\mu}\mathcal{J}_{\nu]}^{\chi}+\frac{\chi\hbar}{2}\epsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}\nabla^{\alpha}\mathcal{J}_{\chi}^{\beta}=0.\label{eq:equations of currents massless}\end{aligned}$$ Properly taking combinations of the above equations, one can derive the on-shell equations, which agree with Eq. (\[eq:on-shell equation for f\_pm\]) by putting $m=0$.
As a brief summary of this subsection, we list once more the approaches for computing the Wigner function:
1. For the massless case, the vector and axial-vector components $\mathcal{V}^{\mu}$ and $\mathcal{A}^{\mu}$ can be written in terms of the spin-up and spin-down currents as shown in Eq. (\[def:left- and right-handed currents\]). These currents should satisfy Eq. (\[eq:equations of currents massless\]).
2. For massive particles, one can take the vector and axial-vector components $\mathcal{V}^{\mu}$ and $\mathcal{A}^{\mu}$ as basic quantities, which satisfy the on-shell conditions (\[eq:on-shell of VA\]) and Eq. (\[eq:constraints for VA\]). The other components, $\mathcal{F}$, $\mathcal{P}$, and $\mathcal{S}^{\mu\nu}$, are then derived from $\mathcal{V}^{\mu}$, $\mathcal{A}^{\mu}$ using relation (\[eq:FPS from VA\]).
3. For massive particles, another possible method is to take the scalar, pseudoscalar, and tensor components $\mathcal{F}$, $\mathcal{P}$, and $\mathcal{S}^{\mu\nu}$ as basic quantities, which satisfy Eq. (\[eq:constraints of FPS\]) and the on-shell conditions (\[eq:on-shell of FPS\]). Equation (\[eq:VA from FPS\]) shows how to derive the other components $\mathcal{V}^{\mu}$ and $\mathcal{A}^{\mu}$ from $\mathcal{F}$, $\mathcal{P}$, and $\mathcal{S}^{\mu\nu}$.
The more detailed semi-classical calculations in Sec. \[sec:Semi-classical-expansion\] show that the approach 2 is equivalent with 3.
Equal-time Wigner function\[subsec:Equal-time-formula\]
-------------------------------------------------------
In some dynamical problems, it appears to be more convenient to use the equal-time Wigner function, which was first proposed in Refs. [@BialynickiBirula:1991tx; @Zhuang:1998bqx]. In this thesis, we define the equal-time Wigner function as follows $$W(t,\mathbf{x},\mathbf{p})=\int dp^{0}\,W(x,p),$$ which is derived from the covariant Wigner function by integrating over energy $p^{0}$. Obviously the equal-time Wigner function is not Lorentz covariant because the observer’s frame has been fixed. From Eq. (\[def:Wigner function\]), we can finish the integration over energy $p^{0}$ and obtain $$W(t,\mathbf{x},\mathbf{p})\equiv\int\frac{d^{3}\mathbf{y}}{(2\pi)^{3}}\exp\left(i\mathbf{x}\cdot\mathbf{p}\right)U\left(t,\mathbf{x}+\frac{\mathbf{y}}{2},\mathbf{x}-\frac{\mathbf{y}}{2}\right)\left\langle \Omega\left|\hat{\bar{\psi}}\left(t,\mathbf{x}+\frac{\mathbf{y}}{2}\right)\otimes\hat{\psi}\left(t,\mathbf{x}-\frac{\mathbf{y}}{2}\right)\right|\Omega\right\rangle .\label{def:equal-time Wigner function}$$ Here the two field operators are defined at the same time $t$ but at different spatial points. A 3-dimensional Fourier transform is made with respect to the relative coordinate $\mathbf{y}$, which gives the dependence on the kinetic 3-momentum $\mathbf{p}$. Similar to the covariant form, the gauge field (i.e., the electromagnetic field) is assumed to be a classical $C$-number and thus the gauge link is taken out of the quantum expectation value. Meanwhile, the covariant Wigner function can be described by its energy moments $\int dp^{0}\ (p^{0})^{n}W(x,p)$ and the equal-time Wigner function is just the zeroth order moment. Thus, from the covariant Wigner function one can derive the equal-time Wigner function, but from the equal-time one we cannot reproduce the covariant one because the higher-order energy moments, $\int dp^{0}\ (p^{0})^{n}W(x,p)$ for $n>0$, are unknown. But if particles are on the usual mass-shell $p^{2}=m^{2}$, the covariant Wigner function and the equal-time one are equivalent to each other.
The equation of motion for the equal-time Wigner function can be obtained from the Dirac equation, or equivalently from the equation of motion for the covariant Wigner function via taking an energy integral. From Eq. (\[eq:Dirac equation for Wigner\]), we can obtain the Dirac-form equation for the equal-time Wigner function by integrating over $p^{0}$ and dropping boundary terms such as $\int dp^{0}\ \partial_{p^{0}}W(x,p)$, $$\gamma^{0}\int dp^{0}\ p^{0}W(x,p)+\gamma^{0}\Pi^{0}W(x,p)+\left(\frac{i\hbar}{2}\gamma^{0}D_{t}-\boldsymbol{\gamma}\cdot\mathbf{K}-m\right)W(t,\mathbf{x},\mathbf{p})=0,\label{eq:Dirac like equation of equal-time formula}$$ where the operator is defined as $$\mathbf{K}\equiv\boldsymbol{\Pi}-\frac{i\hbar}{2}\mathbf{D}_{\mathbf{x}}.$$ Here the generalized time derivative operator $D_{t}$, the spatial derivative operator $\mathbf{D}_{\mathbf{x}}$, the energy shift $\Pi^{0}$, and the momentum operator $\boldsymbol{\Pi}$ are given by $$\begin{aligned}
D_{t} & \equiv & \partial_{t}+j_{0}(\Delta)\mathbf{E}(x)\cdot\boldsymbol{\nabla}_{\mathbf{p}},\nonumber \\
\mathbf{D}_{\mathbf{x}} & \equiv & \boldsymbol{\nabla}_{\mathbf{x}}+j_{0}(\Delta)\mathbf{B}(x)\times\boldsymbol{\nabla}_{\mathbf{p}},\\
\Pi^{0} & = & \frac{\hbar}{2}j_{1}(\Delta)\mathbf{E}(x)\cdot\boldsymbol{\nabla}_{\mathbf{p}},\nonumber \\
\boldsymbol{\Pi} & \equiv & \mathbf{p}-\frac{\hbar}{2}j_{1}(\Delta)\mathbf{B}(x)\times\boldsymbol{\nabla}_{\mathbf{p}},\label{eq:generalized operators for equal-t formula}\end{aligned}$$ with $\Delta\equiv-\frac{\hbar}{2}\boldsymbol{\nabla}_{\mathbf{p}}\cdot\boldsymbol{\nabla}_{\mathbf{x}}$ where $\boldsymbol{\nabla}_{\mathbf{x}}$ only acts on the electromagnetic fields. These generalized operators $D_{t}$, $\mathbf{D}_{\mathbf{x}}$, and $\boldsymbol{\Pi}$ are reduced to the normal time derivative, spatial derivative, and 3-momentum when the electromagnetic fields vanish. They are real operators, thus the Hermitian conjugate of Eq. (\[eq:Dirac like equation of equal-time formula\]) reads, $$\gamma^{0}\int dp^{0}\ p^{0}W(x,p)+\gamma^{0}\Pi^{0}W(x,p)+\gamma^{0}W(t,\mathbf{x},\mathbf{p})\left[-\frac{i\hbar}{2}\left(\gamma^{0}D_{t}+\boldsymbol{\gamma}\cdot\mathbf{D}_{\mathbf{x}}\right)-\boldsymbol{\gamma}\cdot\boldsymbol{\Pi}-m\right]\gamma^{0}=0,\label{eq:Conjugate equation of equal-time}$$ where we have used the property $W^{\dagger}=\gamma^{0}W\gamma^{0}$. Multiplying Eqs. (\[eq:Dirac like equation of equal-time formula\]) and (\[eq:Conjugate equation of equal-time\]) with $\gamma^{0}$ from the left, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\int dp^{0}\ p^{0}W(x,p)+\Pi^{0}W(x,p)+\left[\frac{i\hbar}{2}\left(D_{t}+\gamma^{0}\boldsymbol{\gamma}\cdot\mathbf{D}_{\mathbf{x}}\right)-\gamma^{0}\boldsymbol{\gamma}\cdot\boldsymbol{\Pi}-m\gamma^{0}\right]W(t,\mathbf{x},\mathbf{p}) & = & 0,\nonumber \\
\int dp^{0}\ p^{0}W(x,p)+\Pi^{0}W(x,p)+W(t,\mathbf{x},\mathbf{p})\left[-\frac{i\hbar}{2}\left(D_{t}-\gamma^{0}\boldsymbol{\gamma}\cdot\mathbf{D}_{\mathbf{x}}\right)+\gamma^{0}\boldsymbol{\gamma}\cdot\boldsymbol{\Pi}-m\gamma^{0}\right] & = & 0.\nonumber \\\end{aligned}$$ Taking the difference of these two equations we obtain the equation of motion for the equal-time Wigner function $$i\hbar D_{t}W(t,\mathbf{x},\mathbf{p})+\frac{i\hbar}{2}\mathbf{D}_{\mathbf{x}}\cdot\left[\gamma^{0}\boldsymbol{\gamma},W(t,\mathbf{x},\mathbf{p})\right]-\boldsymbol{\Pi}\cdot\left\{ \gamma^{0}\boldsymbol{\gamma},W(t,\mathbf{x},\mathbf{p})\right\} -m\left[\gamma^{0},W(t,\mathbf{x},\mathbf{p})\right]=0,\label{eq:Equation of motion of equal-time}$$ while the sum gives $$\begin{aligned}
& & \int dp^{0}\ p^{0}W(x,p)\nonumber \\
& & \qquad=-\frac{i\hbar}{2}\mathbf{D}_{\mathbf{x}}\cdot\left\{ \gamma^{0}\boldsymbol{\gamma},W(t,\mathbf{x},\mathbf{p})\right\} -\Pi^{0}W(x,p)+\boldsymbol{\Pi}\cdot\left[\gamma^{0}\boldsymbol{\gamma},W(t,\mathbf{x},\mathbf{p})\right]+m\left\{ \gamma^{0},W(t,\mathbf{x},\mathbf{p})\right\} .\nonumber \\
\label{eq:constraint equation for equal-time}\end{aligned}$$ We note that the time-evolution of the equal-time Wigner function is determined by Eq. (\[eq:Equation of motion of equal-time\]) while Eq. (\[eq:constraint equation for equal-time\]) provides the relation between the first-order energy moment $\int dp^{0}\ p^{0}W(x,p)$ and the equal-time Wigner function.
Analogously to the covariant Wigner function, the equal-time Wigner function can be decomposed in 16 independent generators of the Clifford algebra, $\Gamma_{i}=\{1,\ i\gamma^{5},\ \gamma^{\mu},\ \gamma^{\mu}\gamma^{5},\ \frac{1}{2}\sigma^{\mu\nu}\}$, as shown in Eq. (\[def:Wigner function decomposition\]). Here the coefficients are now functions of $\{t,\mathbf{x},\mathbf{p}\}$. Inserting the decomposed Wigner function into Eq. (\[eq:Equation of motion of equal-time\]) and taking the trace over $\Gamma_{i}$ we obtain the following equations of motion, $$\begin{aligned}
\hbar D_{t}\mathcal{F} & = & 2\boldsymbol{\Pi}\cdot\boldsymbol{\mathcal{T}},\nonumber \\
\hbar D_{t}\mathcal{P} & = & -2\boldsymbol{\Pi}\cdot\boldsymbol{\mathcal{S}}+2m\mathcal{A}^{0},\nonumber \\
\hbar D_{t}\mathcal{V}^{0} & = & -\hbar\mathbf{D}_{\mathbf{x}}\cdot\boldsymbol{\mathcal{V}},\nonumber \\
\hbar D_{t}\boldsymbol{\mathcal{V}} & = & -\hbar\mathbf{D}_{\mathbf{x}}\mathcal{V}^{0}+2\boldsymbol{\Pi}\times\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}-2m\boldsymbol{\mathcal{T}},\nonumber \\
\hbar D_{t}\mathcal{A}^{0} & = & -\hbar\mathbf{D}_{\mathbf{x}}\cdot\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}-2m\mathcal{P},\nonumber \\
\hbar D_{t}\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}} & = & -\hbar\mathbf{D}_{\mathbf{x}}\mathcal{A}^{0}+2\boldsymbol{\Pi}\times\boldsymbol{\mathcal{V}},\nonumber \\
\hbar D_{t}\boldsymbol{\mathcal{T}} & = & -\hbar\mathbf{D}_{\mathbf{x}}\times\boldsymbol{\mathcal{S}}-2\boldsymbol{\Pi}\mathcal{F}+2m\boldsymbol{\mathcal{V}},\nonumber \\
\hbar D_{t}\boldsymbol{\mathcal{S}} & = & \hbar\mathbf{D}_{\mathbf{x}}\times\boldsymbol{\mathcal{T}}+2\boldsymbol{\Pi}\mathcal{P},\label{eq:equation of motion equal-time component}\end{aligned}$$ where we have suppressed the dependence on $\{t,\mathbf{x},\mathbf{p}\}$ for all component functions. These equations describe how these component functions evolve with time. On the other hand, decomposing Eq. (\[eq:constraint equation for equal-time\]) we derive the first-order energy moments, $$\begin{aligned}
\int dp^{0}\ p^{0}\mathcal{F}(x,p) & = & \frac{\hbar}{2}\mathbf{D}_{\mathbf{x}}\cdot\boldsymbol{\mathcal{T}}+m\mathcal{V}^{0}-\Pi^{0}\mathcal{F},\nonumber \\
\int dp^{0}\ p^{0}\mathcal{P}(x,p) & = & -\frac{\hbar}{2}\mathbf{D}_{\mathbf{x}}\cdot\boldsymbol{\mathcal{S}}-\Pi^{0}\mathcal{P},\nonumber \\
\int dp^{0}\ p^{0}\mathcal{V}^{0}(x,p) & = & \boldsymbol{\Pi}\cdot\boldsymbol{\mathcal{V}}+m\mathcal{F}-\Pi^{0}\mathcal{V}^{0},\nonumber \\
\int dp^{0}\ p^{0}\boldsymbol{\mathcal{V}}(x,p) & = & \frac{\hbar}{2}\mathbf{D}_{\mathbf{x}}\times\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}+\boldsymbol{\Pi}\mathcal{V}^{0}-\Pi^{0}\boldsymbol{\mathcal{V}},\nonumber \\
\int dp^{0}\ p^{0}\mathcal{A}^{0}(x,p) & = & \boldsymbol{\Pi}\cdot\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}-\Pi^{0}\mathcal{A}^{0},\nonumber \\
\int dp^{0}\ p^{0}\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}(x,p) & = & \frac{\hbar}{2}\mathbf{D}_{\mathbf{x}}\times\boldsymbol{\mathcal{V}}+\boldsymbol{\Pi}\mathcal{A}^{0}+m\boldsymbol{\mathcal{S}}-\Pi^{0}\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}},\nonumber \\
\int dp^{0}\ p^{0}\boldsymbol{\mathcal{T}}(x,p) & = & -\frac{\hbar}{2}\mathbf{D}_{\mathbf{x}}\mathcal{F}+\boldsymbol{\Pi}\times\boldsymbol{\mathcal{S}}-\Pi^{0}\boldsymbol{\mathcal{T}},\nonumber \\
\int dp^{0}\ p^{0}\boldsymbol{\mathcal{S}}(x,p) & = & \frac{\hbar}{2}\mathbf{D}_{\mathbf{x}}\mathcal{P}-\boldsymbol{\Pi}\times\boldsymbol{\mathcal{T}}+m\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}-\Pi^{0}\boldsymbol{\mathcal{S}},\end{aligned}$$ where the functions on the right-hand side are equal-time ones, while the functions on the left-hand side are covariant ones.
Now we divide the 16 functions into four groups, each group having four functions, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{G}_{1}=\left(\begin{array}{c}
\mathcal{F}\\
\boldsymbol{\mathcal{S}}
\end{array}\right), & & \mathcal{G}_{2}=\left(\begin{array}{c}
\mathcal{V}^{0}\\
\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}
\end{array}\right),\nonumber \\
\mathcal{G}_{3}=\left(\begin{array}{c}
\mathcal{A}^{0}\\
\boldsymbol{\mathcal{V}}
\end{array}\right), & & \mathcal{G}_{4}=\left(\begin{array}{c}
\mathcal{P}\\
\boldsymbol{\mathcal{T}}
\end{array}\right).\label{def:definition of G_i}\end{aligned}$$ The introduction of these four groups proves to be useful for dealing with the Wigner function when the observer’s frame is fixed [@Sheng:2017lfu; @Sheng:2018jwf]. This form will be used in Sec. \[sec:Analytically-solvable-cases\] for the case of constant electromagnetic fields. Using Eq. (\[def:definition of G\_i\]), Eq. (\[eq:equation of motion equal-time component\]) takes a matrix form, $$\hbar D_{t}\left(\begin{array}{c}
\mathcal{G}_{1}\{t,\mathbf{x},\mathbf{p}\}\\
\mathcal{G}_{2}\{t,\mathbf{x},\mathbf{p}\}\\
\mathcal{G}_{3}\{t,\mathbf{x},\mathbf{p}\}\\
\mathcal{G}_{4}\{t,\mathbf{x},\mathbf{p}\}
\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
0 & 0 & 0 & M_{1}\\
0 & 0 & -M_{2} & 0\\
0 & -M_{2} & 0 & -2m\mathbb{I}_{4}\\
M_{1} & 0 & 2m\mathbb{I}_{4} & 0
\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}
\mathcal{G}_{1}\{t,\mathbf{x},\mathbf{p}\}\\
\mathcal{G}_{2}\{t,\mathbf{x},\mathbf{p}\}\\
\mathcal{G}_{3}\{t,\mathbf{x},\mathbf{p}\}\\
\mathcal{G}_{4}\{t,\mathbf{x},\mathbf{p}\}
\end{array}\right),\label{eq:EOM of 4 groups}$$ while the constraint equation reads
$$\int dp^{0}\ p^{0}\left(\begin{array}{c}
\mathcal{G}_{1}(x,p)\\
\mathcal{G}_{2}(x,p)\\
\mathcal{G}_{3}(x,p)\\
\mathcal{G}_{4}(x,p)
\end{array}\right)=\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
0 & 2m\mathbb{I}_{4} & 0 & M_{2}\\
2m\mathbb{I}_{4} & 0 & M_{1} & 0\\
0 & M_{1} & 0 & 0\\
-M_{2} & 0 & 0 & 0
\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}
\mathcal{G}_{1}\{t,\mathbf{x},\mathbf{p}\}\\
\mathcal{G}_{2}\{t,\mathbf{x},\mathbf{p}\}\\
\mathcal{G}_{3}\{t,\mathbf{x},\mathbf{p}\}\\
\mathcal{G}_{4}\{t,\mathbf{x},\mathbf{p}\}
\end{array}\right)-\Pi^{0}\left(\begin{array}{c}
\mathcal{G}_{1}\{t,\mathbf{x},\mathbf{p}\}\\
\mathcal{G}_{2}\{t,\mathbf{x},\mathbf{p}\}\\
\mathcal{G}_{3}\{t,\mathbf{x},\mathbf{p}\}\\
\mathcal{G}_{4}\{t,\mathbf{x},\mathbf{p}\}
\end{array}\right).$$
Here we define two matrices which are constructed from $\mathbf{D}_{\mathbf{x}}$, and $\boldsymbol{\Pi}$, $$M_{1}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
0 & 2\boldsymbol{\Pi}^{T}\\
2\boldsymbol{\Pi} & \hbar\mathbf{D}_{\mathbf{x}}^{\times}
\end{array}\right),\ M_{2}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
0 & \hbar\mathbf{D}_{\mathbf{x}}^{T}\\
\hbar\mathbf{D}_{\mathbf{x}} & -2\boldsymbol{\Pi}^{\times}
\end{array}\right).\label{def:matrices M1M2}$$ For any 3-dimensional column vector, for example, the momentum operator $\boldsymbol{\Pi}$, we use $\boldsymbol{\Pi}^{T}$ for its transpose, a row vector. In Eq. (\[def:matrices M1M2\]), $\boldsymbol{\Pi}^{\times}$ represents an anti-symmetric matrix whose elements are $(\boldsymbol{\Pi}^{\times})^{ij}=-\epsilon^{ijk}\Pi^{k}$, $$\boldsymbol{\Pi}^{\times}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & -\Pi^{z} & \Pi^{y}\\
\Pi^{z} & 0 & -\Pi^{x}\\
-\Pi^{y} & \Pi^{x} & 0
\end{array}\right).$$ When acting with the matrix $\boldsymbol{\Pi}^{\times}$ onto another column vector $\mathbf{V}$, we obtain the cross product of two vectors, $$\boldsymbol{\Pi}^{\times}\mathbf{V}=\boldsymbol{\Pi}\times\mathbf{V}.$$ The operators defined in Eq. (\[eq:generalized operators for equal-t formula\]) coincide with the ones used in Refs. [@BialynickiBirula:1991tx; @Zhuang:1998bqx; @Wang:2019moi] because we have the following relations
$$\begin{aligned}
j_{0}(\Delta)\mathbf{E}(x) & = & \int_{-1/2}^{1/2}ds\mathbf{E}(\mathbf{x}+is\hbar\boldsymbol{\nabla}_{\mathbf{p}}),\nonumber \\
-\frac{i}{2}j_{1}(\Delta)\mathbf{E}(x) & = & \int_{-1/2}^{1/2}dss\mathbf{E}(\mathbf{x}+is\hbar\boldsymbol{\nabla}_{\mathbf{p}}).\end{aligned}$$
With the help of these relations, the operators in Eq. (\[eq:generalized operators for equal-t formula\]) can be written in another form, $$\begin{aligned}
D_{t} & = & \partial_{t}+\int_{-1/2}^{1/2}ds\mathbf{E}(\mathbf{x}+is\hbar\boldsymbol{\nabla}_{\mathbf{p}})\cdot\boldsymbol{\nabla}_{\mathbf{p}},\nonumber \\
\mathbf{D}_{\mathbf{x}} & = & \boldsymbol{\nabla}_{\mathbf{x}}+\int_{-1/2}^{1/2}ds\mathbf{B}(\mathbf{x}+is\hbar\boldsymbol{\nabla}_{\mathbf{p}})\times\boldsymbol{\nabla}_{\mathbf{p}},\nonumber \\
\Pi^{0} & = & i\hbar\int_{-1/2}^{1/2}dss\mathbf{E}(\mathbf{x}+is\hbar\boldsymbol{\nabla}_{\mathbf{p}})\cdot\boldsymbol{\nabla}_{\mathbf{p}},\nonumber \\
\boldsymbol{\Pi} & = & \mathbf{p}-i\hbar\int_{-1/2}^{1/2}dss\mathbf{B}(\mathbf{x}+is\hbar\boldsymbol{\nabla}_{\mathbf{p}})\times\boldsymbol{\nabla}_{\mathbf{p}},\end{aligned}$$ which are used in Refs. [@BialynickiBirula:1991tx; @Zhuang:1998bqx; @Wang:2019moi].
$\ $
Analytical solutions\[sec:Analytically-solvable-cases\]
=======================================================
In the previous section we have introduced the definition of the covariant Wigner function in Eq. (\[def:Wigner function\]) and its equal-time formula in Eq. (\[def:equal-time Wigner function\]). Kinetic equations are also derived but we still need the initial conditions for numerically solving the equations. In this section we will give several analytically solvable cases. The results of this section can serve as initial conditions for numerical calculations. In the following three cases, the Dirac equation has analytical solutions
1. A system consisting of fermions without any interaction.
2. Fermions with chiral imbalance. The chemical potential $\mu$ and the chiral chemical potential $\mu_{5}$ are included in the Dirac equation but still without the electromagnetic field.
3. Fermions in a constant magnetic field. As in case 2, $\mu$ and $\mu_{5}$ are included in the Dirac equation.
In all three cases, the Dirac equation can be analytically solved and we derive the eigenenergies and corresponding eigenwavefunctions. Then the field operator is derived following the standard procedure of second quantization. The Wigner function is then solved up to zeroth order in the spatial derivative. The chiral chemical potential $\mu_{5}$ is included for the further study of chiral effects. In this section, two dynamical problems will also be considered,
1. Fermions in an electric field. The existence of the electric field leads to the decay of the vacuum into fermion/anti-fermion pairs. At the same time, charged particles in the system will be accelerated.
2. Fermions in constant electromagnetic fields. The magnetic field is assumed to be parallel to the electric field.
We use the equal-time Wigner function for these dynamical problems. These discussions show that the Wigner function approach can also be used for the study of pair-production. Furthermore, in parallel electric and magnetic field, the existence of the magnetic field will enhance the pair-production rate since it changes the structure of energy levels. Meanwhile, at the lowest Landau level, spins of positive charged particles are locked to the direction of the magnetic field, and the newly generated positively charged particles move along the electric field. Thus these particles have RH chirality. Similar arguements show that the negatively charged particles (anti-fermions) have RH chirality, too. This gives rise to interesting effects, such as axial-charge production and axial-current production [@Copinger:2018ftr]. In this section we display the analytical procedure for deriving the Wigner function in the above five cases, while in Sec. \[sec:Physical quantities\] we will numerically calculate physical quantities. Throughout this section we will suppress $\hbar$ but it can be recovered by carefully counting the units.
Free fermions\[subsec:Free-fermions\]
-------------------------------------
### Plane-wave solutions
In this subsection we will focus on free fermions with spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ in the absence of electromagnetic fields. Interactions among particles are also neglected. In this case, fermions satisfy the free Dirac equation (\[eq:Dirac equation and conjugate\]) with vanishing gauge potential $\mathbb{A}_{\mu}=0$, $$\left(i\gamma^{\mu}\partial_{x\mu}-m\mathbb{I}_{4}\right)\psi(x)=0.$$ The Dirac equation can be rewritten in the form of a Schrödinger equation
$$i\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\psi=(-i\gamma^{0}\boldsymbol{\gamma}\cdot\boldsymbol{\partial}_{\mathbf{x}}+m\gamma^{0})\psi.\label{eq:free Schroedinger equation}$$
Note that the spatial derivative operator $\boldsymbol{\partial}_{\mathbf{x}}$ commutes with the Hamilton operator $\hat{H}=-i\gamma^{0}\boldsymbol{\gamma}\cdot\boldsymbol{\partial}_{\mathbf{x}}+m\gamma^{0}$, so we can introduce a kinetic 3-momentum $\mathbf{p}$ by making a Fourier expansion for the field $\psi(x)$, $$\psi(x)=\int\frac{d^{4}p}{(2\pi)^{4}}e^{-ip^{\mu}x_{\mu}}\psi(p).$$ Applying this into the Dirac equation we obtain $$p^{0}\psi(p)=(\gamma^{0}\boldsymbol{\gamma}\cdot\mathbf{p}+m\gamma^{0})\psi(p).\label{eq:free Dirac eq in momentum space}$$ The on-shell condition can be obtained by acting with $(\gamma^{0}\boldsymbol{\gamma}\cdot\mathbf{p}+m\gamma^{0})$ onto Eq. (\[eq:free Dirac eq in momentum space\]),
$$(p^{0})^{2}\psi(p)=(m^{2}+\mathbf{p}^{2})\psi(p).$$
Solving the on-shell condition, we obtain positive-energy states with $p^{0}>0$, and negative-energy states with $p^{0}<0$. $$p^{0}=\pm E_{\mathbf{p}}=\pm\sqrt{m^{2}+\mathbf{p}^{2}}.$$ The positive-energy states will be identified as fermions, while the negative-energy states are identified as anti-fermions.
In order to obtain the corresponding eigenwavefunctions, we perform a Lorentz transformation and work in the particle’s rest frame. We parameterize the Lorentz transformation using $\omega_{\mu\nu}$, which is anti-symmetric with respect to $\mu\leftrightarrow\nu$. The transformation matrix for a Lorentz vector is $$\Lambda_{\ \nu}^{\mu}=\exp\left[-\frac{i}{2}\omega_{\alpha\beta}(\mathcal{J}^{\alpha\beta})_{\ \nu}^{\mu}\right],$$ where $(\mathcal{J}^{\alpha\beta})_{\ \nu}^{\mu}$ is the generator of the Lorentz algebra. In the coordinate representation, this generator is given by $$(\mathcal{J}^{\alpha\beta})_{\mu\nu}=i(\delta_{\mu}^{\alpha}\delta_{\nu}^{\beta}-\delta_{\nu}^{\alpha}\delta_{\mu}^{\beta}).$$ Inserting $(\mathcal{J}^{\alpha\beta})_{\mu\nu}$ into the transformation matrix $\Lambda_{\ \nu}^{\mu}$, we obtain $$\Lambda_{\ \nu}^{\mu}=\exp\left(\omega_{\ \nu}^{\mu}\right).$$ Any vector, for example the 4-momentum, transforms as $$p^{\mu}\rightarrow\Lambda_{\ \nu}^{\mu}p^{\nu}.$$ Meanwhile, the Dirac-spinor field $\psi(x)$ transforms as $$\psi(x)\rightarrow\Lambda_{\frac{1}{2}}\psi(\Lambda^{-1}x),$$ where the spinor representation of the Lorentz transformation is given by $$\Lambda_{\frac{1}{2}}=\exp\left(-\frac{i}{4}\omega_{\mu\nu}\sigma^{\mu\nu}\right),$$ with $\sigma^{\mu\nu}\equiv\frac{i}{2}\left[\gamma^{\mu},\,\gamma^{\nu}\right]$. Now we consider the transformation from the particle’s rest frame to the lab frame. For one particle which has 4-momentum $(E_{\mathbf{p}},\,\mathbf{p})$ in the lab frame, its 3-velocity is $$\boldsymbol{\beta}=\frac{\mathbf{p}}{E_{\mathbf{p}}},$$ and we define the rapidity vector as $$\boldsymbol{\zeta}=\frac{\boldsymbol{\beta}}{\beta}\tanh^{-1}\beta,\label{def:rapidity vector}$$ with $\beta\equiv\left|\boldsymbol{\beta}\right|$. Then we define the parameters for the Lorentz transformation from the particle’s rest frame to the lab frame $$\omega^{0i}=-\zeta^{i},\ \ \omega^{ij}=0,$$ which leads to the following transformation matrix $$\Lambda_{\ \nu}^{\mu}=\exp\left[\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
0 & \beta^{x} & \beta^{y} & \beta^{z}\\
\beta^{x} & 0 & 0 & 0\\
\beta^{y} & 0 & 0 & 0\\
\beta^{z} & 0 & 0 & 0
\end{array}\right)\frac{1}{\beta}\tanh^{-1}\beta\right].$$ This matrix can be calculated using the Taylor expansion,
$$\Lambda_{\ \nu}^{\mu}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
\gamma & \gamma\beta^{x} & \gamma\beta^{y} & \gamma\beta^{z}\\
\gamma\beta^{x} & 1+(\gamma-1)(\hat{\beta}^{x})^{2} & (\gamma-1)\hat{\beta}^{x}\hat{\beta}^{y} & (\gamma-1)\hat{\beta}^{x}\hat{\beta}^{z}\\
\gamma\beta^{y} & (\gamma-1)\hat{\beta}^{x}\hat{\beta}^{y} & 1+(\gamma-1)(\hat{\beta}^{y})^{2} & (\gamma-1)\hat{\beta}^{y}\hat{\beta}^{z}\\
\gamma\beta^{z} & (\gamma-1)\hat{\beta}^{x}\hat{\beta}^{z} & (\gamma-1)\hat{\beta}^{y}\hat{\beta}^{z} & 1+(\gamma-1)(\hat{\beta}^{z})^{2}
\end{array}\right),$$
where $\beta^{x,y,z}$ are the three components of the 3-velocity $\boldsymbol{\beta}$, $\hat{\beta}^{x,y,z}$ are the components of the velocity direction $\boldsymbol{\beta}/\beta$, and the Lorentz factor $\gamma=1/\sqrt{1-\beta^{2}}=E_{\mathbf{p}}/m$. The spinor representation of this transformation is $$\Lambda_{\frac{1}{2}}=\exp\left(\frac{1}{2}\gamma^{0}\boldsymbol{\gamma}\cdot\boldsymbol{\zeta}\right).\label{def:Lambda1/2}$$ Thus the Dirac field $\psi(p)$ can be written in terms of the field in the particle’s rest frame $$\psi(p)=\Lambda_{\frac{1}{2}}\psi_{\text{rf}}.$$
In the particle’s rest frame, where the 3-momentum vanishes $\mathbf{p}=0$ and $E_{\mathbf{p}}=m$, the Dirac equation (\[eq:free Dirac eq in momentum space\]) reads $$\pm m\psi_{\text{rf}}=m\gamma^{0}\psi_{\text{rf}}.\label{eq:free Dirac eq in rest frame}$$ Here we adopt the Weyl basis for the gamma matrices in Eq. (\[eq:gamma matrices-1\]). Then the wavefunctions for positive- and negative-energy states are given by $$\psi_{\text{rf},s}^{(+)}=\sqrt{m}\left(\begin{array}{c}
\xi_{s}\\
\xi_{s}
\end{array}\right),\ \ \psi_{\text{rf},s}^{(-)}=\sqrt{m}\left(\begin{array}{c}
\xi_{s}\\
-\xi_{s}
\end{array}\right),\label{sol:free wave function in rest frame}$$ where $\xi_{s}$ are two-component spinors which satisfy the orthonormality relation $\xi_{r}^{\dagger}\xi_{s}=\delta_{rs}$. We have introduced a factor $\sqrt{m}$ in these solutions for convenience. The spinor $\xi_{s}$ define the spin direction in the rest frame. For example, $\xi=(1,0)^{T}$ corresponds to a spin-up state in the z-direction and $\xi=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(1,1)^{T}$ corresponds to a spin-up state in the x-direction. Note that $\xi=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(1,1)^{T}$ is a superposition of $(1,0)^{T}$ and $(0,1)^{T}$, which respectively represent the spin-up and spin-down states in the z-direction. Thus we can choose $\xi_{+}=(1,0)^{T}$ and $\xi_{-}=(0,1)^{T}$ without loss of generality and all possible spin configuration can be written as a superposition of $\xi_{\pm}$. Generally, the spinors $\xi_{s}$ can be choosen as the eigenvectors of an arbitrary linear combination of Pauli matrices. If we choose $\xi_{s}$ as the eigenvectors of the $2\times2$ matrix $\mathbf{n}\cdot\boldsymbol{\sigma}$, then $\psi_{\text{rf},s}^{(+)}$ represent fermions with spin parallel ($s=+$) or anti-parallel ($s=-$) to the vector $\mathbf{n}$ in their rest frame, while $\psi_{\text{rf},s}^{(-)}$ represent anti-fermions with spin parallel ($s=-$) or anti-parallel ($s=+$) to $\mathbf{n}$.
Then we boost from the particle’s rest frame to the lab frame. Inserting the gamma matrices (\[eq:gamma matrices-1\]) and the rapidity vector (\[def:rapidity vector\]) into the definition of $\Lambda_{\frac{1}{2}}$ in Eq. (\[def:Lambda1/2\]), we obtain $$\Lambda_{\frac{1}{2}}=\exp\left[-\frac{1}{2\left|\mathbf{p}\right|}\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\boldsymbol{\sigma}\cdot\mathbf{p} & 0\\
0 & -\boldsymbol{\sigma}\cdot\mathbf{p}
\end{array}\right)\tanh^{-1}\frac{\left|\mathbf{p}\right|}{E_{\mathbf{p}}}\right],\label{eq:Lambda1/2}$$ where $\boldsymbol{\sigma}$ are the Pauli matrices. Note that an exponential of a matrix is defined as the Taylor expansion $$\Lambda_{\frac{1}{2}}=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{1}{n!}\left(-\frac{1}{2\left|\mathbf{p}\right|}\tanh^{-1}\frac{\left|\mathbf{p}\right|}{E_{\mathbf{p}}}\right)^{n}\left(\begin{array}{cc}
(\boldsymbol{\sigma}\cdot\mathbf{p})^{n} & 0\\
0 & (-\boldsymbol{\sigma}\cdot\mathbf{p})^{n}
\end{array}\right).\label{eq:another form of lambda1/2}$$ In order to calculate $\Lambda_{\frac{1}{2}}$, we first focus on the 2-dimensional matrix $\boldsymbol{\sigma}\cdot\mathbf{p}$. Note that $\boldsymbol{\sigma}\cdot\mathbf{p}$ is Hermitian, which means that it can be diagonalized. The normalized eigenstates of $\boldsymbol{\sigma}\cdot\mathbf{p}$ are given by $$\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\left|\mathbf{p}\right|(p^{z}+\left|\mathbf{p}\right|)}}\left(\begin{array}{c}
p^{z}+\left|\mathbf{p}\right|\\
p^{x}+ip^{y}
\end{array}\right),\ \ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\left|\mathbf{p}\right|(\left|\mathbf{p}\right|-p^{z})}}\left(\begin{array}{c}
p^{z}-\left|\mathbf{p}\right|\\
p^{x}+ip^{y}
\end{array}\right),$$ which correspond to the eigenvalues $\pm\left|\mathbf{p}\right|$, respectively. With these eigenvectors, one can define the following transformation matrix $S_{\mathbf{p}}$ and its Hermitian conjugate, $$S_{\mathbf{p}}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\frac{p^{z}+\left|\mathbf{p}\right|}{\sqrt{2\left|\mathbf{p}\right|(p^{z}+\left|\mathbf{p}\right|)}} & \frac{p^{z}-\left|\mathbf{p}\right|}{\sqrt{2\left|\mathbf{p}\right|(\left|\mathbf{p}\right|-p^{z})}}\\
\frac{p^{x}+ip^{y}}{\sqrt{2\left|\mathbf{p}\right|(p^{z}+\left|\mathbf{p}\right|)}} & \frac{p^{x}+ip^{y}}{\sqrt{2\left|\mathbf{p}\right|(\left|\mathbf{p}\right|-p^{z})}}
\end{array}\right),\ \ S_{\mathbf{p}}^{\dagger}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\frac{p^{z}+\left|\mathbf{p}\right|}{\sqrt{2\left|\mathbf{p}\right|(p^{z}+\left|\mathbf{p}\right|)}} & \frac{p^{x}-ip^{y}}{\sqrt{2\left|\mathbf{p}\right|(p^{z}+\left|\mathbf{p}\right|)}}\\
\frac{p^{z}-\left|\mathbf{p}\right|}{\sqrt{2\left|\mathbf{p}\right|(\left|\mathbf{p}\right|-p^{z})}} & \frac{p^{x}-ip^{y}}{\sqrt{2\left|\mathbf{p}\right|(\left|\mathbf{p}\right|-p^{z})}}
\end{array}\right).\label{def:transformation matrix Sp}$$ The matrix $S_{\mathbf{p}}$ is a unitary matrix, i.e., its inverse is equivalent to its Hermitian conjugate, $S_{\mathbf{p}}^{\dagger}S_{\mathbf{p}}=S_{\mathbf{p}}S_{\mathbf{p}}^{\dagger}=\mathbb{I}_{2}$. The matrix $\boldsymbol{\sigma}\cdot\mathbf{p}$ is then diagonalized as $$\boldsymbol{\sigma}\cdot\mathbf{p}=\left|\mathbf{p}\right|S_{\mathbf{p}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0\\
0 & -1
\end{array}\right)S_{\mathbf{p}}^{\dagger}.\label{eq:diagonalization of sigma cdot p}$$ With the help of Eq. (\[eq:diagonalization of sigma cdot p\]), we can calculate the $n$-th power of $\boldsymbol{\sigma}\cdot\mathbf{p}$, $$\left(\boldsymbol{\sigma}\cdot\mathbf{p}\right)^{n}=\left|\mathbf{p}\right|^{n}S_{\mathbf{p}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0\\
0 & -1
\end{array}\right)^{n}S_{\mathbf{p}}^{\dagger}=\left|\mathbf{p}\right|^{n}S_{\mathbf{p}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0\\
0 & (-1)^{n}
\end{array}\right)S_{\mathbf{p}}^{\dagger}.$$ We can calculate the terms in Eq. (\[eq:another form of lambda1/2\]) $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{1}{n!}\left(-\frac{1}{2\left|\mathbf{p}\right|}\tanh^{-1}\frac{\left|\mathbf{p}\right|}{E_{\mathbf{p}}}\right)^{n}(\boldsymbol{\sigma}\cdot\mathbf{p})^{n} & = & \frac{1}{\sqrt{m}}\sqrt{p_{\mu}\sigma^{\mu}},\nonumber \\
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{1}{n!}\left(-\frac{1}{2\left|\mathbf{p}\right|}\tanh^{-1}\frac{\left|\mathbf{p}\right|}{E_{\mathbf{p}}}\right)^{n}(-\boldsymbol{\sigma}\cdot\mathbf{p})^{n} & = & \frac{1}{\sqrt{m}}\sqrt{p_{\mu}\bar{\sigma}^{\mu}},\label{eq:calculations of series}\end{aligned}$$ where we have used $$\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{1}{n!}\left(\pm\frac{1}{2}\tanh^{-1}\frac{\left|\mathbf{p}\right|}{E_{\mathbf{p}}}\right)^{n}=\exp\left[\pm\frac{1}{2}\tanh^{-1}\frac{\left|\mathbf{p}\right|}{E_{\mathbf{p}}}\right]=\frac{1}{\sqrt{m}}\sqrt{E_{\mathbf{p}}\pm\left|\mathbf{p}\right|},$$ and introduced the following short-hand notations $$\sqrt{p_{\mu}\sigma^{\mu}}=S_{\mathbf{p}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\sqrt{E_{\mathbf{p}}-\left|\mathbf{p}\right|} & 0\\
0 & \sqrt{E_{\mathbf{p}}+\left|\mathbf{p}\right|}
\end{array}\right)S_{\mathbf{p}}^{\dagger},\ \ \sqrt{p_{\mu}\bar{\sigma}^{\mu}}=S_{\mathbf{p}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\sqrt{E_{\mathbf{p}}+\left|\mathbf{p}\right|} & 0\\
0 & \sqrt{E_{\mathbf{p}}-\left|\mathbf{p}\right|}
\end{array}\right)S_{\mathbf{p}}^{\dagger}.\label{def:short notations}$$ These matrices are real, $$\left(\sqrt{p_{\mu}\sigma^{\mu}}\right)^{\dagger}=\sqrt{p_{\mu}\sigma^{\mu}},\ \ \left(\sqrt{p_{\mu}\bar{\sigma}^{\mu}}\right)^{\dagger}=\sqrt{p_{\mu}\bar{\sigma}^{\mu}},$$ and satisfy following relations, $$\begin{aligned}
& & \left(\sqrt{p_{\mu}\sigma^{\mu}}\right)^{2}=E_{\mathbf{p}}-\boldsymbol{\sigma}\cdot\mathbf{p},\ \ \left(\sqrt{p_{\mu}\bar{\sigma}^{\mu}}\right)^{2}=E_{\mathbf{p}}+\boldsymbol{\sigma}\cdot\mathbf{p},\nonumber \\
& & \sqrt{p_{\mu}\sigma^{\mu}}\sqrt{p_{\nu}\bar{\sigma}^{\nu}}=\sqrt{p_{\nu}\bar{\sigma}^{\nu}}\sqrt{p_{\mu}\sigma^{\mu}}=m,\label{eq:product of Sqrt p=00005Csigma}\end{aligned}$$ which will be useful in checking the normalization relation of the wavefunctions and calculating the Wigner function. Substituting the Taylor series in Eq. (\[eq:another form of lambda1/2\]) into Eq. (\[eq:calculations of series\]), the transformation matrix $\Lambda_{\frac{1}{2}}$ has the form $$\Lambda_{\frac{1}{2}}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{m}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\sqrt{p_{\mu}\sigma^{\mu}} & 0\\
0 & \sqrt{p_{\mu}\bar{\sigma}^{\mu}}
\end{array}\right),\label{eq:lorentz trans lambda1/2}$$ where $\sqrt{p_{\mu}\sigma^{\mu}}$ and $\sqrt{p_{\mu}\bar{\sigma}^{\mu}}$ are defined in Eq. (\[def:short notations\]). Now we act with the transformation matrix $\Lambda_{\frac{1}{2}}$ in Eq. (\[eq:lorentz trans lambda1/2\]) onto the wavefunctions in the particle’s rest frame to obtain the wavefunctions in the lab frame
$$\psi_{s}^{(+)}(\mathbf{p})=\left(\begin{array}{c}
\sqrt{p_{\mu}\sigma^{\mu}}\xi_{s}\\
\sqrt{p_{\mu}\bar{\sigma}^{\mu}}\xi_{s}
\end{array}\right),\ \ \psi_{s}^{(-)}(\mathbf{p})=\left(\begin{array}{c}
\sqrt{p_{\mu}\sigma^{\mu}}\xi_{s}\\
-\sqrt{p_{\mu}\bar{\sigma}^{\mu}}\xi_{s}
\end{array}\right).\label{sol:free wave functions}$$
They are properly normalized,
$$\begin{aligned}
\psi_{s}^{(+)\dagger}(\mathbf{p})\psi_{s^{\prime}}^{(+)}(\mathbf{p}) & = & 2E_{\mathbf{p}}\delta_{ss^{\prime}},\nonumber \\
\psi_{s}^{(-)\dagger}(\mathbf{p})\psi_{s^{\prime}}^{(-)}(\mathbf{p}) & = & 2E_{\mathbf{p}}\delta_{ss^{\prime}},\label{eq:normalization of psi pm}\end{aligned}$$
and the positive-energy states are orthogonal to the negative-energy ones, $$\psi_{s}^{(+)\dagger}(\mathbf{p})\psi_{s^{\prime}}^{(-)}(-\mathbf{p})=\psi_{s}^{(-)\dagger}(\mathbf{p})\psi_{s^{\prime}}^{(+)}(-\mathbf{p})=0.\label{eq:orthogonality of psi pm}$$ Although these solutions have already been obtained in many textbooks, we have repeated the details in this thesis because we want to clarify how to calculate the square root of a matrix, i.e., the terms $\sqrt{p_{\mu}\sigma^{\mu}}$ and $\sqrt{p_{\mu}\bar{\sigma}^{\mu}}$ in the solutions (\[sol:free wave functions\]). These details will help us in calculating the Wigner function in the latter part of this subsection.
### Plane-wave quantization
Using the single-particle wavefunction in Eq. (\[sol:free wave functions\]), the Dirac-field operator can be quantized as $$\hat{\psi}(x)=\sum_{s}\int\frac{d^{3}\mathbf{p}}{(2\pi)^{3}\sqrt{2E_{\mathbf{p}}}}\left[e^{-iE_{\mathbf{p}}t+i\mathbf{p}\cdot\mathbf{x}}\psi_{s}^{(+)}(\mathbf{p})\hat{a}_{\mathbf{p},s}+e^{iE_{\mathbf{p}}t-i\mathbf{p}\cdot\mathbf{x}}\psi_{s}^{(-)}(\mathbf{p})\hat{b}_{\mathbf{p},s}^{\dagger}\right],\label{def:quantized free field}$$ where $\hat{a}_{\mathbf{p},s}$ represents the annihilation operator for a fermion with momentum $\mathbf{p}$ and spin $s$, and $\hat{b}_{\mathbf{p},s}^{\dagger}$ is the creation operator for an anti-fermion with the same quantum numbers $\left\{ \mathbf{p},s\right\} $. Here the particle energy is on the mass-shell $p^{2}=m^{2}$, thus we can rewrite the integration over the 3-momentum $\mathbf{p}$ as a 4-dimensional covariant integration over the 4-momentum $p^{\mu}$, $$\hat{\psi}(x)=\sum_{s}\int\frac{d^{4}p}{(2\pi)^{3}}e^{-ip^{\mu}x_{\mu}}\delta(p^{2}-m^{2})\sqrt{2E_{\mathbf{p}}}\left[\theta(p^{0})\psi_{s}^{(+)}(\mathbf{p})\hat{a}_{\mathbf{p},s}+\theta(-p^{0})\psi_{s}^{(-)}(-\mathbf{p})\hat{b}_{-\mathbf{p},s}^{\dagger}\right],\label{def:covariant quantized free field}$$ where we have used the following property of the delta-function, $$\theta(\pm p^{0})\delta(p^{2}-m^{2})=\frac{1}{2E_{\mathbf{p}}}\delta(p^{0}\mp E_{\mathbf{p}}).$$ We demand that the creation and annihilation operators satisfy the following anti-commutation relations $$\left\{ \hat{a}_{\mathbf{p},s},\,\hat{a}_{\mathbf{p}^{\prime},s^{\prime}}^{\dagger}\right\} =\left\{ \hat{b}_{\mathbf{p},s},\,\hat{b}_{\mathbf{p}^{\prime},s^{\prime}}^{\dagger}\right\} =(2\pi)^{3}\delta^{(3)}(\mathbf{p}-\mathbf{p}^{\prime})\delta_{ss^{\prime}},$$ with all other anti-commutators vanishing, $$\left\{ \hat{a}_{\mathbf{p},s},\,\hat{a}_{\mathbf{p}^{\prime},s^{\prime}}\right\} =\left\{ \hat{b}_{\mathbf{p},s},\,\hat{b}_{\mathbf{p}^{\prime},s^{\prime}}\right\} =\left\{ \hat{a}_{\mathbf{p},s},\,\hat{b}_{\mathbf{p}^{\prime},s^{\prime}}^{\dagger}\right\} =\left\{ \hat{b}_{\mathbf{p},s},\,\hat{a}_{\mathbf{p}^{\prime},s^{\prime}}^{\dagger}\right\} =0.$$ Then it is easy to verify the equal-time anti-commutation relation for the field operator
$$\left\{ \hat{\psi}_{a}(t,\mathbf{x}),\hat{\psi}_{b}^{\dagger}(t,\mathbf{x}^{\prime})\right\} =\sum_{s}\int\frac{d^{3}\mathbf{p}}{(2\pi)^{3}2E_{\mathbf{p}}}e^{i\mathbf{p}\cdot(\mathbf{x}-\mathbf{x}^{\prime})}\left[u_{s,a}(\mathbf{p})u_{s,b}^{\dagger}(\mathbf{p})+v_{s,a}(\mathbf{p})v_{s,b}^{\dagger}(\mathbf{p})\right],$$
where $a,b=1,2,3,4$ label components of $\hat{\psi}$ or $\hat{\psi}^{\dagger}$. Inserting the explicit expressions for $\psi_{s}^{(+)}(\mathbf{p})$ and $\psi_{s}^{(-)}(\mathbf{p})$ in Eq. (\[sol:free wave functions\]) into the above equation, one obtains
$$\left\{ \hat{\psi}_{a}(t,\mathbf{x}),\hat{\psi}_{b}^{\dagger}(t,\mathbf{x}^{\prime})\right\} =\delta^{(3)}(\mathbf{x}-\mathbf{x}^{\prime})\delta_{ab},$$
while the other anti-commutators are zero, $$\left\{ \hat{\psi}_{a}(t,\mathbf{x}),\hat{\psi}_{b}(t,\mathbf{x}^{\prime})\right\} =\left\{ \hat{\psi}_{a}^{\dagger}(t,\mathbf{x}),\hat{\psi}_{b}^{\dagger}(t,\mathbf{x}^{\prime})\right\} =0.$$ By checking these equal-time anti-commutators, we confirm that the quantized field operator in Eq. (\[def:quantized free field\]) has the correct property. A further calculation gives the Hamiltonian operator, $$\hat{H}=\int\frac{d^{3}\mathbf{p}}{(2\pi)^{3}}E_{\mathbf{p}}\sum_{s=\pm}\left(\hat{a}_{\mathbf{p},s}^{\dagger}\hat{a}_{\mathbf{p},s}+\hat{b}_{-\mathbf{p},s}^{\dagger}\hat{b}_{-\mathbf{p},s}-1\right),$$ while the momentum operator is given by
$$\hat{\mathbf{P}}=\int d^{3}\mathbf{x}\,\hat{\psi}^{\dagger}(-i\boldsymbol{\nabla}_{\mathbf{x}})\hat{\psi}=\sum_{s}\int\frac{d^{3}\mathbf{p}}{(2\pi)^{3}}\mathbf{p}\left(\hat{a}_{\mathbf{p},s}^{\dagger}\hat{a}_{\mathbf{p},s}-\hat{b}_{-\mathbf{p},s}^{\dagger}\hat{b}_{-\mathbf{p},s}\right).$$
In deriving the Hamiltonian and momentum operators, we have used the orthonormality relations in Eqs. (\[eq:normalization of psi pm\]) and (\[eq:orthogonality of psi pm\]). In quantum electrodynamics, the Dirac spinor $\psi$ is used to describe spin-1/2 particles, such as electrons and positrons. Here the spin is quantized along a given direction, which is determined by the choice of Pauli spinors $\xi_{s}$ in (\[sol:free wave functions\]). If we adopt the quantization procedure in this subsection, the operator $\hat{a}_{\mathbf{p},s}^{\dagger}$ creates an electron with momentum $\mathbf{p}$ and spin parallel ($s=+$) or anti-parallel ($s=-$) to the spin quantization direction. On the other hand, the operator $\hat{b}_{\mathbf{p},s}^{\dagger}$ creates a positron with momentum $\mathbf{p}$ and spin parallel ($s=-$) or anti-parallel ($s=+$) to the spin quantization direction. The interpretation of spin can be obtained via computing the spin angular momentum operator.
### Wigner function
In the previous parts of this subsection we have derived the plane-wave solutions and quantized the Dirac-field in Eq. (\[def:covariant quantized free field\]). Inserting the field operator into the definition of the Wigner function (\[def:Wigner function\]), one obtains
$$\begin{aligned}
W(x,p) & = & \int\frac{d^{4}qd^{4}q^{\prime}}{(2\pi)^{6}}\sum_{ss^{\prime}}\exp\left[i(q^{\mu}-q^{\prime\mu})x_{\mu}\right]\sqrt{2E_{\mathbf{q}}}\sqrt{2E_{\mathbf{q}^{\prime}}}\nonumber \\
& & \times\delta^{(4)}\left(p_{\mu}-\frac{q_{\mu}+q_{\mu}^{\prime}}{2}\right)\delta(q^{\mu}q_{\mu}-m^{2})\delta(q^{\prime\mu}q_{\mu}^{\prime}-m^{2})\nonumber \\
& & \times\left\langle \Omega\left|\left[\theta(q^{0})\bar{\psi}_{s}^{(+)}(\mathbf{q})\hat{a}_{\mathbf{q},s}^{\dagger}+\theta(-q^{0})\bar{\psi}_{s}^{(-)}(-\mathbf{q})\hat{b}_{-\mathbf{q},s}\right]\right.\right.\nonumber \\
& & \left.\left.\otimes\left[\theta(q^{\prime0})\psi_{s^{\prime}}^{(+)}(\mathbf{q}^{\prime})\hat{a}_{\mathbf{q}^{\prime},s^{\prime}}+\theta(-q^{\prime0})\psi_{s^{\prime}}^{(-)}(-\mathbf{q}^{\prime})\hat{b}_{-\mathbf{q}^{\prime},s^{\prime}}^{\dagger}\right]\right|\Omega\right\rangle .\label{eq:free fermion Wigner function}\end{aligned}$$ In the Wigner function two field operators are defined at different space-time points, thus here after the Fourier transformations, we have two momentum variables $q^{\mu}$ and $q^{\prime\mu}$. Then we define the average and relative momentum as follows $$k^{\mu}=\frac{1}{2}(q^{\mu}+q^{\prime\mu}),\ \ u^{\mu}=q^{\mu}-q^{\prime\mu},$$ in terms of which can we express $q^{\mu}$ and $q^{\prime\mu}$, $$q^{\mu}=k^{\mu}+\frac{1}{2}u^{\mu},\ \ q^{\prime\mu}=k^{\mu}-\frac{1}{2}u^{\mu}.$$ Since the Jacobian for this substitution equals $1$, we have $$d^{4}qd^{4}q^{\prime}=d^{4}kd^{4}u.$$ Using the new variables $k^{\mu}$ and $u^{\mu}$, the delta functions in Eq. (\[eq:free fermion Wigner function\]) can be simplified as
$$\begin{aligned}
\delta\left(q^{\mu}q_{\mu}-m^{2}\right)\delta(\left(q^{\prime\mu}q_{\mu}^{\prime}-m^{2}\right) & = & \delta\left(k^{\mu}k_{\mu}+\frac{1}{4}u^{\mu}u_{\mu}-m^{2}+k^{\mu}u_{\mu}\right)\delta\left(k^{\mu}k_{\mu}+\frac{1}{4}u^{\mu}u_{\mu}-m^{2}-k^{\mu}u_{\mu}\right)\nonumber \\
& = & \frac{1}{2}\delta\left(k^{\mu}k_{\mu}+\frac{1}{4}u^{\mu}u_{\mu}-m^{2}\right)\delta\left(k^{\mu}u_{\mu}\right),\end{aligned}$$
On the other hand, we have to deal with the step functions in the Wigner function (\[eq:free fermion Wigner function\]). The product of two step functions can be rewritten as $$\theta(x)\theta(y)=\theta(x+y)\theta(x+y-|x-y|),$$ So we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\theta(q^{0})\theta(q^{\prime0}) & = & \theta(k^{0})\theta\left(k^{0}-\left|\frac{1}{2}u^{0}\right|\right),\nonumber \\
\theta(-q^{0})\theta(-q^{\prime0}) & = & \theta(-k^{0})\theta\left(-k^{0}-\left|\frac{1}{2}u^{0}\right|\right),\nonumber \\
\theta(q^{0})\theta(-q^{\prime0}) & = & \theta(u^{0})\theta\left(\frac{1}{2}u^{0}-\left|k^{0}\right|\right),\nonumber \\
\theta(-q^{0})\theta(q^{\prime0}) & = & \theta(-u^{0})\theta\left(-\frac{1}{2}u^{0}-\left|k^{0}\right|\right).\label{eq:product of two theta functions}\end{aligned}$$ Since $q^{\mu}$ and $q^{\prime\mu}$ are fixed on the mass-shell, their zeroth component is $q^{0}=\pm E_{\mathbf{q}}$ and $q^{\prime0}=\pm E_{\mathbf{q}^{\prime}}$. Thus we can check the following relations between the absolute values of $\left|k^{0}\right|$ and $\left|u^{0}\right|$
$$\begin{cases}
\frac{1}{2}\left|u^{0}\right|<\left|k^{0}\right|, & \mathrm{sgn}(q^{0})\mathrm{sgn}(q^{\prime0})=1,\\
\frac{1}{2}\left|u^{0}\right|>\left|k^{0}\right|, & \mathrm{sgn}(q^{0})\mathrm{sgn}(q^{\prime0})=-1,
\end{cases}$$
Using these relations we find that the products of two step functions in Eq. (\[eq:product of two theta functions\]) can be simplified as $$\begin{aligned}
\theta(q^{0})\theta(q^{\prime0}) & = & \theta(k^{0}),\nonumber \\
\theta(-q^{0})\theta(-q^{\prime0}) & = & \theta(-k^{0}),\nonumber \\
\theta(q^{0})\theta(-q^{\prime0}) & = & \theta(u^{0}),\nonumber \\
\theta(-q^{0})\theta(q^{\prime0}) & = & \theta(-u^{0}).\end{aligned}$$ Using the new variables $k^{\mu}$, $u^{\mu}$, the Wigner function can be put into the form
$$\begin{aligned}
W(x,p) & = & \int\frac{d^{4}u}{(2\pi)^{6}}\sum_{ss^{\prime}}\exp\left(iu^{\mu}x_{\mu}\right)\delta\left(p^{\mu}p_{\mu}+\frac{1}{4}u^{\mu}u_{\mu}-m^{2}\right)\delta\left(p^{\mu}u_{\mu}\right)\sqrt{\left|p^{0}+\frac{1}{2}u^{0}\right|\left|p^{0}-\frac{1}{2}u^{0}\right|}\nonumber \\
& & \times\left[\theta(p^{0})\bar{\psi}_{s}^{(+)}\left(\mathbf{p}+\frac{1}{2}\mathbf{u}\right)\otimes\psi_{s^{\prime}}^{(+)}\left(\mathbf{p}-\frac{1}{2}\mathbf{u}\right)\left\langle \Omega\left|\hat{a}_{\mathbf{p}+\frac{1}{2}\mathbf{u},s}^{\dagger}\hat{a}_{\mathbf{p}-\frac{1}{2}\mathbf{u},s^{\prime}}\right|\Omega\right\rangle \right.\nonumber \\
& & \qquad+\theta(-p^{0})\bar{\psi}_{s}^{(-)}\left(-\mathbf{p}-\frac{1}{2}\mathbf{u}\right)\otimes\psi_{s^{\prime}}^{(-)}\left(-\mathbf{p}+\frac{1}{2}\mathbf{u}\right)\left\langle \Omega\left|\hat{b}_{-\mathbf{p}-\frac{1}{2}\mathbf{u},s}\hat{b}_{-\mathbf{p}+\frac{1}{2}\mathbf{u},s^{\prime}}^{\dagger}\right|\Omega\right\rangle \nonumber \\
& & \qquad+\theta(u^{0})\bar{\psi}_{s}^{(+)}\left(\mathbf{p}+\frac{1}{2}\mathbf{u}\right)\otimes\psi_{s^{\prime}}^{(-)}\left(-\mathbf{p}+\frac{1}{2}\mathbf{u}\right)\left\langle \Omega\left|\hat{a}_{\mathbf{p}+\frac{1}{2}\mathbf{u},s}^{\dagger}\hat{b}_{-\mathbf{p}+\frac{1}{2}\mathbf{u},s^{\prime}}^{\dagger}\right|\Omega\right\rangle \nonumber \\
& & \qquad\left.+\theta(-u^{0})\bar{\psi}_{s}^{(-)}\left(-\mathbf{p}-\frac{1}{2}\mathbf{u}\right)\otimes\psi_{s^{\prime}}^{(+)}\left(\mathbf{p}-\frac{1}{2}\mathbf{u}\right)\left\langle \Omega\left|\hat{b}_{-\mathbf{p}-\frac{1}{2}\mathbf{u},s}\hat{a}_{\mathbf{p}-\frac{1}{2}\mathbf{u},s^{\prime}}\right|\Omega\right\rangle \right].\nonumber \\
\label{eq:free Wigner function momentum form}\end{aligned}$$
Note that the last two lines contribute if and only if there is mixture between the fermion state and the anti-fermion state. Since we choose to neglect collisions between particles, processes such as pair-production or pair-annihilation are not included yet. Then the last two lines in Eq. (\[eq:free Wigner function momentum form\]) will be dropped in future discussions.
We consider a fermionic system where eigenstates of fermions with different momenta are not mixed together. Then the expectation values in Eq. (\[eq:free Wigner function momentum form\]) contain a delta function of $\mathbf{u}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\left\langle \Omega\left|\hat{a}_{\mathbf{p}+\frac{1}{2}\mathbf{u},s}^{\dagger}\hat{a}_{\mathbf{p}-\frac{1}{2}\mathbf{u},s^{\prime}}\right|\Omega\right\rangle & = & (2\pi)^{3}\delta^{(3)}(\mathbf{u})f_{ss^{\prime}}^{(+)}(\mathbf{p}),\nonumber \\
\left\langle \Omega\left|\hat{b}_{-\mathbf{p}-\frac{1}{2}\mathbf{u},s}\hat{b}_{-\mathbf{p}+\frac{1}{2}\mathbf{u},s^{\prime}}^{\dagger}\right|\Omega\right\rangle & = & (2\pi)^{3}\delta^{(3)}(\mathbf{u})\left[1-f_{s^{\prime}s}^{(-)}(-\mathbf{p})\right],\end{aligned}$$ where $f_{ss^{\prime}}^{(+)}(\mathbf{p})$ and $f_{ss^{\prime}}^{(-)}(-\mathbf{p})$ are distribution functions of fermions and anti-fermions, respectively. Since we do not consider any spin interaction, the energy states are degenerate with respect to the spin direction. If the polarization of the system is not parallel to the spin quantization direction, these distribution functions are then not diagonal with respect to $ss^{\prime}$. The delta function $\delta^{(3)}(\mathbf{u})$, together with $\delta(p^{\mu}u_{\mu})$ in Eq. (\[eq:free Wigner function momentum form\]), gives a four-dimensional delta function, $$\delta^{(3)}(\mathbf{u})\delta(p^{\mu}u_{\mu})=\delta^{(3)}(\mathbf{u})\delta(p^{0}u^{0})=\frac{1}{\left|p^{0}\right|}\delta^{(4)}(u).$$ Thus we can carry out the integration over $d^{4}u$ and obtain the following Wigner function $$\begin{aligned}
& & W(x,p)=\frac{1}{(2\pi)^{3}}\sum_{ss^{\prime}}\delta(p^{\mu}p_{\mu}-m^{2})\nonumber \\
& & \qquad\times\left\{ \theta(p^{0})\bar{\psi}_{s}^{(+)}\left(\mathbf{p}\right)\otimes\psi_{s^{\prime}}^{(+)}\left(\mathbf{p}\right)f_{ss^{\prime}}^{(+)}(\mathbf{p})+\theta(-p^{0})\bar{\psi}_{s}^{(-)}\left(-\mathbf{p}\right)\otimes\psi_{s^{\prime}}^{(-)}\left(-\mathbf{p}\right)\left[1-f_{s^{\prime}s}^{(-)}(-\mathbf{p})\right]\right\} .\nonumber \\\end{aligned}$$ In this formula, the Wigner function is independent of the space-time coordinates $x^{\mu}$. This is because from the beginning we have assumed that the fermions are described by plane waves, which are homogeneous with respect to $x^{\mu}$.
As we discuss in Appendix \[sec:Wave-packet-description\], the plane wave cannot describe a quantum particle which is located at a given spatial point. According to the uncertainty principle, the momentum uncertainty for the plane wave is zero, $\sigma_{p}=0$, thus its conjugate variable, the uncertainty of spatial position is infinity, $\sigma_{x}=\infty$. In order to introduce the $x$-dependence into distribution functions, we adopt the wave-packet description, as shown in Eq. (\[eq:wave packet state\]). This wave packet describes quantum particles at given center positions and average momenta. The expectation value of $a_{\mathbf{p}+\frac{1}{2}\mathbf{u},s}^{\dagger}a_{\mathbf{p}-\frac{1}{2}\mathbf{u},s}$ in a wave-packet state is $$\begin{aligned}
& & \left\langle \mathbf{p}^{\prime},s,+\left|\hat{a}_{\mathbf{p}+\frac{1}{2}\mathbf{u},s}^{\dagger}\hat{a}_{\mathbf{p}-\frac{1}{2}\mathbf{u},s^{\prime}}\right|\mathbf{p}^{\prime},s,+\right\rangle \nonumber \\
& = & \frac{1}{N^{2}}\int\frac{d^{3}\mathbf{p}_{1}d^{3}\mathbf{p}_{2}}{(2\pi)^{6}}\exp\left[-\frac{(\mathbf{p}^{\prime}-\mathbf{p}_{1})^{2}+(\mathbf{p}^{\prime}-\mathbf{p}_{2})^{2}}{4\sigma_{p}^{2}}\right]\left\langle 0\left|\hat{a}_{\mathbf{p}_{2},s}\hat{a}_{\mathbf{p}+\frac{1}{2}\mathbf{u},s}^{\dagger}\hat{a}_{\mathbf{p}-\frac{1}{2}\mathbf{u},s}\hat{a}_{\mathbf{p}_{1},s}^{\dagger}\right|0\right\rangle \nonumber \\
& = & \frac{1}{N^{2}}\int d^{3}\mathbf{p}_{1}d^{3}\mathbf{p}_{2}\exp\left[-\frac{(\mathbf{p}^{\prime}-\mathbf{p}_{1})^{2}+(\mathbf{p}^{\prime}-\mathbf{p}_{2})^{2}}{4\sigma_{p}^{2}}\right]\delta^{(3)}(\mathbf{p}+\frac{1}{2}\mathbf{u}-\mathbf{p}_{2})\delta^{(3)}(\mathbf{p}-\frac{1}{2}\mathbf{u}-\mathbf{p}_{1})\nonumber \\
& = & \frac{1}{N^{2}}\exp\left[-\frac{(\mathbf{p}^{\prime}-\mathbf{p})^{2}+\frac{1}{4}\mathbf{u}^{2}}{2\sigma_{p}^{2}}\right].\end{aligned}$$ In general, since the whole system is made of many wave packets, it is reasonable to expect that the expectation values in Eq. (\[eq:free Wigner function momentum form\]) are given by a distribution functions which depends on the parameters $\mathbf{p}$, $\mathbf{u}$, $s$, and $s^{\prime}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\left\langle \Omega\left|\hat{a}_{\mathbf{p}+\frac{1}{2}\mathbf{u},s}^{\dagger}\hat{a}_{\mathbf{p}-\frac{1}{2}\mathbf{u},s^{\prime}}\right|\Omega\right\rangle & = & f_{ss^{\prime}}^{(+)}(\mathbf{p},\mathbf{u}),\nonumber \\
\left\langle \Omega\left|\hat{b}_{-\mathbf{p}-\frac{1}{2}\mathbf{u},s}\hat{b}_{-\mathbf{p}+\frac{1}{2}\mathbf{u},s^{\prime}}^{\dagger}\right|\Omega\right\rangle & = & (2\pi)^{3}\delta^{(3)}(\mathbf{u})-f_{s^{\prime}s}^{(-)}(-\mathbf{p},\mathbf{u}),\label{eq:distribution w.r.t p and u}\end{aligned}$$ where the first term in the second line, e.g. $(2\pi)^{3}\delta^{(3)}(\mathbf{u})$, comes from the anti-commutator of $\hat{b}_{-\mathbf{p}-\frac{1}{2}\mathbf{u},s}$ and $\hat{b}_{-\mathbf{p}+\frac{1}{2}\mathbf{u},s^{\prime}}^{\dagger}$. Here $f_{ss^{\prime}}^{(+)}(\mathbf{p},\mathbf{u})$ and $f_{s^{\prime}s}^{(-)}(-\mathbf{p},\mathbf{u})$ are functions determined by the state of the system $\left|\Omega\right\rangle $. Inserting these expectation values back into the Wigner function (\[eq:free Wigner function momentum form\]) we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
W(x,p) & = & \int\frac{d^{4}u}{(2\pi)^{6}}\sum_{ss^{\prime}}\exp\left[iu^{\mu}x_{\mu}\right]\delta\left(p^{\mu}p_{\mu}+\frac{1}{4}u^{\mu}u_{\mu}-m^{2}\right)\delta\left(p^{\mu}u_{\mu}\right)\sqrt{(p^{0})^{2}-\frac{1}{4}(u^{0})^{2}}\nonumber \\
& & \times\left[\theta(p^{0})\bar{\psi}_{s}^{(+)}\left(\mathbf{p}+\frac{1}{2}\mathbf{u}\right)\otimes\psi_{s^{\prime}}^{(+)}\left(\mathbf{p}-\frac{1}{2}\mathbf{u}\right)f_{ss^{\prime}}^{(+)}(\mathbf{p},\mathbf{u}\right.)\nonumber \\
& & \qquad\left.-\theta(-p^{0})\bar{\psi}_{s}^{(-)}\left(-\mathbf{p}-\frac{1}{2}\mathbf{u}\right)\otimes\psi_{s^{\prime}}^{(-)}\left(-\mathbf{p}+\frac{1}{2}\mathbf{u}\right)f_{s^{\prime}s}^{(-)}(-\mathbf{p},\mathbf{u})\right]\nonumber \\
& & +\frac{1}{(2\pi)^{3}}\sum_{ss^{\prime}}\delta\left(p^{\mu}p_{\mu}-m^{2}\right)\theta(-p^{0})\bar{\psi}_{s}^{(-)}(-\mathbf{p})\otimes\psi_{s^{\prime}}^{(-)}(-\mathbf{p}).\end{aligned}$$ Note that in general the uncertainty in momentum is small, which means the spread of the wave packet in momentum space is not large. So we can expect that the functions $f_{ss^{\prime}}^{(+)}(\mathbf{p},\mathbf{u})$ and $f_{s^{\prime}s}^{(-)}(-\mathbf{p},\mathbf{u})$ are narrow with respect to $\mathbf{u}$. The Wigner function can then be expanded in terms of the small variable $\mathbf{u}$ and higher-order terms can be dropped. The wavefunction part is expanded as follows $$\begin{aligned}
& & \bar{\psi}_{s}^{(+)}\left(\mathbf{p}+\frac{1}{2}\mathbf{u}\right)\otimes\psi_{s^{\prime}}^{(+)}\left(\mathbf{p}-\frac{1}{2}\mathbf{u}\right)\simeq\bar{\psi}_{s}^{(+)}(\mathbf{p})\otimes\psi_{s^{\prime}}^{(+)}(\mathbf{p})\nonumber \\
& & \qquad\qquad+\frac{1}{2}\mathbf{u}\cdot\left\{ \left[\boldsymbol{\nabla}_{\mathbf{p}}\bar{\psi}_{s}^{(+)}(\mathbf{p})\right]\otimes\psi_{s^{\prime}}^{(+)}(\mathbf{p})-\bar{\psi}_{s}^{(+)}(\mathbf{p})\otimes\boldsymbol{\nabla}_{\mathbf{p}}\psi_{s^{\prime}}^{(+)}(\mathbf{p})\right\} +\mathcal{O}(\mathbf{u}^{2}).\label{eq:u-expansion of wave function}\end{aligned}$$ Inserting (\[eq:u-expansion of wave function\]) into the Wigner function, the leading-order term is $$\begin{aligned}
W^{(0)}(x,p) & = & \frac{1}{(2\pi)^{3}}\delta(p^{\mu}p_{\mu}-m^{2})\sum_{ss^{\prime}}\left\{ \theta(p^{0})\bar{\psi}_{s}^{(+)}(\mathbf{p})\otimes\psi_{s^{\prime}}^{(+)}(\mathbf{p})f_{ss^{\prime}}^{(+)}(x,\mathbf{p})\right.\nonumber \\
& & \qquad\left.+\theta(-p^{0})\bar{\psi}_{s}^{(-)}(-\mathbf{p})\otimes\psi_{s^{\prime}}^{(-)}(-\mathbf{p})\left[1-f_{s^{\prime}s}^{(-)}(x,-\mathbf{p})\right]\right\} .\label{eq:Wigner function for free case}\end{aligned}$$ On the other hand, the first-order correction in the expansion (\[eq:u-expansion of wave function\]) contributes to the Wigner function as $$\begin{aligned}
W^{(1)}(x,p) & = & \frac{1}{2}\delta(p^{\mu}p_{\mu}-m^{2})\theta(p^{0})\sum_{ss^{\prime}}\nonumber \\
& & \qquad\times\left\{ \left[\boldsymbol{\nabla}_{\mathbf{p}}\bar{\psi}_{s}^{(+)}(\mathbf{p})\right]\otimes\psi_{s^{\prime}}^{(+)}(\mathbf{p})-\bar{\psi}_{s}^{(+)}(\mathbf{p})\otimes\boldsymbol{\nabla}_{\mathbf{p}}\psi_{s^{\prime}}^{(+)}(\mathbf{p})\right\} \cdot i\boldsymbol{\nabla}_{\mathbf{x}}f_{ss^{\prime}}^{(+)}(x,\mathbf{p})\nonumber \\
& & +\frac{1}{2}\delta(p^{\mu}p_{\mu}-m^{2})\theta(-p^{0})\sum_{ss^{\prime}}\nonumber \\
& & \qquad\times\left\{ \left[\boldsymbol{\nabla}_{\mathbf{p}}\bar{\psi}_{s}^{(-)}(-\mathbf{p})\right]\otimes\psi_{s^{\prime}}^{(-)}(-\mathbf{p})-\bar{\psi}_{s}^{(-)}(-\mathbf{p})\otimes\boldsymbol{\nabla}_{\mathbf{p}}\psi_{s^{\prime}}^{(-)}(-\mathbf{p})\right\} \cdot i\boldsymbol{\nabla}_{\mathbf{x}}f_{s^{\prime}s}^{(-)}(x,-\mathbf{p}).\nonumber \\
\label{eq:free Wigner function first order}\end{aligned}$$ Here we have defined the semi-distribution functions, $$f_{ss^{\prime}}^{(\pm)}(x,\mathbf{p})=\int\frac{d^{4}u}{(2\pi)^{3}}\delta\left(u^{0}-\frac{\mathbf{p}\cdot\mathbf{u}}{p^{0}}\right)f_{ss^{\prime}}^{(\pm)}(\mathbf{p},\mathbf{u})\exp\left(iu^{\mu}x_{\mu}\right).\label{eq:local particle distribution}$$ In the first-order part, we have replaced $\mathbf{u}f_{ss^{\prime}}^{(\pm)}(x,\mathbf{p})$ by the spatial derivative $i\boldsymbol{\nabla}_{\mathbf{x}}f_{s^{\prime}s}^{(\pm)}(x,\mathbf{p})$, thus $W^{(1)}(x,p)$ is of first order in the spatial gradients of the distributions $f_{ss^{\prime}}^{(\pm)}(x,\mathbf{p})$. If we consider classical particles, the semi-distributions $f_{ss^{\prime}}^{(\pm)}(x,\mathbf{p})$ can be interpreted as the classical distributions of fermions or anti-fermions at the phase space point $\left\{ t,\mathbf{x},\mathbf{p}\right\} $. Making a comparison with the results from the semi-classical expansion, which will be done in Sec. \[sec:Semi-classical-expansion\], we identify $W^{(0)}(x,p)$ as of zeroth order in $\hbar$ and $W^{(1)}(x,p)$ as of first order in $\hbar$. The first order contribution $W^{(1)}(x,p)$ can be calculated using Eq. (\[eq:free Wigner function first order\]), since the wavefunctions in this equation have already been derived. But actually the calculation is too complicated, so that, in the following part of this subsection, we will only compute the leading order contribution $W^{(0)}(x,p)$.
### Components of the Wigner function
The Wigner function can be calculated via inserting Eq. (\[sol:free wave functions\]) into Eq. (\[eq:Wigner function for free case\]). In the following we will decompose the Wigner function as shown in Eq. (\[def:Wigner function decomposition\]) and compute the different components.
Before we do so, we first discuss the transformation matrix $S_{\mathbf{p}}$ in Eq. (\[def:transformation matrix Sp\]), which is useful because the matrices $\sqrt{p_{\mu}\bar{\sigma}^{\mu}}$ and $\sqrt{p_{\mu}\sigma^{\mu}}$ in the wavefunction are defined with $S_{\mathbf{p}}$ as shown in Eq. (\[def:short notations\]). Under the transformation $S_{\mathbf{p}}$, the Pauli matrices transform as
$$\begin{aligned}
S_{\mathbf{p}}^{\dagger}\sigma^{x}S_{\mathbf{p}} & = & \frac{1}{\left|\mathbf{p}\right|}\left[\frac{p^{x}p^{z}}{\sqrt{(p^{x})^{2}+(p^{y})^{2}}}\sigma^{x}-\frac{p^{y}\left|\mathbf{p}\right|}{\sqrt{(p^{x})^{2}+(p^{y})^{2}}}\sigma^{y}+p^{x}\sigma^{z}\right],\nonumber \\
S_{\mathbf{p}}^{\dagger}\sigma^{y}S_{\mathbf{p}} & = & \frac{1}{\left|\mathbf{p}\right|}\left[\frac{p^{y}p^{z}}{\sqrt{(p^{x})^{2}+(p^{y})^{2}}}\sigma^{x}+\frac{p^{x}\left|\mathbf{p}\right|}{\sqrt{(p^{x})^{2}+(p^{y})^{2}}}\sigma^{y}+p^{y}\sigma^{z}\right],\nonumber \\
S_{\mathbf{p}}^{\dagger}\sigma^{z}S_{\mathbf{p}} & = & \frac{1}{\left|\mathbf{p}\right|}\left[-\sqrt{(p^{x})^{2}+(p^{y})^{2}}\sigma^{x}+p^{z}\sigma^{z}\right].\label{eq:S^dagger sigma S}\end{aligned}$$
Multiplying each equation by $S_{\mathbf{p}}$ on the left and $S_{\mathbf{p}}^{\dagger}$ on the right, and using $S_{\mathbf{p}}^{\dagger}S_{\mathbf{p}}=S_{\mathbf{p}}S_{\mathbf{p}}^{\dagger}=\mathbb{I}_{2}$, one obtains $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma^{x} & = & \frac{1}{\left|\mathbf{p}\right|}\left[\frac{p^{x}p^{z}}{\sqrt{(p^{x})^{2}+(p^{y})^{2}}}S_{\mathbf{p}}\sigma^{x}S_{\mathbf{p}}^{\dagger}-\frac{p^{y}\left|\mathbf{p}\right|}{\sqrt{(p^{x})^{2}+(p^{y})^{2}}}S_{\mathbf{p}}\sigma^{y}S_{\mathbf{p}}^{\dagger}+p^{x}S_{\mathbf{p}}\sigma^{z}S_{\mathbf{p}}^{\dagger}\right],\nonumber \\
\sigma^{y} & = & \frac{1}{\left|\mathbf{p}\right|}\left[\frac{p^{y}p^{z}}{\sqrt{(p^{x})^{2}+(p^{y})^{2}}}S_{\mathbf{p}}\sigma^{x}S_{\mathbf{p}}^{\dagger}+\frac{p^{x}\left|\mathbf{p}\right|}{\sqrt{(p^{x})^{2}+(p^{y})^{2}}}S_{\mathbf{p}}\sigma^{y}S_{\mathbf{p}}^{\dagger}+p^{y}S_{\mathbf{p}}\sigma^{z}S_{\mathbf{p}}^{\dagger}\right],\nonumber \\
\sigma^{z} & = & \frac{1}{\left|\mathbf{p}\right|}\left[-\sqrt{(p^{x})^{2}+(p^{y})^{2}}S_{\mathbf{p}}\sigma^{x}S_{\mathbf{p}}^{\dagger}+p^{z}S_{\mathbf{p}}\sigma^{z}S_{\mathbf{p}}^{\dagger}\right].\end{aligned}$$ From this we can obtain that $$\begin{aligned}
S_{\mathbf{p}}\sigma^{x}S_{\mathbf{p}}^{\dagger} & = & p^{z}\frac{\mathbf{p}\cdot\boldsymbol{\sigma}}{\left|\mathbf{p}\right|\sqrt{(p^{x})^{2}+(p^{y})^{2}}}-\frac{\left|\mathbf{p}\right|}{\sqrt{(p^{x})^{2}+(p^{y})^{2}}}\sigma^{z},\nonumber \\
S_{\mathbf{p}}\sigma^{y}S_{\mathbf{p}}^{\dagger} & = & -\frac{\sigma^{x}p^{y}-\sigma^{y}p^{x}}{\sqrt{(p^{x})^{2}+(p^{y})^{2}}},\nonumber \\
S_{\mathbf{p}}\sigma^{z}S_{\mathbf{p}}^{\dagger} & = & \frac{\mathbf{p}\cdot\boldsymbol{\sigma}}{\left|\mathbf{p}\right|}.\label{eq:S sigma S^dagger}\end{aligned}$$ These properties for the Pauli matrices will help us when we compute the axial-vector and tensor components of the Wigner function.
The Wigner function in Eq. (\[eq:Wigner function for free case\]) will now be decomposed in terms of the generators of the Clifford algebra $\Gamma_{i}=\{1,-i\gamma^{5},\gamma^{\mu},\gamma^{\mu}\gamma^{5},\sigma^{\mu\nu}\}$ as in Eq. (\[def:Wigner function decomposition\]). The expansion coefficients are calculated via Eq. (\[eq:reproduce components of Wigner funtion\]), and the traces in Eq. (\[eq:reproduce components of Wigner funtion\]) are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\text{Tr}\left[\Gamma_{i}W^{(0)}(x,p)\right] & = & \frac{1}{(2\pi)^{3}}\delta(p^{\mu}p_{\mu}-m^{2})\sum_{ss^{\prime}}\left\{ \theta(p^{0})\bar{\psi}_{s}^{(+)}(\mathbf{p})\Gamma_{i}\psi_{s^{\prime}}^{(+)}(\mathbf{p})f_{ss^{\prime}}^{(+)}(x,\mathbf{p})\right.\nonumber \\
& & \qquad\left.+\theta(-p^{0})\bar{\psi}_{s}^{(-)}(-\mathbf{p})\Gamma_{i}\psi_{s^{\prime}}^{(-)}(-\mathbf{p})\left[1-f_{s^{\prime}s}^{(-)}(x,-\mathbf{p})\right]\right\} .\label{eq:Wigner function for free case-1}\end{aligned}$$ We observe that Eq. (\[eq:Wigner function for free case-1\]) consists of a fermion part and an anti-fermion part. We first focus on the fermion part and then the anti-fermion part can be derived in the same way. The key point is to calculate $$\bar{\psi}_{s}^{(+)}(\mathbf{p})\Gamma_{i}\psi_{s^{\prime}}^{(+)}(\mathbf{p}),\label{eq:psibar Gamma psi}$$ where $\psi_{s}^{(+)}(\mathbf{p})$ is the single particle wavefunction in momentum space, which is given in Eq. (\[sol:free wave functions\]). The scalar and pseudoscalar parts can be derived directly by inserting Eq. (\[sol:free wave functions\]) into Eq. (\[eq:psibar Gamma psi\]) and using the relations (\[eq:product of Sqrt p=00005Csigma\]),
$$\begin{aligned}
\bar{\psi}_{s}^{(+)}(\mathbf{p})\psi_{s^{\prime}}^{(+)}(\mathbf{p}) & = & 2m\delta_{ss^{\prime}},\nonumber \\
-i\bar{\psi}_{s}^{(+)}(\mathbf{p})\gamma^{5}\psi_{s^{\prime}}^{(+)}(\mathbf{p}) & = & 0.\end{aligned}$$
Now we focus on the vector part, the calculation of the zeroth component is straightforward
$$\bar{\psi}_{s}^{(+)}(\mathbf{p})\gamma^{0}\psi_{s^{\prime}}^{(+)}(\mathbf{p})=2E_{\mathbf{p}}\delta_{ss^{\prime}},$$
while the spatial components read $$\begin{aligned}
\bar{\psi}_{s}^{(+)}(\mathbf{p})\boldsymbol{\gamma}\psi_{s^{\prime}}^{(+)}(\mathbf{p}) & = & \xi_{s}^{\dagger}\left(\sqrt{p_{\mu}\bar{\sigma}^{\mu}}\boldsymbol{\sigma}\sqrt{p_{\mu}\bar{\sigma}^{\mu}}-\sqrt{p_{\mu}\sigma^{\mu}}\boldsymbol{\sigma}\sqrt{p_{\mu}\sigma^{\mu}}\right)\xi_{s}\nonumber \\
& = & 2\xi_{s}^{\dagger}S_{\mathbf{p}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\left|\mathbf{p}\right|(S_{\mathbf{p}}^{\dagger}\boldsymbol{\sigma}S_{\mathbf{p}})_{11} & 0\\
0 & -\left|\mathbf{p}\right|(S_{\mathbf{p}}^{\dagger}\boldsymbol{\sigma}S_{\mathbf{p}})_{22}
\end{array}\right)S_{\mathbf{p}}^{\dagger}\xi_{s}.\label{eq:vector component of free fermion}\end{aligned}$$ In the last step of Eq. (\[eq:vector component of free fermion\]) we have used the definitions in (\[def:short notations\]) for $\sqrt{p_{\mu}\bar{\sigma}^{\mu}}$ and $\sqrt{p_{\mu}\sigma^{\mu}}$. Here $S_{\mathbf{p}}^{\dagger}\boldsymbol{\sigma}S_{\mathbf{p}}$ is a $2\times2$ matrix and the subscript labels different elements of this matrix. From the transformation properties of the Pauli matrices in Eq. (\[eq:S\^dagger sigma S\]) we obtain $$(S_{\mathbf{p}}^{\dagger}\boldsymbol{\sigma}S_{\mathbf{p}})_{11}=-(S_{\mathbf{p}}^{\dagger}\boldsymbol{\sigma}S_{\mathbf{p}})_{22}=\frac{\mathbf{p}}{\left|\mathbf{p}\right|}.$$ Inserting this into Eq. (\[eq:vector component of free fermion\]), we have $$\bar{\psi}_{s}^{(+)}(\mathbf{p})\boldsymbol{\gamma}\psi_{s^{\prime}}^{(+)}(\mathbf{p})=2\mathbf{p}\delta_{ss^{\prime}}.$$ On the other hand, the axial-vector components of Eq. (\[eq:psibar Gamma psi\]) are given by
$$\begin{aligned}
\bar{\psi}_{s}^{(+)}(\mathbf{p})\gamma^{0}\gamma^{5}\psi_{s^{\prime}}^{(+)}(\mathbf{p}) & = & 2\xi_{s}^{\dagger}\mathbf{p}\cdot\boldsymbol{\sigma}\xi_{s^{\prime}},\nonumber \\
\bar{\psi}_{s}^{(+)}(\mathbf{p})\boldsymbol{\gamma}\gamma^{5}\psi_{s^{\prime}}^{(+)}(\mathbf{p}) & = & 2\xi_{s}^{\dagger}S_{\mathbf{p}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}
E_{\mathbf{p}}(S_{\mathbf{p}}^{\dagger}\boldsymbol{\sigma}S_{\mathbf{p}})_{11} & m(S_{\mathbf{p}}^{\dagger}\boldsymbol{\sigma}S_{\mathbf{p}})_{12}\\
m(S_{\mathbf{p}}^{\dagger}\boldsymbol{\sigma}S_{\mathbf{p}})_{21} & E_{\mathbf{p}}(S_{\mathbf{p}}^{\dagger}\boldsymbol{\sigma}S_{\mathbf{p}})_{22}
\end{array}\right)S_{\mathbf{p}}^{\dagger}\xi_{s^{\prime}}.\end{aligned}$$
Since we do not have a universal formula for $S_{\mathbf{p}}^{\dagger}\boldsymbol{\sigma}S_{\mathbf{p}}$, we have to calculate different components one by one. The computations are straightforward using the explicit expressions of $S_{\mathbf{p}}^{\dagger}\boldsymbol{\sigma}S_{\mathbf{p}}$ and $S_{\mathbf{p}}\boldsymbol{\sigma}S_{\mathbf{p}}^{\dagger}$ in Eqs. (\[eq:S\^dagger sigma S\]) and (\[eq:S sigma S\^dagger\]). The final result reads,
$$\bar{\psi}_{s}^{(+)}(\mathbf{p})\boldsymbol{\gamma}\gamma^{5}\psi_{s^{\prime}}^{(+)}(\mathbf{p})=2\xi_{s}^{\dagger}\left(m\boldsymbol{\sigma}+\frac{\mathbf{p}\cdot\boldsymbol{\sigma}}{E_{\mathbf{p}}+m}\mathbf{p}\right)\xi_{s^{\prime}}.$$
The tensor component of Eq. (\[eq:psibar Gamma psi\]) is given by
$$\begin{aligned}
\bar{\psi}_{s}^{(+)}(\mathbf{p})\sigma^{0i}\psi_{s^{\prime}}^{(+)}(\mathbf{p}) & = & 2i\xi_{s}^{\dagger}S_{\mathbf{p}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}
0 & -\left|\mathbf{p}\right|(S_{\mathbf{p}}^{\dagger}\sigma^{i}S_{\mathbf{p}})_{12}\\
\left|\mathbf{p}\right|(S_{\mathbf{p}}^{\dagger}\sigma^{i}S_{\mathbf{p}})_{21} & 0
\end{array}\right)S_{\mathbf{p}}^{\dagger}\xi_{s^{\prime}},\nonumber \\
\bar{\psi}_{s}^{(+)}(\mathbf{p})\sigma^{ij}\psi_{s^{\prime}}^{(+)}(\mathbf{p}) & = & 2\epsilon^{ijk}\xi_{s}^{\dagger}S_{\mathbf{p}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}
m(S_{\mathbf{p}}^{\dagger}\sigma^{k}S_{\mathbf{p}})_{11} & E_{\mathbf{p}}(S_{\mathbf{p}}^{\dagger}\sigma^{k}S_{\mathbf{p}})_{12}\\
E_{\mathbf{p}}(S_{\mathbf{p}}^{\dagger}\sigma^{k}S_{\mathbf{p}})_{21} & m(S_{\mathbf{p}}^{\dagger}\sigma^{k}S_{\mathbf{p}})_{22}
\end{array}\right)S_{\mathbf{p}}^{\dagger}\xi_{s^{\prime}},\end{aligned}$$
where $i,j,k=1,2,3$. Again these terms are calculated using the properties in Eqs. (\[eq:S\^dagger sigma S\]) and (\[eq:S sigma S\^dagger\]) and the results are
$$\bar{\psi}_{s}^{(+)}(\mathbf{p})\sigma^{0i}\psi_{s^{\prime}}^{(+)}(\mathbf{p})=-2\epsilon^{ijk}p^{j}\xi_{s}^{\dagger}\sigma^{k}\xi_{s^{\prime}},$$
and $$\bar{\psi}_{s}^{(+)}(\mathbf{p})\sigma^{ij}\psi_{s^{\prime}}^{(+)}(\mathbf{p})=2\epsilon^{ijk}\left(E_{\mathbf{p}}\xi_{s}^{\dagger}\sigma^{k}\xi_{s}-\frac{p^{k}}{E_{\mathbf{p}}+m}\xi_{s}^{\dagger}\mathbf{p}\cdot\boldsymbol{\sigma}\xi_{s}\right).$$ As a conclusion, we now collect all results from the above calculations, where we have written the vector, axial-vector, and tensor components in a covariant form, $$\begin{aligned}
\bar{\psi}_{s}^{(+)}(\mathbf{p})\psi_{s^{\prime}}^{(+)}(\mathbf{p}) & = & 2m\delta_{ss^{\prime}},\nonumber \\
-i\bar{\psi}_{s}^{(+)}(\mathbf{p})\gamma^{5}\psi_{s^{\prime}}^{(+)}(\mathbf{p}) & = & 0,\nonumber \\
\bar{\psi}_{s}^{(-)}(\mathbf{p})\gamma^{\mu}\psi_{s^{\prime}}^{(-)}(\mathbf{p}) & = & 2p^{\mu}\delta_{ss^{\prime}},\nonumber \\
\bar{\psi}_{s}^{(+)}(\mathbf{p})\gamma^{\mu}\gamma^{5}\psi_{s^{\prime}}^{(+)}(\mathbf{p}) & = & 2\xi_{s}^{\dagger}n^{\mu}(\mathbf{p})\xi_{s^{\prime}},\nonumber \\
\bar{\psi}_{s}^{(+)}(\mathbf{p})\sigma^{\mu\nu}\psi_{s^{\prime}}^{(+)}(\mathbf{p}) & = & -\frac{2}{m}\epsilon^{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}p_{\alpha}\xi_{s}^{\dagger}n_{\beta}(\mathbf{p})\xi_{s^{\prime}},\label{eq:fermion barpsi Gamma psi}\end{aligned}$$ where $p^{0}=E_{\mathbf{p}}$ is the on-shell energy and we have defined a vector for the spin polarization $$n^{\mu}(\mathbf{p})\equiv\left(\mathbf{p}\cdot\boldsymbol{\sigma},\ m\boldsymbol{\sigma}+\frac{\mathbf{p}\cdot\boldsymbol{\sigma}}{E_{\mathbf{p}}+m}\mathbf{p}\right)^{T}.\label{eq:polarization operator}$$ In spin space, the scalar, pseudoscalar and vector parts are diagonalized, while the axial-vector and tensor parts depend on $\xi_{s}^{\dagger}n^{\mu}(\mathbf{p})\xi_{s^{\prime}}$, which is in general not diagonal. This is because generally the spin quantization direction is different from the spin polarization direction. In the last part of this section we will discuss the effect of different choices for the spin quantization direction.
The antiparticle contributions can be computed repeating above calculations. An easier way is to use the relation between the particle and antiparticle wavefunctions $$\psi_{s}^{(-)}(\mathbf{p})=-\gamma^{5}\psi_{s}^{(+)}(\mathbf{p}),$$ so we have $$\bar{\psi}_{s}^{(-)}(-\mathbf{p})\Gamma_{i}\psi_{s^{\prime}}^{(-)}(-\mathbf{p})=-\bar{\psi}_{s}^{(+)}(-\mathbf{p})\gamma^{5}\Gamma_{i}\gamma^{5}\psi_{s^{\prime}}^{(+)}(-\mathbf{p}),$$ Substitute $\Gamma_{i}$ with different matrices $\{1,-i\gamma^{5},\gamma^{\mu},\gamma^{\mu}\gamma^{5},\sigma^{\mu\nu}\}$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\bar{\psi}_{s}^{(-)}(-\mathbf{p})\psi_{s^{\prime}}^{(-)}(-\mathbf{p}) & = & -2m\delta_{ss^{\prime}},\nonumber \\
-i\bar{\psi}_{s}^{(-)}(\mathbf{p})\gamma^{5}\psi_{s^{\prime}}^{(-)}(-\mathbf{p}) & = & 0,\nonumber \\
\bar{\psi}_{s}^{(-)}(-\mathbf{p})\gamma^{\mu}\psi_{s^{\prime}}^{(-)}(-\mathbf{p}) & = & -2p^{\mu}\delta_{ss^{\prime}},\nonumber \\
\bar{\psi}_{s}^{(-)}(-\mathbf{p})\gamma^{\mu}\gamma^{5}\psi_{s^{\prime}}^{(-)}(-\mathbf{p}) & = & 2\xi_{s}^{\dagger}\hat{n}^{\mu}(-\mathbf{p})\xi_{s^{\prime}},\nonumber \\
\bar{\psi}_{s}^{(-)}(-\mathbf{p})\sigma^{\mu\nu}\psi_{s^{\prime}}^{(-)}(-\mathbf{p}) & = & -\frac{2}{m}\epsilon^{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}p_{\alpha}\xi_{s}^{\dagger}\hat{n}_{\beta}(-\mathbf{p})\xi_{s^{\prime}},\label{eq:antifermion barpsi Gamma psi}\end{aligned}$$ where $p^{0}=-E_{\mathbf{p}}$ is the on-shell energy for the anti-fermions.
Inserting the fermion contributions in (\[eq:fermion barpsi Gamma psi\]) and the anti-fermion contributions in (\[eq:antifermion barpsi Gamma psi\]) into Eq. (\[eq:Wigner function for free case-1\]), we derive different components of the Wigner function, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{F}^{(0)} & = & m\frac{2\delta(p^{2}-m^{2})}{(2\pi)^{3}}\sum_{s}\left\{ \theta(p^{0})f_{ss}^{(+)}(x,\mathbf{p})-\theta(-p^{0})\left[1-f_{ss}^{(-)}(x,-\mathbf{p})\right]\right\} ,\nonumber \\
\mathcal{P}^{(0)} & = & 0,\nonumber \\
\mathcal{V}_{\mu}^{(0)} & = & p_{\mu}\frac{2\delta(p^{2}-m^{2})}{(2\pi)^{3}}\sum_{s}\left\{ \theta(p^{0})f_{ss}^{(+)}(x,\mathbf{p})-\theta(-p^{0})\left[1-f_{ss}^{(-)}(x,-\mathbf{p})\right]\right\} ,\nonumber \\
\mathcal{A}_{\mu}^{(0)} & = & \frac{2\delta(p^{2}-m^{2})}{(2\pi)^{3}}\sum_{ss^{\prime}}\left\{ \theta(p^{0})\xi_{s}^{\dagger}n^{\mu}(\mathbf{p})\xi_{s^{\prime}}f_{ss^{\prime}}^{(+)}(x,\mathbf{p})+\theta(-p^{0})\xi_{s}^{\dagger}n^{\mu}(-\mathbf{p})\xi_{s^{\prime}}\left[1-f_{s^{\prime}s}^{(-)}(x,-\mathbf{p})\right]\right\} ,\nonumber \\
\mathcal{S}_{\mu\nu}^{(0)} & = & -\frac{2\delta(p^{2}-m^{2})}{(2\pi)^{3}}\frac{1}{m}\epsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}p^{\alpha}\nonumber \\
& & \times\sum_{ss^{\prime}}\left\{ \theta(p^{0})\xi_{s}^{\dagger}n^{\beta}(\mathbf{p})\xi_{s^{\prime}}f_{ss^{\prime}}^{(+)}(x,\mathbf{p})+\theta(-p^{0})\xi_{s}^{\dagger}n^{\beta}(-\mathbf{p})\xi_{s^{\prime}}\left[1-f_{s^{\prime}s}^{(-)}(x,-\mathbf{p})\right]\right\} .\end{aligned}$$ The Wigner function is then recovered by Eq. (\[def:Wigner function decomposition\]). Note that the above results are of zeroth order in spatial gradients of the distribution function. Higher-order terms in spatial gradients are calculated via Eq. (\[eq:free Wigner function first order\]) but will not be done here, because it is too complicated. Now we define functions which can be interpreted as the net fermion density and polarization, respectively, $$\begin{aligned}
V^{(0)}(x,p) & \equiv & \frac{2}{(2\pi)^{3}}\sum_{s}\left\{ \theta(p^{0})f_{ss}^{(+)}(x,\mathbf{p})-\theta(-p^{0})\left[1-f_{ss}^{(-)}(x,-\mathbf{p})\right]\right\} ,\nonumber \\
n^{(0)\mu}(x,p) & \equiv & \frac{2}{(2\pi)^{3}}\sum_{ss^{\prime}}\left\{ \theta(p^{0})\xi_{s}^{\dagger}n^{\mu}(\mathbf{p})\xi_{s^{\prime}}f_{ss^{\prime}}^{(+)}(x,\mathbf{p})+\theta(-p^{0})\xi_{s}^{\dagger}n^{\mu}(-\mathbf{p})\xi_{s^{\prime}}\left[1-f_{s^{\prime}s}^{(-)}(x,-\mathbf{p})\right]\right\} .\nonumber \\
\label{def:definition of V and n}\end{aligned}$$ Then the components of the Wigner function at the zeroth order in spatial gradients read $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{F}^{(0)} & = & \delta(p^{2}-m^{2})mV^{(0)}(x,p),\nonumber \\
\mathcal{P}^{(0)} & = & 0,\nonumber \\
\mathcal{V}_{\mu}^{(0)} & = & \delta(p^{2}-m^{2})p_{\mu}V^{(0)}(x,p),\nonumber \\
\mathcal{A}_{\mu}^{(0)} & = & \delta(p^{2}-m^{2})n_{\mu}^{(0)}(x,p),\nonumber \\
\mathcal{S}_{\mu\nu}^{(0)} & = & -\delta(p^{2}-m^{2})\frac{1}{m}\epsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}p^{\alpha}n^{(0)\beta}(x,p).\label{sol:free paritlce Wigner function}\end{aligned}$$ These results agree with the ones from the semi-classical expansion [@Vasak:1987um; @Fang:2016uds; @Weickgenannt:2019dks]. Note that the results are independent of the choice of the spin quantization direction. Different spin quantizations are related by rotations in spin space. Both $f_{ss^{\prime}}^{(\pm)}(x,\mathbf{p})$ and $\xi_{s}^{\dagger}n^{\mu}(\mathbf{p})\xi_{s^{\prime}}$ depend on the quantization direction but $V^{(0)}$ and $n^{(0)\mu}$ only depend on the trace in spin space, which are invariant under spin-rotations [@DeGroot:1980dk]. The solutions in Eq. (\[sol:free paritlce Wigner function\]) are all on the normal mass shell $p^{2}=m^{2}$ because we have not considered any electromagnetic field. In the semi-classical expansion discussed in Sec. \[sec:Semi-classical-expansion\] we will clearly show that the normal mass shell is shifted by the spin-electromagnetic coupling.
### Diagonalization of distributions
According to Eq. (\[eq:distribution w.r.t p and u\]), we can find the relation between the function $f_{ss^{\prime}}^{(+)}(\mathbf{p},\mathbf{u})$ and its complex conjugate, $$\left[f_{ss^{\prime}}^{(\pm)}(\mathbf{p},\mathbf{u})\right]^{\ast}=f_{s^{\prime}s}^{(\pm)}(\mathbf{p},-\mathbf{u}).$$ Then a relation between the distribution functions $f_{ss^{\prime}}^{(\pm)}(x,\mathbf{p})$ in Eq. (\[eq:local particle distribution\]) and their complex conjugates can be derived, $$\left[f_{ss^{\prime}}^{(\pm)}(x,\mathbf{p})\right]^{\ast}=\int\frac{d^{4}u}{(2\pi)^{3}}\delta\left(u^{0}-\frac{\mathbf{p}\cdot\mathbf{u}}{p^{0}}\right)f_{s^{\prime}s}^{(\pm)}(\mathbf{p},-\mathbf{u})\exp\left(-iu^{\mu}x_{\mu}\right)=f_{s^{\prime}s}^{(\pm)}(x,\mathbf{p}),\label{eq:Hermitian of distribution function}$$ Here in the second step we have made a replacement $u^{\mu}\rightarrow-u^{\mu}$. The distribution $f_{ss^{\prime}}^{(\pm)}(x,\mathbf{p})$ is actually the $ss^{\prime}$ element of a $2\times2$ matrix distribution $f^{(\pm)}(x,\mathbf{p})$ in spin space. So the relation (\[eq:Hermitian of distribution function\]) indicates that $f^{(\pm)}(x,\mathbf{p})$ is a Hermitian matrix, which can be diagonalized by a unitary transformation. The unitary transformation can be interpreted as a rotation of the spin quantization direction [@DeGroot:1980dk].
We take the fermion part $f^{(+)}(x,\mathbf{p})$ as an example to show the procedure of diagonalizing the distribution functions $f^{(\pm)}(x,\mathbf{p})$. Note that any 2-dimensional Hermitian matrix can be parameterized using the Pauli matrices $\boldsymbol{\sigma}$ together with the unit matrix, $$f^{(+)}(x,\mathbf{p})=a\,\mathbb{I}_{2}+\mathbf{b}\cdot\boldsymbol{\sigma}.$$ Here $a$ and $\mathbf{b}$ are real functions of $x^{\mu}$ and $\mathbf{p}$. The matrix $\mathbf{b}\cdot\boldsymbol{\sigma}$ has eigenvalues $\pm\left|\mathbf{b}\right|$ with $\left|\mathbf{b}\right|\equiv\sqrt{\mathbf{b}^{2}}$ is the length of the 3-vector $\mathbf{b}$. Assuming that the corresponding eigenvectors are $\overrightarrow{d}_{\pm}$, which are 2-dimensional column vectors and satisfy $$(\mathbf{b}\cdot\boldsymbol{\sigma})\overrightarrow{d}_{\pm}=\pm\left|\mathbf{b}\right|\overrightarrow{d}_{\pm}.$$ Then the distribution function can be diagonalized as $$\tilde{f}_{s}^{(+)}(x,\mathbf{p})\delta_{rs}=\sum_{r^{\prime}s^{\prime}}(D^{\dagger})_{rr^{\prime}}f_{r^{\prime}s^{\prime}}^{(+)}(x,\mathbf{p})D_{s^{\prime}s},\label{eq:diagonalize of f_ss}$$ where the transformation matrix $D$ is a $2\times2$ matrix in spin space and constructed from the eigenvectors $\overrightarrow{d}_{\pm}$, $$D\equiv\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\overrightarrow{d}_{+} & \overrightarrow{d}_{-}\end{array}\right).$$ The new distribution functions are then given by $$\tilde{f}_{\pm}^{(+)}(x,\mathbf{p})=a\pm\left|\mathbf{b}\right|.$$ In general, due to the fact that $a$ and $\mathbf{b}$ are defined locally, the transformation matrix $D$ should be a function of $\{x^{\mu},\mathbf{p}\}$. We also rotate the wavefunctions and define the following local ones, $$\tilde{\psi}_{s}^{(+)}(x,\mathbf{p})\equiv\sum_{s^{\prime}}(D^{\dagger})_{ss^{\prime}}\psi_{s^{\prime}}^{(+)}(\mathbf{p}).$$ Note that these new basis functions are still normalized because the transformation is unitary. The plane-wavefunctions $\psi_{s^{\prime}}^{(+)}(\mathbf{p})$ are given in Eq. (\[sol:free wave functions\]), from which the new wavefunctions are obtained, $$\tilde{\psi}_{s}^{(+)}(x,\mathbf{p})=\left(\begin{array}{c}
\sqrt{p_{\mu}\sigma^{\mu}}\tilde{\xi}_{s}\\
\sqrt{p_{\mu}\bar{\sigma}^{\mu}}\tilde{\xi}_{s}
\end{array}\right),\label{eq:new wave function psi_tilde}$$ where $$\tilde{\xi}_{s}\equiv\sum_{s^{\prime}}(D^{\dagger})_{ss^{\prime}}\xi_{s^{\prime}}.\label{eq:rotation of spinor}$$ Since $s$ and $s^{\prime}$ label the spin state parallel or anti-parallel to a given quantization direction, the transformation matrix $D$ is then interpreted as the $SU(2)$ representation of a rotation of the quantization direction. Analogously, we can take similar procedure for anti-particles, and finally the Wigner function (\[eq:Wigner function for free case\]) can be put into the form $$\begin{aligned}
W^{(0)}(x,p) & = & \frac{1}{(2\pi)^{3}}\delta(p^{\mu}p_{\mu}-m^{2})\sum_{s}\left\{ \theta(p^{0})\bar{\tilde{\psi}}_{s}^{(+)}(x,\mathbf{p})\otimes\tilde{\psi}_{s}^{(+)}(x,\mathbf{p})\tilde{f}_{s}^{(+)}(x,\mathbf{p})\right.\nonumber \\
& & \qquad\left.+\theta(-p^{0})\bar{\tilde{\psi}}_{s}^{(-)}(x,-\mathbf{p})\otimes\tilde{\psi}_{s}^{(-)}(x,-\mathbf{p})\left[1-\tilde{f}_{s}^{(-)}(x,-\mathbf{p})\right]\right\} ,\end{aligned}$$ where the anti-particle parts are diagonalized as $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{f}_{s}^{(-)}(x,-\mathbf{p})\delta_{rs} & = & \sum_{r^{\prime}s^{\prime}}(\bar{D}^{\dagger})_{rr^{\prime}}f_{r^{\prime}s^{\prime}}^{(-)}(x,-\mathbf{p})\bar{D}_{s^{\prime}s},\nonumber \\
\tilde{\psi}_{s}^{(-)}(x,-\mathbf{p}) & = & \sum_{s^{\prime}}(\bar{D}^{\dagger})_{ss^{\prime}}\psi_{s^{\prime}}^{(-)}(-\mathbf{p}),\end{aligned}$$ with the transformation matrix $\bar{D}$ is a function of $\left\{ x^{\mu},\mathbf{p}\right\} $.
The redefinition of $\tilde{\xi}_{s}$ in Eq. (\[eq:rotation of spinor\]) corresponds to a new spin quantization direction. If we assume before the transformation $\xi_{+}=(1,0)^{T}$, $\xi_{-}=(0,1)^{T}$, the new spinors then read $$\tilde{\xi}_{+}=\overrightarrow{d}_{+},\ \ \tilde{\xi}_{-}=\overrightarrow{d}_{-},$$ which are eigenvectors of $\mathbf{b}\cdot\boldsymbol{\sigma}$ with eigenvalues $\pm\left|\mathbf{b}\right|$. This indicates that the new quantization direction is the direction of $\mathbf{b}$. The components of the Wigner function are computed from Eq. (\[eq:free fermion Wigner function\]), where $V^{(0)}(x,p)$ and $n^{(0)\mu}(x,p)$ are given by Eq. (\[def:definition of V and n\]). The rotation of the spin quantization direction does not change the trace of the matrix distribution $f^{(+)}(x,\mathbf{p})$, i.e., the following relation holds in any case, $$\sum_{s}f_{ss}^{(+)}(x,\mathbf{p})=\sum_{s}\tilde{f}_{s}^{(+)}(x,\mathbf{p}).$$ Thus the function $V^{(0)}(x,p)$ can be expressed in terms of the new distribution functions $$V^{(0)}(x,p)=\frac{2}{(2\pi)^{3}}\sum_{s}\left\{ \theta(p^{0})\tilde{f}_{s}^{(+)}(x,\mathbf{p})-\theta(-p^{0})\left[1-\tilde{f}_{s}^{(-)}(x,-\mathbf{p})\right]\right\} .$$ Meanwhile, the polarization part reads
$$\sum_{ss^{\prime}}\xi_{s}^{\dagger}n^{\mu}(\mathbf{p})\xi_{s^{\prime}}f_{ss^{\prime}}^{(+)}(x,\mathbf{p})=\sum_{s}\tilde{\xi}_{s}^{\dagger}n^{\mu}(\mathbf{p})\tilde{\xi}_{s}\ \tilde{f}_{s}^{(+)}(x,\mathbf{p}),$$
where $n^{\mu}(\mathbf{p})$ is given by Eq. (\[eq:polarization operator\]). Note that $\tilde{\xi}_{s}^{\dagger}\boldsymbol{\sigma}\tilde{\xi}_{s}=s\frac{\mathbf{b}}{\left|\mathbf{b}\right|}$ because the new spinors $\tilde{\xi}_{\pm}$ are now eigenvectors of $\mathbf{b}\cdot\boldsymbol{\sigma}$. Thus the right-hand-side of the above equation can be computed and we obtain $$\sum_{ss^{\prime}}\xi_{s}^{\dagger}n^{\mu}(\mathbf{p})\xi_{s^{\prime}}f_{ss^{\prime}}^{(+)}(x,\mathbf{p})=\frac{1}{\left|\mathbf{b}\right|}\left(\mathbf{p}\cdot\mathbf{b},\ m\mathbf{b}+\frac{\mathbf{p}\cdot\mathbf{b}}{E_{\mathbf{p}}+m}\mathbf{p}\right)^{T}\sum_{s}s\tilde{f}_{s}^{(+)}(x,\mathbf{p}).$$ Similar results can be done for anti-fermions. Finally the function $n^{(0)\mu}(x,p)$, defined in Eq. (\[def:definition of V and n\]), becomes $$\begin{aligned}
n^{(0)\mu}(x,p) & = & \left[\theta(p^{0})n_{0}^{\mu}(\mathbf{p},\mathbf{b}^{(+)})-\theta(p^{0})n_{0}^{\mu}(-\mathbf{p},\mathbf{b}^{(-)})\right]\nonumber \\
& & \times\frac{2}{(2\pi)^{3}}\sum_{s}s\left\{ \theta(p^{0})\tilde{f}_{s}^{(+)}(x,\mathbf{p})-\theta(-p^{0})\left[1-\tilde{f}_{s}^{(-)}(x,-\mathbf{p})\right]\right\} ,\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathbf{b}^{(+)}$ represents the diagonalization parameter for fermions while $\mathbf{b}^{(-)}$ is that for anti-fermions. Here we defined $$n_{0}^{\mu}(\mathbf{p},\mathbf{b})\equiv\frac{1}{\left|\mathbf{b}\right|}\left(\mathbf{p}\cdot\mathbf{b},\ m\mathbf{b}+\frac{\mathbf{p}\cdot\mathbf{b}}{E_{\mathbf{p}}+m}\mathbf{p}\right)^{T}.$$ If we boost to the rest frame of the particles with momentum $\mathbf{p}$, the above polarization direction is $n_{0}^{\mu}\propto\left(0,\mathbf{b}\right)^{T}$. Thus $\mathbf{b}^{(\pm)}$ can be identified as the spin polarization direction in the rest frame of fermions and anti-fermions respectively. In general the polarization of fermions can be different from that of anti-fermions, i.e., $\mathbf{b}^{(+)}$ can be different from $\mathbf{b}^{(-)}$.
Free fermions with chiral imbalance \[subsec:Free-with-chiral\]
---------------------------------------------------------------
In this subsection we will study a system of free fermions with a non-vanishing chiral chemical potential. Since for massive fermions the helicity is not a conserved quantity, the chiral chemical potential $\mu_{5}$ is no longer a well-defined conjugate variable of the axial charge. However, on a time scale which is much smaller than the one for varing axial charges, one can still use $\mu_{5}$ to describe a thermal equilibrium system. We work with an effective theory where the chemical potentials $\mu$ and $\mu_{5}$ are introduced in the Dirac equation as self-energy corrections. The effective Lagrangian reads, $$\mathcal{L}=\bar{\psi}\left(i\gamma_{\mu}\partial_{x}^{\mu}-m\mathbb{I}_{4}\right)\psi+\mu\psi^{\dagger}\psi+\mu_{5}\psi^{\dagger}\gamma^{5}\psi.$$ We can find the similar treatment in the Nambu-Jona-Lasinio model [@Klevansky:1992qe] or other QCD effective theories with topological charge [@Kharzeev:2007tn; @Fukushima:2008xe]. The Dirac equation is then given by $$\left(i\gamma_{\mu}\partial_{x}^{\mu}-m\mathbb{I}_{4}+\mu\gamma^{0}+\mu_{5}\gamma^{0}\gamma^{5}\right)\psi=0.$$ In general the mass $m$, the chemical potential $\mu$, and the chiral chemical potential $\mu_{5}$ are dynamical quantities which depend on the space-time coordinates, but here we assume all these variables are constants. Under this assumption, $\partial_{x}^{\mu}$ commute with the Hamiltonian, so we can define a conserved 4-momentum $p^{\mu}$.
### Plane-wave solutions with chiral imbalance
Analogous to the case in the previous subsection, we first take a Fourier transformation of the Dirac equation. Then in momentum space, the Dirac field satisfies the following equation $$(p^{0}+\mu)\psi(p)=[\gamma^{0}\boldsymbol{\gamma}\cdot\mathbf{p}+m\gamma^{0}-\mu_{5}\gamma^{5}]\psi(p).\label{eq:Dirac p equation with mu}$$ Here the chemical potential $\mu$ shifts the energy levels. We now define $$\tilde{\psi}(\mathbf{p})=\left(\mathbb{I}_{2}\otimes S_{\mathbf{p}}^{\dagger}\right)\psi(\mathbf{p}),\label{eq:tilde psi and psi}$$ where the matrix $S_{\mathbf{p}}$ is the transformation matrix in Eq. (\[def:transformation matrix Sp\]) which diagonalizes $\mathbf{p}\cdot\boldsymbol{\sigma}$ as shown in Eq. (\[eq:diagonalization of sigma cdot p\]). With this definition, Eq. (\[eq:Dirac p equation with mu\]) is put into the following form,
$$(p^{0}+\mu)\tilde{\psi}(\mathbf{p})=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
-\left|\mathbf{p}\right|+\mu_{5} & 0 & m & 0\\
0 & \left|\mathbf{p}\right|+\mu_{5} & 0 & m\\
m & 0 & \left|\mathbf{p}\right|-\mu_{5} & 0\\
0 & m & 0 & -\left|\mathbf{p}\right|-\mu_{5}
\end{array}\right)\tilde{\psi}(p).$$
This can be treated as an eigenvalue problem, with $p^{0}+\mu$ being the eigenvalue of the coefficient matrix on the right-hand-side while $\tilde{\psi}(p)$ is the corresponding eigenstate. Direct forward calculations give the eigenvalues $$p^{0}=-\mu\pm E_{\mathbf{p},s},$$ with $E_{\mathbf{p},s}=\sqrt{m^{2}+(\left|\mathbf{p}\right|-s\mu_{5})^{2}}$ and $s=\pm$. The eigenstates corresponding to positive energies $p^{0}+\mu=E_{\mathbf{p},s}$ are given by $$\tilde{\psi}_{+}^{(+)}(\mathbf{p})=\left(\begin{array}{c}
\sqrt{E_{\mathbf{p},+}-\left(\left|\mathbf{p}\right|-\mu_{5}\right)}\\
0\\
\sqrt{E_{\mathbf{p},+}+\left(\left|\mathbf{p}\right|-\mu_{5}\right)}\\
0
\end{array}\right),\ \ \tilde{\psi}_{-}^{(+)}(\mathbf{p})=\left(\begin{array}{c}
0\\
\sqrt{E_{\mathbf{p},-}+\left(\left|\mathbf{p}\right|+\mu_{5}\right)}\\
0\\
\sqrt{E_{\mathbf{p},-}-\left(\left|\mathbf{p}\right|+\mu_{5}\right)}
\end{array}\right),\label{eq:fermion wave function with chiral}$$ while the eigenstates for negative energies $p^{0}+\mu=-E_{\mathbf{p},s}$ read $$\tilde{\psi}_{+}^{(-)}(\mathbf{p})=\left(\begin{array}{c}
-\sqrt{E_{\mathbf{p},+}+\left|\mathbf{p}\right|-\mu_{5}}\\
0\\
\sqrt{E_{\mathbf{p},+}-\left(\left|\mathbf{p}\right|-\mu_{5}\right)}\\
0
\end{array}\right),\ \ \tilde{\psi}_{-}^{(-)}(\mathbf{p})=\left(\begin{array}{c}
0\\
-\sqrt{E_{\mathbf{p},-}-\left(\left|\mathbf{p}\right|+\mu_{5}\right)}\\
0\\
\sqrt{E_{\mathbf{p},-}+\left(\left|\mathbf{p}\right|+\mu_{5}\right)}
\end{array}\right).\label{eq:antifermion wave function with chiral}$$ The wavefunctions in Eqs. (\[eq:fermion wave function with chiral\]) and (\[eq:antifermion wave function with chiral\]) are normalized $$\tilde{\psi}_{s_{2}}^{(s_{1})\dagger}(\mathbf{p})\tilde{\psi}_{s_{2}^{\prime}}^{(s_{1}^{\prime})}(\mathbf{p})=2E_{\mathbf{p},s_{2}}\delta_{s_{1}s_{1}^{\prime}}\delta_{s_{2}s_{2}^{\prime}}.\label{eq:orthonarmality of psi with chiral}$$ Here they are normalized to the corresponding eigenenergies in order to smoothly reproduce the normalization relations without chiral chemical potential in Eq. (\[eq:normalization of psi pm\]). The wavefunctions in coordinate space are then computed by adding a Fourier factor $$\psi_{s_{2}}^{(s_{1})}(x,\mathbf{p})=e^{i\mu t}\exp\left(-i\,s_{1}E_{\mathbf{p},s_{2}}t+i\mathbf{p}\cdot\mathbf{x}\right)\left(\mathbb{I}_{2}\otimes S_{\mathbf{p}}\right)\tilde{\psi}_{s_{2}}^{(s_{1})}(\mathbf{p}),\label{eq:single particle wave function}$$ In the solution (\[eq:single particle wave function\]), $s_{1}=\pm$ labels fermions ($+$) or anti-fermions ($-$). The states with $s_{1}=+$ are interpreted as fermions with the kinetic momentum $\mathbf{p}$ while $s_{1}=-$ as anti-fermions with the kinetic momentum $-\mathbf{p}$. Meanwhile, $s_{2}=\pm$ does not have an explicit meaning in the massive case. But in the massless limit it parameterizes the chirality.
The wavefunctions in Eqs. (\[eq:fermion wave function with chiral\]), (\[eq:antifermion wave function with chiral\]) are superpositions of the LH states and the RH ones. In the massless limit, the eigenenergies are given by $E_{\mathbf{p},s}=(\left|\mathbf{p}\right|-s\mu_{5})\mathrm{sgn}(\left|\mathbf{p}\right|-s\mu_{5})$, where $\mathrm{sgn}$ is the sign function. Meanwhile, the wavefunction $\tilde{\psi}_{+}^{(+)}(\mathbf{p})$ in Eq. (\[eq:fermion wave function with chiral\]) reduces to the following expression, $$\tilde{\psi}_{+}^{(+)}(\mathbf{p})=\left|\left|\mathbf{p}\right|-\mu_{5}\right|\left(\begin{array}{c}
\sqrt{1-\mathrm{sgn}(\left|\mathbf{p}\right|-\mu_{5})}\\
0\\
\sqrt{1+\mathrm{sgn}(\left|\mathbf{p}\right|-\mu_{5})}\\
0
\end{array}\right),$$ which represents a RH wavefunction if $\left|\mathbf{p}\right|-\mu_{5}$ is positive, and a LH wavefunction if $\left|\mathbf{p}\right|-\mu_{5}$ is negative. Similar discussion can be done for other functions in Eqs. (\[eq:fermion wave function with chiral\]), (\[eq:antifermion wave function with chiral\]). We conclude that if $\left|\mathbf{p}\right|-\mu_{5}>0$, $\tilde{\psi}_{+}^{(+)}(\mathbf{p})$ and $\tilde{\psi}_{-}^{(-)}(\mathbf{p})$ are RH while $\tilde{\psi}_{-}^{(+)}(\mathbf{p})$, and $\tilde{\psi}_{+}^{(-)}(\mathbf{p})$ are LH. On the other hand, if $\left|\mathbf{p}\right|-\mu_{5}<0$, $\tilde{\psi}_{+}^{(+)}(\mathbf{p})$ and $\tilde{\psi}_{-}^{(-)}(\mathbf{p})$ are LH while $\tilde{\psi}_{-}^{(+)}(\mathbf{p})$ and $\tilde{\psi}_{+}^{(-)}(\mathbf{p})$ are RH.
On the other hand, we can consider the limit $\mu_{5}\rightarrow0$, which corresponds to a state where the chiral symmetry is restored. We find that the eigenenergies are now independent of $s$, which read $E_{\mathbf{p},s}=E_{\mathbf{p}}=\sqrt{m^{2}+\left|\mathbf{p}\right|^{2}}$. The states $\tilde{\psi}_{\pm}^{(+)}(\mathbf{p})$ then have the same eigenenergy $p^{0}=-\mu+E_{\mathbf{p}}$ while $\tilde{\psi}_{\pm}^{(-)}(\mathbf{p})$ have eigenenergy $p^{0}=-\mu-E_{\mathbf{p}}$. The wavefunctions in Eqs. (\[eq:fermion wave function with chiral\]) and (\[eq:antifermion wave function with chiral\]) reduce to the following forms in this limit, $$\begin{aligned}
& & \tilde{\psi}_{+}^{(+)}(\mathbf{p})=\left(\begin{array}{c}
\sqrt{E_{\mathbf{p}}-\left|\mathbf{p}\right|}\\
0\\
\sqrt{E_{\mathbf{p}}+\left|\mathbf{p}\right|}\\
0
\end{array}\right),\ \ \tilde{\psi}_{-}^{(+)}(\mathbf{p})=\left(\begin{array}{c}
0\\
\sqrt{E_{\mathbf{p}}+\left|\mathbf{p}\right|}\\
0\\
\sqrt{E_{\mathbf{p}}-\left|\mathbf{p}\right|}
\end{array}\right),\nonumber \\
& & \tilde{\psi}_{-}^{(-)}(\mathbf{p})=\left(\begin{array}{c}
0\\
-\sqrt{E_{\mathbf{p}}-\left|\mathbf{p}\right|}\\
0\\
\sqrt{E_{\mathbf{p}}+\left|\mathbf{p}\right|}
\end{array}\right),\ \ \tilde{\psi}_{+}^{(-)}(\mathbf{p})=\left(\begin{array}{c}
-\sqrt{E_{\mathbf{p}}+\left|\mathbf{p}\right|}\\
0\\
\sqrt{E_{\mathbf{p}}-\left|\mathbf{p}\right|}\\
0
\end{array}\right),\end{aligned}$$ where all these functions are normalized to $2E_{\mathbf{p}}$ respectively. For a nonzero mass, all these states are superposition of RH and LH spinors. But in the massless case, the energy $E_{\mathbf{p}}=\left|\mathbf{p}\right|$ and the subscript labels the helicity. In order to show the coincidence with the plane-wave solution in Eq. (\[sol:free wave functions\]), we form a linear combination between the states with the same eigenenergies, $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{\xi}_{1}\tilde{\psi}_{+}^{(+)}(\mathbf{p})\pm\tilde{\xi}_{2}\tilde{\psi}_{-}^{(+)}(\mathbf{p}) & \rightarrow & \tilde{\psi}_{\pm}^{(+)}(\mathbf{p}),\\
-\left[\tilde{\xi}_{1}\tilde{\psi}_{+}^{(-)}(\mathbf{p})\pm\tilde{\xi}_{2}\tilde{\psi}_{-}^{(-)}(\mathbf{p})\right] & \rightarrow & \tilde{\psi}_{\pm}^{(-)}(-\mathbf{p}).\end{aligned}$$ These wavefunctions read, $$\tilde{\psi}_{\pm}^{(+)}(\mathbf{p})=\left(\begin{array}{c}
\sqrt{E_{\mathbf{p}}-\left|\mathbf{p}\right|}\tilde{\xi}_{1}\\
\pm\sqrt{E_{\mathbf{p}}+\left|\mathbf{p}\right|}\tilde{\xi}_{2}\\
\sqrt{E_{\mathbf{p}}+\left|\mathbf{p}\right|}\tilde{\xi}_{1}\\
\pm\sqrt{E_{\mathbf{p}}-\left|\mathbf{p}\right|}\tilde{\xi}_{2}
\end{array}\right),\ \ \tilde{\psi}_{\pm}^{(-)}(-\mathbf{p})=\left(\begin{array}{c}
\sqrt{E_{\mathbf{p}}+\left|\mathbf{p}\right|}\tilde{\xi}_{1}\\
\pm\sqrt{E_{\mathbf{p}}-\left|\mathbf{p}\right|}\tilde{\xi}_{2}\\
-\sqrt{E_{\mathbf{p}}-\left|\mathbf{p}\right|}\tilde{\xi}_{1}\\
\mp\sqrt{E_{\mathbf{p}}+\left|\mathbf{p}\right|}\tilde{\xi}_{2}
\end{array}\right).$$ We further demand that $$\xi_{s}\equiv S_{\mathbf{p}}\left(\begin{array}{c}
\tilde{\xi}_{1}\\
\pm\tilde{\xi}_{2}
\end{array}\right),$$ and using Eq. (\[def:short notations\]) and Eq. (\[eq:tilde psi and psi\]) we finally obtain $$\psi_{s}^{(+)}(\mathbf{p})=\left(\begin{array}{c}
\sqrt{p_{\mu}\sigma^{\mu}}\xi_{s}\\
\sqrt{p_{\mu}\bar{\sigma}^{\mu}}\xi_{s}
\end{array}\right),\ \ \psi_{s}^{(-)}(-\mathbf{p})=\left(\begin{array}{c}
\sqrt{p_{\mu}\bar{\sigma}^{\mu}}\xi_{s}\\
-\sqrt{p_{\mu}\sigma^{\mu}}\xi_{s}
\end{array}\right),$$ which agree with the previous results (\[sol:free wave functions\]). Thus we conclude that in the presence of a constant chiral chemical potential $\mu_{5}$, the single-particle wavefunctions in (\[eq:single particle wave function\]) when setting $\mu_{5}=0$, up to a linear combination, coincide with the solutions without $\mu_{5}$ in the previous subsection.
### Chiral quantization
Analogous to the case without chiral imbalance, the fermionic field can be quantized using the single-particle wavefunctions with finite $\mu_{5}$, which are given in Eq. (\[eq:single particle wave function\]), $$\hat{\psi}(x)=e^{i\mu t}\sum_{s}\int\frac{d^{3}\mathbf{p}}{(2\pi)^{3}\sqrt{2E_{\mathbf{p},s}}}e^{i\mathbf{p}\cdot\mathbf{x}}\left(\mathbb{I}_{2}\otimes S_{\mathbf{p}}\right)\left[e^{-iE_{\mathbf{p},s}t}\tilde{\psi}_{s}^{(+)}(\mathbf{p})\hat{a}_{\mathbf{p},s}+e^{iE_{\mathbf{p},s}t}\tilde{\psi}_{s}^{(-)}(\mathbf{p})\hat{b}_{-\mathbf{p},s}^{\dagger}\right],\label{eq:field operator with =00005Cmu_5}$$ where the creation and annihilation operators satisfy the following canonical anti-commutation relations $$\left\{ \hat{a}_{\mathbf{p},s},\,\hat{a}_{\mathbf{p}^{\prime},s^{\prime}}^{\dagger}\right\} =\left\{ \hat{b}_{\mathbf{p},s},\,\hat{b}_{\mathbf{p}^{\prime},s^{\prime}}^{\dagger}\right\} =(2\pi)^{3}\delta^{(3)}(\mathbf{p}-\mathbf{p}^{\prime})\delta_{ss^{\prime}},\label{eq:anticommutation chiral case}$$ while all other anti-commutators vanish. In order to check whether the fermionic field is correctly quantized, we calculate the anti-commutator for the field operator $\hat{\psi}$ and its Hermitian conjugate $\hat{\psi}^{\dagger}$,
$$\left\{ \hat{\psi}_{\alpha}(t,\mathbf{x}),\hat{\psi}_{\beta}^{\dagger}(t,\mathbf{x}^{\prime})\right\} =\delta_{\alpha\beta}\delta^{(3)}(\mathbf{x}-\mathbf{x}^{\prime}),$$
where $\alpha,\beta$ label components of the Dirac field. Furthermore, other anti-commutators, such as $\left\{ \psi_{\alpha}(t,\mathbf{x}),\psi_{\beta}(t,\mathbf{x}^{\prime})\right\} $ and $\left\{ \psi_{\alpha}^{\dagger}(t,\mathbf{x}),\psi_{\beta}^{\dagger}(t,\mathbf{x}^{\prime})\right\} $, vanish because they do not contain any nonzero anti-commutator (\[eq:anticommutation chiral case\]). Note that the field operator in Eq. (\[eq:field operator with =00005Cmu\_5\]) recovers the one in Eq. (\[def:quantized free field\]) if we take $\mu_{5}=0$.
The Hamilton operator $\hat{H}$ is now given by $$\hat{H}=\int d^{3}\mathbf{x}\,\hat{\psi}^{\dagger}(-i\gamma^{0}\boldsymbol{\gamma}\cdot\boldsymbol{\nabla}_{\mathbf{x}}-m-\mu-\mu_{5}\gamma^{5})\hat{\psi}=\hat{H}_{0}-\mu\hat{N}-\mu_{5}\hat{N}_{5},$$ where $\hat{H}_{0}=\psi^{\dagger}(-i\gamma^{0}\boldsymbol{\gamma}\cdot\boldsymbol{\nabla}_{\mathbf{x}}-m)\psi$ is the free fermion Hamiltonian, $\hat{N}=\psi^{\dagger}\psi$ is the net particle number operator and $\hat{N}_{5}=\psi^{\dagger}\gamma^{5}\psi$ is the axial-charge operator. Inserting the quantized field operator (\[eq:field operator with =00005Cmu\_5\]) into the Hamiltonian, we obtain $$\hat{H}=\sum_{s}\int\frac{d^{3}\mathbf{p}}{(2\pi)^{3}}\left[(E_{\mathbf{p},s}-\mu)\hat{a}_{\mathbf{p},s}^{\dagger}\hat{a}_{\mathbf{p},s}+(E_{\mathbf{p},s}+\mu)\left(\hat{b}_{-\mathbf{p},s}^{\dagger}\hat{b}_{-\mathbf{p},s}-1\right)\right].\label{eq:quantized Hamiltonian}$$ From the above expression we observe that the lowest energy state is no longer empty. In the lowest energy state, all the states with $E_{\mathbf{p},s}<\mu$ are occupied, which agrees with our expectation. The chemical potential means the system has non-vanishing net fermion number. And the lowest energy state is reached when the thermal temperature is zero and the fermions occupy all states below the Fermi surface. On the other hand, the momentum operator is
$$\hat{\mathbf{P}}=\int d^{3}\mathbf{x}\,\hat{\psi}^{\dagger}\left(-i\boldsymbol{\nabla}_{\mathbf{x}}\right)\hat{\psi}=\sum_{s}\int\frac{d^{3}\mathbf{p}}{(2\pi)^{3}}\mathbf{p}\left(\hat{a}_{\mathbf{p},s}^{\dagger}\hat{a}_{\mathbf{p},s}+\hat{b}_{\mathbf{p},s}^{\dagger}\hat{b}_{\mathbf{p},s}\right).$$
The Hamiltonian and momentum operators indicate that $\hat{a}_{\mathbf{p},s}^{\dagger}$ plays as the creation operator of a fermion with the momentum $\mathbf{p}$ and the energy $E_{\mathbf{p},s}-\mu$ while $\hat{b}_{\mathbf{p},s}^{\dagger}$ creates an anti-fermion with the same momentum $\mathbf{p}$ and the energy $E_{\mathbf{p},s}+\mu$.
### Wigner function
Inserting the field operator (\[eq:field operator with =00005Cmu\_5\]) into the definition (\[def:Wigner function\]) of the Wigner function, one obtains
$$\begin{aligned}
W(x,p) & = & \sum_{ss^{\prime}}\int\frac{dt^{\prime}d^{3}\mathbf{x}^{\prime}}{(2\pi)^{4}}\int\frac{d^{3}\mathbf{q}d^{3}\mathbf{q}^{\prime}}{(2\pi)^{6}\sqrt{2E_{\mathbf{q},s}}\sqrt{2E_{\mathbf{q}^{\prime},s^{\prime}}}}\exp\left[i\mathbf{x}^{\prime}\cdot\left(\mathbf{p}-\frac{\mathbf{q}+\mathbf{q}^{\prime}}{2}\right)+i\mathbf{x}\cdot\left(\mathbf{q}-\mathbf{q}^{\prime}\right)\right]\nonumber \\
& & \times\left\{ \exp\left[-it^{\prime}\left(p^{0}+\mu-\frac{E_{\mathbf{q}^{\prime},s^{\prime}}+E_{\mathbf{q},s}}{2}\right)+it\left(E_{\mathbf{q}^{\prime},s^{\prime}}-E_{\mathbf{q},s}\right)\right]\right.\nonumber \\
& & \ \ \ \ \times\tilde{\psi}_{s^{\prime}}^{(+)\dagger}(\mathbf{q}^{\prime})\left(\mathbb{I}_{2}\otimes S_{\mathbf{q}^{\prime}}^{\dagger}\right)\gamma^{0}\otimes\left[\left(\mathbb{I}_{2}\otimes S_{\mathbf{q}}\right)\tilde{\psi}_{s}^{(+)}(\mathbf{q})\right]\left\langle \Omega\left|\hat{a}_{\mathbf{q}^{\prime},s^{\prime}}^{\dagger}\hat{a}_{\mathbf{q},s}\right|\Omega\right\rangle \nonumber \\
& & \ \ +\exp\left[-it^{\prime}\left(p^{0}+\mu+\frac{E_{\mathbf{q}^{\prime},s^{\prime}}+E_{\mathbf{q},s}}{2}\right)-it\left(E_{\mathbf{q}^{\prime},s^{\prime}}-E_{\mathbf{q},s}\right)\right]\nonumber \\
& & \ \ \ \ \left.\times\tilde{\psi}_{s^{\prime}}^{(-)\dagger}(\mathbf{q}^{\prime})\left(\mathbb{I}_{2}\otimes S_{\mathbf{q}^{\prime}}^{\dagger}\right)\gamma^{0}\otimes\left[\left(\mathbb{I}_{2}\otimes S_{\mathbf{q}}\right)\tilde{\psi}_{s}^{(-)}(\mathbf{q})\right]\left\langle \Omega\left|\hat{b}_{-\mathbf{q}^{\prime},s^{\prime}}\hat{b}_{-\mathbf{q},s}^{\dagger}\right|\Omega\right\rangle \right\} ,\end{aligned}$$
where we have dropped terms of $a_{\mathbf{q}^{\prime},s^{\prime}}^{\dagger}b_{-\mathbf{q},s}^{\dagger}$ or $b_{-\mathbf{q}^{\prime},s^{\prime}}a_{\mathbf{q},s}$. These terms represent the mixtures between fermion states and anti-fermion states, which are not considered in this thesis. Analogous to the discussion in subsection \[subsec:Free-fermions\], we introduce the average and relative momenta, $$\mathbf{k}=\frac{\mathbf{q}+\mathbf{q}^{\prime}}{2},\ \ \mathbf{u}=\mathbf{q}-\mathbf{q}^{\prime}.$$ The integration measure is then invariant under the momentum redefinition, $$d^{3}\mathbf{q}d^{3}\mathbf{q}^{\prime}=d^{3}\mathbf{k}d^{3}\mathbf{u}.$$ In the Wigner function, the integration over $d^{3}\mathbf{x}^{\prime}$ gives a 3-dimensional delta-function for the momentum, while the integration over $dt^{\prime}$ gives a delta-function for the energy. After a straightforward calculation, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
W(x,p) & = & \sum_{ss^{\prime}}\int\frac{d^{3}\mathbf{u}}{(2\pi)^{6}\sqrt{2E_{\mathbf{p}+\mathbf{u}/2,s}}\sqrt{2E_{\mathbf{p}-\mathbf{u}/2,s^{\prime}}}}e^{i\mathbf{u}\cdot\mathbf{x}}\nonumber \\
& & \times\left\{ \delta\left(p^{0}+\mu-\frac{E_{\mathbf{p}-\mathbf{u}/2,s^{\prime}}+E_{\mathbf{p}+\mathbf{u}/2,s}}{2}\right)\exp\left[it\left(E_{\mathbf{p}-\mathbf{u}/2,s^{\prime}}-E_{\mathbf{p}+\mathbf{u}/2,s}\right)\right]\right.\nonumber \\
& & \qquad\qquad\times\tilde{\psi}_{s^{\prime}}^{(+)\dagger}\left(\mathbf{p}-\frac{\mathbf{u}}{2}\right)\left(\mathbb{I}_{2}\otimes S_{\mathbf{p}-\frac{\mathbf{u}}{2}}^{\dagger}\right)\gamma^{0}\otimes\left[\left(\mathbb{I}_{2}\otimes S_{\mathbf{p}+\frac{\mathbf{u}}{2}}\right)\tilde{\psi}_{s}^{(+)}\left(\mathbf{p}+\frac{\mathbf{u}}{2}\right)\right]\nonumber \\
& & \qquad\qquad\times\left\langle \Omega\left|a_{\mathbf{p}-\frac{\mathbf{u}}{2},s^{\prime}}^{\dagger}a_{\mathbf{p}+\frac{\mathbf{u}}{2},s}\right|\Omega\right\rangle \nonumber \\
& & \qquad+\delta\left(p^{0}+\mu+\frac{E_{\mathbf{p}-\mathbf{u}/2,s^{\prime}}+E_{\mathbf{p}+\mathbf{u}/2,s}}{2}\right)\exp\left[-it\left(E_{\mathbf{p}-\mathbf{u}/2,s^{\prime}}-E_{\mathbf{p}+\mathbf{u}/2,s}\right)\right]\nonumber \\
& & \qquad\qquad\times\tilde{\psi}_{s^{\prime}}^{(-)\dagger}\left(\mathbf{p}-\frac{\mathbf{u}}{2}\right)\left(\mathbb{I}_{2}\otimes S_{\mathbf{p}-\frac{\mathbf{u}}{2}}^{\dagger}\right)\gamma^{0}\otimes\left[\left(\mathbb{I}_{2}\otimes S_{\mathbf{p}+\frac{\mathbf{u}}{2}}\right)\tilde{\psi}_{s}^{(-)}\left(\mathbf{p}+\frac{\mathbf{u}}{2}\right)\right]\nonumber \\
& & \qquad\qquad\times\left.\left\langle \Omega\left|b_{-\mathbf{p}+\frac{\mathbf{u}}{2},s^{\prime}}b_{-\mathbf{p}-\frac{\mathbf{u}}{2},s}^{\dagger}\right|\Omega\right\rangle \right\} .\end{aligned}$$ Again we adopt the wave-packet prescription and assume that the expectation value is given by some distribution function, $$\begin{aligned}
\left\langle \Omega\left|a_{\mathbf{p}-\frac{\mathbf{u}}{2},s^{\prime}}^{\dagger}a_{\mathbf{p}+\frac{\mathbf{u}}{2},s}\right|\Omega\right\rangle & = & f_{s}^{(+)}(\mathbf{p},\mathbf{u})\delta_{ss^{\prime}},\nonumber \\
\left\langle \Omega\left|b_{-\mathbf{p}+\frac{\mathbf{u}}{2},s^{\prime}}b_{-\mathbf{p}-\frac{\mathbf{u}}{2},s}^{\dagger}\right|\Omega\right\rangle & = & (2\pi)^{3}\delta^{(3)}(\mathbf{u})\delta_{ss^{\prime}}-f_{s}^{(-)}(-\mathbf{p},\mathbf{u})\delta_{ss^{\prime}}.\label{eq:definition of distributions with chiral}\end{aligned}$$ Here the presence of $\delta_{ss^{\prime}}$ takes into account that states with different $s$ have different energy shells. We further define the distribution function in phase space, $$f_{s}^{(\pm)}(x,\mathbf{p})\equiv\int\frac{d^{3}\mathbf{u}}{(2\pi)^{3}}e^{i\mathbf{u}\cdot\mathbf{x}}\exp\left[\pm it\left(E_{\mathbf{p}-\mathbf{u}/2,s}-E_{\mathbf{p}+\mathbf{u}/2,s}\right)\right]f_{s}^{(\pm)}(\mathbf{p},\mathbf{u}).$$ Analogous to what we did for the free fermion case in subsection \[subsec:Free-fermions\], we expand the Wigner function in terms of $\mathbf{u}$. Since we adopt the wave-packet prescription, the relative momentum $\mathbf{u}$ contributes if it is much smaller than the width of the wave packet. Thus $\mathbf{u}$ is treated as a small variable and the Wigner function at leading order in spatial gradient reads, $$\begin{aligned}
W^{(0)}(x,p) & = & \sum_{s}\frac{1}{(2\pi)^{3}}\left\{ \delta\left(p^{0}+\mu-E_{\mathbf{p},s}\right)W_{s}^{(+)}(\mathbf{p})f_{s}^{(+)}(x,\mathbf{p})\right.\nonumber \\
& & \qquad\left.+\delta\left(p^{0}+\mu+E_{\mathbf{p},s}\right)W_{s}^{(-)}(\mathbf{p})\left[1-f_{s}^{(-)}(x,-\mathbf{p})\right]\right\} ,\label{eq:Wigner function with chiral imbalance}\end{aligned}$$ where we have defined the following terms for contributions from fermions or anti-fermions, $$W_{s}^{(\pm)}(\mathbf{p})\equiv\frac{1}{2E_{\mathbf{p},s}}\tilde{\psi}_{s}^{(\pm)\dagger}(\mathbf{p})\left(\mathbb{I}_{2}\otimes S_{\mathbf{p}}^{\dagger}\right)\gamma^{0}\otimes\left[\left(\mathbb{I}_{2}\otimes S_{\mathbf{p}}\right)\tilde{\psi}_{s}^{(\pm)}(\mathbf{p})\right].$$ Here the single-particle wavefunctions $\tilde{\psi}_{s}^{(r)}(\mathbf{p})$ are listed in Eqs. (\[eq:fermion wave function with chiral\]) and (\[eq:antifermion wave function with chiral\]), meanwhile the transformation matrices $S_{\mathbf{p}}$ and $S_{\mathbf{p}}^{\dagger}$ are given in Eq. (\[def:transformation matrix Sp\]). The delta-function for the energy can be written in a covariant form $$\frac{1}{2E_{\mathbf{p},s}}\delta\left(p^{0}+\mu-rE_{\mathbf{p},s}\right)=\theta[r(p^{0}+\mu)]\delta\left[(p^{0}+\mu)^{2}-(\left|\mathbf{p}\right|-s\mu_{5})^{2}-m^{2}\right],$$ which recovers with the normal on-shell condition when setting $\mu=\mu_{5}=0$.
Then the next step is to insert the single-particle wavefunctions (\[eq:fermion wave function with chiral\]) and (\[eq:antifermion wave function with chiral\]) into Eq. (\[eq:Wigner function with chiral imbalance\]) and calculate 16 components of the Wigner function. First we focus on the fermion part, $\tilde{\psi}_{s}^{(+)}(\mathbf{p})$, which can be written in terms of the Kronecker product of two column vectors, $$\tilde{\psi}_{s}^{(+)}(\mathbf{p})=\left(\begin{array}{c}
\sqrt{E_{\mathbf{p},+}-\left(\left|\mathbf{p}\right|-\mu_{5}\right)}\\
\sqrt{E_{\mathbf{p},+}+\left(\left|\mathbf{p}\right|-\mu_{5}\right)}
\end{array}\right)\otimes\left(\begin{array}{c}
1\\
0
\end{array}\right),\ \ \tilde{\psi}_{-}^{(+)}(\mathbf{p})=\left(\begin{array}{c}
\sqrt{E_{\mathbf{p},-}+\left(\left|\mathbf{p}\right|+\mu_{5}\right)}\\
\sqrt{E_{\mathbf{p},-}-\left(\left|\mathbf{p}\right|+\mu_{5}\right)}
\end{array}\right)\otimes\left(\begin{array}{c}
0\\
1
\end{array}\right).$$ Then using the property of the Kronecker product in Eq. (\[eq:mixed-product\]), we obtain
$$\begin{aligned}
W_{s}^{(+)}(\mathbf{p}) & = & \frac{1}{2E_{\mathbf{p},s}}\left[\left(\begin{array}{cc}
m & E_{\mathbf{p},s}-s\left(\left|\mathbf{p}\right|-s\mu_{5}\right)\\
E_{\mathbf{p},s}+s\left(\left|\mathbf{p}\right|-s\mu_{5}\right) & m
\end{array}\right)\right]\nonumber \\
& & \qquad\otimes\left[\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\delta_{s+} & \delta_{s-}\end{array}\right)S_{\mathbf{p}}^{\dagger}\otimes S_{\mathbf{p}}\left(\begin{array}{c}
\delta_{s+}\\
\delta_{s-}
\end{array}\right)\right].\end{aligned}$$
The explicit forms of $S_{\mathbf{p}}$ and $S_{\mathbf{p}}^{\dagger}$ are given in Eq. (\[def:transformation matrix Sp\]). Then after some complicated but straightforward calculation we obtain
$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\delta_{s+} & \delta_{s-}\end{array}\right)S_{\mathbf{p}}^{\dagger}\otimes S_{\mathbf{p}}\left(\begin{array}{c}
\delta_{s+}\\
\delta_{s-}
\end{array}\right)=\frac{1}{2}\mathbb{I}_{2}+s\frac{\mathbf{p}\cdot\boldsymbol{\sigma}}{2\left|\mathbf{p}\right|}.\label{eq:temp relation}$$
With the help of the Kronecker-product of the gamma matrices in Eq. (\[eq:relation between gamma matrices and Pauli\]), we obtain
$$\begin{aligned}
W_{s}^{(+)}(\mathbf{p}) & = & \frac{1}{4E_{\mathbf{p},s}}\left[m\left(\mathbb{I}_{4}+s\frac{1}{2\left|\mathbf{p}\right|}\epsilon^{ijk}\sigma^{ij}\mathbf{p}^{k}\right)+E_{\mathbf{p},s}\left(\gamma^{0}-s\frac{1}{\left|\mathbf{p}\right|}\mathbf{p}\cdot\gamma^{5}\boldsymbol{\gamma}\right)\right.\nonumber \\
& & \qquad\left.+\left(\left|\mathbf{p}\right|-s\mu_{5}\right)\left(s\gamma^{5}\gamma^{0}-\frac{1}{\left|\mathbf{p}\right|}\mathbf{p}\cdot\boldsymbol{\gamma}\right)\right].\end{aligned}$$
An analogous calculation can be done for anti-fermions, which gives
$$\begin{aligned}
W_{s}^{(-)}(\mathbf{p}) & = & \frac{1}{2E_{\mathbf{p},s}}\left[\left(\begin{array}{cc}
-m & E_{\mathbf{p},s}+s\left(\left|\mathbf{p}\right|-s\mu_{5}\right)\\
E_{\mathbf{p},s}-s\left(\left|\mathbf{p}\right|-s\mu_{5}\right) & -m
\end{array}\right)\right]\nonumber \\
& & \qquad\otimes\left[\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\delta_{s+} & \delta_{s-}\end{array}\right)S_{\mathbf{p}}^{\dagger}\otimes S_{\mathbf{p}}\left(\begin{array}{c}
\delta_{s+}\\
\delta_{s-}
\end{array}\right)\right].\end{aligned}$$
Then using Eqs. (\[eq:temp relation\]) and (\[eq:relation between gamma matrices and Pauli\]) we can express $W_{s}^{(-)}(\mathbf{p})$ in gamma matrices, $$\begin{aligned}
W_{s}^{(-)}(\mathbf{p}) & = & \frac{1}{4E_{\mathbf{p},s}}\left[-m\left(\mathbb{I}_{4}+s\frac{1}{2\left|\mathbf{p}\right|}\epsilon^{ijk}\sigma^{ij}\mathbf{p}^{k}\right)+E_{\mathbf{p},s}\left(\gamma^{0}-s\frac{1}{\left|\mathbf{p}\right|}\mathbf{p}\cdot\gamma^{5}\boldsymbol{\gamma}\right)\right.\nonumber \\
& & \left.-\left(\left|\mathbf{p}\right|-s\mu_{5}\right)\left(s\gamma^{5}\gamma^{0}-\frac{1}{\left|\mathbf{p}\right|}\mathbf{p}\cdot\boldsymbol{\gamma}\right)\right].\end{aligned}$$ Inserting these back into the Wigner function in Eq. (\[eq:Wigner function with chiral imbalance\]) and taking the trace after multiplying with $\Gamma_{i}=\{\mathbb{I}_{4},\ i\gamma^{5},\ \gamma^{\mu},\ \gamma^{5}\gamma^{\mu},\ \frac{1}{2}\sigma^{\mu\nu}\}$, we can extract different components of the Wigner function, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{F} & = & mV(x,p),\nonumber \\
\mathcal{P} & = & 0,\nonumber \\
\mathcal{V}^{0} & = & (p^{0}+\mu)V(x,p),\nonumber \\
\boldsymbol{\mathcal{V}} & = & \mathbf{p}\left[V(x,\mathbf{p})-\frac{\mu_{5}}{\left|\mathbf{p}\right|}A(x,p)\right],\nonumber \\
\mathcal{A}^{0} & = & \left|\mathbf{p}\right|\left[A(x,p)-\frac{\mu_{5}}{\left|\mathbf{p}\right|}V(x,p)\right],\nonumber \\
\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}} & = & \frac{\mathbf{p}}{\left|\mathbf{p}\right|}(p^{0}+\mu)A(x,p),\nonumber \\
\mathcal{S}^{0i} & = & 0,\nonumber \\
\mathcal{S}^{ij} & = & \frac{m}{\left|\mathbf{p}\right|}\epsilon^{ijk}\mathbf{p}^{k}A(x,p),\label{eq:Wigner function with chiral}\end{aligned}$$ where we have defined $$\begin{aligned}
V(x,p) & \equiv & \frac{2}{(2\pi)^{3}}\sum_{s}\delta\left[(p^{0}+\mu)^{2}-(\left|\mathbf{p}\right|-s\mu_{5})^{2}-m^{2}\right]\nonumber \\
& & \qquad\times\left\{ \theta(p^{0}+\mu)f_{s}^{(+)}(x,\mathbf{p})-\theta[-(p^{0}+\mu)]\left[1-f_{s}^{(-)}(x,-\mathbf{p})\right]\right\} ,\nonumber \\
A(x,p) & \equiv & \frac{2}{(2\pi)^{3}}\sum_{s}\delta\left[(p^{0}+\mu)^{2}-(\left|\mathbf{p}\right|-s\mu_{5})^{2}-m^{2}\right]\nonumber \\
& & \qquad\times s\left\{ \theta(p^{0}+\mu)f_{s}^{(+)}(x,\mathbf{p})-\theta[-(p^{0}+\mu)]\left[1-f_{s}^{(-)}(x,-\mathbf{p})\right]\right\} .\end{aligned}$$ Note that the presence of $\mu$ and $\mu_{5}$ breaks the Lorentz covariance of the Wigner function. That is why in (\[eq:Wigner function with chiral\]), we separately listed $\mathcal{V}^{0}$ and $\boldsymbol{\mathcal{V}}$ instead of a four-vector $\mathcal{V}^{\mu}$. For the same reason, the axial-vector $\mathcal{A}^{\mu}$ is separated into $\mathcal{A}^{0}$ and $\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}$, while the tensor $\mathcal{S}^{\mu\nu}$ is separated into the electric-like components $\mathcal{S}^{0i}$ and the magnetic-like components $\mathcal{S}^{ij}$.
In the case without chiral imbalance, we have four undetermined functions, $V^{(0)}(x,p)$ and $n^{(0)\mu}(x,p)$, which are defined in (\[def:definition of V and n\]). (Here $p_{\mu}n^{(0)\mu}=0$ thus $n^{(0)\mu}$ has only three independent components.) However, in (\[eq:Wigner function with chiral\]), we only have two functions, $V(x,p)$ and $A(x,p)$. This loss of degrees of freedom is attributed to the spin degeneracy. In the case without $\mu_{5}$, the energy states are degenerate with respect to spin. In the particle’s rest frame, its spin can take arbitrary spatial direction. However, a finite chiral chemical potential $\mu_{5}$ breaks the spin degeneracy, so the eigenstates, given by Eqs. (\[eq:fermion wave function with chiral\]) and (\[eq:antifermion wave function with chiral\]), have fixed spin directions, i.e. along the direction of $\mathbf{p}$. Hence in (\[eq:Wigner function with chiral\]) the polarization density $\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}$ is parallel to $\mathbf{p}$. This is different to the case $\mu_{5}=0$, where the polarization density $\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}$ can point in any direction. The reason for this difference is because we forbid the mixture between different energy levels. In Eq. (\[eq:definition of distributions with chiral\]) we assume that the expectation values of $a_{\mathbf{p}-\frac{\mathbf{u}}{2},s^{\prime}}^{\dagger}a_{\mathbf{p}+\frac{\mathbf{u}}{2},s}$ and $b_{-\mathbf{p}+\frac{\mathbf{u}}{2},s^{\prime}}b_{-\mathbf{p}-\frac{\mathbf{u}}{2},s}^{\dagger}$ are proportional to $\delta_{ss^{\prime}}$, because states with different $s$ are supported on different energy levels. If we allow the mixture between different spin states, the final result would have more degrees of freedom and thus is expected to coincide with the result in subsection \[subsec:Free-fermions\] in the limit $\mu_{5}\rightarrow0$.
Fermions in a constant magnetic field \[subsec:Fermions-in-const-B\]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
### Dirac equation
In a constant magnetic field, the transverse momentum of a particle is discrete while the momentum along the direction of the magnetic field stays continuous. The eigenenergies are given by the well-known Landau energy levels $$E_{p^{z}}^{(n)}=\sqrt{m^{2}+(p^{z})^{2}+2nB_{0}},\label{eq:well known Landau levels}$$ where $B_{0}$ is the strength of the magnetic field and $n=0,1,2,\cdots$ label the Landau levels. Note that the electric charge has been absorbed into the field. We can rewrite the quantum number $n$ as $n=n^{\prime}+\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2}s$, with $n^{\prime}=0,1,2,\cdots$ denotes the orbital quantum number and $s=\pm$ represents the spin direction. Then the lowest Landau level $n=0$ corresponds to $n^{\prime}=0$ and $s=-$, which means the particles in the lowest Landau level $n=0$ have a definite spin direction. According to the principle of minimum energy, the spins of fermions with positive charges are parallel, while those of negatively charged anti-fermions are anti-parallel, to the direction of the magnetic field. Meanwhile, higher Landau levels $n>0$ are degenerate for $n^{\prime}=n$, $s=-$ and $n^{\prime}=n-1$, $s=+$, which means these levels are 2-fold degenerate.
In this section we will consider fermions in a constant magnetic field. Since the magnetic field is not Lorentz-covariant itself, we should choose a specific frame. The choice of the frame will break the covariance. We also consider finite $\mu$ and $\mu_{5}$. The Dirac equation reads in this case
$$i\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\psi=[\gamma^{0}\boldsymbol{\gamma}\cdot(-i\boldsymbol{\nabla}-\boldsymbol{\mathbb{A}})+m\gamma^{0}-\mu-\mu_{5}\gamma^{5}]\psi.\label{eq:Dirac-equation}$$
Here $\mu$ and $\mu_{5}$ are assumed to be constant. We can read off the Hamilton operator from the above equation $$\hat{H}=\gamma^{0}\boldsymbol{\gamma}\cdot(-i\boldsymbol{\nabla}-\boldsymbol{\mathbb{A}})+m\gamma^{0}-\mu-\mu_{5}\gamma^{5}.\label{eq:Hamiltonian operator in magnetic field}$$ Without loss of generality, the magnetic field is taken in the z-direction. The magnetic field and gauge potential are $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{B} & = & B_{0}\mathbf{e}_{z},\nonumber \\
\boldsymbol{\mathbb{A}} & = & -B_{0}y\mathbf{e}_{x},\label{eq:def-vector-potential}\end{aligned}$$ where the field strength being a positive constant $B_{0}>0$. This choice of the gauge potential is known as the Landau gauge. Another widely used gauge is the symmetric gauge with $\boldsymbol{\mathbb{A}}=\frac{1}{2}\mathbf{B}\times\mathbf{r}$ but here we adopt the Landau gauge because under this gauge the wavefunctions take the simplest form. The Wigner function will only depend on the magnetic field and then be independent fromthe choice of gauge.
Since the gauge potential $\boldsymbol{\mathbb{A}}$ only depends on the $y$-coordinate in the Landau gauge, while the mass $m$, the chemical potential $\mu$, and the chiral chemical potential $\mu_{5}$ are assumed to be constant, one can check that the spatial derivatives $\frac{\partial}{\partial x}$ and $\frac{\partial}{\partial z}$ commute with the Hamiltonian $\hat{H}$ in Eq. (\[eq:Hamiltonian operator in magnetic field\]). This indicates that we can introduce the momenta $p^{x}$ and $p^{z}$ as conserved variables. The solution of the Dirac equation (\[eq:Dirac-equation\]) can be cast into the Fourier mode $$\psi(t,\mathbf{x})=\int\frac{dp^{x}dp^{z}}{(2\pi)^{2}}e^{-iEt+ip^{x}x+ip^{z}z}\psi(p^{x},p^{z},y).\label{eq:solution}$$ Here we adopt the Weyl representation, i.e., the Dirac spinor can be decomposed into the LH and RH Pauli spinors, $$\psi(p^{x},p^{z},y)=\left(\begin{array}{c}
\chi_{L}(p^{x},p^{z},y)\\
\chi_{R}(p^{x},p^{z},y)
\end{array}\right).\label{eq:wave function in magnetic field}$$ Inserting Eq. (\[eq:solution\]) into the Dirac equation (\[eq:Dirac-equation\]), one obtains the equations for the LH and RH spinors,
$$\begin{aligned}
\left[E+\sigma^{1}(p^{x}+B_{0}y)+\sigma^{2}(-i\frac{\partial}{\partial y})+\sigma^{3}p^{z}+\mu-\mu_{5}\right]\chi_{L}(p^{x},p^{z},y) & = & m\chi_{R}(p^{x},p^{z},y),\nonumber \\
\left[E-\sigma^{1}(p^{x}+B_{0}y)-\sigma^{2}(-i\frac{\partial}{\partial y})-\sigma^{3}p^{z}+\mu+\mu_{5}\right]\chi_{R}(p^{x},p^{z},y) & = & m\chi_{L}(p^{x},p^{z},y).\end{aligned}$$
For massless fermions $m=0$, the LH spinor is decoupled from the RH one, which indicates that particles are either LH or RH. But in the massive case there is a mixture between $\chi_{L}$ and $\chi_{R}$, so the chirality is no longer a good quantum number. Inserting the explicit formula for the Pauli matrices into the equations of $\chi_{R,L}$, we obtain the matrix form,
$$\begin{aligned}
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
E+\mu-\mu_{5}+p^{z} & -\frac{\partial}{\partial y}+(p^{x}+B_{0}y)\\
\frac{\partial}{\partial y}+(p^{x}+B_{0}y) & E+\mu-\mu_{5}-p^{z}
\end{array}\right)\chi_{L}(p^{x},p^{z},y) & = & m\chi_{R}(p^{x},p^{z},y),\nonumber \\
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
E+\mu+\mu_{5}-p^{z} & \frac{\partial}{\partial y}-(p^{x}+B_{0}y)\\
-\frac{\partial}{\partial y}-(p^{x}+B_{0}y) & E+\mu+\mu_{5}+p^{z}
\end{array}\right)\chi_{R}(p^{x},p^{z},y) & = & m\chi_{L}(p^{x},p^{z},y).\end{aligned}$$
In order to make the formula simpler, we introduce the creation and annihilation operators $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{a} & = & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2B_{0}}}\left[\frac{\partial}{\partial y}+(p^{x}+B_{0}y)\right],\nonumber \\
\hat{a}^{\dagger} & = & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2B_{0}}}\left[-\frac{\partial}{\partial y}+(p^{x}+B_{0}y)\right].\end{aligned}$$ They are, respectively, the creation and annihilation operators of a harmonic oscillator around an equilibrium point $p^{x}/B_{0}$ with the frequency $\omega=\sqrt{B_{0}}$. We can check that they satisfy the commutation relation $\left[\hat{a},\hat{a}^{\dagger}\right]=1$.
But we should note that here $\hat{a}^{\dagger}$ is not the Hermitian transpose of $\hat{a}$. Using these operators, the equations for the Pauli spinors read $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
E+\mu-\mu_{5}+p^{z} & \sqrt{2B_{0}}\hat{a}^{\dagger}\\
\sqrt{2B_{0}}\hat{a} & E+\mu-\mu_{5}-p^{z}
\end{array}\right)\chi_{L}(p^{x},p^{z},y) & = & m\chi_{R}(p^{x},p^{z},y),\nonumber \\
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
E+\mu+\mu_{5}-p^{z} & -\sqrt{2B_{0}}\hat{a}^{\dagger}\\
-\sqrt{2B_{0}}\hat{a} & E+\mu+\mu_{5}+p^{z}
\end{array}\right)\chi_{R}(p^{x},p^{z},y) & = & m\chi_{L}(p^{x},p^{z},y).\label{eq:equation of Chi_RL}\end{aligned}$$ Inserting the second line into the first line or vise versa, one derives the equation for RH or LH spinors by eliminating $\chi_{L}$ or $\chi_{R}$
$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}
(E+\mu)^{2}-\Lambda^{-} & 2\mu_{5}\sqrt{2B_{0}}\hat{a}^{\dagger}\\
2\mu_{5}\sqrt{2B_{0}}\hat{a} & (E+\mu)^{2}-\Lambda^{+}
\end{array}\right)\chi_{R,L}(p^{x},p^{z},y)=0,\label{eq:eq-chi-RL-decoupled}$$
where $$\Lambda^{\pm}\equiv m^{2}+(p^{z}\pm\mu_{5})^{2}+2B_{0}\left(\hat{a}^{\dagger}\hat{a}+\frac{1}{2}\right)\pm B_{0}$$ is the energy squared of particles with spin parallel or anti-parallel to the magnetic field. We see that the RH and LH spinors satisfy the same differential equation, thus we can solve one of them and derive the other through the relation (\[eq:equation of Chi\_RL\]). Note that if the chiral chemical potential vanishes, $\mu_{5}=0$, the off-diagonal terms in Eq. (\[eq:eq-chi-RL-decoupled\]) also vanish and a straightforward calculation gives the eigenenergy $$E_{s_{1}s_{2}}=-\mu+s_{1}\sqrt{m^{2}+(p^{z})^{2}+2B_{0}\left(\hat{a}^{\dagger}\hat{a}+\frac{1}{2}\right)+s_{2}B_{0}}\,.$$ The term $2B_{0}\left(\hat{a}^{\dagger}\hat{a}+\frac{1}{2}\right)$ is the transverse energy squared, which comes from the coupling between the magnetic field and orbital angular momentum. The last term in the square root, $\pm B_{0}$, is the spin-magnetic coupling. This energy level agrees with the well-known Landau levels in Eq. (\[eq:well known Landau levels\]).
In the case of finite $\mu_{5}$, the off-diagonal terms in Eq. (\[eq:eq-chi-RL-decoupled\]) take non-vanishing values. In order to solve Eq. (\[eq:eq-chi-RL-decoupled\]), we choose the basis of the harmonic oscillator, i.e., eigenstates of $\hat{a}^{\dagger}\hat{a}$,
$$\phi_{n}(p^{x},y)=\left(\frac{B_{0}}{\pi}\right)^{1/4}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2^{n}n!}}\exp\left[-\frac{B_{0}}{2}\left(y+\frac{p^{x}}{B_{0}}\right)^{2}\right]H_{n}\left[\sqrt{B_{0}}\left(y+\frac{p^{x}}{B_{0}}\right)\right].\label{eq:def-phi}$$
Here $H_{n}$ are the Hermite polynomials. One can check the completeness and orthonormality of $\phi_{n}$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\phi_{n}(p^{x},y)\phi_{n}(p^{x\prime},y^{\prime}) & = & \delta\left(y+\frac{p^{x}}{B_{0}}-y^{\prime}-\frac{p^{x\prime}}{B_{0}}\right),\nonumber \\
\int dy\phi_{n}(p^{x},y)\phi_{n'}(p^{x},y) & = & \delta_{nn'}.\label{eq:orthonormality}\end{aligned}$$ When acting on the basis functions $\phi_{n}(p^{x},y)$, the operators $\hat{a}^{\dagger}$ and $\hat{a}$ raise or decrease the quantum number $n$, $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{a}\phi_{n}(p^{x},y) & = & \sqrt{n}\phi_{n-1}(p^{x},y),\nonumber \\
\hat{a}^{\dagger}\phi_{n}(p^{x},y) & = & \sqrt{n+1}\phi_{n+1}(p^{x},y).\label{eq:raise or decrease quantum number}\end{aligned}$$ Due to the completeness of $\phi_{n}$, the spinors can be expanded as $$\chi_{R/L}(p^{x},p^{z},y)=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\left(\begin{array}{c}
c_{n}(p^{x},p^{z})\\
d_{n}(p^{x},p^{z})
\end{array}\right)\phi_{n}(p^{x},y),\label{eq:decompose of Chi_RL}$$ where all the $y$ dependence was put into $\phi_{n}$. Then, from Eq. (\[eq:eq-chi-RL-decoupled\]) we derive $$\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\left[(E+\mu)^{2}-\lambda_{n}^{-}\right]\phi_{n}(p_{x},y) & 2\mu_{5}\sqrt{2(n+1)B_{0}}\phi_{n+1}(p_{x},y)\\
2\mu_{5}\sqrt{2nB_{0}}\phi_{n-1}(p_{x},y) & \left[(E+\mu)^{2}-\lambda_{n+1}^{+}\right]\phi_{n}(p_{x},y)
\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}
c_{n}\\
d_{n}
\end{array}\right)=0,$$ where $$\lambda_{n}^{\pm}\equiv m^{2}+(p^{z}\pm\mu_{5})^{2}+2nB_{0}.$$ Using the orthonormality conditions in Eq. (\[eq:orthonormality\]) we can derive the equations for the coefficients $c_{n}$ and $d_{n}$
$$\begin{aligned}
\left[(E+\mu)^{2}-\lambda_{0}^{-}\right]c_{0} & = & 0,\nonumber \\
2\mu_{5}\sqrt{2nB_{0}}c_{n}+\left[(E+\mu)^{2}-\lambda_{n}^{+}\right]d_{n-1} & = & 0,\ \ n>0,\nonumber \\
\left[(E+\mu)^{2}-\lambda_{n}^{-}\right]c_{n}+2\mu_{5}\sqrt{2nB_{0}}d_{n-1} & = & 0,\ \ n>0.\label{eq:eq-coefficients}\end{aligned}$$
Here the coefficient $c_{0}$ decouples from all others, while $c_{n}$ always couples with $d_{n-1}$ for any $n\geq1$.
### Lowest Landau level
The lowest Landau level is given by demanding a non-vanishing $c_{0}$. From the first line in Eq. (\[eq:eq-coefficients\]), we obtain the eigenenergies $E=-\mu\pm E_{p^{z}}^{(0)}$, there the upper/lower sign labels fermions/anti-fermions.
The energy of the lowest Landau level is $$E_{p^{z}}^{(0)}=\sqrt{m^{2}+(p^{z}-\mu_{5})^{2}}\,.\label{eq:sol-level-E0}$$ Inserting the eigenenergy $E=-\mu\pm E_{p^{z}}^{(0)}$ into the second and third lines of Eq. (\[eq:eq-coefficients\]), we obtain $c_{n}=d_{n-1}=0$ for any $n>0$.
Then from the decomposition (\[eq:decompose of Chi\_RL\]), one can construct the unnormalized eigenspinor for the lowest Landau level $$\chi^{(0)}(p^{x},p^{z},y)=\left(\begin{array}{c}
c_{0}(p^{x},p^{z})\\
0
\end{array}\right)\phi_{0}(p^{x},y).$$ Since the functions $\phi_{0}(p^{x},y)$ satisfies the orthonormality relation in Eq. (\[eq:orthonormality\]), we demand that the spinor satisfies the normalization condition $\int dy\chi^{(0)\dagger}\chi^{(0)}=1$. With the help of Eq. (\[eq:orthonormality\]), we find that $c_{0}(p^{x},p^{z})=1$, so the normalized eigenspinor is independent of the longitudinal momentum $p^{z}$, which agrees with the case without chemical potentials. The normalized eigenspinor for the lowest Landau level is $$\chi^{(0)}(p^{x},y)=\left(\begin{array}{c}
1\\
0
\end{array}\right)\phi_{0}(p^{x},y).\label{eq:sol-chi-0}$$ The lower component is zero, so this state is occupied by a particle with the spin along the positive z-direction or an anti-particle with the spin along the negative z-direction. Recalling that the z-direction is the direction of the magnetic field, we see that the spin configuration in the lowest Landau level ensures the lowest spin-magnetic coupling. Since the LH and RH spinors satisfy the same equation (\[eq:eq-chi-RL-decoupled\]), we take $\chi_{L}^{(0)}(p^{x},y)=\chi^{(0)}(p^{x},y)$ without loss of generality. The RH spinor is then derived from Eq. (\[eq:equation of Chi\_RL\]), $$\chi_{R}^{(0)}(p^{x},p^{z},y)=\frac{E+\mu-\mu_{5}+p^{z}}{m}\chi^{(0)}(p^{x},y).$$ Here the energy takes the eigenvalue for the lowest Landau level $E=-\mu\pm E_{p^{z}}^{(0)}$. Then the wavefunction in Eq. (\[eq:wave function in magnetic field\]) becomes $$\psi_{r}^{(0)}(p^{x},p^{z},y)=\frac{1}{N_{r}}\left(\begin{array}{c}
1\\
\frac{E_{r}+\mu-\mu_{5}+p^{z}}{m}
\end{array}\right)\otimes\chi^{(0)}(p^{x},y),$$ where $E_{r}=rE_{p^{z}}^{(0)}-\mu$ with $r=\pm$, and the symbol $\otimes$ represents the tensor product of two matrices. The normalization factor $N_{r}$ is determined by the normalization condition for the wavefunction, $$\int dy\ \psi_{r}^{(0)\dagger}(p^{x},p^{z},y)\psi_{r^{\prime}}^{(0)}(p^{x},p^{z},y)=\delta_{rr^{\prime}},\label{eq:normalization condition for LLL}$$ which gives
$$N_{r}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{E_{p^{z}}^{(0)}-r(p^{z}-\mu_{5})}}.$$
Inserting $N_{r}$ into the solution we obtain the normalized wavefunction
$$\psi_{r}^{(0)}(p^{x},p^{z},y)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2E_{p^{z}}^{(0)}}}\left(\begin{array}{c}
\sqrt{E_{p^{z}}^{(0)}-r(p^{z}-\mu_{5})}\\
r\sqrt{E_{p^{z}}^{(0)}+r(p^{z}-\mu_{5})}
\end{array}\right)\otimes\chi^{(0)}(p^{x},y).\label{eq:wave function LLL}$$
The terms in the square root in the solution are always positive because $$E_{p^{z}}^{(0)}=\sqrt{m^{2}+(p^{z}-\mu_{5})^{2}}\geq\left|p^{z}-\mu_{5}\right|.$$ In the massless limit we obtain $E_{p^{z}}^{(0)}=\left|p^{z}-\mu_{5}\right|$, and the wavefunction reduces to the chiral one, $$\psi_{r}(p^{x},p^{z},y)=\begin{cases}
\left(\begin{array}{c}
0\\
\chi^{(0)}(p^{x},y)
\end{array}\right), & r\,\mathrm{sgn}(p^{z}-\mu_{5})>0,\\
\left(\begin{array}{c}
\chi^{(0)}(p^{x},y)\\
0
\end{array}\right), & r\,\mathrm{sgn}(p^{z}-\mu_{5})<0.
\end{cases}$$ Here $r=\pm$ represent fermions and anti-fermions respectively. The fermion states with $p^{z}>\mu_{5}$ are RH, while states with $p^{z}<\mu_{5}$ are LH. On the other hand, for anti-fermion states, $p^{z}>\mu_{5}$ corresponds to LH, while $p^{z}<\mu_{5}$ corresponds to RH. We plot the energy spectrum $\pm E_{p^{z}}^{(0)}$ as a function of $p^{z}$ in Fig. \[fig:Lowest-Landau-energy-level\]. In the Figure, the x-axis represents the dimensionless longitudinal momentum $p^{z}/m$ and the y-axis represents the dimensionless energy $E/m$. The branch with the positive energy is for fermions while the one with the negative energy is for anti-fermions. We use the blue color for fermions/anti-fermions with RH chirality while the red color for LH chirality. We observe an energy gap $2m$ between fermions and anti-fermions induced by the mass. There is also a gap $2\mu_{5}$ in the $x$-direction is induced by the chiral chemical potential.
![\[fig:Lowest-Landau-energy-level\]Energy spectrum for fermions (solid line with $E>0$) and anti-fermions (dashed line with $E<0$) in the lowest Landau level. We take the mass as the energy unit. The chiral chemical potential is taken to be $\mu_{5}/m=0.5$. RH particles are shown in red, while LH in blue.](\string"Energy_states_for_LLL\string".PNG){width="8cm"}
The lowest Landau level is related to the CME. The fermions fill in the positive-energy states from the lowest one. Hence fermions are more likely to have positive $p^{z}$ because the energy spectrum is not symmetric. On the hand, anti-fermions are more likely to have negative longitudinal momentum $p^{z}$, which can be observed from the dashed line in Fig. \[fig:Lowest-Landau-energy-level\]. Therefore there will be a net fermion current along the positive $z$-direction, i.e., the direction of the magnetic field. Later on we will show that the higher Landau levels do not contribute to the CME because they are symmetric in $p^{z}$.
### Higher Landau levels
Similar to the lowest Landau level, the higher Landau levels are obtained by demanding a non-vanishing $c_{n}$ with $n>0$. According to Eq. (\[eq:eq-coefficients\]), in the presence of a non-vanishing $\mu_{5}$, the coefficient $c_{n}$ is always coupled to the coefficient $d_{n-1}$. Eliminating $d_{n-1}$ we obtain an equation for $c_{n}$,
$$\left\{ \left[(E+\mu)^{2}-\lambda_{n}^{+}\right]\left[(E+\mu)^{2}-\lambda_{n}^{-}\right]-8nB_{0}\mu_{5}^{2}\right\} c_{n}=0.$$
In order to have a non-trivial $c_{n}$, the coefficient must vanish,
which gives the eigenenergies are $E=-\mu+s_{1}E_{p^{z}s_{2}}^{(n)}$, where $$E_{p^{z}s}^{(n)}=\sqrt{m^{2}+\left[\sqrt{(p^{z})^{2}+2nB_{0}}-s\mu_{5}\right]^{2}}\label{eq:sol-level-En}$$ is the energy of the $n$-th Landau level, with $n>0$ and $s=\pm$. The coefficient $c_{m}$ with $m\neq n$ must vanish because $c_{m}$ and $c_{n}$ correspond to different eigenenergies.
In the massless limit and assuming $\sqrt{(p^{z})^{2}+2nB_{0}}\gg\left|\mu_{5}\right|$ (this is possible because $\mu_{5}$ labels the chiral imbalance which in general should be a small variable compared to the momentum), we have the eigenenergies $$E=r\sqrt{(p^{z})^{2}+2nB_{0}}-(\mu+rs\mu_{5}).$$ Note that $r=\pm$ label states with the positive ($+$) and negative ($-$) energy. In the massless case, $\mu+\mu_{5}$ is the chemical potential for RH particles while $\mu-\mu_{5}$ is the one for LH ones, so the product $rs$ denotes the chirality. The parameter $s$ labels the helicity because fermions ($r=+$) with the RH helicity ($s=+$) and anti-fermions ($r=-$) with the LH helicity ($s=-$) have the RH chirality ($rs=+$), or vice versa. In the case $\mu_{5}=0$, the eigenenergies in Eqs. (\[eq:sol-level-E0\]) and (\[eq:sol-level-En\]) reproduce the well-known Landau energy levels in (\[eq:well known Landau levels\]). The higher Landau levels $E_{p^{z}s}^{(n)}$ in Eq. (\[eq:sol-level-En\]) are degenerate for $s=\pm$ and any $n>0$.
![\[fig:Energy-spectrum-for-higher-Landau \]Energy spectrum for fermions (solid lines with $E>0$) and anti-fermions (dashed lines with $E<0$) in the Landau level $n=1$. The mass $m$ is taken to be the unit of the energy and momentum. The magnetic field strength is chosen to be $B_{0}/m^{2}=2$ and the chiral chemical potential $\mu_{5}/m=0.5$. We use the blue color for particles with the RH chirality and the red color for those with the LH chirality. The curves are even functions of $p^{z}$.](\string"Energy_states_for_HLLs\string".PNG){width="8cm"}
In Fig. \[fig:Energy-spectrum-for-higher-Landau \] we plot the energy spectrum for the first Landau level $n=1$. In this figure we use the blue color to label the branches which in the massless limit reproduce the states of the RH chirality and use the red color for the LH chirality. We observe a gap between LH and RH branches, which is attributed to a finite $\mu_{5}$. Note that the energy spectrum is symmetric for flipping the sign of the longitudinal momentum $p^{z}\leftrightarrow-p^{z}$. Thus, if the distribution only depends on the energy spectrum, the number of particles moving in the positive $z$-direction equals to that moving in the negative $z$-direction. The corresponding currents cancel with each other and there is no macroscopic current for the Landau levels with $n>0$.
Now we derive the wavefunction of the $n$-th Landau level. Inserting the eigenenergy into Eq. (\[eq:eq-coefficients\]) we obtain a relation between $c_{n}$ and $d_{n-1}$. All other coefficients $c_{m},\ d_{m-1}$ with $m\neq n$ have to vanish. According to the expansion in Eq. (\[eq:decompose of Chi\_RL\]), we obtain the unnormalized Pauli spinors
$$\chi_{s}^{(n)}(p^{x},p^{z},y)=c_{n}(p^{x},p^{z})\left(\begin{array}{c}
\sqrt{2nB_{0}}\phi_{n}(p^{x},y)\\
\left(s\sqrt{(p^{z})^{2}+2nB_{0}}-p^{z}\right)\phi_{n-1}(p^{x},y)
\end{array}\right).$$
Again we demand the orthonormality condition $\int dy\chi_{s}^{(n)\dagger}\chi_{s^{\prime}}^{(n)}=\delta_{ss^{\prime}}$ to determine the coefficient $c_{n}$. The normalized eigenspinors read $$\chi_{s}^{(n)}(p^{x},p^{z},y)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\sqrt{(p^{z})^{2}+2nB_{0}}}}\left(\begin{array}{c}
\sqrt{\sqrt{(p^{z})^{2}+2nB_{0}}+sp^{z}}\phi_{n}(p^{x},y)\\
s\sqrt{\sqrt{(p^{z})^{2}+2nB_{0}}-sp^{z}}\phi_{n-1}(p^{x},y)
\end{array}\right).\label{eq:sol-chi-n}$$ Note that the spinors $\chi_{s}^{(n)}(p^{x},p^{z},y)$ are real functions because a) $\phi_{n}(p^{x},y)$ are real; b) the magnetic field strength $B_{0}$ is positive; c) $\sqrt{(p^{z})^{2}+2nB_{0}}>\left|p^{z}\right|$. If the chiral chemical potential vanish, $\mu_{5}=0$, according to Eq. (\[eq:eq-coefficients\]), the state with $c_{n}\neq0$ and the one with $d_{n-1}\neq0$ have the same energy $E=-\mu\pm\sqrt{\lambda^{\pm}}$ with $\lambda^{\pm}=m^{2}+(p^{z})^{2}+2nB_{0}$. Since $c_{n}\neq0$ corresponds to a spin-up state and $d_{n-1}\neq0$ corresponds to a spin-down state, we conclude that the higher Landau levels are two-fold degenerate with respect to spin if $\mu_{5}=0$. But for a finite $\mu_{5}$, the eigenenergy $E=-\mu+s_{1}E_{p^{z}s_{2}}^{(n)}$ depends on $s_{1}$ and $s_{2}$, while the eigenspinors in Eq. (\[eq:sol-chi-n\]) are mixture of spin-up and spin-down states. Using the orthonormality condition for $\phi_{n}$ in Eq. (\[eq:orthonormality\]) we can check that the spinors for higher Landau levels satisfy the orthonormality condition, and they are also orthogonal to the one for the lowest Landau level, $$\begin{aligned}
\int dy\chi_{s}^{(n)\dagger}(p^{x},p^{z},y)\chi^{(0)}(p^{x},y) & = & 0,\nonumber \\
\int dy\chi_{s^{\prime}}^{(n^{\prime})\dagger}(p^{x},p^{z},y)\chi_{s}^{(n)}(p^{x},p^{z},y) & = & \delta_{ss^{\prime}}\delta_{nn^{\prime}}.\label{eq:orthonomality-chi}\end{aligned}$$
The wavefunction in momentum space can be obtained following the procedure for the lowest Landau level. First the LH spinor is assumed to take the form given in Eq. (\[eq:sol-chi-n\]), $\chi_{L,s}^{(n)}(p^{x},p^{z},y)=\chi_{s}^{(n)}(p^{x},p^{z},y)$. Then the RH spinor can be derived from Eq. (\[eq:equation of Chi\_RL\]), $$\chi_{R,s}^{(n)}(p^{x},p^{z},y)=\frac{1}{m}\left(\begin{array}{cc}
E+\mu-\mu_{5}+p^{z} & \sqrt{2B_{0}}\hat{a}^{\dagger}\\
\sqrt{2B_{0}}\hat{a} & E+\mu-\mu_{5}-p^{z}
\end{array}\right)\chi_{s}^{(n)}(p^{x},p^{z},y),$$ where $E=rE_{p^{z}s}^{(n)}-\mu$ which depends on $s$ and $n$. Here $r=\pm$ label the fermion ($+$) and anti-fermion ($-$). Inserting the solution (\[eq:sol-chi-n\]) into the above equation, and using Eq. (\[eq:raise or decrease quantum number\]) to deal with $\hat{a}^{\dagger}$ and $\hat{a}$, we obtain the RH spinor and then the unnormalized wavefunction
$$\psi_{rs}^{(n)}(p^{x},p^{z},y)=\frac{1}{mN_{rs}^{(n)}}\left(\begin{array}{c}
1\\
rE_{p^{z}s}^{(n)}+s\sqrt{(p^{z})^{2}+2nB_{0}}-\mu_{5}
\end{array}\right)\otimes\chi_{s}^{(n)}(p^{x},p^{z},y).$$
After proper normalization, we obtain
$$\psi_{rs}^{(n)}(p^{x},p^{z},y)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2E_{p_{z}s}^{(n)}}}\left(\begin{array}{c}
r\sqrt{E_{p^{z}s}^{(n)}+r\mu_{5}-rs\sqrt{p_{z}^{2}+2nB_{0}}}\\
\sqrt{E_{p^{z}s}^{(n)}-r\mu_{5}+rs\sqrt{p_{z}^{2}+2nB_{0}}}
\end{array}\right)\otimes\chi_{s}^{(n)}(p^{x},p^{z},y).\label{eq:wave function HLL}$$
Again, due to the non-zero mass, the terms in square roots are always positive, and the wavefunction is real. With the help of Eq. (\[eq:orthonormality\]), we can check that the wavefunctions satisfy the orthonormality conditions $$\begin{aligned}
\int dy\psi_{r^{\prime}s}^{(n)\dagger}(p^{x},p^{z},y)\psi_{r}^{(0)}(p^{x},y) & = & 0,\nonumber \\
\int dy\psi_{r^{\prime}s^{\prime}}^{(n^{\prime})\dagger}(p^{x},p^{z},y)\psi_{rs}^{(n)}(p^{x},p^{z},y) & = & \delta_{rr^{\prime}}\delta_{ss^{\prime}}\delta_{nn^{\prime}}.\label{eq:orthonomality-psi}\end{aligned}$$ Note that $p^{x}$ in the wavefunctions (\[eq:wave function LLL\]) and (\[eq:wave function HLL\]) is the momentum in the $x$ direction, but it also determines the center position in the $y$ direction. The obtained wavefunctions are plane waves in the $x$ and $z$ directions but have a finite extent in the $y$ direction because of the harmonic oscillator eigenfunctions $\phi_{n}(p^{x},y)$. One can have a more realistic description of a quantum particle with given position and momentum by constructing wave packets by superposition of the single particle wavefunctions with different $p^{x}$ and $p^{z}$. In this thesis, the wave-packet description will be used in computing the Wigner function.
Now we briefly discuss the density of state. We consider a finite volume $l_{x}\times l_{y}\times l_{z}$ with periodic boundary conditions. Then $p^{x}$ takes discrete values, $$p^{x}=\frac{2\pi n_{x}}{l_{x}},\ \ n_{x}=\cdots,-1,\,0,\,1,\,2,\cdots.$$ All the wavefunctions are constructed from the harmonic oscillator wavefunction $\phi_{n}(p^{x},y)$, and the center position of the harmonic oscillator is $y=-p^{x}/B_{0}$. In order to make sure this center position is located inside the area considered, we demand $$0\leq-\frac{p^{x}}{B_{0}}\leq l_{y},$$ from which we obtain $$-\frac{B_{0}l_{x}l_{y}}{2\pi}\leq n^{x}\leq0.$$ So the density of state is $B_{0}l_{x}l_{y}/(2\pi)$ for given $p^{z}$ and $n,\,r,\,s$. This result is consistent with our knowledge about Landau levels.
### Landau quantization
We have given in (\[eq:wave function LLL\]) and (\[eq:wave function HLL\]) the wavefunctions for the lowest Landau level and higher Landau levels respectively. Using these wavefunctions, the Dirac operator can be quantized as $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\psi}(t,\mathbf{x}) & = & e^{i\mu t}\sum_{n,s}\int\frac{dp^{x}dp^{z}}{(2\pi)^{2}}e^{ip^{x}x+ip^{z}z}\left[\exp\left(-iE_{p^{z}s}^{(n)}t\right)\psi_{+,s}^{(n)}(p^{x},p^{z},y)\hat{a}_{s}^{(n)}(p^{x},p^{z})\right.\nonumber \\
& & \qquad\left.+\exp\left(iE_{p^{z}s}^{(n)}t\right)\psi_{-,s}^{(n)}(p^{x},p^{z},y)\hat{b}_{s}^{(n)\dagger}(-p^{x},-p^{z})\right],\label{eq:def-field-operator}\end{aligned}$$ where we have defined $$\sum_{n,s}f_{s}^{(n)}\equiv f^{(0)}+\sum_{s=\pm}\sum_{n>0}f_{s}^{(n)},$$ for any function $f_{s}^{(n)}$ which depends on the helicity index $s$ and Landau level $n$. The particles in the lowest Landau level always have the fixed spin. Here $\hat{a}_{s}^{(n)}(p^{x},p^{z})$ is the annihilation operator for a fermion in the $n$-th Landau level with $p^{x}$, $p^{z}$, and $s$. Similarly, $\hat{b}_{s}^{(n)\dagger}(p^{x},p^{z})$ is the creation operator for an anti-fermion in the $n$-th Landau level with the same $p^{x}$, $p^{z}$, and $s$. We observe that the contribution from the chemical potential $\mu$ to the field operator is an overall factor $e^{i\mu t}$, while the chiral chemical potential $\mu_{5}$ enters the energy levels $E_{p^{z}s}^{(n)}$. We further assume that the creation and annihilation operators satisfy the following anti-commutation relations $$\begin{aligned}
\left\{ \hat{a}_{p^{x}p^{z}s}^{(n)},\hat{a}_{q^{x}q^{z}s^{\prime}}^{(n^{\prime})\dagger}\right\} & = & (2\pi)^{2}\delta(p^{x}-q^{x})\delta(p^{z}-q^{z})\delta_{nn^{\prime}}\delta_{ss^{\prime}},\nonumber \\
\left\{ \hat{b}_{p^{x}p^{z}s}^{(n)},\hat{b}_{q^{x}q^{z}s^{\prime}}^{(n^{\prime})\dagger}\right\} & = & (2\pi)^{2}\delta(p^{x}-q^{x})\delta(p^{z}-q^{z})\delta_{nn^{\prime}}\delta_{ss^{\prime}},\end{aligned}$$ with all other anti-commutators vanishing. These relations are straightforward extensions of the free case, but it is reasonable because we can derive the following equal-time anti-commutation relations for the field operators
$$\begin{aligned}
& & \left\{ \hat{\psi}_{\alpha}(t,\mathbf{x}),\hat{\psi}_{\beta}^{\dagger}(t,\mathbf{x}^{\prime})\right\} =\delta_{\alpha\beta}\delta^{(3)}(\mathbf{x}-\mathbf{x}^{\prime}),\nonumber \\
& & \left\{ \hat{\psi}_{\alpha}(t,\mathbf{x}),\hat{\psi}_{\beta}(t,\mathbf{x}^{\prime})\right\} =\left\{ \hat{\psi}_{\alpha}^{\dagger}(t,\mathbf{x}),\hat{\psi}_{\beta}^{\dagger}(t,\mathbf{x}^{\prime})\right\} =0,\end{aligned}$$
where $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are indices of the Dirac spinors.
Since we have computed the eigenstates of the Hamilton operator and used them to quantize the Dirac field in Eq. (\[eq:def-field-operator\]), it is straightforward to rewrite the Hamiltonian using the creation and annihilation operators, $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{H} & = & \sum_{n,s}\int\frac{dp^{x}dp^{z}}{(2\pi)^{2}}\left[\left(E_{p^{z}s}^{(n)}-\mu\right)a_{s}^{(n)\dagger}(p^{x},p^{z})a_{s}^{(n)}(p^{x},p^{z})\right.\nonumber \\
& & \qquad\left.-\left(E_{p^{z}s}^{(n)}+\mu\right)b_{s}^{(n)}(-p^{x},-p^{z})b_{s}^{(n)\dagger}(-p^{x},-p^{z})\right].\label{eq:quantized Hamiltonian in magnetic}\end{aligned}$$ The momentum operators are given by
$$\begin{aligned}
\hat{P}_{x} & = & \sum_{n,s}\int\frac{dp^{x}dp^{z}}{(2\pi)^{2}}p^{x}\left[a_{s}^{(n)\dagger}(p^{x},p^{z})a_{s}^{(n)}(p^{x},p^{z})-b_{s}^{(n)}(p^{x},p^{z})b_{s}^{(n)\dagger}(p^{x},p^{z})\right],\nonumber \\
\hat{P}_{z} & = & \sum_{n,s}\int\frac{dp^{x}dp^{z}}{(2\pi)^{2}}p^{z}\left[a_{s}^{(n)\dagger}(p^{x},p^{z})a_{s}^{(n)}(p^{x},p^{z})-b_{s}^{(n)}(p^{x},p^{z})b_{s}^{(n)\dagger}(p^{x},p^{z})\right].\end{aligned}$$
In these calculations we have used the orthonormality conditions in Eqs. (\[eq:normalization condition for LLL\]) and (\[eq:orthonomality-psi\]).
### Wigner function
We have derived the wavefunctions in Eqs. (\[eq:wave function LLL\]) and (\[eq:wave function HLL\]) and the field operator is quantized in Eq. (\[eq:def-field-operator\]). Inserting the field operator into the definition of the Wigner function (\[def:Wigner function\]) we obtain
$$\begin{aligned}
W(x,p) & = & \sum_{n,s}\sum_{n^{\prime}s^{\prime}}\int\frac{dy^{\prime}}{(2\pi)}\int\frac{dq_{1}^{x}dq_{1}^{z}dq_{2}^{x}dq_{2}^{z}}{(2\pi)^{4}}\delta\left(p^{x}-B_{0}y-\frac{q_{1}^{x}+q_{2}^{x}}{2}\right)\delta\left(p^{z}-\frac{q_{1}^{z}+q_{2}^{z}}{2}\right)\nonumber \\
& & \times\exp\left[i(q_{1}^{x}-q_{2}^{x})x+i(q_{1}^{z}-q_{2}^{z})z+ip^{y}y^{\prime}\right]\nonumber \\
& & \times\Biggl\{\left\langle a_{s^{\prime}}^{(n^{\prime})\dagger}(q_{2}^{x},q_{2}^{z})a_{s}^{(n)}(q_{1}^{x}q_{1}^{z})\right\rangle \bar{\psi}_{+,s^{\prime}}^{(n^{\prime})}\left(q_{2}^{x},q_{2}^{z},y+\frac{y^{\prime}}{2}\right)\otimes\psi_{+,s}^{(n)}\left(q_{1}^{x},q_{1}^{z},y-\frac{y^{\prime}}{2}\right)\nonumber \\
& & \qquad\times\exp\left[i\left(E_{q_{2}^{z}s^{\prime}}^{(n^{\prime})}-E_{q_{1}^{z}s}^{(n)}\right)t\right]\delta\left(p^{0}+\mu-\frac{E_{q_{2}^{z}s^{\prime}}^{(n^{\prime})}+E_{q_{1}^{z}s}^{(n)}}{2}\right)\nonumber \\
& & \quad+\left\langle b_{s^{\prime}}^{(n^{\prime})}(-q_{2}^{x},-q_{2}^{z})b_{s}^{(n)\dagger}(-q_{1}^{x},-q_{1}^{z})\right\rangle \bar{\psi}_{-,s^{\prime}}^{(n^{\prime})}\left(q_{2}^{x},q_{2}^{z},y+\frac{y^{\prime}}{2}\right)\otimes\psi_{-,s}^{(n)}\left(q_{1}^{x},q_{1}^{z},y-\frac{y^{\prime}}{2}\right)\nonumber \\
& & \qquad\times\exp\left[-i\left(E_{q_{2}^{z}s^{\prime}}^{(n^{\prime})}-E_{q_{1}^{z}s}^{(n)}\right)t\right]\delta\left(p^{0}+\mu+\frac{E_{q_{2}^{z}s^{\prime}}^{(n^{\prime})}+E_{q_{1}^{z}s}^{(n)}}{2}\right)\Biggr\},\end{aligned}$$
where $y$ is the y-component of the four-vector $x^{\mu}$, and $y^{\prime}$ is an integration variable. Here we have dropped mixing terms of fermions and anti-fermions, i.e., $a_{q_{2}^{x}q_{2}^{z}s^{\prime}}^{(n^{\prime})\dagger}b_{-q_{1}^{x},-q_{1}^{z},s}^{(n)\dagger}$ and $b_{-q_{2}^{x},-q_{2}^{z},s^{\prime}}^{(n^{\prime})}a_{q_{1}^{x}q_{1}^{z}s}^{(n)}$. These terms only contribute if there is a mixture between the fermion and anti-fermion state. Analogous to what we did in the case of free fermions in subsection \[subsec:Free-fermions\], we define the average and relative momenta, $$k^{x}=\frac{q_{1}^{x}+q_{2}^{x}}{2},\ \ k^{z}=\frac{q_{1}^{z}+q_{2}^{z}}{2},\ \ u^{x}=q_{1}^{x}-q_{2}^{x},\ \ u^{z}=q_{1}^{z}-q_{2}^{z}.$$ Using these new variables, the integration measure stays unchanged $$dq_{1}^{x}dq_{1}^{z}dq_{2}^{x}dq_{2}^{z}=dk^{x}dk^{z}du^{x}du^{z}.$$ Then the Wigner function reads $$\begin{aligned}
W(x,p) & = & \sum_{n,s}\sum_{n^{\prime}s^{\prime}}\int\frac{dy^{\prime}}{(2\pi)}\int\frac{dk^{x}dk^{z}du^{x}du^{z}}{(2\pi)^{4}}\delta\left(p^{x}-B_{0}y-k^{x}\right)\delta\left(p^{z}-k^{z}\right)\exp\left(iu^{x}x+iu^{z}z+ip^{y}y^{\prime}\right)\nonumber \\
& & \times\Biggl\{\left\langle a_{s^{\prime}}^{(n^{\prime})\dagger}\left(k^{x}-\frac{u^{x}}{2},\,k^{z}-\frac{u^{z}}{2}\right)a_{s}^{(n)}\left(k^{x}+\frac{u^{x}}{2},\,k^{z}+\frac{u^{z}}{2}\right)\right\rangle \nonumber \\
& & \qquad\times\bar{\psi}_{+,s^{\prime}}^{(n^{\prime})}\left(k^{x}-\frac{u^{x}}{2},\,k^{z}-\frac{u^{z}}{2},\,y+\frac{y^{\prime}}{2}\right)\otimes\psi_{+,s}^{(n)}\left(k^{x}+\frac{u^{x}}{2},\,k^{z}+\frac{u^{z}}{2},\,y-\frac{y^{\prime}}{2}\right)\nonumber \\
& & \qquad\times\exp\left[i\left(E_{k^{z}-\frac{1}{2}u^{z},s^{\prime}}^{(n^{\prime})}-E_{k^{z}+\frac{1}{2}u^{z},s}^{(n)}\right)t\right]\delta\left(p^{0}+\mu-\frac{E_{k^{z}-\frac{1}{2}u^{z},s^{\prime}}^{(n^{\prime})}+E_{k^{z}+\frac{1}{2}u^{z},s}^{(n)}}{2}\right)\nonumber \\
& & \quad+\left\langle b_{s^{\prime}}^{(n^{\prime})}\left(-k^{x}+\frac{u^{x}}{2},\,-k^{z}+\frac{u^{z}}{2}\right)b_{s}^{(n)\dagger}\left(-k^{x}-\frac{u^{x}}{2},\,-k^{z}-\frac{u^{z}}{2}\right)\right\rangle \nonumber \\
& & \qquad\times\bar{\psi}_{-,s^{\prime}}^{(n^{\prime})}\left(k^{x}-\frac{u^{x}}{2},\,k^{z}-\frac{u^{z}}{2},\,y+\frac{y^{\prime}}{2}\right)\otimes\psi_{-,s}^{(n)}\left(k^{x}+\frac{u^{x}}{2},\,k^{z}+\frac{u^{z}}{2},\,y-\frac{y^{\prime}}{2}\right)\nonumber \\
& & \qquad\times\exp\left[-i\left(E_{k^{z}-\frac{1}{2}u^{z},s^{\prime}}^{(n^{\prime})}-E_{k^{z}+\frac{1}{2}u^{z},s}^{(n)}\right)t\right]\delta\left(p^{0}+\mu+\frac{E_{k^{z}-\frac{1}{2}u^{z},s^{\prime}}^{(n^{\prime})}+E_{k^{z}+\frac{1}{2}u^{z},s}^{(n)}}{2}\right)\Biggr\}.\nonumber \\\end{aligned}$$ The Wigner function now is a two-point correlation function in momentum space. We adopt the wave-packet description and assume the expectation values are given by some distribution functions that will be determined later, $$\begin{aligned}
\left\langle a_{s^{\prime}}^{(n^{\prime})\dagger}\left(k^{x}-\frac{u^{x}}{2},\,k^{z}-\frac{u^{z}}{2}\right)a_{s}^{(n)}\left(k^{x}+\frac{u^{x}}{2},\,k^{z}+\frac{u^{z}}{2}\right)\right\rangle & = & \delta_{ss^{\prime}}\delta_{nn^{\prime}}f_{s}^{(+)(n)}(k^{x},k^{z},u^{x},u^{z}),\nonumber \\
\left\langle b_{s^{\prime}}^{(n^{\prime})}\left(-k^{x}+\frac{u^{x}}{2},\,-k^{z}+\frac{u^{z}}{2}\right)b_{s}^{(n)\dagger}\left(-k^{x}-\frac{u^{x}}{2},\,-k^{z}-\frac{u^{z}}{2}\right)\right\rangle & = & \delta_{ss^{\prime}}\delta_{nn^{\prime}}\left[(2\pi)^{2}\delta(u^{x})\delta(u^{z})\right.\nonumber \\
& & \quad\left.-f_{s}^{(-)(n)}(-k^{x},-k^{z},u^{x},u^{z})\right].\nonumber \\\end{aligned}$$ The expectation values are proportional to the Kronecker-deltas, $\delta_{ss^{\prime}}\delta_{nn^{\prime}}$ because we assume the wave packets are constructed by states at the same Landau level $n$ with the same helicity $s$. In the free fermion case, energies are two-fold degenerated for the spin, but for non-zero $\mu_{5}$, this spin degeneracy disappears and all the quantum states are not degenerate any more. Inserting these expectation values back to the Wigner function we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
W(x,p) & = & \sum_{n,s}\int\frac{dy^{\prime}}{(2\pi)}\int\frac{du^{x}du^{z}}{(2\pi)^{4}}\exp\left(iu^{x}x+iu^{z}z+ip^{y}y^{\prime}\right)\nonumber \\
& & \times\Biggl\{ f_{s}^{(+)(n)}(p^{x}-B_{0}y,p^{z},u^{x},u^{z})\nonumber \\
& & \qquad\times\exp\left[i\left(E_{p^{z}-\frac{1}{2}u^{z},s}^{(n)}-E_{p^{z}+\frac{1}{2}u^{z},s}^{(n)}\right)t\right]\delta\left(p^{0}+\mu-\frac{E_{p^{z}-\frac{1}{2}u^{z},s}^{(n)}+E_{p^{z}+\frac{1}{2}u^{z},s}^{(n)}}{2}\right)\nonumber \\
& & \qquad\times\bar{\psi}_{+,s}^{(n)}\left(p^{x}-B_{0}y-\frac{u^{x}}{2},\,p^{z}-\frac{u^{z}}{2},\,y+\frac{y^{\prime}}{2}\right)\nonumber \\
& & \qquad\otimes\psi_{+,s}^{(n)}\left(p^{x}-B_{0}y+\frac{u^{x}}{2},\,p^{z}+\frac{u^{z}}{2},\,y-\frac{y^{\prime}}{2}\right)\nonumber \\
& & \quad+\left[(2\pi)^{2}\delta(u^{x})\delta(u^{z})-f_{s}^{(-)(n)}(-p^{x}+B_{0}y,-p^{z},u^{x},u^{z})\right]\nonumber \\
& & \qquad\times\exp\left[-i\left(E_{p^{z}-\frac{1}{2}u^{z},s}^{(n)}-E_{p^{z}+\frac{1}{2}u^{z},s}^{(n)}\right)t\right]\delta\left(p^{0}+\mu+\frac{E_{p^{z}-\frac{1}{2}u^{z},s}^{(n)}+E_{p^{z}+\frac{1}{2}u^{z},s}^{(n)}}{2}\right)\nonumber \\
& & \qquad\times\bar{\psi}_{-,s}^{(n)}\left(p^{x}-B_{0}y-\frac{u^{x}}{2},\,p^{z}-\frac{u^{z}}{2},\,y+\frac{y^{\prime}}{2}\right)\nonumber \\
& & \qquad\otimes\psi_{-,s}^{(n)}\left(p^{x}-B_{0}y+\frac{u^{x}}{2},\,p^{z}+\frac{u^{z}}{2},\,y-\frac{y^{\prime}}{2}\right)\Biggr\}.\end{aligned}$$ Assuming that the relative momenta $u^{x}$ and $u^{z}$ are small we can expand $E_{p^{z}\pm\frac{1}{2}u^{z},s}^{(n)}$ as well as the wavefunctions in $u^{x}$ and $u^{z}$ $$E_{p^{z}+\frac{1}{2}u^{z},s}^{(n)}\equiv E_{p^{z},s}^{(n)}+\mathcal{O}(u).$$ The local distributions are defined as $$\begin{aligned}
f_{s}^{(+)(n)}(p^{x},p^{z},\mathbf{x}) & \equiv & \int\frac{du^{x}du^{z}}{(2\pi)^{2}}\exp\left(iu^{x}x+iu^{z}z\right)f_{s}^{(+)(n)}(p^{x}-B_{0}y,p^{z},u^{x},u^{z}),\nonumber \\
f_{s}^{(-)(n)}(-p^{x},-p^{z},\mathbf{x}) & \equiv & \int\frac{du^{x}du^{z}}{(2\pi)^{2}}\exp\left(iu^{x}x+iu^{z}z\right)f_{s}^{(-)(n)}(-p^{x}+B_{0}y,p^{z},u^{x},u^{z}).\label{eq:def-distribution for nth Landau level}\end{aligned}$$ Then the Wigner function at the leading order in the spatial gradient reads
$$\begin{aligned}
W(x,p) & = & \frac{1}{(2\pi)^{3}}\sum_{n,s}f_{s}^{(+)(n)}(p^{x},p^{z},\mathbf{x})W_{+,s}^{(n)}(\mathbf{p})\delta\left(p^{0}+\mu-E_{p^{z},s}^{(n)}\right)\nonumber \\
& & +\frac{1}{(2\pi)^{3}}\sum_{n,s}\left[1-f_{s}^{(-)(n)}(-p^{x},-p^{z},\mathbf{x})\right]W_{-,s}^{(n)}(\mathbf{p})\delta\left(p^{0}+\mu+E_{p^{z},s}^{(n)}\right),\label{eq:Wigner function in magnetic field}\end{aligned}$$
where the contribution from the $n$-th Landau level is $$W_{rs}^{(n)}(\mathbf{p})=\frac{1}{(2\pi)^{3}}\int dy^{\prime}\exp\left(ip_{y}y^{\prime}\right)\bar{\psi}_{rs}^{(n)}\left(p_{x},\,p_{z},\,\frac{y^{\prime}}{2}\right)\otimes\psi_{rs}^{(n)}\left(p_{x},\,p_{z},\,-\frac{y^{\prime}}{2}\right).\label{eq:Wigner function nrs}$$ Here we have used the property $\phi_{n}\left(p_{x}-eBy,\,y-\frac{y^{\prime}}{2}\right)=\phi_{n}\left(p_{x},-\frac{y^{\prime}}{2}\right)$ and the fact that the dependence of $\psi_{rs}^{(n)}$ on $p_{x}$ and $y$ only appears in the eigenfunctions $\phi_{n}$. The contribution from fermions is separated from that of anti-fermions. The distributions $f_{s}^{(\pm)(n)}$ turn out to be locally defined, which also depend on $n$, $s$, $p^{x}$, and $p^{z}$. The Dirac-delta functions in Eq. (\[eq:Wigner function in magnetic field\]) can be written by an on-shell condition multiplied with a step function, $$\delta\left(p_{0}+\mu-rE_{p^{z},s}^{(n)}\right)=2E_{p^{z},s}^{(n)}\delta\left\{ (p_{0}+\mu)^{2}-[E_{p^{z},s}^{(n)}]^{2}\right\} \theta[r(p_{0}+\mu)].\label{eq:rel-delta-square}$$
The lowest Landau level $n=0$ does not depend on $s$. The wavefunctions are given in Eq. (\[eq:wave function LLL\]). Inserting the wavefunctions into Eq. (\[eq:Wigner function nrs\]), we obtain
$$W_{r}^{(0)}(\mathbf{p})=\frac{1}{(2\pi)^{3}}\frac{1}{4E_{p_{z}}^{(0)}}\left[rm\mathbb{I}_{2}+E_{p_{z}}^{(0)}\sigma^{1}-r(p_{z}-\mu_{5})i\sigma^{2}\right]\otimes\left(\mathbb{I}_{2}+\sigma^{3}\right)I_{00}(p^{x},p^{y}),$$
where $I_{ij}(p^{x},p^{y})$ is defined in Eq. (\[eq:definition of I\_ij\]). The tensor product of two Pauli matrices can be written in terms of gamma matrices, as shown in Eq. (\[eq:relation between gamma matrices and Pauli\]). Thus we obtain $$W_{r}^{(0)}(\mathbf{p})=\frac{r}{(2\pi)^{3}4E_{p_{z}}^{(0)}}I_{00}(p^{x},p^{y})\left[m(\mathbb{I}_{4}+\sigma^{12})+rE_{p_{z}}^{(0)}(\gamma^{0}-\gamma^{5}\gamma^{3})-(p^{z}-\mu_{5})(\gamma^{3}-\gamma^{5}\gamma^{0})\right].$$ Here $I_{00}(p^{x},p^{y})$ is calculated in Eq. (\[eq:def-Lambda-0\]). Similarly, using the wavefunctions for higher Landau levels in Eq. (\[eq:wave function HLL\]), we can compute the contributions of the higher Landau levels
$$\begin{aligned}
W_{rs}^{(n)}(\mathbf{p}) & = & \frac{1}{(2\pi)^{3}}\frac{1}{2E_{p^{z}s}^{(n)}}\left[rm\mathbb{I}_{2}+E_{p^{z}s}^{(n)}\sigma^{1}+(i\sigma^{2})r(\mu_{5}-s\sqrt{(p^{z})^{2}+2nB_{0}})\right]\nonumber \\
& & \otimes\frac{1}{2\sqrt{(p^{z})^{2}+2nB_{0}}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}
(\sqrt{(p^{z})^{2}+2nB_{0}}+sp^{z})I_{nn} & s\sqrt{2nB_{0}}I_{n-1,n}\\
s\sqrt{2nB_{0}}I_{n,n-1} & (\sqrt{(p^{z})^{2}+2nB_{0}}-sp^{z})I_{n-1,n-1}
\end{array}\right).\nonumber \\
\label{eq:Wnrs as tensor product}\end{aligned}$$
The matrix in the second line of Eq. (\[eq:Wnrs as tensor product\]) can be decomposed in terms of the unit matrix and Pauli matrices, $$\begin{aligned}
& & \left(\begin{array}{cc}
(\sqrt{(p^{z})^{2}+2nB_{0}}+sp^{z})I_{nn} & s\sqrt{2nB_{0}}I_{n-1,n}\\
s\sqrt{2nB_{0}}I_{n,n-1} & (\sqrt{(p^{z})^{2}+2nB_{0}}-sp^{z})I_{n-1,n-1}
\end{array}\right)\nonumber \\
& = & \left(\sqrt{(p^{z})^{2}+2nB_{0}}\frac{I_{nn}+I_{n-1,n-1}}{2}+sp^{z}\frac{I_{nn}-I_{n-1,n-1}}{2}\right)\mathbb{I}_{2}\\
& & +s\sqrt{2nB_{0}}\frac{I_{n-1,n}+I_{n,n-1}}{2}\sigma^{1}+s\sqrt{2nB_{0}}\frac{I_{n-1,n}-I_{n,n-1}}{2}i\sigma^{2}\nonumber \\
& & +\left(\sqrt{(p^{z})^{2}+2nB_{0}}\frac{I_{nn}-I_{n-1,n-1}}{2}+sp^{z}\frac{I_{nn}+I_{n-1,n-1}}{2}\right)\sigma^{3}.\end{aligned}$$ Note that these functions are independent of the choice of gauge. We start from the Landau gauge where $p^{x}$ is a well-defined momentum while $p^{y}$ is not. But Eq. (\[eq:def-Lambda-n\]) only depends on $p_{T}$, where $p^{x}$ and $p^{y}$ have the same importance. The functions $I_{ij}(p^{x},p^{y})$ are computed in Eq. (\[eq:result of I\_mn\]). Using the results (\[eq:relation between I\_mn and Lambda\_pm\]), the Wigner function for the higher Landau levels $n>0$ can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
W_{rs}^{(n)}(\mathbf{p}) & = & \frac{r}{(2\pi)^{3}4E_{p^{z}s}^{(n)}}\left\{ \left[m\mathbb{I}_{4}+rE_{p^{z}s}^{(n)}\gamma^{0}+(s\sqrt{(p^{z})^{2}+2nB_{0}}-\mu_{5})\gamma^{5}\gamma^{0}\right]\right.\nonumber \\
& & \qquad\times\left(\Lambda_{+}^{(n)}(p_{T})+s\frac{p^{z}}{\sqrt{(p^{z})^{2}+2nB_{0}}}\Lambda_{-}^{(n)}(p_{T})\right)\nonumber \\
& & \quad+\left[m\sigma^{12}-rE_{p^{z}s}^{(n)}\gamma^{5}\gamma^{3}+(\mu_{5}-s\sqrt{(p^{z})^{2}+2nB_{0}})\gamma^{3}\right]\nonumber \\
& & \qquad\times\left(\Lambda_{-}^{(n)}(p_{T})+s\frac{p^{z}}{\sqrt{(p^{z})^{2}+2nB_{0}}}\Lambda_{+}^{(n)}(p_{T})\right)\nonumber \\
& & \quad+\left[m\left(\sigma^{23}p^{x}+\sigma^{31}p^{y}\right)-rE_{p^{z}s}^{(n)}\left(\gamma^{5}\gamma^{1}p^{x}+\gamma^{5}\gamma^{2}p^{y}\right)\right.\nonumber \\
& & \qquad\left.\left.+(\mu_{5}-s\sqrt{(p^{z})^{2}+2nB_{0}})\left(\gamma^{1}p^{x}+\gamma^{2}p^{y}\right)\right]\times s\frac{2nB_{0}}{p_{T}^{2}\sqrt{(p^{z})^{2}+2nB_{0}}}\Lambda_{+}^{(n)}(p_{T})\right\} ,\nonumber \\
\label{eq:sol-W-nrs}\end{aligned}$$ where we have defined a new function for $n>0$. Different components of the Wigner function can be extracted using the trace properties in Eq. (\[eq:reproduce components of Wigner funtion\]), $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\begin{array}{c}
\mathcal{G}_{1}\\
\mathcal{G}_{2}
\end{array}\right) & = & \left[\sum_{n=0}V_{n}e_{1}^{(n)}+\sum_{n>0}A_{n}\frac{1}{\sqrt{(p^{z})^{2}+2nB_{0}}}\left(p^{z}e_{2}^{(n)}+\sqrt{2nB_{0}}e_{3}^{(n)}\right)\right]\left(\begin{array}{c}
m\\
p_{0}+\mu
\end{array}\right),\nonumber \\
\mathcal{G}_{3} & = & (p^{z}-\mu_{5})V_{0}e_{1}^{(0)}+\sum_{n>0}\left[\sqrt{(p^{z})^{2}+2nB_{0}}A_{n}-\mu_{5}V_{n}\right]e_{1}^{(n)}\nonumber \\
& & \qquad+\sum_{n>0}\left[V_{n}-\frac{\mu_{5}}{\sqrt{(p^{z})^{2}+2nB_{0}}}A_{n}\right]\left(p^{z}e_{2}^{(n)}+\sqrt{2nB_{0}}e_{3}^{(n)}\right),\nonumber \\
\mathcal{G}_{4} & = & 0,\label{eq:sol-Wigner-function}\end{aligned}$$ where the basis vectors $e_{1}^{(n)},\ e_{2}^{(n)}$, and $e_{3}^{(n)}$ are defined in Eq. (\[eq:def-basis\]) and we have defined two functions for $n>0$
$$\begin{aligned}
V_{n} & \equiv & \frac{2}{(2\pi)^{3}}\sum_{s}\delta\left\{ (p_{0}+\mu)^{2}-[E_{p^{z}s}^{(n)}]^{2}\right\} \nonumber \\
& & \qquad\times\left\{ f_{s}^{(+)(n)}(p^{x},p^{z},\mathbf{x})\theta(p^{0}+\mu)+\left[f_{s}^{(-)(n)}(-p^{x},-p^{z},\mathbf{x})-1\right]\theta(-p_{0}-\mu)\right\} ,\nonumber \\
A_{n} & \equiv & \frac{2}{(2\pi)^{3}}\sum_{s}s\delta\left\{ (p_{0}+\mu)^{2}-[E_{p^{z}s}^{(n)}]^{2}\right\} \nonumber \\
& & \qquad\times\left\{ f_{s}^{(+)(n)}(p^{x},p^{z},\mathbf{x})\theta(p^{0}+\mu)+\left[f_{s}^{(-)(n)}(-p^{x},-p^{z},\mathbf{x})-1\right]\theta(-p_{0}-\mu)\right\} ,\label{eq:def-VnAn}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
V_{0} & = & \frac{2}{(2\pi)^{3}}\delta\left\{ (p_{0}+\mu)^{2}-[E_{p_{z}}^{(0)}]^{2}\right\} \nonumber \\
& & \qquad\times\left\{ f^{(+)(0)}(p^{x},p^{z},\mathbf{x})\theta(p_{0}+\mu)+\left[f^{(-)(0)}(-p^{x},-p^{z},\mathbf{x})-1\right]\theta(-p_{0}-\mu)\right\} .\label{eq:def-V0}\end{aligned}$$ In Eq. (\[eq:sol-Wigner-function\]) we have separated the 16 components of the Wigner function into four groups $\mathcal{G}_{i}$ with $i=1,2,3,4$ as shown in Eq. (\[def:definition of G\_i\]). From the solutions (\[eq:sol-Wigner-function\]) we observe that the pseudoscalar codensate $\mathcal{P}$ and the electric dipole-moment $\boldsymbol{\mathcal{T}}$ vanish and the remaining components can be decomposed into different Landau levels while there is no mixture among different levels.
The Wigner function computed in this subsection is useful for studying the physics in strong magnetic fields. In the Landau-level description, we find the eigenstates of the Dirac equation, thus thermal equilibrium can be well defined. This allows us to calculate various physical quantities under the assumption of thermal equilibrium. We will show in Sec. \[sec:Physical quantities\] that the CME and CSE can be correctly obtained from the Wigner function (\[eq:sol-Wigner-function\]). In the limit of sufficiently strong magnetic fields, all particles will stay in the lowest Landau level. The system then reaches a fully polarized state, which means that the average polarization of spin-$1/2$ particles can reach its maximum value $1/2$. In Sec. \[sec:Physical quantities\] we will also calculate the average polarization and the results agree with those expected.
Fermions in an electric field\[subsec:Fermions-in-electric\]
------------------------------------------------------------
In this subsection we will focus on a system in a pure electric field. If the electric field is large enough, fermion-antifermion pairs can be excited from the vacuum, which is known as Schwinger pair production [@Schwinger:1951nm]. Since this process is a time-evolution problem, in this subsection we will use the equal-time Wigner function for convenience. The Schwinger process can be analytically solved in the case of a constant electric field $\mathbf{E}(t,\mathbf{x})=E_{0}\mathbf{e}^{z}$ and in the case of a Sauter-type field $\mathbf{E}(t,\mathbf{x})=E_{0}\cosh^{-2}(t/\tau)\mathbf{e}^{z}$, where $\mathbf{e}^{z}$ is the unit vector in the $z$ direction. Both cases are homogeneous in space, while the Sauter-type field depends on the time $t$. Analytically solving the Sauter-type field requires knowledge about special functions, thus in this subsection we will solve this case numerically instead of analytically. The numerical calculation for a Sauter-type field also provides an universal approach for solving the Wigner function in a time-dependent but spatially homogeneous electric field. In this subsection we analytically solve the Wigner function in a constant electric field.
### Asymptotic condition
In order to solve a time-evolution problem, we need the equations of motions and an asymptotic condition. The equations of motions for the equal-time Wigner function have been derived in subsection \[subsec:Equal-time-formula\] while the asymptotic condition can be chosen as the Wigner function for vanishing electric field.
Since the Schwinger pair-production process does not depend on the spin, we choose to neglect the spin of the particles. According to the calculations for the free-particle case in subsection \[subsec:Free-fermions\], where the Wigner function is given in Eq. (\[eq:free fermion Wigner function\]), we obtain $$\left(\begin{array}{c}
\mathcal{F}(x,p)\\
\mathcal{V}_{\mu}(x,p)
\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{c}
m\\
p_{\mu}
\end{array}\right)\delta(p^{2}-m^{2})V(x,p),\label{eq:Wigner function in free case}$$ with $$V(x,p)\equiv\frac{2d_{s}}{(2\pi)^{3}}\left\{ \theta(p^{0})f^{(+)}(x,\mathbf{p})-\theta(-p^{0})\left[1-f^{(-)}(x,-\mathbf{p})\right]\right\} .$$ Here $d_{s}$ is the spin degeneracy, for spin-1/2 fermions we have $d_{s}=2$. Other components $\mathcal{P}$, $\mathcal{A}_{\mu}$, and $\mathcal{S}_{\mu\nu}$ vanish as desired because we have neglected spin effects. In general the distribution functions $f^{(\pm)}$ should be space-time dependent. But if a spatial inhomogenity is taken into account, the Wigner function cannot be analytically computed. In this subsection we assume that the electric field as well as the distributions $f^{(\pm)}$ are independent of spatial coordinates, which indicates that the whole system has translationally invariance in space.
First we derive the equal-time Wigner function from the covariant one by integrating over energy $p^{0}$. The mass-shell delta-function in Eq. (\[eq:Wigner function in free case\]) can be integrated out and we obtain $$\left(\begin{array}{c}
\mathcal{F}(\mathbf{p})\\
\boldsymbol{\mathcal{V}}(\mathbf{p})
\end{array}\right)=\frac{1}{E_{\mathbf{p}}}\left(\begin{array}{c}
m\\
\mathbf{p}
\end{array}\right)C_{1}(\mathbf{p}),\label{eq:equilibrium solution for FV}$$ and $$\mathcal{V}^{0}(\mathbf{p})\equiv C_{2}(\mathbf{p}),\label{eq:equilibrium solution for V0}$$ where we have defined $C_{1}(\mathbf{p})\equiv\int dp^{0}\ E_{\mathbf{p}}V(p)\delta(p^{2}-m^{2})$ and $C_{2}(\mathbf{p})\equiv\int dp^{0}\ p^{0}V(p)\delta(p^{2}-m^{2})$, respectively. More explicitly, the integration can be performed and yields $$\begin{aligned}
C_{1}(\mathbf{p}) & = & \frac{2}{(2\pi)^{3}}\left[f^{(+)}(\mathbf{p})+f^{(-)}(-\mathbf{p})-1\right],\nonumber \\
C_{2}(\mathbf{p}) & = & \frac{2}{(2\pi)^{3}}\left[f^{(+)}(\mathbf{p})-f^{(-)}(-\mathbf{p})+1\right].\label{eq:definition of C_1 C_2}\end{aligned}$$ The last term $\pm1$ in Eq. (\[eq:definition of C\_1 C\_2\]) represents the contribution from the vacuum, which aries because the operators in the Wigner function are not normal-ordered. If the Wigner function is defined with a normal ordering, the vacuum contribution vanishes and the function $C_{1}(\mathbf{p})$ is the sum of fermion and anti-fermion distributions. Meanwhile, $C_{2}(\mathbf{p})$ is the net fermion number density.
### Equations of motion
In a time-dependent but spatially homogeneous electric field, the equations of motions (\[eq:equation of motion equal-time component\]) take a simple form. The operators used in these equations, which are defined in Eq. (\[eq:generalized operators for equal-t formula\]), have the following expressions, where the electric field is assumed to be in the $z$-direction. $$\begin{aligned}
D_{t} & = & \partial_{t}+E(t)\partial_{p^{z}},\nonumber \\
\mathbf{D}_{\mathbf{x}} & = & 0,\nonumber \\
\boldsymbol{\Pi} & = & \mathbf{p}.\end{aligned}$$ Here we have dropped spatial derivatives because the whole system is translationally invariant. Due to the translation invariance, we find that the 16 components of the Wigner function can be divided into several subgroups. The members in each group are coupled together according to Eq. (\[eq:equation of motion equal-time component\]). It is a good feature that the component $\mathcal{V}^{0}(t,\mathbf{p})$ decouples from all other components, which satisfy the following equation $$D_{t}\mathcal{V}^{0}(t,\mathbf{p})=0.$$ Since the net charge density in coordinate space can be derived from $\mathcal{V}^{0}(t,\mathbf{p})$ by integrating over $d^{3}\mathbf{p}$, the above equation is nothing but the conservation law of the net charge density. Taking the solution in Eq. (\[eq:equilibrium solution for V0\]) at time $t_{0}$, the solution for $\mathcal{V}^{0}(t,\mathbf{p})$ reads $$\mathcal{V}^{0}(t,\mathbf{p})=C_{2}\left(\mathbf{p}-\int_{t_{0}}^{t}dt^{\prime}E(t^{\prime})\mathbf{e}^{z}\right),$$ where $\mathbf{e}^{z}$ is the unit vector along the electric field direction. This solution reflects the overall acceleration of fermions in an electric field, with $-\int_{t_{0}}^{t}dt^{\prime}E(t^{\prime})\mathbf{e}^{z}$ is the momentum shift due to the electric field.
Meanwhile, the equations for $\mathcal{P}$, $\mathcal{A}^{0}$, and $\boldsymbol{\mathcal{S}}$ decouple from others and thus form a closed subsystem. Since these components are all zero when the electric field vanishes, they will remain zeros even after the electric field is turned on. The rest ten components, $\mathcal{F}$, $\boldsymbol{\mathcal{V}}$, $\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}$, $\boldsymbol{\mathcal{T}}$, form another subsystem, which satisfy the equations of motion in a matrix form $$D_{t}\boldsymbol{w}(t,\mathbf{p})=M(\mathbf{p})\boldsymbol{w}(t,\mathbf{p}),\label{eq:EOM in constant electric field}$$ where the column vector $\boldsymbol{w}(t,\mathbf{p})\equiv(\mathcal{F},\boldsymbol{\mathcal{V}},\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}},\boldsymbol{\mathcal{T}})^{T}$ has ten elements and $M(\mathbf{p})$ is a $10\times10$ coefficient matrix $$M(\mathbf{p})=2\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
0 & 0 & 0 & \mathbf{p}^{T}\\
0 & 0 & \mathbf{p}^{\times} & -m\mathbb{I}_{3}\\
0 & \mathbf{p}^{\times} & 0 & 0\\
-\mathbf{p} & m\mathbb{I}_{3} & 0 & 0
\end{array}\right).$$ The initial condition at a given time $t_{0}$ for the equations of motion in (\[eq:EOM in constant electric field\]) is taken to be the solution (\[eq:equilibrium solution for FV\]) without the electric field. Based on the fact that all fermions will be accelerated in the electric field, we make the following ansatz for $\boldsymbol{w}(t,\mathbf{p})$, $$\boldsymbol{w}(t,\mathbf{p})=C_{1}\left(\mathbf{p}-\int_{t_{0}}^{t}dt^{\prime}E(t^{\prime})\mathbf{e}^{z}\right)\sum_{i=1}^{10}\chi_{i}(t,\mathbf{p})\boldsymbol{e}_{i}(\mathbf{p}).\label{eq:solution of Wigner function in Electric}$$ Here the overall factor $C_{1}\left(\mathbf{p}-\int_{t_{0}}^{t}dt^{\prime}E(t^{\prime})\mathbf{e}^{z}\right)$ is constructed from the distribution function for fermions with the momentum $\mathbf{p}-\int_{t_{0}}^{t}dt^{\prime}E(t^{\prime})\mathbf{e}^{z}$ and that for anti-fermions with the opposite momentum $-\mathbf{p}+\int_{t_{0}}^{t}dt^{\prime}E(t^{\prime})\mathbf{e}^{z}$. Thus we observe that particles are accelerated along the direction of electric field, while antiparticles are accelerated along the opposite direction. Meanwhile, we take ten basis vectors $\boldsymbol{e}_{i}(\mathbf{p})$ because $\boldsymbol{w}(t,\mathbf{p})$ has ten components. The basis vectors are assumed to be time-independent, while the expanding coefficients $\chi_{i}(t,\mathbf{p})$ are time-dependent. The first three basis vectors read $$\boldsymbol{e}_{1}=\left(\begin{array}{c}
0\\
\mathbf{e}_{z}\\
\boldsymbol{0}\\
\boldsymbol{0}
\end{array}\right),\ \ \boldsymbol{e}_{2}(\mathbf{p}_{T})=\frac{1}{m_{T}}\left(\begin{array}{c}
m\\
\mathbf{p}_{T}\\
\boldsymbol{0}\\
\boldsymbol{0}
\end{array}\right),\ \ \boldsymbol{e}_{3}(\mathbf{p}_{T})=\frac{1}{m_{T}}\left(\begin{array}{c}
0\\
\boldsymbol{0}\\
\mathbf{e}^{z}\times\mathbf{p}_{T}\\
-m\mathbf{e}^{z}
\end{array}\right),\label{eq:basis functions 123}$$ where $m_{T}\equiv\sqrt{m^{2}+\mathbf{p}_{T}^{2}}$ is the transverse mass, which ensures that these vectors are properly normalized and orthogonal to each other $\boldsymbol{e}_{i}\cdot\boldsymbol{e}_{j}=\delta_{ij}$. Since they are independent of $t$ and $p^{z}$, we have $D_{t}\boldsymbol{e}_{i}=0$ for $i=1,2,3$. We can check that these basis vectors form a closed sub-Hilbert space under the operator $M(\mathbf{p})$, $$M(\mathbf{p})\left(\begin{array}{c}
\boldsymbol{e}_{1}\\
\boldsymbol{e}_{2}\\
\boldsymbol{e}_{3}
\end{array}\right)=2\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & 0 & -m_{T}\\
0 & 0 & p^{z}\\
m_{T} & -p^{z} & 0
\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}
\boldsymbol{e}_{1}\\
\boldsymbol{e}_{2}\\
\boldsymbol{e}_{3}
\end{array}\right).\label{eq:Matrix on e123}$$ Note that the initial condition, i.e., the Wigner function when the electric field vanishes, stays in such a subspace, the system will be in this subspace at later time of the evolution. The other basis vectors $\boldsymbol{e}_{i}(\mathbf{p})$, $i=4,5,\cdots,10$, in Eq. (\[eq:solution of Wigner function in Electric\]), are not necessary because the first three are sufficient to describe the time evolution. The evolution of the coefficients $\chi_{i}(t,\mathbf{p})$, $i=1,2,3$ are then derived from Eqs. (\[eq:EOM in constant electric field\]), (\[eq:solution of Wigner function in Electric\]), and (\[eq:Matrix on e123\]), $$D_{t}\left(\begin{array}{c}
\chi_{1}\\
\chi_{2}\\
\chi_{3}
\end{array}\right)(t,\mathbf{p})=2\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & 0 & m_{T}\\
0 & 0 & -p^{z}\\
-m_{T} & p^{z} & 0
\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}
\chi_{1}\\
\chi_{2}\\
\chi_{3}
\end{array}\right)(t,\mathbf{p}).\label{eq:EOM of chi_i}$$ This system of partial differential equations is equivalent to the well-known Vlasov equation for pair production in quantum kinetic theory [@Hebenstreit:2010vz]. Once the functions $\chi_{i}$ are solved from Eq. (\[eq:EOM of chi\_i\]), the Wigner function can be reproduced by inserting $\chi_{i}$ and Eq. (\[eq:basis functions 123\]) into Eq. (\[eq:solution of Wigner function in Electric\]).
### Solutions for a Sauter-type field \[subsec:Solutions-for-Sauter-type\]
In order to solve Eq. (\[eq:EOM of chi\_i\]), we first need an initial condition. One naive choice is, assuming that the electric field does not exist before time $t_{0}$, $$\chi_{1}(t_{0},\mathbf{p})=\frac{p^{z}}{E_{\mathbf{p}}},\ \ \chi_{2}(t_{0},\mathbf{p})=\frac{m_{T}}{E_{\mathbf{p}}},\ \ \chi_{3}(t_{0},\mathbf{p})=0.\label{eq:initial condition for E}$$ This initial condition corresponds to a field which is suddenly switched on at $t_{0}$, i.e., a time-dependent electric field as $$E(t)=\theta(t-t_{0})E(t).$$ Such an initial condition is useful when dealing with a field which vanishes when $t\rightarrow t_{0}$. For example, for a Sauter-type field $E(t)=E_{0}\cosh^{-2}(t/\tau)$, we can specify the solution (\[eq:initial condition for E\]) for $t_{0}\rightarrow-\infty$ and the system evolves with time according to Eq. (\[eq:EOM of chi\_i\]).
![\[fig:Sauter-type field\]The time dependence of a Sauter-type electric field $E(t)=E_{0}\cosh^{-2}(t/\tau)$. Here we take the transverse mass $m_{T}$ as the energy unit and the peak value of the electric field is taken to be $3m_{T}^{2}$. ](\string"Sauter_type_field\string".png){width="8cm"}
We now take the Sauter-type electric field $E(t)=E_{0}\cosh^{-2}(t/\tau)$ as an example. In Fig. \[fig:Sauter-type field\] we plot the time dependence of the field strength. The Sauter-type field can be used to describe a pulse, which converges to zero in the limit $t\rightarrow\pm\infty$. We define the canonical momentum $q^{z}$ as $$q^{z}=p^{z}-E_{0}\tau\left[\tanh(t/\tau)+1\right],$$ which ensures that $q^{z}=p^{z}$ in the limit $t\rightarrow-\infty$. Then we substitute the kinetic momentum $p^{z}$ in the operator $D_{t}$ by the canonical one $q^{z}$ and obtain $$\left[\partial_{t}+E_{0}\cosh^{-2}(t/\tau)\partial_{p^{z}}\right]\chi_{i}(t,\mathbf{p})=\frac{d}{dt}\chi_{i}(t,\mathbf{p}_{T},q^{z}).$$ The equations of motions (\[eq:EOM of chi\_i\]) now transform into ordinary differential equations, $$\frac{d}{dt}\left(\begin{array}{c}
\chi_{1}\\
\chi_{2}\\
\chi_{3}
\end{array}\right)=2\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & 0 & m_{T}\\
0 & 0 & -q^{z}-E_{0}\tau\left[\tanh(t/\tau)+1\right]\\
-m_{T} & q^{z}+E_{0}\tau\left[\tanh(t/\tau)+1\right] & 0
\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}
\chi_{1}\\
\chi_{2}\\
\chi_{3}
\end{array}\right),\label{eq:EOM of chi_i-1}$$ with initial conditions $$\lim_{t_{0}\rightarrow-\infty}\chi_{1}(t_{0},\mathbf{p}_{T},q^{z})=\frac{q^{z}}{E_{\mathbf{p}}},\ \ \lim_{t_{0}\rightarrow-\infty}\chi_{2}(t_{0},\mathbf{p}_{T},q^{z})=\frac{m_{T}}{E_{\mathbf{p}}},\ \ \lim_{t_{0}\rightarrow-\infty}\chi_{3}(t_{0},\mathbf{p}_{T},q^{z})=0.\label{eq:initial condition for E-1}$$ This system of ordinary differential equations can be easily solved using the finite-difference method. One can also see Ref. [@Hebenstreit:2010vz] for the analytical solution from quantum kinetic theory.
![\[fig:pz-dependence-of-chi1\]The $p^{z}$-dependence of $\chi_{1}$ at times $t=-2\tau$ (solid line), $t=0$ (dashed line), and $t=2\tau$ (dot-dashed line). ](chi1_t.PNG){width="8cm"}
![\[fig:pz-dependence-of-chi2\]The $p^{z}$-dependence of $\chi_{2}$ at timets $t=-2\tau$ (solid line), $t=0$ (dashed line), and $t=2\tau$ (dot-dashed line).](chi2_t.PNG){width="8cm"}
![\[fig:pz-dependence-of-chi3\]The $p^{z}$-dependence of $\chi_{3}$ at times $t=-2\tau$ (solid line), $t=0$ (dashed line), and $t=2\tau$ (dot-dashed line). ](chi3_t.PNG){width="8cm"}
As an example, we take the transverse mass $m_{T}=\sqrt{m^{2}+\mathbf{p}_{T}^{2}}$ as the energy unit and $\tau=1/m_{T}$ as the time unit. The peak value of the Sauter-type electric field is chosen to be $E_{0}/m_{T}^{2}=3$. In Figs. \[fig:pz-dependence-of-chi1\], \[fig:pz-dependence-of-chi2\], and \[fig:pz-dependence-of-chi3\] we plot the $p^{z}$-dependence of $\chi_{1}$, $\chi_{2}$, and $\chi_{3}$, respectively, at several times, $t=-2\tau$, $0$, and $2\tau$. We emphasize that in these figures the $x$-axis is the kinetic momentum $p^{z}$. According to our calculation, even though the electric field strength turns to zero in the limit $t\rightarrow+\infty$, the functions $\chi_{1}$, $\chi_{2}$, and $\chi_{3}$ cannot reach stationary states. Instead, these functions will oscillate and the oscillations become more and more pronounced at later times. In Sec. \[subsec:Pair-production\] we will clearly see that the oscillation does not contribute to the pair-production rate, and the pair spectrum finally reaches a stationary state.
### Solutions in a constant electric field.
However, the initial conditions in Eq. (\[eq:initial condition for E\]) do not work for a constant electric field $E(t)=E_{0}$. Since a constant field is not integrable, the momentum shift $\int_{t_{0}}^{t}dt^{\prime}E(t^{\prime})\mathbf{e}_{z}$ will be infinitely large if we take the limit $t_{0}\rightarrow-\infty$. From the physical point of view, the fermions can collide with each other and the kinetic energy will be converted to the thermal energy through collisions. The collision processes will retard the movement of particles and the system would finally reach a new balance state in the electric field. If the system has a boundary, the particles would accumulate near the boundary and the chemical potential $\mu$ then becomes spatially-dependent. Finally the force from the Pauli exclusion principle, i.e., the effect from the gradient of $\mu$, will cancel with that from the electric field. If the system is infinitely large, the system would reach a state with a collective charge current, and more fermions (assumed to have positive charge) moving in the direction of the electric field. In this case, the current can be independent of the spatial coordinate and so does the distribution.
Here we assume that the system is described by spatial independent distribution functions at time $t_{0}$ and we focus on a short period after this moment. The system w deviates from the initial state during this period because of pair production. Then our goal is to find a solution which coincides with Eq. (\[eq:equilibrium solution for FV\]) when the electric field vanishes, $$\left.\left(\begin{array}{c}
\chi_{1}\\
\chi_{2}\\
\chi_{3}
\end{array}\right)(t,\mathbf{p})\right|_{E_{0}\rightarrow0}=\frac{1}{E_{\mathbf{p}}}\left(\begin{array}{c}
p^{z}\\
m_{T}\\
0
\end{array}\right).\label{eq:limit E0->0}$$ The Wigner function in a constant electric field is then given by Eqs. (\[eq:solution of Wigner function in Electric\]) and (\[eq:basis functions 123\]), where the coefficients $\chi_{i}$ with $i=1,2,3$ are solved from Eq. (\[eq:EOM of chi\_i\]) with the condition (\[eq:limit E0->0\]), while other $\chi_{i}$ with $i=4,5,\cdots10$ are zeros. From quantum kinetic theory one can obtain the following solution [@Hebenstreit:2010vz], $$\left(\begin{array}{c}
\chi_{1}\\
\chi_{2}\\
\chi_{3}
\end{array}\right)(\mathbf{p})=\left(\begin{array}{c}
d_{1}\left(\eta,\ \sqrt{\frac{2}{E_{0}}}p^{z}\right)\\
\frac{m_{T}}{\sqrt{2E_{0}}}d_{2}\left(\eta,\ \sqrt{\frac{2}{E_{0}}}p^{z}\right)\\
\frac{m_{T}}{\sqrt{2E_{0}}}d_{3}\left(\eta,\ \sqrt{\frac{2}{E_{0}}}p^{z}\right)
\end{array}\right),$$ where $\eta\equiv m_{T}^{2}/E_{0}$ is the dimensionless transverse mass square. One can check that this solution satisfies Eq. (\[eq:EOM of chi\_i\]) and the constraint (\[eq:limit E0->0\]). Here the auxiliary functions $d_{1}$, $d_{2}$, and $d_{3}$ are defined in Eq. (\[eq:auxiliary functions-1\]). Then the Wigner function can be reproduced using Eq. (\[eq:solution of Wigner function in Electric\]), $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{F} & = & \frac{m}{\sqrt{2E_{0}}}d_{2}\left(\eta,\ \sqrt{\frac{2}{E_{0}}}p^{z}\right)C_{1}\left(\mathbf{p}-E_{0}t\mathbf{e}_{z}\right),\nonumber \\
\mathcal{P} & = & 0,\nonumber \\
\mathcal{V}^{0} & = & C_{2}\left(\mathbf{p}-E_{0}t\mathbf{e}_{z}\right),\nonumber \\
\boldsymbol{\mathcal{V}}_{T} & = & \frac{\mathbf{p}_{T}}{\sqrt{2E_{0}}}d_{2}\left(\eta,\ \sqrt{\frac{2}{E_{0}}}p^{z}\right)C_{1}\left(\mathbf{p}-E_{0}t\mathbf{e}_{z}\right),\nonumber \\
\mathcal{V}^{z} & = & d_{1}\left(\eta,\ \sqrt{\frac{2}{E_{0}}}p^{z}\right)C_{1}\left(\mathbf{p}-E_{0}t\mathbf{e}_{z}\right),\nonumber \\
\mathcal{A}^{0} & = & 0,\nonumber \\
\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}} & = & \frac{\mathbf{e}_{z}\times\mathbf{p}_{T}}{\sqrt{2E_{0}}}d_{3}\left(\eta,\ \sqrt{\frac{2}{E_{0}}}p^{z}\right)C_{1}\left(\mathbf{p}-E_{0}t\mathbf{e}_{z}\right),\nonumber \\
\boldsymbol{\mathcal{T}} & = & -\frac{m\mathbf{e}_{z}}{\sqrt{2E_{0}}}d_{3}\left(\eta,\ \sqrt{\frac{2}{E_{0}}}p^{z}\right)C_{1}\left(\mathbf{p}-E_{0}t\mathbf{e}_{z}\right),\nonumber \\
\boldsymbol{\mathcal{S}} & = & 0.\label{eq:Wigner function in pure electric}\end{aligned}$$ When taking the limit $E_{0}\rightarrow0$, the Wigner function recovers the results in Eqs. (\[eq:equilibrium solution for FV\]) and (\[eq:equilibrium solution for V0\]). At the moment $t=0$, the existing particles are assumed to produce distributions which are determined by $C_{1}(\mathbf{p})$ and $C_{2}(\mathbf{p})$. Note that due to the lack of collisions, the solutions in Eq. (\[eq:Wigner function in pure electric\]) can only be used to describe a short period after $t=0$, i.e., for times smaller than the mean free time.
Fermions in constant parallel electromagnetic fields \[subsec:Fermions-in-parallel-EB\]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
### Asymptotic condition
In subsection \[subsec:Fermions-in-const-B\], we have derived the Wigner function in a constant magnetic field. In this subsection we will add an electric field, which is assumed to be parallel to the magnetic field. Both the electric field and the magnetic field are chosen to be constant so that the problem can be analytically solved. Similar to the case of a pure electric field, the case in this subsection is a time-evolution problem. Particles in constant magnetic field are described by the Landau levels, which is used as the initial condition for the time evolution. Taking the chiral chemical potential $\mu_{5}=0$, and integrating over energy $p^{0}$, we obtain the following equal-time Wigner function from Eq. (\[eq:sol-Wigner-function\]), $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{G}_{1} & = & \sum_{n=0}\frac{m}{E_{p^{z}}^{(n)}}C_{1}^{(n)}(p^{z})e_{1}^{(n)}(p_{T}),\nonumber \\
\mathcal{G}_{2} & = & \sum_{n=0}C_{2}^{(n)}(p^{z})e_{1}^{(n)}(p_{T}),\nonumber \\
\mathcal{G}_{3} & = & \frac{p^{z}}{E_{p^{z}}^{(0)}}C_{1}^{(0)}(p^{z})e_{1}^{(0)}(p_{T})+\sum_{n>0}\frac{1}{E_{p^{z}}^{(n)}}C_{1}^{(n)}(p^{z})\left[p^{z}e_{2}^{(n)}(p_{T})+\sqrt{2nB_{0}}e_{3}^{(n)}(p_{T})\right],\nonumber \\
\mathcal{G}_{4} & = & 0.\label{eq:equal-t Wigner function in magnetic}\end{aligned}$$ Here $\mathcal{G}_{i}$ are constructed from the Wigner function as shown in Eq. (\[def:definition of G\_i\]), $C_{1}^{(n)}\equiv\int dp^{0}E_{p^{z}}^{(n)}V^{(n)}$ and $C_{2}^{(n)}\equiv\int dp^{0}(p^{0}+\mu)V^{(n)}$. The basis vectors $e_{1,2,3}^{(0)}(\mathbf{p}_{T})$ are defined in Appendix \[sec:Auxiliary-functions\]. The function $V^{(n)}$ is defined in (\[eq:def-VnAn\]) and (\[eq:def-V0\]), from which we obtain an explicit relation between $C_{1}^{(n)},\ C_{2}^{(n)}$ and $f^{(\pm)(n)}$, $$\begin{aligned}
C_{1}^{(n)}(p^{z}) & = & \frac{2-\delta_{n0}}{(2\pi)^{3}}\left[f^{(+)(n)}(p^{z})+f^{(-)(n)}(p^{z})-1\right],\nonumber \\
C_{2}^{(n)}(p^{z}) & = & \frac{2-\delta_{n0}}{(2\pi)^{3}}\left[f^{(+)(n)}(p^{z})-f^{(-)(n)}(p^{z})+1\right].\label{eq:equilibrium C1C2}\end{aligned}$$ Up to a vacuum contribution, the auxiliary function $C_{1}^{(n)}(p^{z})$ is the sum of the fermion and anti-fermion distribution in the $n$-th Landau level, while $C_{2}^{(n)}(p^{z})$ is the difference. In general the distributions depend on $p^{x}$, $p^{z}$, and $\mathbf{x}$, where $p^{x}-B_{0}y$ plays a role as the center position in the $y$-direction. Here we choose to neglect the spatial dependence of the distributions. Thus, there is no dependence on $\mathbf{x}$ and $p^{x}$ in Eq. (\[eq:equilibrium C1C2\]). The pre-factor $2-\delta_{n0}$ is the spin degeneracy for the $n$-th Landau level. We find that the equal-time Wigner function, whose components are given in Eq. (\[eq:equal-t Wigner function in magnetic\]), is a sum over different Landau levels. Later on we will show that in the presence of a constant electric field, different Landau levels evolve independently.
### Equations of motion
In the presence of constant electromagnetic fields, we assume that the whole system is spatially homogeneous so that the spatial derivative $\boldsymbol{\nabla}_{\mathbf{x}}$ can be dropped. The operators in Eq. (\[eq:generalized operators for equal-t formula\]) are now given by $$\begin{aligned}
D_{t} & = & \partial_{t}+E_{0}\partial_{p^{z}},\nonumber \\
\mathbf{D}_{\mathbf{x}} & = & B_{0}\mathbf{e}_{z}\times\boldsymbol{\nabla}_{\mathbf{p}},\nonumber \\
\boldsymbol{\Pi} & = & \mathbf{p},\end{aligned}$$ where $E_{0}$ and $B_{0}$ are strengths of electric and magnetic field, respectively. Then the matrix operators $M_{1}$ and $M_{2}$, defined in Eq. (\[def:matrices M1M2\]), take the following forms, $$M_{1}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
0 & 2p^{x} & 2p^{y} & 2p^{z}\\
2p^{x} & 0 & 0 & \hbar B_{0}\partial_{p^{x}}\\
2p^{y} & 0 & 0 & \hbar B_{0}\partial_{p^{y}}\\
2p^{z} & -\hbar B_{0}\partial_{p^{x}} & -\hbar B_{0}\partial_{p^{y}} & 0
\end{array}\right),\ \ M_{2}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
0 & -\hbar B_{0}\partial_{p^{y}} & \hbar B_{0}\partial_{p^{x}} & 0\\
-\hbar B_{0}\partial_{p^{y}} & 0 & -2p^{z} & 2p^{y}\\
\hbar B_{0}\partial_{p^{x}} & 2p^{z} & 0 & -2p^{x}\\
0 & -2p^{y} & 2p^{x} & 0
\end{array}\right).$$ For the lowest Landau level, only the basis vector $e_{1}^{(0)}(p_{T})$ defined in (\[eq:def-basis\]), contributes to the solution in (\[eq:equal-t Wigner function in magnetic\]). Furthermore, we can check that $e_{1}^{(0)}(p_{T})$ is an eigenvector of the operators $D_{t}$, $M_{1}$, and $M_{2}$, $$D_{t}e_{1}^{(0)}(p_{T})=0,\ \ M_{1}e_{1}^{(0)}(p_{T})=2p^{z}e_{1}^{(0)}(p_{T}),\ \ M_{2}e_{1}^{(0)}(p_{T})=0.$$ Thus we only need $e_{1}^{(0)}(p_{T})$ to describe the dynamics of the lowest Landau level.
For higher Landau levels, the initial Wigner function in (\[eq:equal-t Wigner function in magnetic\]) contains all three basis vectors $e_{i}^{(n)}(\mathbf{p}_{T})$, $i=1,2,3$ and $n>0$, which are defined in Eq. (\[eq:def-basis\]). But we can check that these basis vectors are not closed under the operator $M_{2}$. In order to construct a closed Hilbert space under the operators $D_{t}$, $M_{1}$, and $M_{2}$, we need another basis vector, i.e., $e_{4}^{(n)}(\mathbf{p}_{T})$ defined in Eq. (\[eq:def-basis\]). Acting the matrix operators $M_{1}$ and $M_{2}$ on these basis vectors, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
M_{1}e_{i}^{(n)}(\mathbf{p}_{T}) & = & \sum_{j=1}^{4}(c_{1}^{(n)})_{ij}^{T}\,e_{j}^{(n)}(\mathbf{p}_{T}),\nonumber \\
M_{2}e_{i}^{(n)}(\mathbf{p}_{T}) & = & \sum_{j=1}^{4}(c_{2}^{(n)})_{ij}^{T}\,e_{j}^{(n)}(\mathbf{p}_{T}),\label{eq:matrix operators act on basis}\end{aligned}$$ where the coefficients are $$c_{1}^{(n)}=2\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
0 & p^{z} & \sqrt{2nB_{0}} & 0\\
p^{z} & 0 & 0 & 0\\
\sqrt{2nB_{0}} & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0
\end{array}\right),\ \ c_{2}^{(n)}=-2\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & \sqrt{2nB_{0}}\\
0 & 0 & 0 & -p^{z}\\
0 & -\sqrt{2nB_{0}} & p^{z} & 0
\end{array}\right).$$ Note that in Eq. (\[eq:matrix operators act on basis\]), we have used the transposes of $c_{1}^{(n)}$ and $c_{2}^{(n)}$ for convenience of further calculations. Due to the fact that the basis vectors $e_{i}^{(n)}(\mathbf{p}_{T})$, $i=1,2,3,4$, are independent of $t$ and $p^{z}$, we find $$D_{t}e_{i}^{(n)}(\mathbf{p}_{T})=0.$$ When the electric field vanishes, the equal-time Wigner function in Eq. (\[eq:equal-t Wigner function in magnetic\]) can be expressed in terms of the basis vectors $e_{1}^{(0)}(p_{T})$ and $e_{i}^{(n)}(\mathbf{p}_{T})$. Analogous to the case in the previous subsection, we take the Wigner function in a constant magnetic field as an asymptotic condition when $E_{0}\rightarrow0$. Then it is straightforward to conclude that the Wigner function will stay in the Hilbert space formed by $e_{1}^{(0)}(p_{T})$ and $e_{i}^{(n)}(\mathbf{p}_{T})$ because this space is closed for all operators $D_{t}$, $M_{1}$ and $M_{2}$ in the equations of motion (\[eq:EOM of 4 groups\]). We thus decompose the Wigner function as $$\mathcal{G}_{i}(t,\mathbf{p})=f_{i}^{(0)}(t,p^{z})e_{1}^{(0)}(p_{T})+\sum_{n>0}\sum_{j=1}^{4}f_{ij}^{(n)}(t,p^{z})e_{j}^{(n)}(\mathbf{p}_{T}),\label{eq:decomposition of G_i}$$ where $i=1,2,3,4$. Note that since we focus on a constant magnetic field, the basis vectors are independent to time and all the time-dependence is put into the coefficients $f_{i}^{(0)}$ and $f_{ij}^{(n)}$. We also find that the transverse momentum is separated in Eq. (\[eq:decomposition of G\_i\]). Inserting the decomposition (\[eq:decomposition of G\_i\]) into the equations of motion (\[eq:EOM of 4 groups\]), and then using the orthonormality conditions in Eqs. (\[eq:normality e\_1\^0\]), (\[eq:orthogonal e\_1\^0 e\_i\^n\]), and (\[eq:orthonormality e\_i\^m e\_j\^n\]) to separate the coefficients of different basis vectors, we derive the equations of motions for $f_{i}^{(0)}(t,p^{z})$ and $f_{ij}^{(n)}(t,p^{z})$. For the lowest Landau level, the equations of motions read $$D_{t}\left(\begin{array}{c}
f_{1}^{(0)}\\
f_{2}^{(0)}\\
f_{3}^{(0)}\\
f_{4}^{(0)}
\end{array}\right)(t,p^{z})=2\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
0 & 0 & 0 & p^{z}\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & -m\\
-p^{z} & 0 & m & 0
\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}
f_{1}^{(0)}\\
f_{2}^{(0)}\\
f_{3}^{(0)}\\
f_{4}^{(0)}
\end{array}\right)(t,p^{z}),\label{eq:EOM of lowest Landau level}$$ while for the higher Landau levels we obtain $$D_{t}\left(\begin{array}{c}
\boldsymbol{f}_{1}^{(n)}\\
\boldsymbol{f}_{2}^{(n)}\\
\boldsymbol{f}_{3}^{(n)}\\
\boldsymbol{f}_{4}^{(n)}
\end{array}\right)(t,p^{z})=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
0 & 0 & 0 & c_{1}^{(n)}\\
0 & 0 & -c_{2}^{(n)} & 0\\
0 & -c_{2}^{(n)} & 0 & -2m\mathbb{I}_{4}\\
-c_{1}^{(n)} & 0 & 2m\mathbb{I}_{4} & 0
\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}
\boldsymbol{f}_{1}^{(n)}\\
\boldsymbol{f}_{2}^{(n)}\\
\boldsymbol{f}_{3}^{(n)}\\
\boldsymbol{f}_{4}^{(n)}
\end{array}\right)(t,p^{z}),\label{eq:EOM of higher Landau levels}$$ where $\boldsymbol{f}_{i}^{(n)}\equiv(f_{i1}^{(n)},f_{i2}^{(n)},f_{i3}^{(n)},f_{i4}^{(n)})^{T}$ is a four-dimensional column vector. From these equations we observe that different Landau levels decouple from each other and thus evolve separately.
### Lowest Landau level
In the lowest Landau level, the spin of a positive charged particle is parallel to the magnetic field. Meanwhile, the higher Landau levels are 2-fold degenerate with respect to spin. Thus the lowest Landau level is special and needs a careful treatment. The equations of motion for the lowest Landau level (\[eq:EOM of lowest Landau level\]) are obviously distinct from those for the higher Landau levels (\[eq:EOM of higher Landau levels\]). We note that in Eq. (\[eq:EOM of lowest Landau level\]), the equation for $f_{2}^{(0)}$ decouples from the others, which gives $$D_{t}f_{2}^{(0)}(t,p^{z})=0.\label{eq:EOM for f^0_2}$$ Since the net fermion number at the lowest Landau level is given by $$n^{(0)}=\int d^{3}\mathbf{p}\,f_{2}^{(0)}(t,p^{z})\Lambda_{+}^{(0)}(p_{T}),$$ we find that the equation for $f_{2}^{(0)}$ correspond to the conservation of $n^{(0)}$, i.e., $$\partial_{t}n^{(0)}=\int d^{3}\mathbf{p}\,\left[D_{t}f_{2}^{(0)}(t,p^{z})\right]\Lambda_{+}^{(0)}(p_{T})=0,$$ Here we have integrated the $p^{z}$-derivative by parts and dropped the boundary term. Equation (\[eq:EOM for f\^0\_2\]), together with the asymptotic condition $\left.f_{2}^{(0)}(t,p^{z})\right|_{E_{0}\rightarrow0}=C_{2}^{(0)}(p^{z})$, give the following specific solution $$f_{2}^{(0)}(t,p^{z})=C_{2}^{(0)}(p^{z}-E_{0}t).\label{eq:specific solution for f_2^0}$$ It describes the overall acceleration of particles along the direction of the electric field. Note that due to the absence of collisions, the particle distribution will be far from the initial one after a long time period. But in reality, collisions prevent the acceleration and the system will stay near the thermal equilibrium and the specific solution is only suitable to describe the physics for $t<t_{\text{relax}}$, where $t_{\text{relax}}$ is the relaxation time of the system.
The other three functions, $f_{1}^{(0)}$, $f_{3}^{(0)}$ and $f_{4}^{(4)}$ can be parametrized as $$\left\{ f_{1}^{(0)},f_{3}^{(0)},f_{4}^{(4)}\right\} =\left\{ \chi_{1}^{(0)},\chi_{2}^{(0)},\chi_{3}^{(0)}\right\} C_{1}^{(0)}(p^{z}-E_{0}t),\label{eq:relation f134 with chi123}$$ where $C_{1}^{(0)}$ is defined in Eq. (\[eq:equilibrium C1C2\]). Here the canonical momentum $p^{z}-E_{0}t$ again reflects the acceleration of particles. Comparing with Eq. (\[eq:equal-t Wigner function in magnetic\]), we obtain the asymptotic condition when the electric field vanishes, $$\left.\left(\begin{array}{c}
\chi_{1}^{(0)}\\
\chi_{2}^{(0)}\\
\chi_{3}^{(0)}
\end{array}\right)(t,p^{z})\right|_{E_{0}\rightarrow0}=\frac{1}{E_{p^{z}}^{(0)}}\left(\begin{array}{c}
m\\
p^{z}\\
0
\end{array}\right).\label{eq:asymptotic condition of chi_123^0}$$ The equations of motion for $\chi_{1}^{(0)},\chi_{2}^{(0)},\chi_{3}^{(0)}$ are derived from Eq. (\[eq:EOM of lowest Landau level\]) by using the fact that $D_{t}C_{1}^{(0)}(p^{z}-E_{0}t)=0$, $$D_{t}\left(\begin{array}{c}
\chi_{1}^{(0)}\\
\chi_{2}^{(0)}\\
\chi_{3}^{(0)}
\end{array}\right)(t,p^{z})=2\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & 0 & p^{z}\\
0 & 0 & -m\\
-p^{z} & m & 0
\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}
\chi_{1}^{(0)}\\
\chi_{2}^{(0)}\\
\chi_{3}^{(0)}
\end{array}\right)(t,p^{z}).\label{eq:EOM of chi_123^0}$$ Comparing Eq. (\[eq:EOM of chi\_123\^0\]) and the asymptotic condition in Eq. (\[eq:asymptotic condition of chi\_123\^0\]) with Eqs. (\[eq:EOM of chi\_i\]) and (\[eq:limit E0->0\]), we find that they are exactly the same if we substitute $\chi_{1}\rightarrow\chi_{2}^{(0)}$,$\chi_{2}\rightarrow\chi_{1}^{(0)}$,$\chi_{3}\rightarrow-\chi_{3}^{(0)}$, and $m_{T}\rightarrow m$ in Eqs. (\[eq:EOM of chi\_i\]) and (\[eq:limit E0->0\]). This indicates that the pair production in the lowest Landau level and in a pure electric field are controlled by the same system of partial differential equations. The solution for Eq. (\[eq:EOM of chi\_123\^0\]) in a constant electric field is straightforward, $$\left(\begin{array}{c}
\chi_{1}^{(0)}\\
\chi_{2}^{(0)}\\
\chi_{3}^{(0)}
\end{array}\right)(p^{z})=\left(\begin{array}{c}
\frac{m}{\sqrt{2E_{0}}}d_{2}(\eta^{(0)},\sqrt{\frac{2}{E_{0}}}p^{z})\\
d_{1}(\eta^{(0)},\sqrt{\frac{2}{E_{0}}}p^{z})\\
-\frac{m}{\sqrt{2E_{0}}}d_{3}(\eta^{(0)},\sqrt{\frac{2}{E_{0}}}p^{z})
\end{array}\right),$$ where $\eta^{(0)}\equiv m^{2}/E_{0}$ and $d_{i}$ are defined in Eq. (\[eq:auxiliary functions-1\]). The functions $f_{1}^{(0)}$, $f_{3}^{(0)}$ and $f_{4}^{(4)}$ can be reproduced using Eq. (\[eq:relation f134 with chi123\]). To summarize, we liste all the functions for the Lowest Landau level, $$\left(\begin{array}{c}
f_{1}^{(0)}\\
f_{2}^{(0)}\\
f_{3}^{(0)}\\
f_{4}^{(0)}
\end{array}\right)(t,p^{z})=\left(\begin{array}{c}
\frac{m}{\sqrt{2E_{0}}}d_{2}(\eta^{(0)},\sqrt{\frac{2}{E_{0}}}p^{z})C_{1}^{(0)}(p^{z}-E_{0}t)\\
C_{2}^{(0)}(p^{z}-E_{0}t)\\
d_{1}(\eta^{(0)},\sqrt{\frac{2}{E_{0}}}p^{z})C_{1}^{(0)}(p^{z}-E_{0}t)\\
-\frac{m}{\sqrt{2E_{0}}}d_{3}(\eta^{(0)},\sqrt{\frac{2}{E_{0}}}p^{z})C_{1}^{(0)}(p^{z}-E_{0}t)
\end{array}\right).\label{eq:solutions for LLL}$$ By inserting them into Eq. (\[eq:decomposition of G\_i\]) one can obtain the contribution of the lowest Landau level to the Wigner function, which will be given later.
### Higher Landau levels
For all the higher Landau levels, the equations of motion in Eq. (\[eq:EOM of higher Landau levels\]) take the same form for different $n$. Note that these equations contain 16 functions, $f_{ij}^{(n)}$ with $i,j=1,2,3,4$, for each $n$. Solving such a system seems to be very difficult, thus we first analyze the relation between $f_{ij}^{(n)}$, which is listed in Table \[tab:Coupling-relations\]. Using this table we can divide the 16 functions into several subgroups. For example, we start from $f_{11}^{(n)}$, which directly couples with $f_{42}^{(n)}$ and $f_{43}^{(n)}$. Then $f_{42}^{(n)}$ couples with $f_{32}^{(n)}$, while $f_{43}^{(n)}$ couples with $f_{33}^{(n)}$. Furthermore, $f_{32}^{(n)}$ and $f_{33}^{(n)}$ couple with $f_{24}^{(n)}$. Thus, these six functions, $\left\{ f_{11}^{(n)},f_{24}^{(n)},f_{32}^{(n)},f_{33}^{(n)},f_{42}^{(n)},f_{43}^{(n)}\right\} $, form one subgroup because every member only couples with other members in this group. Analogously, we can find other subgroups from Table \[tab:Coupling-relations\]: $\left\{ f_{12}^{(n)},f_{13}^{(n)},f_{31}^{(n)},f_{41}^{(n)}\right\} $, $\left\{ f_{14}^{(n)}\right\} $, $\left\{ f_{21}^{(n)}\right\} $, $\left\{ f_{22}^{(n)},f_{23}^{(n)},f_{34}^{(n)},f_{44}^{(n)}\right\} $. Note that not all of these subgroups contribute to the Wigner function, which can be understood as follows: according to the solution in Eq. (\[eq:equal-t Wigner function in magnetic\]), when the electric field vanishes $E_{0}\rightarrow0$, the non-vanishing functions are $f_{11}^{(n)}$, $f_{21}^{(n)}$, $f_{32}^{(n)}$, and $f_{33}^{(n)}$. During the time evolution, only the terms coupled with them, i.e., $\left\{ f_{21}^{(n)}\right\} $ and $\left\{ f_{11}^{(n)},f_{24}^{(n)},f_{32}^{(n)},f_{33}^{(n)},f_{42}^{(n)},f_{43}^{(n)}\right\} $, can have non-trivial solutions, while other terms will stay zero.
$f_{11}^{(n)}$ $f_{12}^{(n)}$ $f_{13}^{(n)}$ $f_{14}^{(n)}$ $f_{21}^{(n)}$ $f_{22}^{(n)}$ $f_{23}^{(n)}$ $f_{24}^{(n)}$ $f_{31}^{(n)}$ $f_{32}^{(n)}$ $f_{33}^{(n)}$ $f_{34}^{(n)}$ $f_{41}^{(n)}$ $f_{42}^{(n)}$ $f_{43}^{(n)}$ $f_{44}^{(n)}$
---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------
$f_{11}^{(n)}$ $\checkmark$ $\checkmark$
$f_{12}^{(n)}$ $\checkmark$
$f_{13}^{(n)}$ $\checkmark$
$f_{14}^{(n)}$
$f_{21}^{(n)}$
$f_{22}^{(n)}$ $\checkmark$
$f_{23}^{(n)}$ $\checkmark$
$f_{24}^{(n)}$ $\checkmark$ $\checkmark$
$f_{31}^{(n)}$ $\checkmark$
$f_{32}^{(n)}$ $\checkmark$ $\checkmark$
$f_{33}^{(n)}$ $\checkmark$ $\checkmark$
$f_{34}^{(n)}$ $\checkmark$ $\checkmark$ $\checkmark$
$f_{41}^{(n)}$ $\checkmark$ $\checkmark$ $\checkmark$
$f_{42}^{(n)}$ $\checkmark$ $\checkmark$
$f_{43}^{(n)}$ $\checkmark$ $\checkmark$
$f_{44}^{(n)}$ $\checkmark$
: \[tab:Coupling-relations\]Coupling relations among $f_{ij}^{(n)}$, $i,j=1,2,3,4$. The table describes the coupling for each pair of functions. Here $\checkmark$ means that we can find one equation in Eq. (\[eq:EOM of higher Landau levels\]) which contains both of these two functions. On the other hand, blank means we cannot find such an equation in Eq. (\[eq:EOM of higher Landau levels\]).
First we focus on the function $f_{21}^{(n)}$. It decouples from all the other functions and the corresponding equation reads $D_{t}f_{21}^{(n)}(t,p^{z})=0$. Analogous to the case in the lowest Landau level, this equation gives nothing but the conservation of the net fermion number in each Landau levels. Its specific solution is $$f_{21}^{(n)}(t,p^{z})=C_{2}^{(n)}(p^{z}-E_{0}t),\label{eq:solution of f^n_21}$$ where $C_{2}^{(n)}$ is defined in Eq. (\[eq:equilibrium C1C2\]). Again this solution describes the overall acceleration of charged particles, and at $t=0$ the system is described by $C_{1}^{(n)}(p^{z})$ and $C_{2}^{(n)}(p^{z})$.
As mentioned above, $\left\{ f_{11}^{(n)},f_{24}^{(n)},f_{32}^{(n)},f_{33}^{(n)},f_{42}^{(n)},f_{43}^{(n)}\right\} $ form one subgroup for the equations of motion. They can be further decoupled by introducing a linear recombination, $$\left(\begin{array}{cc}
g_{1}^{(n)} & g_{3}^{(n)}\\
g_{4}^{(n)} & g_{2}^{(n)}
\end{array}\right)=\frac{1}{m^{(n)}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}
m & \sqrt{2nB_{0}}\\
\sqrt{2nB_{0}} & -m
\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}
f_{11}^{(n)} & f_{24}^{(n)}\\
f_{33}^{(n)} & f_{42}^{(n)}
\end{array}\right),$$ where we define $m^{(n)}\equiv\sqrt{m^{2}+2nB_{0}}$ as the effective mass in the $n$-th Landau level. The transformation matrix is unitary, so the inverse transformation reads $$\left(\begin{array}{cc}
f_{11}^{(n)} & f_{24}^{(n)}\\
f_{33}^{(n)} & f_{42}^{(n)}
\end{array}\right)=\frac{1}{m^{(n)}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}
m & \sqrt{2nB_{0}}\\
\sqrt{2nB_{0}} & -m
\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}
g_{1}^{(n)} & g_{3}^{(n)}\\
g_{4}^{(n)} & g_{2}^{(n)}
\end{array}\right).\label{eq:relation between f_ij and g_i}$$ Then from the equations of motion (\[eq:EOM of higher Landau levels\]) we obtain the following two groups of equations, $$D_{t}\left(\begin{array}{c}
g_{1}^{(n)}\\
g_{2}^{(n)}\\
f_{32}^{(n)}
\end{array}\right)(t,p^{z})=2\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & -p^{z} & 0\\
p^{z} & 0 & -m^{(n)}\\
0 & m^{(n)} & 0
\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}
g_{1}^{(n)}\\
g_{2}^{(n)}\\
f_{32}^{(n)}
\end{array}\right)(t,p^{z}),\label{eq:equation for g12 f32}$$ and $$D_{t}\left(\begin{array}{c}
g_{3}^{(n)}\\
g_{4}^{(n)}\\
f_{43}^{(n)}
\end{array}\right)(t,p^{z})=2\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & -p^{z} & 0\\
p^{z} & 0 & m^{(n)}\\
0 & -m^{(n)} & 0
\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}
g_{3}^{(n)}\\
g_{4}^{(n)}\\
f_{43}^{(n)}
\end{array}\right)(t,p^{z}).$$ When the electric field vanishes, we can calculate $g_{i}^{(n)}$ and the result reads, $$\left.\left(\begin{array}{c}
g_{1}^{(n)}\\
g_{2}^{(n)}\\
f_{32}^{(n)}
\end{array}\right)\right|_{E_{0}\rightarrow0}=\frac{1}{E_{p^{z}}^{(n)}}\left(\begin{array}{c}
m^{(n)}\\
0\\
p^{z}
\end{array}\right)C_{1}^{(n)}(p^{z}),\ \ \left.\left(\begin{array}{c}
g_{3}^{(n)}\\
g_{4}^{(n)}\\
f_{43}^{(n)}
\end{array}\right)\right|_{E_{0}\rightarrow0}=\left(\begin{array}{c}
0\\
0\\
0
\end{array}\right).$$ The equations for $g_{3}^{(n)}$, $g_{4}^{(n)}$, and $f_{43}^{(n)}$ will have trivial solutions, i.e., all of three stay zero even after the electric field is turned on. Therefore, for the higher Landau levels we only need to focus on $g_{1}^{(n)}$, $g_{2}^{(n)}$, and $f_{32}^{(n)}$. We take the overall acceleration ansatz and parameterize them as $$\left\{ g_{1}^{(n)},g_{2}^{(n)},f_{32}^{(n)}\right\} =\left\{ \chi_{1}^{(n)},\chi_{2}^{(n)},\chi_{3}^{(n)}\right\} C_{1}^{(n)}(p^{z}-E_{0}t).\label{eq:relation between g_12 and chi_123}$$ Since $D_{t}C_{1}^{(n)}(p^{z}-E_{0}t)=0$, the equations of motion for $\chi_{1}^{(n)}$, $\chi_{2}^{(n)}$, and $\chi_{3}^{(n)}$ can be derived from Eq. (\[eq:equation for g12 f32\]) $$D_{t}\left(\begin{array}{c}
\chi_{1}^{(n)}\\
\chi_{2}^{(n)}\\
\chi_{3}^{(n)}
\end{array}\right)(t,p^{z})=2\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & -p^{z} & 0\\
p^{z} & 0 & -m^{(n)}\\
0 & m^{(n)} & 0
\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}
\chi_{1}^{(n)}\\
\chi_{2}^{(n)}\\
\chi_{3}^{(n)}
\end{array}\right)(t,p^{z}),$$ with the asymptotic condition $$\left.\left(\begin{array}{c}
\chi_{1}^{(n)}\\
\chi_{2}^{(n)}\\
\chi_{3}^{(n)}
\end{array}\right)(t,p^{z})\right|_{E_{0}\rightarrow0}=\frac{1}{E_{p^{z}}^{(n)}}\left(\begin{array}{c}
m^{(n)}\\
0\\
p^{z}
\end{array}\right).$$ The equations and asymptotic conditions coincide with Eqs. (\[eq:EOM of chi\_i\]) and (\[eq:limit E0->0\]) if we make the replacements $\chi_{1}\rightarrow\chi_{3}^{(n)}$, $\chi_{2}\rightarrow\chi_{1}^{(n)}$, $\chi_{3}\rightarrow\chi_{2}^{(n)}$, and $m_{T}\rightarrow m^{(n)}$. The solution for the case of a constant electric field is then straightforward to obtain, $$\left(\begin{array}{c}
\chi_{1}^{(n)}\\
\chi_{2}^{(n)}\\
\chi_{3}^{(n)}
\end{array}\right)(t,p^{z})=\left(\begin{array}{c}
\frac{m^{(n)}}{\sqrt{2E_{0}}}d_{2}\left(\eta^{(n)},\sqrt{\frac{2}{E_{0}}}p^{z}\right)\\
\frac{m^{(n)}}{\sqrt{2E_{0}}}d_{3}\left(\eta^{(n)},\sqrt{\frac{2}{E_{0}}}p^{z}\right)\\
d_{1}\left(\eta^{(n)},\sqrt{\frac{2}{E_{0}}}p^{z}\right)
\end{array}\right),$$ where $\eta^{(n)}\equiv(m^{2}+2nB_{0})/E_{0}$ is the dimensionless effective mass squared. Inserting the solutions into Eq. (\[eq:relation between g\_12 and chi\_123\]) and then using the inverse transformation in Eq. (\[eq:relation between f\_ij and g\_i\]), one obtains the non-vanishing functions, $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\begin{array}{c}
f_{11}^{(n)}\\
f_{33}^{(n)}
\end{array}\right) & = & \left(\begin{array}{c}
m\\
\sqrt{2nB_{0}}
\end{array}\right)\frac{1}{\sqrt{2E_{0}}}d_{2}\left(\eta^{(n)},\sqrt{\frac{2}{E_{0}}}p^{z}\right)C_{1}^{(n)}(p^{z}-E_{0}t),\nonumber \\
\left(\begin{array}{c}
f_{24}^{(n)}\\
f_{42}^{(n)}
\end{array}\right) & = & \left(\begin{array}{c}
\sqrt{2nB_{0}}\\
-m
\end{array}\right)\frac{1}{\sqrt{2E_{0}}}d_{3}\left(\eta^{(n)},\sqrt{\frac{2}{E_{0}}}p^{z}\right)C_{1}^{(n)}(p^{z}-E_{0}t),\nonumber \\
f_{32}^{(n)} & = & d_{1}\left(\eta^{(n)},\sqrt{\frac{2}{E_{0}}}p^{z}\right)C_{1}^{(n)}(p^{z}-E_{0}t),\label{eq:solution of f_ij HLL}\end{aligned}$$ together with $f_{21}^{(n)}$ listed in Eq. (\[eq:solution of f\^n\_21\]). The remaining ten of $f_{ij}^{(n)}$ are zero.
### Wigner function
In the above parts of this subsection, we have solved the Wigner function in parallel electromagnetic fields by properly choosing basis functions. Finally we obtained a system of partial differential equations, which is the same as the one in a pure constant electric field. The only difference is, in a electric field, the equations depends on the magnitude of the transverse momentum $p_{T}$, while in parallel electromagnetic fields we have to replace $p_{T}$ by the quantized momentum $p_{T}\rightarrow\sqrt{2nB_{0}}$. For convenience of future works, we list all the components of Wigner function in the following. These components are obtained by inserting the solutions (\[eq:solutions for LLL\]), (\[eq:solution of f\^n\_21\]), and (\[eq:solution of f\_ij HLL\]) into Eq. (\[eq:decomposition of G\_i\]). The four groups $\mathcal{G}_{i}$, $i=1,2,3,4$, defined in Eq. (\[def:definition of G\_i\]), are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\begin{array}{c}
\mathcal{F}\\
\boldsymbol{\mathcal{S}}
\end{array}\right) & = & \frac{m}{\sqrt{2E_{0}}}\sum_{n=0}d_{2}\left(\eta^{(n)},\sqrt{\frac{2}{E_{0}}}p^{z}\right)C_{1}^{(n)}(p^{z}-E_{0}t)\left(\begin{array}{c}
\Lambda_{+}^{(n)}(p_{T})\\
0\\
0\\
\Lambda_{-}^{(n)}(p_{T})
\end{array}\right),\nonumber \\
\left(\begin{array}{c}
\mathcal{P}\\
\boldsymbol{\mathcal{T}}
\end{array}\right) & = & -\frac{m}{\sqrt{2E_{0}}}\sum_{n=0}d_{3}\left(\eta^{(n)},\sqrt{\frac{2}{E_{0}}}p^{z}\right)C_{1}^{(n)}(p^{z}-E_{0}t)\left(\begin{array}{c}
\Lambda_{-}^{(n)}(p_{T})\\
0\\
0\\
\Lambda_{+}^{(n)}(p_{T})
\end{array}\right),\nonumber \\
\left(\begin{array}{c}
\mathcal{V}^{0}\\
\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}
\end{array}\right) & = & \sum_{n=0}C_{2}^{(n)}(p^{z}-E_{0}t)\left(\begin{array}{c}
\Lambda_{+}^{(n)}(p_{T})\\
0\\
0\\
\Lambda_{-}^{(n)}(p_{T})
\end{array}\right)\nonumber \\
& & \ \ \ \ +\frac{1}{\sqrt{2E_{0}}}\sum_{n>0}d_{3}\left(\eta^{(n)},\sqrt{\frac{2}{E_{0}}}p^{z}\right)C_{1}^{(n)}(p^{z}-E_{0}t)\frac{2nB_{0}}{p_{T}^{2}}\Lambda_{+}^{(n)}(p_{T})\left(\begin{array}{c}
0\\
-p^{y}\\
p^{x}\\
0
\end{array}\right),\nonumber \\
\left(\begin{array}{c}
\mathcal{A}^{0}\\
\boldsymbol{\mathcal{V}}
\end{array}\right) & = & \sum_{n=0}d_{1}\left(\eta^{(n)},\sqrt{\frac{2}{E_{0}}}p^{z}\right)C_{1}^{(n)}(p^{z}-E_{0}t)\left(\begin{array}{c}
\Lambda_{-}^{(n)}(p_{T})\\
0\\
0\\
\Lambda_{+}^{(n)}(p_{T})
\end{array}\right)\nonumber \\
& & \ \ \ \ +\frac{1}{\sqrt{2E_{0}}}\sum_{n>0}d_{2}\left(\eta^{(n)},\sqrt{\frac{2}{E_{0}}}p^{z}\right)C_{1}^{(n)}(p^{z}-E_{0}t)\frac{2nB_{0}}{p_{T}^{2}}\Lambda_{+}^{(n)}(p_{T})\left(\begin{array}{c}
0\\
p^{x}\\
p^{y}\\
0
\end{array}\right),\nonumber \\
\label{eq:Wigner function in parallel EM fields}\end{aligned}$$ where $\eta^{(n)}\equiv(m^{2}+2nB_{0})/E_{0}$ is the dimensionless effective mass squared. The functions $C_{1}^{(n)}$, $C_{2}^{(n)}$, $d_{i}$ with $i=1,2,3$, and $\Lambda_{\pm}^{(n)}(p_{T})$ are defined in (\[eq:equilibrium C1C2\]), (\[eq:auxiliary functions-1\]), and (\[eq:def-Lambda-n\]), respectively. If the magnetic field is sufficiently small, the sum over all Landau levels can be done using Eqs. (\[eq:weak field limit-1\]) and (\[eq:weak field limit-2\]). The discrete Landau levels are then replaced by the continuous transverse momentum squared $p_{T}^{2}$ and (\[eq:Wigner function in parallel EM fields\]) reproduce the results (\[eq:Wigner function in pure electric\]) in a contant electric field.
$\ $
Semi-classical expansion\[sec:Semi-classical-expansion\]
========================================================
Introduction to the $\hbar$ expansion
-------------------------------------
In Sec. \[sec:Analytically-solvable-cases\] we have shown several cases in which the Wigner function has an analytically solution. The semi-classical expansion is a more general approach which can be used for a general space-time dependent field. In the semi-classical expansion, we make a Taylor expansions for the Wigner function, all the operators, as well as all the equations in powers of the reduced Planck’s constant $\hbar$, and then solve the equations order by order. The Wigner function, taking its scalar component as an example, is expanded as follows, $$\mathcal{F}=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\hbar^{n}\mathcal{F}^{(n)}.$$ Here we use the superscript $(n)$ to label different orders in $\hbar$. The operators in Eq. (\[def:operators Kmu with hbar\]) are expanded as $$\begin{aligned}
& & \Pi^{\mu}=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\hbar^{2n}\Pi^{(2n)\mu}=p^{\mu}-\frac{\hbar}{2}\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{(-1)^{n}}{(2n+3)(2n+1)!}\Delta^{2n+1}F^{\mu\nu}(x)\partial_{p\nu},\nonumber \\
& & \nabla^{\mu}=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\hbar^{2n}\nabla^{(2n)\mu}=\partial_{x}^{\mu}-\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{(-1)^{n}}{(2n+1)!}\Delta^{2n}F^{\mu\nu}(x)\partial_{p\nu},\label{eq:operators after hbar expansion}\end{aligned}$$ where the spatial-derivative $\partial_{x\alpha}$ in the product $\Delta\equiv\frac{\hbar}{2}\partial_{p}^{\alpha}\partial_{x\alpha}$ acts only on the electromagnetic field tensor $F^{\mu\nu}(x)$. The other operators, $\Re K^{2}$, $\Im K^{2}$, $\Re K_{\mu\nu}$, and $\Im K_{\mu\nu}$ can be written in terms of $\Pi^{\mu}$ and $\nabla^{\mu}$ as shown in (\[eq:real and imaginary parts of second order operators\]). The leading-order contributions to these operators are $$\begin{aligned}
\Pi^{\mu} & = & p^{\mu}+\mathcal{O}(\hbar^{2}),\nonumber \\
\nabla^{\mu} & = & \partial_{x}^{\mu}-F^{\mu\nu}\partial_{p\nu}+\mathcal{O}(\hbar^{2}),\nonumber \\
\Re K^{2} & = & p^{2}+\mathcal{O}(\hbar^{2}),\nonumber \\
\Im K^{2} & = & \hbar p_{\mu}(\partial_{x}^{\mu}-F^{\mu\nu}\partial_{p,\nu})+\mathcal{O}(\hbar^{2}),\nonumber \\
\Re K_{\mu\nu} & = & -\frac{\hbar^{2}}{2}(\partial_{x}^{\alpha}F_{\mu\nu})\partial_{p\alpha}+\mathcal{O}(\hbar^{3}),\nonumber \\
\Im K_{\mu\nu} & = & -\hbar F_{\mu\nu}+\mathcal{O}(\hbar^{2}),\label{eq:semi-classical operators}\end{aligned}$$
The reduced Planck’s constant $\hbar$ labels the strength of the spin-electromagnetic coupling. For example, the quantum of the spin-angular momentum in a given direction is $\pm\hbar/2$ for a spin-1/2 particle. Thus the method of the semi-classical expansion, in some sense, is the Taylor expansion of the spin effect. In the zeroth order of $\hbar$, a particle can be treated as a spinless classical one. The first order in $\hbar$ gives the leading-order correction from the spin. In this section we truncate at the linear order in $\hbar$ because the equations will be more and more complicated and hard to solve in higher orders. In this section we will preform a semi-classical expansion and then in Sec. \[sec:Physical quantities\] we will compare the physical quantities calculated using the semi-classical expansion with those from analytical calculations.
The semi-classical expansion works well if and only if high order contributions in $\hbar$ are much smaller than the lower order ones. This requirement is ensured by the following inequality, which is derived from Eq. (\[eq:operators after hbar expansion\]) $$\left(\frac{\hbar}{2}\partial_{p}^{\alpha}\partial_{x\alpha}\right)^{2n+2}F^{\mu\nu}(x)W(x,p)\ll\left(\frac{\hbar}{2}\partial_{p}^{\alpha}\partial_{x\alpha}\right)^{2n}F^{\mu\nu}(x)W(x,p).$$ Assuming that the fluctuations of the electromagnetic field are significant over a typical spatial scale $\Delta R$, while the Wigner function fluctuates over a typical momentum scale $\Delta P$, we demand that $$\Delta R\Delta P\gg\hbar.\label{eq:DeltaR DeltaP}$$ In the unit of $\mathrm{MeV\cdot fm}$, the value of the reduced Planck’s constant is $\hbar=197\ \mathrm{MeV\cdot fm}$. If we consider cosmic systems such as a neutron star, the typical spatial scale is large enough to ensure that the semi-classical expansion is valid. If we consider heavy-ion collisions such as Au+Au collisions at 200 GeV/A at RHIC, the typical momentum is several GeV while the typical spatial scale is several fm, which means Eq. (\[eq:DeltaR DeltaP\]) can also be satisfied. Therefore the method discussed in this section could be useful for both cosmic and microscopic systems. On the other hand, the zeroth-order part of the Dirac-form equation (\[eq:Dirac equation for Wigner\]) for the Wigner function is $(\gamma^{\mu}p_{\mu}-m)W$, while the first-order part is $\frac{i\hbar}{2}\gamma^{\mu}\partial_{x\mu}W$. Thus we demand $$\left|\hbar\gamma^{\mu}\partial_{x\mu}W\right|\ll m\left|W\right|.$$ to ensure that the $\hbar$-order correction is much smaller than the zeroth-order contribution. Note that $\hbar/m$ is the Compton wave length, thus the above condition means the wave length of macroscopic fluctuations should be much larger than the Compton wave length.
The semi-classical expansion is widely used in recent years [@Vasak:1987um; @Hidaka:2016yjf; @Gao:2017gfq; @Huang:2018wdl; @Gao:2019znl; @Weickgenannt:2019dks; @Hattori:2019ahi; @Wang:2019moi]. In this section we will solve the Wigner function up to order $\hbar$ and derive the corresponding kinetic equation at the same order. Higher order contributions can be solved employing a similar procedure but the results would be too complicated for further analysis and thus are not listed in this thesis.
Massless case
-------------
As we discussed in Sec. \[sec:Overview-of-Wigner\], in the massless case the system of partial differential equations is much simpler because the vector and axial-vector components $\mathcal{V}^{\mu}$ and $\mathcal{A}^{\mu}$ are decoupled from the others. Meanwhile, $\mathcal{V}^{\mu}$ is equivalent to $\mathcal{A}^{\mu}$ because of the chiral symmetry of massless fermions. In this section we will solve $\mathcal{V}^{\mu}$ and $\mathcal{A}^{\mu}$ up to order $\hbar$. First we form a linear combination and define the LH and RH currents $\mathcal{J}_{\pm}^{\mu}$ as in Eq. (\[def:left- and right-handed currents\]). Inserting the operators in Eq. (\[eq:semi-classical operators\]) into the on-shell equation (\[eq:on-shell equation for f\_pm\]) and the constraint equations (\[eq:equations of currents massless\]), at the zeroth order in $\hbar$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
p_{\mu}\mathcal{J}_{\chi}^{(0)\mu} & = & 0,\nonumber \\
p_{\mu}\mathcal{J}_{\chi,\nu}^{(0)}-p_{\nu}\mathcal{J}_{\chi,\mu}^{(0)} & = & 0,\nonumber \\
p^{2}\mathcal{J}_{\chi}^{(0)\mu} & = & 0.\label{eq:zeroth order equations of J=00005Cchi}\end{aligned}$$ Here $\mathcal{J}_{\chi}^{(0)\mu}$ represents the zeroth-order part of $\mathcal{J}_{\chi}^{\mu}$, where $\chi=\pm$ labeling the chirality. The last line ensures that $\mathcal{J}_{\chi}^{(0)\mu}$ should be on the mass-shell $p^{2}=0$ otherwise we would obtain the trivial solution $\mathcal{J}_{\chi}^{(0)\mu}=0$. The general nontrivial zeroth-order solution reads $$\mathcal{J}_{\chi}^{(0)\mu}=p^{\mu}f_{\chi}^{(0)}\delta(p^{2}).\label{eq:massless zeroth order}$$ Here the distribution $f_{\chi}^{(0)}$ is still undetermined, but it should not have a singularity on the mass-shell $p^{2}=0$. The zeroth-order currents are parallel to $p^{\mu}$, which agrees with our expectation: the spins of chiral fermions are always parallel or anti-parallel to their momentum, so the fermion number current and axial-charge current of massless particles are both proportional to $p^{\mu}$, and so is their linear combination.
At the first order in $\hbar$, Eqs. (\[eq:equations of currents massless\]) and (\[eq:on-shell equation for f\_pm\]) can be separated into two groups, one of which only depends on the zeroth-order function $\mathcal{J}_{\chi}^{(0)\mu}$, $$\nabla_{\mu}^{(0)}\mathcal{J}_{\chi}^{(0)\mu}=0,\label{eq:massless zeroth order kin}$$ and the other group depends on the first-order function $\mathcal{J}_{\chi}^{(1)\mu}$, $$\begin{aligned}
p_{\mu}\mathcal{J}_{\chi}^{(1)\mu} & = & 0,\nonumber \\
p_{\mu}\mathcal{J}_{\chi,\nu}^{(1)}-p_{\nu}\mathcal{J}_{\chi,\mu}^{(1)}+\frac{\chi}{2}\epsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}\nabla^{(0)\alpha}\mathcal{J}_{\chi}^{(0)\beta} & = & 0,\nonumber \\
p^{2}\mathcal{J}_{\chi}^{(1)\mu}+\frac{\chi}{2}\epsilon^{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}F_{\alpha\beta}\mathcal{J}_{\chi\nu}^{(0)} & = & 0.\label{eq:massless first order equations}\end{aligned}$$ Inserting the zeroth-order solution (\[eq:massless zeroth order\]) into Eq. (\[eq:massless zeroth order kin\]) we obtain the kinetic equations for $f_{\chi}^{(0)}$ , $$\delta(p^{2})p^{\mu}\nabla_{\mu}^{(0)}f_{\chi}^{(0)}=0,\label{eq:massless zeroth order kin-1}$$ which agrees with the collisionless Boltzmann-Vlasov equation [@DeGroot:1980dk]. The first-order current $\mathcal{J}_{\chi}^{(1)\mu}$ can be assumed to have a solution of the form $$\mathcal{J}_{\chi}^{(1)\mu}=j_{\chi}^{\mu}\delta(p^{2})+\chi\tilde{F}^{\mu\nu}p_{\nu}f_{\chi}^{(0)}\delta^{\prime}(p^{2}),\label{eq:massless first order}$$ where the derivative of the Dirac-delta function is $\delta^{\prime}(x)=-\delta(x)/x$, which can be proved using the method of integrating by parts. Using $\tilde{F}^{\mu\nu}=\frac{1}{2}\epsilon^{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}F_{\alpha\beta}$ we can check that the solution (\[eq:massless first order\]) automatically satisfies the third line of Eq. (\[eq:massless first order equations\]) for an arbitrary $j_{\chi}^{\mu}$ . Inserting the solution (\[eq:massless first order\]) into the first and second lines of Eq. (\[eq:massless first order equations\]) we obtain the following relations $$\begin{aligned}
0 & = & \delta(p^{2})p_{\mu}j_{\chi}^{\mu},\nonumber \\
0 & = & \delta(p^{2})\left[p_{\mu}j_{\chi,\nu}-p_{\nu}j_{\chi,\mu}+\frac{\chi}{2}\epsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}\nabla^{(0)\alpha}\left(p^{\beta}f_{\chi}^{(0)}\right)\right]\nonumber \\
& & +\chi\delta^{\prime}(p^{2})\left(p_{\mu}\tilde{F}_{\nu\alpha}p^{\alpha}-p_{\nu}\tilde{F}_{\mu\alpha}p^{\alpha}-\epsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}p^{\beta}F^{\alpha\gamma}p_{\gamma}\right)f_{\chi}^{(0)}.\label{eq:massless first order constraint}\end{aligned}$$ Here the last line can be simplified using the Schouten identity, $$p_{\mu}\epsilon_{\nu\alpha\beta\gamma}+p_{\nu}\epsilon_{\alpha\beta\gamma\mu}+p_{\alpha}\epsilon_{\beta\gamma\mu\nu}+p_{\beta}\epsilon_{\gamma\mu\nu\alpha}+p_{\gamma}\epsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}=0.\label{eq:Schouten identity-1}$$ This identity holds because in 4-dimensional Minkowski space, the indices can take the values $1-4$, thus at least two of the indices $\mu\nu\alpha\beta\gamma$ are identical. Considering without loss of generality the case $\mu=\nu$, the Levi-Civita symbols $\epsilon_{\beta\gamma\mu\nu}$, $\epsilon_{\gamma\mu\nu\alpha}$, and $\epsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}$ vanish, and the remaining two terms cancel with each other due to the anti-symmetric property of the Levi-Civita symbol. In the case that three or more indices are equal to each other, all Levi-Civita symbols are vanishing. With the help of the Schouten identity, the term which multiplies $\delta^{\prime}(p^{2})$ can be simplified as $$\begin{aligned}
& & p_{\mu}\tilde{F}_{\nu\alpha}p^{\alpha}-p_{\nu}\tilde{F}_{\mu\alpha}p^{\alpha}-\epsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}p^{\beta}F^{\alpha\gamma}p_{\gamma}\nonumber \\
& = & \frac{1}{2}(p_{\mu}\epsilon_{\nu\alpha\beta\gamma}+p_{\nu}\epsilon_{\alpha\beta\gamma\mu})p^{\alpha}F^{\beta\gamma}-\epsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}p^{\beta}F^{\alpha\gamma}p_{\gamma}\nonumber \\
& = & -\frac{1}{2}(p_{\alpha}\epsilon_{\beta\gamma\mu\nu}+p_{\beta}\epsilon_{\gamma\mu\nu\alpha}+p_{\gamma}\epsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta})p^{\alpha}F^{\beta\gamma}-\epsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}p^{\beta}F^{\alpha\gamma}p_{\gamma}\nonumber \\
& = & -p^{2}\tilde{F}_{\mu\nu},\end{aligned}$$ Inserting back into Eq. (\[eq:massless first order constraint\]) one obtains two constraints $$\begin{aligned}
0 & = & \delta(p^{2})p_{\mu}j_{\chi}^{\mu},\nonumber \\
0 & = & \delta(p^{2})\left[p_{\mu}j_{\chi,\nu}-p_{\nu}j_{\chi,\mu}+\frac{\chi}{2}\epsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}p^{\beta}\nabla^{(0)\alpha}f_{\chi}^{(0)}\right].\end{aligned}$$ On account of Eq. (\[eq:Schouten identity-1\]) and using Eq. (\[eq:massless zeroth order kin-1\]), the general solution reads $$j_{\chi,\mu}=p_{\mu}f_{\chi}^{(1)}+\frac{\chi}{2(p\cdot u)}\epsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}p^{\nu}u^{\alpha}\nabla^{(0)\beta}f_{\chi}^{(0)},$$ where $u^{\mu}$ is an arbitrary reference vector with $p\cdot u\neq0$. Substituting $j_{\chi}^{\mu}$ into Eq. (\[eq:massless first order\]), we obtain $$\mathcal{J}_{\chi}^{(1)\mu}=\left[p^{\mu}f_{\chi}^{(1)}+\frac{\chi}{2(p\cdot u)}\epsilon^{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}p_{\nu}u_{\alpha}\nabla_{\beta}^{(0)}f_{\chi}^{(0)}\right]\delta(p^{2})+\chi\tilde{F}^{\mu\nu}p_{\nu}f_{\chi}^{(0)}\delta^{\prime}(p^{2}).\label{eq:massless first order-1}$$ Here we again demand that the distribution $f_{\chi}^{(1)}$ is non-singular at $p^{2}=0$. The first-order solution derived here agrees with previous results [@Hidaka:2016yjf; @Gao:2017gfq; @Huang:2018wdl].
At the order $\hbar^{2}$, Eqs. (\[eq:on-shell equation for f\_pm\]) and (\[eq:equations of currents massless\]) contain the second-order current $\mathcal{J}_{\chi}^{(2)\mu}$. Since we only focus on the leading two orders of the solution, the equations for $\mathcal{J}_{\chi}^{(2)\mu}$ will be neglected. Only one equation is independent of $\mathcal{J}_{\chi}^{(2)\mu}$ at the order $\hbar^{2}$, $$\nabla_{\mu}^{(0)}\mathcal{J}_{\chi}^{(1)\mu}=0.\label{eq:massless first order kin}$$ The kinetic equation for $f_{\chi}^{(1)}$ is then derived by substituting $\mathcal{J}_{\chi}^{(1)\mu}$ in Eq. (\[eq:massless first order-1\]) into the above equation,
$$\begin{aligned}
0 & = & \delta(p^{2})\left\{ p^{\mu}\nabla_{\mu}^{(0)}f_{\chi}^{(1)}+\frac{\chi}{2}\left(\nabla_{\mu}^{(0)}\frac{u_{\alpha}}{p\cdot u}\right)\epsilon^{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}p_{\nu}\nabla_{\beta}^{(0)}f_{\chi}^{(0)}\right.\nonumber \\
& & \qquad\left.-\frac{\chi}{2}\epsilon^{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}F_{\mu\nu}\nabla_{\beta}^{(0)}f_{\chi}^{(0)}+\frac{\chi}{4(p\cdot u)}\epsilon^{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}p_{\nu}u_{\alpha}\left[\nabla_{\mu}^{(0)},\nabla_{\beta}^{(0)}\right]f_{\chi}^{(0)}\right\} \nonumber \\
& & +\chi\delta^{\prime}(p^{2})\left[\nabla_{\mu}^{(0)}\left(\tilde{F}^{\mu\nu}p_{\nu}f_{\chi}^{(0)}\right)-\frac{1}{p\cdot u}\epsilon^{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}F_{\mu\gamma}p^{\gamma}p_{\nu}u_{\alpha}\nabla_{\beta}^{(0)}f_{\chi}^{(0)}\right]\nonumber \\
& & -2\chi\tilde{F}^{\mu\nu}p_{\nu}F_{\mu\alpha}p^{\alpha}f_{\chi}^{(0)}\delta^{\prime\prime}(p^{2}).\end{aligned}$$
The Schouten identity (\[eq:Schouten identity-1\]) is then used for further simplification. We also use the following relation $$\tilde{F}^{\mu\nu}p_{\nu}F_{\mu\alpha}p^{\alpha}=\frac{1}{4}p^{2}F_{\beta\gamma}\tilde{F}^{\beta\gamma},$$ and the properties of the Dirac-delta function $$\begin{aligned}
p^{2}\delta^{\prime}(p^{2}) & = & -\delta(p^{2}),\nonumber \\
p^{2}\delta^{\prime\prime}(p^{2}) & = & -2\delta^{\prime}(p^{2}).\end{aligned}$$ After simplification we finally obtain $$\begin{aligned}
0 & = & \delta(p^{2})\left\{ p^{\mu}\nabla_{\mu}^{(0)}f_{\chi}^{(1)}+\frac{\chi}{2}\left(\nabla_{\mu}^{(0)}\frac{u_{\alpha}}{p\cdot u}\right)\epsilon^{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}p_{\nu}\nabla_{\beta}^{(0)}f_{\chi}^{(0)}+\frac{\chi}{2(p\cdot u)}p_{\nu}u_{\alpha}(\partial_{x\gamma}\tilde{F}^{\nu\alpha})\partial_{p}^{\gamma}f_{\chi}^{(0)}\right\} \nonumber \\
& & \qquad+\chi\delta^{\prime}(p^{2})\left[(\partial_{x\mu}\tilde{F}^{\mu\nu})p_{\nu}f_{\chi}^{(0)}-\frac{1}{p\cdot u}\tilde{F}^{\mu\nu}p_{\mu}u_{\nu}p^{\alpha}\nabla_{\alpha}^{(0)}f_{\chi}^{(0)}\right],\label{eq:massless first order kin-1}\end{aligned}$$ which is the kinetic equation for the first-order distribution function $f_{\chi}^{(1)}$.
Collecting the zeroth- and first-order solutions, we find that the LH and RH currents in the massless case are given by $$\mathcal{J}_{\chi}^{\mu}=\left[p^{\mu}f_{\chi}+\frac{\hbar\chi}{2(p\cdot u)}\epsilon^{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}p_{\nu}u_{\alpha}\nabla_{\beta}^{(0)}f_{\chi}\right]\delta(p^{2})+\chi\hbar\tilde{F}^{\mu\nu}p_{\nu}f_{\chi}\delta^{\prime}(p^{2})+\mathcal{O}(\hbar^{2}),$$ where $$f_{\chi}\equiv f_{\chi}^{(0)}+\hbar f_{\chi}^{(1)}+\mathcal{O}(\hbar^{2}),$$ is the full distribution function for RH ($\chi=+$) or LH ($\chi=-$) particles, which depends on the phase-space position $\{x^{\mu},p^{\mu}\}$. Note that the full distribution $f_{\chi}$ contains contributions of all orders in $\hbar$, but higher order terms should be much smaller than the leading two orders, which ensures the validity of the semi-classical expansion. The kinetic equation for $f_{\chi}$ can be derived from the zeroth order one in (\[eq:massless zeroth order kin-1\]) and the first order one in (\[eq:massless first order kin-1\]), $$\begin{aligned}
0 & = & \delta(p^{2})\left\{ p^{\mu}\nabla_{\mu}^{(0)}f_{\chi}+\frac{\chi\hbar}{2}\left(\nabla_{\mu}^{(0)}\frac{u_{\alpha}}{p\cdot u}\right)\epsilon^{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}p_{\nu}\nabla_{\beta}^{(0)}f_{\chi}+\frac{\chi\hbar}{2(p\cdot u)}p_{\nu}u_{\alpha}(\partial_{x\gamma}\tilde{F}^{\nu\alpha})\partial_{p}^{\gamma}f_{\chi}\right\} \nonumber \\
& & \qquad+\chi\hbar\delta^{\prime}(p^{2})\left[(\partial_{x\mu}\tilde{F}^{\mu\nu})p_{\nu}f_{\chi}-\frac{1}{p\cdot u}\tilde{F}^{\mu\nu}p_{\mu}u_{\nu}p^{\alpha}\nabla_{\alpha}^{(0)}f_{\chi}\right]+\mathcal{O}(\hbar^{2}).\label{eq:massless CKT}\end{aligned}$$ The kinetic equation agrees with the result of Refs. [@Hidaka:2016yjf; @Gao:2017gfq; @Huang:2018wdl]. In the classical limit $\hbar\rightarrow0$, only the first term survives and the equation is reduced to the well-known Boltzmann-Vlasov equation [@DeGroot:1980dk]. The vector and axial-vector currents can be recovered from the LH and RH currents as $$\mathcal{V}^{\mu}=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{\chi=\pm}\mathcal{J}_{\chi}^{\mu},\ \ \mathcal{A}^{\mu}=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{\chi=\pm}\chi\mathcal{J}_{\chi}^{\mu}.$$ We define the scalar distribution $V$ and the axial distribution $A$ as $$V\equiv\frac{1}{2}\sum_{\chi=\pm}f_{\chi},\ \ A\equiv\frac{1}{2}\sum_{\chi=\pm}\chi f_{\chi}.$$ Then we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{V}^{\mu} & = & \left[p^{\mu}V+\frac{\hbar}{2(p\cdot u)}\epsilon^{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}p_{\nu}u_{\alpha}\nabla_{\beta}^{(0)}A\right]\delta(p^{2})+\hbar\tilde{F}^{\mu\nu}p_{\nu}A\delta^{\prime}(p^{2})+\mathcal{O}(\hbar^{2}),\nonumber \\
\mathcal{A}^{\mu} & = & \left[p^{\mu}A+\frac{\hbar}{2(p\cdot u)}\epsilon^{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}p_{\nu}u_{\alpha}\nabla_{\beta}^{(0)}V\right]\delta(p^{2})+\hbar\tilde{F}^{\mu\nu}p_{\nu}V\delta^{\prime}(p^{2})+\mathcal{O}(\hbar^{2}),\label{sol:massless V and A}\end{aligned}$$ where the distributions $V$ and $A$ in general depend on the coordinates $\{x^{\mu},p^{\mu}\}$ in phase space. Here the vector $u^{\mu}$ plays the role of the reference frame, and $V$ , $A$ are identified as the net fermion and axial-charge distributions in the frame $u^{\mu}$, respectively [@Hidaka:2016yjf; @Huang:2018wdl; @Gao:2018jsi]. Note that $V$ and $A$ should depend on the choice of $u^{\mu}$ so that the whole currents $\mathcal{V}^{\mu}$, $\mathcal{A}^{\mu}$ are independent of $u^{\mu}$. In the massless case, the dependence on the reference frame is the result of the side-jump effect [@Chen:2014cla; @Hidaka:2016yjf]. In the next subsections we will prove that in the massive case the reference frame can be chosen as the rest frame of the particle and then the solution will not depend on the auxiliary vector $u^{\mu}$.
Massive case 1: taking vector and axial-vector components as basis\[subsec:Massive-case-1\]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this subsection we will focus on the massive case $m\neq0$. As discussed in Sec. \[sec:Overview-of-Wigner\], we can take either the vector and axial-vector components $\mathcal{V}^{\mu}$ and $\mathcal{A}^{\mu}$ or the rest ones $\mathcal{F}$, $\mathcal{P}$, and $\mathcal{S}^{\mu\nu}$ as basis functions. In this subsection, $\mathcal{V}^{\mu}$ and $\mathcal{A}^{\mu}$ are taken as basis, while $\mathcal{F}$, $\mathcal{P}$, and $\mathcal{S}^{\mu\nu}$ are derived from $\mathcal{V}^{\mu}$ and $\mathcal{A}^{\mu}$ as shown in Eq. (\[eq:FPS from VA\]).
In the massive case, $\mathcal{J}_{\chi}^{\mu}$ defined in (\[def:left- and right-handed currents\]) no longer have definite chirality but we still use $\mathcal{J}_{\chi}^{\mu}$ to represent the linear combination of $\mathcal{V}^{\mu}$ and $\mathcal{A}^{\mu}$. We first insert the expanded operators in Eq. (\[eq:semi-classical operators\]) into the on-shell condition (\[eq:on-shell equation for f\_pm\]). The zeroth- and the first-order parts read $$\begin{aligned}
\left(p^{2}-m^{2}\right)\mathcal{J}_{\chi}^{(0)\mu} & = & 0,\nonumber \\
\left(p^{2}-m^{2}\right)\mathcal{J}_{\chi}^{(1)}+\chi\tilde{F}_{\mu\nu}\mathcal{J}_{\chi}^{(0)\nu} & = & 0.\end{aligned}$$ The general nontrivial solution of these on-shell conditions is $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{J}_{\chi}^{(0)\mu} & = & f_{\chi}^{(0)\mu}\delta(p^{2}-m^{2}),\nonumber \\
\mathcal{J}_{\chi}^{(1)\mu} & = & f_{\chi}^{(1)\mu}\delta(p^{2}-m^{2})+\chi\tilde{F}^{\mu\nu}f_{\chi\nu}^{(0)}\delta^{\prime}(p^{2}-m^{2}),\end{aligned}$$ where $f_{\pm}^{(0)\mu}$ and $f_{\pm}^{(1)\mu}$ are arbitrary functions which are non-singular at $p^{2}-m^{2}=0$. We find that the zeroth-order solutions are on the mass-shell $p^{2}=m^{2}$, while the first-order ones have off-shell contributions. From the definition of $\mathcal{J}_{\chi}^{\mu}$ in (\[def:left- and right-handed currents\]) we can recover the vector and axial-vector currents. Up to the order $\hbar$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{V}^{\mu} & = & \delta(p^{2}-m^{2})\sum_{\chi=\pm}\left(f_{\chi}^{(0)\mu}+\hbar f_{\chi}^{(1)\mu}\right)+\hbar\tilde{F}^{\mu\nu}\delta^{\prime}(p^{2}-m^{2})\sum_{\chi=\pm}\chi f_{\chi\nu}^{(0)}+\mathcal{O}(\hbar^{2}),\nonumber \\
\mathcal{A}^{\mu} & = & \delta(p^{2}-m^{2})\sum_{\chi=\pm}\chi\left(f_{\chi}^{(0)\mu}+\hbar f_{\chi}^{(1)\mu}\right)+\hbar\tilde{F}^{\mu\nu}\delta^{\prime}(p^{2}-m^{2})\sum_{\chi=\pm}f_{\chi\nu}^{(0)}+\mathcal{O}(\hbar^{2}).\label{eq:solution of VA}\end{aligned}$$ The solutions should satisfy Eq. (\[eq:constraints for VA\]), which gives several constraints on the functions $f_{\chi}^{(0)\mu}$ and $f_{\chi}^{(1)\mu}$. Up to the first order in $\hbar$, the last line of Eq. (\[eq:constraints for VA\]) reads $$p_{[\mu}\left(\mathcal{V}_{\nu]}^{(0)}+\hbar\mathcal{V}_{\nu]}^{(1)}\right)+\frac{\hbar}{2}\epsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}\nabla^{(0)\alpha}\mathcal{A}^{(0)\beta}=\mathcal{O}(\hbar^{2}).\label{eq:massive constraint}$$ Substituting the vector and axial-vector currents (\[eq:solution of VA\]) into Eq. (\[eq:massive constraint\]), we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
& & \delta(p^{2}-m^{2})p_{[\mu}\sum_{\chi=\pm}\left(f_{\chi\nu]}^{(0)}+\hbar f_{\chi\nu]}^{(1)}\right)+\hbar p_{[\mu}\tilde{F}_{\nu]\alpha}\delta^{\prime}(p^{2}-m^{2})\sum_{\chi=\pm}\chi f_{\chi}^{(0)\alpha}\nonumber \\
& & \qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad+\frac{\hbar}{2}\epsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}\nabla^{(0)\alpha}\left[\delta(p^{2}-m^{2})\sum_{\chi=\pm}\chi f_{\chi}^{(0)\beta}\right]=0.\end{aligned}$$ Contracting this equation with $p^{\mu}$ and taking out different orders in $\hbar$ gives $$\begin{aligned}
0 & = & \delta(p^{2}-m^{2})\left[m^{2}\sum_{\chi=\pm}f_{\chi\nu}^{(0)}-p_{\nu}p^{\mu}\sum_{\chi=\pm}f_{\chi\mu}^{(0)}\right],\nonumber \\
0 & = & \delta(p^{2}-m^{2})\left[m^{2}\sum_{\chi=\pm}f_{\chi\nu}^{(1)}-p_{\nu}p^{\mu}\sum_{\chi=\pm}f_{\chi\mu}^{(1)}+\frac{1}{2}\epsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}p^{\mu}\nabla^{(0)\alpha}\sum_{\chi=\pm}\chi f_{\chi}^{(0)\beta}\right]\nonumber \\
& & +\delta^{\prime}(p^{2}-m^{2})\left[p^{2}\tilde{F}_{\nu\alpha}\sum_{\chi=\pm}\chi f_{\chi}^{(0)\alpha}-p_{\nu}p^{\mu}\tilde{F}_{\mu\alpha}\sum_{\chi=\pm}\chi f_{\chi}^{(0)\alpha}-p^{\mu}\epsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}F^{\alpha\gamma}p_{\gamma}\sum_{\chi=\pm}\chi f_{\chi}^{(0)\beta}\right].\nonumber \\
\label{eq:massive equation for f_chi}\end{aligned}$$ Now we define the distribution functions and polarization vectors using $f_{\chi}^{(0)\mu}$ and $f_{\chi}^{(1)\mu}$, $$\begin{aligned}
V^{(0)}\equiv\frac{1}{m^{2}}p_{\mu}\sum_{\chi=\pm}f_{\chi}^{(0)\mu}, & & V^{(1)}\equiv\frac{1}{m^{2}}p_{\mu}\sum_{\chi=\pm}f_{\chi}^{(1)\mu},\nonumber \\
n^{(0)\mu}\equiv\frac{1}{m}\sum_{\chi=\pm}\chi f_{\chi}^{(0)\mu}, & & n^{(1)\mu}\equiv\frac{1}{m}\sum_{\chi=\pm}\chi f_{\chi}^{(1)\mu}.\end{aligned}$$ Using these new functions, the solutions of Eq. (\[eq:massive equation for f\_chi\]) can be expressed as
$$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{\chi=\pm}f_{\chi}^{(0)\mu} & = & p^{\mu}V^{(0)}+(p^{2}-m^{2})g^{(0)\mu},\nonumber \\
\sum_{\chi=\pm}f_{\chi}^{(1)\mu} & = & p^{\mu}V^{(1)}+\frac{1}{2m}\epsilon^{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}p_{\nu}\nabla_{\alpha}^{(0)}n_{\beta}^{(0)}+\frac{p^{2}}{m(p^{2}-m^{2})}\tilde{F}^{\mu\nu}n_{\nu}^{(0)}\nonumber \\
& & -\frac{1}{m(p^{2}-m^{2})}p^{\mu}\tilde{F}_{\alpha\beta}p^{\alpha}n^{(0)\beta}+\frac{1}{m(p^{2}-m^{2})}\epsilon^{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}p_{\nu}F_{\alpha\gamma}p^{\gamma}n_{\beta}^{(0)}+(p^{2}-m^{2})g^{(1)\mu},\nonumber \\\end{aligned}$$
where we have used $\delta^{\prime}(x)=-\delta(x)/x$. Here $g_{\mu}^{(0)}$ and $g_{\mu}^{(1)}$ are functions which are non-singular on the mass-shell $p^{2}-m^{2}$. Since they are multiplied with $p^{2}-m^{2}$, they will not contribute to the vector component. In terms of $V^{(0)}$, $V^{(1)}$, $n^{(0)\mu}$, and $n^{(1)\mu}$, the solutions for $\mathcal{V}^{\mu}$ and $\mathcal{A}^{\mu}$ in Eq. (\[eq:solution of VA\]) are given by
$$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{V}^{\mu} & = & \delta(p^{2}-m^{2})\left[p^{\mu}\left(V^{(0)}+\hbar V^{(1)}\right)+\frac{\hbar}{2m}\epsilon^{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}\nabla_{\alpha}^{(0)}(p_{\nu}n_{\beta}^{(0)})\right]\nonumber \\
& & +\hbar\delta^{\prime}(p^{2}-m^{2})\left(\frac{1}{m}\epsilon^{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}p_{\alpha}n_{\beta}^{(0)}F_{\nu\gamma}p^{\gamma}+\frac{1}{2m}p^{\mu}\epsilon^{\nu\alpha\beta\gamma}p_{\nu}n_{\alpha}^{(0)}F_{\beta\gamma}\right),\nonumber \\
\mathcal{A}^{\mu} & = & \delta(p^{2}-m^{2})\left(mn^{(0)\mu}+\hbar mn^{(1)\mu}-\hbar\tilde{F}^{\mu\nu}g_{\nu}^{(0)}\right)+\hbar\tilde{F}^{\mu\nu}p_{\nu}V^{(0)}\delta^{\prime}(p^{2}-m^{2}).\end{aligned}$$
Now we define the resummed distribution $V$ and the resummed polarization $n^{\mu}$, $$\begin{aligned}
V & \equiv & V^{(0)}+\hbar V^{(1)}+\mathcal{O}(\hbar^{2}),\nonumber \\
n^{\mu} & \equiv & n^{(0)\mu}+\hbar n^{(1)\mu}-\frac{\hbar}{m}\tilde{F}^{\mu\nu}g_{\nu}^{(0)}+\mathcal{O}(\hbar^{2}),\end{aligned}$$ and for simplicity we also define the following dipole-moment tensor, $$\Sigma^{\mu\nu}\equiv-\frac{1}{m}\epsilon^{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}p_{\alpha}n_{\beta}.\label{eq:relation between Sigma and n}$$ Then the solutions for $\mathcal{V}^{\mu}$ and $\mathcal{A}^{\mu}$ can be rewritten as $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{V}^{\mu} & = & \delta(p^{2}-m^{2})\left[p^{\mu}V+\frac{\hbar}{2}\nabla_{\nu}^{(0)}\Sigma^{\mu\nu}\right]-\hbar\delta^{\prime}(p^{2}-m^{2})\left(\Sigma^{\mu\alpha}F_{\alpha\beta}p^{\beta}+\frac{1}{2}p^{\mu}\Sigma^{\alpha\beta}F_{\alpha\beta}\right)+\mathcal{O}(\hbar^{2}),\nonumber \\
\mathcal{A}^{\mu} & = & \delta(p^{2}-m^{2})mn^{\mu}+\hbar\tilde{F}^{\mu\nu}p_{\nu}V\delta^{\prime}(p^{2}-m^{2})+\mathcal{O}(\hbar^{2}).\label{eq:massive solutions VA}\end{aligned}$$ Inserting them into Eq. (\[eq:FPS from VA\]) we obtain the scalar, pseudo-scalar and tensor components $\mathcal{F}$, $\mathcal{P}$, and $\mathcal{S}^{\mu\nu}$
$$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{F} & = & m\left[\delta(p^{2}-m^{2})V-\frac{\hbar}{2}\Sigma^{\mu\nu}F_{\mu\nu}\delta^{\prime}(p^{2}-m^{2})\right]+\mathcal{O}(\hbar^{2}),\nonumber \\
\mathcal{P} & = & -\delta(p^{2}-m^{2})\frac{\hbar}{2}\nabla^{\mu}n_{\mu}+\hbar F^{\mu\nu}p_{\nu}n_{\mu}\delta^{\prime}(p^{2}-m^{2})+\mathcal{O}(\hbar^{2}),\nonumber \\
\mathcal{S}_{\mu\nu} & = & \delta(p^{2}-m^{2})\left(m\Sigma_{\mu\nu}-\frac{\hbar}{2m}p_{[\mu}\nabla_{\nu]}V\right)-m\hbar F_{\mu\nu}V\delta^{\prime}(p^{2}-m^{2})+\mathcal{O}(\hbar^{2}).\label{eq:massive solutions FPS}\end{aligned}$$
Here the undetermined functions are $V$ and $n^{\mu}$. In the classical limit $\hbar\rightarrow0$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{V}^{\mu} & \rightarrow & p^{\mu}V\delta(p^{2}-m^{2}),\nonumber \\
\mathcal{A}^{\mu} & \rightarrow & mn^{\mu}\delta(p^{2}-m^{2}).\end{aligned}$$ Thus $V$ can be interpreted as the fermion number distribution and $n^{\mu}$ as the polarization density. Substituting the solutions (\[eq:massive solutions VA\]) into the second line of Eq. (\[eq:constraints for VA\]), one obtains a constraint for $n^{\mu}$, $$\delta(p^{2}-m^{2})p_{\mu}n^{\mu}=\mathcal{O}(\hbar^{2}),$$ which can be identified as a requirement for the spin: for massive particles, their spins must be perpendicular to their momenta. On the other hand, the kinetic equation for $V$ can be derived from the first line of Eq. (\[eq:constraints for VA\]). Up to the order $\hbar^{2}$, we obtain $$\hbar\nabla^{(0)\mu}\left(\mathcal{V}_{\mu}^{(0)}+\hbar\mathcal{V}_{\mu}^{(1)}\right)=\mathcal{O}(\hbar^{2}).$$ Replacing the vector components by the solution (\[eq:massive solutions VA\]), we obtain the following kinetic equation
$$\delta(p^{2}-m^{2})\left[p^{\mu}\nabla_{\mu}^{(0)}V+\frac{\hbar}{4}(\partial_{x\alpha}F_{\mu\nu})\partial_{p}^{\alpha}\Sigma^{\mu\nu}\right]-\frac{\hbar}{2}\delta^{\prime}(p^{2}-m^{2})F_{\alpha\beta}p^{\mu}\nabla_{\mu}^{(0)}\Sigma^{\alpha\beta}=0.\label{eq:kinetic equation for V}$$
In the classical limit $\hbar\rightarrow0$, this kinetic equation is reduced to the Boltzmann-Vlasov equation [@DeGroot:1980dk]. On the other hand, an addition kinetic equation is necessary to determine $n^{\mu}$, which can be derived from the last line of Eq. (\[eq:constraints for VA\]) by contracting with $\epsilon^{\rho\sigma\mu\nu}p_{\sigma}$. We also have another approach to derive the kinetic equation for $n^{\mu}$. In Sec. \[sec:Overview-of-Wigner\] we have listed all Vlasov equations in Eq. (\[eq:decomposed Vlasov\]), where the one for the axial-vector component reads, $$p_{\nu}\nabla^{(0)\nu}\mathcal{A}_{\mu}-F_{\mu\nu}\mathcal{A}^{\nu}-\frac{\hbar}{2}(\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\tilde{F}_{\mu\nu})\partial_{p\alpha}\mathcal{V}^{\nu}=\mathcal{O}(\hbar^{2}).\label{eq:massive kinetic VA}$$ Substituting $\mathcal{V}^{\mu}$ and $\mathcal{A}^{\mu}$ by those in Eq. (\[eq:massive solutions VA\]), Eq. (\[eq:massive kinetic VA\]) gives the following kinetic equation for $n^{\mu}$,
$$\delta(p^{2}-m^{2})\left[p_{\nu}\nabla^{(0)\nu}n_{\mu}-F_{\mu\nu}n^{\nu}-\frac{\hbar}{2m}(\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\tilde{F}_{\mu\nu})p^{\nu}\partial_{p\alpha}V\right]+\frac{\hbar}{m}\delta^{\prime}(p^{2}-m^{2})\tilde{F}_{\mu\alpha}p^{\alpha}p_{\nu}\nabla^{(0)\nu}V=0.\label{eq:kinetic equation for n_mu}$$
In the classical limit $\hbar\rightarrow0$, it reproduces the Bargmann-Michel-Telegdi equation [@Bargmann:1959gz] for the classical spin precession in an electromagnetic field.
Massive case 2: taking scalar, pseudo-scalar, and tensor components as basis\[subsec:Massive-case-2\]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this subsection we will take the scalar, pseudo-scalar, and tensor components $\mathcal{F}$, $\mathcal{P}$, and $\mathcal{S}^{\mu\nu}$ as basis functions and solve the Wigner function in the massive case. The remaining components, the vector and axial-vector ones $\mathcal{V}^{\mu}$, $\mathcal{A}^{\mu}$ are then given by Eq. (\[eq:VA from FPS\]). We start from the zeroth order in $\hbar$. At this order, the on-shell conditions (\[eq:decomposed on-shell\]) read $$\begin{aligned}
\left(p^{2}-m^{2}\right)\mathcal{F}^{(0)} & = & 0,\nonumber \\
\left(p^{2}-m^{2}\right)\mathcal{P}^{(0)} & = & 0,\nonumber \\
\left(p^{2}-m^{2}\right)\mathcal{S}_{\mu\nu}^{(0)} & = & 0,\end{aligned}$$ which means that the zeroth-order functions are on the normal mass shell $p^{2}-m^{2}=0$. The corresponding constraint conditions (\[eq:constraints of FPS\]) are $$\begin{aligned}
p^{\nu}\mathcal{S}_{\nu\mu}^{(0)} & = & 0,\nonumber \\
p_{\mu}\mathcal{P}^{(0)} & = & 0.\label{eq:zeroth order constraint}\end{aligned}$$ Then we obtain the following general solutions $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{F}^{(0)} & = & mV^{(0)}\delta(p^{2}-m^{2}),\nonumber \\
\mathcal{P}^{(0)} & = & 0,\nonumber \\
\mathcal{S}_{\mu\nu}^{(0)} & = & m\Sigma_{\mu\nu}^{(0)}\delta(p^{2}-m^{2}),\label{eq:massive zeroth order FPS}\end{aligned}$$ where $V^{(0)}$ and $\Sigma_{\mu\nu}^{(0)}$ are now arbitrary functions of the phase-space position $\{x^{\mu},p^{\mu}\}$. In order to satisfy the on-shell condition, $V^{(0)}$ and $\Sigma_{\mu\nu}^{(0)}$ should not have any singularities for an on-shell momentum $p^{2}=m^{2}$. We also demand that $$\delta(p^{2}-m^{2})\Sigma^{(0)\mu\nu}p_{\nu}=0,\label{eq:constraint for Sigma 0}$$ in order to satisfy the constraint condition for $\mathcal{S}_{\mu\nu}^{(0)}$ in Eq. (\[eq:zeroth order constraint\]). Since the Wigner function has the dimension of the energy, we find that both $V^{(0)}$ and $\Sigma_{\mu\nu}^{(0)}$ are dimensionless. Recalling that $\mathcal{F}$ is interpreted as the mass density, $V^{(0)}$ is then identified as the zeroth-order fermion number distribution. And $\Sigma_{\mu\nu}^{(0)}$ is the dimensionless zeroth-order dipole-moment tensor. Due to the second line of the constraint equation (\[eq:zeroth order constraint\]), the pseudoscalar component vanishes at the zeroth order in $\hbar$.
The first-order on-shell conditions (\[eq:decomposed on-shell\]) read $$\begin{aligned}
\left(p^{2}-m^{2}\right)\mathcal{F}^{(1)}-\frac{1}{2}F_{\mu\nu}\mathcal{S}^{(0)\mu\nu} & = & 0,\nonumber \\
\left(p^{2}-m^{2}\right)\mathcal{P}^{(1)}-\frac{1}{4}\epsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}F^{\mu\nu}\mathcal{S}^{(0)\alpha\beta} & = & 0,\nonumber \\
\left(p^{2}-m^{2}\right)\mathcal{S}_{\mu\nu}^{(1)}-F_{\mu\nu}\mathcal{F}^{(0)}+\frac{1}{2}\epsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}F^{\alpha\beta}\mathcal{P}^{(0)} & = & 0.\end{aligned}$$ Inserting the zeroth-order solutions (\[eq:massive zeroth order FPS\]), we obtain the following general solutions at the first order in $\hbar$, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{F}^{(1)} & = & m\left[V^{(1)}\delta(p^{2}-m^{2})-\frac{1}{2}F_{\mu\nu}\Sigma^{(0)\mu\nu}\delta^{\prime}(p^{2}-m^{2})\right],\nonumber \\
\mathcal{P}^{(1)} & = & m\left[G^{(1)}\delta(p^{2}-m^{2})-\frac{1}{2}\tilde{F}_{\mu\nu}\Sigma^{(0)\mu\nu}\delta^{\prime}(p^{2}-m^{2})\right],\nonumber \\
\mathcal{S}_{\mu\nu}^{(1)} & = & m\left[\Sigma_{\mu\nu}^{(1)}\delta(p^{2}-m^{2})-F_{\mu\nu}V^{(0)}\delta^{\prime}(p^{2}-m^{2})\right],\label{eq:massive first order FPS}\end{aligned}$$ where $\tilde{F}_{\mu\nu}\equiv\frac{1}{2}\epsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}F^{\alpha\beta}$ is the dual field tensor. Here $V^{(1)}$, $G^{(1)}$, and $\Sigma_{\mu\nu}^{(1)}$ are to be determined, which are dimensionless and non-singular on the mass-shell $p^{2}=m^{2}$. The first-order part of constraint equations (\[eq:constraints of FPS\]) read $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{2}\nabla_{\mu}^{(0)}\mathcal{F}^{(0)}+p^{\nu}\mathcal{S}_{\nu\mu}^{(1)} & = & 0,\nonumber \\
p_{\mu}\mathcal{P}^{(1)}+\frac{1}{4}\epsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}\nabla^{(0)\nu}\mathcal{S}^{(0)\alpha\beta} & = & 0.\end{aligned}$$ Substituting the zeroth-order and first-order functions by the general solutions in (\[eq:massive zeroth order FPS\]) and (\[eq:massive first order FPS\]), we obtain
$$\delta(p^{2}-m^{2})\left[p^{\nu}\Sigma_{\mu\nu}^{(1)}-\frac{1}{2}\nabla_{\mu}^{(0)}V^{(0)}\right]=0,\label{eq:constraint for Sigma 1}$$
and $$\begin{aligned}
0 & = & \delta(p^{2}-m^{2})\left[p_{\mu}G^{(1)}+\frac{1}{4}\epsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}\nabla^{(0)\nu}\Sigma^{(0)\alpha\beta}\right]\nonumber \\
& & -\frac{1}{4}\left[p_{\mu}\epsilon_{\alpha\beta\nu\gamma}+p_{\gamma}\epsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}-p_{\nu}\epsilon_{\mu\gamma\alpha\beta}\right]F^{\nu\gamma}\Sigma^{(0)\alpha\beta}\delta^{\prime}(p^{2}-m^{2}).\label{eq:constaint G1}\end{aligned}$$ Then using the Schouten identity in (\[eq:Schouten identity-1\]) to simplify the second line of Eq. (\[eq:constaint G1\]) and we obtain a constraint equation for $G^{(1)}$ $$\delta(p^{2}-m^{2})\left[p_{\mu}G^{(1)}+\frac{1}{4}\epsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}\nabla^{(0)\nu}\Sigma^{(0)\alpha\beta}\right]+\tilde{F}_{\mu\nu}\Sigma^{(0)\nu\alpha}p_{\alpha}\delta^{\prime}(p^{2}-m^{2})=0,\label{eq:constraint equation for G1}$$ which leads to a solution $$G^{(1)}=-\frac{1}{4m^{2}}\epsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}p^{\mu}\nabla^{(0)\nu}\Sigma^{(0)\alpha\beta}+\frac{1}{m^{2}(p^{2}-m^{2})}p^{\mu}\tilde{F}_{\mu\nu}\Sigma^{(0)\nu\alpha}p_{\alpha}.$$ Since the zeroth-order dipole-moment tensor $\Sigma^{(0)\nu\alpha}$ satisfies Eq. (\[eq:constraint for Sigma 0\]), we find that $G^{(1)}$ is not singular on the mass-shell $p^{2}-m^{2}=0$, which agrees with our requirement. Then we can prove that the pseudo-scalar component $\mathcal{P}^{(1)}$ can be written as
$$\mathcal{P}^{(1)}=\frac{1}{4m}\nabla^{(0)\mu}\left[\epsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}p^{\nu}\Sigma^{(0)\alpha\beta}\delta(p^{2}-m^{2})\right].$$
Thus up to the order $\hbar$, the undetermined functions are $V^{(0)}$, $V^{(1)}$, $\Sigma_{\mu\nu}^{(0)}$, and $\Sigma_{\mu\nu}^{(1)}$.
Now we define the resummed functions $$\begin{aligned}
V & \equiv & V^{(0)}+\hbar V^{(1)}+\mathcal{O}(\hbar^{2}),\nonumber \\
\Sigma_{\mu\nu} & \equiv & \Sigma_{\mu\nu}^{(0)}+\hbar\Sigma_{\mu\nu}^{(1)}+\frac{\hbar}{2m^{2}}p_{[\mu}\nabla_{\nu]}^{(0)}V+\mathcal{O}(\hbar^{2}).\label{eq:resummed functions}\end{aligned}$$ Here in the definition of the resummed dipole-moment tensor we add an additional term $\frac{\hbar}{2m^{2}}p_{[\mu}\nabla_{\nu]}^{(0)}V$ so that the final results are comparable with the ones in the previous subsection. In terms of these resummed functions, the up-to-$\hbar$-order solutions for the scalar, pseudo-scalar, and tensor components are written as $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{F} & = & m\left[V\delta(p^{2}-m^{2})-\frac{\hbar}{2}F_{\mu\nu}\Sigma^{\mu\nu}\delta^{\prime}(p^{2}-m^{2})\right]+\mathcal{O}(\hbar^{2}),\nonumber \\
\mathcal{P} & = & \frac{\hbar}{4m}\nabla^{(0)\mu}\left[\epsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}p^{\nu}\Sigma^{\alpha\beta}\delta(p^{2}-m^{2})\right]+\mathcal{O}(\hbar^{2}),\nonumber \\
\mathcal{S}_{\mu\nu} & = & \delta(p^{2}-m^{2})\left(m\Sigma_{\mu\nu}-\frac{\hbar}{2m}p_{[\mu}\nabla_{\nu]}^{(0)}V\right)-m\hbar F_{\mu\nu}V\delta^{\prime}(p^{2}-m^{2})+\mathcal{O}(\hbar^{2}).\label{eq:order hbar solutions of FPS}\end{aligned}$$ The resummed dipole-moment tensor $\Sigma_{\mu\nu}$ satisfies the following constraint equation, which is derived from Eqs. (\[eq:constraint for Sigma 0\]) and (\[eq:constraint for Sigma 1\]) $$\delta(p^{2}-m^{2})\left(\Sigma_{\mu\nu}p^{\nu}-\frac{\hbar}{2m^{2}}p_{\mu}p^{\nu}\nabla_{\nu}^{(0)}V\right)=\mathcal{O}(\hbar^{2}).\label{eq:constraint resummed Sigma}$$ On the other hand, from Eq. (\[eq:decomposed Vlasov\]) we obtain the Vlasov equations for $\mathcal{F}$ and $\mathcal{S}_{\mu\nu}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\hbar p_{\mu}\nabla^{(0)\mu}\mathcal{F}+\frac{\hbar^{2}}{4}(\partial_{x}^{\alpha}F_{\mu\nu})\partial_{p\alpha}\mathcal{S}^{\mu\nu} & = & \mathcal{O}(\hbar^{3}).\nonumber \\
\hbar p_{\alpha}\nabla^{(0)\alpha}\mathcal{S}_{\mu\nu}-\hbar F_{\ [\mu}^{\alpha}\mathcal{S}_{\nu]\alpha}+\frac{\hbar^{2}}{2}(\partial_{x}^{\alpha}F_{\mu\nu})\partial_{p\alpha}\mathcal{F}-\frac{\hbar^{2}}{4}\epsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}(\partial_{x}^{\gamma}F^{\alpha\beta})\partial_{p\gamma}\mathcal{P} & = & \mathcal{O}(\hbar^{3}).\end{aligned}$$ Here the Vlasov equation for the pseudo-scalar component $\mathcal{P}$ is not listed because it does not contain any new undetermined function. Inserting the solutions (\[eq:order hbar solutions of FPS\]) into the above Vlasov equations, we obtain
$$\begin{aligned}
\delta(p^{2}-m^{2})\left[p_{\mu}\nabla^{(0)\mu}V+\frac{\hbar}{4}(\partial_{x}^{\alpha}F_{\mu\nu})\partial_{p\alpha}\Sigma^{\mu\nu}\right]-\frac{\hbar}{2}\delta^{\prime}(p^{2}-m^{2})F_{\mu\nu}p_{\alpha}\nabla^{(0)\alpha}\Sigma^{\mu\nu} & = & \mathcal{O}(\hbar^{2}).\nonumber \\
\delta(p^{2}-m^{2})\left[p_{\alpha}\nabla^{(0)\alpha}\bar{\Sigma}_{\mu\nu}-F_{\ [\mu}^{\alpha}\bar{\Sigma}_{\nu]\alpha}+\frac{\hbar}{2}(\partial_{x}^{\alpha}F_{\mu\nu})\partial_{p\alpha}V\right]-\delta^{\prime}(p^{2}-m^{2})\hbar F_{\mu\nu}p_{\alpha}\nabla^{(0)\alpha}V & = & \mathcal{O}(\hbar^{2}).\nonumber \\
\label{eq:massive kinetic equations}\end{aligned}$$ where in the second line $\bar{\Sigma}_{\mu\nu}\equiv\Sigma_{\mu\nu}-\frac{\hbar}{2m^{2}}p_{[\mu}\nabla_{\nu]}^{(0)}V$. This redefinition does not introduce new functions but it makes the Vlasov equations more concise. With the help of the Vlasov equation for $V$, we find that the constraint equation (\[eq:constraint resummed Sigma\]) for $\Sigma_{\mu\nu}$ can be further simplified, $$\delta(p^{2}-m^{2})\Sigma_{\mu\nu}p^{\nu}=\mathcal{O}(\hbar^{2}).\label{eq:constraint equation for Sigma}$$ This means that the dipole-moment tensor is perpendicular to the momentum. The vector and axial-vector components are calculated using Eq. (\[eq:VA from FPS\]). Up to the order $\hbar$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{V}_{\mu} & = & \delta(p^{2}-m^{2})\left[p_{\mu}V+\frac{\hbar}{2}\nabla^{(0)\nu}\Sigma_{\mu\nu}\right]-\hbar\delta^{\prime}(p^{2}-m^{2})\left[\frac{1}{2}F_{\alpha\beta}\Sigma^{\alpha\beta}p_{\mu}+\Sigma_{\mu\nu}F^{\nu\alpha}p_{\alpha}\right]+\mathcal{O}(\hbar^{2}),\nonumber \\
\mathcal{A}_{\mu} & = & -\frac{1}{2}\epsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}p^{\nu}\Sigma^{\alpha\beta}\delta(p^{2}-m^{2})+\hbar\tilde{F}_{\mu\nu}p^{\nu}V\delta^{\prime}(p^{2}-m^{2})+\mathcal{O}(\hbar^{2}).\label{eq:VA from FPS-1}\end{aligned}$$ The solutions in (\[eq:order hbar solutions of FPS\]) and (\[eq:VA from FPS-1\]) provide all components of the Wigner function. Defining $$n_{\mu}\equiv-\frac{1}{2m}\epsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}p^{\nu}\Sigma^{\alpha\beta},$$ the axial-vector component can be written as $$\mathcal{A}_{\mu}=mn_{\mu}\delta(p^{2}-m^{2})+\hbar\tilde{F}_{\mu\nu}p^{\nu}V\delta^{\prime}(p^{2}-m^{2})+\mathcal{O}(\hbar^{2}).$$ The kinetic equation for $n_{\mu}$ can be derived by acting the operator $p_{\alpha}\nabla^{(0)\alpha}$ onto the definition of $n_{\mu}$, and then using the second line of Eq. (\[eq:massive kinetic equations\]). A carefully calculation reproduces Eq. (\[eq:kinetic equation for n\_mu\]). Hence the results in this subsection, i.e., Eqs. (\[eq:order hbar solutions of FPS\]), (\[eq:VA from FPS-1\]), and (\[eq:massive kinetic equations\]), coincide with the results in the previous subsection \[subsec:Massive-case-1\], i.e., Eqs. (\[eq:massive solutions VA\]), (\[eq:massive solutions FPS\]), (\[eq:kinetic equation for V\]), and (\[eq:kinetic equation for n\_mu\]).
In the classical limit $\hbar\rightarrow0$, the solutions (\[eq:order hbar solutions of FPS\]) and (\[eq:VA from FPS-1\]) coincide with the results from the first-principle calculations in Sec. \[sec:Analytically-solvable-cases\]. So the analytical solutions give a constructive suggestion for the undetermined functions. In practice, one assumes that the undetermined functions takes their equilibrium form, i.e., they are solutions of the collisionless Boltzmann-Vlasov equation. However, the equilibrium form of $V$ at order $\hbar$ is still under debate. In Ref. [@Weickgenannt:2019dks] we proposed a possible equilibrium distribution but it can only be used in very limited cases. This is because we have neglected the momentum dependence of the dipole-moment tensor. But in real cases, the dipole-moment tensor should be computed from its kinetic equation and thus in general depends on $x^{\mu}$ and $p^{\mu}$. A self-consistent treatment for the kinetic equations in Eq. (\[eq:massive kinetic equations\]) has not been done yet.
Ambiguity of functions\[subsec:Ambiguity-of-functions\]
-------------------------------------------------------
Comparing the results in subsection \[subsec:Massive-case-1\] with that in subsection \[subsec:Massive-case-2\], we find that even though in these subsections we start from different points, the final solutions as well as the corresponding kinetic equations and constraint equations are exactly the same. This agrees with our expectation that the Wigner function should have only one solution. Although the Wigner function has 16 components, the solutions up to the first order in $\hbar$ only depends on four functions $V$ and $n_{\mu}$ (note here that $n_{\mu}$ is a 4-vector which is perpendicular to $p_{\mu}$, so it only has three components). In this section we will first analyze the Wigner function as an eigenvalue problem, which will clearly show why there are only four independent degrees of freedom. Then we will discuss the ambiguity of the undetermined functions, where we find some transformations which change the basis functions without changing the Wigner function. We will also show in this subsection how to smoothly reproduce the massless results from the massive ones.
### eigenvalue problem
We first focus on the Dirac-form equation for the Wigner function in Eq. (\[eq:Dirac equation for Wigner\]). The leading two orders in $\hbar$ read $$(\gamma^{\mu}p_{\mu}-m)\left(W^{(0)}+\hbar W^{(1)}\right)=-\frac{i\hbar}{2}\gamma^{\mu}\nabla_{\mu}^{(0)}W^{(0)}+\mathcal{O}(\hbar^{2}).\label{eq:eigen-value equation}$$ Here we have moved the spatial gradient term to the right-hand-side of the equation. Since the Wigner function has 16 components as shown in Eq. (\[def:Wigner function decomposition\]), we now put these components in a column vector as follows $$w(x,p)\equiv\left(\mathcal{F},\,\mathcal{P},\,\mathcal{V}^{0},\:\mathcal{V}^{1},\:\mathcal{V}^{2},\:\mathcal{V}^{3},\,\mathcal{A}^{0},\,\mathcal{A}^{1},\,\mathcal{A}^{2},\,\mathcal{A}^{3},\,\mathcal{S}^{01},\,\mathcal{S}^{02},\,\mathcal{S}^{03},\,\mathcal{S}^{23},\,\mathcal{S}^{31},\,\mathcal{S}^{12}\right)^{T}.$$ These component can be derived from the Wigner function by multiplying with $\Gamma_{i}=\{\mathbb{I}_{4},\ i\gamma^{5},\ \gamma^{\mu},\ \gamma^{5}\gamma^{\mu},\ \frac{1}{2}\sigma^{\mu\nu}\}$ and then taking the trace. Then Eq. (\[eq:eigen-value equation\]) can be written as $$(M-m\mathbb{I}_{16})\,w(x,p)=\hbar\delta w,\label{eq:eigen-value equation-1}$$ where $\mathbb{I}_{16}$ is a $16$-dimensional unit matrix, $\delta w$ represents the order-$\hbar$ correction that can be calculated from the left-hand-side of Eq. (\[eq:eigen-value equation\]). In this section we only focus on the properties of the solution, thus we will not list the exact formula for $\delta w$. The vector $w(x,p)$ contains both the zeroth order and first order contributions. The coefficient matrix $M$ is a $16\times16$ complex matrix given by
[ $$M=\left(\begin{array}{cccccccccccccccc}
0 & 0 & p^{0} & -p_{x} & -p_{y} & -p_{z} & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & ip^{0} & -ip_{x} & -ip_{y} & -ip_{z} & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
p^{0} & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & -ip_{x} & -ip_{y} & -ip_{z} & 0 & 0 & 0\\
p_{x} & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & -ip^{0} & 0 & 0 & 0 & -ip_{z} & ip_{y}\\
p_{y} & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & -ip^{0} & 0 & ip_{z} & 0 & -ip_{x}\\
p_{z} & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & -ip^{0} & -ip_{y} & ip_{x} & 0\\
0 & -ip^{0} & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & p_{x} & p_{y} & p_{z}\\
0 & -ip_{x} & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & -p_{z} & p_{y} & p^{0} & 0 & 0\\
0 & -ip_{y} & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & p_{x} & 0 & -p_{x} & 0 & p^{0} & 0\\
0 & -ip_{z} & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & -p_{y} & p_{x} & 0 & 0 & 0 & p^{0}\\
0 & 0 & -ip_{x} & ip^{0} & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & -p_{z} & p_{y} & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & -ip_{y} & 0 & ip^{0} & 0 & 0 & p_{z} & 0 & -p_{x} & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & -ip_{z} & 0 & 0 & ip^{0} & 0 & -p_{y} & p_{x} & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & ip_{z} & -ip_{y} & -p_{x} & p^{0} & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & -ip_{z} & 0 & ip_{x} & -p_{y} & 0 & p^{0} & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & ip_{y} & -ip_{x} & 0 & -p_{z} & 0 & 0 & p^{0} & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0
\end{array}\right).$$ ]{}The solution of Eq. (\[eq:eigen-value equation-1\]) can be decomposed into one special solution and several general solutions, where the general solutions are solved by taking $\delta w\rightarrow0$. In the limit $\delta w\rightarrow0$, Eq. (\[eq:eigen-value equation-1\]) is the characteristic equation for the matrix $M$, with $m$ the eigenvalue and $w$ the corresponding eigenvector. This characteristic equation has a nontrivial solution if and only if the determinant of its coefficient matrix vanishes $$\det(M-m\mathbb{I}_{16})=0,$$ which gives $$(p^{2}-m^{2})^{8}=0.$$ So the matrix $M$ has eight positive eigenvalues $m=\sqrt{p^{2}}$ and eight negative ones $m=-\sqrt{p^{2}}$. In real cases the particle’s mass is positive, thus the negative eigenvalues are non-physical. For the positive eigenvalues, we can find the following eigenvectors [ $$\begin{aligned}
v_{1} & = & \left(\begin{array}{cccccccccccccccc}
m, & 0, & p^{0}, & p_{x}, & p_{y}, & p_{z}, & 0, & 0, & 0, & 0, & 0, & 0, & 0, & 0, & 0, & 0\end{array}\right),\nonumber \\
v_{2} & = & \left(\begin{array}{cccccccccccccccc}
0, & im, & 0, & 0, & 0, & 0, & p^{0}, & p_{x}, & p_{y}, & p_{z}, & 0, & 0, & 0, & 0, & 0, & 0\end{array}\right),\nonumber \\
v_{3} & = & \left(\begin{array}{cccccccccccccccc}
0, & -imp_{x}, & -ip_{y}p_{z}, & 0, & -ip^{0}p_{z}, & 0, & -p^{0}p_{x}, & -(p_{x}^{2}+p_{z}^{2}), & -p_{x}p_{y}, & 0, & 0, & mp_{z}, & 0, & 0, & 0, & 0\end{array}\right),\nonumber \\
v_{4} & = & \left(\begin{array}{cccccccccccccccc}
0, & imp_{y}, & -ip_{x}p_{z}, & -ip^{0}p_{z}, & 0, & 0, & p^{0}p_{y}, & p_{x}p_{y}, & p_{y}^{2}+p_{z}^{2}, & 0, & mp_{z}, & 0, & 0, & 0, & 0, & 0\end{array}\right),\nonumber \\
v_{5} & = & \left(\begin{array}{cccccccccccccccc}
0, & -imp^{0}, & 0, & ip_{y}p_{z}, & -ip_{x}p_{z}, & 0, & -(p^{0})^{2}+p_{z}^{2}, & -p^{0}p_{x}, & -p^{0}p_{y}, & 0, & 0, & 0, & 0, & 0, & 0, & mp_{z}\end{array}\right),\nonumber \\
v_{6} & = & \left(\begin{array}{cccccccccccccccc}
imp^{0}, & 0, & i(p^{0})^{2}-ip_{z}^{2}, & ip^{0}p_{x}, & ip^{0}p_{y}, & 0, & 0, & p_{y}p_{z}, & -p_{x}p_{z}, & 0, & 0, & 0, & mp_{z}, & 0, & 0, & 0\end{array}\right),\nonumber \\
v_{7} & = & \left(\begin{array}{cccccccccccccccc}
-imp_{x}, & 0, & -ip^{0}p_{x}, & -i(p_{x}^{2}+p_{z}^{2}), & -ip_{x}p_{y}, & 0, & p_{y}p_{z}, & 0, & p^{0}p_{z}, & 0, & 0, & 0, & 0, & 0, & mp_{z}, & 0\end{array}\right),\nonumber \\
v_{8} & = & \left(\begin{array}{cccccccccccccccc}
imp_{y}, & 0, & ip^{0}p_{y}, & ip_{x}p_{y}, & i(p_{y}^{2}+p_{z}^{2}), & 0, & p_{x}p_{z}, & p^{0}p_{z}, & 0, & 0, & 0, & 0, & 0, & mp_{z}, & 0, & 0\end{array}\right).\end{aligned}$$ ]{}Note that these vectors are neither properly normalized nor orthogonal to each other. The general solution for $w$ can be written in terms of the above eigenvectors, $$w=\sum_{i=1}^{8}c_{i}v_{i}.$$ The property of the Wigner function tells us that all components $\mathcal{F}$, $\mathcal{P}$, $\mathcal{V}^{\mu}$, $\mathcal{A}^{\mu}$, and $\mathcal{S}^{\mu\nu}$ are real functions, but the eigenvectors $v_{i}$ with $i=2,3,\cdots,8$ are complex vectors. In order to make sure all the components of $w$ are real, we can obtain the following constraints for coefficients $c_{i}$, $$\begin{aligned}
p^{0}c_{6}-p_{x}c_{7}-p_{y}c_{8} & = & 0,\nonumber \\
c_{2}-p_{x}c_{3}+p_{y}c_{4}-p^{0}c_{5} & = & 0,\nonumber \\
-p_{y}p_{z}c_{3}-p_{x}p_{z}c_{4}+\left[(p^{0})^{2}-p_{z}^{2}\right]c_{6}-p^{0}p_{x}c_{7}+p^{0}p_{y}c_{8} & = & 0,\nonumber \\
-p^{0}p_{z}c_{4}+p_{y}p_{z}c_{5}+p^{0}p_{x}c_{6}-(p_{x}^{2}+p_{z}^{2})c_{7}+p_{x}p_{y}c_{8} & = & 0,\nonumber \\
-p^{0}p_{z}c_{3}-p_{x}p_{z}c_{5}+p^{0}p_{y}c_{6}-p_{x}p_{y}c_{7}+(p_{y}^{2}+p_{z}^{2})c_{8} & = & 0.\end{aligned}$$ Using these constraints, the coefficients $c_{5}$, $c_{6}$, $c_{7}$, and $c_{8}$ can be expressed in terms of $c_{2}$, $c_{3}$, and $c_{4}$, $$\begin{aligned}
c_{5}=\frac{c_{2}-p_{x}c_{3}+p_{y}c_{4}}{p^{0}}, & & c_{6}=-\frac{p_{y}c_{3}+p_{z}c_{4}}{p_{z}},\nonumber \\
c_{7}=\frac{p_{y}c_{2}-p_{x}p_{y}c_{3}-(m^{2}+p_{x}^{2}+p_{z}^{2})c_{4}}{p^{0}p_{z}}, & & c_{8}=\frac{p_{x}c_{2}+(m^{2}+p_{y}^{2}+p_{z}^{2})c_{3}+p_{x}p_{y}c_{4}}{p^{0}p_{z}}.\end{aligned}$$ If the coefficients do not satisfy these relations, then the vector $\sum_{i=1}^{8}c_{i}v_{i}$ may have an imaginary part, which cannot be a correct solution for the Wigner function. So in order to construct the general solution of $w(x,p)$, we only need four parameters $c_{i}$ with $i=1,2,3,4$. This means the general order-$\hbar$ solution has only four independent degrees of freedom, which agrees with the conclusion of the previous subsections \[subsec:Massive-case-1\] and \[subsec:Massive-case-2\].
### Shift of mass-shell
In this section we will show how the energies of the particles are shifted by the coupling between the electromagnetic field and the dipole moment. First we find that the solutions (\[eq:order hbar solutions of FPS\]) and (\[eq:VA from FPS-1\]) are invariant under transformations $$\begin{aligned}
\widehat{\Sigma}_{\mu\nu} & = & \Sigma_{\mu\nu}+(p^{2}-m^{2})\delta\Sigma_{\mu\nu},\nonumber \\
\widehat{V} & = & V-\frac{\hbar}{2}F^{\mu\nu}\delta\Sigma_{\mu\nu},\label{eq:off-shell-trans-1}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\widehat{V} & = & V+(p^{2}-m^{2})\delta V,\nonumber \\
\widehat{\Sigma}_{\mu\nu} & = & \Sigma_{\mu\nu}-\hbar F_{\mu\nu}\delta V-\frac{\hbar}{m^{2}}p_{[\mu}F_{\nu]\alpha}p^{\alpha}\delta V.\label{eq:off-shell-trans-2}\end{aligned}$$ Here $\delta\Sigma_{\mu\nu}$ and $\delta V$ are arbitrary functions which should be non-singular on the mass-shell $p^{2}=m^{2}$. The invariance can be easily proven by inserting the transformations into Eqs. (\[eq:order hbar solutions of FPS\]) and (\[eq:VA from FPS-1\]), and using the property of the Dirac delta-function $-x\delta^{\prime}(x)=\delta(x)$. Note that the transformation (\[eq:off-shell-trans-1\]) does not affect the on-shell value of $\Sigma_{\mu\nu}$ because the factor $p^{2}-m^{2}$ in front of the additional term vanishes on the mass-shell. But the transformation (\[eq:off-shell-trans-1\]) changes the on-shell value of $V$ by a term $-\frac{\hbar}{2}F^{\mu\nu}\delta\Sigma_{\mu\nu}$. Similarly, the transformation (\[eq:off-shell-trans-2\]) does not change the on-shell value of $V$ but changes the on-shell value of $\Sigma_{\mu\nu}$.
Since $p^{2}\equiv(p^{0})^{2}-\mathbf{p}^{2}$, we have the following relation $$p^{0}=\pm\sqrt{(p^{2}-m^{2})+E_{\mathbf{p}}^{2}},$$ where $E_{\mathbf{p}}\equiv\sqrt{m^{2}+\mathbf{p}^{2}}$ is the on-shell energy. The sign of $p^{0}$ labels fermions ($p^{0}>0$) or anti-fermions ($p^{0}<0$). Now we define $\delta m^{2}\equiv p^{2}-m^{2}$ as a new parameter, which describes the distance between the mass-shell and a given $p^{\mu}$. Using the chain rule for computing the derivative we obtain, for an arbitrary function $f(p^{0},\mathbf{p})$, the Taylor expansion in $\delta m^{2}$
$$f(p^{0},\mathbf{p})=\left.f(p^{0},\mathbf{p})\right|_{p^{0}\rightarrow\pm E_{\mathbf{p}}}+\frac{1}{2}(p^{2}-m^{2})\left.\frac{\partial}{p^{0}\partial p^{0}}f(p^{0},\mathbf{p})\right|_{p^{0}\rightarrow\pm E_{\mathbf{p}}}+\mathcal{O}\left[(\delta m^{2})^{2}\right],\label{eq:near-shell expansion}$$
where the first term is the on-shell value of $f(p^{0},\mathbf{p})$ while the second term is related to the on-shell value of $\frac{\partial}{p^{0}\partial p^{0}}f(p^{0},\mathbf{p})$. Here we make the replacement $p^{0}\rightarrow E_{\mathbf{p}}$ if we focus on fermions and $p^{0}\rightarrow-E_{\mathbf{p}}$ if we focus on anti-fermions. Comparing the expansion (\[eq:near-shell expansion\]) with the transformations (\[eq:off-shell-trans-1\]) and (\[eq:off-shell-trans-2\]) we immediately find that in these transformations, $\delta V$ and $\delta\Sigma_{\mu\nu}$ change the on-shell values of $\frac{\partial}{p^{0}\partial p^{0}}f(p^{0},\mathbf{p})$. If we take a specific choice as $$\delta\Sigma_{\mu\nu}=-\left.\frac{\partial}{2p^{0}\partial p^{0}}\Sigma_{\mu\nu}\right|_{p^{0}\rightarrow\pm E_{\mathbf{p}}},\ \ \delta V=-\left.\frac{\partial}{2p^{0}\partial p^{0}}V\right|_{p^{0}\rightarrow\pm E_{\mathbf{p}}},$$ then after the transformations (\[eq:off-shell-trans-1\]) and (\[eq:off-shell-trans-2\]) we have $$\begin{aligned}
\widehat{\Sigma}_{\mu\nu} & = & \left.\Sigma_{\mu\nu}\right|_{p^{0}\rightarrow\pm E_{\mathbf{p}}}+\mathcal{O}\left[(p^{2}-m^{2})^{2}\right],\nonumber \\
\widehat{V} & = & \left.V\right|_{p^{0}\rightarrow\pm E_{\mathbf{p}}}+\mathcal{O}\left[(p^{2}-m^{2})^{2}\right].\end{aligned}$$ All these functions take their on-shell values plus high order corrections in $p^{2}-m^{2}$.
If we take the energy integration for the covariant Wigner function (this is how the equal-time Wigner function is obtained), we find that the equal-time formula depends on the following terms, $$\left.V\right|_{p^{0}\rightarrow\pm E_{\mathbf{p}}},\ \ \left.\bar{\Sigma}^{\mu\nu}\right|_{p^{0}\rightarrow\pm E_{\mathbf{p}}},\ \ \left.\frac{\partial}{\partial p^{0}}V\right|_{p^{0}\rightarrow\pm E_{\mathbf{p}}},\ \ \left.\frac{\partial}{\partial p^{0}}\bar{\Sigma}^{\mu\nu}\right|_{p^{0}\rightarrow\pm E_{\mathbf{p}}}.$$ The transformations (\[eq:off-shell-trans-1\]) and (\[eq:off-shell-trans-2\]) indicate that the above four terms are not independent from each other. For example, the transformation (\[eq:off-shell-trans-1\]) changes $\left.V\right|_{p^{0}\rightarrow\pm E_{\mathbf{p}}}$ and $\left.\frac{\partial}{\partial p^{0}}\bar{\Sigma}^{\mu\nu}\right|_{p^{0}\rightarrow\pm E_{\mathbf{p}}}$ at the same time. Since the covariant Wigner function is invariant under the transformations (\[eq:off-shell-trans-1\]) and (\[eq:off-shell-trans-2\]), the equal-time Wigner function should only depends on the following invariant combinations, $$\begin{aligned}
& & \left.V-\frac{\hbar}{2}F^{\mu\nu}\frac{\partial}{2p^{0}\partial p^{0}}\bar{\Sigma}^{\mu\nu}\right|_{p^{0}\rightarrow\pm E_{\mathbf{p}}},\nonumber \\
& & \left.\bar{\Sigma}^{\mu\nu}-\hbar\left(F_{\mu\nu}+\frac{1}{m^{2}}p_{[\mu}F_{\nu]\alpha}p^{\alpha}\right)\frac{\partial}{2p^{0}\partial p^{0}}V\right|_{p^{0}\rightarrow\pm E_{\mathbf{p}}}.\end{aligned}$$ They are identified respectively as the fermion number distribution and the dipole-moment tensor, which appear in the semi-classical solution of the equal-time Wigner function in Ref. [@Wang:2019moi].
The $\delta^{\prime}$ terms in the kinetic equations (\[eq:massive kinetic equations\]) can be dropped if we properly choose a transformation. We take the first equation in (\[eq:massive kinetic equations\]) as an example. For one on-shell $p^{\mu}$, we obtain $p\cdot\nabla^{(0)}V=\mathcal{O}(\hbar)$. However, if there exists a transformation which satisfies $$p\cdot\nabla^{(0)}\delta V=-\frac{p\cdot\nabla^{(0)}V-\left.p\cdot\nabla^{(0)}V\right|_{p^{0}\rightarrow\pm E_{\mathbf{p}}}}{p^{2}-m^{2}},$$ then we obtain that $p\cdot\nabla^{(0)}\widehat{V}=\mathcal{O}(\hbar)$ holds for any $p^{\mu}$, either on-shell or off-shell. Similarly, due to the ambiguity of $\delta\Sigma_{\alpha\beta}$ we can also find a transformation which ensures $p\cdot\nabla^{(0)}\widehat{\bar{\Sigma}}_{\mu\nu}-F_{\ [\mu}^{\alpha}\widehat{\bar{\Sigma}}_{\nu]\alpha}=\mathcal{O}(\hbar)$ hold for any $p^{\mu}$. Note that after the transformations, the terms with $\delta^{\prime}(p^{2}-m^{2})$ in Eq. (\[eq:massive kinetic equations\]) are $\mathcal{O}(\hbar^{2})$ and we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
0 & = & p\cdot\nabla^{(0)}\widehat{V}+\frac{\hbar}{4}(\partial_{x}^{\alpha}F^{\mu\nu})\partial_{p\alpha}\widehat{\Sigma}_{\mu\nu}+\mathcal{O}(\hbar^{2}),\nonumber \\
0 & = & p\cdot\nabla^{(0)}\widehat{\bar{\Sigma}}_{\mu\nu}-F_{\ [\mu}^{\alpha}\widehat{\bar{\Sigma}}_{\nu]\alpha}+\frac{\hbar}{2}(\partial_{x\alpha}F_{\mu\nu})\partial_{p}^{\alpha}\widehat{V}+\mathcal{O}(\hbar^{2}).\label{eq:kin-after-transformation-1}\end{aligned}$$ These kinetic equations are used for deriving the thermal equilibrium distribution in the presence of vorticity in Ref. [@Weickgenannt:2019dks].
In practice, the transformations (\[eq:off-shell-trans-1\]) and (\[eq:off-shell-trans-2\]) can be interpreted as a shift of the mass-shell. We take the scalar component in Eq. (\[eq:order hbar solutions of FPS\]) as an example. In the solution of the scalar component $\mathcal{F}$, there is one term which is proportional to $\delta^{\prime}(p^{2}-m^{2})$ which contributes to the off-shell effect [@Gao:2012ix; @Huang:2018wdl; @Gao:2019znl; @Weickgenannt:2019dks]. We now focus on fermions and neglect anti-fermions. Assuming that the average dipole-moment per particle is $\tilde{\Sigma}^{\mu\nu}$, we have the following relation $$\Sigma^{\mu\nu}=\tilde{\Sigma}^{\mu\nu}V,$$ because $V$ is the fermion number distribution. Then the scalar component can be written in terms of a modified on-shell condition $$\mathcal{F}=m\theta(p^{0})\delta\left(p^{2}-m^{2}-\frac{\hbar}{2}F_{\mu\nu}\tilde{\Sigma}^{\mu\nu}\right)V(x,p)+\mathcal{O}(\hbar^{2}).\label{eq:modified on-shell condition}$$ The modified on-shell delta-function is defined via a Taylor expansion, $$\delta\left(p^{2}-m^{2}-\frac{\hbar}{2}F_{\mu\nu}\tilde{\Sigma}^{\mu\nu}\right)=\delta(p^{2}-m^{2})-\frac{\hbar}{2}F_{\mu\nu}\bar{\Sigma}^{\mu\nu}\delta^{\prime}(p^{2}-m^{2})+\mathcal{O}(\hbar^{2}).$$ We find that the normal mass-shell is changed by a spin-magnetic coupling term. This term can be expanded near $p^{0}=E_{\mathbf{p}}$, and the term in the delta function can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
p^{2}-m^{2}-\frac{\hbar}{2}F_{\mu\nu}\tilde{\Sigma}^{\mu\nu} & = & (p^{0})^{2}-E_{\mathbf{p}}^{2}-\frac{\hbar}{2}F_{\mu\nu}\left.\tilde{\Sigma}^{\mu\nu}\right|_{p^{0}\rightarrow E_{\mathbf{p}}}-(p^{0}-E_{\mathbf{p}})\frac{\hbar}{2}F_{\mu\nu}\left.\frac{\partial}{\partial p^{0}}\tilde{\Sigma}^{\mu\nu}\right|_{p^{0}\rightarrow E_{\mathbf{p}}}\nonumber \\
& = & \left(p^{0}+\delta p^{0}\right)^{2}-\left(E_{\mathbf{p}}+\delta E_{\mathbf{p}}\right)^{2},\end{aligned}$$ where we have dropped $\mathcal{O}(\hbar^{2})$ terms. The shift of $p^{0}$ and the shift of $E_{\mathbf{p}}$ are defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\delta p^{0} & = & -\frac{\hbar}{4}F_{\mu\nu}\left.\frac{\partial}{\partial p^{0}}\tilde{\Sigma}^{\mu\nu}\right|_{p^{0}\rightarrow E_{\mathbf{p}}},\nonumber \\
\delta E_{\mathbf{p}} & = & \frac{\hbar}{4E_{\mathbf{p}}}F_{\mu\nu}\left.\tilde{\Sigma}^{\mu\nu}\right|_{p^{0}\rightarrow E_{\mathbf{p}}}-\frac{\hbar}{4}F_{\mu\nu}\left.\frac{\partial}{\partial p^{0}}\tilde{\Sigma}^{\mu\nu}\right|_{p^{0}\rightarrow E_{\mathbf{p}}}.\end{aligned}$$ Thus we obtain $$\theta(p^{0})\delta\left(p^{2}-m^{2}-\frac{\hbar}{2}F_{\mu\nu}\bar{\Sigma}^{\mu\nu}\right)=\frac{1}{2\left(p^{0}+\delta p^{0}\right)}\theta\left(p^{0}-E_{\mathbf{p}}+\delta p^{0}-\delta E_{\mathbf{p}}\right).$$ When integrating the scalar component $\mathcal{F}$ over $p^{0}$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\int dp^{0}\mathcal{F} & = & m\left.\frac{1}{2\left(p^{0}+\delta p^{0}\right)}V(x,p)\right|_{p^{0}\rightarrow E_{\mathbf{p}}+\delta E_{\mathbf{p}}-\delta p^{0}}\nonumber \\
& = & m\left.\frac{1}{2p^{0}}V(x,p)\right|_{p^{0}\rightarrow E_{\mathbf{p}}}+m\frac{\hbar}{4E_{\mathbf{p}}}F_{\mu\nu}\left.\frac{\partial}{\partial p^{0}}\left[\frac{1}{2p^{0}}\tilde{\Sigma}^{\mu\nu}V\right]\right|_{p^{0}\rightarrow E_{\mathbf{p}}}.\end{aligned}$$ Here in the last line, $p^{0}$ takes its on-shell value $E_{\mathbf{p}}$, thus we can introduce a normal mass-shell delta function $$\int dp^{0}\mathcal{F}=m\int dp^{0}\theta(p^{0})\delta(p^{2}-m^{2})\left[V+\frac{\hbar}{2}F_{\mu\nu}\frac{\partial}{\partial p^{0}}\left(\frac{1}{2p^{0}}\Sigma^{\mu\nu}\right)\right].\label{eq:int p0 F}$$ Note that this result can also be derived by taking the $p^{0}$-integration for the function $\mathcal{F}$ in Eq. (\[eq:order hbar solutions of FPS\]), and integrating by parts for the $\delta^{\prime}(p^{2}-m^{2})$ term. Making a comparison with the transformation (\[eq:off-shell-trans-1\]), we find that if we take $$\delta\Sigma^{\mu\nu}=-\frac{\partial}{\partial p^{0}}\left(\frac{1}{2p^{0}}\Sigma^{\mu\nu}\right),$$ then Eq. (\[eq:int p0 F\]) can be written in terms of the new distribution $\widehat{V}$ $$\int dp^{0}\mathcal{F}=m\int dp^{0}\theta(p^{0})\delta(p^{2}-m^{2})\widehat{V}.$$ In Eq. (\[eq:modified on-shell condition\]), the distribution $V$ is on the modified mass-shell while in the above equation the new distribution $\widehat{V}$ is on the normal mass-shell. Thus we conclude that the transformations (\[eq:off-shell-trans-1\]) and (\[eq:off-shell-trans-2\]) change the mass-shell. We can always find some specific transformation, after which we can put the coupling between the electromagnetic field and the dipole moment into the distribution instead of into the mass-shell delta function.
### Reference-frame dependence
In the solutions of the massless Wigner function (\[sol:massless V and A\]), we have used a reference frame vector, which determines how to separate the currents into a distribution part and a gradient part. Here we will focus on the massive case and show how the reference vector can be introduced. We will also show how to reproduce the massless results from the massive ones.
First we focus on the tensor component in the solution (\[eq:order hbar solutions of FPS\]). Since any anti-symmetric tensor can be decomposed into an electric-like part and a magnetic-like part, we have the following decomposition, $$\mathcal{S}_{\mu\nu}=\mathcal{D}_{\mu}u_{\nu}-\mathcal{D}_{\nu}u_{\mu}-\epsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}u^{\alpha}\mathcal{M}^{\beta},\label{eq:decomposition of S}$$ where the electric dipole moment and the magnetic dipole moment are respectively given by, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{D}_{\mu} & = & \mathcal{S}_{\mu\nu}u^{\nu}\,=\,m\,\mathbb{P}_{\mu}\delta(p^{2}-m^{2})-m\hbar E_{\mu}V\delta^{\prime}(p^{2}-m^{2})+\mathcal{O}(\hbar^{2}),\nonumber \\
\mathcal{M}_{\mu} & = & -\frac{1}{2}\epsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}u^{\nu}\mathcal{S}^{\alpha\beta}\,=\,m\,\mathbb{M}_{\mu}\delta(p^{2}-m^{2})-m\hbar B_{\mu}V\delta^{\prime}(p^{2}-m^{2})+\mathcal{O}(\hbar^{2}).\end{aligned}$$ Here $E_{\mu}\equiv F_{\mu\nu}u^{\nu}$ is the electric-field vector and $B_{\mu}\equiv\tilde{F}_{\mu\nu}u^{\nu}$ is the magnetic-field vector. We have defined the on-shell parts $\mathbb{P}_{\mu}$ and $\mathbb{M}_{\mu}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{P}_{\mu} & = & \Sigma_{\mu\nu}u^{\nu}-\frac{\hbar}{2m}p_{\mu}u^{\nu}\nabla_{\nu}^{(0)}V+\frac{\hbar}{2m^{2}}(p\cdot u)\nabla_{\mu}^{(0)}V,\nonumber \\
\mathbb{M}_{\mu} & = & -\frac{1}{2}\epsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}u^{\nu}\Sigma^{\alpha\beta}+\frac{\hbar}{2m^{2}}\epsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}u^{\nu}p^{\alpha}\nabla^{(0)\beta}V,\end{aligned}$$ The on-shell dipole-moment tensor $\Sigma_{\mu\nu}$ can be reproduced via $$\Sigma_{\mu\nu}=\mathbb{P}_{\mu}u_{\nu}-\mathbb{P}_{\nu}u_{\mu}+\epsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}u^{\alpha}\mathbb{M}^{\beta}+\frac{\hbar}{2m^{2}}p_{[\mu}\nabla_{\nu]}^{(0)}V.$$ Due to the constraint equation (\[eq:constraint equation for Sigma\]), one obtains the relation between $\mathbb{P}_{\mu}$ and $\mathbb{M}_{\mu}$, $$\delta(p^{2}-m^{2})\left[(p\cdot u)\mathbb{P}_{\mu}-\epsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}p^{\nu}u^{\alpha}\mathbb{M}^{\beta}-\frac{\hbar}{2}(g_{\mu\nu}-u_{\mu}u_{\nu})\nabla^{(0)\nu}V\right]=\mathcal{O}(\hbar^{2}),$$ where we have used the dynamical equation $\delta(p^{2}-m^{2})p^{\nu}\nabla_{\nu}^{(0)}V=\mathcal{O}(\hbar)$. From the above constraint, one can express $\mathbb{P}_{\mu}$ in terms of $\mathbb{M}_{\mu}$, $$\delta(p^{2}-m^{2})\mathbb{P}_{\mu}=\delta(p^{2}-m^{2})\left[\frac{1}{p\cdot u}\epsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}p^{\nu}u^{\alpha}\mathbb{M}^{\beta}+\frac{\hbar}{2(p\cdot u)}(g_{\mu\nu}-u_{\mu}u_{\nu})\nabla^{(0)\nu}V\right].$$ Inserting back into the decomposition (\[eq:decomposition of S\]),
we obtain $$\mathcal{S}_{\mu\nu}=m\delta(p^{2}-m^{2})\left[-\frac{1}{p\cdot u}\epsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}p^{\alpha}\mathbb{M}^{\beta}-\frac{\hbar}{2(p\cdot u)}u_{[\mu}\nabla_{\nu]}^{(0)}V\right]-m\hbar F_{\mu\nu}V\delta^{\prime}(p^{2}-m^{2}).$$ This indicates that $\mathcal{S}_{\mu\nu}$ can be written in terms of the magnetic dipole-moment vector $\mathbb{M}_{\mu}$, which is defined in frame $u^{\mu}$. Meanwhile, we can express the axial-vector component of the Wigner function, $$\mathcal{A}^{\mu}=\frac{1}{p\cdot u}\left[m^{2}\mathbb{M}^{\mu}-(p\cdot\mathbb{M})p^{\mu}\right]\delta(p^{2}-m^{2})+\frac{\hbar}{2(p\cdot u)}\epsilon^{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}p_{\nu}u_{\alpha}\nabla_{\beta}^{(0)}V+\hbar\tilde{F}_{\mu\nu}p^{\nu}V\delta^{\prime}(p^{2}-m^{2}).\label{eq:axial-vector as function of M}$$ In the massless limit, we define $$A\equiv-\lim_{m\rightarrow0}\frac{p\cdot\mathbb{M}}{p\cdot u}.$$ Then $\mathcal{A}^{\mu}$ in Eq. (\[eq:axial-vector as function of M\]) correctly reproduces the massless one in Eq. (\[sol:massless V and A\]).
On the other hand, the polarization vector $n^{\mu}$ can be projected into the direction of $p^{\mu}$ and an arbitrary frame vector $u^{\mu}$. Since $p^{\mu}$ has the unit of energy, we write down the following formula $$m\,n^{\mu}=c_{\parallel}\left(p^{\mu}-\frac{m^{2}}{p\cdot u}u^{\mu}\right)+c_{\perp}m\,n_{\perp}^{\mu}.\label{eq:decomposition of polarization}$$ Here the coefficient of $u^{\mu}$ is proportional to the coefficient of $p^{\mu}$ in order to satisfy the constraint equation $p\cdot n\,\delta(p^{2}-m^{2})=0$. The vector $n_{\perp}^{\mu}$ is assumed to be a normalized space-like vector $n_{\perp}^{\mu}n_{\perp\mu}=-1$, which is perpendicular to both $u^{\mu}$ and $p^{\mu}$. If we observe in the frame $u^{\mu}$, the first term in Eq. (\[eq:decomposition of polarization\]) would be parallel to the momentum while the second term is perpendicular. In this way the polarization vector is decomposed into one longitudinally polarized part and one transversely polarized part in reference to the particle’s momentum direction. We now consider a special case where $$c_{\parallel}=A\neq0,\ c_{\perp}m\,n_{\perp}^{\mu}=\frac{\hbar}{2(p\cdot u)}\epsilon^{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}p_{\alpha}u_{\beta}\nabla_{\nu}^{(0)}V,\label{eq:specific choice of nmu}$$ Inserting back into the Wigner function in (\[eq:massive solutions VA\]), we obtain the axial-vector current $$\mathcal{A}^{\mu}=\delta(p^{2}-m^{2})\left[\left(p^{\mu}-\frac{m^{2}}{p\cdot u}u^{\mu}\right)A+\frac{\hbar}{2(p\cdot u)}\epsilon^{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}p_{\alpha}u_{\beta}\nabla_{\nu}^{(0)}V\right]+\hbar\tilde{F}^{\mu\nu}p_{\nu}V\delta^{\prime}(p^{2}-m^{2})+\mathcal{O}(\hbar^{2}),\label{eq:specific solution of A^=00005Cmu}$$ When taking the massless limit $m\rightarrow0$, $\mathcal{A}^{\mu}$ in Eq. (\[eq:specific solution of A\^=00005Cmu\]) smoothly reproduces the massless result in Eq. (\[sol:massless V and A\]). Here we can identify the transverse part $c_{\perp}m\,n_{\perp}^{\mu}$ as the contribution from the side-jump effect [@Chen:2015gta; @Hidaka:2016yjf; @Huang:2018wdl].
The dipole-moment tensor $\Sigma^{\mu\nu}$ can be expressed in terms of $n^{\mu}$, as Eq. (\[eq:relation between Sigma and n\]) shows. Inserting $n^{\mu}$ and $\Sigma^{\mu\nu}$ into the vector $\mathcal{V}^{\mu}$ in Eq. (\[eq:massive solutions VA\]), we obtain
$$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{V}^{\mu} & = & \delta(p^{2}-m^{2})\left(p^{\mu}V+\frac{\hbar}{2m}\epsilon^{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}p_{\nu}\nabla_{\alpha}^{(0)}n_{\beta}\right)\nonumber \\
& & +\hbar\left(m\tilde{F}_{\mu\nu}n^{\nu}-\frac{p\cdot n}{m}\tilde{F}_{\mu\nu}p^{\nu}\right)\delta^{\prime}(p^{2}-m^{2})+\mathcal{O}(\hbar^{2}),\end{aligned}$$ Note that here $p\cdot n\,\delta^{\prime}(p^{2}-m^{2})$ does not have to vanish. In this formula we want to introduce a reference frame for the second term. With the help of the Schouten identity (\[eq:Schouten identity-1\]) and the kinetic equation for $n^{\mu}$ in Eq. (\[eq:kinetic equation for n\_mu\]) we can prove
$$\begin{aligned}
\delta(p^{2}-m^{2})\frac{\hbar}{2m}\epsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}p^{\nu}\nabla^{(0)\alpha}n^{\beta} & = & -\delta(p^{2}-m^{2})\frac{\hbar}{2m(p\cdot u)}p_{\mu}\epsilon_{\nu\alpha\beta\gamma}u^{\gamma}p^{\nu}\nabla^{(0)\alpha}n^{\beta}\nonumber \\
& & +\delta(p^{2}-m^{2})\frac{\hbar}{2(p\cdot u)}\epsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}u^{\nu}\nabla^{(0)\alpha}mn^{\beta}\nonumber \\
& & +\delta(p^{2}-m^{2})\frac{\hbar}{2m(p\cdot u)}\epsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}u^{\nu}p^{\alpha}\nabla^{(0)\beta}(p\cdot n).\end{aligned}$$ We furthermore replace $n^{\mu}$ by Eqs. (\[eq:decomposition of polarization\]) and (\[eq:specific choice of nmu\]). Up to leading order in $\hbar$ we have $p\cdot n=\frac{(p^{2}-m^{2})}{m}A+\mathcal{O}(\hbar)$. Substituting $n^{\mu}$ into the above equations, we obtain
$$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{V}^{\mu} & = & \delta(p^{2}-m^{2})p^{\mu}\left[V+\frac{\hbar}{2(p\cdot u)}\epsilon_{\nu\alpha\beta\gamma}p^{\nu}u^{\alpha}\nabla^{(0)\beta}\left(\frac{u^{\gamma}}{u\cdot p}A\right)\right]\nonumber \\
& & +\delta(p^{2}-m^{2})\frac{\hbar}{2(p\cdot u)}\epsilon^{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}p_{\nu}u_{\alpha}\nabla_{\beta}^{(0)}A+\hbar\tilde{F}^{\mu\nu}p_{\nu}A\delta^{\prime}(p^{2}-m^{2})\nonumber \\
& & -m^{2}\left[\delta(p^{2}-m^{2})\frac{\hbar}{2(p\cdot u)}\epsilon^{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}u_{\nu}\nabla_{\alpha}^{(0)}\left(\frac{u_{\beta}}{p\cdot u}A\right)+\delta^{\prime}(p^{2}-m^{2})\hbar\tilde{F}^{\mu\nu}\frac{u_{\nu}}{p\cdot u}A\right]+\mathcal{O}(\hbar^{2}),\nonumber \\
\label{eq:specific solution of V^=00005Cmu}\end{aligned}$$
Taking the massless limit $m\rightarrow0$, and redefining the distribution function $V$, Eq. (\[eq:specific solution of V\^=00005Cmu\]) agrees with the massless results in (\[sol:massless V and A\]).
In this subsection, we have found the relation between massive and massless solutions. We emphasize that the polarization of massive particles has three degrees of freedom. That is because in their rest frames, their spins can point to any spatial directions. Thus in the massive case we have four functions to describe the system, three of which describe the polarization and the remaining one is the particle distribution. However, in the massless case, particles are either LH or RH and their spins are either parallel or anti-parallel to their momenta. Thus for massless fermions the net fermion number distribution and the axial-charge distribution are sufficient to describe the system. In this section we decompose the polarization into a longitudinal part and a transverse part. Since massless particles cannot be transversely polarized, we presume that the transverse part only comes from the side-jump effect. With this assumption, we find that the massive solutions smoothly reproduce the massless ones. In heavy ion collisions, the $u$, $d$ quarks can be treated as massless, because their current masses are much smaller than the typical temperature of the QGP. However, the current mass of the $s$ quark is about $95$ MeV, which is comparable with the chemical freeze-out temperature ($\sim160$ MeV). Thus the massless chiral kinetic theory is not sufficient for describing all flavors. The kinetic theory for massive particles with spin was developed many years ago [@Israel:1978up] and later reproduced via the Wigner function approach. However, up to now there is no systematic tool for the spin-evolution of massive fermions in heavy-ion collisions. Our study in this section would be a starting point for future works on the dynamical spin evolution. Comparing with the classical Boltzmann equation and the BMT equation, we have obtained $\hbar$-order corrections, which are attributed to the coupling between the spin and the electromagnetic fields. In the future, we will use the method of moments to deal with the kinetic equations and derive spin-hydrodynamics.
$\ $
Physical quantities\[sec:Physical quantities\]
==============================================
In this section we will consider systems in thermal equilibrium. The Wigner function for free fermions without chiral imbalance is computed at the leading order in $\hbar$ in subsection \[subsec:Free-fermions\]. Higher-order terms in $\hbar$ have been obtained by the semi-classical expansion in Eqs. (\[eq:order hbar solutions of FPS\]) and (\[eq:VA from FPS-1\]) in Sec. \[sec:Semi-classical-expansion\]. On the other hand, the case of fermions with chiral imbalance is analytically solved in subsection \[subsec:Free-with-chiral\], which is called the chiral quantization in this thesis. The chiral chemical potential is not well-defined in the massive case, thus in the chiral quantization, $\mu_{5}$ is treated as a variable for an additional self-energy correction term. However, the chiral quantization can only deal with constant $\mu_{5}$. In this section, through a comparison between semi-classical results and chiral-quantization results, we will give a reasonable estimate about the parameter region in which the semi-classical results are applicable. In a constant magnetic field a thermal equilibrium can also exist, which is then compared with the free-fermion case in this section. The pair production in the presence of an electric field is a dynamical problem, which is analytically solved in subsection \[subsec:Fermions-in-electric\]. In this section we will numerically calculate the pair-production rates and display the thermal suppression to the production rates.
Physical quantities from quantum field theory\[subsec:Physical-quantities\]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Throughout this thesis, we focus on spin-1/2 particles in electromagnetic fields. Since the electromagnetic interaction is a long-range interaction, short-range interactions such as the strong and weak interactions will be neglected. In this subsection we will start from the QED Lagrangian and derive some basic physical quantities. Then we will find a straightforward relation between the Wigner function and these quantities. In subsections \[subsec:Net-fermion-current\] and \[subsec:Energy-momentum-tensor-and\] we will calculate these quantities using the Wigner function in thermal equilibrium.
As an Abelian $U(1)$ gauge theory, the QED Lagrangian for a Dirac spinor field in an electromagnetic field is given by $$\hat{\mathcal{L}}=\frac{1}{2}\left[\hat{\bar{\psi}}\gamma^{\mu}i\partial_{x\mu}\hat{\psi}-\left(i\partial_{x\mu}\hat{\bar{\psi}}\right)\gamma^{\mu}\hat{\psi}\right]\bigg)-\hat{\bar{\psi}}(m+\gamma\cdot\mathbb{A})\hat{\psi}-\frac{1}{4}F^{\mu\nu}F_{\mu\nu},\label{eq:QED Lagrangian}$$ where $\hat{\psi}$ is the spinor field operator, $\mathbb{A}^{\mu}$ is the gauge potential and $F^{\mu\nu}=\partial_{x}^{\mu}\mathbb{A}^{\nu}-\partial_{x}^{\nu}\mathbb{A}^{\mu}$ is the field-strength tensor, whose $0i$ components represent the electric fields and $ij$ components represent the magnetic fields. The Lagrangian is invariant under the following local gauge transformation $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{A}^{\mu}(x) & \rightarrow & \mathbb{A}^{\mu}(x)-\partial_{x}^{\mu}\theta(x),\nonumber \\
\psi(x) & \rightarrow & e^{i\theta(x)}\psi(x),\end{aligned}$$ where the gauge potential has an additional derivative term while the Dirac field has a phase rotation. The gauge invariance indicates an ambiguity of the gauge potential. In practice we can fix the gauge by e.g. taking the Lorenz-gauge condition $\partial_{x}^{\mu}\mathbb{A}_{\mu}=0$, or the temporal gauge $\mathbb{A}^{0}=0$, etc.. From the Lagrangian we obtain the Euler-Lagrangian equations for $\hat{\psi}$, $\hat{\bar{\psi}}$ and $\mathbb{A}^{\mu}$, which are the Dirac equation, the conjugate of the Dirac equation and the inhomogeneous Maxwell equation, respectively. The Dirac equation and its conjugate are shown in Eq. (\[eq:Dirac equation and conjugate\]) and the Maxwell equation reads $$\partial_{x\mu}F^{\mu\nu}=\hat{\bar{\psi}}\gamma^{\nu}\hat{\psi}.$$
According to the Noether’s theorem, each continuous symmetry of the Lagrangian corresponds to a conserved current. The gauge symmetry is associated with an electric current, $$\hat{\mathbb{N}}^{\mu}=\hat{\bar{\psi}}\gamma^{\mu}\hat{\psi}.$$ Here we use hat to distinguish the operator from physical quantities. The conserved currents corresponding to translations and Lorentz transformations are the energy-momentum tensor and the angular-momentum tensor, respectively, $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\mathbb{T}}^{\mu\nu} & = & \frac{\partial\hat{\mathcal{L}}}{\partial(\partial_{x\mu}\hat{\psi})}\partial_{x}^{\nu}\hat{\psi}+\partial_{x}^{\nu}\hat{\bar{\psi}}\frac{\partial\hat{\mathcal{L}}}{\partial(\partial_{x\mu}\hat{\bar{\psi}})}+\frac{\partial\mathcal{\hat{\mathcal{L}}}}{\partial(\partial_{x\mu}\mathbb{A}_{\rho})}\partial_{x}^{\nu}\mathbb{A}_{\rho}-g^{\mu\nu}\hat{\mathcal{L}},\nonumber \\
\hat{\mathbb{M}}^{\rho\mu\nu} & = & x^{\mu}\hat{\mathbb{T}}^{\rho\nu}-x^{\nu}\hat{\mathbb{T}}^{\rho\mu}-i\frac{\partial\hat{\mathcal{L}}}{\partial(\partial_{x\rho}\hat{\psi})}\mathcal{S}^{\mu\nu}\hat{\psi}+i\hat{\bar{\psi}}\mathcal{S}^{\mu\nu}\frac{\partial\hat{\mathcal{L}}}{\partial(\partial_{x\rho}\hat{\bar{\psi}})}-i\frac{\partial\hat{\mathcal{L}}}{\partial(\partial_{x\rho}\mathbb{A}_{\alpha})}(\mathcal{J}^{\mu\nu})_{\alpha\beta}\mathbb{A}^{\beta},\label{eq:definition of Tmunu}\end{aligned}$$ where generators of the spin are $\mathcal{S}^{\mu\nu}\equiv\frac{i}{4}[\gamma^{\mu},\gamma^{\nu}]=\frac{1}{2}\sigma^{\mu\nu}$ and $(\mathcal{J}^{\mu\nu})_{\alpha\beta}=i(\delta_{\alpha}^{\mu}\delta_{\beta}^{\nu}-\delta_{\beta}^{\mu}\delta_{\alpha}^{\nu})$. Inserting the Lagrangian into the definition of these currents we obtain
$$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\mathbb{T}}^{\mu\nu} & = & \hat{\mathbb{T}}_{\text{mat}}^{\mu\nu}+\mathbb{A}^{\nu}\hat{\mathbb{N}}^{\mu}+\hat{\mathbb{T}}_{\text{field}}^{\mu\nu},\nonumber \\
\hat{\mathbb{M}}^{\rho,\mu\nu} & = & \hat{\mathbb{L}}^{\rho,\mu\nu}+\hat{\mathbb{S}}_{\text{mat}}^{\rho,\mu\nu}+\hat{\mathbb{S}}_{\text{field}}^{\rho,\mu\nu}.\label{eq:separation of Tmunu and Mrhomunu}\end{aligned}$$
Here we have separated the total energy-momentum tensor and the total angular-momentum tensor into several parts. The total orbital angular-momentum tensor is given by $$\hat{\mathbb{L}}^{\rho,\mu\nu}\equiv x^{\mu}\hat{\mathbb{T}}^{\rho\nu}-x^{\nu}\hat{\mathbb{T}}^{\rho\mu}.$$ The matter parts of the energy-momentum tensor and the spin-angular-momentum tensor are $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\mathbb{T}}_{\text{mat}}^{\mu\nu} & = & \frac{1}{2}\left[i\hat{\bar{\psi}}\gamma^{\mu}(\overrightarrow{\partial}_{x}^{\nu}+i\mathbb{A}^{\nu})\hat{\psi}-i\hat{\bar{\psi}}\gamma^{\mu}(\overleftarrow{\partial}_{x}^{\nu}-i\mathbb{A}^{\nu})\hat{\psi}\right],\nonumber \\
\hat{\mathbb{S}}_{\text{mat}}^{\rho,\mu\nu} & = & \frac{1}{4}\hat{\bar{\psi}}\{\gamma^{\rho},\sigma^{\mu\nu}\}\hat{\psi},\label{eq:cannonical T and S}\end{aligned}$$ while the field parts are $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\mathbb{T}}_{\text{field}}^{\mu\nu} & = & \frac{1}{4}g^{\mu\nu}F^{\rho\sigma}F_{\rho\sigma}-F^{\mu\rho}\partial^{\nu}\mathbb{A}_{\rho},\nonumber \\
\hat{\mathbb{S}}_{\text{field}}^{\rho,\mu\nu} & = & -(F^{\rho\mu}\mathbb{A}^{\nu}-F^{\rho\nu}\mathbb{A}^{\mu}).\end{aligned}$$ Note that after such a decomposition, the matter parts are gauge-invariant while the remaining parts are not. The gauge dependence comes from the definitions (\[eq:definition of Tmunu\]), where derivative operators are ordinary ones instead of covariant ones. Taking expectation values of the above operators on one specific system $|\Omega\rangle$, we can obtain the fermion number current $\mathbb{N}^{\mu}$, the matter part of the energy-momentum tensor $\mathbb{T}_{\text{mat}}^{\mu\nu}$, and the spin angular-momentum tensor $\mathbb{S}_{\text{mat}}^{\rho,\mu\nu}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{N}^{\mu}=\langle\Omega|\hat{\mathbb{N}}^{\mu}|\Omega\rangle, & \mathbb{T}_{\text{mat}}^{\mu\nu}=\langle\Omega|\hat{\mathbb{T}}_{\text{mat}}^{\mu\nu}|\Omega\rangle, & \mathbb{S}_{\text{mat}}^{\rho,\mu\nu}=\langle\Omega|\hat{\mathbb{S}}_{\text{mat}}^{\rho,\mu\nu}|\Omega\rangle.\end{aligned}$$
The Noether currents are conserved, thus the fluid-dynamical quantities satisfy the following conservation laws automatically, $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_{x\mu}\mathbb{N}^{\mu}=0, & \partial_{x\mu}\mathbb{T}^{\mu\nu}=0, & \partial_{x\rho}\mathbb{M}^{\rho,\mu\nu}=0.\label{eq:conservation equations}\end{aligned}$$ But note that $\mathbb{T}^{\mu\nu}$ and $\mathbb{M}^{\rho,\mu\nu}$ are separated into several parts as in Eq. (\[eq:separation of Tmunu and Mrhomunu\]), hence the matter parts of $\mathbb{T}_{\text{mat}}^{\mu\nu}$ and $\mathbb{S}_{\text{mat}}^{\rho,\mu\nu}$ are not conserved themselves,
$$\begin{aligned}
\partial_{x\mu}\mathbb{T}_{\text{mat}}^{\mu\nu} & = & F^{\nu\alpha}\mathbb{N}_{\alpha},\nonumber \\
\partial_{x\rho}\mathbb{S}_{\text{mat}}^{\rho,\mu\nu} & = & -\mathbb{T}_{\text{mat}}^{\mu\nu}+\mathbb{T}_{\text{mat}}^{\nu\mu}.\label{eq:canonical-equations}\end{aligned}$$
From the second line we observe that the anti-symmetric part of $\mathbb{T}_{\text{mat}}^{\mu\nu}$ is related to the derivative of the spin tensor. For a classical particle, whose the spin degrees of freedom are ignored, the spin tensor vanishes, which render a symmetric $\mathbb{T}_{\text{mat}}^{\mu\nu}$. But in general the canonical energy-momentum tensor is not symmetric for a system with spin.
The above tensors are not uniquely defined. The Lagrangian in Eq. (\[eq:QED Lagrangian\]) can have an additional term, like $\partial_{x\mu}\delta\mathcal{L}^{\mu}$ with an arbitrary $\delta\mathcal{L}^{\mu}$. When taking integration over the whole space, this additional term gives a boundary term, which in general is neglected. However, changing the definition of the Lagrangian leads to a different energy-momentum tensor and a different spin-angular-momentum tensor. All these different definitions are exactly equivalent since they are related to the canonical form by so-called pseudo-gauge transformations [@Hehl:1976vr; @Becattini:2018duy] $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{T}_{\text{mat}}^{\prime\mu\nu} & = & \mathbb{T}_{\text{mat}}^{\mu\nu}+\frac{1}{2}\partial_{\rho}(\mathbb{F}^{\rho,\mu\nu}+\mathbb{F}^{\mu,\nu\rho}+\mathbb{F}^{\nu,\mu\rho}),\nonumber \\
\mathbb{S}_{\text{mat}}^{\prime\rho,\mu\nu} & = & \mathbb{S}_{\text{mat}}^{\rho,\mu\nu}-\mathbb{F}^{\rho,\mu\nu},\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathbb{F}^{\rho,\mu\nu}$ is an arbitrary tensor which is anti-symmetric under $\mu\leftrightarrow\nu$. We can check that the newly defined quantities still satisfy the conservation equations (\[eq:canonical-equations\])
. A specific choice for $\mathbb{F}^{\rho,\mu\nu}$ is $\mathbb{S}_{\text{mat}}^{\rho,\mu\nu}$, which makes $\mathbb{S}_{\text{mat}}^{\prime\rho,\mu\nu}$ vanishes. The new energy-momentum tensor is the Belinfante one, $$\mathbb{T}_{\text{Bel}}^{\mu\nu}\equiv\mathbb{T}_{\text{mat}}^{\mu\nu}+\frac{1}{2}\partial_{\rho}(\mathbb{S}_{\text{mat}}^{\rho,\mu\nu}+\mathbb{S}_{\text{mat}}^{\mu,\nu\rho}+\mathbb{S}_{\text{mat}}^{\nu,\mu\rho}).$$ It is easy to check that the Belinfante energy-momentum tensor is the symmetric part of the canonical one, $$\mathbb{T}_{\text{Bel}}^{\mu\nu}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\mathbb{T}_{\text{mat}}^{\mu\nu}+\mathbb{T}_{\text{mat}}^{\nu\mu}\right).$$
Comparing the definition of the Wigner function in Eq. (\[def:Wigner function\]) with the above fluid-dynamical quantities, we obtain the following relations $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{N}^{\mu}(x) & = & \int d^{4}p\ \mathcal{V}^{\mu}(x,p),\nonumber \\
\mathbb{T}_{\text{mat}}^{\mu\nu}(x) & = & \int d^{4}p\ p^{\nu}\mathcal{V}^{\mu}(x,p),\nonumber \\
\mathbb{S}_{\text{mat}}^{\rho,\mu\nu}(x) & = & -\frac{1}{2}\epsilon^{\rho\mu\nu\alpha}\int d^{4}p\ \mathcal{A}_{\alpha}(x,p),\label{eq:cannonical quantities}\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathcal{V}^{\mu}(x,p)$ and $\mathcal{A}^{\mu}(x,p)$ are the vector and axial-vector components of the Wigner function. On the other hand, the Belinfante energy-momentum tensor is given by $$\mathbb{T}_{\text{Bel}}^{\mu\nu}(x)=\frac{1}{2}\int d^{4}p\ \left[p^{\mu}\mathcal{V}^{\nu}(x,p)+p^{\nu}\mathcal{V}^{\mu}(x,p)\right].$$ In the remaining part of this section, we will specify the Wigner function and calculate the canonical quantities in Eq. (\[eq:cannonical quantities\]).
Thermal Equilibrium \[subsec:Thermal-equilibrium\]
--------------------------------------------------
In Sec. \[sec:Analytically-solvable-cases\] we have derived the analytical solutions of the Wigner function. Note that in these solutions, the distributions for fermions and anti-fermions are still undetermined. In this subsection we will consider systems in thermal equilibrium and give the equilibrium distributions. First we consider massless particles at a given temperature $T$, chemical potential $\mu$, and chiral chemical potential $\mu_{5}$. The helicity of a massless particle is a conserved quantity, thus $\mu_{5}$ is well-defined. The canonical partition function for such a system is given by $$\hat{Z}=\exp[-\beta(\hat{H}_{0}-\mu\hat{N}-\mu_{5}\hat{N}_{5})],\label{eq:old partition function-1}$$ where the Hamiltonian operator $\hat{H}_{0}$, the fermion number operator $\hat{N}$, and the axial-charge number operator $\hat{N}_{5}$ are $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{H}_{0} & = & \int d^{3}\mathbf{x}\hat{\psi}^{\dagger}(t,\mathbf{x})\left(-i\gamma^{0}\boldsymbol{\gamma}\cdot\boldsymbol{\partial}_{\mathbf{x}}+m\gamma^{0}\right)\hat{\psi}(t,\mathbf{x}),\nonumber \\
\hat{N} & = & \int d^{3}\mathbf{x}\hat{\psi}^{\dagger}(t,\mathbf{x})\hat{\psi}(t,\mathbf{x}),\nonumber \\
\hat{N}_{5} & = & \int d^{3}\mathbf{x}\hat{\psi}^{\dagger}(t,\mathbf{x})\gamma^{5}\hat{\psi}(t,\mathbf{x}).\label{eq:operators for equilibrium}\end{aligned}$$ Using the quantized field operator in Eq. (\[def:quantized free field\]) and the single-particle wavefunctions in Eq. (\[sol:free wave functions\]) and (\[eq:product of Sqrt p=00005Csigma\]), we derive
$$\begin{aligned}
\hat{H}_{0} & = & \sum_{s}\int\frac{d^{3}\mathbf{p}}{(2\pi)^{3}}\left|\mathbf{p}\right|\left(\hat{a}_{\mathbf{p},s}^{\dagger}\hat{a}_{\mathbf{p},s}-\hat{b}_{\mathbf{p},s}\hat{b}_{\mathbf{p},s}^{\dagger}\right),\nonumber \\
\hat{N} & = & \sum_{s}\int\frac{d^{3}\mathbf{p}}{(2\pi)^{3}}\left(\hat{a}_{\mathbf{p},s}^{\dagger}\hat{a}_{\mathbf{p},s}+\hat{b}_{\mathbf{p},s}\hat{b}_{\mathbf{p},s}^{\dagger}\right),\nonumber \\
\hat{N}_{5} & = & \sum_{ss_{1}}\int\frac{d^{3}\mathbf{p}}{(2\pi)^{3}}\frac{\xi_{s}^{\dagger}(\boldsymbol{\sigma}\cdot\mathbf{p})\xi_{s_{1}}}{\left|\mathbf{p}\right|}\left(\hat{a}_{\mathbf{p},s}^{\dagger}\hat{a}_{\mathbf{p},s_{1}}+\hat{b}_{\mathbf{p},s}\hat{b}_{\mathbf{p},s_{1}}^{\dagger}\right),\label{eq:cannonical operators HNN_5}\end{aligned}$$
where we have dropped terms $\hat{a}_{\mathbf{p},s}^{\dagger}\hat{b}_{-\mathbf{p},s}^{\dagger}$ and $\hat{b}_{\mathbf{p},s}\hat{a}_{-\mathbf{p},s}$. In general, the term $\xi_{s}^{\dagger}(\boldsymbol{\sigma}\cdot\mathbf{p})\xi_{s_{1}}$ is not diagonalizable in spin space, which means that the physical states are superposition of states with $s=+$ and states with $s=-$, and then the thermal expectation value of $a_{\mathbf{p},+}^{\dagger}a_{\mathbf{p},-}$ will be non-zero. We can use the method in subsection \[subsec:Free-fermions\] to diagonalize the distribution. If we choose the spin quantization direction as the direction of $\mathbf{p}$, which fulfills, $$(\boldsymbol{\sigma}\cdot\mathbf{p})\xi_{s}=s\left|\mathbf{p}\right|\xi_{s},\label{eq:specific choice of spinors}$$ then the operator $\hat{N}_{5}$ is diagonalized in spin space, $$\hat{N}_{5}=\sum_{s}s\int\frac{d^{3}\mathbf{p}}{(2\pi)^{3}}\left(\hat{a}_{\mathbf{p},s}^{\dagger}\hat{a}_{\mathbf{p},s}+\hat{b}_{\mathbf{p},s}\hat{b}_{\mathbf{p},s}^{\dagger}\right).\label{eq:cannonical operator N_5}$$ Inserting the quantized operators (\[eq:cannonical operators HNN\_5\]), (\[eq:cannonical operator N\_5\]) into the canonical partition function, we obtain $$\hat{Z}=\exp\left\{ -\beta\sum_{s}\int\frac{d^{3}\mathbf{p}}{(2\pi)^{3}}\left[\left(\left|\mathbf{p}\right|-\mu-s\mu_{5}\right)\hat{a}_{\mathbf{p},s}^{\dagger}\hat{a}_{\mathbf{p},s}-\left(\left|\mathbf{p}\right|+\mu+s\mu_{5}\right)\hat{b}_{\mathbf{p},s}\hat{b}_{\mathbf{p},s}^{\dagger}\right]\right\} .$$ This result coincides with our knowledge for the massless case: for massless particles, the operators $\hat{N}$ and $\hat{N}_{5}$ commute with the Hamiltonian $\hat{H}$, so the basis states can be chosen as common eigenstates of the operators $\hat{H}$, $\hat{N}$, and $\hat{N}_{5}$. The canonical partition function is then diagonalized. The expectation value of any operator $\hat{O}$ is computed via $$\left\langle \hat{O}\right\rangle =\frac{\mathrm{Tr\ }(\hat{O}\hat{Z})}{\mathrm{Tr\ }\hat{Z}}.\label{eq:expectation value of O-1}$$ Here $\mathrm{Tr}$ runs over all possible quantum states. Taking the expectation values of the fermion number operator $\hat{a}_{\mathbf{p},s}^{\dagger}\hat{a}_{\mathbf{p},s^{\prime}}$ and anti-fermion number operator $\hat{b}_{\mathbf{p},s}^{\dagger}\hat{b}_{\mathbf{p},s^{\prime}}$ we obtain the Fermi-Dirac distributions, $$f_{ss^{\prime}}^{(\pm)}(x,\mathbf{p})=\frac{1}{1+\exp\left[\beta\left(\left|\mathbf{p}\right|\mp\mu\mp s\mu_{5}\right)\right]}\delta_{ss^{\prime}},\label{eq:Fermi distribution for fermion}$$ which coincide with the equilibrium distributions for chiral particles. Since the spinors satisfy Eq. (\[eq:specific choice of spinors\]), we can calculate $$\xi_{s}^{\dagger}\hat{n}^{\mu}(\mathbf{p})\xi_{s}=sp^{\mu}.$$ Then the Wigner function in Eq. (\[eq:Wigner function in free case\]) reproduces the massless results of Refs. [@Gao:2012ix; @Hidaka:2016yjf; @Huang:2018wdl].
For the massive case, one possible choice for the thermal equilibrium distributions is the naive extension from the massless ones in Eq. (\[eq:Fermi distribution for fermion\]) by substituting $\left|\mathbf{p}\right|\rightarrow E_{\mathbf{p}}$ , $$f_{ss^{\prime}}^{(\pm)}(x,\mathbf{p})=\frac{1}{1+\exp\left[\beta\left(E_{\mathbf{p}}\mp\mu\mp s\mu_{5}\right)\right]}\delta_{ss^{\prime}}.\label{eq:naively extension}$$ However, the axial-charge number $\hat{N}_{5}$ is not conserved in the massive case because it does not commute with the Hamiltonian, so $\mu_{5}$ is not well-defined. The correct way is to include an additional self-energy term $\mu\psi^{\dagger}\psi+\mu_{5}\psi^{\dagger}\gamma^{5}\psi$ in the Hamiltonian, where $\mu_{5}$ is the conjugate variable of the axial-charge. Here $\mu_{5}$ controls the chiral imbalance and is the counterpart of the chiral chemical potential in the massless case. Meanwhile, $\mu$ is interpreted as the vector chemical potential. The single-particle wavefunction, as well as the Wigner function have been computed in subsection \[subsec:Free-with-chiral\], see Eq. (\[eq:Wigner function with chiral\]). The Hamiltonian is quantized in Eq. (\[eq:quantized Hamiltonian\]). Since the chemical potentials are already included in the Hamiltonian, the canonical partition function is given by [@Dolan:1973qd] $$\hat{Z}=\exp(-\beta\hat{H}),\label{eq:new partition function}$$ with the total Hamiltonian $$\hat{H}=\hat{H}_{0}-\mu\hat{N}-\mu_{5}\hat{N}_{5},$$ where the free Hamiltonian $\hat{H}_{0}$, the net fermion number $\hat{N}$, and the axial-charge number $\hat{N}_{5}$ are defined in Eq. (\[eq:operators for equilibrium\]). The equilibrium distributions for fermions and anti-fermions are derived using this partition function, which agree with the Fermi-Dirac distributions, $$\begin{aligned}
f_{s}^{(+)}(\mathbf{p}) & = & \frac{1}{1+\exp\left[\beta(E_{\mathbf{p},s}-\mu)\right]},\nonumber \\
f_{s}^{(-)}(\mathbf{p}) & = & \frac{1}{1+\exp\left[\beta(E_{-\mathbf{p},s}+\mu)\right]},\label{eq:explicity distributions}\end{aligned}$$ where $f_{s}^{(+)}(\mathbf{p})\equiv\left\langle a_{\mathbf{p},s}^{\dagger}a_{\mathbf{p},s}\right\rangle $ and $f_{s}^{(-)}(\mathbf{p})\equiv\left\langle b_{\mathbf{p},s}^{\dagger}b_{\mathbf{p},s}\right\rangle $ are expectation values of the fermion number and anti-fermion number at given $\mathbf{p}$ and $s$. Note that here the energy $E_{\mathbf{p},s}=\sqrt{m^{2}+(\left|\mathbf{p}\right|-s\mu_{5})^{2}}$ is reduced to $E_{\mathbf{p},s}=\left|\left|\mathbf{p}\right|-s\mu_{5}\right|$ in the massless limit and these distributions agree with previous results in Eq. (\[eq:Fermi distribution for fermion\]) when $\left|\mathbf{p}\right|>\mu_{5}$. In subsections \[subsec:Net-fermion-current\] and \[subsec:Energy-momentum-tensor-and\] we will use both the naive distributions in (\[eq:naively extension\]) and the explicit ones in (\[eq:explicity distributions\]) to compute dynamical quantities. They will show a coincidence with each other in some parameter region.
In a constant magnetic field, the Dirac equation is solved in subsection \[subsec:Fermions-in-const-B\] and the Hamiltonian is quantized as shown in Eq. (\[eq:quantized Hamiltonian in magnetic\]). The corresponding canonical partition function is again defined by Eq. (\[eq:new partition function\]). Taking the expectation values of $\hat{a}_{s}^{(n)\dagger}(p^{x},p^{z})\hat{a}_{s}^{(n)}(p^{x},p^{z})$ and $\hat{b}_{s}^{(n)\dagger}(p^{x},p^{z})\hat{b}_{s}^{(n)}(p^{x},p^{z})$, we obtain the following distributions respectively, $$\begin{aligned}
f_{s}^{(+)(n)}(p^{z}) & = & \frac{1}{1+\exp\left[\beta\left(E_{p^{z}s}^{(n)}-\mu\right)\right]},\nonumber \\
f_{s}^{(-)(n)}(p^{z}) & = & \frac{1}{1+\exp\left[\beta\left(E_{-p^{z},s}^{(n)}+\mu\right)\right]}.\end{aligned}$$ Note that the equilibrium distributions are independent of the parameter $p^{x}$ because the energy states, $E_{p^{z}}^{(0)}=\sqrt{m^{2}+(p^{z}-\mu_{5})^{2}}$ and $E_{p^{z}s}^{(n)}=\sqrt{m^{2}+\left[\sqrt{(p^{z})^{2}+2nB_{0}}-s\mu_{5}\right]^{2}}$ for $n>0$, are independent of $p^{x}$. This agrees with our knowledge about the Landau levels: the transverse momentum is quantized and described by the quantum number $n$, and $p^{x}$ is now a parameter for the center position of the wavefunction in the $y$ direction.
The coupling between the spin and the magnetic field is already considered when computing the Wigner function because electromagnetic fields are included in the definition of the Wigner function (\[def:Wigner function\]). However in the presence of vorticity, additional spin-vorticity coupling terms are necessary, otherwise the vortical effects cannot be derived. The vorticity of charged particles generates an effective magnetic field, which couples with the magnetic dipole moment of the particles, thus the additional coupling term is $$\Delta\hat{H}=\frac{\hbar}{4}\omega^{\mu\nu}\hat{\psi}^{\dagger}\gamma^{0}\sigma_{\mu\nu}\hat{\psi},$$ where $\omega^{\mu\nu}\equiv\partial_{x}^{\mu}(\beta u^{\nu})-\partial_{x}^{\nu}(\beta u^{\mu})$ is the thermal vorticity and $\frac{\hbar}{2}\hat{\psi}^{\dagger}\gamma^{0}\sigma_{\mu\nu}\hat{\psi}$ is the operator of the dipole-moment tensor. In general $\Delta\hat{H}$ is diagonal for the eigenstates of Hamiltonian $\hat{H}$ if and only if they commute $\left[\hat{H},\Delta\hat{H}\right]=0$. Assuming that the dipole-moment tensor of particles points along the direction $m_{\mu\nu}$, then we obtain $$\Delta\hat{H}=\frac{\hbar}{4}\omega^{\mu\nu}m_{\mu\nu}\int\frac{d^{3}\mathbf{p}}{(2\pi)^{3}}\sum_{s}s\left(a_{\mathbf{p},s}^{\dagger}a_{\mathbf{p},s}-b_{\mathbf{p},s}b_{\mathbf{p},s}^{\dagger}\right).$$ This can be achieved in the case of free fermions without chiral imbalance because the spin quantization direction is not specified, as discussed in subsection \[subsec:Free-fermions\]. Then the distribution functions would have an order-$\hbar$ correction, $$f_{ss^{\prime}}^{(\pm)}(x,\mathbf{p})=\frac{1}{1+\exp\left[\beta\left(E_{\mathbf{p}}\mp\mu\pm s\frac{\hbar}{4}\omega^{\mu\nu}m_{\mu\nu}\right)\right]}\delta_{ss^{\prime}},\label{eq:Fermi distribution for fermion-1}$$ which agrees with the suggestion of Ref. [@Becattini:2013fla]. Note that the validity of this distribution needs more careful discussion. That is because in the presence of a magnetic field, there are two specific directions: the direction of the magnetic field and the direction of the vorticity. If they differ from each other, the spin-magnetic coupling term and the spin-vorticity coupling term cannot be diagonal simultaneously. Even if the vorticity and the magnetic field are along the same direction, we find it difficult to introduce the chiral chemical potential because the axial-charge $\hat{N}_{5}$ is diagonal only if the spin is quantized along $p^{\mu}$. More precisely, the vorticity in general depends on spatial coordinates while the dipole moment depends on the particle’s momentum. If we consider these dependences, $\Delta\hat{H}$ cannot commute with $\hat{H}_{0}$, which indicates that it is impossible to find the common eigenstates of $\Delta\hat{H}$ and $\hat{H}_{0}$. Thus the total Hamiltonian is in general not diagonal and the equilibrium in the presence of vorticity cannot be as simple as shown in Eq. (\[eq:Fermi distribution for fermion-1\]). The Wigner function contains the vortical effect at order $\hbar$, but in this thesis we will not discuss the vorticity effect because the correct way to define the thermal equilibrium distributions with spin-vorticity coupling is still under discussion.
Fermion number current and polarization\[subsec:Net-fermion-current\]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in subsection \[subsec:Physical-quantities\], the fermion number current can be derived from the vector component of the Wigner function. The chiral imbalance for massive particles should be included in the Dirac equation, as we did in subsection \[subsec:Free-with-chiral\]. But if the particle masses is small enough, they can be treated as massless particles. In this case, the chiral chemical potential $\mu_{5}$ is included in the thermal equilibrium distribution (\[eq:Fermi distribution for fermion\]). The Wigner function is solved up to $\mathcal{O}(\hbar)$ using the semi-classical expansion of Eqs. (\[eq:order hbar solutions of FPS\]) and (\[eq:VA from FPS-1\]). Note that this method is a straightforward extension for the massless case. Another more exact approach is chiral quantization. In this subsection we will compare these two approaches. Meanwhile, we will discuss the magnetic-field dependence of physical quantities.
### Semi-classical results
If we use the semi-classical results in Eq. (\[eq:VA from FPS-1\]), the fermion number current is given by $$\mathbb{N}^{\mu}=\int d^{4}p\ p^{\mu}\left[V\delta(p^{2}-m^{2})-\frac{\hbar}{2}F_{\alpha\beta}\Sigma^{\alpha\beta}\delta^{\prime}(p^{2}-m^{2})\right]+\frac{\hbar}{2}\partial_{x\nu}\int d^{4}p\ \Sigma^{\mu\nu}\delta(p^{2}-m^{2}).$$ Since $\int d^{4}p\ \Sigma^{\mu\nu}\delta(p^{2}-m^{2})$ is the leading-order dipole-moment tensor, the second term is identified as the magnetization current. Meanwhile, the axial vector current is given by $\mathcal{A}^{\mu}$, $$\mathbb{N}_{5}^{\mu}=-\frac{1}{2}\epsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}\int d^{4}p\ p^{\nu}\Sigma^{\alpha\beta}\delta(p^{2}-m^{2})+\hbar\tilde{F}_{\mu\nu}\int d^{4}p\ p^{\nu}V\delta^{\prime}(p^{2}-m^{2}).$$ Since we have no idea how to determine the dipole-moment tensor, we presume that all particles are longitudinally polarized. That is, at the leading order in $\hbar$, the spins of the particles are either parallel or anti-parallel to their momenta in the observer’s rest frame. The frame dependence of spin polarization is discussed in subsection \[subsec:Ambiguity-of-functions\], see Eqs. (\[eq:decomposition of polarization\]) and (\[eq:specific choice of nmu\]). In this case the vector and axial-vector components of the Wigner function are given by Eqs. (\[eq:specific solution of A\^=00005Cmu\]), (\[eq:specific solution of V\^=00005Cmu\]). Using the equilibrium distributions in (\[eq:naively extension\]), we obtain the fermion number distribution $V$ and the axial-charge distribution $A$, $$\begin{aligned}
V & = & \frac{2}{(2\pi)^{3}}\sum_{s}\left\{ \theta(p\cdot u)\frac{1}{1+\exp\left[\beta(p\cdot u-\mu-s\mu_{5})\right]}\right.\nonumber \\
& & \qquad\left.+\theta(-p\cdot u)\frac{1}{1+\exp\left[\beta(-p\cdot u+\mu+s\mu_{5})\right]}-\theta(-p\cdot u)\right\} .\nonumber \\
A & = & \frac{2}{(2\pi)^{3}}\sum_{s}s\left\{ \theta(p\cdot u)\frac{1}{1+\exp\left[\beta(p\cdot u-\mu-s\mu_{5})\right]}\right.\nonumber \\
& & \qquad\left.+\theta(-p\cdot u)\frac{1}{1+\exp\left[\beta(-p\cdot u+\mu+s\mu_{5})\right]}-\theta(-p\cdot u)\right\} .\label{eq:equilibrium distributions VA}\end{aligned}$$ Note that in Eq. (\[eq:equilibrium distributions VA\]) there are terms from vacuum contributions. When calculating the fermion number density $n$ and the CME conductivity $\sigma_{\chi}$, these vacuum terms lead to divergence and should be dropped. Here we have replaced $p^{0}$, or the energy $E_{\mathbf{p}}$, by $p\cdot u$, which is the energy in the frame $u^{\mu}$. From Eq. (\[eq:specific solution of V\^=00005Cmu\]) we obtain the fermion number current by integrating over $d^{4}p$.
$$\mathbb{N}^{\mu}=\int d^{4}p\ p^{\mu}\left[V\delta(p^{2}-m^{2})-\hbar\tilde{F}^{\nu\alpha}\frac{p_{\nu}u_{\alpha}}{p\cdot u}A\delta^{\prime}(p^{2}-m^{2})\right]+\frac{\hbar}{2}\epsilon^{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}\partial_{x\nu}\int d^{4}p\frac{p_{\alpha}u_{\beta}}{p\cdot u}A\delta(p^{2}-m^{2}).$$
We find that the first term agrees with the classical fermion current with an energy shift from the spin-magnetic coupling, while the second term gives the analogue of the CVE. Note that if we compare with Maxwell’s equation we immediately find that the second term is nothing but the magnetization current. In the integration over four-momentum, we need to deal with $\delta^{\prime}(p^{2}-m^{2})$, which can be achieved by integrating by parts, $$\mathbb{N}^{\mu}=\int d^{4}p\ \left[p^{\mu}V+\frac{\hbar}{2}\tilde{F}^{\mu\nu}u_{\nu}\frac{1}{p\cdot u}A+\frac{\hbar}{2}u^{\mu}\tilde{F}^{\nu\alpha}\frac{p_{\nu}u_{\alpha}}{p\cdot u}\frac{\partial}{\partial(p\cdot u)}A+\frac{\hbar}{2}u^{\mu}\tilde{F}^{\nu\alpha}\frac{p_{\nu}u_{\alpha}}{(p\cdot u)^{2}}A\right]\delta(p^{2}-m^{2}).$$ Note that the functions $V$ and $A$ only depends on $(p\cdot u)$. Thus the above current can be parametrized as $$\mathbb{N}^{\mu}=u^{\mu}n+\sigma_{\chi}\hbar\tilde{F}^{\mu\nu}u_{\nu},\label{eq:parametrize n=00005Cmu}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
n & = & \int d^{4}p\ (p\cdot u)V\delta(p^{2}-m^{2}),\nonumber \\
\sigma_{\chi} & = & \frac{1}{2}\int d^{4}p\ \frac{1}{p\cdot u}A\delta(p^{2}-m^{2})\label{eq:massive n and sigma-chi}\end{aligned}$$ are the fermion number density and the CME conductivity respectively. Using the distributions in Eq. (\[eq:equilibrium distributions VA\]), these quantities can be numerically calculated.
On the other hand, the axial-vector current, or the spin-polarization density is calculated from the axial-vector current by taking an integration over $d^{4}p$
$$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{N}_{5}^{\mu} & = & \int d^{4}p\ \left[\left(p^{\mu}-\frac{m^{2}}{p\cdot u}u^{\mu}\right)A-\hbar\tilde{F}^{\mu\nu}u_{\nu}\frac{\partial}{\partial(p\cdot u)}V+\frac{\hbar}{2}\tilde{F}^{\mu\nu}p_{\nu}\frac{1}{p\cdot u}\frac{\partial}{\partial(p\cdot u)}V\right.\nonumber \\
& & \left.\qquad+\frac{\hbar}{2}u^{\mu}\tilde{F}^{\nu\alpha}\frac{p_{\nu}u_{\alpha}}{p\cdot u}\frac{\partial}{\partial(p\cdot u)}V\right]\delta(p^{2}-m^{2}),\end{aligned}$$
where we have neglected the spatial derivative of $u^{\mu}$. Analogous to the fermion number current, the spin polarization can be parametrized as $$\mathbb{N}_{5}^{\mu}=u^{\mu}n_{5}+\sigma_{5}\hbar\tilde{F}^{\mu\nu}u_{\nu},\label{eq:parametrize n_5=00005Cmu}$$ where $n_{5}$ is the axial-charge density and $\sigma_{5}$ is the coefficient for the CSE, $$\begin{aligned}
n_{5} & = & \int d^{4}p\ \left(u\cdot p-\frac{m^{2}}{u\cdot p}\right)A\delta(p^{2}-m^{2}),\nonumber \\
\sigma_{5} & = & -\frac{1}{2}\int d^{4}p\ \delta(p^{2}-m^{2})\frac{\partial}{\partial(u\cdot p)}V.\label{eq:massive n5 and sigma5}\end{aligned}$$ Using the equilibrium distributions in Eq. (\[eq:equilibrium distributions VA\]), $n_{5}$ and $\sigma_{5}$ can be numerically calculated.
In the massless case, the fermion number density is given by $$n_{\text{massless}}=\int\frac{d^{3}\mathbf{p}}{(2\pi)^{3}}\sum_{rs}r\frac{1}{1+\exp\left[\beta(\left|\mathbf{p}\right|-r\mu-rs\mu_{5})\right]},\label{eq:massless n}$$ while the CME conductivity is a constant $\sigma_{\chi,\text{massless}}=\mu_{5}/(2\pi^{2})$ [@Vilenkin:1980fu; @Kharzeev:2007jp; @Fukushima:2008xe; @Landsteiner:2012kd]. The axial-charge density is $$n_{5,\text{massless}}=\int\frac{d^{3}\mathbf{p}}{(2\pi)^{3}}\sum_{rs}rs\frac{1}{1+\exp\left[\beta(\left|\mathbf{p}\right|-r\mu-rs\mu_{5})\right]},\label{eq:massless n5}$$ while the coefficient for the chiral separation effect is $\sigma_{5,\text{massless}}=\mu/(2\pi)^{2}$ [@Son:2004tq; @Metlitski:2005pr; @Landsteiner:2012kd]. In Figs. \[fig:Mass-dependence-n\]-\[fig:Mass-dependence-sigma5\] we computed the ratio between the massive results (\[eq:massive n and sigma-chi\]) and (\[eq:massive n5 and sigma5\]) and the massless ones (\[eq:massless n\]) and (\[eq:massless n5\]) for the net fermion number density $n$, the CME conductivity $\sigma_{\chi}$, the axial-charge density $n_{5}$, and the CSE coefficient $\sigma_{5}$, respectively. From these figures we observe that the quantities in the massive case smoothly reproduce the massless ones by the fact that the ratios become $1$ in the massless limit. All of these quantities decrease with increasing mass. This is because, when the particles’ momentum is fixed, heavier masses lead to larger energy and thus the states are less likely to be occupied.
![\[fig:Mass-dependence-n\]Mass dependence of the fermion number density $n$ computed using Eq. (\[eq:massive n and sigma-chi\]) and normalized by the massless value in Eq. (\[eq:massless n\]). The particles’ mass $m$ and chemical potentials $\mu$, $\mu_{5}$ are normalized by the temperature $T$.](\string"ratio_between_number_density\string".PNG){width="8cm"}
![\[fig:Mass-dependence-sigma-chi\]Mass dependence of the CME conductivity $\sigma_{\chi}$ calculated using Eq. (\[eq:massive n and sigma-chi\]) and normalized by the massless value $\sigma_{\chi,\text{massless}}=\mu_{5}/(2\pi^{2})$. The particles’ mass $m$ and chemical potentials $\mu$, $\mu_{5}$ are normalized by the temperature $T$.](\string"mass_depence_of_sigmachi\string".PNG){width="8cm"}
![\[fig:Mass-dependence-n5\]Mass dependence of the axial-charge density $n_{5}$ calculated using Eq. (\[eq:massive n5 and sigma5\]) and normalized by the massless value in Eq. (\[eq:massless n5\]). The particles’ mass $m$ and chemical potentials $\mu$, $\mu_{5}$ are normalized by the temperature $T$.](\string"mass_depence_of_n5\string".PNG){width="10cm"}
![\[fig:Mass-dependence-sigma5\]Mass dependence of the CSE coefficient $\sigma_{5}$ calculated using Eq. (\[eq:massive n5 and sigma5\]) and normalized by the massless value $\sigma_{5,\text{massless}}=\mu/(2\pi)^{2}$ . The particles’ mass $m$ and chemical potentials $\mu$, $\mu_{5}$ are normalized by the temperature $T$.](\string"mass_dependence_of_sigma5\string".PNG){width="8cm"}
### Results from chiral quantization
The coincidence of the massive and massless results is beyond our expectation because the equilibrium distributions are taken to be the ones in Eq. (\[eq:naively extension\]), which are naive extensions of the massless ones. However, as we have discussed in subsection \[subsec:Thermal-equilibrium\], the chiral chemical potential in the massive case should be considered as a self-energy term, which appears in the Dirac equation. The corresponding Wigner function has been given in Eq. (\[eq:Wigner function with chiral\]). Here we look at $\mathcal{V}^{0}$ and $\mathcal{A}^{0}$, which give the fermion number density and the axial-charge density respectively. In thermal equilibrium, these quantities are given by $$\begin{aligned}
n & = & \int\frac{d^{3}\mathbf{p}}{(2\pi)^{3}}\sum_{s}\left\{ \frac{1}{1+\exp\left[\beta\left(E_{\mathbf{p},s}-\mu\right)\right]}-\frac{1}{1+\exp\left[\beta\left(E_{\mathbf{p},s}+\mu\right)\right]}+1\right\} ,\nonumber \\
n_{5} & = & \int\frac{d^{3}\mathbf{p}}{(2\pi)^{3}}\sum_{s}\frac{s\left|\mathbf{p}\right|-\mu_{5}}{E_{\mathbf{p},s}}\left\{ \frac{1}{1+\exp\left[\beta\left(E_{\mathbf{p},s}-\mu\right)\right]}+\frac{1}{1+\exp\left[\beta\left(E_{\mathbf{p},s}+\mu\right)\right]}-1\right\} ,\label{eq:chiral as a self energy}\end{aligned}$$ where $E_{\mathbf{p},s}=\sqrt{m^{2}+(\left|\mathbf{p}\right|-s\mu_{5})^{2}}$ are eigenenergies of the Hamiltonian with chiral modification. When computing the net fermion number density, we will simply drop the vacuum contribution, i.e., the last term in the first line of Eq. (\[eq:chiral as a self energy\]). In Fig. \[fig:Ratio-of-n\] we compare $n$ in Eq. (\[eq:chiral as a self energy\]) with the semi-classical result in Eq. (\[eq:massive n and sigma-chi\]). We find that they coincide with each other when the mass $m$ or the chiral chemical potential $\mu_{5}$ is not too large compared with the temperature. When we have a large $m$ or $\mu_{5}$, the semi-classical result overestimates the number density because the ratio is smaller than $1$.
![\[fig:Ratio-of-n\]Ratio of the net fermion number density $n$ of the result in (\[eq:chiral as a self energy\]) from chiral quantization and the semi-classical result in (\[eq:massive n and sigma-chi\]). Here we fix the chemical potential $\mu/T=3$ and plotted the dependence on $m$ and $\mu_{5}$.](\string"ratio_between_two_methods_of_mu5\string".PNG){width="8cm"}
Meanwhile, we compare in Fig. \[fig:Ratio-of-n5\] the axial-charge density $n_{5}$ calculated using Eq. (\[eq:chiral as a self energy\]) with the one in Eq. (\[eq:massive n5 and sigma5\]). Here in the calculation we have dropped the vacuum contribution. We find that in the massless limit they do not agree with each other. Fortunately, we can attribute the difference to the vacuum contribution. The vacuum part for $n_{5}$ in Eq. (\[eq:chiral as a self energy\]) will be divergent for non-zero mass, but in the the massless case it has a finite value
$$\Delta n_{5,vac}=\frac{\mu_{5}^{3}}{3\pi^{2}}.$$
Taking this into account, the results in Eq. (\[eq:chiral as a self energy\]) agrees with (\[eq:massless n5\]) in the massless limit. But in general the semi-classical results over-estimates the axial-charge density.
![\[fig:Ratio-of-n5\]The ratio of the axial-charge density $n_{5}$ of the result (\[eq:chiral as a self energy\]) and the semi-classical result in (\[eq:massive n5 and sigma5\]). Here we fix the chemical potential $\mu/T=3$ and plotted the dependence on $m$ and $\mu_{5}$.](\string"ratio_of_n5_in_two_methods\string".PNG){width="8cm"}
Note that the effects of electromagnetic fields are not included in the chiral-quantization description. In order to derive the CME or CSE, one needs to use the semi-classical method to derive the first-order contribution in $\hbar$, while the results in subsection \[subsec:Free-with-chiral\] only serve as the zeroth-order solutions. However, note that when the chemical potentials $\mu$ and $\mu_{5}$ appear in the Dirac equation, the kinetic equation (\[eq:Dirac equation for Wigner\]) of the Wigner function will also have additional terms which are related to $\mu$ and $\mu_{5}$. So the present semi-classical discussions in Sec. \[sec:Semi-classical-expansion\] need to be repeated for finite $\mu$ and $\mu_{5}$. In this thesis, the method of chiral quantization only serves for comparing with the semi-classical method in Sec. \[sec:Semi-classical-expansion\], and thus the chiral effects are not discussed using this method.
### Results in magnetic field
In the presence of a constant magnetic field, fermions are quantized according to the Landau levels. We have derived the Wigner function in subsection \[subsec:Fermions-in-const-B\], where the vector components read $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{V}^{0} & = & (p^{0}+\mu)\sum_{n=0}\Lambda_{+}^{(n)}(p_{T})V_{n}+(p^{0}+\mu)\sum_{n>0}\frac{p^{z}}{\sqrt{(p^{z})^{2}+2nB_{0}}}\Lambda_{-}^{(n)}(p_{T})A_{n},\nonumber \\
\mathcal{V}^{x} & = & p^{x}\sum_{n>0}\frac{2nB_{0}}{p_{T}^{2}}\left[V_{n}-\frac{\mu_{5}}{\sqrt{(p^{z})^{2}+2nB_{0}}}A_{n}\right]\Lambda_{+}^{(n)}(p_{T}),\nonumber \\
\mathcal{V}^{y} & = & p^{y}\sum_{n>0}\frac{2nB_{0}}{p_{T}^{2}}\left[V_{n}-\frac{\mu_{5}}{\sqrt{(p^{z})^{2}+2nB_{0}}}A_{n}\right]\Lambda_{+}^{(n)}(p_{T}),\nonumber \\
\mathcal{V}^{z} & = & (p^{z}-\mu_{5})\Lambda^{(0)}(p_{T})V_{0}+p^{z}\sum_{n>0}\left[V_{n}-\frac{\mu_{5}}{\sqrt{(p^{z})^{2}+2nB_{0}}}A_{n}\right]\Lambda_{+}^{(n)}(p_{T})\nonumber \\
& & \qquad+\sum_{n>0}\left[\sqrt{(p^{z})^{2}+2nB_{0}}A_{n}-\mu_{5}V_{n}\right]\Lambda_{-}^{(n)}(p_{T}),\end{aligned}$$ The distributions are assumed to take their thermal equilibrium forms, $$\begin{aligned}
V_{n} & \equiv & \frac{2}{(2\pi)^{3}}\sum_{s}\delta\left\{ (p^{0}+\mu)^{2}-[E_{p^{z}s}^{(n)}]^{2}\right\} \nonumber \\
& & \qquad\times\left\{ \theta(p^{0}+\mu)\frac{1}{1+\exp(\beta p^{0})}+\theta(-p^{0}-\mu)\left[\frac{1}{1+\exp(-\beta p^{0})}-1\right]\right\} ,\\
A_{n} & \equiv & \frac{2}{(2\pi)^{3}}\sum_{s}s\delta\left\{ (p^{0}+\mu)^{2}-[E_{p^{z}s}^{(n)}]^{2}\right\} \\
& & \qquad\times\left\{ \theta(p^{0}+\mu)\frac{1}{1+\exp(\beta p^{0})}+\theta(-p^{0}-\mu)\left[\frac{1}{1+\exp(-\beta p^{0})}-1\right]\right\} ,\label{eq:def-VnAn-1}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
V_{0} & = & \frac{2}{(2\pi)^{3}}\delta\left\{ (p^{0}+\mu)^{2}-[E_{p^{z}}^{(0)}]^{2}\right\} \nonumber \\
& & \qquad\times\left\{ \theta(p^{0}+\mu)\frac{1}{1+\exp(\beta p^{0})}+\theta(-p^{0}-\mu)\left[\frac{1}{1+\exp(-\beta p^{0})}-1\right]\right\} .\label{eq:def-V0-1}\end{aligned}$$ Here the eigenenergies are given by $E_{p_{z}}^{(0)}=\sqrt{m^{2}+(p^{z})^{2}}$ for the lowest Landau level and $E_{p^{z}s}^{(n)}=\sqrt{m^{2}+\left[\sqrt{(p^{z})^{2}+2nB_{0}}-s\mu_{5}\right]^{2}}$ for the higher Landau levels with $n>0$. These eigenenergies are analytically derived from the Dirac equation in subsection \[subsec:Fermions-in-const-B\]. Note that these distributions are independent of the transverse momentum $p^{x}$ and $p^{y}$, thus we observe that $\mathcal{V}^{x}$ is odd in $p^{x}$. When integrating over $d^{4}p$, the component $\mathcal{V}^{x}$ gives zero, which means there is no current along the $x$ direction. Meanwhile, the current along the $y$ direction vanishes for a similar reason: $\mathcal{V}^{y}$ is odd in $p^{y}$. The fermion number density and current along the magnetic field are non-vanishing, thus the current can be parametrized as shown in Eq. (\[eq:parametrize n=00005Cmu\]), with $$\begin{aligned}
n & = & \sum_{n=0}\int d^{4}p\ (p^{0}+\mu)\Lambda_{+}^{(n)}(p_{T})V_{n},\nonumber \\
\sigma_{\chi} & = & \frac{1}{B_{0}}\int d^{4}p(p^{z}-\mu_{5})\Lambda^{(0)}(p_{T})V_{0}+\frac{1}{B_{0}}\sum_{n>0}\int d^{4}p\ p^{z}\left[V_{n}-\frac{\mu_{5}}{\sqrt{(p^{z})^{2}+2nB_{0}}}A_{n}\right]\Lambda_{+}^{(n)}(p_{T}).\nonumber \\
\label{eq:calculation n sigma_chi}\end{aligned}$$ Here we have dropped the terms of $\Lambda_{-}^{(n)}(p_{T})$ because according to Eq. (\[eq:pt integration of Lambda\_pm\]), these terms vanish when taking an integration over $\mathbf{p}_{T}$. With the help of Eq. (\[eq:pt integration of Lambda\_pm\]), $\Lambda_{+}^{(n)}(p_{T})$ can be integrated out, which gives the density of states for the Landau levels. Furthermore, we find that the higher Landau levels $n>0$ do not contribute to $\sigma_{\chi}$ because they are odd in $p^{z}$. Inserting the distributions (\[eq:def-VnAn-1\]) and (\[eq:def-V0-1\]) into Eq. (\[eq:calculation n sigma\_chi\]), we finally obtain $$\begin{aligned}
n & = & \frac{B_{0}}{(2\pi)^{2}}\int dp^{z}\sum_{n,s}\left\{ \frac{1}{1+\exp\left[\beta\left(E_{p^{z}s}^{(n)}-\mu\right)\right]}-\frac{1}{1+\exp\left[\beta\left(E_{p^{z}s}^{(n)}+\mu\right)\right]}+1\right\} ,\nonumber \\
\sigma_{\chi} & = & \frac{1}{(2\pi)^{2}}\int dp^{z}\frac{p^{z}-\mu_{5}}{E_{p^{z}}^{(0)}}\left\{ \frac{1}{1+\exp\left[\beta\left(E_{p^{z}}^{(0)}-\mu\right)\right]}+\frac{1}{1+\exp\left[\beta\left(E_{p^{z}}^{(0)}+\mu\right)\right]}-1\right\} .\label{eq:magnetic dependent n}\end{aligned}$$ Here $\sigma_{\chi}$ can be analytically computed, $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma_{\chi} & = & -\frac{1}{(2\pi)^{2}\beta}\left.\left\{ \ln\left[1+\exp\left(-\beta E_{p^{z}}^{(0)}+\beta\mu\right)\right]+\ln\left[1+\exp\left(-\beta E_{p^{z}}^{(0)}-\beta\mu\right)\right]\right\} \right|_{-\Lambda}^{\Lambda}\nonumber \\
& & \qquad-\frac{1}{(2\pi)^{2}}\left.\sqrt{m^{2}+(p^{z}-\mu_{5})^{2}}\right|_{-\Lambda}^{\Lambda}\nonumber \\
& = & \frac{\mu_{5}}{2\pi^{2}},\end{aligned}$$ which agrees with the massless results. The result shows that the CME is independent of mass [@Fukushima:2008xe]. In Fig. \[fig:Magnetic-dependence-n\] we plot the dependence of the net fermion number $n$ on the magnetic field. Here the $x$-axis is the field strength, for which we considered a large range from $0$ to $20\,T^{2}$. Note that if we take $T=100$ MeV, then $20\,T^{2}\sim10m_{\pi}^{2}$ is of the order of the maximum field strength in Pb+Pb collisions at the LHC energy. In Fig. \[fig:Magnetic-dependence-n\] we compute the ratio of $n$ in Eq. (\[eq:magnetic dependent n\]) to that in Eq. (\[eq:chiral as a self energy\]). The ratio reaches $1$ in the weak-field limit, as expected because the result in Eq. (\[eq:chiral as a self energy\]) is obtained without the magnetic field. Four parameter configurations are considered: 1) $m/T=1$, $\mu/T=2$, and $\mu_{5}/T=0$, which represents a chirally symmetric system, 2) $m/T=1$, $\mu/T=2$, and $\mu_{5}/T=1$, which represents a system with chiral imbalance, 3) $m/T=1$, $\mu/T=3$, and $\mu_{5}/T=1$, which can show the effect of the chemical potential by comparing with case 2), and 4) $m/T=0$, $\mu/T=3$, and $\mu_{5}/T=1$, which represents a system of massless fermions. From Fig. \[fig:Magnetic-dependence-n\] we observe that the ratio is sensitive to the chemical potentials while insensitive to the mass.
![\[fig:Magnetic-dependence-n\]The magnetic-field dependence of the fermion number density $n$. Here we compute the ratio of the one in Eq. (\[eq:magnetic dependent n\]), which is derived via Landau quantization, to the one in Eq. (\[eq:chiral as a self energy\]), which is derived via chiral quantization. Four configurations of $m$, $\mu$, and $\mu_{5}$ are considered.](\string"magnetic_field_dependence_of_n\string".PNG){width="8cm"}
Analogous to the vector component, for the axial-vector part, we firstly list all the relevant components of the Wigner function, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{A}^{0} & = & (p^{z}-\mu_{5})V_{0}\Lambda^{(0)}(p_{T})+\sum_{n>0}\left[\sqrt{(p^{z})^{2}+2nB_{0}}A_{n}-\mu_{5}V_{n}\right]\Lambda_{+}^{(n)}(p_{T})\nonumber \\
& & \qquad+p^{z}\sum_{n>0}\left[V_{n}-\frac{\mu_{5}}{\sqrt{(p^{z})^{2}+2nB_{0}}}A_{n}\right]\Lambda_{-}^{(n)}(p_{T}),\nonumber \\
\mathcal{A}^{z} & = & (p^{0}+\mu)V_{0}\Lambda^{(0)}(p_{T})+(p^{0}+\mu)\sum_{n>0}V_{n}\Lambda_{-}^{(n)}(p_{T})\nonumber \\
& & \qquad+(p^{0}+\mu)p^{z}\sum_{n>0}A_{n}\frac{1}{\sqrt{(p^{z})^{2}+2nB_{0}}}\Lambda_{+}^{(n)}(p_{T}).\end{aligned}$$ Here the $x$- and $y$-components are not listed because they do not contribute to the axial-vector current for reasons of symmetry. The current $\mathbb{N}_{5}^{\mu}$ is then parametrized as Eq. (\[eq:parametrize n\_5=00005Cmu\]), where the axial-charge density $n_{5}$ and coefficient $\sigma_{5}$ for the CSE are given by $$\begin{aligned}
n_{5} & = & \int d^{4}p\ (p^{z}-\mu_{5})V_{0}\Lambda^{(0)}(p_{T})+\sum_{n>0}\int d^{4}p\ \left[\sqrt{(p^{z})^{2}+2nB_{0}}A_{n}-\mu_{5}V_{n}\right]\Lambda_{+}^{(n)}(p_{T}),\nonumber \\
\sigma_{5} & = & \frac{1}{B_{0}}\int d^{4}p(p_{0}+\mu)V_{0}\Lambda^{(0)}(p_{T}).\end{aligned}$$ Using the distributions in Eqs. (\[eq:def-VnAn-1\]), (\[eq:def-V0-1\]) and the property of $\Lambda_{+}^{(n)}(p_{T})$ in Eq. (\[eq:pt integration of Lambda\_pm\]), the integration over $\mathbf{p}_{T}$ can be performed and we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
n_{5} & = & \frac{B_{0}}{(2\pi)^{2}}\int dp^{z}\frac{p^{z}-\mu_{5}}{E_{p^{z}}^{(0)}}\left\{ \frac{1}{1+\exp\left[\beta\left(E_{p^{z}}^{(0)}-\mu\right)\right]}+\frac{1}{1+\exp\left[\beta\left(E_{p^{z}}^{(0)}+\mu\right)\right]}-1\right\} \nonumber \\
& & +\frac{B_{0}}{(2\pi)^{2}}\sum_{n>0}\sum_{s}\int dp^{z}\frac{s\sqrt{(p^{z})^{2}+2nB_{0}}-\mu_{5}}{E_{p^{z}s}^{(n)}}\nonumber \\
& & \qquad\times\left[\frac{1}{1+\exp\left[\beta\left(E_{p^{z}s}^{(n)}-\mu\right)\right]}+\frac{1}{1+\exp\left[\beta\left(E_{p^{z}s}^{(n)}+\mu\right)\right]}-1\right],\nonumber \\
\sigma_{5} & = & \frac{1}{(2\pi)^{2}}\int dp^{z}\left\{ \frac{1}{1+\exp\left[\beta\left(E_{p^{z}}^{(0)}-\mu\right)\right]}-\frac{1}{1+\exp\left[\beta\left(E_{p^{z}}^{(0)}+\mu\right)\right]}+1\right\} .\label{eq:n5 and sigma5}\end{aligned}$$ In general these quantities cannot be analytically done. In Fig. \[fig:Magnetic-field-n5\] we compare the axial-charge density $n_{5}$ in a magnetic field, i.e., Eq. (\[eq:n5 and sigma5\]), with that without the magnetic field, i.e., Eq. (\[eq:chiral as a self energy\]). We consider three cases: 1) $m/T=1$, $\mu/T=2$, $\mu_{5}=1$, 2) $m/T=1$, $\mu/T=3$, $\mu_{5}=1$, and 3) $m/T=0$, $\mu/T=3$, $\mu_{5}=1$. Comparing these cases we find that the ratio varies with both the mass $m$ and the chemical potential $\mu$. In the weak-field limit, the ratio reaches $1$, which indicates that Eq. (\[eq:n5 and sigma5\]) agrees with Eq. (\[eq:chiral as a self energy\]) in this limit. But when the magnetic field increases, we find that the axial-charge density decreases for fixed $m$, $\mu$, and $\mu_{5}$.
![\[fig:Magnetic-field-n5\]The axial-charge density $n_{5}$ in Eq. (\[eq:n5 and sigma5\]) normalized by Eq. (\[eq:chiral as a self energy\]) as functions of the magentic field normalized by the temperature square. Three parameter configurations are considered.](\string"Magnetic_field_dependence_of_n5\string".PNG){width="8cm"}
On the other hand, $\sigma_{5}$ is independent of the chiral chemical potential $\mu_{5}$, which can be proven by a shift of the integration variable $p^{z}\rightarrow p^{z}+\mu_{5}$. However, in the semi-classical result (\[eq:massive n5 and sigma5\]), $\sigma_{5}$ depends on $\mu_{5}$, which is conflict with the one in Eq. (\[eq:n5 and sigma5\]). In Fig. \[fig:Ratio-between-sigma5\] we compute the ration of $\sigma_{5}$ calculated via Eq. (\[eq:n5 and sigma5\]) to the semi-classical result (\[eq:massive n5 and sigma5\]). The figure shows that these two agree with each other if $\mu_{5}$ and $m$ are not too large. The ratio is smaller than $1$, which means that the semi-classical result overestimates the chiral separation effect. In the limit $m\ll T$, we can expand $\sigma_{5}$ into a series of $\beta m$. The leading two terms read $$\sigma_{5}=\frac{\mu}{2\pi^{2}}-\frac{(\beta m)^{2}}{(2\pi)^{2}\beta}\int_{0}^{\infty}dp\frac{e^{\beta(p-\mu)}(e^{2\beta\mu}-1)(e^{2\beta p}-1)}{p\left[1+e^{\beta(p+\mu)}\right]^{2}\left[1+e^{\beta(p-\mu)}\right]^{2}}+\mathcal{O}\left[(\beta m)^{4}\right].$$ The leading-order term agrees with the massless result. In Fig. \[fig:Mass-and-chemical-sigma5\] we plotted the mass and chemical-potential dependence of $\sigma_{5}$. This shows that a finite mass suppresses the chiral separation effect.
![\[fig:Ratio-between-sigma5\]The ratio of the CSE coefficient $\sigma_{5}$ calculated via Eq. (\[eq:n5 and sigma5\]) to the semi-classical result in (\[eq:massive n5 and sigma5\]), as functions of $m$ and $\mu_{5}$ at fixed $\mu/T=3$. ](\string"ratio_between_sigma5_in_two_methods\string".PNG){width="8cm"}
![\[fig:Mass-and-chemical-sigma5\]The ratio of $\sigma_{5}$ calculated from Landau quantization in Eq. (\[eq:n5 and sigma5\]) to the massless one $\sigma_{5,\text{massless}}=\mu/(2\pi)^{2}$, as a function of mass and chemical-potential (it is independent of $\mu_{5}/T$).](\string"mass_and_mu_dependence_of_sigma5\string".PNG){width="8cm"}
Since we have already derived the vector and the axial-vector currents, now we compute the average spin polarization in a magnetic field. Using the fermion number density $n$ and the coefficient $\sigma_{5}$, the average polarization can be expressed as $$\Pi=\frac{\hbar}{2}\frac{\sigma_{5}B_{0}}{n},$$ where the factor $\frac{\hbar}{2}$ is the unit of spin and $\frac{\hbar}{2}\sigma_{5}B_{0}$ is the total spin-polarization density in a constant magnetic field. In Fig. \[fig:Average-spin-polarization\] we plot the average polarization $\Pi$ as a function of the magnetic-field strength $B_{0}$, where both the semi-classical result and Landau-quantized result are presented. We find that the average polarization of the semi-classical result grows to infinity when $B_{0}$ increases. This is because in the semi-classical result $n$ and $\sigma_{5}$ are independent of $B_{0}$ and thus the average polarization is linear in $B_{0}$. Meanwhile, the result from Landau quantization has the upper limit $1/2$. This is because in sufficiently strong magnetic fields, fermions will stay in the lowest Landau level. As we discussed in subsection \[subsec:Fermions-in-const-B\], the spins in the lowest Landau level are fixed. So the system reaches a fully-polarized state if the field strength is large enough and the average spin polarization approaches $\hbar/2$.
![\[fig:Average-spin-polarization\]The average spin polarization as functions of the magnetic-field strength. The solid lines are the results from the semi-classical expansion, where the fermion number density $n$ and coefficient $\sigma_{5}$ are given in Eqs. (\[eq:massive n and sigma-chi\]) and (\[eq:massive n5 and sigma5\]). The dashed lines are the results calculated via Landau quantization, where $n$ and $\sigma_{5}$ are given in Eqs. (\[eq:magnetic dependent n\]) and (\[eq:n5 and sigma5\]), respectively. The dotted line shows the fully polarized case, where $\Pi=\frac{1}{2}$.](\string"Average_polarization\string".PNG){width="8cm"}
Energy-momentum tensor and spin tensor\[subsec:Energy-momentum-tensor-and\]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
### Semi-classical results
The canonical energy-momentum tensor and the spin-angular-momentum tensor in the quantum field theory are given in Eq. (\[eq:cannonical quantities\]). In the semi-classical description, $\mathcal{V}^{\mu}$ and $\mathcal{A}^{\mu}$ are given by Eq. (\[eq:VA from FPS-1\]). Inserting them into Eq. (\[eq:cannonical quantities\]) we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{T}_{\text{mat}}^{\mu\nu} & = & \int d^{4}p\,p^{\mu}p^{\nu}\left[V\delta(p^{2}-m^{2})-\frac{\hbar}{2}F_{\alpha\beta}\Sigma^{\alpha\beta}\delta^{\prime}(p^{2}-m^{2})\right]\nonumber \\
& & +\frac{\hbar}{2}\partial_{x\alpha}\int d^{4}p\ p^{\nu}\Sigma^{\mu\alpha}\delta(p^{2}-m^{2})+\frac{\hbar}{2}\int d^{4}p\ \Sigma^{\mu\alpha}F_{\alpha}^{\ \nu}\delta(p^{2}-m^{2}),\nonumber \\
\mathbb{S}_{\text{mat}}^{\rho,\mu\nu} & = & \frac{1}{2}\int d^{4}p\,\left(p^{\rho}\Sigma^{\mu\nu}+\rho^{\mu}\Sigma^{\nu\rho}-\rho^{\nu}\Sigma^{\mu\rho}\right)\delta(p^{2}-m^{2})\nonumber \\
& & -\frac{\hbar}{2}\int d^{4}p\,\left(p^{\rho}F^{\mu\nu}+\rho^{\mu}F^{\nu\rho}-\rho^{\nu}F^{\mu\rho}\right)V\delta^{\prime}(p^{2}-m^{2}).\end{aligned}$$ Note that in the classical limit $\hbar\rightarrow0$ the energy-momentum tensor is symmetric with respect to its indices and agrees with the classical result. But the leading-order term can be non-symmetric. The spin-angular-momentum tensor $\mathbb{S}_{\text{mat}}^{\rho,\mu\nu}$ has a straightforward connection to the axial-vector current $\mathbb{S}_{\text{mat}}^{\rho,\mu\nu}=-\frac{1}{2}\epsilon^{\rho\mu\nu\lambda}\mathbb{N}_{5,\lambda}$. Since the axial-vector current has been discussed in the previous subsection, in this subsection we only focus on the energy-momentum tensor.
Similar to the previous subsection, we have no idea about what the equilibrium dipole-moment tensor looks like. Thus we adopt the specific solution in Eqs. (\[eq:specific solution of A\^=00005Cmu\]) and (\[eq:specific solution of V\^=00005Cmu\]), which smoothly recovers the massless limit.
Inserting the dipole-moment tensor into $\mathbb{T}_{\text{mat}}^{\mu\nu}$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{T}_{\text{mat}}^{\mu\nu} & = & \int d^{4}p\ p^{\mu}p^{\nu}\left[V\delta(p^{2}-m^{2})-\hbar\tilde{F}^{\alpha\beta}\frac{p_{\alpha}u_{\beta}}{u\cdot p}A\delta^{\prime}(p^{2}-m^{2})\right]\nonumber \\
& & +\frac{\hbar}{2}\epsilon^{\mu\alpha\beta\gamma}\partial_{x\alpha}u_{\gamma}\int d^{4}p\ p^{\nu}p_{\beta}\frac{1}{u\cdot p}A\delta(p^{2}-m^{2})\nonumber \\
& & -\frac{\hbar}{2}\epsilon^{\mu\alpha\beta\gamma}F_{\beta}^{\ \nu}u_{\gamma}\int d^{4}p\ \frac{p_{\alpha}}{u\cdot p}A\delta(p^{2}-m^{2}).\end{aligned}$$ Here we assume that the distributions take their equilibrium form in (\[eq:equilibrium distributions VA\]), which depends on $u\cdot p$ in the fluid’s comoving frame $u^{\mu}$.
The energy-momentum tensor can be parametrized as $$\mathbb{T}_{\text{mat}}^{\mu\nu}=u^{\mu}u^{\nu}\epsilon-(g^{\mu\nu}-u^{\mu}u^{\nu})P+\hbar\left(u^{\mu}\tilde{F}^{\nu\beta}u_{\beta}+u^{\nu}\tilde{F}^{\mu\beta}u_{\beta}\right)\xi_{B},$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\epsilon & = & \int d^{4}p\ (u\cdot p)^{2}V\delta(p^{2}-m^{2}),\nonumber \\
P & = & \frac{1}{3}\int d^{4}p\ \left[(u\cdot p)^{2}-m^{2}\right]V\delta(p^{2}-m^{2}),\nonumber \\
\xi_{B} & = & \frac{1}{2}\int d^{4}p\ A\delta(p^{2}-m^{2}),\label{eq:semi-classical xiB}\end{aligned}$$ are the energy density, the pressure, and the coefficient for the energy flux along the magnetic field. In the massless limit, the coefficient $\xi_{B}$ takes the following form [@Landsteiner:2012kd] $$\xi_{B,\text{massless}}=\frac{\mu\mu_{5}}{2\pi^{2}}.\label{eq:massless xiB}$$ In Fig. \[fig:Mass-dependence-xiB\] we compare the semi-classical results (\[eq:semi-classical xiB\]) for massive fermions with $\xi_{B}$ for massless fermions (\[eq:massless xiB\]). We consider a wide range for the value of mass and find that the energy flux decreases for a larger mass. Several configurations of chemical potentials are considered. In the massless limit, the semi-classical results coincide with the massless ones for all the cases considered.
![\[fig:Mass-dependence-xiB\]The mass dependence of the ratio between the semi-classical $\xi_{B}$ in Eq. (\[eq:semi-classical xiB\]) and the massless one in Eq. (\[eq:massless xiB\]). We take several chemical-potential configurations, 1) $\mu/T=2$, $\mu_{5}/T=1$ (solid line), 2) $\mu/T=3$, $\mu_{5}/T=1$ (dashed line), 3) $\mu/T=3$, $\mu_{5}/T=2$ (dash-dotted line).](\string"mass_dependence_of_xi_B\string".png){width="8cm"}
### Results from chiral quantization
If we adopt the chiral quantization description, the energy-momentum tensor can be calculated at zeroth order in $\hbar$ using the results in Eq. (\[eq:Wigner function with chiral\]). Since the formula is not Lorentz-covariant, we take the fluid velocity $u^{\mu}=(1,0,0,0)^{T}$. Then the energy density is given by $$\epsilon=\int\frac{d^{3}\mathbf{p}}{(2\pi)^{3}}\sum_{s}E_{\mathbf{p},s}\left\{ \frac{1}{1+\exp\left[\beta\left(E_{\mathbf{p},s}-\mu\right)\right]}+\frac{1}{1+\exp\left[\beta\left(E_{\mathbf{p},s}+\mu\right)\right]}\right\} ,\label{eq:energy-density with chiral}$$ and the pressure is $$P=\int\frac{d^{3}\mathbf{p}}{(2\pi)^{3}}\sum_{s}\frac{\left|\mathbf{p}\right|^{2}}{3E_{\mathbf{p},s}}\left(1-s\frac{\mu_{5}}{\left|\mathbf{p}\right|}\right)\left\{ \frac{1}{1+\exp\left[\beta\left(E_{\mathbf{p},s}-\mu\right)\right]}+\frac{1}{1+\exp\left[\beta\left(E_{\mathbf{p},s}+\mu\right)\right]}\right\} ,\label{eq:pressure with chiral}$$ while other components of the energy-momentum tensor vanish. In Figs. \[fig:Ratio-of-energy\] and \[fig:Ratio-of-pressure\] we compare the semi-classical results with the ones from the chiral quantization. We find that in the limit $\mu_{5}\rightarrow0$ these results agree with each other, while for large $\mu_{5}$, the semi-classical ones over-estimate both the energy density and the pressure.
![\[fig:Ratio-of-energy\]The ratio of energy density calculated using Eq. (\[eq:energy-density with chiral\]) to the semi-classical result in Eq. (\[eq:semi-classical xiB\]), as a function of the mass $m$ and the chiral chemical potential $\mu_{5}$ in the unit of $T$. Here the vector chemical potential is set to $\mu/T=3$ . ](\string"comparison_of_energy_density\string".PNG){width="8cm"}
![\[fig:Ratio-of-pressure\]The ratio of pressure calculated using Eq. (\[eq:pressure with chiral\]) to the semi-classical result in Eq. (\[eq:semi-classical xiB\]), as a function of the mass $m$ and the chiral chemical potential $\mu_{5}$. Here the vector chemical potential is set to $\mu/T=3$. ](\string"comparison_of_pressure\string".PNG){width="8cm"}
### Results in magnetic field
In the presence of a magnetic field, the Wigner function has been computed in Eq. (\[eq:sol-Wigner-function\]). The constant-magnetic field assumption breaks the Lorentz symmetry because an electric field will appear if we perform a Lorentz boost along a direction which is not parallel to the magnetic field. Here we take the observer’s frame as $u^{\mu}=(1,0,0,0)^{T}$. In this frame, the energy density is $\mathbb{T}_{\text{mat}}^{00}$ and the pressure is $\mathbb{T}_{\text{mat}}^{ii}$, $i=1,2,3$. We first compute the components of $\mathbb{T}_{\text{mat}}^{\mu\nu}$ with the help of Eq. (\[eq:cannonical quantities\]) and the solutions (\[eq:sol-Wigner-function\]) in a magnetic field,
$$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{T}_{\text{mat}}^{00} & = & \int d^{4}p\ (p_{0}+\mu)^{2}\sum_{n=0}V_{n}\Lambda_{+}^{(n)}(p_{T}),\nonumber \\
\mathbb{T}_{\text{mat}}^{11}=\mathbb{T}_{\text{mat}}^{22} & = & \int d^{4}p\ \sum_{n>0}nB_{0}\left[V_{n}-\frac{\mu_{5}}{\sqrt{(p^{z})^{2}+2nB_{0}}}A_{n}\right]\Lambda_{+}^{(n)}(p_{T}),\nonumber \\
\mathbb{T}_{\text{mat}}^{33} & = & \int d^{4}p\ p^{z}(p^{z}-\mu_{5})V_{0}\Lambda^{(0)}(p_{T})\nonumber \\
& & \qquad+\int d^{4}p\ (p^{z})^{2}\sum_{n>0}\left[V_{n}-\frac{\mu_{5}}{\sqrt{(p^{z})^{2}+2nB_{0}}}A_{n}\right]\Lambda_{+}^{(n)}(p_{T}),\nonumber \\
\mathbb{T}_{\text{mat}}^{03} & = & \int d^{4}p\ p^{z}(p_{0}+\mu)V_{0}\Lambda^{(0)}(p_{T}),\end{aligned}$$
where we have dropped terms which vanish when integrating over four-momentum. All the unlisted components are zero. Here the distributions $V_{n}$ and $A_{n}$ are assumed to take their equilibrium forms in Eqs. (\[eq:def-VnAn-1\]) and (\[eq:def-V0-1\]). In a Lorentz-covariant form, the energy-momentum tensor can be generalized as follows $$\mathbb{T}_{\text{mat}}^{\mu\nu}=\epsilon u^{\mu}u^{\nu}-P_{\perp}(g^{\mu\nu}-u^{\mu}u^{\nu}+b^{\mu}b^{\nu})+P_{\parallel}b^{\mu}b^{\nu}+\hbar B_{0}u^{\mu}b^{\nu}\xi_{B},$$ where $b^{\mu}$ is the direction of the magnetic field. The energy density $\epsilon$, the transverse pressure $P_{\perp}$, the longitudinal pressure $P_{\parallel}$, and the coefficients $\xi_{B}$ are respectively given by $$\begin{aligned}
\epsilon & = & \frac{B_{0}}{(2\pi)^{2}}\int dp^{z}\sum_{n,s}E_{p^{z}s}^{(n)}\left\{ \frac{1}{1+\exp\left[\beta\left(E_{p^{z}s}^{(n)}-\mu\right)\right]}+\frac{1}{1+\exp\left[\beta\left(E_{p^{z}s}^{(n)}+\mu\right)\right]}-1\right\} ,\nonumber \\
P_{\perp} & = & \frac{(B_{0})^{2}}{(2\pi)^{2}}\int dp^{z}\sum_{n>0,s}\frac{n}{E_{p^{z}s}^{(n)}}\left[1-\frac{s\mu_{5}}{\sqrt{(p^{z})^{2}+2nB_{0}}}\right]\nonumber \\
& & \qquad\times\left\{ \frac{1}{1+\exp\left[\beta\left(E_{p^{z}s}^{(n)}-\mu\right)\right]}+\frac{1}{1+\exp\left[\beta\left(E_{p^{z}s}^{(n)}+\mu\right)\right]}-1\right\} ,\nonumber \\
P_{\parallel} & = & \frac{B_{0}}{(2\pi)^{2}}\int dp^{z}\frac{p^{z}(p^{z}-\mu_{5})}{E_{p^{z}}^{(0)}}\left\{ \frac{1}{1+\exp\left[\beta\left(E_{p^{z}}^{(0)}-\mu\right)\right]}+\frac{1}{1+\exp\left[\beta\left(E_{p^{z}}^{(0)}+\mu\right)\right]}-1\right\} \nonumber \\
& & +\frac{B_{0}}{(2\pi)^{2}}\int dp^{z}\sum_{n>0,s}\frac{(p^{z})^{2}}{E_{p^{z}s}^{(n)}}\left[1-\frac{s\mu_{5}}{\sqrt{(p^{z})^{2}+2nB_{0}}}\right]\nonumber \\
& & \qquad\times\left\{ \frac{1}{1+\exp\left[\beta\left(E_{p^{z}s}^{(n)}-\mu\right)\right]}+\frac{1}{1+\exp\left[\beta\left(E_{p^{z}s}^{(n)}+\mu\right)\right]}-1\right\} ,\nonumber \\
\xi_{B} & = & \frac{1}{4\pi^{2}}\int dp^{z}\ p^{z}\left\{ \frac{1}{1+\exp\left[\beta\left(E_{p^{z}}^{(0)}-\mu\right)\right]}-\frac{1}{1+\exp\left[\beta\left(E_{p^{z}}^{(0)}+\mu\right)\right]}+1\right\} .\label{eq:quantities in Landau levels}\end{aligned}$$ In these formula we have kept vacuum contributions, e.g. the last term “$1$” in curly braces. But in practice one should neglect the vacuum part otherwise the results will diverge. In Figs. \[fig:Energy-density-B\], \[fig:Transverse-pressure\], and \[fig:Longitudinal-pressure-as\] we compare the energy density and pressure from Landau quantization with those from chiral quantization in Eqs. (\[eq:energy-density with chiral\]) and (\[eq:pressure with chiral\]). We find that in the weak-field limit, these two approaches coincide with each other. When the field strength increases, the transverse pressure decreases while the longitudinal pressure increases. The decrease of the transverse pressure is attributed to the lowest Landau level: in a strong field, the fermions are more likely to stay in the lowest Landau level, which does not contribute to the transverse pressure. The field-strength dependence of the energy density is a little complicated, for some parameter configurations, the ratio first decreases and then increases with growing field strength.
![\[fig:Energy-density-B\] The energy density ratio of the result by Eq. (\[eq:quantities in Landau levels\]) to that by Eq. (\[eq:energy-density with chiral\]), as functions of the magnetic field. ](\string"ratio_of_energy_density\string".PNG){width="8cm"}
![\[fig:Transverse-pressure\]The transverse pressure ratio of the result by Eq. (\[eq:quantities in Landau levels\]) to that by Eq. (\[eq:energy-density with chiral\]), as functions of the magnetic field. ](\string"transverse_pressure\string".PNG){width="8cm"}
![\[fig:Longitudinal-pressure-as\]The longitudinal pressure ratio of the result by Eq. (\[eq:quantities in Landau levels\]) to that by Eq. (\[eq:energy-density with chiral\]) as functions of the magnetic field. ](\string"Logitudinal_pressure\string".PNG){width="8cm"}
On the other hand, the chiral chemical potential also induces an energy flux along the magnetic field direction. Note that if we adopt the Landau quantization, the energy flux $\mathbb{T}_{\text{mat}}^{03}$ exists but the momentum density $\mathbb{T}_{\text{mat}}^{30}$ vanishes, which results in a non-symmetric $\mathbb{T}_{\text{mat}}^{\mu\nu}$. But in the semi-classical results, $\mathbb{T}_{\text{mat}}^{03}$ and $\mathbb{T}_{\text{mat}}^{30}$ take the same value and $\mathbb{T}_{\text{mat}}^{\mu\nu}$ is symmetric. In Fig. \[fig:Coefficient-xiB\] we compute the ratio between the coefficient $\xi_{B}$ in the Landau-quantization calculation in Eq. (\[eq:quantities in Landau levels\]) and the one from the semi-classical method in Eq. (\[eq:semi-classical xiB\]). From this figure we observe that these two results coincide in a wide parameter range. When $m/T$ and $\mu_{5}/T$ are significantly large, the semi-classical method again overestimates $\xi_{B}$.
![\[fig:Coefficient-xiB\]The ratio between the coefficient $\xi_{B}$ calculated using Eq. (\[eq:quantities in Landau levels\]) and the one in Eq. (\[eq:semi-classical xiB\]), as a function of the mass $m/T$ and $\mu_{5}/T$. The chemical potential is set to $\mu/T=3$.](\string"ratio_of_xi_B\string".PNG){width="8cm"}
Pair production\[subsec:Pair-production\]
-----------------------------------------
### In Sauter-type field
In this subsection we will focus on pair-production processes in the presence of an electric field. As shown in Eq. (\[eq:density of pairs\]), the number of pairs can be expressed in terms of the Wigner function. First we focus on the Sauter-type field, using Eqs. (\[eq:solution of Wigner function in Electric\]), (\[eq:basis functions 123\]), and (\[eq:density of pairs\]), we obtain $$n_{\text{pair}}(t,\mathbf{p})=\frac{m_{T}\chi_{2}(t,\mathbf{p})+p^{z}\chi_{1}(t,\mathbf{p})}{2E_{\mathbf{p}}}C_{1}\left(\mathbf{p}-\int_{t_{0}}^{t}dt^{\prime}E(t^{\prime})\mathbf{e}^{z}\right)+\text{const}.,\label{eq:pair spectrum Sauter}$$ where the transverse mass $m_{T}=\sqrt{m^{2}+\mathbf{p}_{T}^{2}}$ and energy $E_{\mathbf{p}}=\sqrt{m^{2}+\mathbf{p}^{2}}$. Here we have dropped all the spatial dependence. We further assumed that the distribution function takes the equilibrium form, $$C_{1}(\mathbf{p})=\frac{2}{(2\pi)^{3}}\left[\frac{1}{1+\exp[\beta(E_{\mathbf{p}}-\mu)]}+\frac{1}{1+\exp[\beta(E_{\mathbf{p}}+\mu)]}-1\right],$$ In the pair spectrum (\[eq:pair spectrum Sauter\]), the constant term is expected to cancel with the vacuum contribution, thus here we take the constant term to be $2/(2\pi)^{3}$.
For the Sauter-type field, the coefficients $\chi_{2}(t,\mathbf{p})$ and $\chi_{1}(t,\mathbf{p})$ can be numerically computed from Eq. (\[eq:equilibrium C1C2\]). The solution is proven to depend on the transverse mass $m_{T}$ and the longitudinal kinetic momentum $p^{z}$. For simplicity we take $m_{T}$ as the energy unit and all quantities are described by dimensionless variables, such as the temperature $\tilde{T}=T/m_{T}$, the chemical potential $\tilde{\mu}=\mu/m_{T}$, and the longitudinal kinetic momentum $\tilde{p}^{z}=p^{z}/m_{T}$. As an example, we numerically calculate the evolution of the pair spectrum for a Sauter-type field with the peak value $E_{0}/m_{T}^{2}=3$ and width $\tau=2/m_{T}$ in a thermal system with $T/m_{T}=1$ and $\mu/m_{T}=2$. We take three typical moments in time $t=-3\tau$, $0$, and $3\tau$. The pair spectra are given in Fig. \[fig:Spectrums-of-pairs\]. Since the electric field will be less than $1\%$ for $t<-3\tau$, the initial condition for this system at $t=-\infty$ is similar to the one for $t=-3\tau$ because before this moment the electric field is not strong enough to generate any effect. After the time $t=3\tau$, the functions $\chi_{1}(t,\mathbf{p})$ and $\chi_{2}(t,\mathbf{p})$ still evolve with time, but the pair spectrum stays unchanged, which means that there is no more pair production after $t=3\tau$. In Fig. (\[fig:Spectrums-of-pairs\]), we observe that the spectra at $t=0$ and $t=3\tau$ have two peaks. We identify the peaks on the right-hand-side as contribution from initially existing particles which are accelerated by the electric field. Since the shift of the longitudinal momentum is given by $\int_{-\infty}^{t}dt^{\prime}E(t^{\prime})$, we can obtain that this shift is $E_{0}\tau$ at $t=0$, and $2E_{0}\tau$ at $t=3\tau$, which agrees with the locations of peaks. The peaks on the left-hand-side in the spectra at $t=0$ and $t=3\tau$ can be identified as the contribution from the pair production.
![\[fig:Spectrums-of-pairs\]Pair spectra at $t=-3\tau$ (solid line), $t=0$ (dashed line), and $t=3\tau$ (dot-dashed line) for a thermal system with $T/m_{T}=1$ and $\mu/m_{T}=2$ in a Sauter-type field $E(t)=E_{0}\cosh^{-2}(t/\tau)$ with the peak value $E_{0}/m_{T}^{2}=3$ and the width $\tau=2/m_{T}$. The transverse mass $m_{T}=\sqrt{m^{2}+\mathbf{p}_{T}^{2}}$ is taken to be the energy unit. The $x$-axis is the dimensionless longitudinal kinetic momentum, while the $y$-axis is the pair density in phase space. ](\string"spectral_of_pairs_for_Sauter_type\string".png){width="8cm"}
Now we compute the total number of pairs generated in the Sauter-type field. Here we have four variables in this case: the peak value $E_{0}$ and the width $\tau$ for the Sauter-type field, and the temperature $T$ and the chemical potential $\mu$ for the initial thermal equilibrium state. First we set the thermodynamical quantities to $T/m_{T}=1$ and $\mu/m_{T}=3$ and study the dependence with respect to $E_{0}$ and $\tau$. In Fig. \[fig:Pair-production-Sauter\] we plot the total number of produced pairs as a function of $E_{0}$ and $\tau$. We find that more pairs are generated for a larger peak value $E_{0}$ or a longer lifetime $\tau$, as expected.
![\[fig:Pair-production-Sauter\]The total number of pairs produced in a Sauter-type field in a thermal system with $T/m_{T}=1$ and $\mu/m_{T}=3$ as a function of $E_{0}/m_{T}^{2}$ and $\tau m_{T}$.](\string"pair_production_in_Sauter_type_field\string".png){width="8cm"}
Then we take $E_{0}/m_{T}^{2}=3$ and $\tau=2/m_{T}$ and study the dependence with respect to $T$ and $\mu$. The results are shown in Fig. \[fig:Total pair number Tmu dependence\]. We find that the total number of produced pairs reaches a maximum value at $\mu=T=0$. When the temperature increases, or the chemical potential increases, the pair-production is suppressed. This agrees with our expectation because in high-$T$ or high-$\mu$ system the quantum states are more likely to be occupied and the production of new pairs is suppressed due to the Pauli exclusion principle.
![\[fig:Total pair number Tmu dependence\]The total number of pairs generated in a Saute-type field $E(t)=E_{0}\cosh^{-2}(t/\tau)$ with the peak value $E_{0}/m_{T}^{2}=3$ and the width $\tau=2/m_{T}$ as a function of the thermodynamical quantities $T/m_{T}$ and $\mu/m_{T}$.](\string"total_pair_number_in_Sauter_field\string".png){width="8cm"}
### In parallel electromagnetic fields
In subsection \[subsec:Fermions-in-electric\] we have analytically computed the Wigner function in the case of a constant electric field. Meanwhile we also analytically computed the Wigner function in the case of constant parallel electromagnetic fields in subsection \[subsec:Fermions-in-parallel-EB\]. Since the results in parallel electromagnetic fields reduce to the ones in a pure electric field, we will skip the pair production in a constant electric field and directly focus on the process in the presence of both electric and magnetic fields. The pair spectrum is related to the Wigner function as shown in Eq. (\[eq:density of pairs\]). Analogous to this equation, for a system in a constant magnetic field, the eigenenergies are replaced by the Landau energy levels $E_{p^{z}}^{(n)}=\sqrt{m^{2}+(p^{z})^{2}+2nB_{0}}$, and the number of pairs in the $n$-th Landau level is $$n^{(n)}(t,\mathbf{p})=\frac{m\mathcal{F}^{(n)}(t,\mathbf{p})+\mathbf{p}\cdot\boldsymbol{\mathcal{V}}^{(n)}(t,\mathbf{p})}{2E_{p^{z}}^{(n)}}+\text{const.}.$$ Here $\mathcal{F}^{(n)}$ and $\boldsymbol{\mathcal{V}}^{(n)}$ are components of the Wigner function where the superscript $(n)$ labels the contribution from the $n$-th Landau level. Then the pair-production rate in the $n$-th Landau level is calculated via $$\frac{d}{dt}n^{(n)}(t)=\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt}\int d^{3}\mathbf{p}\frac{m\mathcal{F}^{(n)}(t,\mathbf{p})+\mathbf{p}\cdot\boldsymbol{\mathcal{V}}^{(n)}(t,\mathbf{p})}{E_{p^{z}}^{(n)}}.$$ Employing the results in Eq. (\[eq:Wigner function in parallel EM fields\]) into the pair-production rate, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d}{dt}n^{(n)} & = & \frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt}\int d^{3}\mathbf{p}\left[\frac{\eta^{(n)}}{E_{p^{z}}^{(n)}}\sqrt{\frac{E_{0}}{2}}d_{2}\left(\eta^{(n)},\sqrt{\frac{2}{E_{0}}}p^{z}\right)+\frac{p^{z}}{E_{p^{z}}^{(n)}}d_{1}\left(\eta^{(n)},\sqrt{\frac{2}{E_{0}}}p^{z}\right)\right]\nonumber \\
& & \qquad\times C_{1}^{(n)}(p^{z}-E_{0}t)\Lambda_{+}^{(n)}(p_{T}),\end{aligned}$$ where $C_{1}^{(n)}$ is given in (\[eq:equilibrium C1C2\]). The integration over $\mathbf{p}_{T}$ can be performed using relation (\[eq:pt integration of Lambda\_pm\]). We also replace the kinetic momentum $p^{z}$ by the canonical one $q^{z}=p^{z}-E_{0}t$. Then we obtain the pair-production rate in a multi-particle system, $$\frac{d}{dt}n^{(n)}=\int dq^{z}\left[1-f^{(+)(n)}(q^{z})-f^{(-)(n)}(q^{z})\right]\frac{d}{dt}n_{vac}^{(n)}(t,q^{z}),\label{eq:pair production rate}$$ where $\frac{d}{dt}n_{\text{vac}}^{(n)}(t,q^{z})$ is the pair-production rate in vacuum for given quantum numbers $n$ and $p^{z}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d}{dt}n_{\text{vac}}^{(n)}(t,q^{z}) & = & -\left(1-\frac{\delta_{n0}}{2}\right)\frac{B_{0}E_{0}}{(2\pi)^{2}}\frac{d}{dq^{z}}\left\{ \frac{\eta^{(n)}}{E_{q^{z}+E_{0}t}^{(n)}}\sqrt{\frac{E_{0}}{2}}d_{2}\left[\eta^{(n)},\sqrt{\frac{2}{E_{0}}}\left(q^{z}+E_{0}t\right)\right]\right.\nonumber \\
& & \qquad\left.+\frac{q^{z}+E_{0}t}{E_{q^{z}+E_{0}t}^{(n)}}d_{1}\left[\eta^{(n)},\sqrt{\frac{2}{E_{0}}}\left(q^{z}+E_{0}t\right)\right]\right\} .\end{aligned}$$ Summing Eq. (\[eq:pair production rate\]) over all Landau levels yields the total pair-production rate. Here we notice that the pair production in the lowest Landau level is suppressed by the factor $1-\frac{\delta_{n0}}{2}$. This is because the spin is not degenerate for the lowest Landau level while is two-fold degenerate for the higher Landau levels. In Eq. (\[eq:pair production rate\]), the distribution of fermions and anti-fermions appears in the square bracket, which suppresses the pair-production due to the Pauli exclusion principle. Moreover, if $f^{(+)(n)}(q^{z})+f^{(-)(n)}(q^{z})>1$, the pair-production rate will have the opposite sign with the one in the vacuum. This case corresponds to a system where almost fermion and anti-fermion states are already occupied. Thus the pair annihilation is more likely to happen than the pair creation. In a thermal equilibrium system with zero chemical potential and non-zero temperature, the suppression factor is $\tanh(\beta E_{q^{z}}^{(n)}/2)$, which suppresses the production of pairs with small energies. This factor agrees with Ref. [@Kim:2008em]. Later on we will discuss the pair-production in finite chemical potential and temperature.
First we consider the pair-production in vacuum. The distribution function $f^{(\pm)(n)}(q^{z})$ is set to zero and the pair-production rate in Eq. (\[eq:pair production rate\]) can be calculated using the method of integrating by parts. The asymptotic behavior of $d_{1,2}$ is given in Eqs. (\[eq:asympotic behaviour 1\]), (\[eq:asympotic behaviour 2\]), thus the results read $$\frac{d}{dt}n_{\text{vac}}^{(n)}=\left(1-\frac{\delta_{n0}}{2}\right)\frac{B_{0}E_{0}}{2\pi^{2}}\exp\left(-\pi\frac{m^{2}+2nB_{0}}{E_{0}}\right),$$ and the total pair-production rate is $$\frac{d}{dt}\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}n_{\text{vac}}^{(n)}=\frac{B_{0}E_{0}}{2\pi^{2}}\exp\left(-\pi\frac{m^{2}}{E_{0}}\right)\coth\left(\pi\frac{B_{0}}{E_{0}}\right),$$ which agrees with previous results of Refs. [@Nikishov:1969tt; @Bunkin:1970iz; @Popov:1971iga]. We find that this rate is enhanced for a large magnetic field comparing to the one in a pure electric field.
For more general distribution functions $f^{(\pm)(n)}(q^{z})$, the pair-production rate (\[eq:pair production rate\]) requires a numerical calculation. However we find that the function $d_{2}$ oscillate strongly for large $q^{z}$, which makes the numerical integration slowly converging. In order to solve this problem, we separate the production rate into a vacuum part and a thermal part, where the thermal part is given by $$\frac{d}{dt}n_{\text{thermal}}^{(n)}=-\int dq^{z}\left[f^{(+)(n)}(q^{z})+f^{(-)(n)}(q^{z})\right]\frac{d}{dt}n_{\text{vac}}^{(n)}(t,q^{z}).$$ In general the distributions converge quickly at large $q^{z}$. So the numerical calculation for this thermal part is easier than directly calculating Eq. (\[eq:pair production rate\]). In order to show the thermal effect we consider a thermal equilibrium system where the distribution functions are given by $$f^{(\pm)(n)}(q^{z})=\frac{1}{1+\exp\left[\beta\left(E_{q^{z}}^{(n)}\mp\mu\right)\right]},$$ We introduce a function to describe the ratio of the thermal contribution to the vacuum contribution. The ratio depends on several dimensionless parameters, the time $\tilde{t}=m^{(n)}t$, the electric field strength $\tilde{E}_{0}=E_{0}/\left(m^{(n)}\right)^{2}$, the temperature $\tilde{T}=T/m^{(n)}$ and the chemical potential $\tilde{\mu}=\mu/T$. The pair-production rate in the $n$-th Landau level is given by $$\frac{d}{dt}n^{(n)}=\left[1+r\left(\tilde{t},\tilde{E}_{0},\tilde{T},\tilde{\mu}\right)\right]\frac{d}{dt}n_{\text{vac}}^{(n)}.$$ Now we choose the moment $\tilde{t}=0$ when the kinetic momentum equals the canonical one. This reflects the pair-production around thermal equilibrium. In Figs. \[fig:Ratio-between-thermal\] and \[fig:Ratio-between-thermal-1\] we plot $r\left(0,\tilde{E}_{0},\tilde{T},\tilde{\mu}\right)$ as a function of $\tilde{E}_{0}$ of for various temperature and chemical-potential configurations. We observe that the ratio lies between $\left[-1,\,0\right]$, which means that the pair production is suppressed in the thermal system. We also observe that the suppression, which was described by the absolute value of $r\left(\tilde{t},\tilde{E}_{0},\tilde{T},\tilde{\mu}\right)$, is larger for larger chemical potentials or larger temperatures. This agrees with our understanding about the Pauli exclusion principle: energy states are more likely to be occupied in a system with high $T$ or high $\mu$, and the existing particles will prohibit the generation of pairs with the same quantum number.
![\[fig:Ratio-between-thermal\]The ratio of the thermal contribution to the vacuum one. We fix the temperature $\tilde{T}=1$ and take three typical values for the chemical potential, 1) $\tilde{\mu}=0$ (solid line) for a system without net fermion number, 2) $\tilde{\mu}=1$ (dashed line) for a system with a medium chemical potential, and 3) $\tilde{\mu}=3$ (dash-dotted line) for a system with significantly large chemical potential.](\string"production_ratio\string".PNG){width="8cm"}
![\[fig:Ratio-between-thermal-1\]The ratio of the thermal contribution to the vacuum one in a system without net fermion number $\tilde{\mu}=0$. We choose a low temperature $\tilde{T}=0.5$ (solid line), a medium temperature $\tilde{T}=1$ (dashed line) and a high temperature $\tilde{T}=3$ (dash-dotted line).](\string"production_ratio_2\string".PNG){width="8cm"}
$\,$
Summary\[sec:Summary\]
======================
We study the Wigner-function for spin-$1/2$ particles and then chiral effects and pair production in electromagnetic fields. The Wigner function is defined as a semi-classical distribution function in phase space, which is a complex valued $4\times4$ matrix. It can be expanded in terms of the generators of the Clifford algebra $\Gamma_{i}$. The expansion coefficients are scalar, pseudoscalar, vector, axial-vector, and tensor according to their transformation properties under the Lorentz and parity transformations. An integration of the Wigner function over the momentum can give various kinds of macroscopic physical quantities such as the fermion current, the spin polarization and the magnetic dipole moment.
Since the Wigner function is constructed from the Dirac field, we can obtain the kinetic equations for the Wigner function from the Dirac equation. In this thesis, we derive the equation in a Dirac form, which is linear in differential operators. Meanwhile, we also obtain the equation in a Klein-Gordon form, which is second order in differential operators. These equations are then decomposed in terms of $\Gamma_{i}$, as we do for the Wigner function, which provide several partial differential equations. Fortunately, the equations for Wigner-function components are not independent from each other. Eliminating the redundant equations, we obtain two possible ways of computing the Wigner function in the massive case. The redundancy is based on the fact that the vector and axial-vector components $\mathcal{V}^{\mu}$ and $\mathcal{A}^{\mu}$ can be expressed in terms of the scalar, pseudo-scalar, and tensor components $\mathcal{F}$, $\mathcal{P}$, and $\mathcal{S}^{\mu\nu}$, or vice versa. Thus one approach to solve the system is to choose $\mathcal{V}^{\mu}$ and $\mathcal{A}^{\mu}$ as basis functions and focus on their on-shell conditions. Meanwhile, the other approach is to choose $\mathcal{F}$, $\mathcal{P}$, and $\mathcal{S}^{\mu\nu}$ as basis functions. Carrying out an expansion in $\hbar$, known as the semi-classical expansion, we obtain a general solution of the Wigner function up to first order in $\hbar$. The two approaches mentioned above are proven to be equivalent to each other. The final solution only has four independent degrees of freedom, which is proven through an eigenvalue analysis. At the linear order in $\hbar$, the normal mass-shell $p^{2}-m^{2}=0$ is shifted by the spin-magnetic coupling.
We also reproduce the Wigner function in the massless case through the semi-classical expansion. In the massless case, fermions can be separated into two groups according to their chirality. Using $\mathcal{V}^{\mu}$ and $\mathcal{A}^{\mu}$, we can construct the LH and RH currents, which are then solved up to the linear order in $\hbar$. The remaining components $\mathcal{F}$, $\mathcal{P}$, and $\mathcal{S}^{\mu\nu}$ are proportional to the particle mass and thus vanish in the massless limit. We find a direct relation between the massless Wigner function and the massive one. This indicates that our massive results are more general than the Chiral Kinetic Theory.
In this thesis we have discussed several analytically solvable cases. In the following three cases, single-particle wavefunctions can be derived from the Dirac equation analytically, which are then used to compute the Wigner function. We only list the leading-order contributions in spatial gradients for the Wigner functions, but deriving higher order contributions is straightforward in our approach.
1. Plane-wave quantization: In this case the Dirac equation does not contain any external interaction and thus has free plane-wave solutions. The results obtained in this approach are the cornerstone for the method of the semi-classical expansion: they serve as the solutions to the zeroth order in $\hbar$, while higher-order ones can be obtained order by order.
2. Chiral quantization: In this case we introduce $\mu$ and $\mu_{5}$ as constant variables. Electromagnetic fields are still not included. Corresponding to these variables is a contribution $\mu\hat{\mathbb{N}}+\mu_{5}\hat{\mathbb{N}}_{5}$ to the total Hamiltonian, where $\hat{\mathbb{N}}$ and $\hat{\mathbb{N}}_{5}$ are operators for the fermion number and the axial-charge. In the massless limit, we identify $\mu$ as the vector chemical potential and $\mu_{5}$ as the chiral chemical potential. We emphasize that the chiral chemical potential is not well-defined in the massive case because its conjugate quantity, the axial-charge, is not conserved. Thus, $\mu_{5}$ is just a variable which describes the spin imbalance. The modified Hamiltonian leads to a new Dirac equation, which can be solved when $\mu$ and $\mu_{5}$ are constants. The Wigner function is then constructed from the single-particle wavefunctions. However, since the presence of $\mu$ and $\mu_{5}$ changes the Dirac equation, the kinetic equations for the Wigner function are modified. Moreover, we cannot obtain the single-particle wavefunction for a general space-/time-dependent $\mu$ or $\mu_{5}$. Hence the chiral-quantization method only serve as a cross-check for the method of semi-classical expansion.
3. Landau quantization: Based on case 2, we further introduce a constant magnetic field. The energy levels are described by the Landau levels with modifications from $\mu$ and $\mu_{5}$. This allows us to explicitly study phenomena in a magnetic field, such as the CME, the CSE, and the anomalous energy flux. Since the field changes the energy spectrum, the fermion number density, the energy density, and the pressure depend on the strength of the magnetic field.
Based on the plane-wave quantization, we carry out a semi-classical expansion in $\hbar$. The Wigner function is then solved up to $\mathcal{O}(\hbar)$. Note that the method of the semi-classical expansion can be used for an arbitrary space-time dependent electromagnetic field. In this method, we put $\mu$ and $\mu_{5}$ into thermal equilibrium distributions instead of into the Hamiltonian and make the specific assumption that all fermions are longitudinally polarized. These treatments are naive extensions of the massless case. Numerical calculations show that the fermion number density and the axial-charge density coincide with the ones from the chiral quantization if $\mu_{5}$ and $m$ are comparable or smaller than the temperature, and so do the energy density and pressures.
Besides the above three analytically solvable cases, we also discuss the Wigner function in an electric field. Based on the results from the plane-wave quantization and those from the Landau quantization, we obtained the Wigner function in a constant electric field via a dynamical treatment. Pair-production rate is then computed, which proves to be enhanced by a parallel magnetic field, and suppressed by the temperature and chemical potential. The suppression of pair production in a thermal system is attributed to the Pauli exclusion principle.
The method of the semi-classical expansion provides a general way to compute spin corrections. At the zeroth order in $\hbar$, we reproduce the classical spinless Boltzmann equation. At the linear order in $\hbar$, spin corrections, such as the energy shift by the spin-magnetic coupling, arise naturally. We have obtain a general Boltzmann equation and a general BMT equation, which govern the evolution of the particle distribution and the spin polarization density, respectively. However, particle collisions are not yet included. Following the method of moments, we can extend the semi-classical results to a hydrodynamical description, which is topic of future work. In the semi-classical expansion method, electromagnetic fields appear at the linear order in $\hbar$, which works in the weak-field limit. However in the initial stage of heavy-ion collisions, the magnetic field strength is comparable with $m_{\pi}^{2}$. In strong-laser physics, the electromagnetic fields are significantly strong but there are nearly no particles. Whether the semi-classical expansion can be used in these cases needs more careful consideration. The study of a constant magnetic field in this thesis may serve as a starting point for the kinetic theory in a strong background field.
Another possible extension of this thesis is axial-charge production. In the presence of parallel electric and magnetic fields, the electric field can excite fermion pairs from vacuum and the produced pairs are polarized by the magnetic field. As a consequence, the pair-production in the lowest Landau level contributes to the axial-charge density. The real-time axial-charge production of massive particles in a thermal background has not yet been computed. The Wigner function approach in this thesis may provide a possible approach towards this problem.
$\ $
First and foremost, I want to thank my supervisors Qun Wang and Dirk H. Rischke. This project, and all the published works are under their guidance and support. I learned a lot about physics through many discussions with them in the past few years.
I also want to thank my collaborators, Prof. David Vasak, Ren-Hong Fang, Nora Weickgenannt, and Dr. Enrico Speranza. We finished some works together and both of them are expert in some field.
I want to thank the members of Qun Wang’s group of University of Science and Technology of China. I have learned a lot about programming and numerical simulations from Hao-jie Xu and Jun-jie Zhang, and a lot of techniques of Mathematica from Xiao-liang Xia. I specially thank Ren-hong Fang and Yu-kun Song, who brought me to the way of Wigner function. In life we are friends and we spent an enjoyable time at USTC.
I want to thank members of the magneto-hydrodynamics group of Frankfurt. I admire Dr. Leonardo Tinti for his wide range of knowledge. I also want to thank Nora Weickgenannt and David Wagner for helpful discussions about the future of the Wigner-function approach.
I want to thank Prof. Igor Shovkovy, Prof. Shijun Mao, Prof. Shi Pu, Dr. Xingyu Guo, Dr. Kai Zhou, Dr. Ziyue Wang, and Yu-chen Liu for enlightening discussions.
I especially want to thank Yuyu Zhang, without her company I could not finish this work.
This project was supported by the China Scholarship Council and the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) through the CRC-TR 211 “Strong-interaction matter under extreme conditions” - project number 315477589 - TRR 211.
Gamma matrices\[sec:Gamma-matrices\]
====================================
In this section we list the gamma matrices used throughout this paper and discuss their properties. The gamma matrices $\gamma^{\mu}$ should satisfy the following anti-commutation relation $$\left\{ \gamma^{\mu},\gamma^{\nu}\right\} =2g^{\mu\nu}\mathbb{I}_{4},\label{eq:anticommutaion}$$ where $g^{\mu\nu}$ is the Minkowski metric. In principle there are many ways to construct the gamma matrices and the above anti-commutation relation is the only constraint. We can find one $4\times4$ representation, in which the gamma matrices are given by $$\gamma^{\mu}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
0 & \sigma^{\mu}\\
\bar{\sigma}^{\mu} & 0
\end{array}\right),\label{eq:gamma matrices-1}$$ with $\sigma^{\mu}=\left(\mathbb{I}_{2},\,\sigma^{1},\,\sigma^{2},\,\sigma^{3}\right)$ and $\bar{\sigma}^{\mu}=\left(\mathbb{I}_{2},\,-\sigma^{1},\,-\sigma^{2},\,-\sigma^{3}\right)$. Here $\mathbb{I}_{2}$ is a $2\times2$ unit matrix and $\sigma^{\{1,2,3\}}$ are the Pauli matrices. This representation is known as the Weyl or chiral representation, which is convenient to deal with massless particles. The Weyl representation is used through out this thesis.
The Hermitian conjugate of the gamma matrices $\gamma^{\mu}$ satisfy the following relation, $$(\gamma^{\mu})^{\dagger}=\gamma^{0}\gamma^{\mu}\gamma^{0}.$$ The anti-commutation relation (\[eq:anticommutaion\]) indicates that any product of several gamma matrices can be expressed in terms of the anti-symmetric combinations $\gamma^{[\mu_{1}}\gamma^{\mu_{2}}\cdots\gamma^{\mu_{n}]}$ with $n=0,1,2,3,4$. The maximum $n$ is $4$, which equals the number of $\gamma^{\mu}$ according to the Pigeonhole principle [@Pigeonhole:website]. When taking the Hermitian conjugate, these anti-symmetric combinations satisfy $$(\gamma^{[\mu_{1}}\gamma^{\mu_{2}}\cdots\gamma^{\mu_{n}]})^{\dagger}=\begin{cases}
\gamma^{0}\gamma^{[\mu_{1}}\gamma^{\mu_{2}}\cdots\gamma^{\mu_{n}]}\gamma^{0}, & n=0,1,4,\\
-\gamma^{0}\gamma^{[\mu_{1}}\gamma^{\mu_{2}}\cdots\gamma^{\mu_{n}]}\gamma^{0}, & n=2,3.
\end{cases}$$ Thus we define
$$\begin{aligned}
\gamma^{5} & \equiv & i\gamma^{0}\gamma^{1}\gamma^{2}\gamma^{3},\nonumber \\
\sigma^{\mu\nu} & \equiv & \frac{i}{2}\left[\gamma^{\mu},\gamma^{\nu}\right],\end{aligned}$$
and then any combination of $\gamma^{\mu}$ can be written in terms of $\Gamma_{i}=\{\mathbb{I}_{4},\ i\gamma^{5},\ \gamma^{\mu},\ \gamma^{5}\gamma^{\mu},\ \frac{1}{2}\sigma^{\mu\nu}\}$, which are 16 matrices in total. These matrices are also known as the independent generators of the Clifford algebra, which automatically satisfy $$(\Gamma_{i})^{\dagger}=\gamma^{0}\Gamma_{i}\gamma^{0},\label{eq:Cliddord algebra}$$ and will be used to expand our Wigner function.
In Sec. \[sec:Overview-of-Wigner\] we find it useful to calculate the commutators and anti-commutators between $\sigma^{\mu\nu}$ and the generators of the Clifford algebra $\Gamma_{i}$.
Here we list all results $$\begin{aligned}
[\sigma^{\mu\nu},\mathbb{I}_{4}] & = & 0,\nonumber \\{}
[\sigma^{\mu\nu},-i\gamma^{5}] & = & 0,\nonumber \\{}
[\sigma^{\mu\nu},\gamma^{\sigma}] & = & 2i(g^{\nu\sigma}\gamma^{\mu}-g^{\mu\sigma}\gamma^{\nu}),\nonumber \\{}
[\sigma^{\mu\nu},\gamma^{5}\gamma^{\sigma}] & = & 2i(g^{\nu\sigma}\gamma^{5}\gamma^{\mu}-g^{\mu\sigma}\gamma^{5}\gamma^{\nu}),\nonumber \\{}
[\sigma^{\mu\nu},\sigma^{\sigma\rho}] & = & 2i\left(g^{\mu\rho}\sigma^{\nu\sigma}+g^{\nu\sigma}\sigma^{\mu\rho}-g^{\mu\sigma}\sigma^{\nu\rho}-g^{\nu\rho}\sigma^{\mu\sigma}\right),\nonumber \\
\{\sigma^{\mu\nu},\mathbb{I}_{4}\} & = & 2\sigma^{\mu\nu},\nonumber \\
\{\sigma^{\mu\nu},-i\gamma^{5}\} & = & \epsilon^{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}\sigma_{\alpha\beta},\nonumber \\
\{\sigma^{\mu\nu},\gamma^{\alpha}\} & = & 2\epsilon^{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}\gamma^{5}\gamma_{\beta},\nonumber \\
\{\sigma^{\mu\nu},\gamma^{5}\gamma^{\alpha}\} & = & 2\epsilon^{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}\gamma_{\beta},\nonumber \\
\{\sigma^{\mu\nu},\sigma^{\sigma\rho}\} & = & 2g^{\mu[\sigma}g^{\rho]\nu}+2i\epsilon^{\mu\nu\sigma\rho}\gamma^{5}.\label{eq:Commutators and anticommutators}\end{aligned}$$ On the other hand, the matrices $\Gamma_{i}$ can be constructed from the Pauli matrices by taking tensor products. The tensor-product form would be useful when calculating the Wigner function from the quantized field operator, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{I}_{4} & = & \mathbb{I}_{2}\otimes\mathbb{I}_{2},\nonumber \\
\gamma^{5} & = & -\sigma^{3}\otimes\mathbb{I}_{2},\nonumber \\
\gamma^{0} & = & \sigma^{1}\otimes\mathbb{I}_{2},\nonumber \\
\boldsymbol{\gamma} & = & i\sigma^{2}\otimes\boldsymbol{\sigma},\nonumber \\
\gamma^{5}\gamma^{0} & = & -i\sigma^{2}\otimes\mathbb{I}_{2},\nonumber \\
\gamma^{5}\boldsymbol{\gamma} & = & -\sigma^{1}\otimes\boldsymbol{\sigma},\nonumber \\
\sigma^{0j} & = & i\gamma^{0}\gamma^{j}=-i\sigma^{3}\otimes\sigma^{j},\nonumber \\
\sigma^{jk} & = & i\gamma^{j}\gamma^{k}=\epsilon^{jkl}\mathbb{I}_{2}\otimes\sigma^{l}.\label{eq:relation between gamma matrices and Pauli}\end{aligned}$$ The tensor product of two matrices, also known as the Kronecker product and denoted by $\otimes$, is a generalization of the outer product for two vectors. For example, considering two matrices $A$ and $B$, the tensor product $A\otimes B$ is given by $$A\otimes B=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
a_{11}B & a_{12}B & \cdots & a_{1n}B\\
a_{21}B & a_{22}B & \cdots & a_{2n}B\\
\vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots\\
a_{m1}B & a_{m2}B & \cdots & a_{mn}B
\end{array}\right),$$ where $a_{ij}$ is the element of $A$ in the $i$-th row and $j$-th column. We find it useful to emphasize the mixed-product property, $$(A\otimes B)(C\otimes D)=(AC)\otimes(BD),\label{eq:mixed-product}$$ where $A,\ B,\ C,$ and $D$ are matrices with proper size such that the matrix products make sense. When taking the Hermitian conjugate, we have the following property $$(A\otimes B)^{\dagger}=A^{\dagger}\otimes B^{\dagger}.$$ These properties are used when analytically deriving the Wigner function in subsections \[subsec:Free-fermions\], \[subsec:Free-with-chiral\], and \[subsec:Fermions-in-const-B\].
Auxiliary functions\[sec:Auxiliary-functions\]
==============================================
When calculating the Wigner function in electromagnetic fields, we define some useful auxiliary functions. In this appendix we will list these functions and briefly discuss their properties.
When calculating the Wigner function in a magnetic field, we need to calculate the following integral $$I_{ij}(p^{x},p^{y})\equiv\int dy^{\prime}\exp(ip^{y}y^{\prime})\phi_{i}\left(p^{x},\frac{y^{\prime}}{2}\right)\phi_{j}\left(p^{x},-\frac{y^{\prime}}{2}\right),\label{eq:definition of I_ij}$$ with $\phi_{n}$ being the eigenstates of the harmonic oscillator defined in Eq. (\[eq:def-phi\]). Using the explicit form of $\phi_{n}$ one can calculate the integral $I_{ij}$ and obtains
$$\begin{aligned}
I_{mn}(p^{x},p^{y}) & = & \sqrt{\frac{B_{0}}{\pi}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2^{m+n}m!n!}}\exp\left(-\frac{p_{T}^{2}}{B_{0}}\right)\int dy^{\prime}\exp\left[-B_{0}\left(\frac{y^{\prime}}{2}-\frac{ip^{y}}{B_{0}}\right)^{2}\right]\nonumber \\
& & \times H_{m}\left[\sqrt{B_{0}}\left(\frac{1}{2}y^{\prime}-\frac{ip^{y}}{B_{0}}\right)+\frac{p^{x}+ip^{y}}{\sqrt{B_{0}}}\right]H_{n}\left[-\sqrt{B_{0}}\left(\frac{1}{2}y^{\prime}-\frac{ip^{y}}{B_{0}}\right)+\frac{p^{x}-ip^{y}}{\sqrt{B_{0}}}\right],\nonumber \\\end{aligned}$$
where $p_{T}^{2}\equiv(p^{x})^{2}+(p^{y})^{2}$ is the transverse momentum squared. Here $H_{n}(x)$ are the Hermite polynomials, whose Taylor expansion reads $$H_{n}(x+y)=\sum_{i=0}^{n}\frac{2^{i}y^{i}n!}{i!(n-i)!}H_{n-i}(x).$$ Then $I_{mn}(p^{x},p^{y})$ can be calculated by firstly expanding the Hermite polynomials around $\pm\sqrt{B_{0}}\left(\frac{1}{2}y^{\prime}-\frac{ip^{y}}{B_{0}}\right)$, then using the symmetric property $H_{n}(-x)=(-1)^{n}H_{n}(x)$ and the following orthonormality condition $$\begin{aligned}
& & \sqrt{\frac{B_{0}}{\pi}}\int dy'\exp\left[-B_{0}(\frac{y'}{2}-\frac{ip^{y}}{B_{0}})^{2}\right]H_{m-i}\left[\sqrt{B_{0}}(\frac{1}{2}y'-\frac{ip^{y}}{B_{0}})\right]H_{n-j}\left[\sqrt{B_{0}}(\frac{1}{2}y'-\frac{ip^{y}}{B_{0}})\right]\nonumber \\
& & \qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad=2^{m-i+1}(m-i)!\delta_{m-i,n-j}.\end{aligned}$$ Finally we obtain the result $$\begin{aligned}
I_{mn}(p^{x},p^{y}) & = & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2^{m+n}m!n!}}\exp\left(-\frac{p_{T}^{2}}{B_{0}}\right)\nonumber \\
& & \qquad\times\sum_{i=0}^{m}\sum_{j=0}^{n}\frac{2^{m+1+j}m!n!}{i!j!(n-j)!}\left(\frac{p^{x}+ip^{y}}{\sqrt{B_{0}}}\right)^{i}\left(\frac{p^{x}-ip^{y}}{\sqrt{B_{0}}}\right)^{j}(-1)^{m-i}\delta_{m-i,n-j}.\label{eq:result of I_mn}\end{aligned}$$ If we take $m=n$, then it can be written in terms of the Laguerre polynomials $$I_{nn}(p^{x},p^{y})=2(-1)^{n}\exp\left(-\frac{p_{T}^{2}}{B_{0}}\right)L_{n}\left(\frac{2p_{T}^{2}}{B_{0}}\right),$$ where the Laguerre polynomials are defined as $$L_{n}(x)=\sum_{i=0}^{n}\frac{(-1)^{i}n!}{i!i!(n-i)!}x^{i}.$$ For simplicity we define a set of new functions $\Lambda_{\pm}^{(n)}(p_{T})$, which depend on the magnitude of transverse momentum $p_{T}$, $$\Lambda_{\pm}^{(n)}(p_{T})\equiv(-1)^{n}\left[L_{n}\left(\frac{2p_{T}^{2}}{B_{0}}\right)\mp L_{n-1}\left(\frac{2p_{T}^{2}}{B_{0}}\right)\right]\exp\left(-\frac{p_{T}^{2}}{B_{0}}\right),\label{eq:def-Lambda-n}$$ where $n>0$ because $L_{n-1}(x)$ is not well-defined. Then $I_{mn}(p^{x},p^{y})$ can be related to these $\Lambda_{\pm}^{(n)}(p_{T})$, $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{I_{nn}\pm I_{n-1,n-1}}{2} & = & \Lambda_{\pm}^{(n)}(p_{T}),\nonumber \\
\frac{I_{n,n-1}+I_{n-1,n}}{2} & = & \frac{p^{x}\sqrt{2nB_{0}}}{p_{T}^{2}}\Lambda_{+}^{(n)}(p_{T}),\nonumber \\
\frac{I_{n,n-1}-I_{n-1,n}}{2} & = & \frac{ip^{y}\sqrt{2nB_{0}}}{p_{T}^{2}}\Lambda_{+}^{(n)}(p_{T}),\label{eq:relation between I_mn and Lambda_pm}\end{aligned}$$ where the last two lines can be checked by expanding $\Lambda_{+}^{(n)}(p_{T})$ into a polynomial and comparing with the left-hand-side terms, which are calculated by Eq. (\[eq:result of I\_mn\]). For the case $n=0$ we specially define $$I_{00}(p_{x},p_{y})=\Lambda_{\pm}^{(0)}(p_{T})\equiv2\exp\left(-\frac{p_{T}^{2}}{B_{0}}\right),\label{eq:def-Lambda-0}$$ which is independent of the subscript $\pm$.
In the Wigner function, the functions $\Lambda_{\pm}^{(n)}(p_{T})$ in Eqs. (\[eq:def-Lambda-n\]), (\[eq:def-Lambda-0\]) play roles of distribution with respect to transverse momentum. When integrating over transverse momentum $\mathbf{p}_{T}$, $\Lambda_{+}^{(n)}(p_{T})$ give the density of states in the $n$-th Landau level, while $\Lambda_{-}^{(n)}(p_{T})$ give zero for any $n>0$,
$$\begin{aligned}
\int\frac{d^{2}\mathbf{p}_{T}}{(2\pi)^{2}}\Lambda_{+}^{(n)}(p_{T}) & = & \frac{B_{0}}{2\pi},\nonumber \\
\int\frac{d^{2}\mathbf{p}_{T}}{(2\pi)^{2}}\Lambda_{-}^{(n)}(p_{T}) & = & 0,\ \ \ \ (n\neq0).\label{eq:pt integration of Lambda_pm}\end{aligned}$$
Both of $\Lambda_{\pm}^{(n)}$ are symmetric with respect to $p^{x}$ and $p^{y}$ because they only depend on the magnitude $p_{T}$. In Figs. \[fig:The-first-four-Lambda+\] and \[fig:The-first-four-Lambda-\] we plot the first four $\Lambda_{\pm}^{(n)}$. We find that all these functions converge to zero in the limit $p_{T}\rightarrow\infty$, which is ensured by the exponential term in their definitions (\[eq:def-Lambda-n\]) and (\[eq:def-Lambda-0\]). In the point $p_{T}=0$, the functions $\Lambda_{+}^{(n)}$ have zero values for all $n>0$, while $\Lambda_{-}^{(n)}(0)=2(-1)^{n}$ oscillate between $\{-2,\,2\}$. The oscillation of $\Lambda_{-}^{(n)}(0)$ is similar to the Runge’s phenomenon, which occurs when using polynomial interpolation. In fact, $\Lambda_{+}^{(n)}$ plays the role of an interpolation function because numerically we can prove $$f(p_{T}^{2})=\lim_{B_{0}\rightarrow0}\left[\frac{1}{2}f^{(0)}\Lambda_{+}^{(0)}(p_{T})+\sum_{n>0}f^{(n)}\Lambda_{+}^{(n)}(p_{T})\right],\label{eq:weak field limit-1}$$ where $f(x)$ is an arbitrary function and $f^{(n)}$ are the values of the function $f$ at the points $2nB_{0}$. In the weak-magnetic field limit $B_{0}\rightarrow0$, the interpolation form on the right-hand-side reproduces the function $f(p_{T}^{2})$. On the other hand, when $B_{0}\rightarrow0$ we also have $$\lim_{B_{0}\rightarrow0}\left[\frac{1}{2}f^{(0)}\Lambda_{-}^{(0)}(p_{T})+\sum_{n>0}f^{(n)}\Lambda_{-}^{(n)}(p_{T})\right]=0,\label{eq:weak field limit-2}$$ which is numerically proven. In Fig. \[fig:Numerical-proof-in\] we take an example $f(p_{T}^{2})=1/\left[1+\exp(p_{T}^{2}/m^{2}-1)\right]$, where $m$ is the particles rest mass. Here $m$ plays the role of the energy unit. For convenience we take $B_{0}=0.01\ m^{2}$ and truncate the sum at $n=150$. We find that the interpolation result formed from $\Lambda_{+}^{(n)}(p_{T})$ coincides with the original function, while the one formed from $\Lambda_{-}^{(n)}(p_{T})$ coincides with zero. There is some disagreement in the large $p_{T}^{2}$ region, which is caused by the truncation at $n=150$. If the sum is calculated without an upper limit of $n$, the results would agree with Eq. (\[eq:weak field limit-1\]).
![\[fig:The-first-four-Lambda+\]The first four functions of $\Lambda_{+}^{(n)}$.](Lambda_p.PNG){width="8cm"}
![\[fig:The-first-four-Lambda-\]The first four functions of $\Lambda_{-}^{(n)}$.](Lambda_m.PNG){width="8cm"}
![\[fig:Numerical-proof-in\]Numerical proof in the weak-field limit. For numerical convenience we take the particles rest mass as natural unit of energy or momentum, and set $B_{0}=0.01\ m^{2}$. The sum over $n$ is truncated at $n=150$. The test function (solid line) coincides with the interpolation function, which is constructed from $\Lambda_{+}^{(n)}$ (dashed line), while the one constructed from $\Lambda_{-}^{(n)}$ (dot-dashed line) agrees with zero. ](\string"interpolation_of_Lambda\string".PNG){width="8cm"}
When taking the derivative with respect to $p^{x}$, we have the following relations, $$\begin{aligned}
\hbar B_{0}\partial_{p^{x}}\Lambda_{+}^{(n)}(p_{T}) & = & -2p^{x}\Lambda_{-}^{(n)}(p_{T}),\nonumber \\
\hbar B_{0}\partial_{p^{x}}\Lambda_{-}^{(n)}(p_{T}) & = & -2p^{x}\left(1-\frac{2nB_{0}}{p_{T}^{2}}\right)\Lambda_{+}^{(n)}(p_{T}),\end{aligned}$$ where the $p^{y}$-derivative can be derived by replacingt $p^{x}\leftrightarrow p^{y}$. These relations help when calculating the Wigner function in parallel electromagnetic fields in subsection \[subsec:Fermions-in-parallel-EB\].
We define four set of basis vectors, which are 4-dimensional column vectors, $$\begin{aligned}
e_{1}^{(n)}(p_{T})=\left(\begin{array}{c}
\Lambda_{+}^{(n)}(p_{T})\\
0\\
0\\
\Lambda_{-}^{(n)}(p_{T})
\end{array}\right), & & e_{2}^{(n)}(p_{T})=\left(\begin{array}{c}
\Lambda_{-}^{(n)}(p_{T})\\
0\\
0\\
\Lambda_{+}^{(n)}(p_{T})
\end{array}\right),\nonumber \\
e_{3}^{(n)}(\mathbf{p}_{T})=\left(\begin{array}{c}
0\\
p^{x}\\
p^{y}\\
0
\end{array}\right)\frac{\sqrt{2nB_{0}}}{p_{T}^{2}}\Lambda_{+}^{(n)}(p_{T}), & & e_{4}^{(n)}(\mathbf{p}_{T})\equiv\left(\begin{array}{c}
0\\
-p^{y}\\
p^{x}\\
0
\end{array}\right)\frac{\sqrt{2nB_{0}}}{p_{T}^{2}}\Lambda_{+}^{(n)}(p_{T}).\label{eq:def-basis}\end{aligned}$$ The first two basis vectors only depend on the magnitude $p_{T}$ of the transverse momentum, while $e_{3}^{(n)}(\mathbf{p}_{T})$ and $e_{4}^{(n)}(\mathbf{p}_{T})$ also depend on the direction of $\mathbf{p}_{T}$. Here the functions $\Lambda_{\pm}^{(n)}$ are defined in Eqs. (\[eq:def-Lambda-n\]) and (\[eq:def-Lambda-0\]). Note that when $n=0$, the last two, $e_{3}^{(0)}(\mathbf{p}_{T})$ and $e_{4}^{(0)}(\mathbf{p}_{T})$ are not well-defined because they are zero vectors. At the same time, due to the fact that $\Lambda_{+}^{(0)}=\Lambda_{-}^{(0)}$, we have $e_{1}^{(0)}(p_{T})=e_{2}^{(0)}(p_{T})$. The basis vector $e_{1}^{(0)}(p_{T})$ is properly normalized with respect to an inner product of transverse momentum $\mathbf{p}_{T}$, $$\int d^{2}\mathbf{p}_{T}\,e_{1}^{(0)T}(p_{T})e_{1}^{(0)}(p_{T})=4\pi B_{0}.\label{eq:normality e_1^0}$$ At the same time, the basis vectors with $n>0$ are orthogonal to $e_{1}^{(0)}(p_{T})$ for the lowest Landau level, $$\int d^{2}\mathbf{p}_{T}\,e_{1}^{(0)T}(p_{T})e_{i}^{(n)}(\mathbf{p}_{T})=0,\ \ \ \ (n>0,\,i=1,2,3,4).\label{eq:orthogonal e_1^0 e_i^n}$$ Meanwhile, we have the following orthonormality conditions, $$\int d^{2}\mathbf{p}_{T}\,e_{i}^{(m)T}(\mathbf{p}_{T})e_{j}^{(n)}(\mathbf{p}_{T})=2\pi B_{0}\delta_{ij}\delta_{mn},\label{eq:orthonormality e_i^m e_j^n}$$ for any $m,n>0$ and $i,j=1,2,3,4$. The basis vectors defined in Eq. (\[eq:def-basis\]) will be used for the Wigner function in the presence of a constant magnetic field in subsections \[subsec:Fermions-in-const-B\] and \[subsec:Fermions-in-parallel-EB\].
When a constant electric field exists, the following functions $d_{1}$, $d_{2}$, $d_{3}$ are used in subsections \[subsec:Fermions-in-electric\] and \[subsec:Fermions-in-parallel-EB\], $$\begin{aligned}
d_{1}(\eta,u) & = & -1+e^{-\frac{\pi\eta}{4}}\eta\left|D_{-1-i\eta/2}(-ue^{i\frac{\pi}{4}})\right|^{2},\nonumber \\
d_{2}(\eta,u) & = & e^{-\frac{\pi\eta}{4}}e^{i\frac{\pi}{4}}D_{-1-i\eta/2}(-ue^{i\frac{\pi}{4}})D_{i\eta/2}(-ue^{-i\frac{\pi}{4}})+c.c.,\nonumber \\
d_{3}(\eta,u) & = & e^{-\frac{\pi\eta}{4}}e^{-i\frac{\pi}{4}}D_{-1-i\eta/2}(-ue^{i\frac{\pi}{4}})D_{i\eta/2}(-ue^{-i\frac{\pi}{4}})+c.c.,\label{eq:auxiliary functions-1}\end{aligned}$$ where $D_{\nu}(z)$ is the parabolic cylinder function and “$c.c.$” is short for “complex conjugate”. The complex conjugate of $D_{\nu}(z)$ is $\left[D_{\nu}(z)\right]^{\ast}=D_{\nu^{\ast}}(z^{\ast})$. Note that the parabolic cylinder functions satisfy the recurrence relations $$\begin{aligned}
D_{\nu+1}(z)-zD_{\nu}(z)+\nu D_{\nu-1}(z) & = & 0,\nonumber \\
\frac{\partial}{\partial z}D_{\nu}(z)+\frac{1}{2}zD_{\nu}(z)-\nu D_{\nu-1}(z) & = & 0.\end{aligned}$$ Combining them we obtain a relation between $D_{\nu}(z)$ and $D_{\nu+1}(z)$, $$\frac{\partial}{\partial z}D_{\nu}(z)-\frac{1}{2}zD_{\nu}(z)+D_{\nu+1}(z)=0.$$ Using this relation we can obtain the differential equations for $d_{1}$, $d_{2}$, $d_{3}$
$$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial}{\partial u}d_{1}(\eta,u) & = & \eta d_{3}(\eta,u),\nonumber \\
\frac{\partial}{\partial u}d_{2}(\eta,u) & = & -ud_{3}(\eta,u),\nonumber \\
\frac{\partial}{\partial u}d_{3}(\eta,u) & = & -2d_{1}(\eta,u)+ud_{2}(\eta,u),\end{aligned}$$
where we have used $$\left|D_{i\eta/2}(-ue^{-i\frac{\pi}{4}})\right|^{2}=e^{\frac{\pi\eta}{4}}-\frac{1}{2}\eta\left|D_{-1-i\eta/2}(-ue^{i\frac{\pi}{4}})\right|^{2}.\label{eq:constant d4}$$ In order to prove relation (\[eq:constant d4\]) we first construct another function whose variables are $\eta$ and $u$, $$d_{4}(\eta,u)=\left|D_{i\eta/2}(-ue^{-i\frac{\pi}{4}})\right|^{2}+\frac{1}{2}\eta\left|D_{-1-i\eta/2}(-ue^{i\frac{\pi}{4}})\right|^{2}.$$ Then we can prove that this function does not depend on $u$ because $\frac{\partial}{\partial u}d_{4}(\eta,u)=0$. Furthermore, the value at $u=0$ can be calculated using $D_{\nu}(0)=2^{\nu/2}\sqrt{\pi}/\Gamma\left(\frac{1-\nu}{2}\right)$, where $\Gamma(z)$ is the Gamma function. $$\begin{aligned}
d_{4}(\eta,0) & = & \frac{\pi}{\left|\Gamma\left(\frac{1}{2}-\frac{i\eta}{4}\right)\right|^{2}}+\frac{\pi\eta}{4\left|\Gamma\left(1+\frac{i\eta}{4}\right)\right|^{2}}\nonumber \\
& = & \cosh\left(-i\frac{\pi\eta}{4}\right)+\sinh\left(i\frac{\pi\eta}{4}\right)\nonumber \\
& = & e^{\frac{\pi\eta}{4}},\end{aligned}$$ where we have used the property of the Gamma function $\Gamma(1+z)=z\Gamma(z)$ and a special case of the multiplication theorem,
$$\begin{aligned}
\left|\Gamma(bi)\right|^{2} & = & \frac{\pi}{b\sinh(\pi b)},\nonumber \\
\left|\Gamma\left(\frac{1}{2}+bi\right)\right|^{2} & = & \frac{\pi}{\cosh(\pi b)},\end{aligned}$$
where $b$ is a real constant.
In Figs. \[fig:functions di\] and \[fig:functions di-2\] we plot the $u$-dependence of $d_{i}(\eta,u)$ for two typical values $\eta=2$ and $\eta=0.5$. All these functions are convergent when $u\rightarrow-\infty$, $$\lim_{u\rightarrow-\infty}d_{1}(\eta,u)=-1,\ \lim_{u\rightarrow-\infty}d_{2}(\eta,u)=0,\ \lim_{u\rightarrow-\infty}d_{3}(\eta,u)=0,\label{eq:asympotic behaviour 1}$$ Meanwhile, in the limit $u\rightarrow+\infty$, the functions $d_{2}(\eta,u)$ and $d_{3}(\eta,u)$ are highly oscillatory and are not convergent. The function $d_{1}(\eta,u)$ is also oscillatory but the oscillation amplitude turns to zero when $u\rightarrow+\infty$, thus $d_{1}(\eta,u)$ converges to a finite value. Explicit analysis of the parabolic cylinder functions give their asymptotic behavior, $$\lim_{u\rightarrow+\infty}D_{-1-i\eta/2}(-ue^{i\frac{\pi}{4}})=\frac{\sqrt{2\pi}}{\Gamma(1+i\eta/2)}\exp\left\{ i\left[\frac{u^{2}}{4}+\frac{\eta}{2}\log(u)\right]-\frac{\pi\eta}{8}\right\} ,$$ where the Gamma function is given by $$\Gamma(1+i\eta/2)=\int_{0}^{\infty}x^{i\eta/2}e^{-x}dx,$$ Thus we obtain the asymptotic behavior of function $d_{1}(\eta,u)$, $$\lim_{u\rightarrow+\infty}d_{1}(\eta,u)=-1+e^{-\frac{\pi\eta}{2}}\frac{2\pi\eta}{\left|\Gamma(1+i\eta/2)\right|^{2}}=1-2e^{-\pi\eta}.\label{eq:asympotic behaviour 2}$$
![\[fig:functions di\]Dependence of the functions $d_{i}(\eta,u)$ for $i=1,2,3$ with respect to $u$. Here $\eta=2$ corresponds to $E_{0}=\frac{1}{2}m_{T}^{2}$.](d1d2d3_eta=2.PNG){width="8cm"}
![\[fig:functions di-2\]Dependence of the functions $d_{i}(\eta,u)$ for $i=1,2,3$ with respect to $u$. Here $\eta=0.5$ corresponds to $E_{0}=2m_{T}^{2}$.](d1d2d3_eta=05.PNG){width="8cm"}
Wave-packet description \[sec:Wave-packet-description\]
=======================================================
Due to the uncertainty principle, in quantum mechanics the momentum and position of one particle cannot be determined at the same time. If we adopt the plane-wave description, then the momentum is fixed, which indicates that the uncertainty of position is infinity. This agrees with the spatial homogeneity of the plane wave. However, we want to have a more realistic description. Thus, in this appendix we will introduce the wave-packet description of a particle. In quantum mechanics, the wave packet is interpreted as probability amplitude, whose square describes the probability of detecting a particle with given position and momentum.
The single-particle state and anti-particle state for the plane-wave case are given by acting with the creation operators onto the vacuum state, $$\left|\mathbf{p},s,+\right\rangle =a_{\mathbf{p},s}^{\dagger}\left|0\right\rangle ,\ \ \left|\mathbf{p},s,-\right\rangle =b_{\mathbf{p},s}^{\dagger}\left|0\right\rangle ,$$ where $\left|0\right\rangle $ is the vacuum state. Using the single-particle/anti-particle states, we can calculate the expectation values of energy, momentum, and polarization, respectively. Note that these states have fixed momentum $\mathbf{p}$, e.g. the uncertainty of momentum is zero. On the other hand, the wave packet for one particle is defined as a superposition of plane waves with different wave numbers, $$\left|\mathbf{p},s,+\right\rangle \,_{\text{wp}}=\frac{1}{N}\int\frac{d^{3}\mathbf{p^{\prime}}}{(2\pi)^{3}}\exp\left[-\frac{(\mathbf{p}-\mathbf{p}^{\prime})^{2}}{4\sigma_{p}^{2}}\right]a_{\mathbf{p}^{\prime},s}^{\dagger}\left|0\right\rangle ,\label{eq:wave packet state}$$ where the most probable momentum is $\mathbf{p}$ and the uncertainty of momentum is described by the parameter $\sigma_{p}$. The normalization factor $N$ is determined by $\,_{\text{wp}}\left\langle \mathbf{p},s,+|\mathbf{p},s,+\right\rangle \,_{\text{wp}}=1$,
$$N=\sqrt{\frac{\sigma_{p}^{3}}{2\sqrt{2\pi^{3}}}}.$$
Now we calculate the energy of the wave packet. The total energy is given by
$$E_{\mathbf{p},\text{wp}}=\,_{\text{wp}}\left\langle \mathbf{p},s,+\left|\hat{\mathcal{H}}\right|\mathbf{p},s,+\right\rangle \,_{\text{wp}}=\frac{1}{N^{2}}\int\frac{d^{3}\mathbf{p^{\prime}}}{(2\pi)^{3}}\exp\left[-\frac{(\mathbf{p}-\mathbf{p}^{\prime})^{2}}{2\sigma_{p}^{2}}\right]\sqrt{m^{2}+(\mathbf{p}^{\prime})^{2}}.$$
We can compare the energy with the one $E_{\mathbf{p}}=\sqrt{m^{2}+(\mathbf{p})^{2}}$ for the plane wave with the same momentum. We find that the ratio depends on the dimensionless parameters $m/\sigma_{p}$ and $\left|\mathbf{p}\right|/\sigma_{p}$. The ratio is plot in Fig. \[fig:Energy-of-wave-packet\].
We can observe from this figure that if the mass and center momentum are much larger than the uncertainty $\sigma_{p}$, the ratio becomes $1$. This indicates that a wave packet with the most probable momentum $\mathbf{p}$ has the same energy as a plane wave with the same momentum $\mathbf{p}$ when $E_{\mathbf{p}}\gg\sigma_{p}$.
![\[fig:Energy-of-wave-packet\]The ratio between the energy of a wave packet with the most probable momentum $\mathbf{p}$ and that of a plane wave with the same momentum $\mathbf{p}$. The ratio depends on dimensionless variables, $m/\sigma_{p}$ and $\left|\mathbf{p}\right|/\sigma_{p}$, where $\sigma_{p}$ is the uncertainty of momentum.](\string"ratio_between_E_wave_packet_and_E_plane_wave\string".png){width="8cm"}
On the other hand, the wavefunction of the wave packet in coordinate space can be obtained by superposition of the single-particle wavefunction, with the superposition coefficients equal to the ones for the state in Eq. (\[eq:wave packet state\]). For example, the particle’s wavefunction in the wave-packet description is $$\psi_{s,\text{wp}}^{(+)}(x)=\frac{1}{N}\int\frac{d^{3}\mathbf{p^{\prime}}}{(2\pi)^{3}}\exp\left[-\frac{(\mathbf{p}-\mathbf{p}^{\prime})^{2}}{4\sigma_{p}^{2}}-\frac{i}{\hbar}E_{\mathbf{p},wp}t+\frac{i}{\hbar}\mathbf{p}^{\prime}\cdot\mathbf{x}\right]\left(\begin{array}{c}
\sqrt{p_{\mu}^{\prime}\sigma^{\mu}}\xi_{s}\\
\sqrt{p_{\mu}^{\prime}\bar{\sigma}^{\mu}}\xi_{s}
\end{array}\right).$$ In the limit $m,\,\left|\mathbf{p}\right|\gg\sigma_{p}$, this wavefunction can be expressed using the plane wave in Eq. (\[sol:free wave functions\])
$$\psi_{s,\text{wp}}^{(+)}(x)\simeq\exp\left(-\sigma_{p}^{2}\frac{\mathbf{x}^{2}}{\hbar^{2}}\right)\psi_{s}^{(+)}(x).$$
The overall factor suppresses the probability of detecting the particle in one point which is far from the original point. Thus the most probable position of the above wavefunction is the original point, while the uncertainty in spatial position is $$\sigma_{x}=\frac{\hbar}{2\sigma_{p}},$$ which agrees with the uncertainty principle (\[eq:Heisenberg uncertainty principle\]). Thus we conclude that the wave-packet description can be used for quantum particles with given center positions and average momentums.
Pair production in Wigner-function formalism\[sec:Pair-production-in\]
======================================================================
In this appendix we will show the relation between the Schwinger pair-production process in a strong electric field and the Wigner function. This is helpful for the calculation of pair-production rate in subsections \[subsec:Fermions-in-electric\] and \[subsec:Fermions-in-parallel-EB\]. In Quantum Kinetic Theory, the field operator is quantized in Heisenberg picture as $$\hat{\psi}(t,\mathbf{x})=\sum_{s}\int\frac{d^{3}\mathbf{q}}{(2\pi)^{3}}e^{i\mathbf{q}\cdot\mathbf{x}}\left[u_{s}(t,\mathbf{q})\hat{a}_{s}(\mathbf{q})+v_{s}(t,-\mathbf{q})\hat{b}_{s}^{\dagger}(-\mathbf{q})\right],\label{eq:Heisenberg quantization}$$ where $E_{\mathbf{q}}$ is the canonical energy, $\mathbf{q}$ is the canonical momentum, and $u_{s}(t,\mathbf{q})$ and $v_{s}(t,-\mathbf{q})$ are normalized single-particle wavefunctions. On the other hand, we have $$\hat{\psi}(t,\mathbf{x})=\sum_{s}\int\frac{d^{3}\mathbf{q}}{(2\pi)^{3}}e^{i\mathbf{q}\cdot\mathbf{x}}\left[\tilde{u}_{s}(t,\mathbf{q})\hat{\tilde{a}}_{s}(t,\mathbf{q})+\tilde{v}_{s}(t,-\mathbf{q})\hat{\tilde{b}}_{s}^{\dagger}(t,-\mathbf{q})\right],\label{eq:adiabatic quantization}$$ where $\tilde{u}_{s}$ and $\tilde{v}_{s}$ are adiabatic wavefunctions, which are chosen as $\tilde{u}_{s}(t,\mathbf{q})=\tilde{u}_{s}(\mathbf{p})$ with the kinetic momentum $\mathbf{p}=\mathbf{q}-e\mathbf{A}(t)$, while for anti-fermions $\tilde{v}_{s}(t,-\mathbf{q})=\tilde{u}_{s}(-\mathbf{p})$. Note that the wavefunctions should be normalized as $$\begin{aligned}
u_{r}^{\dagger}(t,\mathbf{q})u_{s}(t,\mathbf{q})=\delta_{rs}, & & v_{r}^{\dagger}(t,-\mathbf{q})v_{s}(t,-\mathbf{q})=\delta_{rs},\nonumber \\
\tilde{u}_{r}^{\dagger}(t,\mathbf{q})\tilde{u}_{s}(t,\mathbf{q})=\delta_{rs}, & & \tilde{v}_{r}^{\dagger}(t,-\mathbf{q})\tilde{v}_{s}(t,-\mathbf{q})=\delta_{rs}.\end{aligned}$$ Thus we can solve these adiabatic operators from the quantized field in Eq. (\[eq:adiabatic quantization\]) using the normalization properties $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\tilde{a}}_{s}(t,\mathbf{q}) & = & \int d^{3}\mathbf{x}\,e^{-i\mathbf{q}\cdot\mathbf{x}}\tilde{u}_{s}^{\dagger}(t,\mathbf{q})\hat{\psi}(t,\mathbf{x}),\nonumber \\
\hat{\tilde{b}}_{s}^{\dagger}(t,-\mathbf{q}) & = & \int d^{3}\mathbf{x}\,e^{-i\mathbf{q}\cdot\mathbf{x}}\tilde{v}_{s}^{\dagger}(t,-\mathbf{q})\hat{\psi}(t,\mathbf{x}).\end{aligned}$$ Inserting the quantized field operator in Eq. (\[eq:Heisenberg quantization\]) into the above we obtain
$$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{a}_{s}(t,\mathbf{q}) & = & \tilde{u}_{s}^{\dagger}(t,\mathbf{q})\sum_{r}u_{r}(t,\mathbf{q})a_{r}(\mathbf{q})+\tilde{u}_{s}^{\dagger}(t,\mathbf{q})\sum_{r}v_{r}(t,-\mathbf{q})b_{r}^{\dagger}(-\mathbf{q}),\nonumber \\
\tilde{b}_{s}^{\dagger}(t,-\mathbf{q}) & = & \tilde{v}_{s}^{\dagger}(t,-\mathbf{q})\sum_{r}u_{r}(t,\mathbf{q})a_{r}(\mathbf{q})+\tilde{v}_{s}^{\dagger}(t,-\mathbf{q})\sum_{r}v_{r}(t,-\mathbf{q})b_{r}^{\dagger}(-\mathbf{q}).\end{aligned}$$
They give the relation between adiabatic operators and the ones in the Heisenberg picture. This relation is also known as Bogoliubov transformation. The particle number and anti-particle number for a system are defined as the expectation values $$\begin{aligned}
f_{s}^{(+)}(t,\mathbf{q}) & = & \left\langle \Omega\left|\hat{\tilde{a}}_{s}^{\dagger}(t,\mathbf{q})\hat{\tilde{a}}_{s}(t,\mathbf{q})\right|\Omega\right\rangle ,\nonumber \\
f_{s}^{(-)}(t,\mathbf{q}) & = & \left\langle \Omega\left|\hat{\tilde{b}}_{s}^{\dagger}(t,\mathbf{q})\hat{\tilde{b}}_{s}(t,\mathbf{q})\right|\Omega\right\rangle .\end{aligned}$$ Here we use $\left|\Omega\right\rangle $ to represent the quantum state for the considered system. Then the average pair number is defined as $$n_{\text{pair}}(t)\equiv\frac{1}{2}\int\frac{d^{3}\mathbf{q}}{(2\pi)^{3}}\sum_{s}\left[f_{s}^{(+)}(t,\mathbf{q})+f_{s}^{(-)}(t,-\mathbf{q})\right].$$ Inserting the distribution functions into the average pair number we finally obtain
$$\begin{aligned}
n_{\text{pair}}(t) & = & \frac{1}{4}\int\frac{d^{3}\mathbf{q}}{(2\pi)^{3}}\text{Tr}\left\{ \frac{\boldsymbol{\gamma}\cdot\mathbf{p}+m}{2E_{\mathbf{p}}}\sum_{r,r^{\prime}}\bar{u}_{r^{\prime}}(\mathbf{q},t)\otimes u_{r}(\mathbf{q},t)\left\langle \Omega\left|\hat{a}_{r^{\prime}}^{\dagger}(\mathbf{q})\hat{a}_{r}(\mathbf{q})\right|\Omega\right\rangle \right\} \nonumber \\
& & +\frac{1}{4}\int\frac{d^{3}\mathbf{q}}{(2\pi)^{3}}\text{Tr}\left\{ \frac{\boldsymbol{\gamma}\cdot\mathbf{p}+m}{2E_{\mathbf{p}}}\sum_{r,r^{\prime}}\bar{v}_{r^{\prime}}(-\mathbf{q},t)\otimes v_{r}(-\mathbf{q},t)\left\langle \Omega\left|\hat{b}_{r^{\prime}}(-\mathbf{q})\hat{b}_{r}^{\dagger}(-\mathbf{q})\right|\Omega\right\rangle \right\} \nonumber \\
& & -\frac{1}{4}\int\frac{d^{3}\mathbf{q}}{(2\pi)^{3}}\sum_{r}\left\langle \Omega\left|a_{r}^{\dagger}(\mathbf{q})a_{r}(\mathbf{q})+b_{r^{\prime}}(-\mathbf{q})b_{r}^{\dagger}(-\mathbf{q})\right|\Omega\right\rangle .\end{aligned}$$
Note that we are working in the Heisenberg picture, where the quantum state $\left|\Omega\right\rangle $ is independent of time and thus the last term is also independent of $t$. Using the equal-time Wigner function, we have $$n_{\text{pair}}(t)=\frac{1}{4}\int d^{3}\mathbf{x}\int\frac{d^{3}\mathbf{p}}{(2\pi)^{3}}\text{Tr}\left\{ \frac{\boldsymbol{\gamma}\cdot\mathbf{p}+m}{2E_{\mathbf{p}}}W(t,\mathbf{x},\mathbf{p})\right\} +\text{const.},$$ where we have replaced the integration over canonical momentum by the one over kinetic momentum. From this formula we can derive the density of pairs, $$n_{\text{pair}}(t,\mathbf{x},\mathbf{p})=\frac{\mathbf{p}\cdot\boldsymbol{\mathcal{V}}+m\mathcal{F}}{2E_{\mathbf{p}}}+\text{const.},\label{eq:density of pairs}$$ where $\mathcal{F}$ and $\boldsymbol{\mathcal{V}}$ are the scalar and vector components of the Wigner function, respectively, as shown in Eq. (\[def:Wigner function decomposition\]).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We created a sample of nearby QSOs selected from the Hamburg/ESO survey and the Véron-Cetty & Véron catalog, with a limiting redshift of z$\le$0.06, which consists of 63 objects. In this contribution, we present the results of our ISAAC $Ks$-band spectroscopic and $H$ and $Ks$-band photometric observations of 9 sources of this sample. In seven sources we find hydrogen recombination lines Pa$\alpha$ and Br$\gamma$ of which five galaxies show a broad component. In three sources, extended molecular hydrogen emission is detected in the 1-0S(1) line. The stellar CO-absorption feature is only detectable in 5 objects, those sources with $J-H$ and $H-K$ colors closest to those of ordinary galaxies.'
address: 'I. Physikalisches Institut, Universität zu Köln, Zülpicher Str. 77, 50937 Köln, Germany'
author:
- 'S. Fischer'
- 'C. Iserlohe'
- 'J. Zuther'
- 'T. Bertram'
- 'C. Straubmeier'
- 'A. Eckart'
title: 'NIR Imaging and Spectroscopy of AGN hosts at z $\leq$ 0.06'
---
galaxies: active ,galaxies: stellar content ,quasars: emission lines ,quasars: absorption lines 98.54.Aj ,98.62.Bj ,98.62.Lv ,98.62.Qz
Introduction {#intro}
============
In this contribution, we present our ISAAC seeing limited NIR observations of 9 sources drawn from the Cologne Nearby QSO sample [e.g. @bertram; @fischer]. We performed low resolution spectroscopy with a 1” slit in the $Ks$-band (2.2$\mu$m) which yields analysis of several diagnostic lines such as hydrogen recombination lines (Pa$\alpha$ & Br$\gamma$) and rotational-vibrational molecular hydrogen lines. The stellar CO absorption bands at wavelengths $>$2.295$\mu$m allow analysis of dominating stellar spectral classes, though the absorption band is strongly affected by the rising non-stellar continuum towards the center of an AGN (see chapter \[spectroscopy\]).\
In addition, we obtained $H$- (1.65$\mu$m) and $Ks$-band images of the objects what provides, with supplementary $J$-band (1.25$\mu$m) 2MASS-images, information on extinction in the galaxy and on whether the nuclear or the stellar component dominates the galaxy’s radiation.
![Our ISAAC $H$-band images of the 9 observed AGN, with slit positions of the long-slit spectroscopic observations. For HE 1248-1356, the $Ks$-band image is shown. With an average of 8s of integration time, the host galaxies are clearly resolved. []{data-label="fig:fig1"}](QSOs2.eps){width="5cm"}
Spectroscopy
============
![Extracted $Ks$-band spectra of the 9 AGN, extracted at the central region (left) and at a distance of 1.5 FWHM (right, 3-point-smoothed). The spectra are presented in restframe, the region at $\sim$2$\mu$m is blanked out due to imperfect atmospheric correction, normalization was carried out at 2.2$\mu$m in observer frame. Note that the features at $>2.3\mu$m in HE 0853-0126 are not CO absorption features but noise caused by the atmosphere. Especially remarkable are the red continua in most central regions. AGN with colors close to ordinary galaxies (see Fig. \[fig:fig3\]) correspond to spectra with bluer continuum slopes.[]{data-label="fig:fig2"}](combined.eps){width="10cm"}
Pa$\alpha$ is detected in HE 2211-3903, HE 1013-1947, HE 0853-0126, HE 1017-0305, HE 1029-1831, HE 1338-1423 and VCV J204409.7-104324, the latter 5 show additionally Br$\gamma$ in emission. In the cases of HE 1013-1947, HE 1029-1831 and HE 1338-1423, the Pa$\alpha$ line shows a composition of a broad and a narrow component, while in HE 0853-0126 only a narrow component [the source is classified as Sy 1 in @wisotzki2] and in the two remaining objects only a broad component is observed. For HE 2211-3903, the shape of the Pa$\alpha$ line points to more complicated kinematics.\
In the five cases where both hydrogen recombination lines are detected, the resulting extinction at the central region of two galaxies is low (HE 1029-1831, VCV J204409.7-104324). In the three other galaxies, the central region is heavily extincted.\
HE 1013-1947, HE 1029-1831, HE 1328-2508 show extended molecular hydrogen emission in the 1-0S(1) transition. This is a significantly lower detection rate of Sy1 galaxies with molecular hydrogen emission lines in comparison to the findings of other surveys (e.g. @rodriguez find in a sample of 22 mostly Sy1 galaxies H$_2$-emission in 90% of their sources). Due to no other detected H$_2$ lines, UV-fluorescence [@black] can rather be excluded as excitation mechanism.\
In HE 1013-1947, HE 1017-0305, HE 1029-1831, HE 1248-1356 and HE 1328-2508, stellar CO absorption is detected. With the exception of HE 1328-2508, all sources show a strong increase of the CO-equivalent width with growing distance to the center. This is caused by a rising non-stellar continuum towards the nucleus. The equivalent width of the CO(2-0)-absorption in HE 1248-1356 of (11$\pm$2)Å away from the nucleus can most likely be associated with ongoing star formation. The other sources show equivalent widths typical of ordinary ellipticals or spirals.\
The continuum slopes show a correlation to the detectability of the CO-absorption. In galaxies with significant reddening, the CO-absorption is hidden in the strong non-stellar continuum.
Photometry
==========
The dominating morphological class are disc dominated galaxies. Only one galaxy is found to be an elliptical galaxy. An underrepresentation of ellipticals is consistent with the results of other samples [e.g. @jahnke and references therein], since most of the observed sources are lower luminosity AGN and the probability to find an underlying disc-dominated host galaxy increases with lower luminosity nuclei.\
At least in HE 1017-0305 and HE 1328-2503, the appearance suggests that these objects are interacting galaxies, in the latter one a possible second nucleus is found at a distance of 3” to the nucleus. This supports the theory that nuclear activity may be triggered by merger events.\
The analog trend to the continuum-slope/CO-detection can be seen when comparing the colors of the AGN to the presence of a CO-absorption feature, only those AGN with a strong stellar contribution allow for a detection of the absorption band.\
After subtraction of the nuclear contribution and application of a K-correction [e.g. following @hunt], the host galaxies show colors similar to the colors found in oridinary spiral glaxies.
![The NIR 2-color diagram for the 9 Sy1/NLS1 galaxies. Different sized data markers display flux measurements in apertures of 14”, 8” and 3”, centered on the nucleus. Additionally, the regions of normal galaxies and Quasars and the arrow specifying a visual extinction of 1${\rm ^{mag}}$ are indicated in the graph. The locus of the three crosses (in grey) is based upon calculations by @hyland and refers to the radiation output of normal galaxies with a gradually increased Quasar contribution (+$_{0.25}$: 25% nuclear radiation).[]{data-label="fig:fig3"}](2-colour.eps){width="9cm"}
Bertram, T. 2005 these proceedings
Black, J. H. & Dalgarno, A. 1981 ApJ 249, 138
Fischer, S. and Iserlohe, C. and Zuther, J. and Bertram, T. and Straubmeier, C. and Schödel, R. and Eckart, A. submitted to A&A
Hunt, L. K. and Malkan, M. A. and Rush, B. et al. 1999 ApJS 125, 349
Hyland, A. R. & Allen, D. A. 1982 MNRAS 199, 943
Jahnke, K. and Kuhlbrodt, B. and Wisotzki, L. 2004 MNRAS 352, 399
Rieke, G. H. and Lebofsky, M. J. 1985 ApJ 288, 618
Rodr[í]{}guez-Ardila, A. et al. 2004 A&A 425, 457
Wisotzki, L. et al. 2000 A&A 358, 77
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'An important physical model describing the dynamics of dilute weakly ionized plasmas in the collisional kinetic theory is the Vlasov-Poisson-Boltzmann system for which the plasma responds strongly to the self-consistent electrostatic force. This paper is concerned with the electron dynamics of [kinetic plasmas]{} in the whole space when the positive charged ion flow provides a spatially uniform background. We establish the global existence and optimal convergence rates of solutions near a global Maxwellian to the Cauchy problem on the Vlasov-Poisson-Boltzmann system for angular cutoff soft potentials with $-2\leq {\gamma}<0$. The main idea is to introduce a time dependent weight function in the velocity variable to capture the singularity of the cross-section at zero relative velocity.'
address:
- 'Department of Mathematics, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, Hong Kong'
- 'Department of Mathematics, City University of Hong Kong, Kowloon, Hong Kong and School of Mathematics and Statistics, Wuhan University, P.R. China'
- 'School of Mathematics and Statistics, Wuhan University, P.R. China'
author:
- Renjun Duan
- Tong Yang
- Huijiang Zhao
title: 'The Vlasov-Poisson-Boltzmann System for Soft Potentials'
---
Introduction
============
Problem
-------
The Vlasov-Poisson-Boltzmann (called VPB in the sequel for simplicity) system is a physical model describing the motion of dilute weakly ionized plasmas (e.g., electrons and ions in the case of two-species) in the collisional kinetic theory, where plasmas respond strongly to the self-consistent electrostatic force. In physics, the ion mass is usually much larger than the electron mass so that the electrons move much faster than the ions. Thus, the ions are often described by a fixed background $n_{\rm b}(x)$ and only the electrons move rapidly. In this simplified case, the VPB system takes the form of $$\begin{aligned}
&& {\partial}_t f + \xi \cdot {\nabla}_x f + {\nabla}_x\phi \cdot {\nabla}_\xi f =Q(f,f),\label{eq1}\\
&& {\Delta}_x \phi =\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^3} f\,d\xi-1,\quad \phi(x)\to 0\ \text{as}\ |x|\to \infty,\label{eq2}\\
&& f(0,x,\xi)=f_0(x,\xi).\label{eq3}\end{aligned}$$ Here the unknown $f=f(t,x,\xi)\geq 0$ is the density distribution function of the particles located at $x=(x_1,x_2,x_3)\in{\mathbb{R}}^3$ with velocity $\xi=(\xi_1,\xi_2,\xi_3)\in{\mathbb{R}}^3$ at time $t\geq 0$. The potential function $\phi=\phi(t,x)$ generating the self-consistent electric field ${\nabla}_x\phi$ in is coupled with $f(t,x,\xi)$ through the Poisson equation , where $n_{\rm b}(x)\equiv 1$ is chosen to be a unit constant.
The bilinear collision operator $Q$ acting only on the velocity variable, cf. [@CIP-Book; @Gl; @Vi-Re], is defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{def.Q}
Q(f,g)=\iint_{{\mathbb{R}}^3\times {\mathbb{S}}^2} |\xi-\xi_\ast|^{\gamma}q_0(\theta)\Big(f(\xi_\ast')g(\xi')-f(\xi_\ast)g(\xi)\Big)\, d {\omega}d\xi_\ast,\end{aligned}$$ where $(\xi,\xi_\ast)$ and $(\xi',\xi_\ast')$, denoting velocities of two particles before and after their collisions respectively, satisfy $$\begin{aligned}
\xi'=\xi-[(\xi-\xi_\ast)\cdot {\omega}]{\omega},\ \
\xi_\ast'=\xi_\ast+[(\xi-\xi_\ast)\cdot {\omega}]{\omega},\ \ {\omega}\in {\mathbb{S}}^2,\end{aligned}$$ by the conservation of momentum and energy $$\xi+\xi_\ast=\xi'+\xi_\ast',\quad |\xi|^2+|\xi_\ast|^2=|\xi'|^2+|\xi_\ast'|^2.$$ Note that the identity $|\xi-\xi_\ast|=|\xi'-\xi_\ast'|$ holds.
The function $|\xi-\xi_\ast|^{\gamma}q_0(\theta)$ in is the cross-section depending only on $|\xi-\xi_\ast|$ and $\cos\theta=(\xi-\xi_\ast)\cdot {\omega}/|\xi-\xi_\ast|$, and it satisfies $-3<{\gamma}\leq 1$ and it is assumed to satisfy the Grad’s angular cutoff assumption $0\leq q_0(\theta)\leq C |\cos \theta|$. The exponent $\gamma$ is determined by the potential of intermolecular forces, which is called the soft potential when $-3<{\gamma}<0$, the Maxwell model when ${\gamma}=0$ and the hard potential when $0<{\gamma}\leq 1$ including the hard sphere model ${\gamma}=1$, $q_0(\theta)={\rm cont.}|\cos\theta|$. For the soft potential, the case $-2< {\gamma}<0$ is called the moderately soft potential and $-3<{\gamma}<-2$ very soft potential, cf. [@Vi-Re]. Notice that the Coulomb potential coincides with the limit at ${\gamma}=-3$ for which the Boltzmann collision operator should be replaced by the Landau operator under the grazing collisions [@Guo-VPL; @SG; @Vi-Re].
It is an interesting problem to consider the nonlinear stability and convergence rates of a spatially homogeneous steady state ${\mathbf{M}}$ for the Cauchy problem , , when initial data $f_0$ is sufficiently close to ${\mathbf{M}}$ in a certain sense, where $${\mathbf{M}}=(2\pi )^{-3/2} e^{-|\xi|^2/2}$$ is a normalized global Maxwellian. This problem was first solved by Guo [@Guo2] for the VPB system on torus in the case of the hard sphere model. Since then, the case of non hard sphere models, i.e. $-3<{\gamma}<1$, under the angular cutoff assumption, has remained open. In a recent work [@DYZ] for the VPB system over the whole space, we studied the problem for the case $0\leq \gamma\leq 1$ that includes both the Maxwell model and general hard potentials. However, the method used in [@DYZ] can not be applied to the soft potentials, mainly because the collision frequency $\nu(\xi)\sim (1+|\xi|)^{\gamma}$ with ${\gamma}<0$ is degenerate in the large-velocity domain.
In this paper we shall study the problem in the soft potential case by further developing the approach in [@DYZ] with the following extra ingredients to overcome the specific mathematical difficulties in dealing with soft potentials:
- a new time-velocity-dependent weight in the form of $\exp\{{\langle}\xi{\rangle}^2 [q+{\lambda}/(1+t)^{{\vartheta}}]\}$ to capture the dissipation for controlling the velocity growth in the nonlinear term for non hard sphere models, and
- a time-frequency/time weighted method to overcome the large-velocity degeneracy in the energy dissipation.
The approach and techniques that this paper together with [@DYZ] developed can be applied to some other collisional kinetic models for the non hard sphere interaction potential when an external forcing is present.
Main results
------------
To this end, as in [@Guo2], set the perturbation $u=u(t,x,\xi)$ by $$f(t,x,\xi)-{\mathbf{M}}= {\mathbf{M}}^{1/2} u(t,x,\xi).$$ Then, the Cauchy problem - of the VPB system is reformulated as $$\begin{aligned}
&& {\partial}_t u + \xi \cdot {\nabla}_x u+ {\nabla}_x\phi \cdot {\nabla}_\xi u -\frac{1}{2} \xi \cdot {\nabla}_x\phi u-{\nabla}_x \phi \cdot \xi {\mathbf{M}}^{1/2} ={\mathbf{L}}u +{\Gamma}(u,u),\label{vpb1}\\
&& {\Delta}_x \phi=\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^3} {\mathbf{M}}^{1/2} u \,d\xi, \quad \phi(x)\to 0\ \text{as}\ |x|\to \infty,\label{vpb2}\\
&& u(0,x,\xi)=u_0(x,\xi)={\mathbf{M}}^{-1/2} (f_0-{\mathbf{M}}),\label{vpb3}\end{aligned}$$ where the linearized collision operator ${\mathbf{L}}$ and the quadratic nonlinear term ${\Gamma}$ are defined by $$\begin{aligned}
&&{\mathbf{L}}u ={{\mathbf{M}}^{-\frac 12}} \left\{Q\left({\mathbf{M}}, {\mathbf{M}}^{1/2} u\right)+ Q\left({\mathbf{M}}^{1/2} u , {\mathbf{M}}\right)\right\},\\
&& {\Gamma}(u,u)={{\mathbf{M}}^{-\frac 12}} Q\left({\mathbf{M}}^{1/2}u,{\mathbf{M}}^{1/2}u\right),\end{aligned}$$ respectively. Here, notice that due to , $\phi$ can be determined in terms of $u$ by $$\label{def.phi}
\phi(t,x)=-\frac{1}{4\pi |x|}\ast_x\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^3} {\mathbf{M}}^{1/2} u(t,x,\xi) \,d\xi.$$ By plugging the above formula into the equation for the reformulated VPB system, one has a single evolution equation for the perturbation $u$, cf. [@DY-09VPB; @DS-VPB].
Before stating our main result, we first introduce the following mixed time-velocity weight function $$\label{def.w}
w_{\tau,q} (t,\xi)={\langle}\xi {\rangle}^{{\gamma}\tau} e^{{\langle}\xi {\rangle}^2 \left[q+\frac{{\lambda}}{(1+t)^{\vartheta}}\right]},$$ where $\tau\in {\mathbb{R}}$, $0\leq q\ll 1$, $0<{\lambda}\ll 1$, $0<{\vartheta}\leq 1/4$, and ${\langle}\xi {\rangle}=(1+|\xi|^2)^{1/2}$. Notice that even though $w_{\tau,q} (t,\xi)$ depends also on parameters ${\lambda}$ and ${\vartheta}$, we skip them for notational simplicity, and in many places we also use $q(t)$ to denote $q+\frac{{\lambda}}{(1+t)^{{\vartheta}}}$ for brevity. For given $u(t,x,\xi)$ with the corresponding function $\phi(t,x)$ given by , we then define a temporal energy norm $$\label{def.tri}
{|\!|\!|}u {|\!|\!|}_{N,\ell,q} (t)=\sum_{|{\alpha}|+|{\beta}|\leq N}\left\|w_{|{\beta}|-\ell,q}(t,\xi){\partial}_{\beta}^{\alpha}u(t)\right\|+\|{\nabla}_x \phi(t)\|_{H^N},$$ where $N\geq 0$ is an integer, and $\ell\geq N$ is a constant.
The main result of this paper is stated as follows. Some more notations will be explained at the end of this section.
\[thm.m\] Let $-2\leq {\gamma}<0$, $N\geq 8$, $\ell_0>\frac{5}{2}$, [$\ell\geq 1+ \max\left\{N, \frac{\ell_0}{2}-\frac1{\gamma}\right\}$]{} and $q(t)=q+\frac{{\lambda}}{(1+t)^{{\vartheta}}} \geq 0$ with $0\leq q\ll 1$, $0<{\lambda}\ll 1$, and $0<{\vartheta}\leq 1/4$. Assume that $f_0={\mathbf{M}}+{\mathbf{M}}^{1/2}u_0\geq 0$ and $$\label{ass.neu}
\iint_{{\mathbb{R}}^3\times {\mathbb{R}}^3} {\mathbf{M}}^{1/2} u_0\,dxd\xi=0.$$ There are constants ${\epsilon}_0>0$, $C_0>0$ such that if $$\label{thm.ge.1}
\sum_{|{\alpha}|+|{\beta}|\leq N}\left\|{w_{|\beta|-\ell,q}}(0,\xi) {\partial}_{\beta}^{\alpha}u_0\right\|+\left\|\left(1+|x|+|\xi|^{-\frac {{\gamma}\ell_0}{2}}\right)u_0\right\|_{Z_1}\leq {\epsilon}_0,$$ then the Cauchy problem , , of the VPB system admits a unique global solution $u(t,x,\xi)$ satisfying $f(t,x,\xi)={\mathbf{M}}+{\mathbf{M}}^{1/2}u(t,x,\xi)\geq 0$ and $$\begin{gathered}
\label{thm.ge.2}
\sup_{t\geq 0} \left\{{{|\!|\!|}u{|\!|\!|}_{N,\ell,q} (t)+(1+t)^{\frac{3}{4}} {|\!|\!|}u {|\!|\!|}_{N,\ell-1,q} (t)}\right.\\
\left.+(1+t)^{\frac{5}{4}}\left\|{\nabla}_x^2\phi (t)\right\|_{H^{N-1}}\right\} \leq C_0 {\epsilon}_0.\end{gathered}$$
The condition implies that the ionized plasma system with electrons and ions are neutral at initial time. Due to the conservation of mass for or , the neutral condition holds for all time $t>0$. Notice that together with $\|(1+|x|)u_0\|_{Z_1}<\infty$ can be used to remove the singularity of the Poisson kernel and to induce the same time-decay rate as in the case of the Boltzmann equation; see also Remark \[rem.lide\]. Moreover, in , we put the extra space-velocity weight $1+|x|+|\xi|^{-\frac {{\gamma}\ell_0}{2}}$ on $u_0$ in $Z_1$-norm. This is necessary in the proof of Lemma \[lem.X\] concerning the desired uniform-in-time [*a priori*]{} estimate.
The problem of the global existence for the very soft potential case $-3<{\gamma}<-2$ is still left open. Despite this, we shall discuss in the next subsections the main difficulty.
We conclude this subsection by pointing out some possible extensions of Theorem \[thm.m\]. First, the arguments used in this paper can be adopted straightforwardly to deal with either the VPB system with soft potentials on torus with additional conservation laws as in [@Guo2] or the two-species VPB system with soft potentials as in [@Guo1; @YY-CMP]. Next, it could be quite interesting to apply the current approach as well as techniques in [@Guo-L; @SG] to consider the Vlasov-Poisson-Landau system [@Guo-VPL], where $Q$ in is replaced by the Landau operator $$Q^{L}(f,f)={\nabla}_\xi\cdot \left\{\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^3}B^L(\xi-\xi_\ast)
[f(\xi_\ast){\nabla}_\xi f(\xi)-f(\xi){\nabla}_\xi f(\xi_\ast)]\,d\xi_\ast\right\},$$ where $B^L(\xi)$ is a non-negative matrix given by $$B^L_{ij}(\xi)=\left({\delta}_{ij}-\frac{\xi_i\xi_j}{|\xi|^2}\right)|\xi|^{{\gamma}+2},\
\ {\gamma}\geq -3.$$ Note that the soft potential for the Landau operator corresponds to the case $-3\leq {\gamma}<-2$.
Strategy of the proof
---------------------
We first recall several elementary properties of the linearized operator ${\mathbf{L}}$. First of all, ${\mathbf{L}}$ can be written as ${\mathbf{L}}=-\nu+ K$, where $$\nu=\nu(\xi)\sim (1+|\xi|)^{\gamma}$$ denotes the collision frequency, and $K$ is a velocity integral operator with a real symmetric integral kernel $K(\xi,\xi_\ast)$. The explicit representation of $\nu$ and $K$ will be given in the next section. It is known that ${\mathbf{L}}$ is non-positive, the null space of ${\mathbf{L}}$ is given by $${\mathcal{N}}={\rm span}\left\{{\mathbf{M}}^{1/2},\xi_i{\mathbf{M}}^{1/2}~(1\leq i\leq 3),
|\xi|^2{\mathbf{M}}^{1/2} \right\},$$ and $-{\mathbf{L}}$ is coercive in the sense that there is a constant $\kappa_0>0$ such that, cf. [@CIP-Book; @Guo-BE-s; @Mo] $$\label{coerc}
-\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^3}u{\mathbf{L}}u\,d\xi\geq {\kappa}_0\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^3}\nu(\xi)|\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\}u|^2d\xi$$ holds for $u=u(\xi)$, where ${\mathbf{I}}$ means the identity operator and ${\mathbf{P}}$ denotes the orthogonal projection from $L^2_\xi$ to ${\mathcal{N}}$. As in [@Guo-IUMJ; @Guo-L], for any given any $u(t,x,\xi)$, one can write $$\left\{\begin{split}
{\displaystyle}& {\mathbf{P}}u= \left\{a(t,x)+b(t,x)\cdot \xi+c(t,x)\left(|\xi|^2-3\right)\right\}{\mathbf{M}}^{1/2},\\
{\displaystyle}& a= \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^3} {\mathbf{M}}^{1/2} u\,d\xi= \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^3} {\mathbf{M}}^{1/2} {\mathbf{P}}u\,d\xi,
\\
{\displaystyle}& b_i=\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^3}\xi_i {\mathbf{M}}^{1/2}u\,d\xi
=\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^3} \xi_i {\mathbf{M}}^{1/2}{\mathbf{P}}u\,d\xi,\ \ 1\leq i\leq 3,
\\
{\displaystyle}& c= \frac{1}{6}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^3}\left(|\xi|^2-3\right) {\mathbf{M}}^{1/2} u\,d\xi
= \frac{1}{6}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^3} \left(|\xi|^2-3\right) {\mathbf{M}}^{1/2} {\mathbf{P}}u\,d\xi.
\end{split}\right.$$ so that we have the macro-micro decomposition introduced in [@Guo-IUMJ] $$\label{mm.decom}
u(t,x,\xi)={\mathbf{P}}u(t,x,\xi)+\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\} u(t,x,\xi).$$ Here, ${\mathbf{P}}u$ is called the macroscopic component of $u(t,x,\xi)$ and $\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\}u$ the microscopic component of $u(t,x,\xi)$. For later use, one can rewrite ${\mathbf{P}}$ as $$\left\{\begin{array}{l}
{\displaystyle}{\mathbf{P}}u= {\mathbf{P}}_0 u\oplus {\mathbf{P}}_1 u,\\[3mm]
{\displaystyle}{\mathbf{P}}_0 u=a(t,x){\mathbf{M}}^{1/2},\quad \\[3mm]
{\displaystyle}{\mathbf{P}}_1u= \left\{b(t,x)\cdot \xi+c(t,x)\left(|\xi|^2-3\right)\right\}{\mathbf{M}}^{1/2},
\end{array}\right.$$ where ${\mathbf{P}}_0$ and ${\mathbf{P}}_1$ are the projectors corresponding to the hyperbolic and parabolic parts of the macroscopic component, respectively, cf. [@DS-VPB].
To prove Theorem \[thm.m\], we introduce the equivalent temporal energy functional $$\label{def.e}
{\mathcal{E}}_{N,\ell,q}(t)\sim {|\!|\!|}u {|\!|\!|}_{N,\ell,q}^2 (t),$$ and the corresponding dissipation rate functional $$\begin{gathered}
\label{def.ed}
{\mathcal{D}}_{N,\ell,q}(t) = \sum_{|{\alpha}|+|{\beta}|\leq N}\left\|\nu^{1/2}w_{|{\beta}|-\ell,q}(t,\xi){\partial}_{\beta}^{\alpha}\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\} u(t)\right\|^2\\
+\frac{1}{(1+t)^{1+{\vartheta}}} \sum_{|{\alpha}|+|{\beta}|\leq N}\left\|{\langle}\xi {\rangle}w_{|{\beta}|-\ell,q}(t,\xi){\partial}_{\beta}^{\alpha}\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\} u(t)\right\|^2\\
+\|a\|^2+\sum_{|{\alpha}|\leq N-1}\left\|{\nabla}_x{\partial}^{\alpha}(a,b,c)\right\|^2.\end{gathered}$$ We also introduce the time-weighted temporal sup-energy $$\begin{gathered}
\label{def.x}
X_{N,\ell,q}(t)=\sup_{0\leq s\leq t}{\mathcal{E}}_{N,\ell,q}(s)+\sup_{0\leq s\leq t} (1+s)^{\frac{3}{2}}{\mathcal{E}}_{N,\ell-1,q}(s)\\
+\sup_{0\leq s\leq t} (1+s)^{\frac{5}{2}}\left\|{\nabla}_x^2\phi (s)\right\|_{H^{N-1}}^2.\end{gathered}$$ Here, the exact definitions of ${\mathcal{E}}_{N,\ell,q}(t)$ [is given by ]{} in the proof of Lemma \[lem.ee\].
The strategy to prove Theorem \[thm.m\] is to obtain the uniform-in-time estimates under the [*a priori*]{} assumption that $X_{N,\ell,q}(t)$ is small enough over $0\leq t<T$ for any given $T>0$. Indeed,
- one can deduce that there is a temporal energy functional $ {\mathcal{E}}_{N,\ell,q}(t)$ satisfying such that $$\begin{aligned}
&&\frac{d}{dt} {\mathcal{E}}_{N,\ell,q}(t)+\kappa {\mathcal{D}}_{N,\ell,q}(t)\leq 0,\label{est.e}
\end{aligned}$$ for $0\leq t<T$, where ${\mathcal{D}}_{N,\ell,q}(t)$ is given by , and moreover,
- by combining the time-decay property of the linearized system, one can prove that $$\label{est.X}
X_{N,\ell,q}(t)\leq C\left\{{\epsilon}_{N,\ell,q}^2+X_{N,\ell,q}(t)^2\right\}$$ for $0\leq t<T$, where ${\epsilon}_{N,\ell,q}$ depends only on initial data $u_0$.
Therefore, by the local existence of solutions as well as the continuity argument, $ X_{N,\ell,q}(t)$ is bounded uniformly in all time $t\geq 0$ as long as ${\epsilon}_{N,\ell,q}$ is sufficiently small, which then implies Theorem \[thm.m\].
We remark that this kind of strategy used here was first developed in [@DUYZ-CMP] for the study of the time-decay property of the linearized Boltzmann equation with external forces and was later revisited in [@DUY] for further generalization of the approach.
Difficulties and ideas
----------------------
We now outline detailed ideas to carry out the above strategy with emphasize on the specific mathematical difficulties. Before that, it is worth to pointing out that for the VPB system with soft potentials, the only result available so far is [@Guo-Vacuum] in which global classical solutions near vacuum are constructed. One may expect that the work [@Ukai-1974] and its recent improvement [@UY-AA] by using the spectral analysis and the contraction mapping principle can be adapted to deal with this problem. However, we note that when the self-induced potential force is taken into account, even for the hard-sphere interaction, with the spectral property obtained in [@GS-DCDS], the spectral theory corresponding to [@Ukai-1974] has not been known so far, partially because the Poisson equation produces an additional nonlocal term with singular kernels.
Fortunately, the energy method recently developed in [@Guo-L; @Guo-IUMJ] works well in the presence of the self-induced electric field [@Guo2; @YZ-CMP; @DY-09VPB] or even electromagnetic field [@Guo1; @St-VMB; @D-1VMB]. But due to the appearance of the nonlinear term $\xi\cdot\nabla_x\phi \{{\bf I}-{\bf P}\}u$, the direct application of the coercive estimate of the linearized collision operator ${\bf L}$ works only for the hard-sphere interaction with ${\gamma}=1$. Indeed with a bit weaker (softer) than hard-sphere interaction, such a term is beyond the control by either the usual energy or the energy dissipation rate so that even the local-in-time solutions can not be constructed within this framework.
To overcome this difficulty, a new weighed energy method was introduced in [@DYZ] by the authors of this paper to deal with the VPB system with hard potentials. Such a method is based on the use of a mixed time-velocity weight function $$\label{def.w-hard}
w^{hp}_\ell (t,\xi)={\langle}\xi {\rangle}^{\frac{\ell}{2}} e^{\frac{{\lambda}|\xi|}{(1+t)^{\vartheta}}},$$ where $\ell\in {\mathbb{R}}$, ${\lambda}>0$ and ${\vartheta}>0$ are suitably chosen constants. One of the most important ingredients is to combine the time-decay of solutions with the usual weighted energy inequalities in order to obtain the uniform-in-time estimates.
The main purpose of this paper is to generalize the above argument so that it can be adapted to deal with the soft potential case. Compared with the hard potential case, the main difference lies in the fact that at high velocity the dissipation is much weaker than the instant energy. Our main ideas to overcome this are explained as follows.
Firstly, similar to the hard potential case [@DYZ], we introduce an exponential weight factor $$w^e_{\tau,q} (t,\xi)=\exp\left\{{\langle}\xi {\rangle}^2 \left[q+\frac{{\lambda}}{(1+t)^{\vartheta}}\right]\right\}$$ in the weight function $w_{\tau,q}(t,\xi)$ given by . Notice that $q(t):=q+{\lambda}/(1+t)^{{\vartheta}}$ satisfies $0<q(t)\ll 1$ by choices of $q$, ${\lambda}$ and ${\vartheta}$ as stated in Theorem \[thm.m\], and hence all the estimates on $\nu$ and $K$ obtained in [@SG] can still be applied with respect to the weight function $w_{\tau,q}(t,\xi)$ considered here. A key observation to use the exponential factor is based on the identity $$w^e_{\tau,q} (t,\xi){\partial}_t g(t,x,\xi)={\partial}_t\left\{w^e_{\tau,q} (t,\xi) g(t,x,\xi)\right\}+\frac{\lambda {\vartheta}{\langle}\xi {\rangle}^2}{(1+t)^{1+{\vartheta}}}w^e_{\tau,q} (t,\xi) g(t,x,\xi).$$ Thus one can gain from the second term on the right hand side of the above identity an additional second-order velocity moment ${\langle}\xi{\rangle}^2$ with a compensation that the magnitude of the additional dissipation term decays in time with a rate $(1+t)^{-(1+{\vartheta})}$. With this, the nonlinear term $\xi\cdot\nabla_x\phi \{{\bf I}-{\bf P}\}u$ can be controlled as long as the electric field ${\nabla}_x\phi$ has the time-decay rate not slower than $(1+t)^{-(1+{\vartheta})}$. Notice that in the case of the whole space, $\|{\nabla}_x^2\phi\|_{H^{N-1}}$ as a part of the high-order energy functional decays at most as $(1+t)^{-\frac{5}{4}}$ and thus it is natural to require $0<{\vartheta}\leq 1/4$.
Moreover, as used for hard potentials in [@DYZ], the first-order velocity moment ${\langle}\xi{\rangle}$ in the exponential factor of is actually enough to deal with the large-velocity growth in $\xi\cdot\nabla_x\phi \{{\bf I}-{\bf P}\}u$. The reason why we have chosen ${\langle}\xi{\rangle}^2$ for soft potentials is that one has to control another nonlinear term ${\nabla}_x\phi\cdot {\nabla}_\xi \{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\} u$. We shall clarify this point in more details later.
The second idea is to control the velocity $\xi$ derivative of $u$. It is well-known that $\nabla_\xi u$ may grow in time. To overcome such a difficulty, we apply the algebraic velocity weight factor, introduced in [@Guo-L; @Guo-BE-s], $$w^v_{|\beta|-\ell} (\xi)={\langle}\xi {\rangle}^{{\gamma}(|\beta|-\ell)},\quad \ell\geq |\beta|,$$ in the weight $w_{\tau,q}(t,\xi)$ given in with $\tau=|{\beta}|-\ell$. This algebraic factor implies two properties of the velocity weight: one is that $w^v_{|\beta|-\ell} (\xi) \geq 1$ holds true due to $\ell\geq |{\beta}|$, and the other one is that the higher the order of the $\xi$-derivatives, the more negative velocity weights. The restriction $\ell\geq |{\beta}|$, more precisely $$\ell-1\geq \max\left\{N, \frac{\ell_0}{2}-\frac1{\gamma}\right\}\geq |{\beta}|,$$ results from the fact that one has to use the positive-power algebraic velocity weight $w^v_{|\beta|-\ell} (\xi)$ so as to obtain the closed estimate on $X_{N,\ell,q}(t)$, because not only the nonlinear term $\xi\cdot {\nabla}_x\phi u$ contains the first-order velocity growth but also initial data is supposed to have an extra positive-power velocity weight ${\langle}\xi{\rangle}^{-\frac{{\gamma}\ell_0}{2}}$ in the time-decay estimate for the evolution operator of the linearized VPB system.
As pointed out in [@Guo-BE-s] for the study of the Boltzmann equation with soft potentials, the dependence of the weight $w^v_{|\beta|-\ell} (\xi)$ on $|{\beta}|$ makes it possible to control the linear term $\xi\cdot {\nabla}_x u$ in terms of the purely $x$-derivative dissipation for the weighted energy estimate on the mixed $x$-$\xi$ derivatives. However, the algebraic velocity factor $w^v_{|\beta|-\ell} (\xi)$ produces an additional difficulty on the nonlinear term ${\nabla}_x\phi\cdot {\nabla}_\xi u$ in the presence of the self-consistent electric field for the VPB system with soft potentials. To obtain the velocity weighted derivative estimate on such a nonlinear term, one should put an extra negative-power function ${\langle}\xi{\rangle}^{{\gamma}}$ in front of ${\nabla}_\xi \{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\} u$ in the nonlinear term ${\nabla}_x\phi\cdot {\nabla}_\xi u$ so that the velocity growth ${\langle}\xi{\rangle}^{-{\gamma}}$ comes up to have a balance. Then, as long as $$-2\leq {\gamma}<0,$$ it is fortunate that the dissipation functional ${\mathcal{D}}_{N,\ell,q}(t)$ given by containing the second-order moment ${\langle}\xi{\rangle}^2$ can be used to control the term ${\nabla}_x\phi\cdot {\nabla}_\xi u$.
At this point, it is not known how to use the argument of this paper to deal with the very soft potential case $-3<{\gamma}<-2$. However, inspired by [@Guo-VPL], we remark that one possible way is to have a stronger dissipation property of the linearized collision operator ${\bf L}$, particularly the possible velocity diffusion effect. In fact, for the Boltzmann equation without angular cutoff assumption, from the coercive estimate on the linearized Boltzmann collision operator ${\bf L}$ obtained in [@AMUXX; @GrSt], it seems hopeful to deal with the case $-3<{\gamma}<-2$ for such a physical situation, which will be reported in the future work.
Another ingredient of our analysis is the decay of solutions to the VPB system for soft potentials. Recall that the large-time behavior of global solutions has been studied extensively in recent years by using different approaches. One approach which usually leads to slower time-decay than in the linearized level is used in [@YZ-CMP] on the basis of the improved energy estimates together with functional inequalities. The method of thirteen moments and compensation functions proposed by Kawashima in [@Ka-BE13] which gives the optimal time rate without using the spectral theory; see [@GS-TTSP] and [@YY-CMP] for two applications. Recently, concerning with the optimal time rate, a time-frequency analysis method has been developed in [@DS-VPB; @DS-VMB; @D-1VMB]. Precisely, in the same spirit of [@Vi], some time-frequency functionals or interactive energy functionals are constructed in [@DS-VPB; @DS-VMB; @D-1VMB] to capture the dissipation of the degenerate components of the full system.
Back to [the nonlinear VPB system, the main difficulty of deducing the decay rates of solutions for the soft potential]{} is caused by the lack of a spectral gap for the linearized collision operator ${\bf L}$. [Unlike the periodic domain [@SG], we need a careful and delicate estimate on the time decay of solutions to the corresponding linearized equation in the case of the whole space ${\mathbb{R}}^3$. Following the recent work [@DS-VPB; @DS-VMB], our analysis]{} is based on the weighted energy estimates, a time-frequency analysis method, and the construction of some interactive energy functionals, which gives a new and concise proof of the decay of the solution to the linearized equation with soft potentials. Here, we should mention the recent work [@St-Op] by Strain. Different from this work, by starting from the inequality $${\partial}_t E_\ell(\hat{u})+ \kappa \rho(k) E_{\ell-1}(\hat{u})\leq 0,$$ we use a new time-frequency weighted approach together with the time-frequency splitting technique in order to deduce the time-decay estimate on the solution $u$ for the linearized VPB system; see Step 3 in the proof of Theorem \[thm.lide\] and the identity .
Finally we also point out a difference between the soft potential case and hard potentials studied in [@DYZ] for obtaining the time-decay of the energy functional ${\mathcal{E}}_{N,\ell,q}(t)$. The starting point is the Lyapunov inequality . In the hard potential case, the Gronwall inequality can be directly used when the lowest-order terms $\|(a,b,c)\|^2$ and $\|{\nabla}_x\phi\|^2$ are added into ${\mathcal{D}}_{N,\ell,q}(t)$. However, this fails for the soft potentials because ${\mathcal{D}}_{N,\ell,q}(t)$ given by contains the extra factor $\nu(\xi)\sim{\langle}\xi{\rangle}^{\gamma}$ which is degenerate at large-velocity domain when ${\gamma}<0$. To overcome this difficulty, [we have used the time-weighted estimate on as well as an iterative technique on the basis of the inequality $${\mathcal{D}}_{N,\tilde{\ell},q}(t)+ \|(b,c)(t)\|^2+\|{\nabla}_x\phi(t)\|^2\geq \kappa{\mathcal{E}}_{N,\tilde{\ell}-\frac{1}{2},q}(t)$$ for any $\tilde{\ell}$; see Step 2 in the proof of Lemma \[lem.X\] for details.]{}
Before concluding this introduction, we mention some previous results concerning the study of the VPB system in other respects, cf. [@DD; @GJ], the Boltzmann equation with soft potentials, cf. [@UA-s; @Ca1; @Ca2], and also the exponential rate for the Boltzmann equation with general potentials in the collision kernel but under additional conditions on the regularity of solutions, cf. [@DV].
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In Section \[sec2\], we will list some estimates on $\nu$ and $K$ proved in [@SG]. In Section \[sec3\], we will study the time-decay property of the linearized VPB system without any source. In Section \[sec4\], we give the estimates on the nonlinear terms with respect to the weight function $w_{\tau,q}(t,\xi)$. In Section \[sec5\], we will close the [*a priori*]{} estimates on the solution to derive the desired inequality . In the last section, we will prove to conclude Theorem \[thm.m\].
Notations
---------
Throughout this paper, $C$ denotes some positive (generally large) constant and ${\kappa}$ denotes some positive (generally small) constant, where both $C$ and ${\kappa}$ may take different values in different places. $A\lesssim B$ means $A\leq \frac{1}{\kappa} B$ and $A\sim B$ means ${\kappa}A\leq B \leq \frac{1}{{\kappa}} A$, both for a generic constant $0<{\kappa}<1$. For an integer $m\geq 0$, we use $H^m_{x,\xi}$, $H^m_x$, $H^m_\xi$ to denote the usual Hilbert spaces $H^m({\mathbb{R}}^3_x\times{\mathbb{R}}^3_\xi)$, $H^m({\mathbb{R}}^3_x)$, $H^m({\mathbb{R}}^3_\xi)$, respectively, and $L^2$, $L^2_x$, $L^2_\xi$ are used for the case when $m=0$. When without any confusion, we use $H^m$ to denote $H^m_x$ and use $L^2$ to denote $L^2_x$ or $L^2_{x,\xi}$. We denote ${\langle}\cdot,\cdot {\rangle}$ by the inner product over $L^2_{x,\xi}$. For $q\geq 1$, we also define the mixed velocity-space Lebesgue space $Z_q=L^2_\xi(L^q_x)=L^2({\mathbb{R}}^3_\xi;L^q({\mathbb{R}}^3_x))$ with the norm $$\|u\|_{Z_q}=\left(\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^3}\left(\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^3}
|u(x,\xi)|^q \,dx\right)^{2/q}d\xi\right)^{1/2},\ \ u=u(x,\xi)\in Z_q.$$ For multi-indices ${\alpha}=({\alpha}_1,{\alpha}_2,{\alpha}_3)$ and ${\beta}=({\beta}_1,{\beta}_2,{\beta}_3)$, we denote ${\partial}^{{\alpha}}_{\beta}={\partial}_x^{\alpha}{\partial}_\xi^{\beta}$, that is, $
{\partial}^{{\alpha}}_{\beta}={\partial}_{x_1}^{{\alpha}_1}{\partial}_{x_2}^{{\alpha}_2}{\partial}_{x_3}^{{\alpha}_3}
{\partial}_{\xi_1}^{{\beta}_1}{\partial}_{\xi_2}^{{\beta}_2}{\partial}_{\xi_3}^{{\beta}_3}.
$ The length of ${\alpha}$ is $|{\alpha}|={\alpha}_1+{\alpha}_2+{\alpha}_3$ and the length of ${\beta}$ is $|{\beta}|={\beta}_1+{\beta}_2+{\beta}_3$.
Preliminaries {#sec2}
=============
Recall that ${\mathbf{L}}=-\nu+K$ is defined by $$\nu(\xi)=\iint_{{\mathbb{R}}^3\times S^2} |\xi-\xi_\ast|^{\gamma}q_0(\theta) {\mathbf{M}}(\xi_\ast)\,d{\omega}d\xi_\ast\sim (1+|\xi|)^{\gamma},$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
Ku(\xi)&=&\iint_{{\mathbb{R}}^3\times S^{2}}|\xi-\xi_\ast|^{\gamma}q_0(\theta){\mathbf{M}}^{1/2}(\xi_\ast){\mathbf{M}}^{1/2}(\xi_\ast') u(\xi')\,d{\omega}d\xi_\ast \\
&&+\iint_{{\mathbb{R}}^3\times S^{2}}|\xi-\xi_\ast|^{\gamma}q_0(\theta){\mathbf{M}}^{1/2}(\xi_\ast){\mathbf{M}}^{1/2}(\xi') u(\xi_\ast')\,d{\omega}d\xi_\ast\nonumber \\
&&-\iint_{{\mathbb{R}}^3\times S^{2}}|\xi-\xi_\ast|^{\gamma}q_0(\theta){\mathbf{M}}^{1/2}(\xi_\ast){\mathbf{M}}^{1/2}(\xi) u(\xi_\ast)\,d{\omega}d\xi_\ast\nonumber \\
&=&\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^3}K(\xi,\xi_\ast)u(\xi_\ast)d\xi_\ast.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ We list in the following lemma velocity weighted estimates on the collision frequency $\nu(\xi)$ and the integral operator $K$ with respect to the velocity weight function $$w_{\tau,\tilde{q}}(\xi)={\langle}\xi{\rangle}^{{\gamma}\tau}e^{\tilde{q}{\langle}\xi{\rangle}^2},\quad \tau\in {\mathbb{R}},\quad 0\leq \tilde{q}\ll 1.$$
Let $-3<\gamma<0$, $\tau\in {\mathbb{R}}$, and $0\leq \tilde{q}\ll 1$. If $|{\beta}|>0$, then for any $\eta>0$, there is $C_\eta>0$ such that $$\begin{gathered}
\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^3}w_{\tau,\tilde{q}}^2(\xi) {\partial}_{\beta}(\nu u){\partial}_{\beta}u\,d\xi \geq \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^3} \nu(\xi) w_{\tau,\tilde{q}}^2(\xi)
|{\partial}_{\beta}u|^2\,d\xi\\
-\eta \sum_{|{\beta}_1|\leq |{\beta}|}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^3} \nu(\xi)w_{\tau,\tilde{q}}^2(\xi)|{\partial}_{{\beta}_1} u|^2\,d\xi
-C_\eta \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^3} \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^3}\chi_{|\xi|\leq 2C_\eta} {\langle}\xi{\rangle}^{2{\gamma}\tau}|u|^2\,d\xi.\end{gathered}$$ If $|{\beta}|\geq 0$, then for any $\eta>0$, there is $C_\eta>0$ such that $$\begin{gathered}
\label{lem.nuk.2}
\left|\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^3} w_{\tau,\tilde{q}}^2(\xi){\partial}_{\beta}\left(K f\right) g\,d\xi\right|\leq \left\{\eta \sum_{|{\beta}_1|\leq |{\beta}|} \left(\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^3}\nu(\xi) w_{\tau,\tilde{q}}^2(\xi) |{\partial}_{{\beta}_1} f|^2\,d\xi\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\right.\\
\left.+C_\eta \left(\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^3}\chi_{|\xi|\leq 2C_\eta}{\langle}\xi {\rangle}^{2{\gamma}\tau} |f|^2\,d\xi\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\right\}\times
\left(\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^3}\nu(\xi) w_{\tau,\tilde{q}}^2(\xi) |g|^2\,d\xi\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}.\end{gathered}$$
For later use, let us write down the macroscopic equations of the VPB system up to third-order moments by applying the macro-micro decomposition introduced in [@Guo-IUMJ]. For that, as in [@DS-VPB], define moment functions $\Theta_{ij}(\cdot)$ and $\Lambda_i(\cdot)$, $1\leq i,j\leq 3$, by $$\label{def.moment}
\Theta_{ij}(v)=\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^3}(\xi_i\xi_j -1){\mathbf{M}}^{1/2} v\,d\xi,\ \ \Lambda_i(v)=\frac{1}{10}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^3} (|\xi|^2-5)\xi_i{\mathbf{M}}^{1/2} v\,d\xi,$$ for any $v=v(\xi)$. Then, one can derive from - a fluid-type system of equations $$\label{moment.l}
\left\{\begin{array}{l}
{\displaystyle}{\partial}_t a + {\nabla}_x\cdot b =0,\\[3mm]
{\displaystyle}{\partial}_t b+ {\nabla}_x (a + 2c) + {\nabla}_x \cdot \Theta (\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\} u) -{\nabla}_x\phi={\nabla}_x\phi a,\\[3mm]
{\displaystyle}{\partial}_t c + \frac{1}{3}{\nabla}_x\cdot b +\frac{5}{3} {\nabla}_x\cdot \Lambda (\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\} u)=\frac{1}{3} {\nabla}_x\phi \cdot b,\\[3mm]
{\displaystyle}{\Delta}_x \phi =a,
\end{array}\right.$$ and $$\label{moment.h}
\left\{\begin{array}{l}
{\displaystyle}{\partial}_t \Theta_{ij}(\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\} u)+{\partial}_i b_j +{\partial}_j b_i -\frac{2}{3} {\delta}_{ij} {\nabla}_x\cdot b -\frac{10}{3} {\delta}_{ij}{\nabla}_x\cdot \Lambda (\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\} u)\\[3mm]
{\displaystyle}\qquad\qquad =\Theta_{ij} (r+G)-\frac{2}{3}{\delta}_{ij}{\nabla}_x\phi \cdot b,\\[3mm]
{\displaystyle}{\partial}_t \Lambda_i (\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\} u) +{\partial}_i c =\Lambda_i(r+G)
\end{array}\right.$$ with $$r=-\xi\cdot {\nabla}_x \{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\}u+{\mathbf{L}}u,\quad G={\Gamma}(u,u)+\frac{1}{2} \xi\cdot {\nabla}_x\phi u-{\nabla}_x\phi \cdot {\nabla}_\xi u,$$ where $r$ is a linear term related only to the micro component $\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\} u$ and $G$ is a quadratic nonlinear term. Here and hereafter, for simplicity, we used ${\partial}_j$ to denote ${\partial}_{x_j}$ for each $j=1,2,3$. The above fluid-type system - plays a key role in the analysis of the zero-order energy estimate and the dissipation of the macroscopic component $(a,b,c)$ in the case of the whole space; see [@Guo-IUMJ; @DY-09VPB; @DS-VPB; @DS-VMB; @D-1VMB].
Time decay for the evolution operator {#sec3}
=====================================
Consider the linearized homogeneous equation $${\partial}_t u +\xi \cdot {\nabla}_x u -{\nabla}_x \phi \cdot \xi {\mathbf{M}}^{1/2} ={\mathbf{L}}u, \label{lvpb1}$$ with $$\phi=-\frac{1}{4\pi |x|}\ast_x\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^3} {\mathbf{M}}^{1/2} u(t,x,\xi) \,d\xi\to 0 \ \text{as}\ |x|\to \infty.\label{lvpb2}$$ Given $u_0=u_0(x,\xi)$, $e^{t B} u_0$ is the solution to the Cauchy problem - with $u|_{t=0}=u_0$. For an integer $m$, set the index $ {\sigma}_{m}$ of the time-decay rate by $${\sigma}_{m}=\frac{3}{4}+\frac{m}{2},$$ which corresponds to the one for the case of the usual heat kernel in three dimensions.
The main result of this section is stated as follows.
\[thm.lide\] Set $\mu=\mu(\xi):={\langle}\xi {\rangle}^{-\frac{{\gamma}}{2}}$. Let $-3<{\gamma}<0$, $\ell\geq 0$, ${\alpha}\geq 0$, $m=|{\alpha}|$, $\ell_0>2{\sigma}_m$, and assume $$\label{thm.lide.1}
\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^3}a_0\,dx=0,\quad \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^3}(1+|x|)|a_0|\,dx<\infty,$$ and $$\label{thm.lide.2}
\left\|\mu^{\ell+\ell_0}u_0\right\|_{Z_1}+\left\|\mu^{\ell+\ell_0} {\partial}^{\alpha}u_0\right\|<\infty.$$ Then, the evolution operator $e^{tB}$ satisfies $$\begin{gathered}
\label{thm.lide.3}
\left\|\mu^{\ell}{\partial}^{\alpha}e^{tB}u_0\right\| +\left\|{\partial}^{\alpha}{\nabla}_x{\Delta}_x^{-1}{\mathbf{P}}_0 e^{tB} u_0\right\|\\
\leq C(1+t)^{-{\sigma}_{m}} \left(\left\|\mu^{\ell+\ell_0}u_0\right\|_{Z_1}+\left\|\mu^{\ell+\ell_0} {\partial}^{\alpha}u_0\right\|+\left\|(1+|x|)a_0\right\|_{L^1_x}\right)\end{gathered}$$ for any $t\geq 0$.
The proof is divided by three steps.
[**Step 1.**]{} The Fourier transform of - gives $$\label{thm.lide.p1}
{\partial}_t \hat{u}+i\xi\cdot k \hat{u}-ik\hat{\phi}\cdot \xi {\mathbf{M}}^{1/2}={\mathbf{L}}\hat{u},$$ with $-|k|^2\hat{\phi}=\hat{a}$. By taking the complex inner product of the above equation with $\hat{u}$, integrating it over ${\mathbb{R}}^3_\xi$ and using , as in [@DS-VPB], one has $$\label{thm.lide.p2}
{\partial}_t \left(\|\hat{u}\|_{L^2_\xi}^2+\frac{|\hat{a}|^2}{|k|^2}\right)+ \kappa \left\|\nu^{1/2}\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\} \hat{u}\right\|_{L^2_\xi}^2
\leq 0.$$ Furthermore, similar to derive and from the nonlinear VPB system, one can also derive from - a fluid-type system of linear equations $$\begin{aligned}
&& {\partial}_t a + {\nabla}_x\cdot b =0,\\
&& {\partial}_t b+ {\nabla}_x (a + 2c) + {\nabla}_x \cdot \Theta (\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\} u) -{\nabla}_x\phi=0,\\
&& {\partial}_t c + \frac{1}{3}{\nabla}_x\cdot b +\frac{5}{3} {\nabla}_x\cdot \Lambda (\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\} u)=0,\\
&& {\Delta}_x \phi =a,\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
&& {\partial}_t \Theta_{ij}(\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\} u)+{\partial}_i b_j +{\partial}_j b_i -\frac{2}{3} {\delta}_{ij} {\nabla}_x\cdot b \\
&&\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad-\frac{10}{3} {\delta}_{ij}{\nabla}_x\cdot \Lambda (\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\} u) =\Theta_{ij} (r),\\
&& {\partial}_t \Lambda_i (\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\} u) +{\partial}_i c =\Lambda_i(r)\end{aligned}$$ with $r=-\xi\cdot {\nabla}_x \{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\}u+{\mathbf{L}}u$, where $\Theta(\cdot)$ and $\Lambda(\cdot)$ are defined in . From the above fluid-type system, as in [@D-1VMB], one can deduce $$\label{thm.lide.p3}
{\partial}_t \Re\, {\mathcal{E}}^{\rm int}(\hat{u}(t,k))+ \kappa \left\{\frac{|k|^2}{1+|k|^2} \left|\widehat{(a,b,c)}\right|^2+|\hat{a}|^2\right\}
\leq C\left\|\nu^{1/2}\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\} \hat{u}\right\|_{L^2_\xi}^2,$$ where ${\mathcal{E}}^{\rm int}(\hat{u}(t,k))$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal{E}}^{\rm int}(\hat{u}(t,k))&=&\frac{1}{1+|k|^2}\Bigg\{ \big(ik\hat{c}\mid \Lambda (\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\} \hat{u})\big)\nonumber\\
&&\quad +\sum_{jm}\left(ik_j \hat{b}_m+i k_m \hat{b}_j-\frac{2}{3}{\delta}_{jm} ik\cdot \hat{b}\mid \Theta_{jm}(\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\} \hat{u})\right)\\
&&\quad+\kappa_1\left( ik\hat{a}\mid \hat{b} \right)\Bigg\}.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, for $0<\kappa_2\ll 1$, a suitable linear combination of and gives $$\begin{gathered}
\label{thm.lide.p4}
{\partial}_t \left[\|\hat{u}\|_{L^2_\xi}^2+\frac{|\hat{a}|^2}{|k|^2}+\kappa_2\Re\, {\mathcal{E}}^{\rm int}(\hat{u}(t,k)) \right]\\
+\kappa\left\{\left\|\nu^{1/2}\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\} \hat{u}\right\|_{L^2_\xi}^2+\frac{|k|^2}{1+|k|^2} \left|\widehat{(a,b,c)}\right|^2+\left|\hat{a}\right|^2\right\}\leq 0.\end{gathered}$$ Here, notice that since $$\left|{\mathcal{E}}^{\rm int}(\hat{u}(t,k))\right|\leq C\left\{\left\|\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\}\hat{u}\right\|_{L^2_\xi}^2+\left|\widehat{(a,b,c)}\right|^2\right\},$$ we have taken $\kappa_2>0$ small enough such that $$\label{thm.lide.p4-1}
\|\hat{u}\|_{L^2_\xi}^2+\frac{|\hat{a}|^2}{|k|^2}+\kappa_2\Re\, {\mathcal{E}}^{\rm int}(\hat{u}(t,k)) \sim \|\hat{u}\|_{L^2_\xi}^2+\frac{|\hat{a}|^2}{|k|^2}.$$
[**Step 2.**]{} Applying $\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\}$ to , we have $${\partial}_t \{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\}\hat{u}+i\xi\cdot k \{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\}\hat{u}={\mathbf{L}}\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\}\hat{u} +{\mathbf{P}}i\xi\cdot k\hat{u}-i\xi\cdot k {\mathbf{P}}\hat{u}.$$ By further taking the complex inner product of the above equation with $\mu^{2\ell}(\xi)\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\}\hat{u}$ and integrating it over ${\mathbb{R}}^3_\xi$, one has $$\begin{gathered}
\label{thm.lide.p5}
\frac{1}{2}{\partial}_t \left\|\mu^\ell\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\}\hat{u}\right\|_{L^2_\xi}+\kappa \left\|\mu^{\ell-1}\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\}\hat{u}\right\|_{L^2_\xi}^2\\
\leq \Re\,\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^3}\left( K \{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\}\hat{u}\mid \mu^{2\ell}(\xi)\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\}\hat{u}\right)\,d\xi \\
+\Re\,\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^3}\left( {\mathbf{P}}i\xi\cdot k\hat{u}-i\xi\cdot k {\mathbf{P}}\hat{u}\mid \mu^{2\ell}(\xi)\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\}\hat{u}\right)\,d\xi.\end{gathered}$$ It follows from that for any $\eta>0$, $$\begin{gathered}
\label{thm.lide.p5-1}
\left|\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^3}\left( K \{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\}\hat{u}\mid \mu^{2\ell}(\xi)\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\}\hat{u}\right)\,d\xi\right|\\
\leq \left\{\eta \left\|\nu^{1/2}\mu^{\ell}\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\}\hat{u}\right\|_{L^2_\xi}
+C_\eta \left\|\chi_{|\xi|\leq 2C_\eta}{\langle}\xi{\rangle}^{-\frac{{\gamma}\ell}{2}}\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\}\hat{u}\right\|\right\}\\
\times
\left\|\nu^{1/2}\mu^{\ell}\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\}\hat{u}\right\|,\end{gathered}$$ which further by the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality implies $$\begin{gathered}
\left|\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^3}\left( K \{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\}\hat{u}\mid \mu^{2\ell}(\xi)\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\}\hat{u}\right)\,d\xi\right|\\
\leq \eta \left\|\nu^{1/2}\mu^{\ell}\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\}\hat{u}\right\|_{L^2_\xi}^2
+C_\eta \left\|\nu^{1/2}\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\}\hat{u}\right\|^2.\end{gathered}$$ Notice that over $|k|\leq 1$, $$\begin{gathered}
\Re\,\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^3}\left( {\mathbf{P}}i\xi\cdot k\hat{u}-i\xi\cdot k {\mathbf{P}}\hat{u}\mid \mu^{2\ell}(\xi)\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\}\hat{u}\right)\,d\xi\,\chi_{|k|\leq 1}\\
\leq C\left(\left\|\nu^{1/2}\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\}\hat{u}\right\|_{L^2_\xi}^2+\frac{|k|^2}{1+|k|^2}\left|\widehat{(a,b,c)}\right|^2\right).\end{gathered}$$ Plugging the above two inequalities into and fixing a small enough constant $\eta>0$ give $$\begin{gathered}
\label{thm.lide.p6}
{\partial}_t \left\|\mu^\ell\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\}\hat{u}\right\|_{L^2_\xi}\,\chi_{|k|\leq 1}+\kappa \left\|\mu^{\ell-1}\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\}\hat{u}\right\|_{L^2_\xi}^2\,\chi_{|k|\leq 1}\\
\leq C\left(\left\|\nu^{1/2}\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\}\hat{u}\right\|_{L^2_\xi}^2+\frac{|k|^2}{1+|k|^2}\left|\widehat{(a,b,c)}\right|^2\right).\end{gathered}$$
To obtain the velocity-weighted estimate for the pointwise time-frequency variables over $|k|\geq 1$, we directly take the complex inner product of with $\mu^{2\ell}(\xi)\hat{u}$ and integrate it over ${\mathbb{R}}^3_\xi$ to get that $$\begin{gathered}
\label{thm.lide.p7}
\frac{1}{2}{\partial}_t \left\|\mu^\ell\hat{u}\right\|_{L^2_\xi}^2+\left\|\nu^{1/2}\mu^{\ell}\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\}\hat{u}\right\|_{L^2_\xi}^2\\
= -\Re\,\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^3}\left( \nu(\xi)\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\}\hat{u}\mid \mu^{2\ell}(\xi){\mathbf{P}}\hat{u}\right)\,d\xi+\Re\,\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^3}\left( K\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\} \hat{u}\mid \mu^{2\ell}(\xi)\hat{u}\right)\,d\xi\\
+\Re\,\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^3}\left( ik\hat{\phi}\cdot \xi {\mathbf{M}}^{1/2}\mid \mu^{2\ell}(\xi)\hat{u}\right)\,d\xi.\end{gathered}$$ Here, Cauchy-Schwarz’s inequality implies $$-\Re\,\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^3}\left( \nu(\xi)\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\}\hat{u}\mid \mu^{2\ell}(\xi){\mathbf{P}}\hat{u}\right)\,d\xi
\leq C\left(\left\|\nu^{1/2}\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\}\hat{u}\right\|_{L^2_\xi}^2+\left|\widehat{(a,b,c)}\right|^2\right),$$ and $$\begin{gathered}
\Re\,\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^3}\left( ik\hat{\phi}\cdot \xi {\mathbf{M}}^{1/2}\mid \mu^{2\ell}(\xi)\hat{u}\right)\,d\xi\\
=\Re\,\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^3}\left( ik\hat{\phi}\cdot \xi {\mathbf{M}}^{1/2}\mid \mu^{2\ell}(\xi)[{\mathbf{P}}\hat{u}+\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\}\hat{u}]\right)\,d\xi\\
\leq C\left\{ \left\|\nu^{1/2}\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\} \hat{u}\right\|_{L^2_\xi}^2+\left|\widehat{(a,b,c)}\right|^2+\frac{|\hat{a}|^2}{|k|^2}\right\},\end{gathered}$$ where $|k|^2|\hat{\phi}|^2=|\hat{a}|^2/|k|^2$ due to the Poisson equation $-|k|^2\hat{\phi}=\hat{a}$ was used. From , similar to the proof of , one has $$\begin{gathered}
\Re\,\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^3}\left( K\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\} \hat{u}\mid \mu^{2\ell}(\xi)\hat{u}\right)\,d\xi\\
=\Re\,\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^3}\left( K\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\} \hat{u}\mid \mu^{2\ell}(\xi)[{\mathbf{P}}\hat{u}+\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\}\hat{u}]\right)\,d\xi\\
\leq \eta \left\|\nu^{1/2}\mu^{\ell}\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\} \hat{u}\right\|_{L^2_\xi}^2
+C_\eta\left(\left\|\nu^{1/2}\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\}\hat{u}\right\|_{L^2_\xi}^2+\left|\widehat{(a,b,c)}\right|^2\right).\end{gathered}$$ By plugging the above two estimates into , fixing a small constant $\eta>0$ and using $1\leq \frac{2|k|^2}{1+|k|^2}\chi_{|k|\geq 1}$, it follows that $$\begin{gathered}
\label{thm.lide.p8}
{\partial}_t \left\|\mu^\ell\hat{u}\right\|_{L^2_\xi}^2\chi_{|k|\geq 1}+\kappa \left\|\mu^{\ell-1}\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\}\hat{u}\right\|_{L^2_\xi}^2\chi_{|k|\geq 1}\\
\leq C\left(\left\|\nu^{1/2}\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\}\hat{u}\right\|_{L^2_\xi}^2+\frac{|k|^2}{1+|k|^2}\left|\widehat{(a,b,c)}\right|^2\right).\end{gathered}$$
Now, for properly chosen constants $0<\kappa_3,\kappa_4\ll 1$, a suitable linear combination of , and yields that whenever $\ell\geq 0$, $$\label{ad.p1}
{\partial}_t E_\ell(\hat{u}) +\kappa D_\ell(\hat{u})\leq 0,$$ holds true for any $t\geq 0$, $k\in {\mathbb{R}}^3$, where $E_\ell(\hat{u})$ and $D_\ell(\hat{u})$ are given by $$\begin{aligned}
E_\ell(\hat{u})&=&\|\hat{u}\|_{L^2_\xi}^2+\frac{|\hat{a}|^2}{|k|^2}+\kappa_2\Re\, {\mathcal{E}}^{\rm int}(\hat{u}(t,k))\\
&& +\kappa_3\left\|\mu^\ell\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\}\hat{u}\right\|_{L^2_\xi}\,\chi_{|k|\leq 1}
+\kappa_4 \left\|\mu^\ell\hat{u}\right\|_{L^2_\xi}^2\chi_{|k|\geq 1},\nonumber\\
D_\ell(\hat{u})&=& \left\|\mu^{\ell-1}\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\} \hat{u}\right\|_{L^2_\xi}^2+\frac{|k|^2}{1+|k|^2} \left|\widehat{(a,b,c)}\right|^2+\left|\hat{a}\right|^2.\end{aligned}$$ Due to and the fact that ${\mathbf{P}}\hat{u}$ decays exponentially in $\xi$, it is straightforward to check that for $\ell\geq 0$, $$E_\ell(\hat{u})\sim \left\|\mu^\ell\hat{u}\right\|_{L^2_\xi}^2+ \frac{|\hat{a}|^2}{|k|^2}.$$
[**Step 3.**]{} To the end, set $$\rho(k)=\frac{|k|^2}{1+|k|^2}.$$ Let $0<{\epsilon}\leq 1$ and $J> 0$ be chosen later. Multiplying by $[1+{\epsilon}\rho (k)t]^J$, $$\label{ad.p2}
\frac{d}{dt}\{[1+{\epsilon}\rho (k)t]^J E_{\ell}(\hat{u})\}+\kappa [1+{\epsilon}\rho (k)t]^J D_{\ell}(\hat{u})\leq J[1+{\epsilon}\rho (k)t]^{J-1} {\epsilon}\rho(k) E_{\ell}(\hat{u}).$$ To estimate the right-hand term, we bound $E_\ell(\hat{u})$ in the way that $$\begin{aligned}
E_\ell(\hat{u}) &\sim& \left\|\mu^\ell\hat{u}\right\|_{L^2_\xi}^2+ \frac{|\hat{a}|^2}{|k|^2}\\
&=& \left\|\mu^\ell\hat{u}\right\|_{L^2_\xi}^2(\chi_{|k|\leq 1}+\chi_{|k|>1})+ \frac{|\hat{a}|^2}{|k|^2}\\
&\lesssim&(\left\|\mu^\ell\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\}\hat{u}\right\|_{L^2_\xi}^2+\left\|\mu^\ell{\mathbf{P}}\hat{u}\right\|_{L^2_\xi}^2)\chi_{|k|\leq 1}+\left\|\mu^\ell\hat{u}\right\|_{L^2_\xi}^2\chi_{|k|\geq 1}+ \frac{|\hat{a}|^2}{|k|^2}\\
&\lesssim&\left\|\mu^\ell\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\}\hat{u}\right\|_{L^2_\xi}^2\chi_{|k|\leq 1}+\left\|\mu^\ell\hat{u}\right\|_{L^2_\xi}^2\chi_{|k|\geq 1}
+ |\widehat{(a,b,c)}|^2+ \frac{|\hat{a}|^2}{|k|^2}.\end{aligned}$$ That is, $$\begin{aligned}
&&E_\ell(\hat{u})\lesssim E^{I}_\ell(\hat{u})+E^{I\!I}(\hat{u}),\\
&&E^{I}_\ell(\hat{u})=\left\|\mu^\ell\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\}\hat{u}\right\|_{L^2_\xi}^2\chi_{|k|\leq 1}+\left\|\mu^\ell\hat{u}\right\|_{L^2_\xi}^2\chi_{|k|\geq 1},\\
&&E^{I\!I}(\hat{u})= |\widehat{(a,b,c)}|^2+ \frac{|\hat{a}|^2}{|k|^2}.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, for the right-hand term of , one has $$\begin{aligned}
&{\displaystyle}J[1+{\epsilon}\rho (k)t]^{J-1} {\epsilon}\rho(k) E_{\ell}(\hat{u})\\
&{\displaystyle}\lesssim J[1+{\epsilon}\rho (k)t]^{J-1} {\epsilon}\rho(k)E^{I}_\ell(\hat{u})+J[1+{\epsilon}\rho (k)t]^{J-1} {\epsilon}\rho(k)E^{I\!I}(\hat{u})
:=R_1+R_2.\end{aligned}$$ We estimate $R_1$ and $R_2$ as follows. First, for $R_2$, $$\begin{aligned}
R_2&=&J[1+{\epsilon}\rho (k)t]^{J-1} {\epsilon}\rho(k)E^{I\!I}(\hat{u})\\
&=&J[1+{\epsilon}\rho (k)t]^{J-1} {\epsilon}\rho(k)( |\widehat{(a,b,c)}|^2+ \frac{|\hat{a}|^2}{|k|^2})\\
&=&{\epsilon}J[1+{\epsilon}\rho (k)t]^{J-1} \left\{\frac{|k|^2}{1+|k|^2} \left|\widehat{(a,b,c)}\right|^2+\frac{1}{1+|k|^2} \left|\hat{a}\right|^2\right\}\\
&\leq &{\epsilon}J[1+{\epsilon}\rho (k)t]^{J} \left\{\frac{|k|^2}{1+|k|^2} \left|\widehat{(a,b,c)}\right|^2+\frac{ \left|\hat{a}\right|^2}{|k|^2}\right\}\\
&\leq &{\epsilon}J [1+{\epsilon}\rho (k)t]^{J}D_\ell(\hat{u}).\end{aligned}$$ Thus, one can let $${\epsilon}J<\frac{\kappa}{4}$$ where $\kappa>0$ is given in , such that $$R_2\leq \frac{\kappa}{4} [1+{\epsilon}\rho (k)t]^{J}D_\ell(\hat{u}).$$ For $R_1$, we use the splitting $$\begin{aligned}
\label{split.tf}
1= \chi_{\mu^2(\xi)\leq [1+{\epsilon}\rho(k)t]}+ \chi_{\mu^2(\xi)> [1+{\epsilon}\rho(k)t]},\end{aligned}$$ so that $$E_\ell^I(\hat{u})= E_\ell^I(\hat{u} \chi_{\mu^2(\xi)\leq [1+{\epsilon}\rho(k)t]}) + E_\ell^I(\hat{u}\chi_{\mu^2(\xi)> [1+{\epsilon}\rho(k)t]}):= E_\ell^{I<}(\hat{u})+ E_\ell^{I>}(\hat{u})$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
E_\ell^{I<}(\hat{u}) & = & \int_{\mu^2(\xi)\leq [1+{\epsilon}\rho(k)t]} \mu^{2\ell}(\xi) |\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\}\hat{u}|^2\,d\xi\chi_{|k|\leq 1} \\
&&+ \int_{\mu^2(\xi)\leq [1+{\epsilon}\rho(k)t]} \mu^{2\ell}(\xi) |\hat{u}|^2\,d\xi\chi_{|k|\geq 1}, \\
E_\ell^{I>}(\hat{u})& = & \int_{\mu^2(\xi)\geq [1+{\epsilon}\rho(k)t]} \mu^{2\ell}(\xi) |\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\}\hat{u}|^2\,d\xi\chi_{|k|\leq 1} \\
&&+ \int_{\mu^2(\xi)\geq [1+{\epsilon}\rho(k)t]} \mu^{2\ell}(\xi) |\hat{u}|^2\,d\xi\chi_{|k|\geq 1}.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, with this splitting, $R_1$ is bounded by $$\begin{aligned}
R_1&=&J[1+{\epsilon}\rho (k)t]^{J-1} {\epsilon}\rho(k)E^{I}_\ell(\hat{u})\\
&\leq &J[1+{\epsilon}\rho (k)t]^{J-1} {\epsilon}\rho(k)\{E_\ell^{I<}(\hat{u}) +E_\ell^{I>}(\hat{u})\}\\
&\leq& {\epsilon}J [1+{\epsilon}\rho (k)t]^{J}\rho(k) E_{\ell-1}^{I<}(\hat{u})\\
&&+J[1+{\epsilon}\rho (k)t]^{J-1} {\epsilon}\rho(k) E_\ell^{I>}(\hat{u}):=R_{11}+R_{12},\end{aligned}$$ where we have used $$E^{I<}_\ell(\hat{u})\leq [1+{\epsilon}\rho(k)t] E_{\ell-1}^{I<}(\hat{u}).$$ For $R_{11}$, notice that $$\begin{aligned}
\rho(k) E_{\ell-1}^{I<}(\hat{u})&\leq &\rho(k) (\left\|\mu^{\ell-1}\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\}\hat{u}\right\|_{L^2_\xi}^2\chi_{|k|\leq 1}+\left\|\mu^{\ell-1}\hat{u}\right\|_{L^2_\xi}^2\chi_{|k|\geq 1})\\
&\lesssim&\left\|\mu^{\ell-1}\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\}\hat{u}\right\|_{L^2_\xi}^2+\rho(k) \left|\widehat{(a,b,c)}\right|^2\\
&\leq & C_1 D_{\ell}(\hat{u})\end{aligned}$$ for a generic constant $C_1\geq 1$, and hence $$R_{11}\leq C_1{\epsilon}J [1+{\epsilon}\rho (k)t]^{J}D_\ell(\hat{u}).$$ One can make ${\epsilon}J$ further small such that $$C_1{\epsilon}J \leq \frac{\kappa}{4},$$ and hence $$R_{11}\leq\frac{\kappa}{4}[1+{\epsilon}\rho (k)t]^{J}D_\ell(\hat{u}).$$ To estimate $R_{12}$, let $p>1$ be chosen later and compute $$\begin{gathered}
R_{12}=J[1+{\epsilon}\rho(k)t]^{-p}{\epsilon}\rho(k)\cdot [1+{\epsilon}\rho(k)t]^{J+p-1} E_\ell^{I>}(\hat{u})\\
\leq J [1+{\epsilon}\rho(k)t]^{-p}{\epsilon}\rho(k) \cdot E_{\ell+J+p-1}^{I>}(\hat{u}).\end{gathered}$$ Noticing that the estimate $$E_{\ell+J+p-1}^{I>}(\hat{u})\leq E_{\ell+J+p-1}^I(\hat{u})\lesssim E_{\ell+J+p-1}(\hat{u})\leq E_{\ell+J+p-1}(\hat{u}_0)$$ holds true by due to $\ell+J+p-1\geq 0$, one has $$\label{ }
R_{12}\leq J [1+{\epsilon}\rho(k)t]^{-p}{\epsilon}\rho(k) E_{\ell+J+p-1}(\hat{u}_0).$$ Therefore, collecting all estimates above, it follows from that $$\begin{gathered}
{\displaystyle}\frac{d}{dt}\{[1+{\epsilon}\rho (k)t]^J E_{\ell}(\hat{u})\}+\frac{\kappa}{2} [1+{\epsilon}\rho (k)t]^J D_{\ell}(\hat{u})\\
{\displaystyle}\leq J [1+{\epsilon}\rho(k)t]^{-p}{\epsilon}\rho(k) E_{\ell+J+p-1}(\hat{u}_0).\end{gathered}$$ Integrating this inequality, using $$\int_0^t [1+{\epsilon}\rho(k)s]^{-p}{\epsilon}\rho(k) ds\leq \int_0^\infty (1+\eta)^{-p}d\eta= C_p<\infty$$ for $p>1$, and noticing $J+p-1>0$, one has $$[1+{\epsilon}\rho(k)t]^J E_\ell(\hat{u})\leq E_\ell(\hat{u}_0)+JC_pE_{\ell+J+p-1}(\hat{u}_0)\lesssim (1+JC_p)E_{\ell+J+p-1}(\hat{u}_0),$$ that is, whenever $\ell\geq 0$, $$E_\ell(\hat{u})\lesssim [1+{\epsilon}\rho(k)t]^{-J} E_{\ell+J+p-1}(\hat{u}_0),$$ for any $t\geq 0$, $k\in {\mathbb{R}}^3$, where the parameters $p$, ${\epsilon}$ and $J$ with $$p>1,\ 0<{\epsilon}\leq 1, \ J>0,\ C_1{\epsilon}J \leq \frac{\kappa}{4}.$$ are still to be chosen.
Now, for any given $\ell_0>2{\sigma}_m$, we fix $J>2{\sigma}_m$, $p>1$ such that $\ell_0=J+p-1$ to have $$E_\ell(\hat{u})\lesssim [1+{\epsilon}\rho(k)t]^{-J} E_{\ell+\ell_0}(\hat{u}_0).$$ Since $J> 2{\sigma}_m$, in the completely same way as in [@DS-VPB] and [@DYZ] by considering the frequency integration over ${\mathbb{R}}^3_k=\{|k|\leq 1\}\cup\{|k|\geq 1\}$ with a little modification of the proof in [@Ka; @Ka-BE13], one can derive the desired time-decay property under conditions and ; the details are omitted for brevity. This completes the proof of Theorem \[thm.lide\].
\[rem.lide\] The rate index ${\sigma}_m$ in is optimal in the sense that it is the same as in the case of the Boltzmann equation. In fact, from [@Ukai-1974; @UY-AA], one has $$\left\|{\partial}^{\alpha}e^{t(-\xi\cdot {\nabla}_x +{\mathbf{L}})}u_0\right\|\leq C(1+t)^{-{\sigma}_{|{\alpha}|}} \left(\|u_0\|_{Z_1}+\|{\partial}^{\alpha}u\|\right),$$ for any $t\geq 0$, where ${\mathbf{L}}$ the linearized Boltzmann operator in the case $0\leq {\gamma}\leq 1$. Here, different from the hard potential case, the extra velocity weight ${\langle}\xi{\rangle}^{-\frac{{\gamma}\ell_0}{2}}$ in on initial data $u_0$ for soft potentials $-3<{\gamma}<0$ is needed. Moreover, as we mentioned before, the condition is used to remove the singularity of the Poisson kernel and recover the optimal rate index ${\sigma}_m$, otherwise, only the rate $(1+t)^{-\frac{1}{4}+\frac{|{\alpha}|}{2}}$ can be obtained, see [@DS-VPB] and references therein.
Estimate on nonlinear terms {#sec4}
===========================
This section concerns some estimates on each nonlinear term in $G={\Gamma}(u,u)+\frac{1}{2} \xi\cdot {\nabla}_x\phi u-{\nabla}_x\phi \cdot {\nabla}_\xi u$ which will be needed in the next section. For this purpose, to simplify the notations, in the proof of all subsequent lemmas, $w_{\tau}$ is used to denote $w_{\tau,q}(t,\xi)$. That is $$w_{\tau}\equiv w_{\tau,q}(t,\xi)={\langle}\xi {\rangle}^{{\gamma}\tau}e^{q(t){\langle}\xi {\rangle}^2},\quad q(t)=q+\frac{{\lambda}}{(1+t)^{{\vartheta}}},$$ where $0<q(t)\ll 1$ is fixed and $\tau=|{\beta}|-\ell\leq 0$ depending on the order of velocity derivatives may take different values in different places. Moreover, we also use in the proof $$u_1={\mathbf{P}}u,\quad u_2=\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\}u.$$
Now we turn to state the estimates on the nonlinear terms. To make the presentation clear, we divide it into several subsections. The first subsection is concerned with the estimates on ${\Gamma}(u,u)$.
Estimate on ${\Gamma}(u,u)$
---------------------------
We always use the decomposition $$\begin{gathered}
\label{ga.de}
{\Gamma}(u,u)={\Gamma}({\mathbf{P}}u,{\mathbf{P}}u)+{\Gamma}({\mathbf{P}}u,\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\}u)+{\Gamma}(\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\}u,{\mathbf{P}}u)\\
+{\Gamma}(\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\}u,\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\}u).\end{gathered}$$ Recall $$\begin{gathered}
{\Gamma}(f,g)={\Gamma}^+(f,g)-{\Gamma}^-(f,g)\\
=\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^3}|\xi-\xi_\ast|^{\gamma}{\mathbf{M}}^{1/2}(\xi_\ast) \left[\int_{\mathbb{S}^2}q_0(\theta) f(\xi_\ast')g(\xi')\,d{\omega}\right]\,d\xi_\ast\\
-g(\xi)\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^3} |\xi-\xi_\ast|^{\gamma}{\mathbf{M}}^{1/2}(\xi_\ast) \left[\int_{\mathbb{S}^2}q_0(\theta)\,d{\omega}\right]\,f(\xi_\ast)\,d\xi_\ast.\end{gathered}$$
Our first result in this subsection is concerned with the estimate on ${\Gamma}(u,u)$ both without and with the weight.
\[lem.ga1\] Let $N\geq 4$, $\ell\geq 0$, $0<q(t)\ll 1$. It holds that $$\begin{gathered}
\label{lem.ga1.1}
{\langle}{\Gamma}(u,u),u{\rangle}\leq C\|(a,b,c)\|_{H^1}\left\|{\nabla}_x (a,b,c)\right\|\cdot \left\|\nu^{1/2}\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\} u\right\|\\
+ C\left\{\left\|{\nabla}_x (a,b,c)\right\|_{H^1}+\sum_{|{\alpha}|+|{\beta}|\leq 4} \left\|{\partial}^{\alpha}_{\beta}\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\} u\right\|\right\}\left\|\nu^{1/2}\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\} u\right\|^2\end{gathered}$$ and $$\begin{gathered}
\label{lem.ga1.2}
\left{\langle}{\Gamma}(u,u),w_{-\ell,q}^2(t,\xi)\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\}u\right{\rangle}\\
\leq C\|(a,b,c)\|_{H^1}\left\|{\nabla}_x (a,b,c)\right\|\cdot \left\|\nu^{1/2}\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\} u\right\|\\
+C\left\{{\mathcal{E}}_{N,\ell,q}(t)\right\}^{1/2} \left\|\nu^{1/2}w_{-\ell,q}(t,\xi)\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\} u\right\|^2.\end{gathered}$$
We will prove only , since can be obtained in the similar way by noticing ${\langle}{\Gamma}(u,u),u{\rangle}={\langle}{\Gamma}(u,u),\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\}u{\rangle}$. To this end, set $$I_1=\left{\langle}{\Gamma}(u,u),w_{-\ell,q}^2(t,\xi)\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\}u\right{\rangle},$$ and denote $I_{1,11}, I_{1,12},I_{1,21},I_{1,22}$ to be the terms corresponding to the decomposition . Now we turn to estimate these terms term by term.
[*Estimate on $I_{1,11}$:*]{} Since ${\Gamma}(u_1,u_1)$ decays exponentially in $\xi$, $$I_{1,11}\leq C\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^3}|(a,b,c)|^2\left\|\nu^{1/2}u_2\right\|_{L^2_\xi}\,dx
\leq C\|(a,b,c)\|_{H^1}\left\|{\nabla}_x(a,b,c)\right\|\cdot \left\|\nu^{1/2}u_2\right\|,$$ where Hölder’s inequality with $1=1/3+1/6+1/2$ and Sobolev’s inequalities $$\|(a,b,c)\|_{L^3}\leq C \|(a,b,c)\|_{H^1},\quad \|(a,b,c)\|_{L^6}\leq C\|{\nabla}_x (a,b,c)\|$$ have been used.
[*Estimate on $I_{1,12}$:*]{} For the loss term, $$\begin{gathered}
I_{1,12}^-\leq C\iint_{{\mathbb{R}}^3\times {\mathbb{R}}^3} |u_2(\xi)|\cdot |(a,b,c)|\nu(\xi)\cdot w_{-\ell}^2(\xi)|u_2(\xi)|\,dxd\xi\\
\leq C \sup_{x\in {\mathbb{R}}^3} |(a,b,c)|\cdot \left\|\nu^{1/2} w_{-\ell}(\xi)u_2\right\|^2\leq C\|{\nabla}_x(a,b,c)\|_{H^1}\left\|\nu^{1/2} w_{-\ell}(\xi)u_2\right\|^2,\end{gathered}$$ where we have used in the first inequality $$\label{lem.ga1.p01}
\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^3} |\xi-\xi_\ast|^{\gamma}{\mathbf{M}}^{q'/2}(\xi_\ast)\,d\xi_\ast\leq C {\langle}\xi {\rangle}^{\gamma}$$ for $q'>0$ and $-3<{\gamma}<0$. For the gain term, using Hölder’s inequality, $I_{1,12}^+$ is bounded by $$\begin{gathered}
\label{lem.ga1.p02}
\left\{\iiiint |\xi-\xi_\ast|^{\gamma}q_0(\theta) {\mathbf{M}}^{1/2}(\xi_\ast) w_{-\ell}^2(\xi)|u_1(\xi_\ast')u_2(\xi')|^2\,dxd\xi d\xi_\ast d{\omega}\right\}^{1/2}\\
\times \left\{\iiiint |\xi-\xi_\ast|^{\gamma}q_0(\theta) {\mathbf{M}}^{1/2}(\xi_\ast) w_{-\ell}^2(\xi)|u_2(\xi)|^2\,dxd\xi d\xi_\ast d{\omega}\right\}^{1/2}.\end{gathered}$$ From , the second term in is bounded by $\left\|\nu^{1/2}w_{-\ell}(\xi)u_2\right\|$. By noticing ${\langle}\xi {\rangle}\leq \min\{{\langle}\xi_\ast'{\rangle}{\langle}\xi'{\rangle},{\langle}\xi_\ast'{\rangle}+{\langle}\xi'{\rangle}\}$ and $$\begin{gathered}
\label{lem.ga1.p03}
w_{-\ell}(\xi)={\langle}\xi {\rangle}^{-{\gamma}\ell} e^{q(t){\langle}\xi {\rangle}}\\
\leq C {\langle}\xi_\ast'{\rangle}^{-{\gamma}\ell}{\langle}\xi'{\rangle}^{-{\gamma}\ell}e^{q(t){\langle}\xi_\ast'{\rangle}}e^{q(t){\langle}\xi'{\rangle}}
\leq C w_{-\ell}(\xi_\ast')w_{-\ell}(\xi')\end{gathered}$$ for $\ell\geq 0$, the first term in is bounded by $$\begin{aligned}
&& C \left\{\int_{x,\xi,\xi_\ast,{\omega}} |\xi-\xi_\ast|^{\gamma}q_0(\theta) {\mathbf{M}}^{\frac{1}{2}}(\xi_\ast) w_{-\ell}^2(\xi){\mathbf{M}}^{q'}(\xi_\ast')|(a,b,c)|^2|u_2(\xi')|^2\right\}^{1/2}\nonumber\\
&& \leq C\left\{\int_{x,\xi,\xi_\ast,{\omega}} |\xi-\xi_\ast|^{\gamma}q_0(\theta) w_{-\ell}^2(\xi'){\mathbf{M}}^{\frac{q'}{2}}(\xi_\ast')|(a,b,c)|^2|u_2(\xi')|^2 \right\}^{1/2}\\
&& =C\left\{\int_{x,\xi,\xi_\ast,{\omega}} |\xi'-\xi_\ast'|^{\gamma}q_0(\theta) w_{-\ell}^2(\xi'){\mathbf{M}}^{\frac{q'}{2}}(\xi_\ast')|(a,b,c)|^2|u_2(\xi')|^2 \right\}^{1/2}\nonumber\\
&& =C\left\{\int_{x,\xi,\xi_\ast,{\omega}} |\xi-\xi_\ast|^{\gamma}q_0(\theta) w_{-\ell}^2(\xi){\mathbf{M}}^{\frac{q'}{2}}(\xi_\ast)|(a,b,c)|^2|u_2(\xi)|^2 \right\}^{1/2},\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where we have used $|{\mathbf{P}}u(\xi_\ast')|\leq C |(a,b,c)|{\mathbf{M}}^{q'/2}(\xi_\ast')$ with $0<q'<1$ in the first equation, ${\mathbf{M}}^{1/2}(\xi_\ast)\leq C$, the inequality and $w_{-\ell}(\xi_\ast'){\mathbf{M}}^{q'/2}(\xi_\ast')\leq C$ in the second equation, the identity $|\xi-\xi_\ast|=|\xi'-\xi_\ast'|$ in the third equation and the change of variable $(\xi,\xi)\to (\xi',\xi_\ast')$ with the unit Jacobian in the last equation. Thus, from , the first term in is bounded by $C \sup_{x}|(a,b,c)| \cdot\left\|\nu^{1/2}w_{-\ell}(\xi)u_2\right\|$. Therefore, $$I_{1,12}^+\leq C\|{\nabla}_x(a,b,c)\|_{H^1}\left\|\nu^{1/2} w_{-\ell}(\xi)u_2\right\|^2.$$
[*Estimate on $I_{1,21}$:*]{} This can be done in the completely same way as for $I_{1,12}$, so that $$I_{1,21}\leq C\left\|{\nabla}_x(a,b,c)\right\|_{H^1}\left\|\nu^{1/2} w_{-\ell}(\xi)u_2\right\|^2.$$
[*Estimate on $I_{1,22}$:*]{} By [@SG Lemma 3, page 305], $$\label{lem.ga1.p04}
I_{1,22}\leq C\left\{{\mathcal{E}}_{N,\ell,q}(t)\right\}^{1/2} \left\|\nu^{1/2}w_{-\ell}\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\} u\right\|^2,$$ and for brevity we skip the proof of this term.
Now, the desired inequality follows by collecting all the above estimates. This completes the proof of Lemma \[lem.ga1\].
For the weighted estimates on ${\partial}^{\alpha}_{\beta}{\Gamma}(u,u)$, we have
\[lem.ga2\] Let $N\geq 8$, $1\leq |{\alpha}|+|{\beta}|\leq N$, $\ell\geq |{\beta}|$ and $0< q(t)\ll 1$. For given $u=u(t,x,\xi)$, define $u_{{\alpha}{\beta}}$ as $u_{{\alpha}{\beta}}={\partial}^{\alpha}u$ if $|{\beta}|=0$ and $u_{{\alpha}{\beta}}={\partial}^{\alpha}_{\beta}\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\} u$ if $|{\beta}|\geq 1$. Then, it holds that $$\begin{gathered}
\label{lem.ga2.1}
\left{\langle}{\partial}^{\alpha}_{\beta}{\Gamma}(u,u), w_{|{\beta}|-\ell,q}^2(t,\xi)u_{{\alpha}{\beta}} \right{\rangle}\\
\leq C\|(a,b,c)\|_{H^{N}}\left\|{\nabla}_x (a,b,c)\right\|_{H^{N-1}} \left\|\nu^{1/2}u_{{\alpha}{\beta}}\right\|
+C\left\{{\mathcal{E}}_{N,\ell,q}(t)\right\}^{1/2} {\mathcal{D}}_{N,\ell,q}(t).\end{gathered}$$
Take ${\alpha},{\beta}$ with $1\leq |{\alpha}|+|{\beta}|\leq N$. Write $${\partial}_{\beta}^{\alpha}{\Gamma}(f,g)=\sum C^{{\beta}}_{{\beta}_0{\beta}_1{\beta}_2}C^{\alpha}_{{\alpha}_1,{\alpha}_2}{\Gamma}_0\left({\partial}^{{\alpha}_1}_{{\beta}_1}f,{\partial}^{{\alpha}_2}_{{\beta}_2}g\right),$$ where the summation is taken over ${\beta}_0+{\beta}_1+{\beta}_2={\beta}$ and ${\alpha}_1+{\alpha}_2={\alpha}$, and ${\Gamma}_0$ is given by $$\begin{gathered}
{\Gamma}_0\left({\partial}^{{\alpha}_1}_{{\beta}_1}f,{\partial}^{{\alpha}_2}_{{\beta}_2}g\right)={\Gamma}_0^+\left({\partial}^{{\alpha}_1}_{{\beta}_1}f,{\partial}^{{\alpha}_2}_{{\beta}_2}g\right)-{\Gamma}_0^-\left({\partial}^{{\alpha}_1}_{{\beta}_1}f,{\partial}^{{\alpha}_2}_{{\beta}_2}g\right)\\
=\iint_{{\mathbb{R}}^3\times \mathbb{S}^2}|\xi-\xi_\ast|^{\gamma}q_0(\theta) {\partial}_{{\beta}_0} \left[{\mathbf{M}}^{1/2}(\xi_\ast)\right]{\partial}_{{\beta}_1}^{{\alpha}_1} f(\xi_\ast'){\partial}_{{\beta}_2}^{{\alpha}_2} g(\xi')\,d\xi d{\omega}\\
-{\partial}_{{\beta}_2}^{{\alpha}_2} g(\xi)\iint_{{\mathbb{R}}^3\times \mathbb{S}^2} |\xi-\xi_\ast|^{\gamma}q_0(\theta) {\partial}_{{\beta}_0}\left[{\mathbf{M}}^{1/2}(\xi_\ast)\right]{\partial}_{{\beta}_1}^{{\alpha}_1} f(\xi_\ast)\,d\xi_\ast d{\omega}.\end{gathered}$$ In what follows we set $$I_2=\left{\langle}{\Gamma}_0\left({\partial}^{{\alpha}_1}_{{\beta}_1}u,{\partial}^{{\alpha}_2}_{{\beta}_2}u\right), w_{|{\beta}|-\ell,q}^2(t,\xi)u_{{\alpha}{\beta}} \right{\rangle}$$ and denote the terms corresponding to the decomposition as $I_{2,11}, I_{2,12}, I_{2,21}$ and $I_{2,22}$. These terms will be estimated term by term as follows.
[*Estimate on $I_{2,11}$:*]{} Notice that ${\Gamma}_0\left({\partial}^{{\alpha}_1}_{{\beta}_1}u_1,{\partial}^{{\alpha}_2}_{{\beta}_2}u_1\right)$ decays exponentially in $\xi$ since $-3<{\gamma}<0$. Then, $$\begin{gathered}
I_{2,11}\leq C\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^3} \left|{\partial}^{{\alpha}_1}(a,b,c)\right|\cdot \left|{\partial}^{{\alpha}_2}(a,b,c)\right|\cdot \left\|\nu^{1/2}u_{{\alpha}{\beta}}\right\|_{L^2_\xi}\,dx\\
\leq C\|(a,b,c)\|_{H^{N}}\left\|{\nabla}_x (a,b,c)\right\|_{H^{N-1}}\left\|\nu^{1/2}u_{{\alpha}{\beta}}\right\|.\end{gathered}$$
[*Estimate on $I_{2,12}$:*]{} For the loss term, since $$\begin{gathered}
I_{2,12}^{-}\leq \int_{x,\xi,\xi_\ast,{\omega}} |\xi-\xi_\ast|^{\gamma}q_0(\theta) {\mathbf{M}}^{\frac{q'}{2}}(\xi_\ast) \left\{{\mathbf{M}}^{\frac{q'}{2}}(\xi_\ast)|{\partial}^{{\alpha}_1}(a,b,c)|\right\} \\
\times \left|{\partial}_{{\beta}_2}^{{\alpha}_2}u_2(\xi)\right|
\cdot w_{|{\beta}|-\ell}^2(\xi)\left|u_{{\alpha}{\beta}}(\xi)\right| \\
\leq C \int dx\, \left|{\partial}^{{\alpha}_1}(a,b,c)\right| \int d\xi\, {\langle}\xi {\rangle}^{{\gamma}} w_{|{\beta}|-\ell}^2(\xi)\left|{\partial}_{{\beta}_2}^{{\alpha}_2}u_2(\xi)u_{{\alpha}{\beta}}(\xi)\right|,\end{gathered}$$ we have for $|{\alpha}_1|\leq N/2$ that $$\begin{gathered}
I_{2,12}^{-}\leq C \sup_{x} \left|{\partial}^{{\alpha}_1}(a,b,c)\right| \cdot \left\|\nu^{1/2} w_{|{\beta}|-\ell}(\xi){\partial}_{{\beta}_2}^{{\alpha}_2} u_2\right\|\\
\times
\left\|\nu^{1/2} w_{|{\beta}|-\ell}(\xi)u_{{\alpha}{\beta}} \right\|
\leq C\left\{{\mathcal{E}}_{N,\ell,q}(t)\right\}^{1/2} {\mathcal{D}}_{N,\ell,q}(t),\end{gathered}$$ while for the case $|{\alpha}_1|\geq N/2$, we can get that $$\begin{gathered}
I_{2,12}^{-}\leq C\int dx\, \left|{\partial}^{{\alpha}_1}(a,b,c)\right|\cdot\left\|\nu^{1/2} w_{|{\beta}|-\ell}(\xi){\partial}_{{\beta}_2}^{{\alpha}_2} u_2\right\|_{L^2_\xi}
\left\|\nu^{1/2} w_{|{\beta}|-\ell}(\xi)u_{{\alpha}{\beta}}\right\|_{L^2_\xi}\\
\leq C \sup_x\left\|\nu^{1/2} w_{|{\beta}|-\ell}(\xi){\partial}_{{\beta}_2}^{{\alpha}_2} u_2\right\|_{L^2_\xi}\cdot \left\|{\partial}^{{\alpha}_1}(a,b,c)\right\|\cdot \left\|\nu^{1/2} w_{|{\beta}|-\ell}(\xi)u_{{\alpha}{\beta}}\right\|\\
\leq C \left\{{\mathcal{E}}_{N,\ell,q}(t)\right\}^{1/2} {\mathcal{D}}_{N,\ell,q}(t).\end{gathered}$$
For the gain term $I_{2,12}^+$, $$\begin{gathered}
I_{2,12}^{+}\leq \int_{x,\xi,\xi_\ast,{\omega}} |\xi-\xi_\ast|^{\gamma}q_0(\theta) {\mathbf{M}}^{\frac{q'}{2}}(\xi_\ast) \left\{{\mathbf{M}}^{\frac{q'}{2}}(\xi_\ast')|{\partial}^{{\alpha}_1}(a,b,c)|\right\} \\
\times \left|{\partial}_{{\beta}_2}^{{\alpha}_2}u_2(\xi')\right|
\cdot w_{|{\beta}|-\ell}^2(\xi)\left|u_{{\alpha}{\beta}}(\xi)\right|.\end{gathered}$$ We now turn to deduce an estimate on the right-hand side of the above inequality by considering the two cases $|{\alpha}_1|\leq N/2$ and $|{\alpha}_1|>N/2$, respectively. In the case of $|{\alpha}_1|\leq N/2$, we have from Hölder’s inequality that
$$\begin{gathered}
\label{lem.ga2.p1}
I_{2,12}^{+}\leq \int dx\,\left|{\partial}^{{\alpha}_1}(a,b,c)\right|\\
\left\{\int_{\xi,\xi_\ast,{\omega}} |\xi-\xi_\ast|^{\gamma}q_0(\theta) {\mathbf{M}}^{\frac{q'}{2}}(\xi_\ast) {\mathbf{M}}^{\frac{q'}{2}}(\xi_\ast')
w_{|{\beta}|-\ell}^2(\xi)\left|{\partial}_{{\beta}_2}^{{\alpha}_2}u_2(\xi')\right|^2\right\}^{1/2}\\
\left\{\int_{\xi,\xi_\ast,{\omega}} |\xi-\xi_\ast|^{\gamma}q_0(\theta) {\mathbf{M}}^{\frac{q'}{2}}(\xi_\ast) {\mathbf{M}}^{\frac{q'}{2}}(\xi_\ast')
w_{|{\beta}|-\ell}^2(\xi)\left|u_{{\alpha}{\beta}}(\xi)\right|^2\right\}^{1/2}.\end{gathered}$$
As for estimating the first factor in , we have $$\begin{gathered}
\int_{\xi,\xi_\ast,{\omega}} |\xi-\xi_\ast|^{\gamma}q_0(\theta) {\mathbf{M}}^{\frac{q'}{2}}(\xi_\ast) {\mathbf{M}}^{\frac{q'}{2}}(\xi_\ast')
w_{|{\beta}|-\ell}^2(\xi)\left|{\partial}_{{\beta}_2}^{{\alpha}_2}u_2(\xi')\right|^2\\
\leq C \int_{\xi,\xi_\ast,{\omega}} |\xi'-\xi_\ast'|^{\gamma}q_0(\theta) {\mathbf{M}}^{\frac{q'}{2}}(\xi_\ast) {\mathbf{M}}^{\frac{q'}{2}}(\xi_\ast')
w_{|{\beta}|-\ell}^2(\xi')w_{|{\beta}|-\ell}^2(\xi_\ast')\left|{\partial}_{{\beta}_2}^{{\alpha}_2}u_2(\xi')\right|^2\\
\leq C\int_{\xi,\xi_\ast,{\omega}} |\xi'-\xi_\ast'|^{\gamma}q_0(\theta) {\mathbf{M}}^{\frac{q'}{4}}(\xi_\ast')
w_{|{\beta}|-\ell}^2(\xi')\left|{\partial}_{{\beta}_2}^{{\alpha}_2}u_2(\xi')\right|^2\\
=C\int_{\xi,\xi_\ast,{\omega}} |\xi-\xi_\ast|^{\gamma}q_0(\theta) {\mathbf{M}}^{\frac{q'}{4}}(\xi_\ast)
w_{|{\beta}|-\ell}^2(\xi)\left|{\partial}_{{\beta}_2}^{{\alpha}_2}u_2(\xi)\right|^2,\end{gathered}$$ which is bounded by $\left\|\nu^{1/2}w_{|{\beta}|-\ell}(\xi){\partial}_{{\beta}_2}^{{\alpha}_2}u_2\right\|_{L^2_\xi}^2$. Moreover, $$\begin{gathered}
\int_{\xi,\xi_\ast,{\omega}} |\xi-\xi_\ast|^{\gamma}q_0(\theta) {\mathbf{M}}^{\frac{q'}{2}}(\xi_\ast) {\mathbf{M}}^{\frac{q'}{2}}(\xi_\ast')
w_{|{\beta}|-\ell}^2(\xi)\left|u_{{\alpha}{\beta}}(\xi)\right|^2\\
\leq C \int_{\xi,\xi_\ast} |\xi-\xi_\ast|^{\gamma}{\mathbf{M}}^{\frac{q'}{2}}(\xi_\ast)
w_{|{\beta}|-\ell}^2(\xi)\left|u_{{\alpha}{\beta}}(\xi)\right|^2\\
\leq C \left\|\nu^{1/2}w_{|{\beta}|-\ell}(\xi)u_{{\alpha}{\beta}}\right\|_{L^2_\xi}^2.\end{gathered}$$ Therefore, plugging the above two estimates into , in the case when $|{\alpha}_1|\leq N/2$, we have $$\begin{gathered}
I_{2,12}^{+}\leq C \sup_{x}\left|{\partial}^{{\alpha}_1}(a,b,c)\right|\cdot \left\|\nu^{1/2}w_{|{\beta}|-\ell}(\xi){\partial}_{{\beta}_2}^{{\alpha}_2}u_2\right\|\\
\times\left\|\nu^{1/2}w_{|{\beta}|-\ell}(\xi)u_{{\alpha}{\beta}}\right\|
\leq C\left\{{\mathcal{E}}_{N,\ell,q}(t)\right\}^{1/2} {\mathcal{D}}_{N,\ell,q}(t).\end{gathered}$$ The discussion for the case $|{\alpha}_1|\geq N/2$ is divided into the following three subcases: In ${\mathbb{D}}_1=\{|\xi_\ast|\geq \frac{1}{2}|\xi|\}$, we have $$\begin{gathered}
I_{2,121}^+\leq C\int dx\, \left|{\partial}^{{\alpha}_1} (a,b,c)\right|\\
\int_{\xi,\xi_\ast,{\omega}}|\xi-\xi_\ast|^{\gamma}q_0(\theta) {\mathbf{M}}^{\frac{q'}{2}}(\xi){\mathbf{M}}^{\frac{q'}{2}}(\xi_\ast) \left|{\partial}_{{\beta}_2}^{{\alpha}_2} u_2(\xi') u_{{\alpha}{\beta}}(\xi)\right|.\end{gathered}$$ Here, by Hölder’s inequality, we can deduce that $$\begin{gathered}
\int_{\xi,\xi_\ast,{\omega}}|\xi-\xi_\ast|^{\gamma}q_0(\theta) {\mathbf{M}}^{\frac{q'}{2}}(\xi){\mathbf{M}}^{\frac{q'}{2}}(\xi_\ast) \left|{\partial}_{{\beta}_2}^{{\alpha}_2} u_2(\xi') u_{{\alpha}{\beta}}(\xi)\right|\\
\leq \left\{\int_{\xi,\xi_\ast,{\omega}}|\xi-\xi_\ast|^{\gamma}q_0(\theta) {\mathbf{M}}^{\frac{q'}{2}}(\xi){\mathbf{M}}^{\frac{q'}{2}}(\xi_\ast) \left|{\partial}_{{\beta}_2}^{{\alpha}_2} u_2(\xi')\right|^2\right\}^{\frac{1}{2}}\\
\times \left\{\int_{\xi,\xi_\ast,{\omega}}|\xi-\xi_\ast|^{\gamma}q_0(\theta) {\mathbf{M}}^{\frac{q'}{2}}(\xi){\mathbf{M}}^{\frac{q'}{2}}(\xi_\ast) \left|u_{{\alpha}{\beta}}(\xi)\right|^2\right\}^{\frac{1}{2}}\\
\leq C\left\|\nu^{1/2}{\partial}_{{\beta}_2}^{{\alpha}_2} u_2\right\|_{L^2_\xi}\left\|\nu^{1/2}u_{{\alpha}{\beta}}\right\|_{L^2_\xi}.\end{gathered}$$ Therefore, we have in this subcase that $$\begin{gathered}
\label{lem.ga2.p2}
I_{2,12}^+\leq C\sup_{x}\left\|\nu^{1/2}{\partial}_{{\beta}_2}^{{\alpha}_2} u_2\right\|_{L^2_\xi}\cdot \left\|{\partial}^{{\alpha}_1}(a,b,c)\right\|\cdot \left\|\nu^{1/2}u_{{\alpha}{\beta}}\right\|\\
\leq C\left\{{\mathcal{E}}_{N,\ell,q}(t)\right\}^{1/2} {\mathcal{D}}_{N,\ell,q}(t).\end{gathered}$$ Secondly, we consider the region ${\mathbb{D}}_2=\{|\xi_\ast|\leq \frac{1}{2}|\xi|,|\xi|\leq 1\}$. In this case, we can get that $$\begin{gathered}
I_{2,122}^+\leq C\int dx\, \left|{\partial}^{{\alpha}_1} (a,b,c)\right|\\
\int_{\xi,\xi_\ast,{\omega}}|\xi-\xi_\ast|^{\gamma}q_0(\theta) {\mathbf{M}}^{\frac{q'}{2}}(\xi_\ast){\mathbf{M}}^{\frac{q'}{2}}(\xi_\ast') \left|{\partial}_{{\beta}_2}^{{\alpha}_2} u_2(\xi') u_{{\alpha}{\beta}}(\xi)\right|.\end{gathered}$$ Similarly as in , $$\begin{gathered}
\int_{\xi,\xi_\ast,{\omega}}|\xi-\xi_\ast|^{\gamma}q_0(\theta) {\mathbf{M}}^{\frac{q'}{2}}(\xi_\ast){\mathbf{M}}^{\frac{q'}{2}}(\xi_\ast') \left|{\partial}_{{\beta}_2}^{{\alpha}_2} u_2(\xi') u_{{\alpha}{\beta}}(\xi)\right|\\
\leq C\left\|\nu^{1/2}{\partial}_{{\beta}_2}^{{\alpha}_2} u_2\right\|_{L^2_\xi}\left\|\nu^{1/2}u_{{\alpha}{\beta}}\right\|_{L^2_\xi}.\end{gathered}$$ Hence, as in , the above two estimates imply $$I_{2,122}^+\leq C\left\{{\mathcal{E}}_{N,\ell,q}(t)\right\}^{1/2} {\mathcal{D}}_{N,\ell,q}(t).$$ At last, we consider the region ${\mathbb{D}}_3=\{|\xi_\ast|\leq \frac{1}{2}|\xi|,|\xi|\geq 1\}$. In this domain, $|\xi-\xi_\ast|\geq \frac{1}{2}|\xi|$ and hence $$|\xi-\xi_\ast|^{\gamma}\leq C |\xi|^{\gamma}\leq C (1+|\xi|^2+|\xi_\ast|^2)^{\frac{{\gamma}}{2}}.$$ Thus, $$\begin{gathered}
\label{lem.ga2.p2-0}
I_{2,123}^+\leq C\int dx\, \left|{\partial}^{{\alpha}_1} (a,b,c)\right|\,\int_{\xi,\xi_\ast,{\omega}}\left(1+|\xi|^2+|\xi_\ast|^2\right)^{\frac{{\gamma}}{2}} q_0(\theta) \\
\times {\mathbf{M}}^{\frac{q'}{2}}(\xi_\ast){\mathbf{M}}^{\frac{q'}{2}}(\xi_\ast') w_{|{\beta}|-\ell}^2(\xi)\left|{\partial}_{{\beta}_2}^{{\alpha}_2} u_2(\xi') u_{{\alpha}{\beta}}(\xi)\right|.\end{gathered}$$ From Hölder’s inequality, $$\begin{gathered}
\int_{\xi,\xi_\ast,{\omega}}(1+|\xi|^2+|\xi_\ast|^2)^{\frac{{\gamma}}{2}} q_0(\theta) {\mathbf{M}}^{\frac{q'}{2}}(\xi_\ast){\mathbf{M}}^{\frac{q'}{2}}(\xi_\ast') w_{|{\beta}|-\ell}^2(\xi)\left|{\partial}_{{\beta}_2}^{{\alpha}_2} u_2(\xi') u_{{\alpha}{\beta}}(\xi)\right|\\
\leq \left\{\int_{\xi,\xi_\ast,{\omega}}(1+|\xi|^2+|\xi_\ast|^2)^{\frac{{\gamma}}{2}} q_0(\theta) {\mathbf{M}}^{\frac{q'}{2}}(\xi_\ast){\mathbf{M}}^{\frac{q'}{2}}(\xi_\ast') w_{|{\beta}|-\ell}^2(\xi)\left|{\partial}_{{\beta}_2}^{{\alpha}_2} u_2(\xi')\right|^2\right\}^{\frac{1}{2}}\\
\times \left\{\int_{\xi,\xi_\ast,{\omega}}(1+|\xi|^2+|\xi_\ast|^2)^{\frac{{\gamma}}{2}} q_0(\theta) {\mathbf{M}}^{\frac{q'}{2}}(\xi_\ast){\mathbf{M}}^{\frac{q'}{2}}(\xi_\ast') w_{|{\beta}|-\ell}^2(\xi)\left| u_{{\alpha}{\beta}}(\xi)\right|^2\right\}^{\frac{1}{2}}\\
\leq C\left\|\nu^{1/2}w_{|{\beta}|-\ell}(\xi){\partial}_{{\beta}_2}^{{\alpha}_2} u_2\right\|_{L^2_\xi}\cdot \left\|\nu^{1/2}w_{|{\beta}|-\ell}(\xi) u_{{\alpha}{\beta}}\right\|_{L^2_\xi},\end{gathered}$$ where the computation similar to the estimate on the first factor in by using $|\xi|^2+|\xi_\ast|^2=|\xi'|^2+|\xi_\ast'|^2$ instead of $|\xi-\xi_\ast|=|\xi'-\xi_\ast'|$ has been performed. Therefore, $$\begin{gathered}
I_{2,123}^+\leq C\int dx\,\left|{\partial}^{{\alpha}_1} (a,b,c)\right|\\
\times\left\|\nu^{1/2}w_{|{\beta}|-\ell}(\xi){\partial}_{{\beta}_2}^{{\alpha}_2} u_2\right\|_{L^2_\xi}\cdot \left\|\nu^{1/2}w_{|{\beta}|-\ell}(\xi) u_{{\alpha}{\beta}}\right\|_{L^2_\xi}\\
\leq C \sup_{x}\left\|\nu^{1/2}w_{|{\beta}|-\ell}(\xi){\partial}_{{\beta}_2}^{{\alpha}_2} u_2\right\|_{L^2_\xi}\cdot \left\|{\partial}^{{\alpha}_1}(a,b,c)\right\|\cdot \left\|\nu^{1/2}w_{|{\beta}|-\ell}(\xi) u_{{\alpha}{\beta}}\right\|\\
\leq C\left\{{\mathcal{E}}_{N,\ell,q}(t)\right\}^{1/2} {\mathcal{D}}_{N,\ell,q}(t).\end{gathered}$$
[*Estimate on $I_{2,21}$:*]{} For the loss term, due to $$\begin{gathered}
I_{2,21}^-\leq \int dx\, \left|{\partial}^{{\alpha}_2}(a,b,c)\right|\\
\cdot \int_{\xi,\xi_\ast,{\omega}} |\xi-\xi_\ast|^{\gamma}q_0(\theta){\mathbf{M}}^{\frac{q'}{2}}(\xi){\mathbf{M}}^{\frac{q'}{2}}(\xi_\ast) \left|{\partial}_{{\beta}_1}^{{\alpha}_1}u_2(\xi_\ast) u_{{\alpha}{\beta}}(\xi)\right|,\end{gathered}$$ we have by Hölder’s inequality that $$I_{2,21}^-\leq C \sup_{x}\left|{\partial}^{{\alpha}_2}(a,b,c)\right|\cdot \left\|\nu^{1/2}{\partial}_{{\beta}_1}^{{\alpha}_1}u_2\right\|\cdot \left\|\nu^{1/2}u_{{\alpha}{\beta}}\right\|$$ for $|{\alpha}_2|\leq N/2$, and $$I_{2,21}^-\leq C \sup_{x}\left\|\nu^{1/2}{\mathbf{M}}^{q'/4}{\partial}_{{\beta}_1}^{{\alpha}_1}u_2\right\|_{L^2_\xi}\cdot \left\|{\partial}^{{\alpha}_2}(a,b,c)\right\|\cdot \left\|\nu^{1/2}u_{{\alpha}{\beta}}\right\|$$ for $|{\alpha}_2|\geq N/2$. Hence, in both cases, $$I_{2,21}^-\leq C\left\{{\mathcal{E}}_{N,\ell,q}(t)\right\}^{1/2} {\mathcal{D}}_{N,\ell,q}(t).$$
For the gain term, by noticing that $$\begin{gathered}
I_{2,21}^+\leq C\int dx\, \left|{\partial}^{{\alpha}_2}(a,b,c)\right|\int_{\xi,\xi_\ast,{\omega}} |\xi-\xi_\ast|^{\gamma}q_0(\theta)\\
\cdot {\mathbf{M}}^{\frac{q'}{2}}(\xi_\ast){\mathbf{M}}^{\frac{q'}{2}}(\xi') w_{|{\beta}|-\ell}^2(\xi)\left|{\partial}_{{\beta}_1}^{{\alpha}_1}u_2(\xi_\ast') u_{{\alpha}{\beta}}(\xi)\right|,\end{gathered}$$ then, in the same way as for $I_{2,12}^+$, when $|{\alpha}_2|\leq N/2$, we have $$\begin{gathered}
I_{2,21}^+\leq C \sup_{x}\left|{\partial}^{{\alpha}_2}(a,b,c)\right|\cdot \left\|\nu^{1/2}w_{|{\beta}|-\ell}(\xi){\partial}_{{\beta}_1}^{{\alpha}_1}u_2\right\|\\
\times\left\|\nu^{1/2}w_{|{\beta}|-\ell}(\xi) u_{{\alpha}{\beta}}\right\|\leq C\left\{{\mathcal{E}}_{N,\ell,q}(t)\right\}^{1/2} {\mathcal{D}}_{N,\ell,q}(t).\end{gathered}$$ While when $|{\alpha}_2|\geq N/2$, $$I_{2,21}^+\leq C\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
{\displaystyle}\sup_{x}\left\|\nu^{\frac{1}{2}}{\partial}_{{\beta}_1}^{{\alpha}_1}u_2\right\|_{L^2_\xi}\cdot \left\|{\partial}^{{\alpha}_2}(a,b,c)\right\|\cdot \left\|\nu^{1/2}u_{{\alpha}{\beta}}\right\| &\quad{\displaystyle}\text{over}\ {\mathbb{D}}_{1}\cup {\mathbb{D}}_2,\\[3mm]
{\displaystyle}\sup_{x}\left\|\nu^{1/2}w_{|{\beta}|-\ell}(\xi){\partial}_{{\beta}_1}^{{\alpha}_1} u_2\right\|_{L^2_\xi}&\\
{\displaystyle}\qquad\times\left\|{\partial}^{{\alpha}_2}(a,b,c)\right\|\cdot \left\|\nu^{1/2}w_{|{\beta}|-\ell}(\xi) u_{{\alpha}{\beta}}\right\|&\quad{\displaystyle}\text{over}\ {\mathbb{D}}_{3}.
\end{array}\right.$$ Therefore, for each ${\alpha}_2$, $$I_{2,21}^+\leq C\left\{{\mathcal{E}}_{N,\ell,q}(t)\right\}^{1/2} {\mathcal{D}}_{N,\ell,q}(t).$$
[*Estimate on $I_{2,22}$:*]{} As for , by [@SG Lemma 3, page 305], $$I_{2,22}\leq C\left\{{\mathcal{E}}_{N,\ell,q}(t)\right\}^{1/2} {\mathcal{D}}_{N,\ell,q}(t),$$ and we also skip the proof of this term for brevity.
Now, follows by collecting all the above estimates. This completes the proof of Lemma \[lem.ga2\].
Estimate on $\xi\cdot {\nabla}_x\phi u$
---------------------------------------
This subsection concerns the estimate on $\xi\cdot {\nabla}_x\phi u$. To this end, we first have the following result on the case of zeroth order derivative.
\[lem.xiu0\] Assume that $u$ and $\phi$ satisfy the second equation of . It holds that $$\begin{gathered}
\label{lem.xiu0.1}
\left{\langle}\frac{1}{2} \xi\cdot {\nabla}_x\phi u, u\right{\rangle}\leq \frac{1}{2} \frac{d}{dt}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^3} |b|^2 (a+2c)\,dx \\
+C \left\{\|(a,b,c)\|_{H^2}+\|{\nabla}_x\phi\|_{H^1} + \|{\nabla}_x\phi\|\cdot \|{\nabla}_x b\|\right\}\\
\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\times\left\{\|{\nabla}_x (a,b,c)\|^2+\left\|\nu^{1/2}\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\}u\right\|^2\right\}\\
+C\left \|{\nabla}_x^2\phi\right\|_{H^1} \left\|{\langle}\xi {\rangle}^{1/2} \{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\} u\right\|^2.\end{gathered}$$
Setting $I_3=\left{\langle}\frac{1}{2} \xi\cdot {\nabla}_x\phi u, u\right{\rangle}$ and noticing $u={\mathbf{P}}u +\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\}u=u_1+u_2$, $$I_3=\sum_{m=1}^3I_{3,m}=\left{\langle}\frac{1}{2} \xi\cdot {\nabla}_x\phi, u_1^2\right{\rangle}+\left{\langle}\xi\cdot {\nabla}_x\phi, u_1\cdot u_2\right{\rangle}\\
+\left{\langle}\frac{1}{2} \xi\cdot {\nabla}_x\phi, u_2^2\right{\rangle}.$$ First, for $ I_{3,1}$, as in [@DY-09VPB; @D-1VMB], using the second equation of to replace ${\nabla}_x\phi$ yields $$\begin{gathered}
I_{3,1} = \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^3}{\nabla}_x\phi\cdot b (a+2c)\,dx
=\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^3}|b|^2(a+2c)\,dx \\
+\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^3} |b|^2\left\{\frac{5}{6}{\nabla}_x\cdot b+\frac{5}{3}{\nabla}_x\cdot \Lambda(u_2)-\frac{1}{3}{\nabla}_x\phi\cdot b\right\}\,dx\\
+\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^3} b(a+2c)\cdot \{{\nabla}_x (a+2c)+ {\nabla}_x\cdot \Theta(u_2)-{\nabla}_x\phi a\}\,dx,\end{gathered}$$ where $\Theta(\cdot)$ and $\Lambda(\cdot)$ are defined in . Further by the Hölder, Sobolev and Cauchy-Schwarz inequalities, the above equation implies $$\begin{gathered}
I_{3,1}\leq \frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^3}|b|^2(a+2c)\,dx \\
+C \left\{\|(a,b,c)\|_{H^2}+\|{\nabla}_x\phi\|\cdot \|{\nabla}_x b\|\right\}\|{\nabla}_x (a,b,c)\|^2\\
+C \left\|(a,b,c)\|_{H^2}\{\|\Lambda(u_2)\|^2+\|\Theta(u_2)\|^2\right\}.\end{gathered}$$ Noticing $$\|\Lambda(u_2)\|+\|\Theta(u_2)\|\leq C \left\|\nu^{1/2}u_2\right\|,$$ then $I_{3,1}$ is bounded by the right-hand term of . Next, for $ I_{3,2}$ and $ I_{3,3}$, one has $$\begin{gathered}
I_{3,2}\leq \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^3}|{\nabla}_x\phi|\cdot \left\|\xi\nu^{-1/2}u_1\right\|_{L^2_\xi}\cdot \left\|\nu^{1/2}u_2\right\|_{L^2_\xi}\,dx\\
\leq C \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^3} |{\nabla}_x\phi|\cdot |(a,b,c)|\cdot \left\|\nu^{1/2}u_2\right\|_{L^2_\xi}\,dx\\
\leq C \|{\nabla}_x\phi\|_{H^1}\left\{\|{\nabla}_x (a,b,c)\|^2+\left\|\nu^{1/2}u_2\right\|^2\right\}\end{gathered}$$ and $$I_{3,3}\leq C \left\|{\nabla}_x\phi\right\|_{L^\infty_x}\left\|{\langle}\xi {\rangle}^{1/2}u_2\right\|^2 \leq C\left\|{\nabla}_x^2\phi\right\|_{H^1}\left\|{\langle}\xi {\rangle}^{1/2}u_2\right\|^2.$$ Therefore, follows from all the above estimates. This completes the proof of Lemma \[lem.xiu0\].
For the case of higher order derivatives with respect to $x$ variable, we have
\[lem.xiu1\] Let $N\geq 4$, $1\leq |{\alpha}|\leq N$, and $\ell\geq 0$. It holds that $$\begin{gathered}
\label{lem.xiu1.1}
\left{\langle}{\partial}^{\alpha}\left(\frac{1}{2} \xi\cdot {\nabla}_x\phi u\right), w_{-\ell,q}^2(t,\xi) {\partial}^{\alpha}u \right{\rangle}\\
\leq C\|{\nabla}_x^2\phi\|_{H^{N-1}} \sum_{1\leq |{\alpha}|\leq N}\left\{\left\|{\langle}\xi {\rangle}^{1/2} w_{-\ell,q}(t,\xi){\partial}^{\alpha}\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\} u\right\|^2
+\left\|{\partial}^{\alpha}(a,b,c)\right\|^2\right\}.\end{gathered}$$
Let $I_4$ be the left-hand term of . Corresponding to $u={\mathbf{P}}u +\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\}u$, set $$\begin{gathered}
\label{lem.xiu1.p1}
I_4=\sum_{m=1}^3I_{4,m}=\left{\langle}{\partial}^{\alpha}\left(\frac{1}{2} \xi\cdot {\nabla}_x\phi u_1\right), w_{-\ell}^2(\xi) {\partial}^{\alpha}u \right{\rangle}\\
+\left{\langle}{\partial}^{\alpha}\left(\frac{1}{2} \xi\cdot {\nabla}_x\phi u_2\right), w_{-\ell}^2(\xi) {\partial}^{\alpha}u_1 \right{\rangle}+\left{\langle}{\partial}^{\alpha}\left(\frac{1}{2} \xi\cdot {\nabla}_x\phi u_2\right), w_{-\ell}^2(\xi) {\partial}^{\alpha}u_2 \right{\rangle}.\end{gathered}$$ For $I_{4,1}$, one has $$\begin{gathered}
I_{4,1}=\sum_{|{\alpha}_1|\leq |{\alpha}|}C^{\alpha}_{{\alpha}_1}\left{\langle}\frac{1}{2} \xi\cdot {\nabla}_x{\partial}^{{\alpha}-{\alpha}_1}\phi {\partial}^{{\alpha}_1}u_1, w_{|{\alpha}|-\ell}^2(\xi) {\partial}^{\alpha}u \right{\rangle}\\
\leq C\sum_{|{\alpha}_1|\leq |{\alpha}|}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^3} \left|{\nabla}_x{\partial}^{{\alpha}-{\alpha}_1}\phi\right|\cdot \left| {\partial}^{{\alpha}_1}(a,b,c)\right|\cdot \left\|{\partial}^{\alpha}u\right\|_{L^2_\xi}\,dx.\end{gathered}$$ Here, when $|{\alpha}_1|\leq N/2$ and $|{\alpha}_1|<|{\alpha}|$, the integral term in the summation above is bounded by $$\sup_{x} \left| {\partial}^{{\alpha}_1}(a,b,c)\right|\cdot \left\|{\nabla}_x{\partial}^{{\alpha}-{\alpha}_1}\phi\right\|\cdot \left\|{\partial}^{\alpha}u\right\|,$$ and when $|{\alpha}_1|\geq N/2$ or ${\alpha}_1={\alpha}$, it is bounded by $$\sup_x\left|{\nabla}_x{\partial}^{{\alpha}-{\alpha}_1}\phi\right|\cdot \left\| {\partial}^{{\alpha}_1}(a,b,c)\right\|\cdot \left\|{\partial}^{\alpha}u\right\|.$$ Thus, by the Sobolev inequality, $ I_{4,1}$ is bounded by the right-hand term of . Similarly, we have for $I_{4,2}$ that $$\begin{gathered}
I_{4,2}\leq C\sum_{|{\alpha}_1|\leq |{\alpha}|} \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^3} \left|{\nabla}_x {\partial}^{{\alpha}-{\alpha}_1} \phi\right|\cdot \left\|{\partial}^{{\alpha}_1}u_2\right\|_{L^2_\xi}\cdot \left|{\partial}^{\alpha}(a,b,c)\right|\,dx\\
\leq C \sum_{\{|{\alpha}_1|\leq N/2\}\cap \{{\alpha}_1<{\alpha}\}} \sup_x \left\|{\partial}^{{\alpha}_1}u_2\right\|_{L^2_\xi}\cdot \left\|{\nabla}_x {\partial}^{{\alpha}-{\alpha}_1} \phi\right\|\cdot \left\|{\partial}^{\alpha}(a,b,c)\right\|\\
+ \sum_{\{|{\alpha}_1|\geq N/2\}\cup \{{\alpha}_1={\alpha}\}} \sup_x \left|{\nabla}_x {\partial}^{{\alpha}-{\alpha}_1} \phi\right|\cdot \left\|{\partial}^{{\alpha}_1}u_2\right\|\cdot \left\|{\partial}^{\alpha}(a,b,c)\right\|,\end{gathered}$$ which is also bounded by the right-hand term of by Sobolev’s inequality. Finally, for $I_{4,3}$, since $$\begin{gathered}
I_{4,3}\leq C \sum_{|{\alpha}_1|\leq |{\alpha}|}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^3} \left|{\nabla}_x {\partial}^{{\alpha}_1}\phi\right|\cdot
\left\||\xi|^{1/2}w_{-\ell}(\xi){\partial}^{{\alpha}-{\alpha}_1}u_2\right\|_{L^2_\xi}\\
\times\left\||\xi|^{1/2}w_{-\ell}(\xi){\partial}^{{\alpha}}u_2\right\|_{L^2_\xi}\,dx,\end{gathered}$$ it can be further estimated as for $I_{4,1} $ and $I_{4,2}$. Therefore, follows from by collecting all the above estimates. This completes the proof of Lemma \[lem.xiu1\].
For the case of higher order mixed derivatives with respect to both $\xi$ and $x$ variables, we have
\[lem.xiu2\] Let $N\geq 4$, $1\leq |{\alpha}|+|{\beta}|\leq N$ with $|{\beta}|\geq 1$, and $\ell\geq |{\beta}|$. It holds that $$\begin{gathered}
\label{lem.xiu2.1}
\left{\langle}{\partial}^{\alpha}_{\beta}\left(\frac{1}{2} \xi\cdot {\nabla}_x\phi \{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\}u\right),w_{|{\beta}|-\ell,q}^2(t,\xi) {\partial}^{\alpha}_{\beta}\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\}u \right{\rangle}\\
\leq C \|{\nabla}_x^2\phi\|_{H^{N-1}}\sum_{|{\alpha}|+|{\beta}|\leq N } \left\|{\langle}\xi {\rangle}^{1/2}w_{|{\beta}|-\ell,q}(t,\xi) {\partial}^{\alpha}_{\beta}\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\}u\right\|^2.\end{gathered}$$
Due to $$\begin{gathered}
\left{\langle}{\partial}^{\alpha}_{\beta}\left(\frac{1}{2} \xi\cdot {\nabla}_x\phi u_2\right),w_{|{\beta}|-\ell}^2(\xi) {\partial}^{\alpha}_{\beta}u_2 \right{\rangle}\\
=\sum C_{{\alpha}_1{\alpha}_2}^{\alpha}C_{{\beta}_1{\beta}_2}^{\beta}\left{\langle}\frac{1}{2} {\partial}_{{\beta}_1}\xi\cdot {\nabla}_x{\partial}^{{\alpha}_1}\phi{\partial}_{{\beta}_2}^{{\alpha}_2} u_2, w_{|{\beta}|-\ell}^2(\xi) {\partial}^{\alpha}_{\beta}u_2 \right{\rangle},\end{gathered}$$ where the summation is taken over ${\alpha}_1+{\alpha}_2={\alpha}$ and ${\beta}_1+{\beta}_2={\beta}$ with $|{\beta}_1|\leq 1$, and for simplicity we denote each integration term in the summation as $I_5$. We now prove by considering the following two cases: For the case $|{\alpha}_1|\leq N/2$, we have $$I_5\leq C \sup_{x}\left|{\nabla}_x{\partial}^{{\alpha}_1}\phi\right|
\cdot\left\||\xi|^{1/2}w_{|{\beta}|-\ell}(\xi){\partial}_{{\beta}_2}^{{\alpha}_2} u_2\right\|\cdot \left\||\xi|^{1/2}w_{|{\beta}|-\ell}(\xi){\partial}_{{\beta}}^{{\alpha}} u_2\right\|,$$ which is bounded by the right-hand term of . For the case $|{\alpha}_1|\geq N/2$, it is easy to see that $$I_5\leq C \sup_{x}\left\||\xi|^{1/2}w_{|{\beta}|-\ell}(\xi){\partial}_{{\beta}_2}^{{\alpha}_2} u_2\right\|_{L^2_\xi}
\cdot\left\|{\nabla}_x{\partial}^{{\alpha}_1}\phi\right\|\cdot \left\||\xi|^{1/2}w_{|{\beta}|-\ell}(\xi){\partial}_{{\beta}}^{{\alpha}} u_2\right\|,$$ which is also bounded by the right-hand term of . Therefore, follows by combining both cases above. This completes the proof of Lemma \[lem.xiu2\].
Estimate on ${\nabla}_x\phi\cdot {\nabla}_\xi u$
------------------------------------------------
Now we turn to estimate ${\nabla}_x\phi\cdot {\nabla}_\xi u$. For the case with only derivatives with respect to $x$ variable, we have
\[lem.pu1\] Assume $-2\leq {\gamma}<0$. Let $N\geq 4$, $1\leq |{\alpha}|\leq N$, and $\ell\geq 0$. It holds that $$\begin{gathered}
\label{lem.pu1.1}
\left{\langle}{\partial}^{\alpha}\left({\nabla}_x\phi \cdot {\nabla}_\xi u\right), w_{-\ell,q}^2(t,\xi) {\partial}^{\alpha}u \right{\rangle}\\
\leq C\left\|{\nabla}_x^2\phi\right\|_{H^{N-1}}\left\{\sum_{|{\alpha}|+|{\beta}|\leq N,|{\beta}|\leq 1}\left\|{\langle}\xi {\rangle}w_{|{\beta}|-\ell}{\partial}^{\alpha}_{\beta}\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\} u\|^2 +\|{\nabla}_x (a,b,c)\right\|_{H^{N-1}}^2\right\}.\end{gathered}$$
Denote the left-hand side of by $I_6$ and write it as $$I_6=I_{6,1}+\sum_{{\alpha}_1+{\alpha}_2={\alpha},|{\alpha}_1|\geq 1}C^{{\alpha}}_{{\alpha}_1{\alpha}_2}\{I_{6,21}({\alpha}_1)+I_{6,22}({\alpha}_1)\}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
I_{6,1} &=& \left{\langle}{\nabla}_x\phi \cdot {\nabla}_\xi {\partial}^{\alpha}u, w_{-\ell}^2(\xi) {\partial}^{\alpha}u \right{\rangle},\\
I_{6,21}({\alpha}_1)&=& \left{\langle}{\nabla}_x{\partial}^{{\alpha}_1}\phi \cdot {\nabla}_\xi {\partial}^{{\alpha}_2} u_1, w_{-\ell}^2(\xi) {\partial}^{\alpha}u \right{\rangle},\\
I_{6,22}({\alpha}_1)&=& \left{\langle}{\nabla}_x{\partial}^{{\alpha}_1}\phi \cdot {\nabla}_\xi {\partial}^{{\alpha}_2} u_2, w_{-\ell}^2(\xi) {\partial}^{\alpha}u \right{\rangle}.\end{aligned}$$ We estimate term by term as follows. To estimate $I_{6,1}$, notice $$\begin{gathered}
{\nabla}_\xi w_{-\ell}^2(\xi)=(-2{\gamma}\ell) {\langle}\xi {\rangle}^{-2{\gamma}\ell-1}{\nabla}_\xi {\langle}\xi {\rangle}e^{2q(t){\langle}\xi{\rangle}^2}\\
+ {\langle}\xi{\rangle}^{-2{\gamma}\ell}e^{2q(t){\langle}\xi{\rangle}^2}\cdot 2q(t){\nabla}_\xi {\langle}\xi{\rangle}^2
\leq C {\langle}\xi{\rangle}^{1-2{\gamma}\ell}e^{2q(t){\langle}\xi{\rangle}^2}= C{\langle}\xi {\rangle}w_{-\ell}^2(\xi),\end{gathered}$$ where ${\langle}\xi {\rangle}\geq 1$ and the fact that both $q(t)=q+{\lambda}/(1+t)^{{\vartheta}}$ and ${\nabla}_\xi {\langle}\xi {\rangle}$ are bounded by a constant independent of $t$ and $\xi$ have been used. Then, from integration by part, $$I_{6,1} =\left{\langle}-\frac{1}{2} {\nabla}_x\phi\cdot {\nabla}_\xi \{ w_{-\ell}^2(\xi)\},|{\partial}^{\alpha}u|^2\right{\rangle}\\
\leq C \sup_x\left|{\nabla}_x\phi\right|\cdot \left\|{\langle}\xi {\rangle}^{1/2}w_{-\ell}(\xi){\partial}^{\alpha}u\right\|^2,$$ which is bounded by the right-hand side of . For $ I_{6,21}({\alpha}_1)$, it is straightforward to estimate it by $$\begin{gathered}
I_{6,21}({\alpha}_1)\leq C\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^3}\left|{\nabla}_x{\partial}^{{\alpha}_1}\phi\right|\cdot \left|{\partial}^{{\alpha}_2}(a,b,c)\right|\cdot \left\|{\partial}^{\alpha}u\right\|_{L^2_\xi}\,dx\\
\leq C\left\|{\nabla}_x^2\phi\right\|_{H^{N-1}} \left\{\left\|{\nabla}_x (a,b,c)\right\|_{H^{N-1}}^2+\left\|{\partial}^{\alpha}u\right\|^2\right\}.\end{gathered}$$ To estimate $ I_{6,22}({\alpha}_1)$, notice ${\langle}\xi {\rangle}^{{\gamma}+2}\geq 1$ due to $-2\leq {\gamma}<0$ so that $$w_{-\ell}^2(\xi)\leq {\langle}\xi {\rangle}w_{1-\ell}(\xi)\cdot {\langle}\xi {\rangle}w_{-\ell}(\xi).$$ Thus, $$\begin{gathered}
I_{6,22}({\alpha}_1)\leq C \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^3} \left|{\nabla}_x{\partial}^{{\alpha}_1}\phi\right| \cdot\left\|{\langle}\xi {\rangle}w_{1-\ell}(\xi){\nabla}_\xi {\partial}^{{\alpha}_2} u_2\right\|_{L^2_\xi}\cdot \left\|{\langle}\xi {\rangle}w_{-\ell}(\xi){\partial}^{\alpha}u \right\|_{L^2_\xi}\,dx\\
\leq C\left\|{\nabla}_x^2\phi\right\|_{H^{N-1}}\left\{\sum_{|{\alpha}|+|{\beta}|\leq N,|{\beta}|\leq 1}\left\|{\langle}\xi {\rangle}w_{|{\beta}|-\ell}{\partial}^{\alpha}_{\beta}u_2\right\|^2\right. \\
\left. +\left\|{\langle}\xi {\rangle}w_{-\ell}(\xi){\partial}^{\alpha}u \right\|^2\right\},\end{gathered}$$ which is further bounded by the right-hand side of . By collecting all the above estimates, it then completes the proof of Lemma \[lem.pu1\].
For the case of higher order mixed derivatives with respect to the $\xi$ and $x$ variables, we have
\[lem.pu2\] Assume $-2\leq {\gamma}<0$. Let $1\leq |{\alpha}|+|{\beta}|\leq N$ with $|{\beta}|\geq 1$, and $\ell\geq |{\beta}|$. It holds that $$\begin{gathered}
\label{lem.pu2.1}
\left{\langle}{\partial}^{\alpha}_{\beta}\left({\nabla}_x\phi \cdot {\nabla}_\xi \{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\}u\right),w_{|{\beta}|-\ell,q}^2(t,\xi) {\partial}^{\alpha}_{\beta}\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\}u \right{\rangle}\\ \leq C\left\|{\nabla}_x^2\phi\right\|_{H^{N-1}} \sum_{|{\alpha}|+|{\beta}|\leq N} \left\|{\langle}\xi {\rangle}w_{|{\beta}|-\ell,q}(t,\xi){\partial}_{\beta}^{\alpha}\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\}u\right\|^2.\end{gathered}$$
Similar to the proof of Lemma \[lem.pu1\], one can rewrite the left-hand side of as $$\begin{gathered}
\left{\langle}{\nabla}_x\phi \cdot {\nabla}_\xi {\partial}^{\alpha}_{\beta}\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\}u,w_{|{\beta}|-\ell}^2(\xi) {\partial}^{\alpha}_{\beta}\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\}u \right{\rangle}\\
+\sum_{{\alpha}_1+{\alpha}_2={\alpha},|{\alpha}_1|\geq 1}C_{{\alpha}_1{\alpha}_2}^{\alpha}\left{\langle}{\nabla}_x{\partial}^{{\alpha}_1}\phi \cdot {\nabla}_\xi {\partial}^{{\alpha}_2}_{\beta}\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\}u,w_{|{\beta}|-\ell}^2(\xi) {\partial}^{\alpha}_{\beta}\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\}u \right{\rangle}.\end{gathered}$$ Then, similar to arguments used to deal with $I_{6,1}$ and $I_{6,22}({\alpha}_1)$ in Lemma \[lem.pu1\], follows and the details are omitted for brevity. This completes the proof of Lemma \[lem.pu2\].
A priori estimates {#sec5}
==================
We are ready to deduce the uniform-in-time [*a priori*]{} estimates on the solution to the VPB system. For this purpose, we define the time-weighted sup-energy $ X_{N,\ell,q}(t)$ by , and suppose that the Cauchy problem - of the VPB system admits a smooth solution $u(t,x,\xi)$ over $0\leq t<T$ for $0<T\leq \infty$. We will deduce some energy type estimates on the basis of the following [*a priori*]{} assumption $$\label{apa}
\sup_{0\leq t<T}X_{N,\ell,q}(t)\leq {\delta},$$ where ${\delta}>0$ is a suitably chosen sufficiently small positive constant.
Dissipation of $(a,b,c)$
------------------------
Recall the fluid-type system - derived from the VPB system - and also for the definition of the high-order moment functions $\Theta(\cdot)$ and $\Lambda(\cdot)$. In this subsection, we are concerned with the dissipation of the macroscopic component $(a,b,c)$.
There is a temporal interactive functional ${\mathcal{E}}_{N}^{\rm int}(t)$ such that $$\begin{gathered}
\label{lem.ma.1}
|{\mathcal{E}}_{N}^{\rm int}(t)|
\leq C \left\{\|a\|^2+\sum_{|{\alpha}|\leq N-1} \left(\left\|{\partial}^{\alpha}\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\} u(t)\right\|^2
+\left\|{\partial}^{\alpha}{\nabla}_x(a,b,c)\right\|^2\right)\right\}\end{gathered}$$ and $$\begin{gathered}
\label{lem.ma.2}
\frac{d}{dt} {\mathcal{E}}_{N}^{\rm int}(t) +{\kappa}\left\{\|a\|^2+\sum_{|{\alpha}|\leq N-1}\left\|{\partial}^{\alpha}{\nabla}_x (a,b,c)\right\|^2\right\}\\
\leq C\sum_{|{\alpha}|\leq N} \left\|\nu^{1/2}{\partial}^{\alpha}\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\} u\right\|^2\\
+C{\mathcal{E}}_{N,\ell}(t)\left\{\sum_{|{\alpha}|\leq N}\left\|\nu^{1/2}{\partial}^{\alpha}\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\}u\right\|^2+ \sum_{1\leq |{\alpha}|\leq N}\left\|{\partial}_x^{\alpha}(a,b,c)\right\|^2\right\}\end{gathered}$$ hold for any $0\leq t<T$, where the simplified notion ${\mathcal{E}}_{N,\ell}(t)={\mathcal{E}}_{N,\ell,q}(t)$ with $q=0$ has been used.
Basing on the analysis of the macro fluid-type system -, the desired estimates follow by repeating the arguments used in the proof of [@DS-VPB Theorem 5.2] for the hard-sphere case and hence details are omitted. Here, we only point out the representation of $ {\mathcal{E}}_N^{\rm int}(t)$ as $$\begin{gathered}
{\mathcal{E}}^{{\rm int}}_{N}(t) =\sum_{|{\alpha}|\leq N-1}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^3}{\nabla}_x{\partial}^{\alpha}c\cdot \Lambda({\partial}^{\alpha}\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\}u)\,dx \\
+\sum_{|{\alpha}|\leq N-1}\sum_{ij=1}^3\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^3}
\left({\partial}_i{\partial}^{\alpha}b_j+{\partial}_j{\partial}^{\alpha}b_i-\frac{2}{3}{\delta}_{ij}{\nabla}_x\cdot {\partial}^{\alpha}b\right)
\Theta_{ij}({\partial}^{\alpha}\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\}u)\,dx\\
-\kappa\sum_{|{\alpha}|\leq N-1}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^3}{\partial}^{\alpha}a {\partial}^{\alpha}{\nabla}_x\cdot b \,dx\end{gathered}$$ for a constant $\kappa>0$ small enough.
Construction of ${\mathcal{E}}_{N,\ell,q}(t)$
---------------------------------------------
We are ready to prove the energy inequality . In this subsection we consider the proof in the following
\[lem.ee\] Assume $-2\leq {\gamma}<0$. Let $N\geq 8$, $\ell\geq N$ and $q(t)=q+\frac{{\lambda}}{(1+t)^{{\vartheta}}} > 0$ with $0\leq q\ll 1$, $0<{\lambda}\ll 1$ and $0<{\vartheta}\leq 1/4$. Suppose that the [*a priori*]{} assumption holds for ${\delta}>0$ small enough. Then, there is ${\mathcal{E}}_{N,\ell,q}(t)$ satisfying such that $$\label{lem.ee.1}
\frac{d}{dt} {\mathcal{E}}_{N,\ell,q}(t)+\kappa {\mathcal{D}}_{N,\ell,q}(t)\leq 0$$ holds for any $0\leq t<T$, where ${\mathcal{D}}_{N,\ell,q}(t)$ is given by .
It is divided by three steps as follows. Recall the VPB system -.
[**Step 1.**]{} Energy estimates without any weight: First we consider the zero$-$th order energy type estimates. Multiplying by $u$ and integrating it over ${\mathbb{R}}^3\times {\mathbb{R}}^3$ gives $$\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt}\left\{\|u\|^2+\|{\nabla}_x\phi\|^2\right\}-{\langle}{\mathbf{L}}u, u{\rangle}={\langle}{\Gamma}(u,u), u{\rangle}+ \left{\langle}\frac{1}{2}\xi \cdot {\nabla}_x\phi u,u\right{\rangle}.$$ By applying , and to estimate three inner product terms above and then using , one has $$\begin{gathered}
\label{lem.ee.p1}
\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt}\left\{\|u\|^2+\|{\nabla}_x\phi\|^2-\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^3}|b|^2(a+2c)\,dx\right\} +\kappa \left\|\nu^{1/2}\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\}u\right\|^2\\
\leq C{\delta}\|{\nabla}_x (a,b,c)\|^2+ \frac{C{\delta}}{(1+t)^{1+{\vartheta}}}\left\|{\langle}\xi {\rangle}^{1/2}\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\}u\right\|^2
\leq C{\delta}{\mathcal{D}}_{N,\ell,q}(t).\end{gathered}$$ Next we consider the energy type estimates containing only $x$ derivatives. Applying ${\partial}_x^{\alpha}$ with $1\leq |{\alpha}|\leq N$ to , multiplying it by ${\partial}_x^{\alpha}u$ and then integrating it over ${\mathbb{R}}^3\times {\mathbb{R}}^3$ gives $$\begin{gathered}
\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt}\left\{\|{\partial}^{\alpha}u\|^2+\|{\partial}^{\alpha}{\nabla}_x\phi\|^2\right\}-\left{\langle}{\mathbf{L}}{\partial}^{\alpha}u,{\partial}^{\alpha}u\right{\rangle}\\
=\left{\langle}{\partial}^{\alpha}{\Gamma}(u,u),{\partial}^{\alpha}u\right{\rangle}+ \left{\langle}{\partial}^{\alpha}\left(\frac{1}{2}\xi\cdot {\nabla}_x\phi u\right),{\partial}^{\alpha}u\right{\rangle}+ \left{\langle}-{\partial}^{\alpha}({\nabla}_x\phi\cdot {\nabla}_\xi u),{\partial}^{\alpha}u\right{\rangle}.\end{gathered}$$ After using , , , and then taking summation over $1\leq |{\alpha}|\leq N$, one has $$\begin{gathered}
\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt}\sum_{1\leq |{\alpha}|\leq N}\left\{\left\|{\partial}^{\alpha}u\right\|^2+\left\|{\partial}^{\alpha}{\nabla}_x\phi\right\|^2\right\}+\kappa \sum_{1\leq |{\alpha}|\leq N}\left\|\nu^{1/2}{\partial}^{\alpha}\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\}u\right\|^2\\
\leq C\|(a,b,c)\|_{H^{N}}\left\|{\nabla}_x (a,b,c)\right\|_{H^{N-1}} \sum_{1\leq |{\alpha}|\leq N}\left\|\nu^{1/2}{\partial}^{\alpha}u\right\|
+C\left\{{\mathcal{E}}_{N,\ell,q}^{\rm h}(t)\right\}^{1/2} {\mathcal{D}}_{N,\ell,q}(t)\\
+C\left\|{\nabla}_x^2\phi\right\|_{H^{N-1}}\left\{\sum_{|{\alpha}|+|{\beta}|\leq N,|{\beta}|\leq 1}\left\|{\langle}\xi {\rangle}w_{|{\beta}|-\ell,q}(t,\xi){\partial}^{\alpha}_{\beta}\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\} u\right\|^2\right.\\
+\left\|{\nabla}_x (a,b,c)\right\|_{H^{N-1}}^2\Bigg\},\end{gathered}$$ which under the [*a priori*]{} assumption implies $$\begin{gathered}
\label{lem.ee.p2}
\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt}\sum_{1\leq |{\alpha}|\leq N}\left\{\left\|{\partial}^{\alpha}u\right\|^2+\left\|{\partial}^{\alpha}{\nabla}_x\phi\right\|^2\right\}+\kappa \sum_{1\leq |{\alpha}|\leq N}\left\|\nu^{1/2}{\partial}^{\alpha}\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\}u\right\|^2\\
\leq C{\delta}{\mathcal{D}}_{N,\ell,q}(t).\end{gathered}$$
[**Step 2.**]{} Energy estimates with the weight function $w_{|{\beta}|-\ell,q}(t,\xi)$:
[*Step 2.1.*]{} By applying $\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\}$ to the equation , the time evolution of $\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\}u$ satisfies $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq.mi}
{\partial}_t \{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\}u+\xi \cdot {\nabla}_x \{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\}u + {\nabla}_x\phi \cdot {\nabla}_\xi \{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\}u
+\nu(\xi)\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\}u\\
=K\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\}u +{\Gamma}(u,u)+\frac{1}{2} \xi \cdot {\nabla}_x \phi \{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\}u +{[\![}{\mathbf{P}}, {\mathcal{T}}_{\phi}{]\!]}u,\end{gathered}$$ where ${[\![}A, B{]\!]}=AB-BA$ denotes the commutator of two operators $A,B$, and ${\mathcal{T}}_\phi$ is given by $${\mathcal{T}}_\phi=\xi \cdot {\nabla}_x +{\nabla}_x\phi \cdot {\nabla}_\xi -\frac{1}{2} \xi \cdot {\nabla}_x\phi.$$ By multiplying by $w_{-\ell,q}^2(t,\xi)\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\} u$ and taking integration over ${\mathbb{R}}^3\times {\mathbb{R}}^3$, one has $$\begin{gathered}
\label{lem.ee.p3}
\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt}\| w_{-\ell,q}(t,\xi) \{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\} u\|^2 +\left{\langle}\nu(\xi),w_{-\ell,q}^2(t,\xi)|\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\} u|^2\right{\rangle}\\
+\left{\langle}- \frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt}w_{-\ell,q}^2(t,\xi), |\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\} u|^2\right{\rangle}\\
=\left{\langle}K\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\} u,w_{-\ell,q}^2(t,\xi)\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\} u\right{\rangle}+\left{\langle}{\Gamma}(u,u),w_{-\ell,q}^2(t,\xi)\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\} u\right{\rangle}\\
+\left{\langle}-{\nabla}_x\phi \cdot {\nabla}_\xi \{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\} u,w_{-\ell,q}^2(t,\xi)\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\} u\right{\rangle}\\
+\left{\langle}-\frac{1}{2}\xi\cdot {\nabla}_x\phi,w_{-\ell,q}^2(t,\xi)|\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\} u|^2\right{\rangle}+\left{\langle}{[\![}{\mathbf{P}}, {\mathcal{T}}_\phi{]\!]}u,w_{-\ell,q}^2(t,\xi)\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\} u\right{\rangle}.\end{gathered}$$ For the left-hand third term of , notice $$- \frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt}w_{-\ell,q}^2(t,\xi)=\frac{{\lambda}{\vartheta}}{(1+t)^{1+{\vartheta}}} {\langle}\xi{\rangle}^2 w_{-\ell,q}^2(t,\xi).$$ From , Hölder’s inequality in $x$ integration and Cauchy-Schwarz’s inequality, the right-hand first term of is bounded by $$\begin{gathered}
\eta\left\|\nu^{1/2}w_{-\ell,q}(t,\xi) \{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\} u\right\|^2\\
+C_\eta \left\|\chi_{|\xi|\leq 2C_\eta}{\langle}\xi{\rangle}^{-{\gamma}\ell}\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\} u \right\| \cdot \left\|\nu^{1/2}w_{-\ell,q}(t,\xi) \{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\} u\right\|\\
\leq 2\eta\left\|\nu^{1/2}w_{-\ell,q}(t,\xi) \{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\} u\right\|^2+C_\eta\left\|\nu^{1/2}\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\} u\right\|^2,\end{gathered}$$ for an arbitrary constant $\eta>0$. The right-hand second, third and fourth terms of are bounded by $C{\delta}{\mathcal{D}}_{N,\ell,q}(t)$, where we have used for the second term, velocity integration by part for the third term and also the [*a priori*]{} assumption . For the right-hand last term of , it is straightforward to estimate it by $$\begin{gathered}
\left{\langle}{[\![}{\mathbf{P}}, {\mathcal{T}}_\phi{]\!]}u,w_{-\ell,q}^2(t,\xi)\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\} u\right{\rangle}\\
\leq \eta \left\|\nu^{1/2}\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\} u\right\|^2+C_\eta\left\{\left\|\nu^{1/2}{\nabla}_x\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\}u\right\|^2+\left\|{\nabla}_x (a,b,c)\right\|^2\right\}\\
+C_\eta\left\|{\nabla}_x\phi\right\|_{H^2}^2\left\{\left\|\nu^{1/2}\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\} u\right\|^2+\left\|{\nabla}_x(a,b,c)\right\|^2\right\},\end{gathered}$$ for $\eta>0$. Plugging the above estimates into and fixing a properly small constant $\eta>0$ yield $$\begin{gathered}
\label{lem.ee.p4}
\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt}\left\| w_{-\ell,q}(t,\xi) \{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\} u\right\|^2
+\kappa \left\|\nu^{1/2}w_{-\ell,q}(t,\xi) \{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\} u\right\|^2\\
+\frac{\kappa}{(1+t)^{1+{\vartheta}}}\left\|{\langle}\xi {\rangle}w_{-\ell,q}(t,\xi) \{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\} u\right\|^2
\leq C{\delta}{\mathcal{D}}_{N,\ell,q}(t)\\
+C\left\{\left\|\nu^{1/2}\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\} u\right\|^2+\left\|\nu^{1/2}{\nabla}_x\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\}u\right\|^2+\left\|{\nabla}_x (a,b,c)\right\|^2\right\}.\end{gathered}$$
[*Step 2.2.*]{} For the weighted estimate on the terms containing only $x$ derivatives, we directly use . In fact, take $1\leq |{\alpha}|\leq N$, and by applying ${\partial}_x^{\alpha}$ to with $${\mathbf{L}}u={\mathbf{L}}\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\}u=-\nu\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\}u+K\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\}u,$$ multiplying it by $w_{-\ell,q}^2(t,\xi){\partial}_x^{\alpha}u$ and integrating over ${\mathbb{R}}^3\times {\mathbb{R}}^3$, one has $$\begin{gathered}
\label{lem.ee.p5}
\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt}\left\|w_{-\ell,q}(t,\xi){\partial}^{\alpha}u\right\|^2+\left{\langle}\nu(\xi){\partial}^{\alpha}\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\}u,w_{-\ell,q}^2(t,\xi){\partial}^{\alpha}u\right{\rangle}\\
+\left{\langle}-\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt}w_{-\ell,q}^2(t,\xi),|{\partial}^{\alpha}u|^2\right{\rangle}\\
=\left{\langle}K{\partial}^{\alpha}\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\}u,w_{-\ell,q}^2(t,\xi){\partial}^{\alpha}u\right{\rangle}+\left{\langle}{\partial}^{\alpha}{\nabla}_x\phi \cdot \xi {\mathbf{M}}^{1/2}, w_{-\ell,q}^2(t,\xi) {\partial}^{\alpha}u \right{\rangle}\\
+\left{\langle}{\partial}^{\alpha}{\Gamma}(u,u) -{\partial}^{\alpha}({\nabla}_x\phi\cdot {\nabla}_\xi u)+{\partial}^{\alpha}\left(\frac{1}{2}\xi\cdot {\nabla}_x\phi u\right),w_{-\ell,q}^2(t,\xi){\partial}^{\alpha}u\right{\rangle}.\end{gathered}$$ For the left-hand terms of , one has $$\begin{gathered}
\left{\langle}\nu(\xi){\partial}^{\alpha}\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\}u,w_{-\ell,q}^2(t,\xi){\partial}^{\alpha}u\right{\rangle}\\
=\left\|\nu^{1/2}w_{-\ell,q}(t,\xi){\partial}^{\alpha}\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\}u\right\|^2
+\left{\langle}\nu(\xi){\partial}^{\alpha}\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\}u,w_{-\ell,q}^2(t,\xi){\partial}^{\alpha}{\mathbf{P}}u\right{\rangle}\\
\geq \frac{1}{2}\left\|\nu^{1/2}w_{-\ell,q}(t,\xi){\partial}^{\alpha}\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\}u\right\|^2-C \left\|{\partial}^{\alpha}(a,b,c)\right\|^2\end{gathered}$$ and $$\begin{gathered}
\left{\langle}-\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt}w_{-\ell,q}^2(t,\xi),|{\partial}^{\alpha}u|^2\right{\rangle}=\frac{{\lambda}{\vartheta}}{(1+t)^{1+{\vartheta}}}\left\|{\langle}\xi {\rangle}w_{-\ell,q}(t,\xi){\partial}^{\alpha}u\right\|^2\\
\geq \frac{{\lambda}{\vartheta}}{2(1+t)^{1+{\vartheta}}}\left\|{\langle}\xi {\rangle}w_{-\ell,q}(t,\xi){\partial}^{\alpha}\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\}u\right\|^2
-C \left\|{\partial}^{\alpha}(a,b,c)\right\|^2.\end{gathered}$$ For the right-hand first term of , one has $$\begin{gathered}
\left{\langle}K{\partial}^{\alpha}\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\}u,w_{-\ell,q}^2(t,\xi){\partial}^{\alpha}u\right{\rangle}\\
\leq \left\{\eta\left\|\nu^{1/2}w_{-\ell,q}(t,\xi) {\partial}^{\alpha}\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\} u\right\|
+C_\eta \left\|\chi_{|\xi|\leq 2C_\eta}{\langle}\xi{\rangle}^{{\gamma}(-\ell)}{\partial}^{\alpha}\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\} u \right\|\right\} \\
\times \left\|\nu^{1/2}w_{-\ell,q}(t,\xi){\partial}^{\alpha}u\right\|\\
\leq C\eta\left\|\nu^{1/2}w_{-\ell,q}(t,\xi) {\partial}^{\alpha}\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\} u\right\|^2\\
+C_\eta\left\{\left\|\nu^{1/2}{\partial}^{\alpha}\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\} u\right\|^2 +\left\|{\partial}^{\alpha}(a,b,c)\right\|^2\right\},\end{gathered}$$ where $\eta>0$. For the right-hand second term of , we have that for $\eta>0$, $$\begin{gathered}
\left{\langle}{\partial}^{\alpha}{\nabla}_x\phi \cdot \xi {\mathbf{M}}^{1/2}, w_{-\ell,q}^2(t,\xi) {\partial}^{\alpha}u \right{\rangle}\leq \eta\left\|\nu^{1/2}{\partial}^{\alpha}u\right\|^2+ C_\eta\left\|{\partial}^{\alpha}{\nabla}_x\phi\right\|^2\\
\leq C\eta\left\|\nu^{1/2}{\partial}^{\alpha}\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\}u\right\|^2+ C_\eta \left\{\|a\|^2+\left\|{\nabla}_x (a,b,c)\right\|_{H^{N-1}}^2\right\}.\end{gathered}$$ For the right-hand third term of , from Lemma \[lem.ga2\], Lemma \[lem.xiu1\] and Lemma \[lem.pu1\], it is bounded by $$\begin{gathered}
\label{def.error}
C{\delta}{\mathcal{D}}_{N,\ell,q}(t)
+\frac{C{\delta}}{(1+t)^{1+{\vartheta}}} \left\{\sum_{|{\alpha}|+|{\beta}|\leq N}\left\|{\langle}\xi {\rangle}w_{|{\beta}|-\ell,q}(t,\xi)\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\}u\right\|^2\right.\\
+\left\|{\nabla}_x (a,b,c)\right\|_{H^{N-1}}^2\Bigg\}
\leq C{\delta}{\mathcal{D}}_{N,\ell,q}(t).\end{gathered}$$ Putting the above estimates into , taking summation over $1\leq |{\alpha}|\leq N$ and fixing a small constant $\eta>0$ give $$\begin{gathered}
\label{lem.ee.p6}
\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt}\sum_{1\leq |{\alpha}|\leq N}\left\|w_{-\ell,q}(t,\xi){\partial}^{\alpha}u\right\|^2\\
+\kappa\sum_{1\leq |{\alpha}|\leq N}\left\|\nu^{1/2}w_{-\ell,q}(t,\xi){\partial}^{\alpha}\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\}u\right\|^2\\
+\frac{\kappa}{(1+t)^{1+{\vartheta}}}\sum_{1\leq |{\alpha}|\leq N}\left\|{\langle}\xi {\rangle}^{1/2} w_{-\ell,q}(t,\xi){\partial}^{\alpha}u\right\|^2\\
\leq C{\delta}{\mathcal{D}}_{N,\ell,q}(t)
+C\left\{\sum_{1\leq |{\alpha}|\leq N}\left\|\nu^{1/2}{\partial}^{\alpha}\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\} u\right\|^2 +\left\|{\nabla}_x (a,b,c)\right\|_{H^{N-1}}^2+\|a\|^2\right\}.\end{gathered}$$
[*Step 2.3.*]{} For the weighted estimate on the mixed $x$-$\xi$ derivatives, we use the equation of $\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\} u$. Let $1\leq m\leq N$. By applying ${\partial}_{\beta}^{\alpha}$ with $|{\beta}|=m$ and $|{\alpha}|+|{\beta}|\leq N$ to , multiplying it by $w_{|{\beta}|-\ell,q}^2(t,\xi){\partial}_{\beta}^{\alpha}\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\} u$ and integrating over ${\mathbb{R}}^3\times {\mathbb{R}}^3$, one has $$\begin{gathered}
\label{lem.ee.p7}
\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt}\left\|w_{|{\beta}|-\ell,q}(t,\xi){\partial}_{\beta}^{\alpha}\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\}u\right\|^2\\
+\left{\langle}{\partial}_{{\beta}}\{\nu(\xi){\partial}^{\alpha}\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\}u\},w_{|{\beta}|-\ell,q}^2(t,\xi){\partial}_{\beta}^{\alpha}\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\}u\right{\rangle}\\
+\left{\langle}-\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt}w_{|{\beta}|-\ell,q}^2(t,\xi), |{\partial}_{\beta}^{\alpha}\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\}u|^2\right{\rangle}\\
=\left{\langle}{\partial}_{\beta}K {\partial}^{\alpha}\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\}u, w_{|{\beta}|-\ell,q}^2(t,\xi){\partial}_{\beta}{\partial}^{\alpha}\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\} u\right{\rangle}\\
+\Bigg{\langle}{\partial}_{\beta}^{\alpha}\left({\Gamma}(u,u)-{\nabla}_x\phi\cdot {\nabla}_\xi \{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\}u+\frac{1}{2}\xi\cdot {\nabla}_x\phi \{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\}u\right), \\
w_{|{\beta}|-\ell,q}^2(t,\xi){\partial}_{\beta}^{\alpha}\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\}u \Bigg{\rangle}\\
+\left{\langle}-{{[\![}}{\partial}_{\beta}^{\alpha}, \xi\cdot {\nabla}_x{{]\!]}}\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\}u, w_{|{\beta}|-\ell,q}^2(t,\xi){\partial}_{\beta}^{\alpha}\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\} u\right{\rangle}\\
+ \left{\langle}{\partial}_{\beta}^{\alpha}{{[\![}}{\mathbf{P}}, {\mathcal{T}}_\phi{{]\!]}}u, w_{|{\beta}|-\ell,q}^2(t,\xi){\partial}_{\beta}^{\alpha}\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\} u\right{\rangle}.\end{gathered}$$ For the left-hand second term of , one has $$\begin{gathered}
\left{\langle}{\partial}_{{\beta}}\{\nu(\xi){\partial}^{\alpha}\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\}u\},w_{|{\beta}|-\ell,q}^2(t,\xi){\partial}_{\beta}{\partial}^{\alpha}\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\}u\right{\rangle}\\
\geq \left\|\nu^{1/2}w_{|{\beta}|-\ell,q}(t,\xi){\partial}_{\beta}^{\alpha}\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\}u\right\|^2\\
-\eta\sum_{|{\beta}_1|\leq |{\beta}|} \left\|\nu^{1/2}w_{|{\beta}|-\ell,q}(t,\xi){\partial}_{{\beta}_1}^{\alpha}\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\}u\right\|^2\\
-C_\eta \left\|\chi_{|\xi|\leq 2C_\eta} {\langle}\xi{\rangle}^{{\gamma}(|{\beta}|-\ell)} {\partial}^{\alpha}\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\}u\right\|^2,\end{gathered}$$ where $\eta>0$ is arbitrary, and it is noticed that $$\left\|\chi_{|\xi|\leq 2C_\eta} {\langle}\xi{\rangle}^{{\gamma}(|{\beta}|-\ell)} {\partial}^{\alpha}\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\}u\right\|\leq C \left\|\nu^{1/2} {\partial}^{\alpha}\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\}u\right\|.$$ For the right-hand first term of , we have that for $\eta>0$, $$\begin{gathered}
\left{\langle}{\partial}_{\beta}K {\partial}^{\alpha}\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\}u, w_{|{\beta}|-\ell,q}^2(t,\xi){\partial}_{\beta}^{\alpha}\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\} u\right{\rangle}\\
\leq \left\{\eta \sum_{|{\beta}_1|\leq |{\beta}|} \left\|\nu^{1/2}w_{|{\beta}|-\ell,q}(t,\xi){\partial}_{{\beta}_1}^{\alpha}\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\}u\right\|\right.\\
+C\eta\left\|\chi_{|\xi|\leq 2C_\eta}{\langle}\xi {\rangle}^{{\gamma}(|{\beta}|-\ell)} {\partial}^{\alpha}\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\}u\Bigg\|\right\}
\cdot
\left\|\nu^{1/2}w_{|{\beta}|-\ell,q}(t,\xi){\partial}_{{\beta}}^{\alpha}\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\}u\right\|\\
\leq C\eta \sum_{|{\beta}_1|\leq |{\beta}|} \left\|\nu^{1/2}w_{|{\beta}|-\ell,q}(t,\xi){\partial}_{{\beta}_1}^{\alpha}\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\}u\right\|^2\\
+C_\eta\left\|\nu^{1/2}{\partial}^{\alpha}\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\}u\right\|^2.\end{gathered}$$ As in , from Lemma \[lem.ga2\], Lemma \[lem.xiu2\] and Lemma \[lem.pu2\], the right-hand second term of is bounded by $C{\delta}{\mathcal{D}}_{N,\ell,q}(t)$.
For the right-hand third term of , $$\begin{gathered}
\left{\langle}-{{[\![}}{\partial}_{\beta}^{\alpha}, \xi\cdot {\nabla}_x{{]\!]}}\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\}u, w_{|{\beta}|-\ell,q}^2(t,\xi){\partial}_{\beta}^{\alpha}\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\} u\right{\rangle}\\
=\sum_{{\beta}_1+{\beta}_2={\beta},|{\beta}_1|=1}C_{{\beta}_1{\beta}_2}^{{\beta}}\left{\langle}-{\partial}_{{\beta}_1}\xi\cdot {\nabla}_x{\partial}_{{\beta}_2}^{\alpha}\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\}u, w_{|{\beta}|-\ell,q}^2(t,\xi){\partial}_{\beta}^{\alpha}\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\} u\right{\rangle}\\
\leq \eta \left\|\nu^{1/2} w_{|{\beta}|-\ell,q}(t,\xi){\partial}_{\beta}^{\alpha}\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\} u\right\|^2\\
+ C_\eta \sum_{|{\alpha}|+|{\beta}|\leq N,|{\beta}_1|=|{\beta}|-1} \left\|\nu^{1/2} w_{|{\beta}_2|-\ell,q}(t,\xi){\partial}_{{\beta}_2}^{\alpha}\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\} u\right\|^2,\end{gathered}$$ where $\eta>0$ is arbitrary, and we have used $$\begin{gathered}
w_{|{\beta}|-\ell, q}^2(t,\xi)=w_{|{\beta}|+\frac{1}{2}-\ell, q}(t,\xi)w_{|{\beta}_2|+\frac{1}{2}-\ell, q}(t,\xi)\\
\leq C \nu^{1/2}(\xi) w_{|{\beta}|-\ell, q}(t,\xi)\cdot \nu^{1/2}(\xi)w_{|{\beta}_2|-\ell, q}(t,\xi).\end{gathered}$$ The right-hand last term of is estimated as
$$\begin{gathered}
\left{\langle}{\partial}_{\beta}^{\alpha}{{[\![}}{\mathbf{P}}, {\mathcal{T}}_\phi{{]\!]}}u, w_{|{\beta}|-\ell,q}^2(t,\xi){\partial}_{\beta}^{\alpha}\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\} u\right{\rangle}\leq \eta \left\|\nu^{1/2}{\partial}^{\alpha}\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\} u\right\|^2\\
+C_\eta \left(1+\|{\nabla}_x\phi\|_{H^N}^2\right)\left\{\sum_{|{\alpha}|\leq N}\left\|\nu^{1/2}{\partial}^{\alpha}\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\} u\right\|^2+\left\|{\nabla}_x (a,b,c)\right\|_{H^{N-1}}^2\right\},\end{gathered}$$
for $\eta>0$. Therefore, by plugging all the estimates above into , taking summation over $\{|{\beta}|=m,|{\alpha}|+|{\beta}|\leq N\}$ for each given $1\leq m\leq N$ and then taking the proper linear combination of those $N-1$ estimates with properly chosen constants $C_m>0$ $(1\leq m\leq N)$ and $\eta>0$ small enough, one has $$\begin{gathered}
\label{lem.ee.p8}
\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt}\sum_{m=1}^NC_m\sum_{
|{\alpha}|+|{\beta}|\leq N, |{\beta}|= m}\left\|w_{|{\beta}|-\ell,q}(t,\xi){\partial}_{\beta}^{\alpha}\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\} u\right\|^2 \\
+{\kappa}\sum_{
|{\alpha}|+|{\beta}|\leq N,|{\beta}|\geq 1}\left\|\nu^{1/2}w_{|{\beta}|-\ell,q}(t,\xi)|{\partial}_{\beta}^{\alpha}\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\} u\right\|^2\\
+ \frac{{\kappa}}{(1+t)^{1+{\vartheta}}}\sum_{|{\alpha}|+|{\beta}|\leq N,|{\beta}|\geq 1}\left\|{\langle}\xi{\rangle}w_{|{\beta}|-\ell,q}(t,\xi){\partial}_{\beta}^{\alpha}\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\} u\right\|^2\\
\leq C{\delta}{\mathcal{D}}_{N,\ell,q}(t)+C\left\{\sum_{|{\alpha}|\leq N}\left\|\nu^{1/2}w_{-\ell,q}(t,\xi){\partial}^{\alpha}\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\} u\right\|^2+\left\|{\nabla}_x (a,b,c)\right\|_{H^{N-1}}^2\right\}.\end{gathered}$$
[**Step 3.**]{} [*The proof of* ]{}: We take a proper linear combination of those estimates obtained in the previous two steps as follows. First of all, since ${\delta}>0$ is sufficiently small, the linear combination $M_1\times[\eqref{lem.ee.p1}+\eqref{lem.ee.p2}]+\eqref{lem.ma.2}$ for $M_1>0$ large enough gives $$\begin{gathered}
\label{lem.ee.p9}
\frac{d}{dt}\left\{\frac{M_1}{2}\left[\sum_{|{\alpha}|\leq N}\left(\left\|{\partial}^{\alpha}u\right\|^2+\left\|{\partial}^{\alpha}{\nabla}_x\phi\right\|^2\right)-\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^3} |b|^2(a+2c)\,dx\right]+{\mathcal{E}}_N^{\rm int}(t)\right\}\\
+\kappa \left\{\sum_{|{\alpha}|\leq N}\left\|\nu^{1/2}{\partial}^{\alpha}\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\} u\right\|^2+\|a\|^2+\left\|{\nabla}_x (a,b,c)\right\|_{H^{N-1}}^2\right\}
\leq C{\delta}{\mathcal{D}}_{N,\ell,q}(t),\end{gathered}$$ where the corresponding energy functional is equivalent to $\|u\|_{L^2_\xi(H^N_x)}^2+\|{\nabla}_x\phi\|_{H^N}^2$. Now, the further linear combination $M_3\times [M_2\times \eqref{lem.ee.p9}+\eqref{lem.ee.p4}+\eqref{lem.ee.p6}]+\eqref{lem.ee.p8}$ for $M_2>0$ and $M_3>0$ large enough in turn gives $$\frac{d}{dt} {\mathcal{E}}_{N,\ell,q}(t)+\kappa {\mathcal{D}}_{N,\ell,q}(t)\leq C{\delta}{\mathcal{D}}_{N,\ell,q}(t),$$ where ${\mathcal{E}}_{N,\ell,q}(t)$ is given by $$\begin{gathered}
\label{lem.ee.p10}
{\mathcal{E}}_{N,\ell,q}(t)\\
=M_3\left[M_2\left\{\frac{M_1}{2}\left[\sum\limits_{|{\alpha}|\leq N}\left(\left\|{\partial}^{\alpha}u\right\|^2+\left\|{\partial}^{\alpha}{\nabla}_x\phi\right\|^2\right)-{\displaystyle\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^3}} |b|^2(a+2c)\,dx\right]+{\mathcal{E}}_N^{\rm int}(t)\right\}\right.\\
\left.+\left\| w_{-\ell,q}(t,\xi) \{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\} u\right\|^2+\sum\limits_{1\leq |{\alpha}|\leq N}\left\|w_{-\ell,q}(t,\xi){\partial}^{\alpha}u\right\|^2\right]\\
\quad+\sum\limits_{m=1}^NC_m\sum\limits_{
|{\alpha}|+|{\beta}|\leq N, |{\beta}|= m}\left\|w_{|{\beta}|-\ell,q}(t,\xi){\partial}_{\beta}^{\alpha}\{{\mathbf{I}}-{\mathbf{P}}\} u\right\|^2.\end{gathered}$$ Notice . It is easy to see that $${\mathcal{E}}_{N,\ell,q}(t)\sim {|\!|\!|}u {|\!|\!|}_{N,\ell,q}^2 (t).$$ Therefore, follows from the above inequality since ${\delta}>0$ is small enough. This completes the proof of Lemma \[lem.ee\].
Global existence
================
Recall for $ X_{N,\ell,q}(t)$. To close the energy estimates under the [*a priori*]{} assumption , one has to obtain the time-decay of ${\mathcal{E}}_{N,\ell-1,q}(t)$ and $\|{\nabla}_x^2\phi\|_{H^{N-1}}^2$. The key is to prove the following
\[lem.X\] Assume $-2\leq {\gamma}<0$ and $\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^3}a_0(x)\,dx=0$. Fix parameters $N$, $\ell_0$, $\ell$ and $q(t)=q+\frac{{\lambda}}{(1+t)^{\vartheta}}$ as stated in Theorem \[thm.m\]. Suppose that the [*a priori*]{} assumption holds true for ${\delta}>0$ small enough. Then, one has $$\label{lem.X.2}
X_{N,\ell,q}(t)\leq C\left\{{\epsilon}_{N,\ell,q}^2 + X_{N,\ell,q}(t)^2\right\},$$ for any $t\geq 0$, where ${\epsilon}_{N,\ell,q}$ is defined by $$\label{lem.X.3}
{\epsilon}_{N,\ell,q}=\sum_{|{\alpha}|+|{\beta}|\leq N}\left\|w_{|{\beta}|-\ell,q}(0,\xi) {\partial}_{\beta}^{\alpha}u_0\right\|+\left\|(1+|x|+{\langle}\xi{\rangle}^{-\frac{{\gamma}\ell_0}{2}} )u_0\right\|_{Z_1}.$$
As preparation, we need an additional lemma concerning the time-decay estimates on the macroscopic quantity $(a,b,c)$ in terms of initial data and $X_{N,\ell}(t)$. Here and afterwards, for notational simplicity, we write $X_{N,\ell}(t)=X_{N,\ell,q}(t)$ when $q=0$, and in a similar way, ${\epsilon}_{N,\ell}={\epsilon}_{N,\ell,0}$ and ${\mathcal{E}}_{N,\ell}(t)={\mathcal{E}}_{N,\ell,0}(t)$ will be used.
\[lem.made\] Under the assumptions of Lemma \[lem.X\], one has $$\label{lem.made.1}
\|u(t)\|+\|{\nabla}_x\phi(t)\|\leq C(1+t)^{-\frac{3}{4}}\left \{{\epsilon}_{N,\ell}+X_{N,\ell}(t)\right\},$$ and $$\label{lem.made.2}
\|{\nabla}_xu(t)\|_{L^2_\xi(H^{N-2}_x)}+\left\|{\nabla}_x^2\phi(t)\right\|\leq C(1+t)^{-\frac{5}{4}} \{{\epsilon}_{N,\ell}+X_{N,\ell}(t)\},$$ for any $0\leq t <T$.
By Duhamel’s principle, the solution $u$ to the Cauchy problem - of the nonlinear VPB system can be written as the mild form $$u(t)=e^{t{\mathbf{B}}}u_0 +\int_0^t e^{(t-s){\mathbf{B}}} G(s)\,ds$$ with $G=\frac{1}{2} \xi\cdot {\nabla}_x\phi u-{\nabla}_x\phi \cdot {\nabla}_\xi u +{\Gamma}(u,u)$. Notice that ${\mathbf{P}}_0 G(t)\equiv 0$ for all $t\geq 0$ and the condition holds. Applying Theorem \[thm.lide\], one has $$\begin{gathered}
\label{lem.made.p1}
\|u(t)\|+\|{\nabla}_x\phi(t)\|\\
\leq C(1+t)^{-\frac{3}{4}} \left\{\left\|{\langle}\xi{\rangle}^{-\frac{{\gamma}}{2}\ell_0}u_0\right\|_{Z_1}+\left\|{\langle}\xi {\rangle}^{-\frac{{\gamma}}{2}\ell_0} u_0\right\|+\|(1+|x|) a_0\|_{L^1_x}\right\}\\
+C \int_0^t (1+t-s)^{-\frac{3}{4}} \left\{\left\|{\langle}\xi {\rangle}^{-\frac{{\gamma}}{2}\ell_0} G(s)\right\|_{Z_1}+\left\|{\langle}\xi {\rangle}^{-\frac{{\gamma}}{2}\ell_0} G(s)\right\|\right\}\,ds\end{gathered}$$ and $$\begin{gathered}
\label{lem.made.p2}
\|{\nabla}_xu(t)\|_{L^2_\xi(H^{N-2}_x)}+\|{\nabla}_x^2\phi(t)\|\\
\leq C(1+t)^{-\frac{5}{4}} \left\{\left\|{\langle}\xi{\rangle}^{-\frac{{\gamma}}{2}\ell_0}u_0\right\|_{Z_1}+\left\|{\langle}\xi {\rangle}^{-\frac{{\gamma}}{2}\ell_0} {\nabla}_xu_0\right\|_{L^2_\xi(H^{N-2}_x)}+\|(1+|x|) a_0\|_{L^1_x}\right\}\\
+C \int_0^t (1+t-s)^{-\frac{5}{4}} \left\{\left\|{\langle}\xi {\rangle}^{-\frac{{\gamma}}{2}\ell_0} G(s)\right\|_{Z_1}+\left\|{\langle}\xi {\rangle}^{-\frac{{\gamma}}{2}\ell_0} {\nabla}_x G(s)\right\|_{L^2_\xi(H^{N-2}_x)}\right\}\,ds,\end{gathered}$$ where we recall that $\ell_0>2{\sigma}_1=2(\frac{3}{4}+\frac{1}{2})=5/2$ is a constant. In what follows, we shall estimate the right-hand time integrals in the above two inequalities.
To do that, we [*claim*]{} that $$\label{lem.made.p3}
\left\|{\langle}\xi {\rangle}^{-\frac{{\gamma}}{2}\ell_0} G(t)\right\|_{Z_1}+\sum_{|{\alpha}|\leq N-1}\left\|{\langle}\xi {\rangle}^{-\frac{{\gamma}}{2}\ell_0} {\partial}^{\alpha}G(t)\right\|\leq C {\mathcal{E}}_{N,\ell-1}(t),$$ for any $0\leq t<T$. Here, recall $\ell\geq 1+\max\left\{N, \frac{\ell_0}{2}-\frac1{\gamma}\right\}$. In fact, one has the following estimates.
[*Estimate on terms containing $\phi$:*]{} Direct calculations yield $$\begin{gathered}
\label{lem.made.p4}
\left\|{\langle}\xi {\rangle}^{-\frac{{\gamma}}{2}\ell_0} \left\{-{\nabla}_x\phi\cdot {\nabla}_\xi u +\frac{1}{2}\xi\cdot {\nabla}_x\phi u\right\}\right\|_{Z_1}\\
\leq C\left\|{\langle}\xi {\rangle}^{-\frac{{\gamma}}{2}\ell_0} \|{\nabla}_x \phi\|_{L^2_x} \left\{\|{\nabla}_\xi u\|_{L^2_x}+{\langle}\xi {\rangle}\|u\|_{L^2_x}\right\}\right\|_{L^2_\xi}\\
\leq C \left\|{\nabla}_x\phi\right\|\left\{\left\|{\langle}\xi {\rangle}^{-\frac{{\gamma}}{2}\ell_0} {\nabla}_\xi u\right\| +\left\|{\langle}\xi {\rangle}^{-\frac{{\gamma}}{2}\ell_0 +1}u \right\|\right\}\\
\leq C \|{\nabla}_x\phi\|\left\{\left\|w_{-\frac{1}{2}\ell_0}(t,\xi){\nabla}_\xi u\right\|+\left\|w_{-\frac{\ell_0}{2}+\frac{1}{{\gamma}}}(t,\xi) u\right\|\right\}.\end{gathered}$$ Here, by recalling the assumption $\ell-1>\frac{\ell_0}{2}-\frac{1}{{\gamma}}$, is further bounded by $C {\mathcal{E}}_{N,\ell-1}(t)$.
Similarly, by applying $L^\infty_x$-norm to the low-order derivative terms and using Sobolev’s inequality, one also has $$\begin{gathered}
\sum_{|{\alpha}|\leq N-1}\left\|{\langle}\xi {\rangle}^{-\frac{{\gamma}}{2}\ell_0} {\partial}^{\alpha}\left\{-{\nabla}_x\phi\cdot {\nabla}_\xi u +\frac{1}{2}\xi\cdot {\nabla}_x\phi u\right\}\right\|\\
\leq C \|{\nabla}_x\phi\|_{H^{N}} \sum_{|{\alpha}|+|{\beta}|\leq N} \left\|w_{|{\beta}|-(\ell-1)}(t,\xi){\partial}_{\beta}^{\alpha}u\right\|\leq C{\mathcal{E}}_{N,\ell-1}(t).\end{gathered}$$
[*Estimate on terms containing ${\Gamma}(u,u)$:*]{} First consider $$\label{lem.made.p5-0}
\left \|{\langle}\xi {\rangle}^{-\frac{{\gamma}}{2}\ell_0} {\Gamma}(u,u)\right\|_{Z_1}\leq C\sum_{\pm}\left\|{\langle}\xi {\rangle}^{-\frac{{\gamma}}{2}\ell_0} {\Gamma}^\pm\left(\|u\|_{L^2_x},\|u\|_{L^2_x}\right)\right\|_{L^2_\xi},$$ where Hölder’s inequality has been used. For the loss term, by noticing $$\begin{gathered}
{\Gamma}^-\left(\|u\|_{L^2_x},\|u\|_{L^2_x}\right)=\|u(\xi)\|_{L^2_x}\iint |\xi-\xi_\ast|^{\gamma}q_0(\theta) {\mathbf{M}}^{\frac{1}{2}}(\xi_\ast) \|u(\xi_\ast)\|_{L^2_x} d\xi_\ast d{\omega}\\
\leq C \|u(\xi)\|_{L^2_x}\cdot {\langle}\xi {\rangle}^{\gamma}\sup_{\xi_\ast} \|u(\xi_\ast)\|_{L^2_x},\end{gathered}$$ one has $$\begin{gathered}
\label{lem.made.p6}
\left\|{\langle}\xi {\rangle}^{-\frac{{\gamma}}{2}\ell_0} {\Gamma}^-\left(\|u\|_{L^2_x},\|u\|_{L^2_x}\right)\right\|_{L^2_\xi}\leq C \sup_{\xi_\ast} \|u(\xi_\ast)\|_{L^2_x}\cdot\left\|{\langle}\xi {\rangle}^{{\gamma}(-\frac{\ell_0}{2}+1)}u\right\|_{L^2_{x,\xi}}\\
\leq C \left(\|{\nabla}_\xi u\|+\|{\nabla}_\xi^2 u\|\right)\left\|w_{-\frac{\ell_0}{2}+1}(t,\xi) u\right\|\leq C{\mathcal{E}}_{N,\ell-1}(t).\end{gathered}$$ For the gain term, $$\begin{gathered}
J_1(t,\xi):={\langle}\xi {\rangle}^{-\frac{{\gamma}}{2}\ell_0} {\Gamma}^+\left(\|u\|_{L^2_x},\|u\|_{L^2_x}\right)\\
={\langle}\xi {\rangle}^{-\frac{{\gamma}}{2}\ell_0}\iint |\xi-\xi_\ast|^{\gamma}q_0(\theta) {\mathbf{M}}^{\frac{1}{2}}(\xi_\ast) \|u(\xi_\ast')\|_{L^2_x}\|u(\xi')\|_{L^2_x}\,d\xi_\ast d{\omega}.\end{gathered}$$ We then consider the following three cases:
: $$J_1(t,\xi)\leq {\langle}\xi {\rangle}^{-\frac{{\gamma}}{2}\ell_0}\int_{\xi_\ast,{\omega}} |\xi-\xi_\ast|^{\gamma}q_0(\theta) {\mathbf{M}}^{\frac{q'}{2}}(\xi_\ast) {\mathbf{M}}^{\frac{q'}{2}}(\xi) \|u(\xi_\ast')\|_{L^2_x}\|u(\xi')\|_{L^2_x}.$$ From Hölder’s inequality, as before, $J_1(t,\xi)$ is bounded by $$C{\langle}\xi {\rangle}^{-\frac{{\gamma}}{2}\ell_0+\frac{1}{2}{\gamma}}\left\{\int_{\xi_\ast,{\omega}} |\xi-\xi_\ast|^{\gamma}q_0(\theta) {\mathbf{M}}^{\frac{q'}{2}}(\xi_\ast) {\mathbf{M}}^{\frac{q'}{2}}(\xi) \|u(\xi_\ast')\|_{L^2_x}^2\|u(\xi')\|_{L^2_x}^2\right\}^{\frac{1}{2}},$$ so that $$\begin{gathered}
\|J_1(t)\chi_{{\mathbb{D}}_1}\|_{L^2_\xi}^2\leq C\int_{\xi,\xi_\ast,{\omega}} |\xi-\xi_\ast|^{\gamma}q_0(\theta){\mathbf{M}}^{\frac{q''}{2}}(\xi_\ast) {\mathbf{M}}^{\frac{q''}{2}}(\xi) \|u(\xi_\ast')\|_{L^2_x}^2\|u(\xi')\|_{L^2_x}^2\\
\leq C \int_{\xi,\xi_\ast} |\xi-\xi_\ast|^{\gamma}{\mathbf{M}}^{\frac{q''}{2}}(\xi_\ast) {\mathbf{M}}^{\frac{q''}{2}}(\xi) \|u(\xi_\ast)\|_{L^2_x}^2\|u(\xi)\|_{L^2_x}^2\\
\leq C \sup_{\xi_\ast} \|u(\xi_\ast)\|_{L^2_x}^2\cdot \int_{x,\xi}|u(x,\xi)|^2\leq C {\mathcal{E}}_{N,\ell-1}(t)^2.\end{gathered}$$ : From Hölder’s inequality, one has $$J_1(t,\xi)\chi_{{\mathbb{D}}_2}\leq \left\{\int_{\xi,{\omega}}\chi_{{\mathbb{D}}_2} |\xi-\xi_\ast|^{\gamma}q_0(\theta) {\mathbf{M}}^{\frac{1}{2}}(\xi_\ast) \|u(\xi_\ast')\|_{L^2_x}^2\|u(\xi')\|_{L^2_x}^2\right\}^{\frac{1}{2}}.$$ In ${\mathbb{D}}_2$, $|\xi-\xi_\ast|\geq \frac{1}{2}|\xi|$ and moreover, $$|\xi'|\leq 2|\xi|+|\xi_\ast|\leq \frac{5}{2}|\xi|,\quad |\xi_\ast'|\leq 2|\xi_\ast|+|\xi|\leq 2|\xi|.$$ These imply that in ${\mathbb{D}}_2$, $$|\xi-\xi_\ast|^{\gamma}\leq C \min\{|\xi'|^{\gamma},|\xi_\ast'|^{\gamma}\} \chi_{|\xi'|\leq 3,|\xi_\ast'|\leq 3 }.$$ Then, using the above estimate and then taking change of variable $(\xi,\xi_\ast)\to (\xi',\xi_\ast')$, one has $$\begin{gathered}
\|J_1(t)\chi_{{\mathbb{D}}_2}\|_{L^2_\xi}^2\leq C \int_{\xi,\xi_\ast,{\omega}}\chi_{{\mathbb{D}}_2} |\xi-\xi_\ast|^{\gamma}q_0(\theta) {\mathbf{M}}^{\frac{1}{2}}(\xi_\ast) \|u(\xi_\ast')\|_{L^2_x}^2\|u(\xi')\|_{L^2_x}^2\\
\leq C \int_{\xi,\xi_\ast}\chi_{|\xi|\leq 3,|\xi_\ast|\leq 3}\min\{|\xi|^{\gamma},|\xi_\ast|^{\gamma}\} \|u(\xi_\ast)\|_{L^2_x}^2\|u(\xi)\|_{L^2_x}^2\\
\leq C \sup_{\xi}\|u(\xi)\|_{L^2_x}^2\cdot \|u\|^2\leq C {\mathcal{E}}_{N,\ell-1}(t)^2.\end{gathered}$$ : In this case, as in the proof for $I_{2,123}^+$, from Hölder’s inequality, we can deduce that $J_1(t,\xi)$ is bounded by $$C{\langle}\xi {\rangle}^{-\frac{{\gamma}}{2}\ell_0}\left\{\int_{\xi_\ast,{\omega}} \left(1+|\xi|^2+|\xi_\ast|^2\right)^{\gamma}q_0(\theta) {\mathbf{M}}^{\frac{1}{2}}(\xi_\ast) \|u(\xi_\ast')\|_{L^2_x}^2\|u(\xi')\|_{L^2_x}^2\right\}^{\frac{1}{2}},$$ which further implies that $\|J_1(t)\chi_{{\mathbb{D}}_3}\|_{L^2_\xi}^2$ is bounded by $$\begin{gathered}
C \int_{\xi,\xi_\ast,{\omega}} {\langle}\xi{\rangle}^{-{\gamma}\ell_0} \left(1+|\xi|^2+|\xi_\ast|^2\right)^{\gamma}q_0(\theta) {\mathbf{M}}^{\frac{1}{2}}(\xi_\ast) \|u(\xi_\ast')\|_{L^2_x}^2\|u(\xi')\|_{L^2_x}^2\\
\leq C \int_{\xi,\xi_\ast,{\omega}} \left\{{\langle}\xi'{\rangle}^{-{\gamma}\ell_0}+{\langle}\xi_\ast'{\rangle}^{-{\gamma}\ell_0}\right\} \left(1+|\xi|^2+|\xi_\ast|^2\right)^{\gamma}q_0(\theta) {\mathbf{M}}^{\frac{1}{2}}(\xi_\ast) \|u(\xi_\ast')\|_{L^2_x}^2\|u(\xi')\|_{L^2_x}^2\\
\leq C\int_{\xi,\xi_\ast} \left\{{\langle}\xi{\rangle}^{-{\gamma}\ell_0}+{\langle}\xi_\ast{\rangle}^{-{\gamma}\ell_0}\right\} \left(1+|\xi|^2+|\xi_\ast|^2\right)^{\gamma}\|u(\xi_\ast)\|_{L^2_x}^2\|u(\xi)\|_{L^2_x}^2.\end{gathered}$$ Thus, it follows that $$\begin{gathered}
\|J_1(t)\chi_{{\mathbb{D}}_3}\|_{L^2_\xi}^2\leq C \int {\langle}\xi{\rangle}^{-{\gamma}\ell_0+{\gamma}}\|u(\xi)\|_{L^2_x}^2d\xi \cdot \int \|u(\xi_\ast)\|_{L^2_x}^2d\xi_\ast\\
+C \int {\langle}\xi_\ast{\rangle}^{-{\gamma}\ell_0+{\gamma}}\|u(\xi_\ast)\|_{L^2_x}^2d\xi_\ast \cdot \int \|u(\xi)\|_{L^2_x}^2d\xi\\
\leq C \left\|w_{-\frac{\ell_0}{2}+\frac{1}{2}}(t,\xi) u\right\|^2\|u\|^2\leq C {\mathcal{E}}_{N,\ell-1}(t)^2.\end{gathered}$$ Collecting the above estimates, one has the estimate on the gain term $$\left\|{\langle}\xi {\rangle}^{-\frac{{\gamma}}{2}\ell_0} {\Gamma}^+\left(\|u\|_{L^2_x},\|u\|_{L^2_x}\right)\right\|_{L^2_\xi}\leq C\|J_1(t)\|_{L^2_\xi}\leq C {\mathcal{E}}_{N,\ell-1}(t).$$ Combining the above with and recalling , we have $$\label{lem.made.p7}
\left\|{\langle}\xi {\rangle}^{-\frac{{\gamma}}{2}\ell_0} {\Gamma}(u,u)\right\|_{Z_1}\leq C{\mathcal{E}}_{N,\ell}(t).$$ Now, we consider the $L^2$-norm of ${\langle}\xi {\rangle}^{-\frac{{\gamma}}{2}\ell_0} {\partial}^{\alpha}{\Gamma}(u,u)$ with $|{\alpha}|\leq N-1$. Notice $$\begin{gathered}
\sum_{|{\alpha}|\leq N-1}\left\|{\langle}\xi {\rangle}^{-\frac{{\gamma}}{2}\ell_0} {\partial}^{\alpha}{\Gamma}(u,u)\right\|
\leq C \sum_{|{\alpha}|\leq N-1}\sum_{{\alpha}_1+{\alpha}_2={\alpha}}\sum_\pm \left\|{\langle}\xi {\rangle}^{-\frac{{\gamma}}{2}\ell_0} {\Gamma}^\pm\left({\partial}^{{\alpha}_1}u,{\partial}^{{\alpha}_2}u\right)\right\| \\
\leq C \sum_{|{\alpha}|\leq N-1}\sum_{{\alpha}_1+{\alpha}_2={\alpha}, |{\alpha}_1|\leq N/2}\sum_\pm \left\|{\langle}\xi {\rangle}^{-\frac{{\gamma}}{2}\ell_0} {\Gamma}^\pm\left(\|{\nabla}_x{\partial}^{{\alpha}_1}u\|_{H^1_x},\|{\partial}^{{\alpha}_2}u\|_{L^2_x}\right)\right\|_{L^2_\xi}\\
+C \sum_{|{\alpha}|\leq N-1}\sum_{{\alpha}_1+{\alpha}_2={\alpha}, |{\alpha}_1|> N/2}\sum_\pm \left\|{\langle}\xi {\rangle}^{-\frac{{\gamma}}{2}\ell_0} {\Gamma}^\pm\left(\|{\partial}^{{\alpha}_1}u\|_{L^2_x},\|{\nabla}_x{\partial}^{{\alpha}_2}u\|_{H^1_x}\right)\right\|_{L^2_\xi},\end{gathered}$$ where Sobolev’s inequality $\|f\|_{L^\infty_x}\leq C\|{\nabla}_x f\|_{H^1_x}$ has been used. Then, as for , one has $$\sum_{|{\alpha}|\leq N-1}\left\|{\langle}\xi {\rangle}^{-\frac{{\gamma}}{2}\ell_0} {\partial}^{\alpha}{\Gamma}(u,u)\right\|\leq C {\mathcal{E}}_{N,\ell-1}(t).$$ This together with , and give .
Hence, together with imply $$\begin{gathered}
\left\|{\langle}\xi {\rangle}^{-\frac{{\gamma}}{2}\ell_0} G(s)\right\|_{Z_1}+\sum_{|{\alpha}|\leq N-1}\left\|{\langle}\xi {\rangle}^{-\frac{{\gamma}}{2}\ell_0} {\partial}^{\alpha}G(s)\right\|\leq C {\mathcal{E}}_{N,\ell-1}(s)\\
\leq C(1+s)^{-\frac{3}{2}} \sup_{0\leq s\leq t}(1+s)^{\frac{3}{2}}{\mathcal{E}}_{N,\ell-1}(s)\leq C (1+s)^{-\frac{3}{2}}
X_{N,\ell}(t),\end{gathered}$$ for any $0\leq s\leq t<T$. Further plugging the above estimate into and yields and , respectively, where the following inequalities $$\begin{aligned}
&& \int_0^t (1+t-s)^{-\frac{3}{4}} (1+s)^{-\frac{3}{2}}\,ds\leq C(1+t)^{-\frac{3}{4}},\\
&& \int_0^t (1+t-s)^{-\frac{5}{4}} (1+s)^{-\frac{3}{2}}\,ds\leq C(1+t)^{-\frac{5}{4}},\end{aligned}$$ together with and for the definition of ${\mathcal{E}}_{N,\ell,q}$ have been used. This completes the proof of Lemma \[lem.made\].
[**Proof of Lemma \[lem.X\]:**]{} We divide it by three steps. Recall for $ X_{N,\ell,q}(t)$.
[**Step 1.**]{} From Lemma \[lem.ee\], the time integration of directly gives $$\label{lem.X.pp4}
\sup_{0\leq s\leq t}{\mathcal{E}}_{N,\ell,q}(s)\leq {\mathcal{E}}_{N,\ell,q}(0)\leq C{\epsilon}_{N,\ell,q}^2.$$ Here, noticing ${\Delta}_x\phi(0,x)=a_0(x)$, we have removed $\|{\nabla}_x\phi(0,x)\|_{H^N}^2$ from ${\mathcal{E}}_{N,\ell,q}(0)$ by the definition of or in terms of the inequalities $$\|{\nabla}_x\phi_0\| \leq C \|a_0\|_{L^1_x}^{2/3}\|a_0\|_{L^2_x}^{1/3}$$ and $$\left \|{\nabla}_x^2\phi_0\right\|_{H^{N-1}}= \left\|{\nabla}_x^2{\Delta}_x^{-1}a_0\right\|_{H^{N-1}}\leq C \|a_0\|_{H^{N-1}}.$$ Therefore, ${\mathcal{E}}_{N,\ell,q}(0)\leq C{\epsilon}_{N,\ell,q}^2$ holds true with ${\epsilon}_{N,\ell,q}$ given by .
[**Step 2.**]{} Take $0<{\epsilon}<1/2$ small enough. Recall . Notice that also holds true when $\ell$ is replaced by $\ell-1$ since all the conditions of Lemma \[lem.ee\] are still satisfied under the assumption that $\ell\geq 1+ N$ and $\sup_{0\leq s<T}X_{N,\ell,q}(s)\leq {\delta}$ with ${\delta}>0$ small enough. Thus, it holds that $$\frac{d}{dt}{\mathcal{E}}_{N,\ell-1,q}(t)+\kappa {\mathcal{D}}_{N,\ell-1,q}(t)\leq 0.$$ Multiplying the above inequality by $(1+t)^{3/2+{\epsilon}}$ gives $$\begin{gathered}
\label{lem.X.pp1}
\frac{d}{dt}\left[(1+t)^{\frac{3}{2}+{\epsilon}} {\mathcal{E}}_{N,\ell-1,q}(t)\right]+\kappa (1+t)^{\frac{3}{2}+{\epsilon}}{\mathcal{D}}_{N,\ell-1,q}(t)\\
\leq \left(\frac{3}{2}+{\epsilon}\right)(1+t)^{\frac{1}{2}+{\epsilon}} {\mathcal{E}}_{N,\ell-1,q}(t).\end{gathered}$$ Similarly, from with $\ell$ replaced by $\ell-1/2$ and further multiplying it by $(1+t)^{1/2+{\epsilon}}$, one has $$\begin{gathered}
\label{lem.X.pp2}
\frac{d}{dt}\left[(1+t)^{\frac{1}{2}+{\epsilon}} {\mathcal{E}}_{N,\ell-\frac{1}{2},q}(t)\right]+\kappa (1+t)^{\frac{1}{2}+{\epsilon}}{\mathcal{D}}_{N,\ell-\frac{1}{2},q}(t)\\
\leq \left(\frac{1}{2}+{\epsilon}\right)(1+t)^{-\frac{1}{2}+{\epsilon}} {\mathcal{E}}_{N,\ell-\frac{1}{2},q}(t)\leq C{\mathcal{E}}_{N,\ell-\frac{1}{2},q}(t).\end{gathered}$$ Observe from , and that $${\mathcal{D}}_{N,\tilde{\ell},q}(t)+ \|(b,c)(t)\|^2+\|{\nabla}_x\phi(t)\|^2\geq \kappa {\mathcal{E}}_{N,\tilde{\ell}-\frac{1}{2},q}(t)$$ holds for any given $\tilde{\ell}$. Then, from taking the time integration over $[0,t]$ of , and and further taking the appropriate linear combination, one has $$\begin{gathered}
(1+t)^{\frac{3}{2}+{\epsilon}} {\mathcal{E}}_{N,\ell-1,q}(t)\leq C {\mathcal{E}}_{N,\ell,q}(0)\\
+C\int_0^t (1+s)^{\frac{1}{2}+{\epsilon}}\left\{\|(b,c)(s)\|^2+\|{\nabla}_x\phi(s)\|^2\right\}\,ds.\end{gathered}$$ Here, applying the first estimate in Lemma \[lem.made\] to the right-hand time integral term of the above inequality and noticing $$\int_0^t (1+s)^{\frac{1}{2}+{\epsilon}}(1+s)^{-\frac{3}{2}}\,ds\leq C(1+t)^{\epsilon},$$ it follows that $$(1+t)^{\frac{3}{2}+{\epsilon}} {\mathcal{E}}_{N,\ell-1,q}(t)\leq C {\mathcal{E}}_{N,\ell,q}(0)+C(1+t)^{{\epsilon}} \left\{{\epsilon}_{N,\ell}^2+X_{N,\ell}(t)^2\right\},$$ which implies $$\label{ap.td1}
\sup_{0\leq s\leq t} (1+s)^{\frac{3}{2}} {\mathcal{E}}_{N,\ell-1,q}(s)\leq C \left\{{\epsilon}_{N,\ell,q}^2+X_{N,\ell}(t)^2\right\}$$ holds for any $0\leq t<T$. Here, ${\mathcal{E}}_{N,\ell,q}(0)\leq C{\epsilon}_{N,\ell,q}^2$ has been used.
[**Step 3.**]{} Notice $$\|{\nabla}_x^2\phi \|_{H^{N-1}}^2 \leq C\left\{\|{\nabla}_x^2\phi \|^2+\|{\nabla}_x a \|_{H^{N-2}}^2\right\}\leq C\left\{\|{\nabla}_x^2\phi \|^2+\|{\nabla}_x u \|_{L^2_\xi(H^{N-2}_x)}^2\right\}.$$ Then, it is direct to deduce from $$\label{ap.tdh}
\sup_{0\leq s\leq t} (1+s)^{\frac{5}{2}}\|{\nabla}_x^2\phi (s)\|_{H^{N-1}}^2\leq C \left\{{\epsilon}_{N,\ell}^2+X_{N,\ell}(t)^2\right\}.$$ Hence, the desired estimate follows by summing , and . This completes the proof of Lemma \[lem.X\].
Now, we are in a position to give the
[**Proof of Theorem \[thm.m\]:**]{} Given $-2\leq {\gamma}<0$, we fix $N$, $\ell$ and $q(t)=q+\frac{{\lambda}}{(1+t)^{\vartheta}}$ as stated in Theorem \[thm.m\]. The local existence and uniqueness of the solution $u(t,x,\xi)$ to the Cauchy problem - can be proved in terms of the energy functional ${\mathcal{E}}_{N,\ell,q}(t)$ given by , and the details are omitted for simplicity; see [@Guo2]. Then, one only has to obtain the uniform-in-time estimate over $0\leq t<T$ with $0<T\leq \infty$. In fact, by the continuity argument, Lemma \[lem.X\] implies that under the [*a priori*]{} assumption for ${\delta}>0$ small enough, one has $$\label{thm.g.p1}
X_{N,\ell,q}(t)\leq C {\epsilon}_{N,\ell,q}^2, \quad 0\leq t<T,$$ provided that $ {\epsilon}_{N,\ell,q}$ defined by is sufficiently small. Recalling the condition for initial data $u_0$ which coincides with , the [*a priori*]{} assumption can be closed. Then, the global existence follows, and holds true from , , and . This completes the proof of Theorem \[thm.m\].
[**Acknowledgements:**]{} The research of the first author was supported partially by the Direct Grant 2010/2011 from CUHK and by the General Research Fund (Project No. 400511) from RGC of Hong Kong. The research of the second author was supported by the General Research Fund of Hong Kong, CityU No.103108, and the Croucher Foundation. And research of the third author was supported by the grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China under contracts 10871151 and 10925103. This work is also supported by “the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities".
[99]{}
R. Alexandre, Y. Morimoto, S. Ukai, C.-J. Xu, T. Yang, The Boltzmann equation without angular cutoff in the whole space: Qualitative properties of solutions, [*Arch. Rational Mech. Anal.*]{}. DOI: 10.1007/s00205-011-0432-0.
R. Caflisch, The Boltzmann equation with a soft potential. I. Linear, spatially-homogeneous, [*Comm. Math. Phys.*]{} [**74**]{} (1980), 71–95.
R. Caflisch, The Boltzmann equation with a soft potential. II. Nonlinear, spatially-periodic, [*Comm. Math. Phys.*]{} [**74**]{} (1980), 97–109.
C. Cercignani, R. Illner and M. Pulvirenti, [*The Mathematical Theory of Dilute Gases*]{}, Applied Mathematical Sciences, [**106**]{}. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1994.
L. Desvillettes and J. Dolbeault, On long time asymptotics of the Vlasov-Poisson-Boltzmann equation, [*Comm. Partial Differential Equations*]{} [**16**]{} (1995), 451–489.
L. Desvillettes and C. Villani, On the trend to global equilibrium for spatially inhomogeneous kinetic systems: The Boltzmann equation. [*Invent. Math.*]{} [**159**]{} (2) (2005), 245-316.
R.-J. Duan, Dissipative property of the Vlasov-Maxwell-Boltzmann system with a uniform ionic background, [*SIAM J. Math. Anal*]{}. [**43**]{} (2011), 2732–2757.
R.-J. Duan and R.M. Strain, Optimal large-time behavior of the Vlasov-Maxwell-Boltzmann system in the whole space, [*Comm. Pure Appl. Math.*]{} [**64**]{} (2011), no. 11, 1497–1546.
R.-J. Duan and R.M. Strain, Optimal time decay of the Vlasov-Poisson-Boltzmann system in ${\mathbb{R}}^3$, [*Arch. Rational Mech. Anal.*]{} [**199**]{} (2010), 291–328.
R.-J. Duan, S. Ukai and T. Yang, A combination of energy method and spectral analysis for studies on systems for gas motions, [*Frontiers of Mathematics in China*]{} [**4**]{} (2009), no. 2, 253–282.
R.-J. Duan, S. Ukai, T. Yang and H.-J. Zhao, Optimal decay estimates on the linearized Boltzmann equation with time dependent force and their applications, [*Comm. Math. Phys.*]{} [**277**]{} (2008), 189–236.
R.-J. Duan and T. Yang, Stability of the one-species Vlasov-Poisson-Boltzmann system, [*SIAM J. Math. Anal.*]{} [**41**]{} (6) (2010), 2353–2387.
R.-J. Duan, T. Yang and H.-J. Zhao, The Vlasov-Poisson-Boltzmann system in the whole space: The hard potential case, preprint 2011.
R. T. Glassey, [*The Cauchy Problem in Kinetic Theory*]{}. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics (SIAM), Philadelphia, 1996.
R. Glassey and W. Strauss, Decay of the linearized Boltzmann-Vlasov system, [*Transport Theory Statist. Phys.*]{} [**28**]{} (1999), 135–156.
R. Glassey and W. Strauss, Perturbation of essential spectra of evolution operators and the Vlasov-Poisson-Boltzmann system, [*Discrete Contin. Dynam. Systems*]{} [**5**]{} (1999), 457–472.
P.T. Gressman and R.M. Strain, Global strong solutions of the Boltzmann equation without angular cutoff, [*J. Amer. Math. Soc.*]{} [**24**]{} (2011), no. 3, 771–847.
Y. Guo, Classical solutions to the Boltzmann equation for molecules with an angular cutoff, [*Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal.*]{} [**169**]{} (2003), no. 4, 305–353.
Y. Guo, The Boltzmann equation in the whole space, [*Indiana Univ. Math. J.*]{} [**53**]{} (2004), 1081–1094.
Y. Guo, The Landau equation in a periodic box, [*Comm. Math. Phys.*]{} [**231**]{} (2002), 391–434.
Y. Guo, The Vlasov-Maxwell-Boltzmann system near Maxwellians, [*Invent. Math.*]{} [**153**]{} (2003), 593–630.
Y. Guo, The Vlasov-Poisson-Boltzmann system near Maxwellians, [*Comm. Pure Appl. Math.*]{} [**55**]{} (9) (2002), 1104–1135.
Y. Guo, The Vlasov-Poisson-Landau system in a periodic box, preprint 2011.
Y. Guo, The Vlasov-Poisson-Boltzmann system near vacuum, [*Comm. Math. Phys.*]{} [**218**]{} (2001), no. 2, 293–313.
Y. Guo and J. Jang, Global Hilbert expansion for the Vlasov-Poisson-Boltzmann system, [*Comm. Math. Phys.*]{} [**299**]{} (2010), 469–501.
S. Kawashima, Systems of a hyperbolic-parabolic composite type, with applications to the equations of magnetohydrodynamics, thesis, Kyoto University (1983).
S. Kawashima, The Boltzmann equation and thirteen moments, [*Japan J. Appl. Math.*]{} [**7**]{} (1990), 301–320.
C. Mouhot, Explicit coercivity estimates for the linearized Boltzmann and Landau operators, [*Communications in Partial Differential Equations*]{} [**31**]{} (2006), 1321–1348.
R. M. Strain, Optimal time decay of the non cut-off Boltzmann equation in the whole space, preprint (2011).
R. M. Strain, The Vlasov-Maxwell-Boltzmann system in the whole space, [*Commun. Math. Phys.*]{} [**268**]{} (2) (2006), 543–567.
R. M. Strain and Y. Guo, Exponential decay for soft potentials near Maxwellian, [*Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal.*]{} [**187**]{} (2008), 287–339.
S. Ukai, On the existence of global solutions of mixed problem for non-linear Boltzmann equation, [*Proc. Japan Acad.*]{} [**50**]{} (1974), 179–184.
S. Ukai, K. Asano, On the Cauchy problem of the Boltzmann equation with a soft potential, [*Publ. Res. Inst. Math. Sci.*]{} [**18**]{} (1982), no. 2, 477–519 (57–99).
S. Ukai and T. Yang, The Boltzmann equation in the space $L^2\cap
L^\infty_\beta$: Global and time-periodic solutions, [*Anal. Appl. (Singap.)*]{} [**4**]{} (2006), 263–310.
C. Villani, A review of mathematical topics in collisional kinetic theory. [*Handbook of mathematical fluid dynamics*]{}, Vol. I, 71–305, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 2002.
C. Villani, Hypocoercivity, [*Memoirs Amer. Math. Soc.*]{}, [**202**]{} (2009), iv+141.
T. Yang and H.-J. Yu, Optimal convergence rates of classical solutions for Vlasov-Poisson-Boltzmann system, [*Comm. Math. Phys.*]{} [**301**]{} (2011), 319–355.
T. Yang and H.-J. Zhao, Global existence of classical solutions to the Vlasov-Poisson-Boltzmann system, [*Commun. Math. Phys.*]{} [**268**]{} (2006), 569–605.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Decoherence of quantum systems due to uncontrolled fluctuations of the environment presents fundamental obstacles in quantum science. ‘Clock’ transitions which are insensitive to such fluctuations are used to improve coherence, however, they are not present in all systems or for arbitrary system parameters. Here, we create a trio of synthetic clock transitions using continuous dynamical decoupling in a spin-1 Bose-Einstein condensate in which we observe a reduction of sensitivity to magnetic field noise of up to four orders of magnitude; this work complements the parallel work by Anderson et al. (submitted, 2017). In addition, using a concatenated scheme, we demonstrate suppression of sensitivity to fluctuations in our control fields. These field-insensitive states represent an ideal foundation for the next generation of cold atom experiments focused on fragile many-body phases relevant to quantum magnetism, artificial gauge fields, and topological matter.'
author:
- 'D. Trypogeorgos'
- 'A. Valdés-Curiel'
- 'N. Lundblad'
- 'I. B. Spielman'
bibliography:
- 'RFClockStates.bib'
title: Synthetic clock transitions via continuous dynamical decoupling
---
The loss of coherence due to uncontrolled coupling to a fluctuating environment is a limiting performance factor for quantum technologies [@chaudhry_decoherence_2012; @myatt_decoherence_2000; @schlosshauer_decoherence_2005; @viola_dynamical_1998]. In select cases, first-order insensitive transitions — ‘clock’ transitions — can mitigate the deleterious effect of the dominant noise sources, yet in most cases such transitions are absent . Remarkably, under almost all circumstances, clock transitions can be synthesized using dynamical decoupling protocols. These protocols involve driving the system with an external oscillatory field, resulting in a dynamically protected ‘dressed’ system. A number of dynamical decoupling protocols, pulsed or continuous, have been shown to isolate quantum systems from low-frequency environmental noise [@cohen_continuous_2017; @fanchini_continuously_2007; @aharon_fully_2016; @biercuk_optimized_2009; @cai_robust_2012; @bermudez_robust_2012]. Continuous dynamical decoupling (CDD) relies on the application of time-periodic continuous control fields, rather than a series of quantum-logic pulses. Unlike conventional dynamical decoupling, CDD does not require any encoding overhead or quantum feedback measurements.
Thus far, CDD has been used to produce protected two-level systems in nitrogen vacancy centers in diamond, in nuclear magnetic resonance experiments, and trapped atomic ions [@laucht_dressed_2017; @farfurnik_experimental_2017; @noguchi_generation_2012; @golter_protecting_2014; @timoney_quantum_2011; @webster_simple_2013; @barfuss_strong_2015; @rohr_synchronizing_2014], successfully inoculating them from spatiotemporal magnetic field fluctuations. Here, we demonstrate CDD in an atomic Bose-Einstein condensate (BEC) producing a protected three-level system of dressed-states, whose Hamiltonian is fully controllable. The CDD-protected states are sensitive to fluctuations of the amplitude of the control field itself, and we further demonstrate that a second coupling field protects against those in a concatenated manner [@cohen_continuous_2017; @farfurnik_experimental_2017; @cai_robust_2012].
![(a) Left: The dependence of the $5^2S_{1/2}$, $F=1$ ground state of [$^{87}$Rb]{}on an applied magnetic field, where the quadratic dependence of the ${\vertm_F=0\rangle}$ state’s Zeeman shift has been exaggerated so it is visible on the same scale. Center: RWA eigenenergies of the [${\vertx,y,z\rangle}$]{}eigenstates, evaluated for $\Omega/2\pi=\SI{200}{kHz}$ (black curves) and $\Omega=0$ (grey curves). Right: TOF image of ${\vertz\rangle}$ at $\Delta=0$, showing the decomposition into the constituent $m_F$ states. (b) Left: Spectroscopic data showing all possible transitions between the [${\vertx,y,z\rangle}$]{}states for $\Omega/2\pi = \SI{194.5(1)}{kHz}$. Note that the vertical scale of the center panel marking the $zx$ transition has only 10% the range of the other panels. Right: representative spectra.[]{data-label="fig:1"}](fig1.pdf)
![(a) Transition frequency $\omega_{zx}/2\pi$ measured for three different values of $\Omega/2\pi$, showing the minimal sensitivity to $\Delta$. The dashed curves correspond to [Eq. \[eq:h\]]{}, while the solid curves use the Breit-Rabi expression. (b) The change in energy associated with our typical experimental detuning fluctuations as measured in the $m_F$ basis is $\delta \Delta/2\pi = \SI{0.67}{kHz}$ (red dashed line). Triangles correspond to [${\vertx,y,z\rangle}$]{}spectroscopy data, squares to side-of-peak $\pi$-pulse data, and circles to double-dressed data (see main text). The dashed curve is calculated using the Hamiltonian in [Eq. \[eq:h\]]{} and the solid curve using the Breit-Rabi expression.[]{data-label="fig:2"}](fig2.pdf)
*System.* We implemented CDD using a strong radio-frequency (RF) magnetic field of coupling strength $\Omega$, that linked the three $m_F$ states comprising the $F=1$ electronic ground state manifold of [$^{87}$Rb]{}. The RF field was linearly polarized along ${\bf e}_x$, and had angular frequency $\omega$ close to the Larmor frequency $\omega_0 = g_F \mu_{\rm B} B_0$ from a magnetic field $B_0 {\bf e}_z$; $g_F$ is the Lande g-factor and $\mu_{\rm B}$ is the Bohr magneton. We coupled the dressed states using a weaker probe field with coupling strength $\Omega_p$, polarized along ${\bf e}_y$ with angular frequency $\omega+\omega_p$ ([Fig. \[fig:1\]]{}a). Using the rotating wave approximation (RWA) for the frame rotating at $\omega$ (valid when $\omega_0 \gg \Omega,\,\Omega_p,\,\omega_p$), the system is described by the Hamiltonian $$\hat H=\Delta\hat F_z + \Omega \hat F_x + \Omega_p \cos(\omega_p t) \hat F_y + \hbar\epsilon(\hat F_z^2 / \hbar^2 - \hat{\mathbb I}),
\label{eq:h}$$ where $\Delta=\omega-\omega_0$ is a detuning; $\epsilon$ is the quadratic Zeeman shift; $\hat F_{x,y,z}$ are the spin-1 angular momentum operators; and $\hat{\mathbb I}$ is the identity operator. For $\Omega_p = 0$ the resulting eigenstates of [Eq. \[eq:h\]]{} are linear combinations of the $m_F$ states and we denote them as ${\vertx\rangle}$, ${\verty\rangle}$, and ${\vertz\rangle}$. The corresponding eigenvalues for $\Delta = 0$ are $\omega_x = 0$ and $\omega_{y,z} = -(\epsilon \pm \sqrt{4 \Omega^{2} + \epsilon^{2}})/2$. The resulting energy differences $\hbar\omega_{xy}$, $\hbar\omega_{zy}$ and $\hbar\omega_{zx}$ are only quadratically sensitive to detuning $\Delta$ for $\Delta\ll\Omega$ [^1] so that any fluctuations $\delta \Delta$ in the detuning are suppressed to first order, making these a trio of synthetic clock states. At an optimal $\Omega$, $\omega_{zx}$ depends only quartically on $\Delta$ [@xu_coherence-protected_2012; @rabl_strong_2009]. For $\Delta \gg \Omega$ the [${\vertx,y,z\rangle}$]{}states adiabatically connect to the corresponding ${\vertm_F=1,0,-1\rangle}$, states (see [Fig. \[fig:1\]]{}b). As $\Omega\rightarrow 0$ and for $\Delta=0$, the [${\vertx,y,z\rangle}$]{}states continuously approach the [${\vertX,Y,Z\rangle}$]{}states that are familiar from quantum chemistry where they form a common basis to represent atomic orbitals. In contrast, as $\Omega\to\infty$ they become eigenstates of the $\hat F_x$ operator: ${\verty,x,z\rangle} \to {\vertm_x=+1,0,-1\rangle}$. Unlike for the $m_F$ basis, an oscillatory magnetic field can drive transitions between all pairs of the [${\vertx,y,z\rangle}$]{}states with non-zero transition matrix elements.
For all the experiments described here, our BECs had approximately $N=\num{5e4}$ atoms, and were held in a crossed dipole trap with trapping frequencies $(f_x,\, f_y,\, f_z) = (42(3),\, 34(2),\, 133(3))$Hz [^2]. The $B_0 \approx \SI{3.27}{mT}$ bias field lifted the ground state degeneracy, giving an $\omega_0/2\pi = \SI{22.9}{MHz}$ Larmor frequency, with a quadratic shift $\epsilon/2\pi=\SI{76.4}{kHz}$. In our laboratory the ambient magnetic field fluctuations were dominated by contributions from line noise giving an rms detuning uncertainty $\delta\Delta/2\pi = g_F \mu_{\rm B}\delta B/h=\SI{0.67(3)}{kHz}$.
We used an adiabatic rapid passage (ARP) technique to transfer atoms initially prepared in any of the ${\vertm_F = 0,-1,1\rangle}$ states into the corresponding [${\vertx,y,z\rangle}$]{}states; this protocol began far from resonance at $\Delta(t=0)/2\pi \approx -\SI{450}{kHz}$ with all coupling fields off. We then ramped on the RF dressing field in a two-step process. First, we ramped from $\Omega=0$ to approximately half its final value in . By increasing the magnetic field $B_0$, we then ramped $\Delta$ to zero in using a non-linear ramp chosen to be adiabatic with respect to the relevent energy gaps. After allowing $B_0$ to stabilize for , we ramped the RF dressing field to its final value $\Omega$ in , yielding the dynamically decoupled system used in subsequent experiments.
To measure the population of the [${\vertx,y,z\rangle}$]{}states, we adiabatically deloaded them back into the $m_F$ basis by ramping $B_0$ so that $\Delta$ approached its initial detuned value in , and then ramped off the dressing RF field in . We obtained the spin-resolved momentum distribution using standard time-of-flight (TOF) imaging techniques, with an applied Stern-Gerlach field that spatially separated the different spin components during TOF. The right panel of [Fig. \[fig:1\]]{}a shows the decomposition of ${\vertz\rangle}$ into the $m_F$ states in a typical TOF image.
We confirmed our control and measurement techniques by using the probe field to spectroscopically measure the energy differences between the [${\vertx,y,z\rangle}$]{}states. Figure \[fig:1\]b shows the dependence of the transition frequencies $\omega_{xy}/2\pi$, $\omega_{yz}/2\pi$, and $\omega_{zx}/2\pi$ on detuning for $\Omega/2\pi=\SI{194.5(1)}{kHz}$. Each point corresponds to the peak location of a spectroscopical measurement at the given detuning $\Delta$; typical spectra for a probe with coupling strength $\Omega_p/2\pi \approx \SI{1}{kHz}$ and $\Delta/2\pi \approx \SI{9}{kHz}$ are shown on the side panel. The dashed curves presenting the expected behavior based on [Eq. \[eq:h\]]{}, clearly depart from our measurements for the $zx$ transition. This departure results from neglecting the weak dependence of the quadratic shift $\epsilon$ on bias field $B_0$. In near-perfect agreement with experiment, the solid curves derived using the full Breit-Rabi expression account for this dependency.
*Robustness.* As shown in [Fig. \[fig:2\]]{}a, the $zx$ transition is remarkably robust against magnetic field variations, as commonly result from temporal and spatial magnetic field noise in laboratory environments We now confine our focus to the $zx$ transition, which can be made virtually independent of magnetic field variations due to the similar curvature of $\omega_z(\Delta)$ and $\omega_x(\Delta)$ (see the middle panel of [Fig. \[fig:1\]]{}a). We quantified the sensitivity of this transition to field variations using three different methods corresponding to the different markers in [Fig. \[fig:2\]]{}b. In each of these cases we measured the energy shift from resonance as a function of detuning and then from a fourth order polynomial fit to the data computed the residual rms fluctuations $\delta \omega_{zx}$ due to magnitude of the known detuning noise [^3]. Firstly, triangles denote data using full spectroscopical measurements similar to [Fig. \[fig:2\]]{}a. Secondly, square markers denote data in which a detuned $\pi$-pulse of the probe field transferred atoms from ${\vertz\rangle}$ to ${\vertx\rangle}$, a side-of-peak technique giving a signal first-order sensitive to changes in $\omega_{zx}$. Lastly, the circular markers describe data using an adiabatic technique described below. The results for all the above methods agree fairly well with the theory using either [Eq. \[eq:h\]]{} (solid) or the Breit-Rabi expression (curved); both Hamiltonians give practically identical results on resonance [^4].
Even at the smallest value of $\Omega/2\pi=\SI{69(1)}{kHz}$ the typical magnetic field noise was attenuated by two orders of magnitude, rendering it undetectable. Ideally, the radius of curvature of $\omega_{zx}(\Delta)$ changes sign at about $\Omega/2\pi = \SI{220}{kHz}$, leaving only a $\Delta^4$ contribution, however, in practice the small dependence of $\epsilon$ on $B$ prevents the cancellation leading to this flat point, and makes the residual linear term dominant instead.
![(a) Rabi oscillations for the various values of $\Omega$. Phase coherence is maintained throughout the oscillations in the dressed basis, while it is quickly lost in the $m_F$ basis. The marker size reflects the typical uncertainties on the dressed basis oscillations. (b) Transition matrix elements for $zx$ (blue) and $zy$ (orange) transitions decrease monotonically with increasing $\Omega$ for $\Delta=0$, while they increase for $xy$. This leads to an effective three-level system with only two allowed transitions (similar to the $m_F$ basis) for $\Omega \gg \epsilon$. []{data-label="fig:3"}](fig3.pdf)
We explored the strength of the probe-driven transitions between these states by observing coherent Rabi oscillations, as shown in [Fig. \[fig:3\]]{}a. With our BEC prepared in ${\vertz\rangle}$, the probe field was pulsed on at $\Omega_p/2\pi\approx\SI{1}{kHz}$. The top panel shows Rabi oscillations between ${\vertm_F=0\rangle}$ and ${\vertm_F=-1\rangle}$ states for reference, and the remaining panels show oscillations between ${\vertz\rangle}$ and ${\vertx\rangle}$. The observed Rabi frequency between dressed states decreased with increasing $\Omega$ indicating a dependence of the $zx$ transition matrix elements on coupling strength $\Omega$. These matrix elements, as well as those for the $zy$ transition, decrease with increasing $\Omega$ for $\Delta=0$ as shown in [Fig. \[fig:3\]]{}b. The coherence of the Rabi oscillations for longer times was limited by gradients in $\Omega$ that lead to phase separation of the dressed states, and therefore loss of contrast after a few tens of ms, but had no measurable effect on the coherence of the oscillations. In comparison, the coherence of the Rabi oscillation between the $m_F$ states deteriorated significantly after . For these timescales, the loss of coherence was predominantly due to bias magnetic field temporal noise [^5].
*Concatenated CDD.* The driving field $\Omega$ coupled together the ${\vertm_F\rangle}$ states, giving us synthetic clock states [${\vertx,y,z\rangle}$]{}that were nearly insensitive to magnetic field fluctuations. However, the spectrum of these states is first-order sensitive to the amplitude fluctuations $\delta \Omega$ of the driving field. Reference [@cai_robust_2012] showed that an additional field coupling together these [${\vertx,y,z\rangle}$]{}states can produce doubly-dressed states that are insensitive to both $\delta \Omega$ and $\delta \Delta$: a process called concatenated CDD. In our experiment, the probe field provided the concatenating coupling field. Because $\Omega_p\ll\Omega$, we focus on a near-resonant two-level system formed by a single pair of dressed states, here ${\vertz\rangle}$ and ${\vertx\rangle}$, which we consider as pseudospins ${\vert\uparrow\rangle}$ and ${\vert\downarrow\rangle}$. These are described by the effective two-level Hamiltonian $$\hat H_p = \frac{\hbar\Delta'}{2} \hat \sigma_3 + \hbar\Omega' \cos(\omega_p t) \hat \sigma_1,
\label{eq:h2}$$ with energy gap $\Delta' \approx \omega_{\downarrow, \uparrow}$ (shifted by off-resonant coupling to the $zy$ and $xy$ transitions) and coupling strength $\Omega' \propto \Omega_p$, as set by the matrix elements displayed in [Fig. \[fig:3\]]{}b. Here $\hat \sigma_{1,2,3}$ are the three Pauli operators.
![(a) The fractional population imbalance of the $\downarrow\uparrow$ transition for $\Omega/2\pi=\SI{138.2(1)}{kHz}$ over detuning $\Delta$. The dashed curve is calculated using [Eq. \[eq:h\]]{} and the solid one using the full Breit-Rabi expression. (b) The fidelity of preparing a balanced superposition of ${\vert\downarrow\rangle}$ and ${\vert\uparrow\rangle}$ (dark blue) states compared to ${\vertm_F=0\rangle}$ and ${\vertm_F=-1\rangle}$ states (light blue). (c) The robustness of $\downarrow, \uparrow$ transition against fluctuations $\delta \Omega$ for different probe field coupling strengths. The points represent the slope of the fitted curves to the fractional population imbalance (inset).[]{data-label="fig:4"}](fig4.pdf)
A RWA of this Hamiltonian leads to the energy spectrum $E_{\uparrow,\downarrow} \approx \pm\Omega^\prime/2 + (\Delta^\prime)^2/2\Omega^\prime$, having again assumed the coupling $\Omega^\prime$ exceeds any fluctuations in $\Delta^\prime$. Thus, the concatenated CDD field protects from the fluctuations $\delta\Delta\prime$ of the first dressing field in the same way that CDD provided protection from detuning noise $\delta \Delta$.
We produced doubly-dressed states by using the probe field near resonant with the $\downarrow, \uparrow$ transition and an ARP sequence. We started in ${\vert\downarrow\rangle}$ at $\Delta=0$ and ramped on the probe field $\Omega_p$ a few ms before ramping $\Omega$ to its final value. We chose the ARP parameters such that we created an equal superposition of ${\vert\downarrow\rangle}$ and ${\vert\uparrow\rangle}$. We quantified the sensitivity of this transition to large changes in the detuning by measuring the fractional population imbalance $\langle\hat\sigma_3\rangle = P_\downarrow(\Delta)-P_\uparrow(\Delta)$, shown in [Fig. \[fig:4\]]{}a for $\Omega/2\pi=\SI{138.2(1)}{kHz}$ [^6]. This signal is first-order sensitive to $\omega_{\downarrow, \uparrow}$, and provided our third measurement of sensitivity to detuning in [Fig. \[fig:2\]]{}b denoted by circles.
We compared the fidelity of preparing a superposition of the ${\vert\downarrow\rangle}$ and ${\vert\uparrow\rangle}$ states to adiabatically preparing a similar superposition of the the ${\vertm_F=0\rangle}$ and ${\vertm_F=-1\rangle}$ states. The coupling strength of the probe field was about in both cases. Figure \[fig:4\]b shows the rms deviation of the population imbalance measured over a few hundred repetitions of the experiment. The rms deviation for the dressed basis is $0.024(1)$ and is and order of magnitude smaller than for the $m_F$ basis $0.29(1)$, where it practically impossible to prepare a balanced superposition for the parameters used here [^7].
Figure \[fig:4\]c shows the response of the $\downarrow, \uparrow$ transition to small changes $\delta\Omega$ for different values of $\Omega_p$. We prepared an equal superposition of ${\vert\downarrow\rangle}$ and ${\vert\uparrow\rangle}$ following the same procedure as before for $\Omega/2\pi = \SI{138.2(1)}{kHz}$. We then measured how the population imbalance changes for small variations of $\Omega$ — the effective detuning in the ‘twice-rotated frame’ — for different probe amplitudes $\Omega_p$. We defined a sensitivity parameter $d\langle\hat\sigma_3\rangle / d\Omega$, obtained from the linear regime of the population imbalance measurements (see inset in [Fig. \[fig:4\]]{}c). We found the robustness of the doubly-dressed states against $\delta \Omega$ fluctuations increased with $\Omega_p$, thus verifying the concatenating effect of CDD in the [${\vertx,y,z\rangle}$]{}basis.
*Conclusions.* We realized and studied a three-level system that is dynamically decoupled from low-frequency noise and where direct transitions between all three states are allowed. We demonstrated control techniques required to create arbitrary Hamiltonians in this three-level system; a feature that is not possible in the $m_F$ states. These techniques add no heating or loss mechanisms, yet within the protected subspace retain the full complement of cold-atom coherent control tools such as optical lattices and Raman laser coupling, and permit new first-order transitions that are absent in the unprotected subspace. These transitions enable experiments requiring a fully connected geometry as for engineering exotic states, e.g., in cold-atom topological insulators, and two-dimensional Rashba spin-orbit coupling in ultracold atomic systems [@campbell_rashba_2016; @juzeliunas_generalized_2010].
The synthetic clock states form a decoherence-free subspace that can be used in quantum information tasks where conventional clock states might be absent, or incompatible with other technical requirements [@bacon_universal_2000]. Moreover, their energy differences are proportional to the amplitude of the dressing field, and hence tunable, so they can be brought to resonance with a separate quantum system. The effective quantization axis can be arbitrarily rotated so that the two systems can be strongly coupled, pointing to applications in hybrid quantum systems [@solano_chapter_2017; @xiang_hybrid_2013]. Introducing a second coupling field shields the system from fluctuations of the first, a process which can be concatenated as needed. More broadly, synthetic clock states should prove generally useful in any situation where fluctuations of the coupling field can be made smaller than those of the environment.
This work was partially supported by the ARO’s atomtronics MURI, the AFOSR’s Quantum Matter MURI, NIST, and the NSF through the PFC at the JQI. We are grateful to P. Solano for carefully reading this manuscript.
**Supplemental Materials**
The [${\vertx,y,z\rangle}$]{}dressed basis
==========================================
The reduced Hamiltonian of [Eq. \[eq:h\]]{} can be diagonalized analytically. The eigenvalues for $\Delta=0$ are $\omega_x = 0$, and $\omega_{z,y} = - \epsilon \pm \tilde\Omega$, where $\tilde\Omega = \sqrt{4 \Omega^2 + \epsilon^2}$ is a generalized Rabi frequency. The corresponding (non-normalized) eigenvectors are linear combinations of the $m_F$ basis states: $$\begin{aligned}
{\vertx\rangle} =& {\vert-1\rangle} + {\vert1\rangle}, \nonumber \\
{\verty\rangle} =& {\vert-1\rangle} -\frac{\epsilon + \tilde\Omega}{\sqrt 2 \Omega} {\vert0\rangle} + {\vert1\rangle}, \\
{\vertz\rangle} =& {\vert-1\rangle} -\frac{\epsilon - \tilde\Omega}{\sqrt 2 \Omega} {\vert0\rangle} + {\vert1\rangle}. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
We measured the above decomposition of the [${\vertx,y,z\rangle}$]{}states to $m_F$ states using a projective measurement by abruptly turning off the dressing field $\Omega$ (see [Fig. \[fig:s1\]]{}).
![Decomposition of the [${\vertx,y,z\rangle}$]{}states on the $m_F$ basis for $\Omega/2\pi=\SI{145(1)}{kHz}$ The ${\vertm_F=-1,0,1\rangle}$ states correspond to blue, orange, gray respectively.[]{data-label="fig:s1"}](figS11)
For $\Delta=0$ and small coupling $\Omega / \epsilon \to 0$ with regard to the quadratic shift the ${\verty\rangle}$ and ${\vertx\rangle}$ become symmetric and antisymmetric superpositions of the ${\vertm_F=-1, 1\rangle}$ states while ${\vertz\rangle}$ is predominantly composed of ${\vert0\rangle}$ $${\vertx\rangle} = {\vert1\rangle} - {\vert-1\rangle}, \quad
{\verty\rangle} = {\vert1\rangle} + {\vert-1\rangle} + \frac{\Omega}{\epsilon}{\vert0\rangle}, \quad
{\vertz\rangle} = \frac{\Omega}{\epsilon}({\vert1\rangle} + {\vert-1\rangle}) -{\vert0\rangle}.$$ On the other hand, when $\Omega\to\infty$ they are independent of the driving field amplitude and continuously approach the eigenstates of the $\hat F_x$ operator $${\vertx\rangle} = {\vert1\rangle} - {\vert-1\rangle}, \quad
{\verty\rangle} = {\vert1\rangle} + \sqrt 2 {\vert0\rangle} + {\vert-1\rangle}, \quad
{\verty\rangle} = {\vert1\rangle} - \sqrt 2 {\vert0\rangle} + {\vert-1\rangle}.$$ The states adiabatically map to the ${\vertm_F\rangle}$ states for $\Delta \gg \Omega$ as shown in [Fig. \[fig:s1\]]{}. For $\Delta/2\pi > \SI{200}{kHz}$ the [${\vertx,y,z\rangle}$]{}states are not yet fully deloaded to a single $m_F$ state since the population in other $m_F$ states is not negligible. ${\vertz\rangle}$ maps to ${\vert1\rangle}$ (${\vert-1\rangle}$) for positive (negative) detuning; ${\verty\rangle}$ maps in the exact opposite way to ${\vertz\rangle}$; and ${\vertx\rangle}$ always maps to ${\vert0\rangle}$.
Dependence on detuning
----------------------
For nonzero values of the detuning $\Delta$, the eigenvalues are the root of the characteristic cubic polynomial $H(\lambda)=\Delta^2\epsilon + (\Delta^2 + \Omega^2) \lambda - \epsilon \lambda^2 - \lambda^3$. The eigenvalues are even functions with respect to $\Delta$ as can be seen by the leading order expansion for $\Delta\to 0$ $$\begin{aligned}
\omega_x =& -\frac{\epsilon}{\Omega^2} \Delta^2 + \mathcal{O}(\Delta^4), \nonumber \\
\omega_y =& \frac 12 (-\epsilon + \tilde\Omega) - \frac{(\epsilon + \tilde\Omega)}{-\epsilon^2-4\Omega^2+\epsilon\tilde\Omega} \Delta^2 + \mathcal{O}(\Delta^4), \label{eq:exp} \\
\omega_z =& \frac 12 (-\epsilon - \tilde\Omega) + \frac{(\epsilon - \tilde\Omega)}{\epsilon^2+4\Omega^2+\epsilon\tilde\Omega} \Delta^2 + \mathcal{O}(\Delta^4). \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
hence their resemblance to clock states. We focused on the $zx$ transition since the curvature of $\omega_x$ and $\omega_z$ has the same sign for $\epsilon < \tilde \Omega$ ([Eq. \[eq:exp\]]{}). Since the quadratic term changes curvature it can be made arbitrarily small. However, this cancellation does not take place when we consider the dependence of $\epsilon$ on $\Delta$ from the Breit-Rabi expression.
Transition matrix elements
--------------------------
The [${\vertx,y,z\rangle}$]{}states transform under the application of the spin-1 operators as $\epsilon_{jkl}\hat F_j {\vertk\rangle}= i\hbar {\vertl\rangle}$, so that a resonant probe field can induce transitions between at least one pair of states, irrespectively of its polarization.
![Transition matrix elements over $\Omega$ and $\Delta$. There is an assymetry between coupling on the blue and red side of the resonance that corresponds to the counter- and co-rotating terms $\hat F_-$ and $\hat F_+$.[]{data-label="fig:s12"}](figS12)
The transition matrix elements between the [${\vertx,y,z\rangle}$]{}show a dependence on both $\Omega$ and $\Delta$ (see [Fig. \[fig:s12\]]{}). For $\Omega \ll \epsilon$ the matrix elements correspond to those of the ${\vertm_F\rangle}$ basis and $\langle x \vert \hat F_+ \vert y \rangle = 0$ as expected by angular momentum selection rules. When $\Omega$ and $\epsilon$ are comparable in magnitude al transition matrix elements are nonzero and the states can be coupled cyclically. As $\Omega \gg \epsilon$ the ${\vertz\rangle}$ and ${\verty\rangle}$ states decouple and the system resembles an ‘undressed basis’ following similar selection rules.
Optimal response to noise
-------------------------
The sensitivity of the $zx$ transition to detuning fluctuations can be optimized further by working at $\Delta \neq 0$ as shown in [Fig. \[fig:sopt\]]{}. This behavior can only be captured by including the dependence of the quadratic shift on $\Delta$ as given by the Breit-Rabi expression.
![Left: The optimum response (solid) of the $zx$ transition to detuning fluctuations allowing for finite $\Delta$ compared to $\Delta=0$ (dashed). Right: The values of $\Delta$ that correspond to the minimum derivative of $\omega_{zx}$.[]{data-label="fig:sopt"}](figS13)
For small values of $\Omega$ the optimum value of $\Delta$ corresponds to on of the concave features of the $zx$ transition energy that arise due to the asymmetry introduced by the quadratic shift. As $\Omega$ gets larger, these features merge into a single one and the optimum value is $\Delta \approx 0$. The deviation from $\Delta=0$ is due to an overall tilt of the transition energy coming from the dependence of the quadratic shift on $\Delta$. At the optimum point $\Omega/\epsilon \approx 3$ the sensitivity of the synthetic clock transition is , c.f, the [$^{87}$Rb]{}clock transition which scales as and gives .
Locating field resonance
========================
We used an iterative procedure to measure and adjust the value of the detuning $\Delta$ to account for the weak response of the [${\vertx,y,z\rangle}$]{}states to detuning variations. As most of our experiments were done at $\Delta=0$, we first obtained an estimate of $\Delta$ from the imbalance of ${\vert1\rangle}$ and ${\vert-1\rangle}$ populations from the decomposition of ${\vertz\rangle}$ which should be zero for $\Delta=0$ (see [Fig. \[fig:s1\]]{}). We then located the transition frequencies for at least two transitions (usually $zx$ and $zy$ as shown in [Fig. \[fig:s2\]]{}) using an ARP protocol as described in the main text and varying the frequency of the probe field. These frequencies correspond to a unique pair of $\Omega$ and $\vert\Delta\vert$ values which can then be used to adjust the bias magnetic field $B_0$ so that $\Delta=0$. However, there is an ambiguity as to the sign of $\Delta$ since the eigenstates are even functions of $\Delta$.
![Characteristic spectroscopy curves for the $zx$ (left) and $zy$ (middle) transitions. Two symmetric ARPs (right) define the resonant value of the magnetic field. The width of the peak gets smaller as $\Delta$ gets closer to the resonant value. Here $\Delta/2\pi=\SI{3}{kHz}$.[]{data-label="fig:s2"}](figS2)
We selected a direction randomly and subsequently verified if $\Delta=0$ using another set of spectroscopic measurement. We fixed the value of the probe field to be a few kHz above the transition frequency corresponding to $\Delta=0$ and used the same ARP sequence to transfer atoms from ${\vertz\rangle}$ to ${\vertx\rangle}$. This procedure gave two resonant values for $\Delta$ were atom transfer takes place, and the value where $\Delta=0$ corresponded to their mean (see [Fig. \[fig:s2\]]{}). Finally, we remeasured the $zx$ and $zy$ transition frequencies to validate that $\Delta=0$. For higher values of $\Omega_R$, using the $zx$ transition becomes impractical due to its insensitivity to detuning, and we followed the same procedure but using the $xy$ transition instead.
[^1]: Although the energies scale quadratically with detuning for $\Delta\ll\Omega$, they scale linearly for $\Delta\gg\Omega$ with a slope of .
[^2]: All uncertainties herein represent the uncorrelated combination of statistical and systematic errors.
[^3]: Our fourth order procedure is able to quantify even the small fluctuations that survive for spectra that are flat through third order, such as our idealized model in [Eq. \[eq:h\]]{}.
[^4]: The fluctuations can be even smaller for a given $\Omega$ when we are not constrained at $\Delta=0$ (see Supplemental Materials).
[^5]: We cancelled gradient magnetic fields so that no phase separation of the bare states was observed for $>\SI{10}{sec}$.
[^6]: For large enough values of $\Delta$ the $zx$ and $xy$ transition become degenerate in energy and the system resembles an $F=1$ ground state at low magnetic field. We chose the maximum value of $\Delta$ such that the population of , which maps to at large detuning, was negligible after deloading.
[^7]: In [Fig. \[fig:4\]]{}b, the noise in the $m_F$ basis in not Gaussian distributed as is typical of line noise in these experiments.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We give an elementary approach to proving the birationality of multiple Berglund-Hübsch-Krawitz (BHK) mirrors by using Shioda maps. We do this by creating a birational picture of the BHK correspondence in general. Although a similar result has been obtained in recent months by Shoemaker, our proof is new in that it sidesteps using toric geometry and drops an unnecessary hypothesis. We give an explicit quotient of a Fermat variety to which the mirrors are birational.'
address: 'Department of Mathematics, University of Pennsylvania, 209 S. 33rd St, Philadelphia, PA 19103'
author:
- 'Tyler L. Kelly'
date: 'April 11, 2013'
title: 'Berglund-Hübsch-Krawitz Mirrors via Shioda Maps'
---
[^1]
Introduction
============
The mirror symmetry conjecture predicts that for a Calabi-Yau variety, $M$, there exists another Calabi-Yau variety, $W$, so that various geometric and physical data is exchanged between $M$ and $W$. A classical relationship found between so-called mirror pairs is that on the level of cohomology $$H^{p,q}(M, {\mathbb{C}}) \cong H^{N-p,q}(W, {\mathbb{C}}),$$ provided that both Calabi-Yau varieties $M$ and $W$ are $N$-dimensional. In 1992, Berglund and Hübsch proposed such a mirror symmetry relationship between finite quotients of hypersurfaces in weighted projective $n$-space [@BH]. Suppose $F_A$ is a polynomial, $$F_A = \sum_{i=0}^n \prod_{j=0}^n x_j^{a_{ij}},$$ where $a_{ij} \in {\mathbb{N}}$, so that there exist positive integers $q_j$ and $d$ so that $\sum_{j} a_{ij} q_j=d$ for all $i$ ( i.e., $F_A$ is quasihomogeneous). The polynomial $F_A$ cuts out a hypersurface $X_A := Z(F_A) \subset W{\mathbb{P}}^n(q_0, \ldots, q_n)$ of dimension $N=n-1$. Further assume that this hypersurface is a quasi-smooth Calabi-Yau variety (the Calabi-Yau condition is equivalent to $\sum_i q_i = d$ and see Section 2 for details about the quasismooth condition). Greene and Plesser proposed a mirror to $X_A$ when the polynomial $F_A$ was Fermat [@GP]. Their proposed mirror for the hypersurface $X_A$ was a quotient of $X_A$ by all its phase symmetries of $X_A$ leaving the cohomology $H^{n,0}(X_A)$ invariant. The problem was that their proposal does not work well for the case when $X_A$ was not a Fermat hypersurface. Berglund and Hübsch proposed that the mirror of the hypersurface $X_A$ should relate to a hypersurface $X_{A^T}$ cut out by $$F_{A^T} = \sum_{i=0}^n \prod_{j=0}^n x_j^{a_{ji}}.$$ The hypersurface $X_{A^T}$ sits inside a different weighted-projective 4-space, $W{\mathbb{P}}^n(r_0, \ldots, r_n)$. Berglund and Hübsch proposed that the mirror of $X_A$ should be a quotient of this new hypersurface $X_{A^T}$ by a suitable subgroup $P$ of the phase symmetries. In several examples, they showed that $X_A$ and $X_{A^T}/P$ satisfy the classical mirror symmetry relation in that $$h^{p,q} (X_A, {\mathbb{C}}) = h^{n-1-p, q} (X_{A^T}/P, {\mathbb{C}}).$$
This proposal fell out of favor when Batyrev and Borisov developed the powerful toric approach (see [@Ba], [@BB1], and [@BB2]). In the 2000s, Krawitz revived Berglund and Hübsch’s proposal by giving a rigorous mathematical description of their mirror and proving a mirror symmetry theorem on the level of Frobenius algebra structures [@Kr].
Krawitz also generalized the Berglund-Hübsch mirror proposal by introducing the notion of a dual group: We start with a polynomial $F_A$. Consider the group $SL(F_A)$ of phase symmetries of $F_A$ leaving $H^{n,0}(X_A)$ invariant. Define the subgroup $J_{F_A}$ of $SL(F_A)$ to be the group consisting of the phase symmetries induced by the ${\mathbb{C}}^*$ action on weighted-projective space (so that all elements of $J_{F_A}$ act trivially on the weighted-projective space). Take the group $G$ to be some subgroup of $SL(F_A)$ containing $J_{F_A}$, i.e., $J_{F_A} \subseteq G \subseteq SL(F_A)$. We obtain a Calabi-Yau orbifold $Z_{A,G} := X_A/ \tilde G$ where $\tilde G := G/J_{F_A}$. Consider the analogous groups $SL(F_{A^T})$ and $J_{F_{A^T}}$ for the polynomial $F_{A^T}$. Krawitz defined the dual group $G^T$ relative to $G$ so that $J_{F_{A^T}} \subseteq G^T\subseteq SL(F_{A^T})$. For precise definitions of these groups, we direct the reader to Section 2. Take the quotient $\tilde G^T:= G^T/ J_{F_{A^T}}$. The Berglund-Hübsch-Krawitz mirror to the orbifold $Z_{A,G} $ is the orbifold $Z_{A^T,G^T} := X_{A^T}/ \tilde G^T$. Chiodo and Ruan proved the classical mirror symmetry statement for the mirror pair $Z_{A,G}$ and $Z_{A^T,G^T}$ is satisfied on the level of Chen-Ruan cohomology [@CR]: $$H^{p,q}_{\text{CR}} ( Z_{A,G} , {\mathbb{C}}) \cong H^{n-1-p,q}_{\text{CR}}(Z_{A^T, G^T}, {\mathbb{C}}).$$
One can compare the mirrors found in Berglund-Hübsch-Krawitz (BHK) mirror duality to the mirrors of Batyrev and Borisov. In Batyrev-Borisov mirror symmetry, a family of Calabi-Yau hypersurfaces in one toric variety all have mirrors that live inside a family of hypersurfaces in a different toric variety. A feature of BHK mirror symmetry is that it proposes possibly distinct mirrors of isolated points of the family in the Calabi-Yau moduli space–not mirrors of families like the work of Batyrev and Borisov. These BHK mirrors of the isolated points may not live in the same family. Suppose one starts with two quasihomogeneous potentials $F_A$ and $F_{A'}$ $$F_A = \sum_{i=0}^n \prod_{j=0}^n x_j^{a_{ij}}; \qquad F_{A'} = \sum_{i=0}^n \prod_{j=0}^n x_j^{a_{ij}'}.$$ Assume that there exist positive integers $q_i, q_i'$ so that $X_A = Z(F_A) \subseteq W{\mathbb{P}}^n(q_0, \ldots, q_n)$ and $X_{A'} = Z(F_{A'}) \subseteq W{\mathbb{P}}^n(q_0', \ldots, q_n')$ and that $X_A$ and $X_{A'}$ are Calabi-Yau. Take $G$ and $G'$ to be subgroups of the group of phase symmetries that leave the respective cohomologies $H^{n,0}(X_A, {\mathbb{C}})$ and $H^{n,0}(X_{A'},{\mathbb{C}})$ to be invariant. We obtain two Calabi-Yau orbifolds $Z_{A,G}$ and $Z_{A', G'}$. One can find examples $Z_{A, G}$ and $Z_{A', G'}$ in the same family where their BHK mirrors $Z_{A^T, G^T}$ and $Z_{(A')^T, (G')^T}$ will be quotients of hypersurfaces in different weighted-projective spaces. See Section 5 for an explicit example.
Since the mirrors proposed by BHK and Batyrev-Borisov mirror symmetry are different, we ask the question of how we can relate them. Iritani suggested to look at the birational geometry of the mirrors $Z_{A^T, G^T}$ and $Z_{(A')^T, (G')^T}$. Shoemaker proved that when the hypersurfaces $X_A$ and $X_{A'}$ are in the same weighted-projective space and the groups $G$ and $G'$ are equal, then the BHK mirrors $Z_{A^T, G^T}$ and $Z_{(A')^T, (G')^T}$ are birational. He proves this claim by using a reinterpretation of BHK duality into toric language [@Sho]. In this paper, we drop one of these hypotheses and prove the following theorem.
\[main\] Let $Z_{A,G}$ and $Z_{A',G'}$ be Calabi-Yau orbifolds as above. If the groups $G$ and $G'$ are equal, then the BHK mirrors $Z_{A^T, G^T}$ and $Z_{(A')^T, (G')^T}$ of these orbifolds are birational.
This theorem drops a hypothesis from Shoemaker’s theorem in that the hypersurfaces $X_A$ and $X_{A'}$ need not be in the same weighted-projective space. It is unclear if this is a strict generalization of Shoemaker’s result as no examples of a common group of phase symmetries $G$ are known when $X_A$ and $X_{A'}$ are hypersurfaces in different weighted-projective spaces; however, the proof we present is novel in that it does not use any toric geometry but rather uses rational maps known as Shioda maps. Using Shioda maps, we show that the Calabi-Yau orbifolds $Z_{A,G}$, $Z_{A',G'}$, $Z_{A^T, G^T}$, and $Z_{(A')^T, (G')^T}$ are all birational to different finite group quotients of a Fermat variety in projective space ${\mathbb{P}}^n$. In the case where the group $G$ equals $G'$, we see that the mirrors $Z_{A^T, G^T}$ and $Z_{(A')^T, (G')^T}$ are birational to the same quotient of the Fermat variety.
Originally, Shioda used these maps to compute Picard numbers of Delsarte surfaces in [@Shi]. These maps entered the multiple mirror literature in [@BvGK] where they were generalized and then used to investigate Picard-Fuchs equations of different pencils of quintics in ${\mathbb{P}}^4$. The Shioda maps were then further generalized to look at GKZ hypergeometric systems for certain families of Calabi-Yau varieties in weighted-projective space in [@Bi]. This paper provides a more concrete description of how Shioda maps relate to BHK mirror symmetry than the previous two papers, and explains the groups used in the theorems of [@BvGK] and [@Bi] in the context of BHK mirrors (see Section 3.2). In future work, this framework will be used to probe Kähler moduli space of the Calabi-Yau orbifolds.
[**Organization of the Paper.**]{} In Section 2, we review the BHK mirror construction and the results of Chiodo and Ruan. In Section 3, we use the Shioda map to discuss the birational geometry of the BHK mirrors and the groups involved in [@BvGK] and [@Bi]. We then show the birationality of the Calabi-Yau orbifolds $Z_{A,G}$ and $Z_{A^T, G^T}$ to finite quotients of a Fermat variety in projective space. In Section 4, we use the results found in Section 3 to prove Theorem \[main\]. Section 5 concludes the paper by giving an explicit example where we take two Calabi-Yau orbifolds and show that their BHK mirrors are hypersurfaces of different quotients of weighted projective spaces. We then show that the BHK mirrors provided in the example are birational.
[**Acknowledgments.**]{} The author would like to thank Charles Siegel, Ting Chen, Alberto García-Raboso, Antonella Grassi, and Tony Pantev for their enlightening conversations on the subject. He would like to give special thanks to his advisor, Ron Donagi, for the support, mentoring, conversations and introducing him to the Berglund-Hübsch literature. This work was done under the support of a National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship.
Berglund-Hübsch-Krawitz Duality
===============================
We start with a matrix $A$ with nonnegative integer entries $(a_{ij})_{i,j=0}^n$. Define a polynomial $$F_A = \sum_{i=0}^n \prod_{j=0}^n x_j^{a_{ij}}$$ and impose the following conditions:
1. the matrix $A$ is invertible;
2. the polynomial $F_A$ is quasihomogeneous, i.e., there exist positive integers $q_j, d$ so that $$\sum_{j=0}^n a_{ij} q_j = d,$$ for all $i$; and
3. the polynomial $F_A$ is a non-degenerate potential away from the origin, i.e., we are assuming that, when viewing $F_A$ as a polynomial in ${\mathbb{C}}^{n+1}$, $Z(F_A)$ has exactly one singular point (at the origin).
These conditions are restrictive. By Theorem 1 of [@KS], there is a classification of such polynomials. That is, $F_A$ can be written as a sum of invertible potentials, each of which must be of one of the three so-called *atomic types*:
$$\begin{aligned}
W_{\text{Fermat}} &:= x^a, \\
W_{\text{loop}} &:= x_1^{a_1}x_2 + x_2^{a_2}x_3 + \ldots +x_{m-1}^{a_{m-1}}x_m + x_m^{a_m}x_1, \text{ and } \\
W_{\text{chain}} &:=x_1^{a_1}x_2 + x_2^{a_2}x_3 + \ldots x_{m-1}^{a_{m-1}}x_m + x_m^{a_m}.
\end{aligned}$$
Using Condition (1), we define the matrix $B = dA^{-1}$, where $d$ is a positive integer so that all the entries of $B$ are integers (note that $d$ is not necessarily the smallest such $d$). Take $e := (1, \ldots, 1)^T \in {\mathbb{R}}^n$ and $$q := Be\text{, i.e., }q_i = \sum_j b_{ij}.$$ Then the polynomial $F_A$ defines a zero locus $X_A = Z(F_A) \subseteq W{\mathbb{P}}^n(q_0, \ldots, q_n)$. Indeed, with these weights, the polynomial $F_A$ is quasihomogeneous: each monomial in $F_A$ has degree $\sum_{j=0}^n a_{ij}q_j = d$, as $Aq = ABe = de$. Condition (2) above is used to ensure that each integer $q_i$ is positive.
Assume further that $\sum_i q_i = d$ is the degree of the polynomial, which implies that the hypersurface $X_A$ is a Calabi-Yau variety. Define $\text{Sing}(V)$ to be the singular locus of any variety $V$, we say the hypersurface $X_A$ is quasi-smooth if $\text{Sing}(X_A) \subseteq \text{Sing}(W{\mathbb{P}}^n(q_0,\ldots, q_n)) \cap X_A$. Condition (3) above implies that our hypersurface $X_A$ is quasi-smooth. We remark that Condition (1) is used once again when we introduce the BHK mirror in Section 2.2: it ensures that the matrix $A^T$ is a matrix of exponents of a polynomial with $n+1$ monomials and $n+1$ variables.
Group of Diagonal Automorphisms
-------------------------------
Let us discuss the groups of symmetries of the Calabi-Yau variety $X_{F_A}$. Firstly, consider the scaling automorphisms of ${\mathbb{C}}^{n+1} \setminus \{0\}$, $n\geq 2$. There is a subgroup, $({\mathbb{C}}^*)^{n+1}$, of the automorphisms of ${\mathbb{C}}^{n+1} \setminus \{0\}$. Explicitly, an element $ (\lambda_0,\ldots, \lambda_n) \in ({\mathbb{C}}^*)^{n+1}$ acts on any element $\mathbf{x} = (x_0,\ldots, x_n) \in {\mathbb{C}}^{n+1} \setminus \{0\}$ by: $$(\lambda_0,\ldots, \lambda_n) \times (x_0,\ldots, x_n) \longmapsto (\lambda_0x_0,\ldots, \lambda_n x_n).$$ We view the weighted projective $n$-space $W{\mathbb{P}}^{n}(q_0,\ldots, q_n)$ as a quotient of ${\mathbb{C}}^{n+1}\setminus \{0\}$ by a subgroup ${\mathbb{C}}^* \subset ({\mathbb{C}}^*)^{n+1}$ consisting of the elements that can be written $(\lambda^{q_0/d}, \ldots, \lambda^{q_n/d}) $ for some $\lambda \in {\mathbb{C}}^*$.
Moreover, there is a second subgroup of $({\mathbb{C}}^*)^{n+1}$, denoted ${\text{Aut}}(F_A)$, which can be defined as $${\text{Aut}}(F_A) := \{ (\lambda_0, \ldots, \lambda_n) \in ({\mathbb{C}}^*)^{n+1} | F_A(\lambda_0 x_0, \ldots, \lambda_n x_n) = F_A(x_0, \ldots, x_n)\text{ for all } (x_0,\ldots, x_n)\}.$$ This group is sometimes referred to as the group of diagonal automorphisms or the group of scaling symmetries. Note that for $(\lambda_0,\ldots, \lambda_n)$ to be an element of ${\text{Aut}}(F_A)$, each monomial $\prod_{j=0}^n x_j^{a_{ij}}$ must be invariant under the action of $(\lambda_0, \ldots, \lambda_n)$.
Using the classification of Kreuzer and Skarke (see Remark 2.1), we can see that for any polynomial of one of the atomic types that each $\lambda_i$ must have modulus 1. If the polynomial $F_A$ is of fermat-type, then $\lambda^ax^a = x^a$ hence $\lambda^a = 1$. If $F_A$ is of loop-type, then $\lambda_i^{a_i}\lambda_{i+1} = 1$ for all $i < a_m$, hence $\lambda_{i+1} = \lambda_i^{-a_i}$. Moreover, $\lambda_m^{a_m} \lambda_1 = 1$ hence $\lambda_1 = \lambda_m^{-a_m} = \lambda_{m-1}^{a_ma_{m-1}} = \cdots = \lambda_1^{(-1)^ma_1\cdots a_m}$. If $|\lambda| \neq 1$ then $(-1)^m a_1\ldots a_m = 1$. This would require $m$ to be even and $a_i$ to be $1$ for all $i$. However, then the degree of the polynomial, $d$, must be $q_1 + q_2$; however $d = \sum_{i=0}^n q_i$, $n \geq 2$, and $q_i >0$, hence a contradiction is reached. Lastly, if $F_A$ is of chain-type, $\lambda_m^{a_m}x_m^{a_m} = x_m^{a_m}$, hence $|\lambda_m|^{a_m} = 1$. This implies that $|\lambda_{m-1}^{a_{m-1}}\lambda_m| = |\lambda_{m-1}^{a_{m-1}}| = 1$, and so on, hence $|\lambda_i| = 1$. Any polynomial that is a combination of such types has an analogous argument.
Since each $\lambda_i$ can be written as $e^{i\theta_i}$, for some $\theta_i \in {\mathbb{R}}$, we can then see that $(\lambda_0,\ldots, \lambda_n) \in {\text{Aut}}(F_A)$ if and only if we have that $\prod_{j=0}^n e^{ia_{ij}\theta_j} = 1$ for all $i$. The map $(\lambda_0, \ldots, \lambda_n) \mapsto (\frac{1}{2\pi i} \log (\lambda_0), \ldots, \frac{1}{2\pi i} \log(\lambda_n))$ induces an isomorphism $$\label{autisom}
{\text{Aut}}(F_A) \cong \left\{ (z_0,\ldots, z_n) \in ({\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}})^n\text{ } \middle| \text{ }A \left(\begin{array}{c}z_0 \\ \vdots \\ z_n\end{array}\right) \in {\mathbb{Z}}^{n+1} \right\}.$$ We then observe that we can describe ${\text{Aut}}(F_A)$ as being generated by the elements $$\rho_i = (e^{2\pi i b_{0i}/d}, \ldots, e^{2\pi b_{ni}/d}) \in ({\mathbb{C}}^*)^{n+1}.$$ Moreover, there is a characterization by Artebani, Boissière, and Sarti of the group ${\text{Aut}}(F_A)$ (Proposition 2 of [@ABS]):
$\emph{Aut}(F_A)$ is a finite abelian group of order $|\det A|$. If we think of $F_A$ as a sum of atomic types, $F_{A_1}(x_0, \ldots, x_{i_1}) + \ldots + F_{A_k}(x_{i_{k-1}+1}, \ldots, x_n)$, then we may characterize the elements of $\emph{Aut}(F_A)$ as being the product of the $k$ groups $\emph{Aut}(F_{A_i})$. The groups $\emph{Aut}(F_{A_i})$ are determined based on the atomic types:
1. For a summand of Fermat type $W_{\text{Fermat}} = x^a$, the group $\emph{Aut}(W_{\text{Fermat}})$ is isomorphic to ${\mathbb{Z}}/a{\mathbb{Z}}$ and generated by $\varphi = e^{2\pi i / a} \in {\mathbb{C}}^*$.
2. For a summand of loop type $W_{\text{loop}} = x_1^{a_1}x_2 + x_2^{a_2}x_3 + \ldots +x_{m-1}^{a_{m-1}}x_m + x_m^{a_m}x_1$, the group $\emph{Aut}(W_{\text{loop}})$ is isomorphic to $ {\mathbb{Z}}/ \Gamma{\mathbb{Z}}$ where $\Gamma =a_1\cdots a_m + (-1)^{m+1}$ and generated by $(\varphi_1, \ldots, \varphi_m)\in ({\mathbb{C}}^*)^m$, where $$\varphi_1 : = e^{2\pi i (-1)^m/\Gamma}, \text{ and } \varphi_i : = e^{2\pi i (-1)^{m+1-i} a_1\cdots a_{i-1}/ \Gamma}, i \geq 2.$$
3. For a summand of chain type, $W_{\text{chain}} = x_1^{a_1}x_2 + x_2^{a_2}x_3 + \ldots x_{m-1}^{a_{m-1}}x_m + x_m^{a_m}$, the group $\emph{Aut}(W_{\text{chain}} )$ is isomorphic to $ {\mathbb{Z}}/ (a_1 \cdots a_m) {\mathbb{Z}}$, and generated by $(\varphi_1, \ldots, \varphi_m) \in ({\mathbb{C}}^*)^m$, where $$\varphi_i = e^{2\pi i (-1)^{m+i}/a_i\cdots a_m}.$$
Note that there is some overlap in the subgroups of $({\mathbb{C}}^*)^{n+1}$. Let $J_{F_A}:= {\text{Aut}}(F_A) \cap {\mathbb{C}}^*$. The group $J_{F_A}$ is generated by $(e^{2\pi i q_0/d}, \ldots, e^{2\pi i q_n/d})$, which is clearly in ${\text{Aut}}(F_A)$ because $\sum_{j=0}^n a_{ij}q_j = d$ and the alternate description provided by the isomorphism above in Equation \[autisom\] (moreover, $(e^{2\pi i q_0/d}, \ldots, e^{2\pi i q_n/d}) = \prod_{i=0}^n \rho_i \in {\text{Aut}}(F_A)$).
We now introduce the group $$SL(F_A) := \left\{ (\lambda_0, \ldots, \lambda_n) \in {\text{Aut}}(F_A) \middle| \prod_{j=0}^n \lambda_j = 1\right\}.$$ The group $J_{F_A}$ is a subgroup of $SL(F_A)$ as a generator of $J_{F_A}$ is the element $(e^{2\pi i q_j/d})_j$ and $\prod_j e^{2\pi i q_j / d} = e^{\frac{2\pi i}{d} \sum_j q_j} = 1$. Fix a group $G$ so that $J_{F_A} \subseteq G \subseteq SL(F_A)$ and put $\tilde G := G/ J_{F_A}$. To help summarize, we have the following diagram of groups:
Consider the Calabi-Yau orbifold, $Z_{A,G} : = X_{F_A}/\tilde G\subset W{\mathbb{P}}^n(q_0, \ldots, q_n) / \tilde G$. We now will describe the Berglund-Hübsch-Krawitz mirror to it.
The Berglund-Hübsch-Krawitz Mirror
----------------------------------
In this section, we construct the BHK mirror to the Calabi-Yau orbifold $Z_{A,G}$ defined above. Take the polynomial $$F_{A^T} = \sum_{i=0}^n \prod_{j=0}^n X_j^{a_{ji}}.$$ It is quasihomogeneous because there exist positive integers $r_i :=\sum_j b_{ji}$ so that $$F_{A^T}(\lambda^{r_0} X_0 , \ldots, \lambda^{r_n} X_n) = \lambda^{d}F_{A^T}(X_0 , \ldots, X_n).$$ Note that the polynomial $F_{A^T}$ cuts out a well-defined Calabi-Yau hypersurface $X_{A^T} \subseteq W{\mathbb{P}}^n(r_0, \ldots, r_n)$. Define the diagonal automorphism group, ${\text{Aut}}(F_{A^T})$, analogously to ${\text{Aut}}(F_A)$. By the analogous isomorphism to that in Equation \[autisom\], the group ${\text{Aut}}(F_{A^T})$ is generated by $\rho_i^T := {\text{diag}}(e^{2\pi i b_{ij}/d})_{j=0}^n \in ({\mathbb{C}}^*)^{n+1}$. Define the dual group $G^T$ relative to $G$ to be $$G^T : = \left\{\prod_{i=0}^n (\rho_i^T)^{s_i} \middle| s_i \in {\mathbb{Z}}, \text{ where }\prod_{i=0}^n x_i^{s_i} \text{ is $G$-invariant}\right\} \subseteq {\text{Aut}}(F_{A^T}).$$
If the group $G$ is a subgroup of $SL(F_A)$, then the dual group $G^T$ contains the group $J_{F_{A^T}}$.
It is sufficient to show that the element $\prod_{j=0}^n \rho_j^T$ is in the dual group $G^T$. This is equivalent to $\prod_{j=0}^n x_j$ to be $G$-invariant. Any element $(\lambda_0, \ldots, \lambda_n)$ of $G$ acts on the monomial $\prod_{j=0}^n x_j$ by $\prod_{j=0}^n \lambda_j = 1$ (as $G\subseteq SL(F_A)$).
If the group $G$ contains $J_{F_A}$, then the dual group $G^T$ is contained in $SL(F_{A^T})$.
The proof of this lemma is analogous to the lemma above. As the dual group $G^T$ sits between $J_{F_{A^T}}$ and $SL(F_{A^T})$, define the group $\tilde G^T : = G^T/ J_{F_{A^T}}$. We have a well-defined Calabi-Yau orbifold $Z_{A^T, G^T} := X_{A^T}/ \tilde G^T \subset W{\mathbb{P}}^n(r_0, \ldots, r_n)/\tilde G^T$. The Calabi-Yau orbifold $Z_{A^T, G^T}$ is the BHK mirror to $Z_{A,G}$.
Classical Mirror Symmetry for BHK Mirrors
-----------------------------------------
In this section, we summarize some results of Chiodo and Ruan for BHK mirrors. This section is based on Section 3.2 of [@CR]. We recommend the exposition there. Recall that we can view the weighted projective $n$-space $W{\mathbb{P}}^n(q_0,\ldots, q_n)$ as a stack $$\left[ {\mathbb{C}}^{n+1} \setminus \{0\} / {\mathbb{C}}^*\right]$$ where a group element $\lambda$ of the torus ${\mathbb{C}}^*$ acts by $$\lambda \cdot (x_0, \ldots, x_n) = (\lambda^{q_0} x_0, \ldots, \lambda^{q_n} x_n).$$ The quotient stack $W{\mathbb{P}}^n(q_0, \ldots, q_n)/ \tilde G$ is equivalent to the stack $$\left[{\mathbb{C}}^{n+1}\setminus\{0\} / G{\mathbb{C}}^*\right]$$ so we can view the Calabi-Yau orbifold $Z_{A, G}$ as the (smooth) DM stack $$[Z_{A,G}] : = \left[ \left\{ x \in {\mathbb{C}}^{n+1} \setminus \{0\} | F_A(x) = 0\right\} /G{\mathbb{C}}^*\right] \subseteq \left[{\mathbb{C}}^{n+1}\setminus\{0\} / G{\mathbb{C}}^*\right].$$ We now review the Chen-Ruan orbifold cohomology for such a stack. Intuitively speaking, it consists of a direct sum over all elements of $G{\mathbb{C}}^*$ of $G$-invariant cohomology of the fixed loci of each element.
If $\gamma$ is an element of $G{\mathbb{C}}^*$, take the fixed loci $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb{C}}_\gamma^{n+1}:&= \{ \mathbf{x} \in {\mathbb{C}}^{n+1}\setminus \{0\} | \gamma \cdot\mathbf{x} = \mathbf{x}\};\text{ and } \\ X_A^\gamma :&= \{ F_A|_{{\mathbb{C}}_\gamma^{n+1}} = 0\} \subset {\mathbb{C}}_\gamma^{n+1}.
\end{aligned}$$
Fix a point $\mathbf{x} \in X_A^\gamma$. The action of $\gamma$ on the tangent space $T_{\mathbf{x}}(\{F_A = 0\})$ can be written as a diagonal matrix (when written with respect to a certain basis), $\Lambda_\gamma = {\text{diag}}(e^{2\pi i a_1^\gamma}, \ldots, e^{2\pi i a_{n}^\gamma})$, for some real numbers $a_i^\gamma \in [0,1)$. We then define the *age shift* of $\gamma$, $$a(\gamma) := \frac{1}{2\pi i} \log(\det \Lambda_\gamma) = \sum_{j=1}^n a_j^\gamma.$$ We now may define the bigraded Chen-Ruan orbifold cohomology as a direct sum of twisted sector ordinary cohomology groups: $$H^{p,q}_{\text{CR}} ( [Z_{A,G}], {\mathbb{C}}) = \bigoplus_{\gamma \in G{\mathbb{C}}^*} H^{p-a(\gamma), q-a(\gamma)}( X_A^\gamma / G{\mathbb{C}}^*, {\mathbb{C}}).$$ The degree $d$ Chen-Ruan orbifold cohomology is defined to be the direct sum $$H^d_{\text{CR}} \left( [Z_{A,G}], {\mathbb{C}}\right) = \bigoplus_{p+q=d} H^{p,q}_{\text{CR}} ( [Z_{A,G}], {\mathbb{C}}) .$$
Continue to assume that the group $G$ contains $J_{F_A}$ and is a subgroup of $SL(F_A)$ and the hypersurface $X_A$ is Calabi-Yau. Chiodo and Ruan prove:
Given the Calabi-Yau orbifold $Z_{A,G}$ and its BHK mirror $Z_{A^T, G^T}$ as above, one has the standard relationship between the Hodge diamonds of mirror pairs on the level of the Chen-Ruan cohomology of the orbifolds: $$H^{p,q}_{\text{CR}} ( [Z_{A,G}], {\mathbb{C}}) \cong H^{n-1-p,q}_{\text{CR}}([Z_{A^T,G^T}], {\mathbb{C}}).$$
This is a classical mirror symmetry theorem for such orbifolds. We remark that in the case of orbifolds the dimension of the bigraded Chen-Ruan orbifold cohomology vector spaces and stringy Hodge numbers agree. Moreover, we have:
Suppose both Calabi-Yau orbifolds $Z_{A,G}$ and $Z_{A^T,G^T}$ admit smooth crepant resolutions $M$ and $W$ respectively, then we have the equality $$h^{p,q}(M, {\mathbb{C}}) = h^{n-1-p,q}(W, {\mathbb{C}}),$$ where $h^{p,q}$ is the ordinary $(p,q)$ Hodge number.
The Shioda Map and BHK Mirrors
==============================
We now introduce the Shioda map and relate it to BHK mirrors. Recall the hypersurfaces $X_A$ and $X_{A^T}$ as above. Define the matrix $B$ to be $ dA^{-1}$ where $d$ is a positive integer so that $B$ has only integer entries. The Shioda maps are the rational maps $$\begin{aligned}
\phi_B: {\mathbb{P}}^n \dashrightarrow W{\mathbb{P}}^n(q_0,\ldots, q_n),\text{ and } \\
\phi_{B^T}: {\mathbb{P}}^n \dashrightarrow W{\mathbb{P}}^n(r_0,\ldots, r_n),
\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
(y_0: \ldots:y_n) &\stackrel{\phi_B}{\mapsto} (x_0:\ldots: x_n), \quad x_j = \prod_{k=0}^n y_k^{b_{jk}}, \text{ and }\\
(y_0: \ldots:y_n) &\stackrel{\phi_{B^T}}{\mapsto} (X_0:\ldots: X_n), \quad X_j = \prod_{k=0}^n y_k^{b_{kj}}.
\end{aligned}$$
Consider the polynomial $$F_{dI} : = \sum_{i=0}^n y_i^d$$ and the Fermat hypersurface cut out by it, $X_{dI} := Z(F_{dI}) \subset {\mathbb{P}}^n$. Note that the Shioda maps above restrict to rational maps $X_{dI} \stackrel{\phi_B}{\dashrightarrow} X_A$ and $X_{dI} \stackrel{\phi_B}{\dashrightarrow} X_{A^T}$, respectively, allowing us to obtain the diagram: $$\xymatrix{ & X_{dI} \ar@{-->}[dl]_{\phi_B} \ar@{-->}[dr]^{\phi_{B^T}} & \\
X_A && X_{A^T} }$$
We now reinterpret the groups $G$ and $G^T$ in the context of the Shioda map. Any element of ${\text{Aut}}(F_{dI})$ is of the form $g=(e^{2\pi i h_j/d})_j$, for some integers $h_j$. When we push forward the action of $g$ via $\phi_B$, we obtain the diagonal automorphism $$(\phi_B)_*(g) : = (e^{{\frac{2\pi i }{d} \sum_{j=0}^n b_{ij}h_j}})_i \in {\text{Aut}}(F_A).$$ The element $(\phi_B)_*(g)$ is a generic element of ${\text{Aut}}(F_{A})$, namely $\prod_{j=0}^n \rho_j^{h_j} $. We turn our attention to describing the dual group $G^T$ to $G$. If we push the element $g^T:= (e^{2\pi i s_i/d})_i \in {\text{Aut}}(F_{dI})$ down via the map $\phi_{B^T}$, then we get the action $$(\phi_{B^T})_*(g^T) =(e^{\frac{2\pi i }{d} \sum_{i=0}^n s_i b_{ij}})_j= \prod_{i=1}^n (\rho^T_i)^{s_i} .$$
In other words, we have (surjective) group homomorphisms $$\begin{aligned}
(\phi_B)_*&: {\text{Aut}}(F_{dI}) \rightarrow {\text{Aut}}(F_A);\text{ and }\\
(\phi_{B^T})_*&: {\text{Aut}}(F_{dI}) \rightarrow {\text{Aut}}(F_{A^T}).
\end{aligned}$$
This gives us a new interpretation of the choice of groups $G$ and $G^T$: both are pushforwards of subgroups of ${\text{Aut}}(F_{dI})$ via the Shioda maps $\phi_B$ and $\phi_{B^T}$, respectively.
Reinterpretation of the Dual Group
----------------------------------
We now reformulate the relationship between the groups $G$ and $G^T$ via a bilinear pairing. Consider the map $$\langle , \rangle_B: {\mathbb{Z}}^{n+1} \times {\mathbb{Z}}^{n+1} \longrightarrow {\mathbb{Z}}$$ where $\langle \mathbf{s}, \mathbf{h}\rangle_B := \mathbf{s}^T B \mathbf{h}$. Choose a subgroup $G\subset {\text{Aut}}(F_A)$, so that $J_{F_A} \subseteq G$. Then set $H : = ((\phi_B)_*)^{-1}(G)$. Note that the map $(h_j)_j \mapsto (e^{2\pi i h_j / d})_j$ induces a natural, surjective group homomorphism $${\mathbb{Z}}^{n+1} \stackrel{pr}{\rightarrow} {\text{Aut}}(F_{dI}).$$ Take $\tilde H$ to be the inverse image $\tilde H:= pr^{-1}(H)$ of $H$ under this map. We can then define the subgroup $\tilde H^{\perp_B} \subseteq {\mathbb{Z}}^{n+1}$ to be $$\tilde H^{\perp_B} := \left\{ \mathbf{s} \in {\mathbb{Z}}^{n+1} \middle| \langle \mathbf{s}, \mathbf{h}\rangle_B \in d{\mathbb{Z}}\text{ for all } \mathbf{h} \in \tilde H\right\}.$$ Define $H^{\perp_B}$ to be the image of $\tilde H^{\perp_B}$ under $pr$, $pr(\tilde H^{\perp_B})$.
We remark that it is clear that the group $J_{F_{dI}}$ is contained by $H$ as $(\phi_B)_*(e^{2\pi i / d}, \ldots, e^{2\pi i/d}) = \prod_j \rho_j$ is a generator of $ J_{F_A}$.
We have assumed that the group $G$ is a subgroup of $SL(F_A)$. This requires that, for all group elements $\mathbf{h} = (h_k)_k \in \tilde H$, the product $\prod_{j=0}^ne^{\frac{2\pi i }{d} \sum_{k} b_{jk} h_k}$ equals $1$. This implies that the sum $\sum_{j,k = 0}^n b_{jk}h_k$ is an integer divisible by $d$; therefore, $(1,\ldots, 1) \in \tilde H^{\perp_B}$. So, its image $pr(1,\ldots, 1)$ must be in $H^{\perp_B}$. The element $pr(1,\ldots, 1) = (e^{2\pi i/d}, \ldots, e^{2\pi i/d})$ is a generator of the group $J_{F_{dI}}$, hence $H^{\perp_B}$ contains $J_{F_{dI}}$.
Moreover, if one unravels all the definitions, one can see that $(\phi_{B^T})_*(H^{\perp_B}) = G^T$. In order for a monomial $\prod_{i=0}^n x_i^{s_i}$ to be $G$-invariant, we will need, for any $\prod_{i=1}^n \rho_i^{h_i} =(e^{{\frac{2\pi i }{d} \sum_{i=0}^n b_{ij}h_j}})_i \in G$, that $\prod_{i=0}^n x_i^{s_i} = \prod_{i=0}^n (e^{{\frac{2\pi i }{d} \sum_{i=0}^n b_{ij}h_j}} x_i)^{s_i}$. This is equivalent to $\sum_{i,j} s_ib_{ij}h_j$ being a multiple of $d$.
Birational Geometry of BHK Mirrors
----------------------------------
We now give a Theorem of Bini, written in our notation (Theorem 3.1 of [@Bi]):
Let all the notation be as above. Then the hypersurfaces $X_A$ and $X_{A^T}$ are birational to the quotients of the Fermat variety $X_{dI}/ (((\phi_B)_*)^{-1}(J_{F_A})/J_{F_{dI}})$ and $X_{dI}/ (((\phi_{B^T})_*)^{-1}(J_{F_{A^T}})/J_{F_{dI}})$, respectively.
We now give a few comments about the proof of the above theorem. It is proven via composing $\phi_B$ with the map $$\begin{aligned}
q_A : W{\mathbb{P}}^n(q_0, \ldots, q_n) &\dashrightarrow {\mathbb{P}}^{n+1};\\
(x_0:\ldots: x_n) &\longmapsto \left(\prod_j x_j : \prod_j x_j^{a_{1j}}:\ldots:\prod_j x_j^{a_{nj}}\right).
\end{aligned}$$ Note that the composition $q_A \circ \phi_B: X_{dI} \dashrightarrow {\mathbb{P}}^{n+1}$ gives the map $$(y_0:\ldots:y_n) \longmapsto \left(\prod_j y_j^{q_j'}: y_1^d:\ldots: y_n^d\right).$$ Letting $m = \gcd(d, q_1', \ldots, q_n')$, we describe the closure of the image as $$\overline{M_A} := Z\left(\sum_{i=1}^n u_i, u_0^{d/m} = \prod_{i=1}^n u_i^{q_i'/m}\right) \subset {\mathbb{P}}^{n+1}.$$ Bini then proves that the map $q_A\circ\phi_B$ is birational to a quotient map, which in our notation implies the birational equivalence $$\overline{M_A} \simeq X_{dI} / (\phi_B^{-1}(SL(F_A))/ J_{F_{dI}}).$$
Bini then refers the reader to the proof of Theorem 2.6 in [@BvGK] to see why the other two maps are birational to quotient maps as well. Note that Bini requires $d$ to be the smallest positive integer so that $dA^{-1}$ is an integral matrix, but the requirement that $d$ is the smallest such integer is unnecessary. One can just use the first part of Theorem 2.6 of [@BvGK] to eliminate this hypothesis.
An upshot of this reinterpretation of the theorem is that the mirror statement of BHK duality is a relation of two orbifolds birational to different orbifold quotients of the same Fermat hypersurface in projective space. Namely, $X_A/ \tilde G$ is birational to $X_{dI}/ ( ((\phi_B)_*)^{-1}(J_{F_A})+ H/J_{F_{dI}})$ while $X_{A^T}/\tilde G^T$ is birational to $X_{dI}/ (((\phi_{B^T})_*)^{-1}(J_{F_{A^T}})+ H^{\perp_B}/J_{F_{dI}})$. As $J_{F_A} \subseteq G$ and $J_{F_{A^T}} \subseteq G^T$,
$$\begin{aligned}
((\phi_B)_*)^{-1}(J_{F_A}) \subseteq ((\phi_B)_*)^{-1}(G) = H; \text{ and } \\((\phi_{B^T})_*)^{-1}(J_{F_{A^T}}) \subseteq ((\phi_{B^T})_*)^{-1}(G^T) \subseteq H^{\perp_B}
\end{aligned}$$
which gives us the following corollary:
\[binicor\] The Calabi-Yau orbifold $Z_{A,G}$ is birational to $X_{dI}/ ( H/J_{F_{dI}})$ and its BHK mirror $Z_{A^T,G^T}$ is birational to $X_{dI}/ (H^{\perp_B}/J_{F_{dI}})$.
Multiple Mirrors
================
As stated in the introduction, one can take two polynomials $$F_A = \sum_{i=0}^n \prod_{j=0}^n x_j^{a_{ij}}; \qquad F_{A'} = \sum_{i=0}^n \prod_{j=0}^n x_j^{a_{ij}'}.$$ that cut out two hypersurfaces in weighted-projective $n$-spaces, $X_A \subseteq W{\mathbb{P}}^n(q_0,\ldots, q_n)$ and $X_{A^T} \subseteq W{\mathbb{P}}^n(q_0',\ldots, q_0')$, respectively. Take two groups $G$ and $G'$ so that $J_{F_A} \subseteq G \subseteq SL(F_A)$ and $J_{F_{A^T}} \subseteq G^T \subseteq SL(F_{A^T})$. We then obtain two Calabi-Yau orbifolds $Z_{A,G} : = X_A/\tilde G$ and $Z_{A', G'} : = X_{A'} / \tilde G '$.
Even if these two orbifolds are in the same family of Calabi-Yau varieties, they may have BHK mirrors that are not in the same quotient of weighted-projective $n$-space (see Section 5 for an explicit example or Tables 5.1-3 of [@DG]). Take the polynomials $$F_{A^T} = \sum_{i=0}^n \prod_{j=0}^n x_j^{a_{ji}}; \qquad F_{(A')^T} = \sum_{i=0}^n \prod_{j=0}^n x_j^{a_{ji}'}.$$ They are quasihomogeneous polynomials but not necessarily with the same weights. So they cut out hypersurfaces $X_{A^T}$ and $X_{(A')^T}$. Take the dual groups $G^T$ and $(G')^T$ to $G$ and $G'$, respectively. We quotient each hypersurface by their respective groups, $\tilde G^T := G^T/ J_{F_{A^T}}$ and $(\tilde G')^T : = (G')^T / J_{F_{(A')^T}}$. We then have the BHK mirror dualities: $$\begin{aligned}
Z_{A,G} &\stackrel{\text{BHK mirrors}}{\longleftrightarrow} Z_{A^T, G^T} \\
Z_{A',G'} &\stackrel{\text{BHK mirrors}}{\longleftrightarrow} Z_{(A')^T, (G')^T}
\end{aligned}$$
In this section, we will investigate and compare the birational geometry of the BHK mirrors of the Calabi-Yau orbifolds $Z_{A, G}$ and $Z_{A',G'}$ by using the Shioda maps. Take positive integers $d$ and $d'$ so that $B:= d A^{-1}$ and $B':= d' (A')^{-1}$ are matrices with integer entries. Then we can form a “tree” diagram of Shioda maps: $$\xymatrix{
& & & X_{dd'I} \ar@{-->}[dll]_{\phi_{d'I}} \ar@{-->}[drr]^{\phi_{dI}} & & & \\ &X_{dI} \ar@{-->}[dl]_{\phi_B} \ar@{-->}[dr]^{\phi_{B^T}}&&&&X_{d'I}\ar@{-->}[dl]_{\phi_{B'}} \ar@{-->}[dr]^{\phi_{(B')^T}}&\\
X_A & & X_{A^T} & & X_{A'}& &X_{(A')^T}
}$$
One can then calculate that $\phi_M \circ \phi_{cI} = \phi_{cM}$ for any integer valued matrix $M$ and positive integer $c$. This means we can simplify our tree to just the diagram: $$\xymatrix{
& & & X_{dd'I} \ar@{-->}[dlll]_{\phi_{d'B}} \ar@{-->}[dl]^{\phi_{d'B^T}} \ar@{-->}[dr]_{\phi_{dB'}} \ar@{-->}[drrr]^{\phi_{d(B')^T}} & & & \\
X_A & & X_{A^T} & & X_{A'}& &X_{(A')^T}
}$$
The Calabi-Yau orbifolds are just finite quotients of the hypersurfaces $X_A$, $X_{A^T}$, $X_{A'}$ and $X_{(A')^T}$, so we can view them in the context of the diagram: $$\xymatrix{
& & & X_{dd'I} \ar@{-->}[dlll]_{\phi_{d'B}} \ar@{-->}[dl]^{\phi_{d'B^T}} \ar@{-->}[dr]_{\phi_{dB'}} \ar@{-->}[drrr]^{\phi_{d(B')^T}} & & & \\
X_A \ar[d]& & X_{A^T}\ar[d] & & X_{A'}\ar[d]& &X_{(A')^T}\ar[d] \\
Z_{A,G} && Z_{A^T, G^T} && Z_{A', G'} && Z_{(A')^T, (G')^T}
}$$ Letting $H$ and $H'$ be the groups $H:= (\phi_{d'B})_*^{-1}(G)$ and $H':= (\phi_{dB'})_*^{-1}(G')$, we know that:
\[biratprop\] The following birational equivalences hold: $$\begin{aligned}
Z_{A,G} &\simeq X_{dd'I}/(H/J_{F_{dd'I}}); \\
Z_{A^T, G^T} & \simeq X_{dd'I}/ (H^{\perp_{d'B}}/J_{F_{dd'I}}); \\
Z_{A', G'} &\simeq X_{dd'I}/(H'/J_{F_{dd'I}}); \text{ and } \\
Z_{(A')^T, (G')^T} &\simeq X_{dd'I}/ ((H')^{\perp_{dB'}}/J_{F_{dd'I}}).
\end{aligned}$$
Follows directly from Corollary \[binicor\].
Recall that we are asking for the conditions in which $Z_{A^T, G^T}$ and $Z_{(A'), (G')^T}$ are birational. This question can be answered if we can show that the groups $H^{\perp_{d'B}}$ and $(H')^{\perp_{dB'}}$ are equal. We now prove that such an equality holds, if we assume that the groups $G$ and $G'$ are equal.
If the groups $G$ and $G'$ are equal, then $H^{\perp_{d'B}}$ and $(H')^{\perp_{dB'}}$ are equal.
Set $\tilde H : = pr^{-1}(H) $ and $\tilde H' : = pr^{-1}(H')$ (Recall these groups from Section 3.2). Note that we have an equality of groups $( \phi_{d'B})_*\circ pr(\tilde H ) = G = G ' = (\phi_{dB'})_*\circ pr(\tilde H')$. This implies that, for any element $\mathbf{h} \in \tilde H$, there exists an element $\mathbf{h'} \in \tilde H'$ so that $d'B\mathbf{h} = dB' \mathbf{h}'$.
Suppose that $\mathbf{s} \in (\tilde H')^{\perp_{dB'}} $. We claim that $\mathbf{s}$ is in $\tilde H ^{\perp_{d'B}}$, i.e., for every $\mathbf{h} \in \tilde H$, that $\langle \mathbf{s}, \mathbf{h} \rangle_{d'B} \in d {\mathbb{Z}}$. Indeed, this is true. Given any $\mathbf{h} \in \tilde H$, there exists some $\mathbf{h'}$ as above where $d'B\mathbf{h} = dB'\mathbf{h'}$, hence $\langle \mathbf{s} , \mathbf{h}\rangle_{d'B} = \langle \mathbf{s}, \mathbf{h'}\rangle_{dB'} \in d{\mathbb{Z}}$, as $\mathbf{s} \in (\tilde H')^{\perp_{dB'}} $. This proves that $(\tilde H)^{\perp_{d'B}} \subseteq (\tilde H')^{\perp_{dB'}}$. By symmetry, we now have the equality of the groups, $\tilde H^{\perp_{d'B}} = (\tilde H')^{\perp_{dB'}}$.
This implies that the images of the groups $\tilde H^{\perp_{d'B}}$ and $ (\tilde H')^{\perp_{dB'}}$ under the homomorphism $pr$ are equal, hence $H^{\perp_{d'B}}$ and $(H')^{\perp_{dB'}}$ are equal.
We then have the proof of Theorem \[main\]:
Let $Z_{A,G}$ and $Z_{A',G'}$ be Calabi-Yau orbifolds as above. If the groups $G$ and $G'$ are equal, then the BHK mirrors $Z_{A^T, G^T}$ and $Z_{(A')^T, (G')^T}$ of these orbifolds are birational.
Follows directly from Proposition 4.1 and Lemma 4.2.
Example: BHK Mirrors, Shioda Maps, and Chen-Ruan Hodge Numbers
==============================================================
In this section, we give an example of two Calabi-Yau orbifolds $Z_{A,G}$ and $Z_{A', G'}$ that are in the same family, but have two different BHK mirrors $Z_{A^T, G^T}$ and $Z_{(A')^T, (G')^T}$ that are not in the same family. As mentioned before, this is a feature of BHK mirror duality that differentiates it from the mirror construction of Batyrev and Borisov. We will show that the BHK mirrors are birational to each other and that their Chen-Ruan Hodge numbers match.
Consider the polynomials $$\begin{aligned}
F_A : &= y_1^8 + y_2^8 + y_3^4 + y_4^3 +y_5^6; \text{ and }\\
F_{A'} :&= y_1^8 + y_2^8 + y_3^4 + y_4^3 + y_4 y_5^4.
\end{aligned}$$
The polynomials $F_A$ and $F_{A'}$ cut out hypersurfaces $X_A = Z(F_A)$ and $X_{A'} = Z(F_{A'})$, two well-defined hypersurfaces in the (Gorenstein) weighted projective 4-space $W{\mathbb{P}}^4(3, 3, 6, 8, 4)$. Note that they are in the same family.
We now address the groups involved in the BHK mirror construction. Set $\zeta$ to be a primitive 24th root of unity. The groups $J_{F_A}$ and $J_{F_{A'}}$ are equal and are generated by the element $ (\zeta^3, \zeta^3, \zeta^6, \zeta^8, \zeta^4) \in ({\mathbb{C}}^*)^5$. We take $G$ and $G'$ to be the same group, namely we define it to be $$G = G' := \langle (\zeta^3, \zeta^3, \zeta^6, \zeta^8, \zeta^4), (\zeta^{18}, 1, \zeta^6, 1, 1), (1,1,\zeta^{12}, 1,\zeta^{12})\rangle.$$ Note that each of the generators of the group $G$ are also in $SL(F_A)$ and $SL(F_{A'})$, hence the group $G$ satisfies the conditions required for BHK duality. We quotient both the hypersurfaces by $X_A$ and $X_{A'}$ by the group $G/J_{F_A}$ to obtain the Calabi-Yau orbifolds $Z_{A,G}$ and $Z_{A',G}$ which are in the same family of hypersurfaces in $W{\mathbb{P}}^4(3,3,6,8,4)/(G/J_{F_A})$.
BHK Mirrors
-----------
Next, we describe the BHK mirrors to $Z_{A,G}$ and $Z_{A',G'}$. The polynomials associated to the matrices $A$ and $A^T$ are $$\begin{aligned}
F_{A^T} = F_A : &= y_1^8 + y_2^8 + y_3^4 + y_4^3 +y_5^6; \text{ and }\\
F_{A'^T} :&= z_1^8 + z_2^8 + z_3^4 + z_4^3z_5 + z_5^4.
\end{aligned}$$ While the hypersurface $X_{A^T} = Z(F_{A^T})$ is in $W{\mathbb{P}}^4(3,3,6,8,4)$, they hypersurface $X_{(A')^T} = Z(F_{A'^T})$ is in a different (Gorenstein) weighted projective 4-space, namely $W{\mathbb{P}}^4(1,1,2,2,2)$. We can compute the following groups: $$\begin{aligned}
J_{F_{A^T}} &= \langle (\zeta^3, \zeta^3, \zeta^6, \zeta^8,\zeta^4)\rangle;\\
J_{F_{(A')^T}} &= \langle (\zeta^3, \zeta^3, \zeta^6, \zeta^6,\zeta^6)\rangle; \\
G^T &= \langle (\zeta^3, \zeta^3, \zeta^6, \zeta^8,\zeta^4)\rangle;\text{ and } \\
(G')^T &= \langle (\zeta^3, \zeta^3,\zeta^6,\zeta^6,\zeta^6), (1,1,1, \zeta^{12},\zeta^{12})\rangle.
\end{aligned}$$
Note that the groups $G^T$ and $J_{F_{A^T}}$ are equal, so the BHK mirror $Z_{A^T,G^T}$ is the hypersurface $X_{A^T}$. On the other hand the quotient group $(G')^T/J_{F_{(A')^T}}$ is isomorphic to ${\mathbb{Z}}_2$, hence the BHK mirror $Z_{(A')^T, (G')^T}$ is the Calabi-Yau orbifold $X_{(A')^T}/ {\mathbb{Z}}_2$. Note that the Calabi-Yau orbifold $Z_{A^T,G^T}$ is a hypersurface in $ W{\mathbb{P}}^4(3,3,6,8,4)$, while $Z_{(A')^T, (G')^T}$ is in $W{\mathbb{P}}(1,1,2,2,2)/{\mathbb{Z}}_2$. The two BHK mirrors are not hypersurfaces of the same quotient of weighted-projective spaces, hence not sitting inside the same family of Calabi-Yau orbifolds.
Shioda Maps
-----------
Even though the two BHK mirrors $Z_{A^T, G^T}$ and $Z_{(A')^T, (G')^T}$ do not sit in the same family of hypersurfaces of the same quotient of weighted-projective space, we can show that they are birational. Take the matrices $B:= 24A^{-1}$ and $B' : = 24(A')^{-1}$. Let $X_{24I}$ be the hypersurface $Z(x_1^{24} + x_2^{24} +x_3^{24} +x_4^{24} +x_5^{24} )\subset {\mathbb{P}}^4$. We then have the Shioda maps
$$\xymatrix{
& & & X_{24I} \ar[dlll]_{\phi_{B}} \ar[dl]^{\phi_{B^T}} \ar@{-->}[dr]_{\phi_{B'}} \ar@{-->}[drrr]^{\phi_{(B')^T}} & & & \\
X_A & & X_{A^T} & & X_{A'}& &X_{(A')^T}
}$$
The maps then can be described explicitly: $$\begin{aligned}
\phi_B(x_1:\ldots: x_5) &= (x_1^3: x_2^3:x_3^6:x_4^8:x_5^4) \in X_A \\
\phi_{B^T}(x_1:\ldots: x_5) &= (x_1^3: x_2^3:x_3^6:x_4^8:x_5^4) \in X_{A^T} \\
\phi_{B'}(x_1:\ldots: x_5) &= (x_1^3: x_2^3:x_3^6:x_4^8:x_4^{-2}x_5^6)\in X_{A'} \\
\phi_{(B')^T} (x_1:\ldots: x_5) &= (x_1^3: x_2^3:x_3^6:x_4^8x_5^{-2}:x_5^6)\in X_{(A')^T} \\
\end{aligned}$$
The four Shioda maps are rational maps that are birational to quotient maps. Take the following four subgroups to ${\text{Aut}}(F_{24I})$: $$\begin{aligned}
H &:= \langle (\zeta, \zeta,\zeta,\zeta,\zeta), (\zeta^8, 1,1,1,1), (\zeta^2, 1, \zeta^{-1}, 1,1), (1,1,\zeta^2, 1,\zeta^3),(1,1,1,\zeta,\zeta^4)\rangle; \\
H' &:= \langle (\zeta, \zeta,\zeta,\zeta,\zeta), (\zeta^8, 1,1,1,1), (\zeta^2, 1, \zeta^{-1}, 1,1), (1,1,\zeta^2, 1, \zeta^2), (1,1,1,\zeta^3,\zeta)\rangle; \\
H^{\perp_B} = (H')^{\perp_{B'}}& :=\langle (\zeta, \zeta,\zeta,\zeta,\zeta), (\zeta^8, 1,1,1,1), (1,1,\zeta^4, 1,1), (\zeta^2, \zeta^2, \zeta^2, 1,1), (1,1,1,\zeta,\zeta^4)\rangle; \\
J_{F_{24I}} &= \langle (\zeta,\zeta,\zeta,\zeta,\zeta)\rangle.
\end{aligned}$$
By Proposition \[biratprop\], we have the following birational equivalences $$\begin{aligned}
Z_{A,G} &\simeq X_{24I}/\langle (\zeta^8, 1,1,1,1), (\zeta^2, 1, \zeta^{-1}, 1,1), (1,1,\zeta^2, 1,\zeta^3),(1,1,1,\zeta,\zeta^4)\rangle; \\
Z_{A', G'} &\simeq X_{24I}/\langle (\zeta^8, 1,1,1,1), (\zeta^2, 1, \zeta^{-1}, 1,1), (1,1,\zeta^2, 1, \zeta^2), (1,1,1,\zeta^3,\zeta)\rangle; \\
Z_{A^T, G^T} & \simeq X_{24I}/ \langle (\zeta^8, 1,1,1,1), (1,1,\zeta^4, 1,1), (\zeta^2, \zeta^2, \zeta^2, 1,1), (1,1,1,\zeta,\zeta^4)\rangle;\text{ and } \\
Z_{(A')^T, (G')^T} &\simeq X_{24I}/ \langle (\zeta^8, 1,1,1,1), (1,1,\zeta^4, 1,1), (\zeta^2, \zeta^2, \zeta^2, 1,1), (1,1,1,\zeta,\zeta^4)\rangle.
\end{aligned}$$ So we can see that the BHK mirrors $Z_{A^T, G^T}$ and $Z_{(A')^T, (G')^T}$ are birational.
Chen-Ruan Hodge Numbers
-----------------------
As the Calabi-Yau orbifolds $Z_{A,G}$ and $Z_{A',G}$ are quasismooth varieties in the same toric variety, namely $W{\mathbb{P}}^4(3,3,6,8,4)/\langle (-i,1,i,1,1), (1,1,-1,1,-1)\rangle$, they have the same Chen-Ruan Hodge numbers. By the theorem of Chiodo and Ruan, this means that their BHK mirrors $Z_{A^T, G^T}$ and $Z_{(A')^T, (G')^T}$ must have the same Chen-Ruan Hodge numbers. We now check this explicitly.
Consider the hypersurface $X_{A^T} \subseteq W{\mathbb{P}}^4(3,3,6,8,4)$. The dual group $G^T$ is equal to the group $J_{F_{A^T}}$. The only elements of the group $G^T{\mathbb{C}}^*$ that will have nontrivial fixed loci are in $J_{F_{A^T}}$ as the weighted projective space is Gorenstein. The group $J_{F_{A^T}}$ has exactly six elements which have fixed loci that have nonempty intersections with the hypersurface:
Element of $J_{F_{A^T}}$ Fixed Locus
--------------------------------------------- ------------------------------
$(1,1,1,1,1)$ $X_{A^T}$
$(\zeta^{18}, \zeta^{18}, \zeta^{12}, 1,1)$ $Z(y_1,y_2,y_3)\cap X_{A^T}$
$(1,1,1, \zeta^{16}, \zeta^8)$ $Z(y_4,y_5)\cap X_{A^T}$
$(\zeta^{12}, \zeta^{12},1,1,1)$ $Z(y_1, y_2) \cap X_{A^T}$
$(1,1,1, \zeta^{8}, \zeta^{16})$ $Z(y_4,y_5)\cap X_{A^T}$
$(\zeta^{6}, \zeta^{6}, \zeta^{12}, 1,1)$ $Z(y_1,y_2,y_3)\cap X_{A^T}$
We can just then compute the Hodge numbers by using the Griffiths-Dolgachev-Steenbrink formulas (see [@Do]). This computation gives us that $X_{A^T}$ has a Hodge diamond of: $$\begin{array}{ccccccc}
&& & 1 & && \\
& & 0 & & 0 && \\
&0 & & 1 & & 0&\\
1&& 36 & & 36 & &1\\
&0 & & 1 & & 0&\\
& & 0 & & 0 && \\
&& & 1 & && \\\end{array}$$ The remaining fixed loci are simpler: $Z(y_1,y_2,y_3)\cap X_{A^T}$ consists of three points, $Z(y_4,y_5)\cap X_{A^T}$ is a curve of genus nine, and $Z(y_1, y_2) \cap X_{A^T}$ is a curve of genus one. After considering the age shift, one obtains the Chen-Ruan Hodge diamond of the Calabi-Yau orbifold $Z_{A,G}$: $$\begin{array}{ccccccc}
&& & 1 & && \\
& & 0 & & 0 && \\
&0 & & 7 & & 0&\\
1&& 55 & & 55 & &1\\
&0 & & 7 & & 0&\\
& & 0 & & 0 && \\
&& & 1 & && \\\end{array}$$
Next, we check that these are the same Chen-Ruan Hodge numbers as the Calabi-Yau orbifold $Z_{(A')^T, (G')^T}$. Recall that $X_{A'^T} \subset W{\mathbb{P}}^4(1,1,2,2,2)$, so we will have a different ${\mathbb{C}}^*$ action. The group $(G')^T$ equals the group $ J_{F_{(A')^T}}\cdot \langle (1,1,1,-1,-1)\rangle$. As the weighted-projective space is Gorenstein, we can only look at $(G')^T$ to find the nontrivial fixed loci of elements. The group $(G')^T$ only has five elements that will have nonempty intersections between the hypersurface and the fixed loci of the elements:
Element of $(G')^T $ Fixed Locus
------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------
$(1,1,1,1,1)$ $X_{(A')^T}$
$(\zeta^{12},\zeta^{12},1,1,1)$ $Z(z_1,z_2)\cap X_{(A')^T}$
$(\zeta^6,\zeta^6, \zeta^{12},1,1)$ $Z(z_4,z_5) \cap X_{(A')^T}$
$(\zeta^6,\zeta^6, \zeta^{12},1,1)$ $Z(z_1,z_2,z_3) \cap X_{(A')^T}$
$(\zeta^{18},\zeta^{18}, \zeta^{12},1,1)$ $Z(z_1,z_2,z_3) \cap X_{(A')^T}$
One then computes the cohomology of each fixed locus and finds the piece invariant under the action of the group ${\mathbb{Z}}_2$ generated by $(1,1,1,-1,-1)$. The (${\mathbb{Z}}_2$)-invariant part of the cohomology of $X_{(A')^T}$ gives the Hodge diamond: $$\begin{array}{ccccccc}
&& & 1 & && \\
& & 0 & & 0 && \\
&0 & & 1 & & 0&\\
1&& 45 & & 45 & &1\\
&0 & & 1 & & 0&\\
& & 0 & & 0 && \\
&& & 1 & && \\\end{array}$$ $Z(z_1,z_2)\cap X_{(A')^T}$ is a curve with a ${\mathbb{Z}}_2$ invariant $h^{0,1}=1$, $Z(z_4,z_5) \cap X_{(A')^T}$ is a ${\mathbb{Z}}_2$-invariant curve of genus nine, and $Z(z_1,z_2,z_3) \cap X_{(A')^T}$ is a set of four ${\mathbb{Z}}_2$-invariant points. After considering the age shift, one obtains the Chen-Ruan Hodge diamond of $Z_{(A')^T, (G')^T}$: $$\begin{array}{ccccccc}
&& & 1 & && \\
& & 0 & & 0 && \\
&0 & & 7 & & 0&\\
1&& 55 & & 55 & &1\\
&0 & & 7 & & 0&\\
& & 0 & & 0 && \\
&& & 1 & && \\\end{array}$$
Note that this Chen-Ruan Hodge diamond matches that of the Calabi-Yau orbifold $Z_{A,G}$. To summarize, what we have given here is two Calabi-Yau orbifolds $Z_{A,G}$ and $Z_{A', G'}$ that live in a family of hypersurfaces in a finite quotient of a weighted-projective space. Their BHK mirrors $Z_{A^T, G^T}$ and $Z_{(A')^T, (G')^T}$ do not sit in a single family, unlike the mirrors proposed by Batyrev and Borisov. However, the two BHK mirrors have the same Chen-Ruan Hodge number and are birationally equivalent to one another, as both are birational to the same finite quotient of a Fermat hypersurface of ${\mathbb{P}}^4$.
[10]{}
M. Artebani, S. Boissière, A. Sarti. The Berglund-Hübsch-Chiodo-Ruan mirror symmetry for K3 surfaces. arxiv:1108.2780
V. Batyrev, Dual polyhedra and mirror symmetry for Calabi-Yau hypersurfaces in toric varieties, J. Alg. Geom. 3 (1994) 493-535. alg-geom/9310003.
V. Batyrev and L. Borisov, On Calabi-Yau complete intersections in toric varieties, in Higher-Dimensional Complex Varieties (Trento, 1994), de Gruyter, Berlin, 1996, alg-geom/9412017
V. Batyrev and L. Borisov, Mirror Duality and string-theoretic Hodge numbers, Invent. Math. 126 (1996), 183-203, alg-geom/9509009.
P. Berglund, T. Hübsch. A Generalized Construction of Mirror Manifolds Nucl.Phys. B393 (1993) 377-391.
G. Bini. Quotients of Hypersurfaces in Weighted Projective Space. Adv in Geom. 11 Issue 4 (2011) 653-668. arXiv:0905.2099
G. Bini, B. van Geemen, T. L. Kelly. Mirror Quintics, discrete symmetries and Shioda Maps. J. Alg. Geom. 21 (2012) 401-412. arXiv:0809.1791
A. Chiodo, Y. Ruan. LG/CY correspondence: the state space isomorphism. Adv. Math. 227 Issue 6 (2011), 2157-2188.
I. V. Dolgachev. Weighted projective varieties, in Group Actions and Vector Fields. Lect. Notes in Math. 956, Springer-Verlag, (1982), 34-72
C. F. Doran, R. S. Garavuso. Hori-Vafa mirror periods, Picard-Fuchs equations, and Berglund-HŸbsch-Krawitz duality. J. High Energy Phys. 2011, no. 10, 128. arxiv:1109.1686v2
B. R. Greene, M. R. Plesser. Duality in Calabi-Yau moduli space, Nucl. Phys. B 338 (1990) 15-37.
M. Krawitz. FJRW rings and Landau-Ginzburg Mirror Symmetry. arxiv:0906.0796.
M. Kreuzer, H. Skarke. On the classification of quasihomogeneous functions. Comm. Math. Phys. Volume 150, Number 1 (1992), 137-147.
T. Shioda, An explicit algorithm for computing the Picard number of certain algebraic surfaces, Amer. J. Math. 108 (1986), no. 2, 415Ð432. MR 833362 (87g:14033), http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2374678
M. Shoemaker. Birationality of Berglund-Hübsch-Krawitz Mirrors. arXiv:1209.5016v2
[^1]: This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. DGE-1321851.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We investigate commutator operations on compatible uniformities. We define a commutator operation for uniformities in the congruence-modular case which extends the commutator on congruences, and explore its properties.'
address: |
PO Box 20161\
Oakland, California 94620
author:
- 'William H. Rowan'
title: Commutator Theory for Compatible Uniformities
---
Introduction {#introduction .unnumbered}
============
The purpose of this paper is to generalize the commutator of congruences to a commutator of compatible uniformities. Commutator theory (on congruences) works best for congruences of algebras in congruence-modular varieties. The same is true of the commutator of uniformities described here. In fact, the commutator of congruences $\alpha$ and $\beta$ becomes a special case of that of uniformities, when we view $\alpha$ and $\beta$ as the uniformities ${\operatorname{Ug}}\{\,\alpha\,\}$ and ${\operatorname{Ug}}\{\,\beta\,\}$ that they generate, because we have ${\operatorname{Ug}}\{\,[\alpha,\beta]\,\}=[{\operatorname{Ug}}\{\,\alpha\,\},
{\operatorname{Ug}}\{\,\beta\,\}]$.
We follow the development of Commutator Theory in [@F-McK] fairly closely. The main thesis of [@R02], where compatible uniformities were first studied systematically in the context of Universal Algebra, is that compatible uniformities can be considered a generalization of congruences. Often, there is a reasonably direct translation of congruence-theoretic arguments into uniformity-theoretic ones. Following this philosophy, we are able to generalize (in Sections \[S:Term\] and \[S:Commutator\]) the concept of $C(\alpha,\beta;\delta)$ ($\alpha$ *centralizes* $\beta$ *modulo* $\delta$) to compatible uniformities, and in the congruence-modular case, to define $[\mathcal U,\mathcal V]$ to be the least uniformity $\mathcal W$ such that $C(\mathcal U,\mathcal V;\mathcal W)$.
Another approach to the commutator $[\alpha,\beta]$, for congruences $\alpha$ and $\beta$, as discussed in [@F-McK], is to study congruences of the algebra $A(\alpha)$. The congruence $\beta$ is pushed out along the homomorphism $\Delta_\alpha:A\to A(\alpha)$ that sends $a\in A$ to $\pair aa$, yielding a congruence $\Delta_{\alpha,\beta}$ which gives rise to $[\alpha,\beta]$. In the case of uniformities, we can replace $\beta$ by a uniformity $\mathcal U$, and push it out along $\Delta_\alpha$, yielding a compatible uniformity $\Delta_{\alpha,\mathcal
U}$ on $A(\alpha)$ which we then show gives rise to $[{\operatorname{Ug}}\{\,\alpha\,\},\mathcal U]$ in the important special case of algebras having term operations comprising a group structure. (This includes many familiar varieties of algebras, such as groups, rings, and varieties of nonassociative algebras.) This is done in Section \[S:A(alpha)\]. It is natural to ask whether the theory can be extended to give an interpretation of $[\mathcal U,\mathcal V]$ in terms of compatible uniformities on some algebra $A(\mathcal U)$. Unfortunately, the necessary definition of $A(\mathcal
U)$ is not yet available.
In the congruence-modular case, the properties of the commutator on compatible uniformities described in Section \[S:Properties\] duplicate those of the commutator of congruences, with some regrettable gaps in what we have been able to prove. In particular, because of the difficulties we encounter in working with joins of uniformities, the additivity of the commutator is not settled in general, although we prove it is true for some important special cases.
We also describe a natural commutator operation for congruential uniformities, which are uniformities that, as a filter of relations, have a base of congruences, and are thus of the form ${\operatorname{Ug}}F$ for a filter $F$ in ${\operatorname{Con}}A$. The commutator $[{\operatorname{Ug}}F,{\operatorname{Ug}}F']$ is defined in terms of the commutators of elements of $F$ and $F'$; see Section \[S:Congruential\].
Section \[S:Examp\] is devoted to miscellaneous matters, including commutators of congruential uniformities on commutative rings. We prove that in that case, the two definitions of the commutator on congruential uniformities, the one given by the general definition of Section \[S:Commutator\] and the other given by the formula of Section \[S:Congruential\], coincide. This appears to be a special property of commutative rings; in general, we do not know even whether the commutator operation of Section \[S:Commutator\], applied to congruential uniformities, always gives a congruential uniformity. We also discuss in this section the case of varieties which are congruence-distributive, where we show that as in the case of the commutator of congruences, the commutator of two compatible uniformities is simply their meet.
In the last section, we discuss the current state of some questions about compatible uniformities, uniformity lattices, and commutators of uniformities.
Preliminaries {#preliminaries .unnumbered}
=============
Category theory
---------------
We follow [@MacL] in terminology and notation. In particular, $1_a$ will stand for the identity arrow on an object $a$ in a category $\mathbf C$.
Lattice theory
--------------
The reader should be familiar with lattices. We use $\top$ and $\bot$ to denote the greatest and least elements of a lattice, assuming they exist, and $\wedge$ and $\vee$ for the meet and join operations.
Filters
-------
If $L$ is a lattice, then a nonempty subset $F\subseteq
L$ is called a *filter* if $y\geq x\in F$ implies $y\in F$ and $x$, $y\in F$ imply $x\wedge y\in F$.
If $S\subseteq L$ is a nonempty set, then the *filter generated by $S$*, denoted by ${\operatorname{Fg}}^L S$ or simply ${\operatorname{Fg}}S$, is the subset of elements of $L$ that are greater than or equal to a finite meet of elements of $S$. An important special case, given $x\in L$, is ${\operatorname{Fg}}\{\,x\,\}$, the *principal filter generated by $x$*, which is just the set of elements of $L$ greater than or equal to $x$.
Filters are ordered by reverse inclusion and the filters in a nonempty lattice form a complete lattice. The meet of a tuple of filters $F_i$ is given by $\bigwedge_iF_i={\operatorname{Fg}}(\bigcup_iF_i)$. The join of the tuple is the intersection: $\bigvee_iF_i=\bigcap_iF_i$.
If $F$ is a filter, a *base* for $F$ is a subset $B\subseteq F$ such that $x\in F$ implies $b\leq x$ for some $b\in B$. If $L$ is a lattice, then a subset $B\subseteq L$ is a base for a filter of $L$, or *filter base*, iff given any $x$, $y\in B$, there is a $z\in B$ such that $z\leq x\wedge y$.
Universal algebra
-----------------
We assume familiarity with universal algebra, as explained for example in [@B-S]. We prefer to allow an algebra to have an empty underlying set, however. We denote the underlying set of an algebra $A$ by $|A|$.
If $R$ is a binary relation on (the underlying set of) an algebra $A$, then we denote by ${\operatorname{Cg}}R$ the smallest congruence $\alpha\in{\operatorname{Con}}A$ such that $R\subseteq\alpha$.
Comgruence-permutable, congruence-modular, and congruence-distributive varieties
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A variety of algebras $\mathbf V$ is *congruence-permutable* (or, a *Mal’tsev variety*) if for every $A\in\mathbf V$, for every $\alpha$, $\beta\in{\operatorname{Con}}A$, $\alpha\circ\beta=\beta\circ\alpha$. A variety is congruence-permutable iff [@Mal] there is a ternary term $p$, called a *Mal’tsev term*, satisfying the identities $p(x,x,y)=y$ and $p(x,y,y)=x$. For example, the variety of groups is congruence-permutable because it has the Mal’tsev term $p(x,y,z)=xy^{-1}z$.
A variety of algebras $\mathbf V$ is *congruence-modular* if for every $A\in\mathbf V$, ${\operatorname{Con}}A$ is a modular lattice. A variety is congruence-modular iff [@Day] there is a finite sequence $m_0$, $\ldots$, $m_k$ of quaternary terms, called *Day terms*, satisfying the following identities:
1. For all $i$, $m_i(x,y,y,x)=x$
2. $m_0(x,y,z,w)=x$
3. $m_k(x,y,z,w)=w$
4. for even $i<k$, $m_i(x,x,y,y)=m_{i+1}(x,x,y,y)$
5. for odd $i<k$, $m_i(x,y,y,z)=m_{i+1}(x,y,y,z)$.
A congruence-permutable variety, with Mal’tsev term $p$, is necessarily congruence-modular, with Day terms $m_0(x,y,z,w)=x$, $m_1(x,y,z,w)=p(x,p(x,y,z),w)$, and $m_2(x,y,z,w)=w$.
Similarly, a variety of algebras $\mathbf V$ is *congruence-distributive* if for every $A\in\mathbf
V$, ${\operatorname{Con}}A$ is distributive. A variety is congruence-distributive iff [@Jonsson] there is a finite sequence $d_0$, $\ldots$, $d_k$ of ternary terms, satisfying the following identities:
1. $d_0(x,y,z)=x$
2. $d_n(x,y,z)=z$
3. for all $i$, $d_i(x,y,x)=x$
4. for even $i<k$, $d_i(x,x,y)=d_{i+1}(x,x,y)$
5. for odd $i<k$, $d_i(x,y,y)=d_{i+1}(x,y,y)$.
Commutator theory
-----------------
The *commutator* is a binary operation on congruences in the congruence lattice ${\operatorname{Con}}A$ of an algebra $A$ in a congruence-modular variety, and which is sometimes defined for more general varieties.
If $A$ is an algebra in a congruence-modular variety, and $\alpha$, $\beta\in{\operatorname{Con}}A$, we can define the commutator $[\alpha,\beta]$ as the least $\delta\in{\operatorname{Con}}A$ such that $\alpha$ *centralizes* $\beta$ *modulo* $\delta$, or in other words, such that $\delta$ satisfies the *$\alpha,\beta$-term condition*. See the first part of Section \[S:Term\] for detailed definitions. Whereas Section \[S:Term\] gives these definitions in the general case, and doesn’t really define $[\alpha,\beta]$ or its generalization to uniformities, Section \[S:Commutator\] makes the assumption of congruence-modularity and proves the simplifications that make the definitions of $[\alpha,\beta]$ and $[\mathcal U,\mathcal V]$ (for $\mathcal U$, $\mathcal V$ compatible uniformities) so reasonable.
The commutator is so named because it generalizes the notion of the commutator of normal subgroups of a group. (Of course, the variety of groups is congruence-modular.) As a further example, the variety of commutative rings is congruence-modular, and for a commutative ring $A$, the commutator is simply the product of ideals. That is, if $I_\alpha$ denotes the ideal corresponding to $\alpha\in{\operatorname{Con}}A$, then we have $I_{[\alpha,\beta]}=I_\alpha I_\beta$.
Uniform universal algebra
-------------------------
Universal algebra over the base category $\Unif$ of uniform spaces, as opposed to the category of sets, was first studied systematically in [@R02]. This paper develops commutator theory as a part of that subject. It will be best if the reader has access to [@R02] while reading this paper, but we will also devote most of the next two sections to summarizing some of the basic definitions and results that we need.
Uniformities {#S:Unif}
============
We denote the set of binary relations on a set $S$ by ${\operatorname{Rel}}S$. ${\operatorname{Rel}}S$, ordered by inclusion, is a complete lattice.
If $R\in{\operatorname{Rel}}S$, then by $R^{-1}$ we mean the relation $\{\,\pair xy\mid\pair yx\in R\,\}$, and by $R^n$, for $n>0$, we mean the $n$-fold relational product of $n$ copies of $R$.
Consider the following five conditions on a set $\mathcal U\subseteq{\operatorname{Rel}}S$:
1. if $U\in\mathcal U$, and $U\subseteq V$, then $V\in\mathcal U$
2. if $U$, $V\in\mathcal U$, then $U\cap
V\in\mathcal U$
3. if $U\in\mathcal U$, then $\Delta_S\overset{\text{def}}=\{\,\pair ss\mid s\in
S\,\}\subseteq U$
4. if $U\in\mathcal U$, then $U^{-1}\in\mathcal
U$
5. if $U\in\mathcal U$, then $V^2\subseteq
U$ for some $V\in\mathcal U$.
Then we say that $\mathcal U$ is a *semiuniformity* if $\mathcal U$ satisfies conditions (U1) through (U4), and a *uniformity* if it satisfies (U1) through (U5). Note that conditions (U1) and (U2) simply state that $\mathcal U$ is a filter of binary relations
A filter $\mathcal U$ satisfies (U3) iff ${\operatorname{Fg}}^{{\operatorname{Rel}}S}\{\,\Delta_S\,\}\leq\mathcal U$.
A filter $\mathcal U$ satisfies (U4) iff $\mathcal U=\mathcal U^{-1}$, where $\mathcal
U^{-1}=\{\,U^{-1}\mid U\in\mathcal U\,\}$.
If $\mathcal U$, $\mathcal V$ are filters in ${\operatorname{Rel}}S$, then $\{\,U\circ V\mid U\in\mathcal
U,\,V\in\mathcal V\,\}$ is a base for a filter $\mathcal
U\circ\mathcal V$ in ${\operatorname{Rel}}S$.
Note that for filters $\mathcal U$ and $\mathcal V$ of reflexive relations, $\mathcal U\cap\mathcal
V\leq\mathcal U\circ\mathcal V$. Thus, $\mathcal
U\leq\mathcal U\circ\mathcal U$ if $\mathcal U$ satisfies (U3).
A filter $\mathcal U$ satisfies (U5) iff $\mathcal U\circ\mathcal U\leq\mathcal U$.
If $U\in\mathcal U$, where $\mathcal U$ satisfies (U5), then by induction we can show that there is a $V\in\mathcal U$ such that $V^n\subseteq U$. We denote such a $V$ by $^nU$. This notation must be used with care, particularly in relation to quantifiers; we do not mean that $^nU$ is a function of $U$; it is simply a shorthand for the statement that there exists such a $V$ and that we will denote it by $^nU$.
The lattice operations
----------------------
We denote the set of uniformities on a set $S$ by ${\operatorname{Unif}}S$, and the set of semiuniformities by ${\operatorname{SemiUnif}}S$. We order these sets by reverse inclusion, i.e., the ordering inherited from ${\operatorname{Fil}}{\operatorname{Rel}}S$.
The meet of an arbitrary tuple of uniformities on $S$, in the lattice ${\operatorname{Fil}}{\operatorname{Rel}}S$, is a uniformity. Thus, ${\operatorname{Unif}}S$ admits arbitrary meets, and is a complete lattice. The same is true for ${\operatorname{SemiUnif}}S$. The join of a tuple of semiuniformities is simply the intersection, and ${\operatorname{SemiUnif}}S$ is a distributive lattice. The theory of joins of uniformities is more difficult.
Permutability
-------------
Permutability of congruences is an important condition in Universal Algebra, and the condition can be generalized to uniformities. Note that this subject was first discussed in [@R02], but the discussion there is not entirely correct; in particular, Theorem 6.1 is wrong.
If $\mathcal U$ and $\mathcal V$ are uniformities on a set $S$, then we say that $\mathcal U$ and $\mathcal V$ *permute* if $\mathcal U\circ\mathcal V=\mathcal
V\circ\mathcal U$, and that $\mathcal U$ and $\mathcal V$ *semipermute* if either $\mathcal U\circ\mathcal
V\leq\mathcal V\circ\mathcal U$, or $\mathcal
V\circ\mathcal U\leq\mathcal U\circ\mathcal V$.
As we mentioned, the join operation in the lattice of uniformities can be difficult to deal with in the general case, but the case where $\mathcal U$ and $\mathcal V$ semipermute is an easy and important special case; the following theorem is a revised and corrected version of [@R02 Theorem 6.1]:
Let $\mathcal U$, $\mathcal V\in{\operatorname{Unif}}S$. Then $\mathcal U\vee\mathcal V=\mathcal
U\circ\mathcal V$ iff $\mathcal
V\circ\mathcal U\leq\mathcal U\circ\mathcal V$.
($\impliedby$): It is trivial that $\mathcal
U\circ\mathcal V$ satisfies (U1), (U2), and (U3). If $U\in\mathcal U$ and $V\in\mathcal V$, then since $\mathcal V\circ\mathcal U\leq\mathcal U\circ\mathcal
V$, there are $\bar U\in\mathcal U$ and $\bar
V\in\mathcal V$ such that $\bar V\circ\bar U\subseteq
U\circ V$. But, $\bar V\circ\bar U=((\bar
U^{-1})\circ(\bar V^{-1}))^{-1}$. Thus, $\mathcal
U\circ\mathcal V$ also satisfies (U4). Finally, $(\mathcal U\circ\mathcal V)\circ(\mathcal
U\circ\mathcal V)\leq(\mathcal U\circ\mathcal
U)\circ(\mathcal V\circ\mathcal V)\leq\mathcal
U\circ\mathcal V$, verifying (U5). Thus, $\mathcal
U\circ\mathcal V$ is a uniformity. Since $\mathcal
U\leq\mathcal U\circ\mathcal V$ and $\mathcal
V\leq\mathcal U\circ\mathcal V$, we have $\mathcal
U\vee\mathcal V\leq\mathcal U\circ\mathcal V$. However, $\mathcal U\circ\mathcal V\leq\mathcal U\vee
\mathcal V=\mathcal U\circ\mathcal V$ by (U5).
($\implies$): If $\mathcal U\vee\mathcal V=\mathcal
U\circ\mathcal V$, then $\mathcal V\circ\mathcal
U\leq\mathcal U\vee\mathcal V$ by (U5).
The results in [@R02] that use permutability as a hypothesis, except for Theorem 6.1, are correct, and remain true if the hypothesis is weakened to semipermutability.
Compatible Uniformities {#S:Compat}
=======================
Compatibility
-------------
If $R$ is a relation on an algebra $A$, we say that $R$ is *compatible* (with the operations of $A$) if $\mathbf a\mathrel R\mathbf
a'$ implies $\omega^A(\mathbf a)\mathrel R
\omega^A(\mathbf a')$ for each operation symbol $\omega$, where $\mathbf a\mathrel R\mathbf{a'}$ means that $a_i\wedge
a'_i$ for all $i$.
We say that a filter $\mathcal U$ of reflexive relations on an algebra $A$ is *compatible* if for each $U\in\mathcal U$, and each basic operation symbol $\omega$, there is a $\bar U\in\mathcal U$ such that $\omega(\bar U)=\{\,\pair{\omega(\mathrm
x)}{\omega(\mathbf y)}\mid x_i\mathrel{\bar
U}y_i\text{ for all }i\,\}\subseteq U$. In this case, for any term $t$, given $U\in\mathcal U$, there is a $\bar
U\in\mathcal U$ such that $t(\bar U)\subseteq U$.
We say that $\mathcal
U$ is *singly compatible* if for each $n$-ary term $t$ for $n\geq 1$, given $U\in\mathcal U$, there is a $\bar U\in\mathcal U$ such that $t(\bar U,\mathbf
a)\subseteq U$ for every $\mathbf a\in A^{n-1}$.
\[T:WCompatU\] If $\mathcal U$ is a uniformity on $A$, which is singly compatible, then $\mathcal U$ is compatible.
This follows easily from (U5).
As a result of the Lemma, single compatibility will be of interest to us only for semiuniformities.
If $A$ is an algebra, we denote by ${\operatorname{SemiUnif}}A$ the set of compatible semiuniformities on $A$, and by ${\operatorname{Unif}}A$ the set of compatible uniformities.
Since a set $S$ can be seen as an algebra with no operations, the theory of ${\operatorname{Unif}}S$ is subsumed by the theory of ${\operatorname{Unif}}A$ for an algebra $A$. Parts of this section are therefore pertinent the study of ${\operatorname{Unif}}S$ where $S$ is just a set.
If filters $\mathcal U_i$ are compatible, so is $\bigwedge_i\mathcal U_i$. It follows that the meet of an arbitrary tuple of compatible uniformities or semiuniformities is also compatible, so the sets of compatible uniformities and compatible semiuniformities are complete lattices. Similarly, if $\mathcal U_i$ is a tuple of singly compatible semiuniformities, then $\bigwedge_i\mathcal U_i$ is a singly compatible semiuniformity.
${\operatorname{Ug}}\mathcal R$
-------------------------------
If $\mathcal R$ is a filter of relations on an algebra $A$, then ${\operatorname{Ug}}\mathcal R$ will denote the smallest compatible uniformity $\mathcal U$ such that $\mathcal
R\leq\mathcal U$. If we mean instead the smallest not-necessarily compatible uniformity, we will write ${\operatorname{Ug}}^{|A|}\mathcal R$.
Joins
-----
If $\mathcal U_i$, $i\in I$ are elements of $\Unif A$, then $\bigvee_i\mathcal
U_i={\operatorname{Ug}}(\bigcap_i\mathcal U_i)$.
Let $A$ be an algebra. We have
1. The join (in the lattice ${\operatorname{Unif}}|A|$) of a tuple of compatible uniformities is compatible.
2. The join (in the lattice ${\operatorname{SemiUnif}}|A|$) of a tuple of singly compatible semiunifomities is singly compatible.
(1): See [@R02 Theorem 5.3].
(2): If $\mathcal U_i$ are a tuple of singly compatible semiuniformities on $A$, then their join (in the lattice of semiuniformities on $|A|$) is $\mathcal
U=\bigcap_i\mathcal U_i$. Let $t$ be an $n$-ary term operation. If $U\in\mathcal U$, then for each $i$, there is $U_i\in\mathcal U_i$ with $U_i\subseteq U$. Since each $\mathcal U_i$ is singly compatible, $t(\bar
U_i,\Delta_A,\ldots,\Delta_A)\subseteq U$ for some $\bar U_i\in\mathcal U_i$. Then $\bigcup_iU_i\in\mathcal
U$, and $t(\bigcup_i\bar
U_i,\Delta_A,\ldots,\Delta_A)\subseteq U$.
Examples of compatible uniformities
-----------------------------------
An important special case of a compatible uniformity is given by choosing $\mathcal R=\{\,\alpha\,\}$ where $\alpha\in{\operatorname{Con}}A$. Then ${\operatorname{Ug}}\mathcal R={\operatorname{Fg}}^{{\operatorname{Rel}}A}\{\,\alpha\,\}$.
More generally, we can consider ${\operatorname{Ug}}\{\,\rho\,\}$ where $\rho\in{\operatorname{Rel}}A$. However, we have
${\operatorname{Ug}}\{\,\rho\,\}={\operatorname{Ug}}\{\,{\operatorname{Cg}}\rho\,\}$, and is compatible if $\rho$ is.
It suffices to show that ${\operatorname{Ug}}\{\,{\operatorname{Cg}}\rho\,\}\subseteq{\operatorname{Ug}}\rho$, or in other words that if $U\in{\operatorname{Ug}}\{\,\rho\,\}$, then ${\operatorname{Cg}}\{\,\rho\,\}\subseteq U$.
Let $U\in{\operatorname{Ug}}\{\,\rho\,\}$. We have $\rho\subseteq U$, so $\rho\cup\Delta\subseteq U$ by (U3). Thus, we can reduce to the case where $\rho$ is reflexive by replacing $\rho$ with $\rho\cup\Delta$.
If $U\in{\operatorname{Ug}}\{\,\rho\,\}$, then $\rho\subseteq U^{-1}$, so $\rho^{-1}\subseteq U$. Thus, we can further reduce to the case where $\rho$ is symmetric, by replacing $\rho$ by $\rho\cup\rho^{-1}$.
Finally, if $U\in{\operatorname{Ug}}\{\,\rho\,\}$, then $\rho\subseteq
{^nU}$ for all $n\in\mathbb N$, which implies $\rho\subseteq U$, showing that ${\operatorname{Cg}}\rho=\bigcup_n\rho^n\subseteq U$.
As regards compatibility, it is easy to prove that if $\rho$ is compatible, then so is ${\operatorname{Cg}}\rho$. It is obvious that ${\operatorname{Ug}}\{\,\alpha\,\}$ is compatible if $\alpha$ is a congruence.
Another important special case is $\mathcal R=F$, where $F$ is a filter in ${\operatorname{Con}}A$. In this case, ${\operatorname{Ug}}\mathcal
R={\operatorname{Fg}}^{{\operatorname{Rel}}A}F$. A uniformity of this form called a *congruential uniformity*.
Uniformities and congruences
----------------------------
If $\mathcal U\in{\operatorname{Unif}}A$, then $\bigcap\mathcal
U\in{\operatorname{Con}}A$. We may consider this as a mapping from ${\operatorname{Unif}}A$ to ${\operatorname{Unif}}A$, where we map $\mathcal U$ to ${\operatorname{Ug}}\{\,\bigcap\mathcal U\,\}$; more generally, we can map $\mathcal U$ to the filter of $\kappa$-fold intersections of relations in $\mathcal U$, for $\kappa$ some given infinite cardinal. The result will be a compatible uniformity $\mathcal V$ such that $\mathcal V$ admits $\kappa$-fold intersections of its elements. We say that $\mathcal V$ *satisfies the $\kappa$-fold intersection property*.
Uniformities and homomorphisms
------------------------------
If $\mathcal U$ is a relation on an algebra $A$, and $f:B
\to A$ is a homomorphism from another algebra $B$, then we denote by $f^{-1}(U)$ the relation $\{\,\pair b{b'}\mid f(b)\mathrel Uf(b')\,\}$. If $\mathcal U$ is a filter of relations on $A$, then we denote by $f^{-1}(\mathcal U)$ the filter ${\operatorname{Fg}}\{\,f^{-1}(U)\mid U\in\mathcal U\,\}$.
Let $A$, $B$ be algebras, and $f:B\to
A$ a homomorphism. We have
1. If $\mathcal U$ is a compatible uniformity (compatible semiuniformity, singly compatible semiuniformity) on $A$, then $f^{-1}(\mathcal U)$ is a compatible uniformity (respectively, compatible semiuniformity, singly compatible semiuniformity) on $B$.
2. The mapping $\mathcal U\mapsto f^{-1}(\mathcal
U)$ preserves arbitrary meets.
Now, suppose that we have $\mathcal U\in{\operatorname{Fil}}{\operatorname{Rel}}A$, and a homomorphism $f:A\to B$. If $\mathcal U\in{\operatorname{Unif}}A$, we define $f_{*c}(\mathcal U)$ to be the meet of all $\mathcal
V\in{\operatorname{Unif}}B$ such that $\mathcal U\leq f^{-1}(\mathcal
V)$.
Let $A$ and $B$ be algebras, and $f:A\to B$ a homomorphism. Then the mapping $\mathcal
U\mapsto f_{*c}(\mathcal U)$ preserves arbitrary joins.
Let $A$, $B$ be algebras, and $f:A\to B$ a homomorphism, and $U$ a relation on $A$. If $n$, $n'\geq 0$ and $t$ is an $(n+n')$-ary term, we denote by $L_{f,n,n',t}(U)$ the set of pairs $\pair{t(\mathbf b,f(\mathbf a))}{t(\mathbf
b,f(\mathbf a'))}$ where $\mathbf b\in B^n$ and $\mathbf
a$, $\mathbf a'\in A^{n'}$ are such that $\mathbf a\mathrel
U\mathbf a'$.
\[T:Push\] Given $A$, $B$, $f:A\to B$, and a uniformity $\mathcal U$ on $A$, we have
1. Given $n$, $n'$, and $t$, the set of relations $L_{f,n,n',t}(U)$ on $B$, for $U\in\mathcal U$, is a base for a filter $\mathcal L_{f,n,n',t}(\mathcal U)$ of relations on $B$.
2. Given $n$, $n'$, and $t$, if $\mathcal U$ is compatible, then $\mathcal L_{f,n,n',t}(\mathcal U)\leq f_{*c}(\mathcal
U)$.
3. $\mathcal L_f(\mathcal
U)\overset{def}=\bigcap_{n,n',t}\mathcal L_{f,n,n',t}(U)$ is a singly compatible semiuniformity.
4. $f_{*c}(\mathcal U)={\operatorname{Ug}}(\mathcal L_f(\mathcal
U))$.
\(1) is clear.
(2): Let $V\in f_{*c}(\mathcal U)$. There is a $\bar V\in
f_{*c}(\mathcal U)$ such that $t(\bar V)\subseteq V$. There is a $U\in\mathcal U$ such that $U\subseteq
f^{-1}(\bar V)$, because $\mathcal U\leq
f^{-1}(f_{*c}(\mathcal U))$. Then $f(U)\subseteq\bar V$ and $L_{f,n,n',t}(U)\subseteq V$. Thus, $\mathcal L_{f,n,n',t}(\mathcal U)\leq
f_{*c}(\mathcal U)$.
(3): (U1) and (U2) are clear. If $t$ is the unary term $t(x)=x$, then $\mathcal L_{f,1,0,t}(\mathcal
U)=\{\,\Delta_B\,\}$, proving (U3). $L_{f,n,n',t}(U^{-1})=L_{f,n,n',t}(U)^{-1}$, so if $\mathcal U$ is a semiuniformity, then so is $\mathcal
L_{f,n,n',t}(\mathcal U)$ for all $n$, $n'$, and $t$, proving (U4). To show single compatibility, we must show that given $V\in\mathcal L_f(\mathcal U)$ and an $(\bar
n+1)$-ary term $\bar t$ for $\bar n\geq 0$, there is a $\bar V\in\mathcal L_f(\mathcal U)$ such that $\bar
t(\bar V,\mathbf c)\subseteq V$ for any $\mathbf c\in B
^{\bar n}$. It suffices to show that, given $n$, $n'$, and $t$, there is a $U_{n,n',t}\in\mathcal U$ such that $\bar t(L_{f,n,n',t}(U_{n,n',t}),\mathbf c)\subseteq V$ for $\mathbf c\in B^{\bar n}$. For, then $\hat
U=\bigcup_{n,n',t}L_{f,n,n',t}(U_{n,n',t})\in\mathcal
L_f(\mathcal U)$ and $\bar t(\hat U,\mathbf c)\subseteq V$ for all $\mathbf c$. Now, $\bar t(L_{f,n,n',t}(U),\mathbf c)\subseteq
L_{f,n+\bar n,n',\tilde t}(U)$ where $\tilde t(\mathrm
x,\mathbf y,\mathbf z)=\bar t(t(\mathrm x,\mathbf
z),\mathbf y)$. Thus, if we pick $U_{n,n',t}$ such that $L_{f,n+\bar n,n',\tilde t}(U_{n,n',t})\subseteq V$, which we can do because $\mathcal L_{f,n+\bar n,n',\tilde
t}(\mathcal U)\leq f_{*c}(\mathcal U)$ by (2), then we have $\bar t(L_{f,n,n',t}(U_{n,n',t}),\mathbf c)\subseteq
V$.
(4): We have $\mathcal L_f(\mathcal U)\leq f_{*c}(\mathcal
U)$ by (2). Thus, ${\operatorname{Ug}}\mathcal L_f(\mathcal U)\leq
f_{*c}(\mathcal U)$. To show the opposite inequality, it suffices to note that $\mathcal U\leq
f^{-1}(\mathcal L_f(\mathcal U))$. For, $\mathcal U\leq
f^{-1}(\mathcal L_{1,0,x}(\mathcal U))$.
In [@R02 Section 11], there is another incorrect discussion about the procedure for finding the colimit of a diagram $F:\mathcal D\to\mathbf V(\Unif)$ in the category $\mathbf V(\Unif)$. The uniformity of the colimit is the smallest *compatible* uniformity greater than or equal to all of the $\iota_d(\mathcal U(d))$, where $\iota_d$ is the insertion of $F(d)$ into the colimit and $\mathcal U(d)$ is the uniformity on $F(d)$.
Completion
----------
The *completion* of an algebra $A$ with respect to a compatible uniformity $\mathcal U$ is defined as the set of equivalence classes of Cauchy nets in $A$ with respect to $\mathcal U$, and we denote it by $A/\mathcal U$. $A/\mathcal U$ has a natural structure of uniform universal algebra. The mapping from $A$ to $A/\mathcal U$ taking $a\in A$ to the equivalence class containing the constant nets at $a$ is a uniform homomorphism onto a dense subset of $A/\mathcal
U$, and we denote this mapping by ${\operatorname{nat}}\mathcal U$. Note that in [@R02], we used the notation $\eta_{\mathcal
U}$ for ${\operatorname{nat}}\mathcal U$.
We denote the natural uniformity on $A/\mathcal U$ by $\mathcal U/\mathcal U$; it has a base of relations $R(\mathcal U,U)$ for $U\in\mathcal U$, where $R(\mathcal
U,U)$ relates two equivalence classes $k$, $k'$ of Cauchy nets iff there exist nets $n\in k$, $n'\in k'$ such that $n(d)\mathrel Un'(d')$ for large enough $d$ and $d'$.
More generally, if $\mathcal V$ is another compatible uniformity on $A$ such that $\mathcal U\leq\mathcal V$, then there is a uniformity $\mathcal V/\mathcal U$ on $A/\mathcal U$ having a base of relations $R(\mathcal
U,V)$ for $V\in\mathcal V$.
It follows from [@R02 Theorem 9.9(2)] that $\mathcal V/\mathcal U=({\operatorname{nat}}\mathcal
U)_{*c}(\mathcal V)=({\operatorname{nat}}\mathcal U)_*(\mathcal V)$.
Formation of the completion plays the same role in uniform universal algebra that formation of quotient algebras plays in standard universal algebra, and satisfies many of the same properties. See [@R02 Section 9]. As an example of the close relationship between these two constructions, if $\alpha\in{\operatorname{Con}}A$ then $A/{\operatorname{Ug}}\{\,\alpha\,\}\cong
\pair{A/\alpha}{\mathcal U_d}$, where $\mathcal
U_d={\operatorname{Fg}}\{\,\Delta\,\}$ is the discrete uniformity.
Joins of compatible uniformities
--------------------------------
Joins in the lattice of compatible uniformities are the same as in the lattice of uniformities on the underlying set [@R02 Theorem 5.3].
Compatible uniformities on algebras in congruence-permutable algebras
---------------------------------------------------------------------
We recall ([@R02 Theorems 6.4 and 6.2]) that if $A$ is an algebra in a congruence-permutable variety, and $\mathcal U$, $\mathcal V\in{\operatorname{Unif}}A$, then $\mathcal U$ and $\mathcal
V$ permute, and that ${\operatorname{Unif}}A$ is modular.
Topological Groups and Uniform Groups {#S:Groups}
=====================================
A *topological group* is a group object in the category of topological spaces and continuous functions. Such an object is determined by a group $G$ and a topology $\mathcal T$ on $G$ such that the group operations are continuous functions. Thus, it is different from a uniform group, or group with a compatible uniformity $\pair G{\mathcal U}$, where the operations are required to be not only continuous but uniformly continuous.
Axioms for topological groups
-----------------------------
If $\pair G{\mathcal T}$ is a topological group, then the set $\mathcal N$ of neighborhoods of the identity $e$ satisfies the following axioms:
1. If $N\in\mathcal N$ and $N\subseteq N'$, then $N'\in\mathcal N$.
2. If $N$, $N'\in\mathcal N$, then $N\cap N'\in\mathcal N$.
3. For any $N\in\mathcal N$, there exists a neighborhood $\bar N\in\mathcal N$ such that $\bar N\bar N=\{\,xy\mid
x,y\in\bar N\,\}\subseteq N$.
4. If $N\in\mathcal N$, then $N^{-1}\in\mathcal N$.
5. If $N\in\mathcal N$ and $a\in G$, then $a^{-1}Na\in\mathcal N$.
A stronger version of (G5) which will be useful to us is
1. If $N\in\mathcal N$, then $\bigcap_aa^{-1}Na\in\mathcal N$.
Uniform groups
--------------
A *uniform group*, or, *group with a compatible uniformity*, is a pair $\pair G{\mathcal U}$ where $G$ is a group and $\mathcal U$ is a compatible uniformity. If $\pair G{\mathcal U}$ is a uniform group, then the topology $\mathcal T$ underlying the uniformity $\mathcal
U$ is compatible with the group operations. The neighborhood system $\mathcal N$ of this topology is given by $N\in\mathcal N$ iff $N=\{\,x\mid x\mathrel
Ue\,\}$ for some $U\in\mathcal U$. The conditions (G1) through (G5) can easily be verified.
Translation invariance
----------------------
If $A$ is a group, we say that a relation $U\subseteq A^2$ is *left translation invariant* (*right translation invariant*) if $a\in A$ and $b\mathrel Ub'$ imply $ab\mathrel
Uab'$ (respectively, $ba\mathrel Ub'a$). If $A$ is abelian, then left translation invariance and right translation invariance coincide and we simply say that a relation is *translation invariant*.
\[T:InvBase\] Every compatible uniformity $\mathcal U$ on a group $A$ has a base of left translation invariant relations and a base of right translation invariant relations.
Given $U\in\mathcal U$, let $U'\in\mathcal U$ be such that if $b\mathrel{U'}c$, then $ab\mathrel U ac$ for any $a$. Define the relation $V$ by $x\mathrel Vy$ iff there exist $b$, $c$ such that $x^{-1}y=b^{-1}c$ and $b\mathrel{U'}c$. Then clearly $U'\subseteq V$, so that $V\in\mathcal U$, and also $V\subseteq U$ because $b\mathrel{U'}c$ and $x^{-1}y=b^{-1}c$ imply $x=(xb^{-1})b\mathrel
U(xb^{-1})c=xx^{-1}y=y$. But $V$ is left translation invariant. This proves that $\mathcal U$ has a base of left translation invariant relations; the proof that $\mathcal U$ has a base of right translation invariant relations is similar.
The left uniformity and right uniformity of a compatible topology
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Let $\mathcal N$ be a neighborhood system for a compatible topology on $G$. If $N\in\mathcal N$, we define $N_l=\{\,\pair xy\in G^2\mid y\in xN\,\}$. The set of relations $\{\,N_l\mid N\in\mathcal N\,\}$ is a base for a compatible uniformity $\mathcal U_{\mathcal T,l}$ on $G$, called the *left uniformity*. Similarly, if $N\in\mathcal N$, we define $N_r=\{\,\pair xy\mid y\in Nx\,\}$, and the $N_r$ form a base for the *right uniformity*, denoted by $\mathcal U_{\mathcal T,r}$. The inverse operation is a uniform isomorphism (of the uniform structure) when viewed as a function from $\pair G{\mathcal U_{\mathcal T,l}}$ to $\pair G{\mathcal U_{\mathcal T,r}}$. Note that $\mathcal U_{\mathcal T,l}$ has a base of left translation invariant relations, and $\mathcal
U_{\mathcal T,r}$ has a base of right translation invariant relations.
\[T:OnlyOne\] Let $\pair G{\mathcal T}$ be a topological group. There is at most one compatible uniformity $\mathcal U$ on $G$ such that $\mathcal T$ is the topology underlying $\mathcal U$, and in this case, $\mathcal U=\mathcal U_{\mathcal T,l}=\mathcal
U_{\mathcal T,r}$.
If $\mathcal U$ exists, then by Lemma \[T:InvBase\], $\mathcal U$ has a base of left-invariant relations. It follows that if $\mathcal T$ is the underlying topology of a compatible uniformity $\mathcal U$, then $\mathcal
T$ determines $\mathcal U$ as $\mathcal U_{\mathcal T,l}$. Similar arguments apply to the right uniformity.
The Theorem causes us to ask the question: If we have a topological group $\pair A{\mathcal T}$ such that $\mathcal U_{\mathcal T,l}=\mathcal U_{\mathcal T,r}$, must this uniformity be compatible?
Let $\pair A{\mathcal T}$ be a topological group. The following are equivalent:
1. $\mathcal U_{\mathcal T,r}\leq\mathcal
U_{\mathcal T,l}$
2. $\mathcal U_{\mathcal T,l}\leq\mathcal
U_{\mathcal T,r}$
3. $\mathcal U_{\mathcal T,l}=\mathcal
U_{\mathcal T,r}$
4. $\mathcal U_{\mathcal T,l}$ is compatible
5. $\mathcal U_{\mathcal T,r}$ is compatible
6. The neighborhood system $\mathcal N$ corresponding to $\mathcal T$ satisfies (G6${\,}'$).
Clearly, (3)$\implies$(1) and (3)$\implies$(2). We have (4)$\implies$(3) and (5)$\implies$(3) by Theorem \[T:OnlyOne\].
(1)$\implies$(6): If $\mathcal U_{\mathcal
T,r}\leq\mathcal U_{\mathcal T,l}$, then given $N\in\mathcal N$, there is an $\bar N\in\mathcal N$ such that $\bar N_r\subseteq N_l$. That is, $y\in\bar Nx\implies y\in xN$, or $yx^{-1}\in\bar
N\implies x^{-1}y\in N$. This implies by a change of variables that $x\in\bar N\implies a^{-1}xa\in N$ for all $x$ and $a$, i.e., (6).
To prove (6)$\implies$(4), we must show that $\mathcal
U_{\mathcal T,l}$ is compatible with respect to group multiplication and the inverse operation.
To show $\mathcal U_{\mathcal T,l}$ is compatible with respect to group multiplication, it suffices to show that given $N\in\mathcal N$, there is an $\bar N\in\mathcal N$ such that $\pair x{x'}$, $\pair y{y'}\in\bar
N_l\implies\pair{xy}{x'y'}\in N_l$, or in other words, $x^{-1}x'$, $y^{-1}y'\in\bar N\implies
y^{-1}x^{-1}x'y'\in N$. Given $N$, there is an $\hat
N\in\mathcal N$ such that $a^{-1}\hat Na\subseteq N$ for all $a$. There is an $\tilde N\in \mathcal N$ such that $\tilde N\tilde N\subseteq\hat N$, by (G5’). Finally, there is an $\bar N\in\mathcal N$ such that $a^{-1}\bar
Na\subseteq\tilde N$ for all $a$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
x^{-1}x',\,y^{-1}y'\in\bar N&\implies
x^{-1}x',\,y'y^{-1}\in\tilde N\\
&\implies x^{-1}x'y'y^{-1}\in\hat N\\
&\implies y^{-1}x^{-1}x'y'\in N.\end{aligned}$$
To show that $\mathcal U_{\mathcal T,l}$ is compatible with respect to the inverse operation, it suffices to show that for each $N$, there is an $\bar N$ such that $\pair xy\in\bar N_l\implies\pair{x^{-1}}{y^{-1}}\in
N_l$, or in other words, $x^{-1}y\in\bar N\implies
xy^{-1}\in N$. Given $N$, let $\hat N$ be such that $\hat
N^{-1}\subseteq N$, and let $\bar N$ be such that $xy\in\bar N\implies yx\in\bar N$ (true by (G$5'$)). Then $x^{-1}y\in\bar N\implies yx^{-1}\in\hat N\implies
xy^{-1}\in N$. Thus, (6)$\implies$(4).
The proof that (6)$\implies$(5) is similar.
Term Conditions, Centralization, and Related Commutator Operations {#S:Term}
==================================================================
In this section, we will discuss various conditions we call *term conditions*, and define notions of centralization and commutator operations based on them. First, more or less following [@F-McK], we review the *$\alpha,\beta$-term condition*. Then, we generalize this to uniformities and give the *$\mathcal U,\mathcal V$-term condition*. We also give two weaker conditions, which we call the *weak $\alpha,\beta$-term condition* and the *weak $\mathcal U,\mathcal V$-term condition*. As we state these four conditions, we give corresponding notions of centralization. Then we define notions of commutator (binary operations on ${\operatorname{Con}}A$ and ${\operatorname{Unif}}A$) derived from the four types of centralization, and finally, we prove some relationships between the various notions, showing that centralization for congruences can be considered a special case of centralization for uniformities.
The $\alpha,\beta$-term condition
---------------------------------
We begin with the $\alpha,\beta$-term condition. We consider it as coming in two equivalent forms:
If $\alpha$, $\beta$, $\delta\in{\operatorname{Con}}A$, for some algebra $A$, then we say that $\delta$ satisfies the *first form of the $\alpha,\beta$-term condition* if for all $a$, $a'\in A$ such that $a\mathrel\alpha a'$, for all $\mathbf b$, $\mathbf c\in A^n$, $n>0$, such that $\mathbf
b\mathrel\beta\mathbf c$ (i.e., $b_i\mathrel\beta c_i$ for all $i$), and all $(n+1)$-ary terms $t$, $t(a,\mathbf
b)\mathrel\delta t(a,\mathbf c)$ implies $t(a',\mathbf
b)\mathrel\delta t(a',\mathbf c)$.
To give the second form of the $\alpha,\beta$-term condition, we first define, given $n\geq 0$, $n'\geq 0$, and $t$, an $(n+n')$-ary term, and binary relations $U$, $V$ on $A$, the set of $2\times 2$ matrices $$\mathrm M_{n,n,t}(U,V)=\left\{\left(\begin{array}{cc}
t(\mathbf a,\mathbf b) & t(\mathbf a,\mathbf c) \\
t(\mathbf a',\mathbf b) & t(\mathbf a',\mathbf c)
\end{array}\right)
\mathrel{\bigg|} \mathbf a, \mathbf a'\in
A^n,\,\mathbf
b,\mathbf c\in A^{n'},\,\text{ with }\mathbf a\mathrel
U\mathbf a'\text{ and }\mathbf b\mathrel V\mathbf
c\,\right\}.$$ Then we say that $\delta$ satisfies the *second form of the $\alpha,\beta$-term condition* if for all $n$, $n'$, and $t$, $\left(\begin{array}{cc} u_{11} & u_{12} \\
u_{21} & u_{22}
\end{array}\right)\in\mathrm M_{n,n',t}(\alpha,\beta)$ and $u_{11}\mathrel\delta u_{12}$ imply $u_{21}\mathrel\delta
u_{22}$.
\[T:abTerm\] The two forms of the $\alpha,\beta$-term condition are equivalent.
Clearly if $\delta$ satisfies the second form, it satisfies the first. Given $\delta$ satisfying the first form, $n$, $n'$, and $t$, and $\left(\begin{array}{cc} t(\mathbf
a,\mathbf b) & t(\mathbf a,\mathbf c) \\
t(\mathbf a',\mathbf b) & t(\mathbf a',\mathbf c)
\end{array}\right)\in\mathrm M_{n,n',t}(\alpha,\beta)$, such that $t(\mathbf a,\mathbf b)\mathrel\delta t(\mathbf a,\mathbf
c)$, we apply the first form $n$ times, changing one component of $\mathbf a$ at a time, to obtain the conclusion that $t(\mathbf a',\mathbf
b)\mathrel\delta t(\mathbf a',\mathbf c)$.
In view of this equivalence, we simply say that $\delta$ *satisfies the $\alpha,\beta$-term condition*. When this is so, we also say that $\alpha$ *centralizes* $\beta$ *modulo* $\delta$, or $C(\alpha,\beta;\delta)$.
\[T:Cent\] We have
1. $C(\alpha,\beta;\alpha)$
2. $C(\alpha,\beta;\beta)$
3. $C(\alpha,\beta;\delta)$ and $\alpha'\leq\alpha$, $\beta'\leq\beta$ imply $C(\alpha',\beta';\delta)$
4. If $C(\alpha,\beta;\delta_i)$ for $i\in I$, then $C(\alpha,\beta;\bigwedge_i\delta_i)$.
The $\mathcal U,\mathcal V$-term condition
------------------------------------------
We now generalize the term condition to compatible uniformities. Let $A$ be an algebra, and let $\mathcal U$, $\mathcal V$, $\mathcal W\in{\operatorname{Unif}}A$.
We say that $\mathcal W$ satisfies the *first form of the $\mathcal U,\mathcal V$-term condition* if for all $n>0$, all $(n+1)$-ary terms $t$, and all $W\in\mathcal W$, there are $U\in\mathcal U$, $V\in\mathcal V$, $\bar
W\in\mathcal W$ such that for all $a$, $a'\in A$ such that $a\mathrel Ua'$, and all $\mathbf
b$, $\mathbf c\in A^n$ such that $\mathbf b\mathrel
V\mathbf c$ for all $i$, $t(a,\mathbf b)\mathrel{\bar W}t(a,\mathbf c)$ implies $t(a',\mathbf b)\mathrel Wt(a',\mathbf c)$.
We say that $\mathcal W$ satisfies the *second form of the $\mathcal U,\mathcal V$-term condition* if for all $n$, $n'$, all $(n+n')$-ary $t$, and all $W\in\mathcal W$, there are $U\in\mathcal U$, $V\in\mathcal V$, and $\bar W\in\mathcal W$ such that $\left(\begin{array}{cc} u_{11} & u_{12} \\ u_{21} &
u_{22}
\end{array}\right)\in\mathrm M_{n,n',t}(U,V)$ and $u_{11}\mathrel{\bar W}u_{12}$ imply $u_{21}\mathrel
Wu_{22}$.
\[T:UVTerm\] The two forms of the $\mathcal U,\mathcal V$-term condition are equivalent.
Clearly, the second form of the condition implies the first form. In the other direction, given $n$, $n'$, and $t$, $t(\mathbf a,\mathbf
b)$ and $t(\mathbf a,\mathbf c)$ can be changed to $t(\mathbf{a'},\mathbf b)$ and $t(\mathbf{a'},\mathbf c)$ one component of $\mathbf a$ at a time. For the $\alpha,\beta$-term condition, the result is immediate, but in the uniformity-theoretic case, given $W\in\mathcal
W$, we must choose in reverse order $W_i$, $i=1$, $\ldots,n$ such that the changes are valid, starting by choosing $U_n\in\mathcal U$, $V_n\in\mathcal V$, and $W_n\in\mathcal W$ such that $a_n\mathrel{U_n}$, $\mathbf b\mathrel{V_n}\mathbf c$, and $t(\langle a'_1,\ldots,a'_{n-1},a_n\rangle,\mathbf
b)\mathrel{W_n}t(\langle
a'_1,\ldots,a'_{n-1},a_n\rangle,\mathbf c)$ imply $t(\mathbf a,\mathbf b)\mathrel W t(\mathbf{a'},\mathbf
c)$, and ending by choosing $U_1$, $V_1$, and $W_1$ such that $a_1\mathrel{U_1}a'_1$, $\mathbf
b\mathrel{V_1}\mathbf c$, and $t(\mathbf a,\mathbf b)\mathrel{W_1}t(\mathbf a,\mathbf
c)$ imply $t(\langle
a'_1,a_2,\ldots,a_n\rangle,\mathbf
b)\mathrel{W_2}
t(\langle
a'_1,a_2,\ldots,a_n\rangle,\mathbf c)$. We then let $U=\bigcap_iU_i$, $V=\bigcap_iV_i$, and $\bar W=W_1$.
If $\mathcal W$ satisfies the two equivalent forms of the $\mathcal U,\mathcal V$-term condition, then we say that $\mathcal U$ *centralizes* $\mathcal V$ *modulo* $\mathcal W$, or $C(\mathcal U,\mathcal
V;\mathcal W)$.
\[T:UCent\] We have
1. $C(\mathcal U,\mathcal V;\mathcal U)$
2. $C(\mathcal U,\mathcal V;\mathcal V)$
3. $C(\mathcal U,\mathcal V;\mathcal W)$ and $\mathcal U'\leq\mathcal U$, $\mathcal V'\leq\mathcal V$ imply $C(\mathcal U',\mathcal V';\mathcal W)$
4. If $C(\mathcal U,\mathcal V;\mathcal W_i)$ for $i\in I$, then $C(\mathcal U,\mathcal
V;\bigwedge_i\mathcal W_i)$
5. $C({\operatorname{Ug}}\{\,\alpha\,\},{\operatorname{Ug}}\{\,\beta\,\};{\operatorname{Ug}}\{\,\delta
\,\})$ iff $C(\alpha,\beta;\delta)$.
To show (1), let $U\in\mathcal U$ and $t$ be given. There is a symmetric $\bar U\in\mathcal U$ such that $a\mathrel{\bar U}a'$ implies $t(a,\mathbf
b)\mathrel{{^3U}}t(a',\mathbf b)$ and $t(a,\mathbf
c)\mathrel{{^3U}}t(a',\mathbf c)$. Then for any $V\in\mathcal V$, $a\mathrel{\bar
U}a'$ and $t(a,\mathbf
b)\mathrel{{^3U}}t(a,\mathbf
c)$ imply $t(a',\mathbf b)\mathrel
Ut(a',\mathbf c)$.
To show (2), let $V\in\mathcal V$ and $t$ be given. Then for some $\bar
V\in\mathcal V$, $\mathbf b\mathrel V\mathbf c$ implies $t(a',\mathbf
b)\mathrel V t(a',\mathbf c)$ for any $a'$, by uniform continuity of $t$, regardless of any consideration of $t(a,\mathbf b)$ and $t(a,\mathbf c)$.
\(3) is obvious.
(4): Suppose the $\mathcal W_i$ satisfy the $\mathcal
U$,$\mathcal V$-term condition, and that $n>0$, an $(n+1)$-ary term $t$, and $W\in\bigwedge_i\mathcal W_i$ are given. Then $\bigwedge_{j=1}^kW_j\subseteq W$ for some uniform neighborhoods $W_j\in W_{i_j}$, $i_j$ being selected values of the index $i$. It suffices to show that $\bigwedge_{j=1}^k\mathcal W_{i_j}$ satisfies the $\mathcal U$,$\mathcal V$-term condition.
Let $U_j\in\mathcal U$, $V_j\in\mathcal V$, $\bar
W_j\in\mathcal W_{i_j}$ be relations as promised by the $\mathcal U$,$\mathcal V$-term condition for $\mathcal
W_{i_j}$, and let $U=\bigwedge_jU_j$, $V=\bigwedge_jV_j$, and $\bar W=\bigwedge_jW_j$. Then if $a \mathrel U a'$, $\mathbf b\mathrel V\mathbf c$, and $t(a,\mathbf
b)\mathrel{\bar W}t(a,\mathbf c)$, we have $t(a',\mathbf
b)\mathrel{W_j}t(a',\mathbf c)$ for each $j$, whence $t(a',\mathbf b)\mathrel Wt(a',\mathbf c)$.
\(5) follows easily from the definitions.
The weak term conditions
------------------------
We say that $\delta$ satisfies the *weak $\alpha,\beta$-term condition* if for all $n$, $n'$, and $t$, $\left(\begin{array}{cc}
u_{11} & u_{12} \\
u_{21} & u_{22}\end{array}\right)\in
\mathrm M_{n,n',t}(\alpha,\beta)$ and $u_{11}=u_{12}$ imply $u_{21}\mathrel\delta u_{22}$. In case $\delta$ satisfies the weak $\alpha,\beta$-term condition, we say that $\alpha$ *weakly centralizes* $\beta$ *modulo* $\delta$, or $\tilde
C(\alpha,\beta;\delta)$.
\[T:CentW\] We have
1. $\tilde C(\alpha,\beta;\alpha)$
2. $\tilde C(\alpha,\beta;\beta)$
3. $\tilde C(\alpha,\beta;\delta)$ and $\alpha'\leq\alpha$, $\beta'\leq\beta$ imply $C(\alpha',\beta';\delta)$
4. If $\tilde C(\alpha,\beta;\delta_i)$ for $i\in
I$, then $\tilde C(\alpha,\beta;\bigwedge_i\delta_i)$
5. $\tilde C(\alpha,\beta;\delta)$ and $\delta\leq\delta'$ imply $\tilde C(\alpha,\beta;\delta')$
6. $C(\alpha,\beta;\delta)\implies\tilde
C(\alpha,\beta;\delta)$.
We say that $\mathcal W$ satisfies the *weak $\mathcal U,\mathcal V$-term condition* if for all $n$, $n'$, and $t$, and all $W\in\mathcal W$, there exist $U\in\mathcal U$ and $V\in\mathcal V$ such that $\left(\begin{array}{cc}
u_{11} & u_{12} \\
u_{21} & u_{22}\end{array}\right)\in\mathrm M_{n,n',t}(
U,V)$ and $u_{11}=u_{12}$ imply $u_{21}\mathrel W u_{22}$. If $\mathcal W$ satisfies the weak $\mathcal U,\mathcal V$-term condition, we say that $\mathcal W$ *weakly centralizes* $\mathcal U$ *modulo* $\mathcal V$, or $\tilde C(\mathcal
U,\mathcal V;\mathcal W)$.
\[T:UCentW\] We have
1. $\tilde C(\mathcal U,\mathcal V;\mathcal U)$
2. $\tilde C(\mathcal U,\mathcal V;\mathcal V)$
3. $\tilde C(\mathcal U,\mathcal V;\mathcal W)$ and $\mathcal U'\leq\mathcal U$, $\mathcal V'\leq\mathcal V$ imply $\tilde C(\mathcal U',\mathcal V';\mathcal W)$
4. If $\tilde C(\mathcal U,\mathcal V;\mathcal
W_i)$ for $i\in I$, then $\tilde C(\mathcal U,\mathcal
V;\bigwedge_i\mathcal W_i)$
5. $\tilde C(\mathcal U,\mathcal V;\mathcal W)$ and $\mathcal W\leq\mathcal W'$ imply $\tilde C(\mathcal
U,\mathcal V;\mathcal W')$
6. $C(\mathcal U,\mathcal V;\mathcal W)\implies
\tilde C(\mathcal U,\mathcal V;\mathcal W)$
7. $\tilde C({\operatorname{Ug}}\{\,\alpha\,\},{\operatorname{Ug}}\{\,\beta\,\};
{\operatorname{Ug}}\{\,\delta\,\})$ iff $\tilde C(\alpha,\beta;\delta)$.
(1): Given $n$, $n'$, and $t$, and $U\in\mathcal U$, there exists a symmetric $U'\in\mathcal U$ such that $\mathbf
a\mathrel{U'}\mathbf a'$ implies $t(\mathbf a,\mathbf
b)\mathrel{^2U}t(\mathbf a',\mathbf b)$ for all $\mathbf
b$. It follows that for any $V\in\mathcal V$, $\left(\begin{array}{cc} u_{11}&u_{12}\\
u_{21}&u_{22}\end{array}\right)\in\mathrm
M_{n,n',t}(U',V)$ and $u_{11}=u_{12}$ imply $u_{21}\mathrel{^2U}u_{11}=u_{12}\mathrel{^2U}u_{22}$.
\(2) The proof of $\tilde C(\mathcal U,\mathcal
V;\mathcal V)$ is the same as the proof of $C(\mathcal
U,\mathcal V;\mathcal V)$.
\(3) is obvious.
(4): Again we can reduce to the case $I$ finite. For $W\in\bigwedge_i\mathcal W_i$, $W=\bigcap_iW_i$ for some $W_i\in\mathcal W_i$. Given $n$, $n'$, and $t$, there exist $U_i\in\mathcal U$, $V_i\in\mathcal V$ such that $\left(\begin{array}{cc}
u_{11}&u_{12}\\ u_{21}&u_{22}\end{array}\right)\in\mathrm
M_{n,n',t}(U_i,V_i)$ and $u_{11}=u_{12}$ imply $u_{21}\mathrel{W_i}u_{22}$. Then $\left(\begin{array}{cc} u_{11}&u_{12}\\
u_{21}&u_{22}\end{array}\right)\in
\mathrm M_{n,n',t}(\bigcap_iU_i,\bigcap_iV_i)$ and $u_{11}=u_{12}$ imply $u_{21}\mathrel Wu_{22}$.
(5), (6), and (7) are clear.
Related commutator operations
-----------------------------
These notions of centralization lead to definitions for binary operations on the lattice of compatible uniformities. Recall [@F-McK] that if $A$ is an algebra, and $\alpha$, $\beta\in{\operatorname{Con}}A$, then $C(\alpha,\beta)$ is defined as the least congruence on $A$ satisfying the $\alpha,\beta$-term condition. Similarly, we denote by $C(\mathcal U,\mathcal V)$ the least uniformity satisfying the $\mathcal U,\mathcal V$-term condition, by $\tilde C(\alpha,\beta)$ the least congruence satisfying the weak $\alpha,\beta$-term condition, and by $\tilde C(\mathcal U,\mathcal V)$ the least uniformity satisfying the weak $\mathcal U,\mathcal V$-term condition. These uniformities exist by Proposition \[T:UCent\](4) and Proposition \[T:UCentW\](4).
These commutator operations have some common properties:
\[T:AllComm\] Let $\hat C(x,y)$ stand for $C(\alpha,\beta)$, $C(\mathcal U,\mathcal V)$, $\tilde
C(\alpha,\beta)$, or $\tilde C(\mathcal U,\mathcal V)$. Then
1. $\hat C(x,y)\leq x\wedge y$
2. $x'\leq x$, $y'\leq y$ imply $\hat
C(x',y')\leq\hat C(x,y)$.
Here are some explicit formulas for $C(\alpha,\beta)$ and $\tilde C(\alpha,\beta)$:
\[T:Explic\] Let $A$ be an algebra, and $\alpha$, $\beta\in{\operatorname{Con}}A$. We have
1. $C(\alpha,\beta)=\bigcup_\nu R_\nu$, where the relations $R_\nu$ are defined for all ordinal numbers $\nu$, as follows: $$R_\nu=\begin{cases} \Delta^A, &\nu=0 \\
{\operatorname{Cg}}\{\,\pair {t(a',\mathbf b)}{t(a',\mathbf
c)}\mid t\text{ is $(n+1)$-ary, }a\mathrel\alpha
a',\,\mathbf b\mathrel\beta\mathbf
c,\\\qquad\qquad\qquad\text{ and }
t(a,\mathbf
b)\mathrel{R_{\nu'}}t(a,\mathbf c)\,\},
& \nu=\nu'+1\\
\bigcup_{\nu'<\nu}R_{\nu'}, & \text{for $\nu$ a limit
ordinal}
\end{cases}$$
2. $\tilde
C(\alpha,\beta)={\operatorname{Cg}}\tilde R$ where $$\tilde R=\{\,\pair{u_{21}}{u_{22}}\mathrel{\bigg|}
\left(\begin{array}{cc}u_{11}&u_{12}\\
u_{21}&u_{22}\end{array}\right)\in
\mathrm M_{n,n',t}(\alpha,\beta)\text{ for some $n$, $n'$,
and
$t$, and $u_{11}=u_{12}$}\,\}.$$
\[T:CommCong\] If $\alpha$, $\beta\in{\operatorname{Con}}A$, then we have
1. $
C({\operatorname{Ug}}\{\,\alpha\,\},{\operatorname{Ug}}\{\,\beta\,\})={\operatorname{Ug}}\{\,
C(\alpha,\beta)\,\}$
2. $\tilde
C({\operatorname{Ug}}\{\,\alpha\,\},{\operatorname{Ug}}\{\,\beta\,\})={\operatorname{Ug}}\{\,\tilde
C(\alpha,
\beta)\,\}$.
(1): By Proposition \[T:UCent\](5), since $C(\alpha,\beta)$ satisfies the $\alpha,\beta$-term condition, the uniformity ${\operatorname{Ug}}\{\,C(\alpha,\beta)\,\}$ satisfies the ${\operatorname{Ug}}\{\,\alpha\,\},{\operatorname{Ug}}\{\,\beta\,\}$-term condition. Thus, $C({\operatorname{Ug}}\{\,\alpha\,\},{\operatorname{Ug}}\{\,\beta\,\})\leq{\operatorname{Ug}}\{\,
C(\alpha,\beta)\,\}$. To show the opposite inequality, we must show that $W\in
C({\operatorname{Ug}}\{\,\alpha\,\},{\operatorname{Ug}}\{\,\beta\,\})$ implies $C(\alpha,\beta)\subseteq W$. By Proposition \[T:Explic\](1), $C(\alpha,\beta)=\bigcup_\nu R_\nu$. However, by transfinite induction, and the ${\operatorname{Ug}}\{\,\alpha\,\},{\operatorname{Ug}}\{\,\beta\,\}$-term condition, we also have $R_\nu\subseteq W$ for all $\nu$ and $W$. Thus, $C(\alpha,\beta)\subseteq
W$ and ${\operatorname{Ug}}\{\,C(\alpha,\beta)\,\}\leq
C({\operatorname{Ug}}\{\,\alpha\,\},{\operatorname{Ug}}\{\,\beta\,\})$.
(2): The proof that $\tilde
C({\operatorname{Ug}}\{\,\alpha\,\},{\operatorname{Ug}}\{\,\beta\,\})\leq
{\operatorname{Ug}}\{\,\tilde C(\alpha,\beta)\,\}$ follows that same pattern as for the operation $C(-,-)$. To show that ${\operatorname{Ug}}\{\,\tilde C(\alpha,\beta)\,\}\leq\tilde
C({\operatorname{Ug}}\{\,\alpha\,\},{\operatorname{Ug}}\{\,\beta\,\})$, we must show that for every $W\in\tilde
C({\operatorname{Ug}}\{\,\alpha\,\},{\operatorname{Ug}}\{\,\beta\,\})$, $\tilde
C(\alpha,\beta)\subseteq W$. However, it is clear that $\tilde R\in W$, where $\tilde R$ is the relation defined in the statement of Proposition \[T:Explic\](2). Thus, $\tilde R\subseteq\bigcap\tilde
C({\operatorname{Ug}}\{\,\alpha\,\},{\operatorname{Ug}}\{\,\beta\,\})$. But this intersection is a congruence. Thus, $\tilde
C(\alpha,\beta)={\operatorname{Cg}}\tilde R\subseteq W$ by Proposition \[T:Explic\](2).
By this theorem, the commutator operations $C(-,-)$ and $\tilde C(-,-)$ on uniformities extend the corresponding commutator operations on congruences, and we can compute the commutators on congruences by computing the corresponding commutators of uniformities. The rule is to promote both arguments to uniformities, and then take the chosen commutator. The resulting uniformity then determines the desired congruence.
The Commutator on Uniformities in Congruence-Modular Varieties {#S:Commutator}
==============================================================
As described in the previous section, the situation for a general variety is that we have defined two possibly different, possibly noncommutative commutator operations on uniformities, $C(-,-)$ and $\tilde C(-,-)$. We will show in this section that as it is with congruences [@F-McK], the situation is much simplified for congruence-modular varieties: these operations coincide and are commutative.
$\mathcal M(\mathcal U,\mathcal V)$, $\mathrm x_{\mathbf m}(\mathcal M)$, and $\mathcal
X_{\mathbf m}(\mathcal U,\mathcal V)$
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let $\mathcal U$, $\mathcal
V\in{\operatorname{Unif}}A$. The set of sets of $2\times 2$ matrices $\mathrm M_{n,n',t}(U,V)$, $U\in\mathcal
U$, $V\in\mathcal V$ is a base for a filter $\mathcal
M_{n,n',t}(\mathcal U,\mathcal V)$ of sets of $2\times
2$ matrices of elements of $A$.
If $\mathcal U$, $\mathcal V\in{\operatorname{Unif}}A$, then we define $$\mathcal M(\mathcal U,\mathcal
V)=\bigvee_{n,n',t}\mathcal M_{n,n',t}(\mathcal
U,\mathcal V)=\bigcap_{n,n',t}\mathcal
M_{n,n',t}(\mathcal U,\mathcal V).$$
Let $m_0$, $m_1$, $\ldots$, $m_k$ be a sequence of quaternary terms for $A$. If $M$ is a set of $2\times 2$-matrices of elements of $A$, we denote by $\mathrm x_{\mathbf m}(M)$ the set of pairs $$\pair{m_i(a,b,d,c)}{m_i(a,a,c,c)}$$ such that $i\leq k$ and $\left(\begin{array}{cc}a&b\\
c&d\end{array}\right)\in M$.
Given a filter $\mathcal M$ of sets of $2\times 2$-matrices of elements of $A$, the set of $\mathrm x_{\mathbf m}(M)$, $M\in\mathcal M$ forms a base for a filter $\mathrm x_{\mathbf m}(\mathcal M)$ of relations on $A$.
If $n$, $n'$, and $t$ are given, then we denote by $\mathcal X_{\mathbf m,n,n',t}(\mathcal U,\mathcal V)$ the filter $\mathrm x_{\mathbf m}(\mathcal
M_{n,n',t}(\mathcal U,\mathcal V))$, and by $\mathcal X_{\mathbf m}(\mathcal U,\mathcal V)$ the filter $\mathrm x_{\mathbf m}(\mathcal M(\mathcal
U,\mathcal V))$.
The commutator in modular varieties
-----------------------------------
The following theorem can be compared to [@F-McK Proposition 4.2(1)], which establishes the analogous result for commutators of congruences.
\[T:Commutator\] If $\mathcal U$, $\mathcal V$, $\mathcal W$ are compatible uniformities on $A$, an algebra in a congruence-modular variety with sequence of Day terms $\mathbf m$, then the following are equivalent:
1. $\mathcal X_{\mathbf
m}(\mathcal U,\mathcal V)\leq\mathcal W$
2. $\mathcal X_{\mathbf
m}(\mathcal V,\mathcal U)\leq\mathcal W$
3. $C(\mathcal U,\mathcal V;\mathcal W)$
4. $C(\mathcal V,\mathcal U;\mathcal W)$
5. $\tilde C(\mathcal U,\mathcal V;\mathcal W)$
6. $\tilde C(\mathcal V,\mathcal U;\mathcal W)$.
Obviously $(3)\implies(5)$ and $(4)\implies(6)$. We will show that also $(5)\implies (1)\implies (4)$. Exchanging $\mathcal U$ and $\mathcal V$ will then give $(6)\implies (2)\implies (3)$, completing the proof of equivalence.
(5)$\implies$(1): Assume $\tilde C(\mathcal
U,\mathcal V;\mathcal W)$. It suffices to show that if $n$, $n'$, $t$, and $W\in\mathcal W$ are given, then there are $U_{n,n',t}\in\mathcal U$ and $V_{n,n',t}\in\mathcal V$ such that for all $\mathbf a$, $\mathbf{a'}\in A^n$ with $\mathbf a\mathrel{U_{n,n',t}}\mathbf{a'}$, and all $\mathbf b$, $\mathbf c\in A^{n'}$ such that $\mathbf b\mathrel
{V_{n,n',t}}\mathbf c$, and for all $i$, we have $x\mathrel W
y$, where $$x=x(\mathbf a,\mathbf{a'},\mathbf b,\mathbf c)
=m_i(t(\mathbf a,\mathbf b),t(\mathbf a,\mathbf c),
t(\mathbf{a'},\mathbf c),t(\mathbf{a'},\mathbf b)),$$ and $$y=y(\mathbf a,\mathbf{a'},\mathbf
b,\mathbf c)
=m_i(t(\mathbf a,\mathbf b),t(\mathbf a,\mathbf b),
t(\mathbf{a'},\mathbf b),t(\mathbf{a'},\mathbf b)).$$ For, this implies that $\mathrm x_{\mathbf m}(\mathrm
M_{n,n',t}(U_{n,n',t},V_{n,n',t})\subseteq W$, and we then have $$\mathrm x_{\mathbf m}(\bigcup_{n,n',t}\mathrm
M_{n,n',t}(U_{n,n',t},V_{n,n',t}))\subseteq W;$$ but $\bigcup_{n,n',t}\mathrm
M_{n,n',t}(U_{n,n',t},V_{n,n',t})\in\mathcal M(\mathcal
U,\mathcal V)$. Thus, it follows that $\mathcal
M(\mathcal U,\mathcal V)\leq\mathcal W$.
If we replace $\mathbf a$ by $\mathbf{a'}$ at its second occurrence in the right-hand expressions for $x$ and $y$, and $\mathbf{a'}$ by $\mathbf
a$ in its second occurrence, then we obtain expressions for the same element $z=m_i(t(\mathbf a,\mathbf b),t(\mathbf a',\mathbf c),
t(\mathbf a',\mathbf c),t(\mathbf a,\mathbf b))
=m_i(t(\mathbf a,\mathbf b),t(\mathbf a',\mathbf b),
t(\mathbf a',\mathbf b),t(\mathbf a,\mathbf b))=
t(\mathbf a,\mathbf b)$. Let $s_i$ be the $(4n+4n')$-ary term given by $$s(\mathbf
g^1,\mathbf g^2,\mathbf g^3,\mathbf g^4,\mathbf
h^1,\mathbf h^2,\mathbf h^3,\mathbf h^4) =m_i(t(\mathbf
g^1,\mathbf h^1),t(\mathbf g^2,\mathbf h^2), t(\mathbf
g^3,\mathbf h^3),t(\mathbf g^4,\mathbf h^4)).$$ Since $\tilde C(\mathcal U,\mathcal V;\mathcal W)$, there are $U_i\in\mathcal U$ and $V_i\in\mathcal V$ such that for all $\left(
\begin{array}{cc}u_{11}&u_{12}\\u_{21}&u_{22}\end{array}
\right)\in\mathrm M_{4n,4n',s}(U_i,V_i)$, $u_{11}=u_{12}$ implies $u_{21}\mathrel Wu_{22}$. But $$\left(\begin{array}{cc}
z&
z\\
x&
y
\end{array}\right)
=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
s_i(\mathbf a,\mathbf{a'},\mathbf{a'},\mathbf a,\mathbf
b,\mathbf c,\mathbf c,\mathbf b)&
s_i(\mathbf a,\mathbf{a'},\mathbf{a'},\mathbf a,\mathbf
b,\mathbf b,\mathbf b,\mathbf b)\\
s_i(\mathbf a,\mathbf a,\mathbf{a'},\mathbf{a'},\mathbf
b,\mathbf c,\mathbf c,\mathbf b)&
s_i(\mathbf a,\mathbf a,\mathbf{a'},\mathbf{a'},\mathbf
b,\mathbf b,\mathbf b,\mathbf b)
\end{array}\right)
\in\mathrm M_{4n,4n',s_i}(U_i,V_i).$$ Thus, $x\mathrel Wy$. Letting $U=\bigwedge_iU_i$ and $V=\bigwedge_iV_i$, we have $\mathrm
x_{\mathbf m}(M_{n,n',t}(U,V))\subseteq W$, proving that (5)$\implies$(1).
To prove (1)$\implies$(4), let $W\in\mathcal W$ and let $n$, $n'$, and $t$ be given. By [@R02 Lemma 7.1] (a uniformity-theoretic generalization of [@F-McK Lemma 2.3]) there exists $\bar W\in\mathcal W$ such that $a$, $b$, $c$, $d\in A$ with $b\mathrel{\bar W}d$ and $m_i(a,a,c,c)\mathrel{\bar
W}m_i(a,b,d,c)$ for all $i$ imply $a\mathrel Wc$. By (1), there are $U$ and $V$ such that $\mathrm x_{\mathbf
m}(M_{n',n,t}(U^{-1},V^{-1}))\subseteq\bar W^{-1}$. If $\left(\begin{array}{cc}u_{11}&u_{12}\\u_{21}&u_{22}
\end{array}\right)\in\mathrm M_{n,n',t}(V,U)$, then $\left(\begin{array}{cc}u_{21}&u_{11}\\u_{22}&u_{12}
\end{array}\right)\in\mathrm M_{n',n,t}(U^{-1},V^{-1})$ and $$m_i(u_{21},u_{21},u_{22},u_{22})\mathrel{\bar
W}m_i(u_{21},u_{11},u_{12},u_{22})$$ for all $i$. It follows that if $u_{11}\mathrel{\bar W}u_{12}$, then $u_{21}\mathrel Wu_{22}$. A $\bar W$, $U$, and $V$ exists for each $n$, $n'$, and $t$, implying (4).
If $\mathcal U$, $\mathcal V\in{\operatorname{Unif}}A$, we define $[\mathcal U,\mathcal V]$ to be the least $\mathcal W$ such that the six equivalent statements in the theorem hold. Of course, we then have $[\mathcal
U,\mathcal V]=C(\mathcal U,\mathcal V)=C(\mathcal
V,\mathcal U)=\tilde C(\mathcal U,\mathcal V)=\tilde
C(\mathcal V,\mathcal U)={\operatorname{Ug}}\mathcal X_{\mathbf
m}(\mathcal U,\mathcal V)$.
Let $A$ be an algebra in a congruence-modular variety with Day terms $\mathbf m$, and let $\mathcal U$, $\mathcal V$, $\mathcal
W$, and $\mathcal W'\in{\operatorname{Unif}}A$. If $C(\mathcal U,\mathcal V;\mathcal W)$ and $\mathcal
W<\mathcal W'$, then $C(\mathcal U,\mathcal V;\mathcal W')$.
${\operatorname{Unif}}A(\alpha)$ and the Commutator $[{\operatorname{Ug}}\{\,\alpha\,\},\mathcal U]$ {#S:A(alpha)}
====================================================================================================
Recall that if $A$ is an algebra, and $\alpha\in{\operatorname{Con}}A$, then $A(\alpha)$ is the subalgebra of $A^2$ of pairs $\pair
ab$ such that $a\mathrel\alpha b$. We will denote by $\pi$, $\pi':A(\alpha)\to A$ and $\Delta_\alpha:A\to
A(\alpha)$ the homomorphisms defined respectively by $\pair ab\mapsto a$, $\pair ab\mapsto b$, and $a\mapsto\pair aa$. (Note that in [@F-McK], the notation $\Delta_A$ is used for $\Delta_\alpha$, whereas we use $\Delta_A$ to denote the diagonal set in $A^2$.)
If $\alpha$, $\beta\in{\operatorname{Con}}A$, where $A$ is an algebra, then we can construct a congruence $\Delta_{\alpha,\beta}\in{\operatorname{Con}}A(\alpha)$ by extending $\beta$ along $\Delta_\alpha$. That is, $\Delta_{\alpha,\beta}={\operatorname{Cg}}\{\,\pair{\pair aa}{\pair
bb}\mid a\mathrel\beta b\,\}$.
If $A$ is an algebra in a congruence-modular variety, then $(\pi')^{-1}[\alpha,\beta]=(\Delta_{\alpha,\beta}\wedge
\ker\pi)\vee\ker\pi'$.
See [@F-McK Theorem 4.9 and Exercise 4.4].
The Theorem gives one way to compute the commutator $[\alpha,\beta]$. It may help to illuminate the relationship between $[\alpha,\beta]$ and ${\operatorname{Con}}A(\alpha)$ to note that the interval sublattice ${\operatorname{I}}_{{\operatorname{Con}}A(\alpha)}[\bot,\ker\pi]$ transposes up to the interval sublattice ${\operatorname{I}}_{{\operatorname{Con}}A(\alpha)}[\ker\pi',\top]$, which is of course isomorphic to ${\operatorname{Con}}A$.
In this section, we will try to duplicate this result with $\beta$ replaced by a compatible uniformity $\mathcal U$, and ${\operatorname{Con}}A(\alpha)$ replaced by ${\operatorname{Unif}}A(\alpha)$, the lattice of compatible uniformities of $A(\alpha)$.
For this section, we will write $[\alpha,\mathcal U]$, $\mathcal M(\alpha,\mathcal U)$, etc. for $[{\operatorname{Ug}}\{\,\alpha\,\},\mathcal U]$, $\mathcal
M({\operatorname{Ug}}\{\,\alpha\,\},\mathcal U)$, etc.
$\mathcal
M(\alpha,\mathcal U)$ and $\Delta_{\alpha,\mathcal U}$
------------------------------------------------------
We define $\Delta_{\alpha,\mathcal U}$ as the analog of $\Delta_{\alpha,\beta}$, that is, the compatible extension $(\Delta_\alpha)_{*c}(\mathcal U)$ along $\Delta_\alpha$ of $\mathcal U\in{\operatorname{Unif}}A$ to $A(\alpha)$. We will construct $\Delta_{\alpha,\mathcal U}$ using the filter $\mathcal M(\alpha,\mathcal U)$ defined in Section \[S:Commutator\].
Now, $\mathcal M(\alpha,\mathcal U)$ is a filter of subsets of $2\times 2$ matrices. We view each matrix $\left(\begin{array}{cc}
a&b\\c&d\end{array}\right)$ as a pair $\pair{\left(\begin{array}{c}a\\c
\end{array}\right)}
{\left(\begin{array}{c}b\\d
\end{array}\right)}$ of elements of $A(\alpha)$ written as column vectors. Thus, $\mathcal M(\alpha,\mathcal U)$ can be viewed as a filter of binary relations on $A(\alpha)$.
Viewed in this way, $\mathcal
M(\alpha,\mathcal U)$ is a singly compatible semiuniformity on $A(\alpha)$, and $\Delta_{\alpha,\mathcal U}={\operatorname{Ug}}\mathcal
M(\alpha,\mathcal U)$.
We have $\mathcal M(\alpha,\mathcal U)=\mathcal
L_{\Delta_{\alpha}}(\mathcal U)$. Thus, by Theorem \[T:Push\], $\mathcal M(\alpha,\mathcal U)$ is a singly compatible semiuniformity and $\Delta_{\alpha,\mathcal
U}=(\Delta_\alpha)_{*c}(\mathcal U)={\operatorname{Ug}}(\mathcal
L_{\Delta_{\alpha}}(\mathcal U))={\operatorname{Ug}}\mathcal
M(\alpha,\mathcal U)$.
$[\alpha,\mathcal U]'$ and $[\alpha,\mathcal U]$
------------------------------------------------
So far, it has not been proved that the lattice ${\operatorname{Unif}}A(\alpha)$ of compatible uniformities on $A(\alpha)$ is modular when $A$ belongs to a congruence-modular variety. However, it is true in the congruence-modular case that if $\mathcal U\in{\operatorname{Unif}}A(\alpha)$, $\mathcal
U\leq\ker\pi$, then $$\mathcal U=(\mathcal U\vee\ker\pi')\wedge\ker\pi.$$ For, the fact that $\ker\pi$ is a congruence causes the modular law to be true in this special case, by [@R02 Theorem 7.5].
Thus, the interval ${\operatorname{I}}_{{\operatorname{Unif}}A(\alpha)}[\bot,\ker\pi]$ can be embedded into ${\operatorname{Unif}}A$ via a mapping $\phi$ such that $(\pi')^{-1}(\phi(\mathcal U))=\mathcal U\vee\ker\pi'$. We shall see that if $\mathcal U\in{\operatorname{Unif}}A$, where $A$ is an algebra with an underlying group structure, then $[\alpha,\mathcal U]$ does belong to the image of $\phi$, and $[\alpha,\mathcal U]=\phi(\Delta_{\alpha,\mathcal
U}\wedge\ker\pi)$. (Note that in this case, the modular law also holds in ${\operatorname{Unif}}A$, by [@R02 Theorem 6.4].)
Let us define $[\alpha,\mathcal U]'=\phi(\Delta_{\alpha,\mathcal
U}\wedge\ker\pi)$ or, in other words, let $[\alpha,\mathcal U]'$ be the unique compatible uniformity on $A$ such that $(\pi')^{-1}([\alpha,\mathcal
U]')=(\Delta_{\alpha,\mathcal
U}\wedge\ker\pi)\vee\ker\pi'$.
\[T:Same\] Let $A$ be an algebra, and let $\alpha\in{\operatorname{Con}}A$ and $\mathcal U\in{\operatorname{Unif}}A$. Then $[\alpha,\mathcal U]\leq[\alpha,\mathcal U]'$, with equality if $A$ has an underlying group structure.
To show that $[\alpha,\mathcal
U]\leq[\alpha,\mathcal U]'$, it suffices to prove that $\tilde C(\alpha,\mathcal U;[\alpha,\mathcal U]')$. We have $$\begin{aligned}
(\pi')^{-1}[\alpha,\mathcal
U]'&=(\Delta_{\alpha,\mathcal U}\wedge\ker\pi)\vee\ker\pi'
\\
&\geq\ker\pi'\circ(\Delta_{\alpha,\mathcal
U}\wedge\ker\pi)\circ\ker\pi'\\
&\geq\ker\pi'\circ(\mathcal
M(\alpha,\mathcal U)\wedge\ker\pi)\circ\ker\pi',\end{aligned}$$ which implies that for all $W\in[\alpha,\mathcal U]'$, there is a $Q\in\mathcal
M(\alpha,\mathcal U)$ such that $\left(\begin{array}{cc}u_{11}&u_{12}\\u_{21}&u_{22}
\end{array}\right)\in Q$ and $u_{11}=u_{12}$ imply $u_{21}\mathrel Wu_{22}$. Given in addition $n$, $n'$, and $t$, there is a $U_{n,n',t}\in\mathcal U$ such that $\mathrm
M_{n,n',t}(\alpha,U_{n,n',t})\subseteq Q$, by the definition of $\mathcal M(\alpha,\mathcal U)$. It follows that $\left(\begin{array}{cc} u_{11} & u_{12} \\ u_{21} &
u_{22}
\end{array}\right)\in\mathrm
M_{n,n',t}(\alpha,U_{n,n',t})$ and $u_{11}=u_{12}$ imply $u_{21}\mathrel Wu_{22}$, proving that $\tilde C(\alpha,\mathcal
U;[\alpha,\mathcal U]')$.
Now assume $A$ has an underlying group structure. (In particular, this implies that $A$ belongs to a congruence-permutable variety and ${\operatorname{Unif}}A(\alpha)$ is modular, by [@R02 Theorem 6.2].) To show $[\alpha,\mathcal U]'\leq[\alpha,\mathcal U]$, it suffices to show that $\Delta_{\alpha,\mathcal U}\wedge\ker\pi\leq
(\pi')^{-1}([\alpha,\mathcal U])$. For, this implies $$\begin{aligned}
(\pi')^{-1}([\alpha,\mathcal U]')
&=(\Delta_{\alpha,\mathcal U}\wedge\ker\pi)
\vee\ker\pi' \\
&\leq((\pi')^{-1}([\alpha,\mathcal
U])\wedge\ker\pi)
\vee\ker\pi'\\
&=(\pi')^{-1}([\alpha,\mathcal U]).\end{aligned}$$
To show $\Delta_{\alpha,\mathcal
U}\wedge\ker\pi\leq(\pi')^{-1}([\alpha,\mathcal U])$, it suffices to show that $\mathrm x_{\mathbf m}(\Delta_{\alpha,\mathcal
U})\leq[\alpha,\mathcal U]$. For, in that case, by [@R02 Lemma 7.1], if $W\in[\alpha,\mathcal U]$, and $\hat
W\in[\alpha,\mathcal U]$ is such that $\hat
W^{-1}\subseteq W$, then $\bar W\in[\alpha,\mathcal U]$ can be chosen, and $V\in\Delta_{\alpha,\mathcal U}$, such that $\mathrm
x_{\mathbf m}(V)\subseteq\bar W$, so that $\left(\begin{array}{cc}y&z\\x&z\end{array}\right)\in
V\implies y\mathrel{\hat W}x\implies x\mathrel Wy$. We have $\ker\pi\wedge\ker\pi'=\bot\leq\Delta_{\alpha,\mathcal
U}$, and if $\left(\begin{array}{cc}b&b\\x&y\end{array}\right)\in
\Delta_{\alpha,\mathcal U}$, we also have $\left(\begin{array}{c}y\\x\end{array}\right)
\mathrel{\ker\pi'}
\left(\begin{array}{c}b\\x\end{array}\right)
\mathrel{\ker\pi}
\left(\begin{array}{c}b\\y\end{array}\right)
\mathrel{\ker\pi'}
\left(\begin{array}{c}y\\y\end{array}\right)
\mathrel{\ker\pi}
\left(\begin{array}{c}y\\x\end{array}\right)$. It follows by the Shifting Lemma ([@R02 Lemma 7.4]) that there is a $\bar V \in\Delta_{\alpha,\mathcal U}$ such that if $\left(\begin{array}{cc}b&b\\x&y\end{array}\right)\in\bar
V$, then $\left(\begin{array}{cc}y&y\\y&y\end{array}\right)\in V$, implying $x\mathrel Wy$. It follows that $\bar
V\cap\ker\pi\subseteq(\pi')^{-1}(W)\cap\ker\pi$, proving that $\Delta_{\alpha,\mathcal
U}\wedge\ker\pi\leq(\pi')^{-1}([\alpha,\mathcal U])$.
Now, $\mathrm x_{\mathbf m}(\mathcal M(\alpha,\mathcal
U))=\mathcal X_{\mathbf m}(\alpha,\mathcal
U)\leq[\alpha,\mathcal U]$ by Theorem \[T:Commutator\]. For ordinal numbers $\nu$, we define inductively $$\mathcal R_\nu=\begin{cases}
\mathcal M(\alpha,\mathcal U), & \nu=0\\
\mathcal R_{\nu'}\circ\mathcal R_{\nu'}, & \nu=\nu'+1\\
\bigcap_{\nu'<\nu}\mathcal R_{\nu'}, &\nu \text{ a limit
ordinal.}
\end{cases}$$
We claim that $\mathrm x_{\mathbf m}(\mathcal
R_\nu)\leq[\alpha,\mathcal U]$ for every ordinal $\nu$. It is easy to see that $\mathcal R_\nu$ is a singly compatible semiuniformity for every $\nu$, and that the sequence becomes stationary at $\Delta_{\alpha,\mathcal
U}={\operatorname{Ug}}\mathcal M(\alpha,\mathcal U)$. If there is a first ordinal $\nu$ such that $\mathrm x_{\mathbf m}(\mathcal
R_\nu)\not\leq[\alpha,\mathcal U]$, then clearly, $\nu\neq
0$ and $\nu$ is not a limit ordinal. Thus, to prove the claim, and that $\mathrm x_{\mathbf
m}(\Delta_{\alpha,\mathcal U})\leq[\alpha,\,\mathcal U]$, it suffices to show that if $\mathrm x_{\mathbf m}(\mathcal R_\nu)\leq[\alpha,\mathcal
U]$, then $\mathrm x_{\mathbf m}(\mathcal
R_{\nu+1})\leq[\alpha,\mathcal U]$. We must show that, given $W\in[\alpha,\mathcal U]$, there is an $R\in\mathcal R_{\nu+1}$ such that $\mathrm
x_{\mathbf m}(R)\subseteq W$.
We use the fact that the terms $m_0(x,y,z,w)=w$, $m_1(x,y,z,w)=xz^{-1}yx^{-1}w$, and $m_2(x,y,z,w)=w$ are a sequence of Day terms for any variety of algebras with group structures. Without loss of generality, by the discussion of Section \[S:Groups\], we can also assume that $W$ is left translation invariant. Let $\bar W\in[\alpha,\mathcal U]$ be left translation invariant and such that $a\mathrel{\bar W}a'$ and $b\mathrel{\bar W}b'\implies ab\mathrel Wa'b'$. Since $\mathrm x_{\mathbf m}(\mathcal
R_\nu)\leq[\alpha,\mathcal U]$ by the induction hypothesis, there is an $\bar R\in\mathcal R_\nu$ such that $\mathrm x_{\mathbf m}(\bar R)\subseteq\bar W$. We have $$\mathrm x_{\mathbf m}(\bar R\circ\bar R)=\left\{\,\pair
{xw^{-1}zx^{-1}u}x\mathrel{\bigg|}
\left(\begin{array}{cc}x&y\\u&v\end{array}\right),
\left(\begin{array}{cc}y&z\\v&w\end{array}\right)\in
\bar R\,\right\}\cup\left\{\,\pair xx\mathrel{\bigg|}
x\in A\,\right\},$$ where the second term in the union takes care of the contributions to $\mathrm x_{\mathbf m}(\mathcal
R_{\nu+1})$ coming from the terms $m_0$ and $m_2$. Since $\mathrm x_{\mathbf m}(\bar R)\subseteq\bar W$, we have $\pair{xv^{-1}yx^{-1}u}x$, $\pair{yw^{-1}zy^{-1}v}y\in\bar W$. This implies that $\pair{v^{-1}yx^{-1}u}e$, $\pair{w^{-1}zy^{-1}v}e\in\bar
W$, which implies that $$\pair{(w^{-1}zy^{-1}v)(v^{-1}yx^{-1}u)}e=\pair
{w^{-1}zx^{-1}u}e\in W.$$ But $W$ was assumed left translation invariant, so this implies that $\pair{xw^{-1}zx^{-1}v}x\in W$, proving that $\mathrm
x_{\mathbf m}(\bar R\circ\bar R)\subseteq W$, and by induction that $x_{\mathbf m}(\Delta_{\alpha,\mathcal
U})\leq[\alpha,\mathcal U]$.
Properties of the Commutator {#S:Properties}
============================
In this section, we discuss general properties of the commutator on uniformities, for a congruence-modular variety.
Elementary properties
---------------------
\[T:Elem\] Let $A$ be an algebra in a congruence-modular variety $\mathbf V$. We have
1. If $\mathcal U$, $\mathcal V\in{\operatorname{Unif}}A$, then $[\mathcal U,\mathcal V]=[\mathcal V,\mathcal U]$.
2. The commutator is monotone, i.e., if $\mathcal U\leq\mathcal U'$, then $[\mathcal U,\mathcal
V]\leq[\mathcal U',\mathcal V]$.
3. $[\mathcal U,\mathcal V]\leq\mathcal
U\wedge\mathcal V$.
4. If $B\in\mathcal V$, $f:B\to A$ is a homomorphism, and $\mathcal U$, $\mathcal
V\in{\operatorname{Unif}}A$, then $[f^{-1}(\mathcal U),f^{-1}(\mathcal
V)]\leq f^{-1}([\mathcal U,\mathcal V])$.
(1): This is just a restatement of part of Theorem \[T:Commutator\].
(2): If $\mathcal W$ satisfies the $\mathcal U',\mathcal
V$-term condition, then it also satisfies the $\mathcal
U,\mathcal V$-term condition. Or, use the obvious fact that $\mathcal X_{\mathbf m}(\mathcal U,\mathcal
V)\leq\mathcal X_{\mathbf m}(\mathcal U',\mathcal V)$.
(3): Follows from Theorem \[T:AllComm\].
(4): We have $$\mathcal X_{\mathbf m}(f^{-1}(\mathcal
U),f^{-1}(\mathcal V))\leq f^{-1}(\mathcal X_{\mathbf
m}(\mathcal U,\mathcal V))$$ because $f$ is a homomorphism.
Additivity
----------
\[T:Additive\] Let $A$ be an algebra in a congruence-modular variety with sequence of Day terms $\mathbf m$, and let $\mathcal U_i$, for $i\in I$, and $\mathcal V$ belong to ${\operatorname{Unif}}A$. Then $\bigvee_{i\in I}[\mathcal U_i,\mathcal V]\leq
[\bigvee_{i\in I}\mathcal U_i,\mathcal V]$, with equality if $\mathcal V$ is of the form ${\operatorname{Ug}}\{\,\alpha\,\}$ and $A$ has an underlying group structure, or if $I$ is finite and the $\mathcal U_i$ permute pairwise.
$\bigvee_i[\mathcal U_i,\mathcal
V]\leq[\bigvee_i\mathcal U_i,\mathcal V]$ by Theorem \[T:Elem\](2).
Let us denote $\bigvee_i[\mathcal U_i,\mathcal V]$ by $\mathcal W$ for the remainder of the proof.
Suppose $\mathcal V={\operatorname{Ug}}\{\,\alpha\,\}$ for some congruence $\alpha$ and $A$ has an underlying group structure. The commutator is commutative so we can switch the arguments on each side. Since $\alpha$ centralizes $\mathcal
U_i$ modulo $[\alpha,\bigvee_i\mathcal U_i]$, we have $\Delta_{\alpha,\mathcal U_i}\wedge\ker\pi\leq\mathcal
Z$, where $\mathcal
Z=(\pi')^{-1}([\alpha,\bigvee_i\mathcal U_i])$. Because compatible extension preserves joins, we have $\Delta_{\alpha,\vee_i\mathcal
U_i}=\bigvee_i(\Delta_{\alpha,\mathcal
U})={\operatorname{Ug}}(\bigcap_i\Delta_{\alpha,\mathcal U_i})$, where the singly compatible semiuniformity $\mathcal R=\bigcap_i\Delta_{\alpha,\mathcal U_i}$ satisfies $\mathcal R\wedge\ker\pi\leq\mathcal Z$. Then by the same argument used in the proof of Theorem \[T:Same\], ${\operatorname{Ug}}(\mathcal R)\wedge\ker\pi\leq\mathcal Z$. It follows that $[\alpha,\bigvee_i\mathcal U_i]\leq\mathcal W$.
Now suppose that $I=\{\,1,\ldots,k\,\}$ and that the $\mathcal U_i$ permute pairwise. We will show that $\mathcal W$ satisfies the $(\bigvee_i\mathcal U_i),\mathcal V$-term condition. Given $W\in\mathcal W$ and $t$, we define $W_0=W$ and for each $i\in I$, inductively, define $U_i\in\mathcal U_i$, $V_i\in\mathcal V$, and $W_i\in\mathcal W$ to be such that $a\mathrel{U_i}a'$, $\mathbf b\mathrel{V_i}\mathbf
c$, and $t(a,\mathbf b)\mathrel{W_i}t(a,\mathbf c)$ imply $t(a',\mathbf b)\mathrel{W_{i-1}}t(a',\mathbf c)$, using the fact that $C(\mathcal U_i,\mathcal V;\mathcal W)$. Then $a\mathrel{U_k\circ\ldots\circ U_1}a'$, $\mathbf
b\mathrel{(\bigcap_iV_i)}\mathbf c$, and $t(a,\mathbf
b)\mathrel{W_k}t(a,\mathbf c)$ imply $t(a',\mathbf
b)\mathrel Wt(a',\mathbf c)$. However, $U_k\circ\ldots\circ U_1\in\bigvee_i\mathcal U_i$, because the $\mathcal U_i$ permute pairwise; it follows that $\mathcal W$ satisfies the $(\bigvee_i\mathcal U_i),\mathcal V$-term condition, proving that $\mathcal W=\bigvee_i[\mathcal U_i,\mathcal
V]=[\bigvee_i\mathcal U_i,\mathcal V]$.
The commutator of compatible uniformities on an algebra in a congruence-permutable variety is finitely additive.
By [@R02 Theorem 6.4], compatible uniformities on an algebra in a congruence-permutable variety permute pairwise.
The homomorphism property
-------------------------
Recall the definition of $R(\mathcal W,U)$ from Section \[S:Compat\].
\[T:X\] Let $\mathbf V$ be a congruence-modular variety with sequence of Day terms $\mathbf m$. If $A\in\mathbf V$, $\mathcal W\in{\operatorname{Unif}}A$, $U$ and $V$ are relations on $A$, and $n$, $n'$, and $t$ are given, then $$\mathrm x_{\mathbf m}(\mathrm M_{n,n',t}(R(\mathcal
W,U),R(\mathcal W,V)))\subseteq R(\mathcal W,\mathrm
x_{\mathbf m}(\mathrm M_{n,n',t}(U,V))).$$
An element of $R(\mathcal
W,U)$ is a pair of equivalence classes of Cauchy nets with respect to $\mathcal W$, having representatives such that for large enough indices, the values taken by the representatives are related by $U$. $R(\mathcal W,V)$ is defined similarly. Then an element of $\mathrm x_{\mathbf m}(M_{n,n',t}(R(\mathcal
W,U),R(\mathcal W,V)))$ is a pair of equivalence classes having representatives such that for large enough indices, the values define pairs in $\mathrm x_{\mathbf m}(M_{n,n',t}(U,V))$. That is, such a pair belongs to $R(\mathcal W,\mathrm x_{\mathbf m}((M_{n,n',t}(U,V)))$.
Let $\mathcal U$, $\mathcal V$, $\mathcal
W\in{\operatorname{Unif}}A$, where $A\in\mathbf V$, a congruence-modular variety with Day terms $\mathbf m$. Then
1. If $\mathcal U\geq\mathcal W$ and $\mathcal
V\geq\mathcal W$, $[\mathcal U,\mathcal V]\vee\mathcal
W=({\operatorname{nat}}\mathcal W)^{-1}[\mathcal U/\mathcal
W,\mathcal V/\mathcal W]$.
2. If $\mathcal U$ and $\mathcal V$ permute with $\mathcal W$, then $[\mathcal U,\mathcal V]\vee\mathcal
W=({\operatorname{nat}}\mathcal W)^{-1}[(\mathcal U\vee\mathcal
W)/\mathcal W,(\mathcal V\vee\mathcal W)/\mathcal W]$.
\(2) follows from (1) because if $\mathcal U$ and $\mathcal
V$ permute with $\mathcal W$, then $[\mathcal U,\mathcal
V]\vee\mathcal W=[\mathcal U\vee\mathcal W,\mathcal
V\vee\mathcal W]\vee\mathcal W$, and we can apply (1) since $\mathcal U\vee\mathcal W\geq\mathcal W$ and $\mathcal
V\vee\mathcal W\geq\mathcal W$.
As for (1), first we have by Theorem \[T:Elem\](4), $$\begin{aligned}
[\mathcal U,\mathcal V]&=[({\operatorname{nat}}\mathcal
W)^{-1}(\mathcal U/\mathcal W),({\operatorname{nat}}\mathcal
W)^{-1}(\mathcal V/\mathcal W)]\\
&\leq({\operatorname{nat}}\mathcal W)^{-1}[\mathcal U/\mathcal
W,\mathcal V/\mathcal W]\end{aligned}$$ and also $\mathcal W=({\operatorname{nat}}\mathcal W)^{-1}(\mathcal
W/\mathcal W)\leq({\operatorname{nat}}\mathcal W)^{-1}[\mathcal
U/\mathcal W,\mathcal V/\mathcal W]$, because $\mathcal W/\mathcal W$ is the least element of the lattice ${\operatorname{Unif}}A/\mathcal W$, whence $$[\mathcal
U,\mathcal V]\vee\mathcal W\leq({\operatorname{nat}}\mathcal
W)^{-1}([\mathcal U/\mathcal W,\mathcal V/\mathcal W]).$$
To prove the opposite inequality, it suffices to show that $\mathcal X_{\mathbf m}(\mathcal U/\mathcal
W,\mathcal V/\mathcal W)\leq([\mathcal U,\mathcal
V]\vee\mathcal W)/\mathcal W$. If $Q\in[\mathcal U,\mathcal V]\vee\mathcal W$, then in particular, $Q\in[\mathcal U,\mathcal V]$. Then by the definition of $[\mathcal U,\mathcal V]$ and $\mathcal
X_{\mathbf m}(\mathcal U,\mathcal V)$, given $n$, $n'$, and $t$, there exist $U\in\mathcal U$, $V\in\mathcal V$ such that $\mathcal X_{\mathbf m,n,n',t}(U,V)\subseteq Q$. Then by Lemma \[T:X\], $\mathcal X_{\mathbf
m,n,n',t}(R(\mathcal W,U),R(\mathcal W,V))\subseteq
R(\mathcal W,Q)$. This proves that $\mathcal X_{\mathbf m}(\mathcal U/\mathcal W,\mathcal
V/\mathcal W)\leq([\mathcal U,\mathcal V]\vee\mathcal
W)/\mathcal W$, because $R(\mathcal
W,U)\in\mathcal U/\mathcal W$ and $R(\mathcal
W,V)\in\mathcal V/\mathcal W$, and relations of the form $R(\mathcal W,Q)$ for $Q\in[\mathcal U,\mathcal V]\vee\mathcal W$ form a base for $([\mathcal U,\mathcal V]\vee\mathcal W)/\mathcal W$.
Commutator Operations and Congruential Uniformities {#S:Congruential}
===================================================
Recall that a uniformity $\mathcal U\in{\operatorname{Unif}}A$ is *congruential* if it has a base of congruences. Given a filter of congruences $F$, it determines a congruential uniformity ${\operatorname{Ug}}F$, of which $F$ is a base and which determines $F$.
For example, consider filters in ${\operatorname{Con}}{{\mathbb Z}}$, where ${{\mathbb Z}}$ is the ring of integers. In addition to the principal filters ${\operatorname{Fg}}\{\,(\,n\,)\,\}$ for $n\in{{\mathbb N}}$, where ${{\mathbb N}}$ is the set of natural numbers, there are many other filters such as $(\,m^\infty\,)\overset{\text{Def}}={\operatorname{Fg}}\{\,(\,p^n\,)\mid
n\in{{\mathbb N}}\,\}$ for $m$ a nonzero natural number. (Of course, the mapping $m\mapsto(m^\infty)$ is not one-one.)
The mapping $F\mapsto{\operatorname{Ug}}F$, from the lattice of congruential uniformities of $A$ into the lattice of uniformities, preserves arbitrary meets, and by [@R02 Theorem 6.3], if the algebra $A$ has permuting uniformities, it preserves finite joins.
For the time being, we will assume that the algebras we are discussing belong to a congruence-modular variety.
\[T:CUBase\] Let $\alpha\in{\operatorname{Con}}A$, and $F$, $F'\in{\operatorname{Fil}}{\operatorname{Con}}A$. Then the sets $\{\,[\alpha,\phi]\mid\phi\in
F\,\}$, $\{\,[\phi,\alpha]\mid\phi\in
F\,\}$, and $\{\,[\phi,\phi']\mid\phi\in F,\,\phi'\in F'\,\}$ are bases for filters $[\alpha,F]$, $[F,\alpha]$, and $[F,F']$ in ${\operatorname{Con}}A$.
\[T:FCommF\] Let $\alpha$, $\beta\in{\operatorname{Con}}A$, and $F\in{\operatorname{Fil}}{\operatorname{Con}}A$. Then
1. $[{\operatorname{Fg}}^{{\operatorname{Con}}A}\{\,\alpha\,\},{\operatorname{Fg}}^{{\operatorname{Con}}A}\{\,\beta\,\}]=
{\operatorname{Fg}}^{{\operatorname{Con}}A}\{\,[\alpha,\beta]\,\}$
2. $[\alpha,F]=[{\operatorname{Fg}}^{{\operatorname{Con}}A}\{\,\alpha\,\},F]$
3. $[F,\alpha]=[F,{\operatorname{Fg}}^{{\operatorname{Con}}A}\{\,\alpha\,\}]$.
Thus, we have defined a binary operation on ${\operatorname{Fil}}{\operatorname{Con}}A$ which extends the commutator on ${\operatorname{Con}}A$. Clearly this operation satisfies the elementery properties of the commutator as given in Theorem \[T:Elem\]; we leave the statement of the theorem to the reader. Let us also prove that this commutator on ${\operatorname{Fil}}{\operatorname{Con}}A$ is finitely additive:
\[T:CongAdditive\] If $F_i$, $i=1$, $2$, $\ldots$, $n$ and $F'\in{\operatorname{Fil}}{\operatorname{Con}}A$, then $[\bigvee_iF_i,F']=\bigvee_i[F_i,F']$.
Clearly we have $\bigvee_i[F_i,F']\leq[\bigvee_iF_i,F']$ by monotonicity. To prove the opposite inequality, let $\chi\in\bigvee_i[F_i,F']$ be of the form $\chi=\bigvee_i[\alpha_i,\beta_i]$ for $\alpha_i\in F_i$ and $\beta_i\in F'$. Then by the monotonicity and additivity of the commutator on congruences, we have $\chi\geq[\bigvee_i\alpha_i,\bigwedge_i\beta_i]\in
[\bigvee_iF_i,F']$. This proves that $[\bigvee_iF_i,F']\leq\bigvee_i[F_i,F']$.
Now, let us relate this commutator operation on ${\operatorname{Fil}}{\operatorname{Con}}A$ to that on ${\operatorname{Unif}}A$:
\[T:CUCommU\] Let $A$ be an algebra. We have
1. If $\alpha\in{\operatorname{Con}}A$, and $F\in{\operatorname{Fil}}{\operatorname{Con}}A$, then $[{\operatorname{Ug}}\{\,\alpha\,\},{\operatorname{Ug}}F]\leq
{\operatorname{Ug}}[\alpha,F]$
2. If $\alpha\in{\operatorname{Con}}A$, and $F\in{\operatorname{Fil}}{\operatorname{Con}}A$, then $[{\operatorname{Ug}}F,{\operatorname{Ug}}\{\,\alpha\,\}]\leq
{\operatorname{Ug}}[F,\alpha]$.
3. If $F$, $F'\in{\operatorname{Fil}}{\operatorname{Con}}A$, then $[{\operatorname{Ug}}F,{\operatorname{Ug}}F']\leq{\operatorname{Ug}}[F,F']$.
(3): If $W\in{\operatorname{Ug}}[F,F']$, then $[\alpha,\beta]\subseteq W$ for some $\alpha\in F$ and $\beta\in F'$, because such congruences form a base of ${\operatorname{Ug}}[F,F']$. $[\alpha,\beta]$ satisfies the $\alpha,\beta$-term condition, so for all $t$, $a$ and $a'$ such that $a\mathrel\alpha a'$, and $\mathbf b$ and $\mathbf c$ with $\mathbf b\mathrel\beta\mathbf c$, $t(a,\mathbf b)\mathrel{[\alpha,\beta]}t(a,\mathbf c)$ implies $t(a',\mathbf
b)\mathrel{[\alpha,\beta]}t(a',\mathbf c)$. But $\alpha\in{\operatorname{Ug}}F$ and $\beta\in{\operatorname{Ug}}F'$. Thus, ${\operatorname{Ug}}[F,F']$ satisfies the ${\operatorname{Ug}}F,{\operatorname{Ug}}F'$-term condition. If follows that $[{\operatorname{Ug}}F,{\operatorname{Ug}}F']\leq{\operatorname{Ug}}[F,F']$.
(1): By (3), $[{\operatorname{Ug}}\{\,\alpha\,\},{\operatorname{Ug}}F]=[{\operatorname{Ug}}{\operatorname{Fg}}^{{\operatorname{Con}}A}\{\,\alpha\,\},
{\operatorname{Ug}}F]\leq{\operatorname{Ug}}[{\operatorname{Fg}}^{{\operatorname{Con}}A}\{\,\alpha\,\},F]={\operatorname{Ug}}[\alpha,F]$.
(2): similar to proof of (1).
Propositions \[T:CUBase\] and \[T:FCommF\], and Theorem \[T:CUCommU\] hold in non-congruence-modular varieties, if we replace $[\alpha,\beta]$ by $C(\alpha,\beta)$ and define $C(\alpha,F)$, $C(F,\alpha)$, and $C(F,F')$ or similarly if we replace $[\alpha,\beta]$ by $\tilde
C(\alpha,\beta)$ and define $\tilde C(\alpha,F)$, $\tilde
C(F,\alpha)$, and $\tilde C(F,F')$. We omit the details.
Miscellany {#S:Examp}
==========
Congruential uniformities on commutative rings
----------------------------------------------
For $A$ a commutative ring, Theorem \[T:CUCommU\] can be improved. For a translation invariant relation $U$ on $A$, we denote by $\delta(U)$ the set of differences $a-b$ for $a$, $b\in A$ such that $a\mathrel Ub$.
If $A$ is a commutative ring, then the inequalities in the conclusion of Theorem \[T:CUCommU\] are equalities.
It suffices to show that ${\operatorname{Ug}}[F,F']\leq
[{\operatorname{Ug}}F,{\operatorname{Ug}}F']$. We use the fact that $[{\operatorname{Ug}}F,{\operatorname{Ug}}F']$ satisfies the ${\operatorname{Ug}}F,{\operatorname{Ug}}F'$-term condition for the term $t(x,y)=xy$. Let $U\in [{\operatorname{Ug}}F,{\operatorname{Ug}}F']$. By Lemma \[T:InvBase\], we may assume $U$ is translation-invariant without loss of generality. There are $\bar U\in [{\operatorname{Ug}}F,{\operatorname{Ug}}F']$, $\alpha\in F$, and $\beta\in F'$ such that $a\mathrel\alpha a'$, $b\mathrel\beta c$, and $ab\mathrel{\bar U}ac$ imply $a'b\mathrel Ua'c$. Then if $b\mathrel\beta c$ and $a\in I_\alpha$ (the ideal corresponding to $\alpha$), $0b=0c$, implying $ab\mathrel U ac$. It follows that $I_{[\alpha,\beta]}=I_\alpha I_\beta\subseteq\delta(U)$, and this implies that $[\alpha,\beta]\subseteq U$.
It follows from this theorem that, for commutative rings, the commutators $[\alpha,F]$, $[F,\alpha]$ and $[F,F']$ can be considered as commutators of uniformities.
In ${\operatorname{Unif}}\mathbb Z$, we have $[{\operatorname{Ug}}(p^\infty),{\operatorname{Ug}}(q^\infty)]={\operatorname{Ug}}((pq)^\infty)$, for prime numbers $p\neq q$, showing that the commutator of two compatible uniformities is not always equal to ${\operatorname{Ug}}\{\,\alpha\,\}$ for some congruence $\alpha$.
Algebras in congruence-distributive varieties
---------------------------------------------
\[T:ConDist\] Let $A$ be an algebra in a congruence-distributive variety, with Jónsson terms $d_0$, $\ldots$, $d_k$, and let $\mathcal U$, $\mathcal V\in{\operatorname{Unif}}A$. Then $[\mathcal U,\mathcal V]=\mathcal U\wedge\mathcal V$.
We already know that $[\mathcal U,\mathcal
V]\leq\mathcal U\wedge\mathcal V$. To prove the opposite inequality, we must show that if $W\in[\mathcal
U,\mathcal V]$, then there are $U\in\mathcal U$, $V\in\mathcal V$ such that $U\cap V\subseteq W$. We will use the Jónsson terms to prove this.
Let $W\in[\mathcal U,\mathcal V]$. We define $W_k$, $W_{k-1}$, $\ldots$, $W_0\in[\mathcal
U,\mathcal V]$ successively, as follows: Set $W_k=W$. If $n$ is odd, then there exist $W_{n-1}\in[\mathcal U,\mathcal V]$, $U_{n-1}\in\mathcal
U$, $V_{n-1}\in\mathcal V$ such that $d_n(a,b,a)\mathrel{W_{n-1}}d_n(a,b,b)$ and $a\mathrel{U_{n-1}\cap V_{n-1}}b$ imply $d_n(a,b,a)\mathrel{W_n}d_n(a,b,b)$. If $n>0$ is even, then there exist $W_{n-1}$, $U_{n-1}$, $V_{n-1}$ such that $d_n(a,a,a)\mathrel{W_{n-1}}d_n(a,a,b)$ and $a\mathrel{U_{n-1}\cap V_{n-1}}b$ imply $d_n(a,a,a)\mathrel{W_n}d_n(a,a,b)$. Now let $U=\bigcap_nU_n$, $V=\bigcap_nV_n$, and $a\mathrel{U\cap
V}b$. We have $d_0(a,a,a)=a=d_0(a,a,b)$ so $d_0(a,a,a)\mathrel{W_0}d_0(a,a,b)$. We further have $$\begin{aligned}
d_2(a,b,a)=a=d_1(a,b,a)&\mathrel{W_1}d_1(a,b,b)
=d_2(a,b,b),\\
d_3(a,a,a)=a=d_2(a,a,a)&\mathrel{W_2}d_2(a,a,b)
=d_3(a,a,b),\end{aligned}$$ and so on, ending with $a=d_k(a,b,a)\mathrel{W_k}d_k(a,b,b)=b$ if $k$ is even and with $a=d_k(a,a,a)\mathrel{W_k}d_k(a,a,b)=b$ if $k$ is odd. In either case, we have shown that $U\cap
V\subseteq W_k=W$.
Abelian algebras
----------------
Recall that an algebra $A$ in a congruence-modular variety is *abelian* if $[\top_A,\top_A]=\bot_A$. In this case, from Theorem \[T:Elem\] and Theorem \[T:CommCong\], we have $[\mathcal U,\mathcal V]={\operatorname{Ug}}\{\,\bot_A\,\}$ for any $\mathcal U$, $\mathcal V\in{\operatorname{Unif}}A$.
For example, abelian groups are abelian algebras, so we might consider the group of real numbers and the commutator $[\mathcal U,\mathcal
U]$, where $\mathcal U$ is the unique compatible uniformity (compatible, that is, with respect to the abelian group operations) that gives rise to the usual topology on the group of real numbers. $\mathcal U$ is noncongruential and abelian. This example shows that noncongruential uniformities can have a commutator that is congruential, indeed of the form ${\operatorname{Ug}}\{\,\alpha\,\}$ for $\alpha$ a congruence.
Conclusions {#S:Conclu}
===========
In this final section, we will review some of the questions still open regarding the commutator of uniformities, and uniform universal algebra generally.
The most important question is the possible additivity and even complete additivity of the commutator, as holds for congruences and as we have proved for some special cases in Theorem \[T:Additive\] and Theorem \[T:CongAdditive\]. Many applications of commutator theory rely on this. An obstacle here is the difficulty of dealing with joins of compatible uniformities. A more specific question, which might be easier to settle, is complete additivity for compatible uniformities of an algebra in a congruence-permutable variety. We proved finite additivity in this case, using the fact that compatible uniformities permute pairwise.
The proof that, in the case of an algebra $A$ with underlying group, formation of commutators with a uniformity of the form ${\operatorname{Ug}}\{\,\alpha\,\}$ is completely additive, utilizing the theory of ${\operatorname{Unif}}A(\alpha)$, suggests that an appropriate definition for $A(\mathcal U)$ may help settle the additivity question.
A uniformity $\mathcal U$ on an algebra $A$ in a congruence-modular variety $\mathbf V$ can be defined as *abelian* if $[\mathcal U,\mathcal
U]={\operatorname{Ug}}\{\,\bot_A\,\}={\operatorname{Fg}}\{\,\Delta_A\,\}$. In the case of a congruence $\alpha$, abelianness leads to a structure of abelian group object on the algebra $A(\alpha)$, viewed as an algebra over $A$ (that is, as an object in the comma category of algebras of $\mathbf V$ over $A$). The abelian group operations on this abelian group object can be obtained from any difference term. The problem of generalizing this theory to uniformities again depends upon the proper definition of $A(\mathcal U)$.
In the theory of uniform universal algebra, an important open question is the possible modularity of the uniformity lattice of an algebra in a congruence-modular variety. This has only been proved for algebras in congruence-permutable varieties and not more generally, although there is a partial result [@R02 Theorem 7.5].
A similar question is the possible distributivity of the uniformity lattice of an algebra in a congruence-distributive variety. This has been proved only for arithmetic algebras [@R02 Theorem 6.5]. Note that because $[\mathcal
U,\mathcal V]=\mathcal U\wedge\mathcal V$ for congruence distributive agebras (Theorem \[T:ConDist\]) additivity of the commutator of compatible uniformities in this case is equivalent to distributivity of ${\operatorname{Unif}}A$, and complete additivity is equivalent to the distributivity of meet over an arbitrary join.
Acknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered}
---------------
We would like to thank Keith Kearnes for his ideas on this topic, and some lively discussions.
[99]{}
Nicholas Bourbaki, *General Topology, Chapters 1–4.* English translation of *Topologie Général*. Springer–Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, 1989.
Stanley Burris and H. P. Sankappanavar, *A Course in Universal Algebra*, Graduate Texts in Mathematics 78, Springer–Verlag, New York, 1981.
Alan Day, *A characterization of modularity for congruence lattices of algebras*, Canad. Math. Bull. **12**(1969) 167–173.
Ralph Freese and Ralph McKenzie, *Commutator Theory for Congruence-Modular Varieties*, London Math. Soc. Lecture Note Series 125, Cambridge University Press, 1987.
Bjarni Jónsson, *Algebras whose congruence lattices are distributive*, Math. Scand. **21**(1967) 110–121.
Saunders Mac Lane, *Categories for the Working Mathematician*, Graduate Texts in Mathematics 5, Springer–Verlag, New York, 1971.
A. I. Mal’tsev, *On the general theory of algebraic systems*, Mat. Sb. **35**(77), pp. 3–20.
*Topological groups*, in *Encyclopedic Dictionary of Mathematics, Second Edition*, Kiyosi Ito, ed., The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts-London, 1986.
*Uniform spaces*, in *Encyclopedic Dictionary of Mathematics, Second Edition*, op. cit.
William H. Rowan, *Algebras with a compatible uniformity*, Algebra Universalis **47** (2002) 13–43.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
address: '$^1$Fermilab, USA; $^2$Lancaster University, UK'
author:
- 'C. Milsténe$^1$ and A. Sopczak$^2$'
title: 'Scalar Top Study: Detector Optimization'
---
\
1.0cm [**Scalar Top Study:** ]{}
[**Detector Optimization** ]{}
$^1$Fermilab, USA; $^2$Lancaster University, UK
2.5cm
**Abstract**
3.5cm
(0.001,0.001)(0,0) (,0)
A vertex detector concept of the Linear Collider Flavour Identification (LCFI) collaboration, which studies pixel detectors for heavy quark flavour identification, has been implemented in simulations for c-quark tagging in scalar top studies. The production and decay of scalar top quarks (stops) is particularly interesting for the development of the vertex detector as only two c-quarks and missing energy (from undetected neutralinos) are produced for light stops. Previous studies investigated the vertex detector design in scenarios with large mass differences between stop and neutralino, corresponding to large visible energy in the detector. In this study we investigate the tagging performance dependence on the vertex detector design in a scenario with small visible energy for the International Linear Collider (ILC).
[*Presented at the 2006 International Linear Collider Workshop - Bangalore, India,\
to be published in the proceedings.* ]{}
Introduction
============
The development of a vertex detector for a Linear Collider is an important and challenging enterprise. A key aspect is the distance of the innermost layer to the interaction point, which is related to radiation hardness and beam background. Another key aspect is the number of radiation lengths the particles go through, since it determines the multiple scattering which affects the vertex reconstruction.
The optimization of the vertex detector tagging performance is of great importance for studies of physics processes. While mostly at previous and current accelerators (e.g. SLC, LEP, Tevatron) b-quark tagging has revolutionized many searches and measurements, c-quark tagging will be very important at a future Linear Collider, for example, in studies of Supersymmetric dark matter [@Carena:2005gc]. Therefore, c-quark tagging could be a benchmark for vertex detector developments. The scalar top production and decay process, and the implemented vertex detector geometry are shown before [@det_snowmass05].
The analysis for a large mass difference with the SPS-5 parameter point (ISAJET) $\mt = 220.7$ GeV, $\mchi = 120.0$ GeV and $\cost = 0.5377$ was previously performed [@andre_lcws04]. For 25% (12%) efficiency 3800 (1800) signal events and 5400 (170) background events without c-quark tagging were obtained, while the background was reduced to 2300 (68) events with c-quark tagging.
The vertex detector radiation length was varied between single thickness (TESLA TDR) and double thickness. In addition, the number of vertex detector layers was varied between 5 layers (innermost layer at 1.5 cm as in the TESLA TDR) and 4 layers (innermost layer at 2.6 cm). For SPS-5 parameters the following numbers of background events remain [@andre_lcws04]:
Thickness layers 12% signal efficiency 25% signal efficiency
----------- -------- --------------------------- -----------------------
Single 5 (4) 68 (82) 2300 (2681)
Double 5 (4) 69 (92) 2332 (2765)
A significant larger number of background events was expected if the first layer of the vertex detector is removed. The distance of the first layer to the interaction point is also an important aspect from the accelerator physics (beam delivery) perspective. The interplay between the beam delivery and vertex detector design in regard to critical tolerances like hardware damage of the first layer and occupancy (unable to use the data of the first layer) due to beam background goes beyond the scope of this study and will be addressed in the future.
For large visible energy (large mass difference) no significant increase in the expected background was observed for doubling the thickness of the vertex detector layers [@andre_lcws04; @susy05]. In this study the effect of the vertex detector design for events with smaller visible energy in the detector is addressed.
Signal and Background Simulations
=================================
The production of simulated light stops at a 500 GeV Linear Collider is analyzed using high luminosity ${\cal L} = 500~{\rm fb}^{-1}$. The signature for stop pair production at an $\rm e^+e^-$ collider is two charm jets and large missing energy: $$\rm e^+e^- \to \tilde{t}_1 \, \bar{\tilde{t}}_1 \to c \, {\tilde{\chi}^0}_1 \, \bar{c} \, {\tilde{\chi}^0}_1.$$ For small $\Delta m = {m_{\rm \tilde{t}_1}}- {m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_{1}}}$, the jets are relatively soft and separation from backgrounds is very challenging. Backgrounds arising from various Standard Model processes can have cross-sections that are several orders of magnitude larger than the signal. Thus, it is necessary to study this process with a realistic detector simulation. Signal and background events are generated with [Pythia 6.129]{} [@Sjostrand:2000wi], including a scalar top signal generation [@sopczak-stop-gen] previously used in Ref. [@as_stopsnew]. The detector simulation is based on the fast simulation [Simdet]{} [@Pohl:2002vk], describing a typical ILC detector. Good agreement in comparisons with [SGV]{} [@berggren] detector simulations was obtained [@andre_lcws04; @susy05].
Cross-sections for the signal process and the relevant backgrounds have been computed with code used in Ref. [@slep] and by [Grace 2.0]{} [@grace], with cross-checks to [CompHep 4.4]{} [@comphep]. A minimal transverse momentum cut, $p_{\rm t} > 5$ GeV, is applied for the two-photon background, to avoid the infrared divergence. Details of the event selection are given in Ref. [@Carena:2005gc].
The c-tagging with the LCFI detector is based on the vertex identification and a neural network application [@kuhl]. The vertex identification considered three cases for each jet independently:
- only a primary vertex. In this case, the two tracks with the largest separation in the $r$-$\phi$ plane are considered and for these tracks the neural network variables include, the impact parameter and its significance (impact parameter divided by uncertainty) both in the $r$-$\phi$ plane and in the $z$-direction, their momenta, and the joined probability in $r$-$\phi$ plane and $z$ direction.
- one secondary vertex. In addition to the previous variables, the decay length significance of the secondary vertex, the multiplicity and momenta of all associated tracks, and the $P_t$ corrected mass of the secondary vertex (corrected for neutral hadrons and neutrinos), the $P_t$ of the decay products perpendicular to the flight direction between primary and secondary vertex, and the joint probability in $r$-$\phi$ and $z$-direction.
- more than one secondary vertex. Two secondary vertices are considered, where the tracks are assigned to the vertex closest to the primary vertex, and the neural network input variables are defined as in case b).
The neural network is tuned with 255,000 simulated signal and 240,000 $\rm W e \nu$ background events. The signal events are a combination of all simulated signal events for the scalar top mass range between 120 to 220 GeV and for $\Delta m=5,10$ and 15 GeV.
After a preselection which substantially reduces the background while keeping about 70% of the signal, six sequential cuts are applied: number of jets, missing energy, acollinearity, thrust angle, transverse momentum, and the jet-jet invariant mass and c-tagging [@Carena:2005gc]. The background consists of the following processes $\rm W^+W^-$, $\rm ZZ$, $\rm W e\nu$, $\rm e e Z$, $\rm q \bar{q} (\,q \neq t)$, $\rm t \bar{t}$, and two-photon. After all cuts, the total background of about 5680 events is dominated by about 5044 $\rm W e\nu$ events [@Carena:2005gc]. A scalar top signal of 120 GeV has been simulated with a neutralino mass of 110 GeV. The selection efficiency is about 20%[^1] and 11,500 signal events are expected for a standard LCFI vertex detector configuration as given in the TESLA TDR.
Varying the Vertex Detector Design
==================================
This study of the vertex detector design is based on 50,000 simulated 120 GeV signal and 210,000 $\rm W e \nu$ background events for each detector design. After preselection 29,842 signal and 53,314 $\rm We\nu$ events are selected, corresponding to 34,318 and 779,450 events per 500 fb$^{-1}$, respectively. This preselection signal efficiency of 59.7% does not depend on the vertex detector design. Four detector designs are compared:
- the TESLA TDR design with 5 layers and single (0.064% $X_0$ radiation length per layer).
- 4 layers (the innermost layer removed). This scenario could for example occur if the vertex detector is exposed to a large dose of machine background from the accelerator. The optimization of the radius of the innermost layer is an important aspect in the design of a vertex detector for a Linear Collider.
- 5 layers and double material thickness (0.128% $X_0$ radiation length per layer). As the rigidity of the sensitive elements and the support structure is another important aspect in the detector design, the material budget has to be taken into account.
- 4 layers (the innermost layer removed) and double thickness (0.128% $X_0$ radiation length per layer).
The c-tagging efficiency per event is normalized to the number of signal events after the preselection and requiring two jets. At least one c-tagged jet is required and the efficiency is given in Fig. \[fig:design\] as a function of the purity, where purity is defined as the ratio of the number of simulated signal events after the c-tagging to all c-tagged events assuming the same luminosity for signal and background. The different purities are obtained by varying the cut on the c-tagging neural network variable. The effect of the detector design variation increases with increasing purity (harder c-tagging neural network cut). For the second set of points in the plot with purities about 18% and c-tagging efficiencies between 85% and 90%, the variation of the signal efficiency and the number of $\rm We\nu$ background events is given in the table after all selection cuts.
Thickness layers signal efficiency (in %) $\rm We\nu/210k$ $\rm We\nu/500~fb^{-1}$
----------- -------- -------------------------- ------------------ -------------------------
Single 5 (4) 20.46 (19.67) 364 (369) 5322 (5396)
Double 5 (4) 20.32 (19.52) 366 (385) 5352 (5630)
$\pm 0.18$ $\pm 19$ $\pm 280$
![Left: scalar top c-tagging efficiency and purity with $\rm W e\nu$ background for different detector designs. The VX$_{12}$ curve is for a detector design with 5 layers (innermost at 15 mm) and single density, curve VX$_{22}$ is for a detector design with 4 layers (innermost at 26 mm). Curves VX$_{32}$ and VX$_{42}$ are for double density (0.128% $X_0$ radiation length per layer) with 4 and 5 layers, respectively. Right: expected signal efficiency and number of $\rm We\nu$ background events for the four detector designs. The statistical uncertainties are also given. []{data-label="fig:design"}](eff.eps){width="\textwidth" height="6cm"}
Results
=======
These results for small visible energy ($\Delta m = 10$ GeV) lead to the same observation as for large visible energy (SPS-5 scenario with $\Delta m = 100.7$ GeV). The radius of the innermost layer of the vertex detector has a large effect on the c-quark tagging performance. Curves VX$_{12}$ and VX$_{22}$ of Fig. \[fig:design\] show the performance for radii 15 and 26 mm, respectively. There is no significant effect on the c-quark tagging performance from doubling the material budget (e.g. curves VX$_{12}$ and VX$_{32}$ of Fig. \[fig:design\]). The increase of multiple scattering is not significant between single and double thickness (0.128% $X_0$ radiation length per layer).
In order to quantitatively estimate the multiple scattering effect, the number of tracks per signal event and the visible energy have been determined. The minimum visible energy per event is about 10 GeV and the maximum number of tracks is about 20, therefore the minimum track energy is about 0.5 GeV. The analytical calculation of the multiple scattering angle is given by $ \theta\approx 13.6/P\cdot \sqrt{x/X_0},$ where the track momentum $P$ is given in MeV. The displacement at the interaction point is $d\approx R\theta$, where $R$ is the radius of the innermost layer of the vertex detector. For $P=500$ MeV, $x/X_0=0.128\%$ and $R=15$ mm, $d=15\mu$m. This small value compared to the flight distance of charm mesons explains the insignificant effect on the c-quark tagging from the multiple scattering increase by doubling the vertex detector layer thickness.
Conclusions
===========
In conclusion, the studies with a small visible energy signal lead to the same results as in the previous study for large visible energy regarding the vertex detector design. A strong dependence on the detector performance on the radius of the innermost vertex detector layer has been observed, while doubling the material thickness has no significant effect on the c-quark tagging performance in scalar top studies at the ILC. The optimization of the radius of the innermost vertex detector layer will have to take into account the accelerator background which depends on the machine optics and the collimation system.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
ASwouldliketothanktheorganizersoftheworkshopformakingthispresentationpossible.
[99]{}
M. Carena, A. Finch, A. Freitas, C. Milstène, H. Nowak and A. Sopczak, Phys. Rev. [**D72**]{} (2005) 115008.
C. Milsténe and A. Sopczak, Econf C0508141:ALCPG1431, 2005.
A. Finch, H. Nowak and A. Sopczak, “CCD Vertex Detector Charm-Tagging Performance in Studies of ScalarTop Quark Decays”, Proc. of the Int. Conference on Linear Colliders (LCWS 04), Paris, France, 19-24 April 2004.
A. Sopczak, M. Carena, A. Finch, A. Freitas, C. Milsténe, H. Nowak, “Scalar Top Quark Studies with Various Visible Energies”, presented at the 13th Int. Conference on Supersymmetry and Unification of Fundamental Interactions (SUSY’05), Durham, UK, July 18-23, 2005.
T. Sjöstrand et al., Comput. Phys. Commun. [**135**]{}, 238 (2001).
A.Sopczak,inPHYSICSATLEP2,“EventGeneratorsforDiscoveryPhysics”, CERNYellowReportCERN 96-01.
A. Finch, H. Nowak and A. Sopczak, contributed paper EPS370, Int. Conference on High-Energy Physics (HEP 2003), Aachen, Germany, 17-23 July 2003 \[LC Note LC-PHSM-2003-075\].
M. Pohl and H. J. Schreiber, hep-ex/0206009.
M.Berggren,SimulationGrandVitesse(SGV),http://berggren.home.cern.ch/berggren/sgv.html
A. Freitas, D. J. Miller and P. M. Zerwas, Eur. Phys. J. C [**21**]{} (2001) 361;\
A. Freitas, A. von Manteuffel and P. M. Zerwas, Eur. Phys. J. C [**34**]{} (2004) 487.
F. Yuasa et al., Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. [**138**]{}, 18 (2000).
E. Boos et al. \[CompHEP Collaboration\], Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A [**534**]{}, 250 (2004).
T. Kuhl, “Hadronic branching ratio of a SM-like Higgs boson at a future linear collider”, Proc. of the Int. Conference on Linear Colliders (LCWS 04), Paris, France, 19-24 April 2004.
[^1]: The retuning of the c-tagging neural network increased the selection efficiency from 19% [@Carena:2005gc] to 20% and the $\rm We\nu$ background from 5044 [@Carena:2005gc] to $5322\pm280$ events.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
hep-th/0612108
[Ilka Brunner]{}[^1] [and]{} [Vladimir Mitev]{}[^2]
Institut für Theoretische Physik, ETH-Hönggerberg\
8093 Zürich, Switzerland\
[**Abstract**]{}
We consider orientifold actions involving the permutation of two identical factor theories. The corresponding crosscap states are constructed in rational conformal field theory. We study group manifolds, in particular the examples $SU(2) \times SU(2)$ and $U(1)\times U(1)$ in detail, comparing conformal field theory results with geometry. We then consider orientifolds of tensor products of $N=2$ minimal models, which have a description as coset theories in rational conformal field theory and as Landau Ginzburg models. In the Landau Ginzburg language, B-orientifolds and D-branes are described in terms of matrix factorizations of the superpotential. We match the factorizations with the corresponding crosscap states.
Introduction
============
Orientifolds [@orientifolds] play a prominent role in the context of model building. For this and other reasons it is of interest to understand their construction and physical properties in detail.
Given a tensor product of two identical theories, it is a natural idea to consider orientifolds that involve the permutation of the two factors. Such models can then be studied from various points of view. If each single factor is a rational conformal field theory, one can approach the problem algebraically and construct a crosscap state describing a parity action that combines the permutation with world sheet orientation reversal and possibly other actions. For a single factor, this approach has been employed initially in [@PSS] [^3] . On the other hand, the problem can also be approached geometrically. Given a sigma-model with target space $M\times M$ one can consider an involution exchanging the two factors, the fixed point set being the diagonally embedded $M\subset M\times M$.
In this paper, we will be interested in models that can be studied from both points of view.
We start out setting the stage in rational conformal field theory, giving an explicit construction of permutation crosscap states. One motivation for the form of the crosscap state comes from the idea that geometrically the orientifold should be localized on the diagonal of the two factors. The parity should act trivially on the corresponding D-brane, whose world volume coincides with the orientifold fixed point set. This is enough to determine the crosscap state by a modular transformation to the closed string channel provided that the boundary state is known. We also point out that the form of our crosscap state suggests a generalization of the arguments of [@GaGa; @BFS] for boundary states corresponding to automorphism twisted boundary conditions to the orientifold case. Necessary conditions for the consistency of our proposed crosscap states are provided by the one-loop diagrams, which we summarize in the appendix.
In section 3 we consider orientifolds of products of group manifolds $G\times G$. Even though these manifolds do not appear directly as part of a string model, they are simple models for studying the behavior of D-branes and orientifold planes. They also provide the basics for coset constructions such as those appearing in Gepner models.
The most symmetric D-branes preserving the full underlying symmetry were constructed as rational boundary states by Cardy [@Cardy]. The geometry of these D-branes was uncovered in [@AS; @FFFS] where it was shown that Cardy’s boundary states correspond geometrically to D-branes wrapping conjugacy classes of the group manifold. Additional D-brane states preserving an automorphism twisted symmetry were constructed in [@BFS] and shown to wrap twisted conjugacy classes [@FFFS]. The non-commutative gauge theory living on their world volume was further investigated in [@AFQS]. Permutation branes [@Reck; @MGSSN], where the automorphism is the exchange of the symmetry algebras of the two factors, are a special class of such branes, see also the generalization discussed in [@FQ; @FG].
Repeating a similar program for unoriented strings, one can relate algebraic and geometric constructions of orientifolds. The crosscap states preserving the full symmetry algebra are those of [@PSS]. Their geometric interpretation on group manifolds has been investigated in [@Bru; @HSS; @BCW] with the result that the orientifold planes are fixed point sets under an involution of the group manifold and are localized on specific conjugacy classes. The basic example is provided by the involution $g\to g^{-1}$, leading to orientifold points sitting at elements of the center of the group whose conjugacy class consists only of one point. This parity action can be modified by multiplication by an element $c$ of the center $g \to cg^{-1}$. In CFT terms, this choice amounts to dressing the parity action by a simple current [@HSSkb; @FHSSW; @BH1].
In the classical limit, the closed and open string states have an interpretation in terms of functions on the group manifold (closed strings) or on the conjugacy classes wrapped by the D-brane (open strings). The parity acts as an involution of the group target and induces an action on those function spaces. This geometrical action has been matched with the one read off from conformal field theory one-loop calculations in [@Bru; @BCW].
In this paper, we consider products of group manifolds and their orientifold actions. The fixed point set of these orientifolds are twisted conjugacy classes, just like in the case of D-branes. We study the examples $SU(2)_k\times SU(2)_k$ and $U(1)_k\times U(1)_k$ in detail and check the localization of the orientifold plane by scattering closed string states off it [@MMS; @HSS; @Bru; @BCW; @GZ]. Furthermore, we consider the action of the geometric parity on the space of functions living on the twisted conjugacy class and compare its action with the one derived with the help of conformal field theory. We find complete agreement in the classical (large $k$) limit of the conformal field theory.
Having studied both $su(2)$ and $u(1)$ in detail, we move on to the coset $su(2)_k\oplus u(1)_2/u(1)_{k+2}$. This is a GSO projected version of the $N=2$ supersymmetric minimal model which has an alternative description in terms of a Landau-Ginzburg model with superpotential $W=X^{k+2}$. For $N=2$ theories, there are two types of orientifolds, namely A-type (those that for sigma-models correspond to fixed point sets of an anti-holomorphic involution) and B-type (corresponding to holomorphic involutions). For a single minimal model, the crosscaps and parities have been studied in [@BH2], and results from the Landau-Ginzburg and conformal field theory analysis, such as the action of the parity on D-branes and open string states, have been found to agree. One of the main applications for supersymmetric minimal models is the construction of exact string vacua via Gepner models, whose orientifolds have been studied in [@Gepner].
Concerning the extension to permutation orientifolds, the techniques discussed so far in this paper are directly applicable to the (non spin-aligned) tensor product of two coset models, each with a separate GSO projection. However, one would really be interested in the (GSO projected) tensor product of two spin aligned $N=2$ minimal models, which is what we consider in section \[SUSY\], focussing on the B-type case. We observe that the parity action on open and closed string states is to some extend inherited from that of the constituent $su(2)_k$ and $u(1)$ theories. However, there are a number of choices of how the parity can act on the $u(1)_2$ part, describing fermions and spin structures. In particular, for any parity action one can consider a related parity that differs in its action on the D-brane from the initial one by a brane-anti-brane flip. In theories with a geometrical interpretation, one would interpret this as an orientation reversal.
We also consider the Landau-Ginzburg description of the tensor product, which has a superpotential $W=X_1^{k+2}+ X_2^{k+2}$. In [@HWLG] it was explained how to construct topological B-type crosscap states making use of the matrix factorization techniques of [@KLII; @HL]. We apply their techniques to the case of the tensor product of two $N=2$ minimal models. Following [@HWLG] one can in particular derive from the Landau Ginzburg point of view how the parity associated to a factorization acts on the B-type D-branes. The latter are also described by matrix factorizations, following the ideas of [@MK]. We compare these results with the conformal field theory analysis and identify the conformal field theory description of the parity that is most natural in the Landau Ginzburg model.
We do not consider permutation orientifolds of Gepner models, which are however covered in the paper [@hosomichi].
[**Note added:**]{} Some of the results of this paper were independently obtained in the paper [@hosomichi] by Hosomichi.
Permutation boundary and crosscap states
========================================
The tensor product of two identical rational conformal field theory models carries a natural action of the permutation group. Accordingly, one can use this symmetry to twist the gluing conditions for boundary and crosscap states.
We will consider the case of the charge conjugation modular invariant. The symmetry algebra of the model is $\cA^1 \otimes \cA^2$, where $\cA^i =\cA^i_L \otimes \cA^i_R$, and $\cA^i_L=\cA^i_R=\cA$. The generators of $\cA$ are denoted as $W$. The Hilbert space of the theory is then [[H]{}]{}= \_[i,j]{} ( [[H]{}]{}\_i [[H]{}]{}\_[|[i]{}]{} ) ( [[H]{}]{}\_j [[H]{}]{}\_[|[j]{}]{} ) , where $i,j$ are representations of $\cA$. As usual, one can consider D-branes described by Cardy’s boundary states that preserve the full symmetry algebra. The corresponding gluing conditions on the upper half plane are \[untwisted\] W\^[(1)]{}(z) = \^[(1)]{}(|[z]{}), W\^[(2)]{}(z) = \^[(2)]{}(|[z]{}) z=|[z]{} . Making use of the permutation symmetry, one can define the following twisted gluing conditions [@Reck] W\^[(1)]{}(z) = \^[(2)]{}(|[z]{}) z=|[z]{} In the closed string channel, these gluing conditions are implemented on coherent Ishibashi states which fulfill \[permbc\] ( W\_n\^[(1)]{} - (-1)\^[s\_W]{} \_[-n]{}\^[(2)]{} )[, (i,i)]{}\_[(12)]{}=0 , where the subscript $(12)$ reminds us that this is the Ishibashi state for the permutation boundary conditions. If we let $i$ label the chiral primaries of a single factor, then the permutation Ishibashi states can be built on states in the sector ${{\cal H}}_i \otimes {{\cal H}}_{\bar{i}} $, as in [@Reck]. Explicitly, they are written $${\vert \Scr{B}, (i,i)\rangle\!\rangle}_{(12)}:=\sum_{M,N}|i,M\rangle\otimes|i,N\rangle\otimes
|\bar{i},N\rangle\otimes |\bar{i},M\rangle$$ More generally, we can have a pair of indices $(i_1,i_2)$ labeling the tensor product of representations of the symmetry algebra for the left movers, while the summation over $M,N$ runs over the descendants. Permutation Ishibashi states can only be built on ground states whose labels $i_1,i_2$ agree. The inner product between twisted Ishibashi states is given by $$\label{permproduct}
{}_{(12)}{\langle\!\langle \Scr{B},(i,i) \vert}e^{2\pi i \tau H_c}{\vert \Scr{B}, (j,j)\rangle\!\rangle}_{(12)}=
\delta_{ij}\chi_i(2\tau)^2$$ and the one between twisted and untwisted Ishibashi states corresponding to (\[untwisted\]) by \[twined\] \_[[[**1**]{}]{}]{}[,(i\_1,i\_2) ]{}e\^[2i H\_c]{}[, (j,j)]{}\_[(12)]{}= \_[i\_1,j]{} \_[i\_2,j]{} \_j(4) . Permutation boundary states then take the form [@Reck] \[permbs\] |,J\_[(12)]{} = \_j [, (j,j)]{}\_[(12)]{} . This is a special case of a more general construction described in [@GaGa], taking a novel point of view on [@BFS]. Given an automorphism $\omega$ of the chiral algebra, one can consider the $\omega$-twisted boundary conditions, (for the case that $\omega$ is a permutation this is (\[permbc\])). One can then construct $\omega$ twisted Ishibashi states and determine the inner product between two twisted Ishibashi states, which results in characters describing the propagation of strings in the tree-channel. For the case of the permutation automorphism, this is just (\[permproduct\]). However, in addition there are strings propagating between two branes where the gluing conditions have been twisted by different automorphisms. In particular, one can consider one of the automorphisms to be trivial, leading to Cardy’s boundary states, which preserve the full symmetry. The overlap of an $\omega$ twisted Ishibashi state and an untwisted Ishibashi state is given by a [*twining character*]{}, [*i.e.*]{} a trace over a Hilbert space with an insertion of the induced action of $\omega$ on that Hilbert space \_ () = \_[\_]{} (\_ e\^[2i (L\_0-)]{} ) . In our case, this is just (\[twined\]). Twisted boundary states can be written as linear combinations of twisted Ishibashi states. The coefficients, with which the twisted Ishibashi states are combined to consistent boundary states are restricted by the Cardy condition. To analyze this condition between twisted and untwisted boundary states, one needs to transform the tree level amplitudes to the open string channel, where in particular one makes use of the modular transformation properties of the twining characters [@Kac; @FSS]. It turns out that one obtains integer combination of suitable twisted characters in the open string channel if one chooses as coefficients the S-matrix elements for the twining characters, divided by the square-root of ordinary S-matrices as usual. The integers appearing in the open string channel are then the twisted fusion rule coefficients, which describe the fusion of a twisted representation with an untwisted one, resulting in a twisted representation, see [@GaGa] for details.
In our case, the twining characters appearing in the closed string channel are simply (\[twined\]), and their modular transformation is performed using the ordinary $S$-matrix of a single model. The coefficients of the permutation boundary state (\[permbs\]) are precisely that $S$- matrix divided by the normalization $S_{0j}$, following the pattern described above.
Turning to orientifolds, one would similarly like to consider parity actions which involve the exchange of the two symmetry algebras. In the closed string channel, the conditions on the crosscap states can be obtained by conjugating (\[permbc\]) with $e^{\pi i L_0}$, where $L_0=L_0^{(1)}+L_0^{(2)}$. This results in the following condition on crosscap Ishibashi states (W\_n\^[(1)]{} - (-1)\^[s\_W+n]{} \_[-n]{}\^[(2)]{} )[,(i,i)]{}\_[(12)]{}=0 . The crosscap Ishibashi states are obtained from the boundary ones as [,(i,i)]{}\_[(12)]{}= e\^[i (L\_0-h\^[tot]{}\_i)]{}[, (i,i)]{}\_[(12)]{} . The closed string amplitudes between permutation boundary and crosscap states are $$\begin{aligned}
{}_{(12)}{\langle\!\langle \Scr{C},(i,i) \vert} e^{2\pi i \tau H_c} {\vert \Scr{C},(j,j)\rangle\!\rangle}_{(12)} &=&
\delta_{ij} \chi_i(2\tau)^2 \\ \nonumber
{}_{(12)}{\langle\!\langle \Scr{B},(i,i) \vert}e^{2\pi i \tau H_c}{\vert \Scr{C},(j,j)\rangle\!\rangle}_{(12)}
&=& \delta_{ij}\hat\chi_j(2\tau)^2 \\ \nonumber
{}_{{{\bf 1}}}{\langle\!\langle \Scr{B},(i_1,i_2) \vert}e^{2\pi i \tau H_c}{\vert \Scr{C},(j,j)\rangle\!\rangle}_{(12)} &=&
\delta_{i_1,j} \delta_{i_2,j} \hat\chi_j (4\tau) \ ,\end{aligned}$$ where $\hat\chi(\tau) = e^{-\pi i (h_i-\frac{c}{24})} \chi(\tau+\frac{1}{2})$ as usual. The form of the permutation boundary state suggests the following ansatz for the permutation crosscap state \[pcross\] |, \_[(12)]{} = \_j [,(j,j)]{}\_[(12)]{}= \_j e\^[2i Q\_(j)]{} [,(j,j)]{}\_[(12)]{} where $\mu$ is a simple current and $Q_{\mu}(j)$ the monodromy charge of $j$ with respect to $\mu$.
It is interesting to ask if there is an extension of the general construction of twisted boundary states of [@BFS; @GaGa] to the crosscap case. The natural ansatz for a crosscap state would then be to combine the Ishibashi states to full crosscap states using the modular matrix that relates the closed string channel of the [*mixed*]{} amplitude between a twisted crosscap state and an untwisted boundary state to the open string channel. It is immediately clear, that the standard PSS crosscaps [@PSS] fall into this pattern: They are given by \[PSScross\] , \_[[**1**]{}]{}= \_i [,i]{} , where as before $\mu$ is a simple current. The matrix $P=\sqrt{T}ST^2S\sqrt{T}$ appearing as a prefactor of the Ishibashi state is precisely the one relating open and closed string channel of the untwisted Möbius strip.
What we can seen here is that also the permutation crosscap states obey this construction prescription. Namely, if we consider a mixed amplitude between a permutation crosscap state and a Cardy boundary state, the hatted characters appearing in the closed string channel are transformed to the open string channel using the matrix $S$ for a single factor. The prefactors appearing in the formula for the permutation crosscap state are thus natural from this point of view.
We have listed all one-loop amplitudes involving the permutation crosscap state in appendix A. Our formulas show that the coefficients appearing in the loop amplitudes are integers, thus providing necessary conditions for the consistency of the crosscap state.
Let us highlight a few amplitudes that are of special interest. There is a special permutation D-brane carrying the label $J=0$, where $0$ refers to the vacuum representation. The Cardy brane corresponding to this label would have only a single vacuum character that appears in the open string sector. In the case of the permutation brane, the cylinder amplitude of the $J=0$ permutation brane with itself takes the form [@Reck] \[cardypermutation\] \_[(12)]{} ,0 e\^[-]{} ,0 \_[(12)]{}=:[[C]{}]{}\_[(12)(12)]{}(0,0)=\_j \_j () \_[|[j]{}]{}() and “coincides” with the diagonal bulk partition function if one identifies the right movers with the boundary fields in the second tensor product factor [@Reck]. In the case where a sigma-model interpretation of the theory is available, this brane should describe a brane whose worldvolume is the conjugate diagonal in $M\times M$. We now calculate the Möbius amplitude of this D-brane with the permutation crosscap state \[cardypermutationmoebius\] \_[(12)]{} ,0 e\^[-]{} ,0 \_[(12)]{}=:[[M]{}]{}\_[(12)(12)]{}(0,0) = \_j \_j() \_[|[j]{}]{}(), which shows that all open string states are invariant under the orientifold action. We can therefore conclude that our crosscap state corresponds to an orientifold plane that is located on the diagonal. Turning the argument around, we could have postulated that the orientifold we are looking for leaves the brane on the diagonal invariant and acts trivially on all its open string states. By a modular transformation, we could then have concluded that (\[pcross\]) is the corresponding crosscap state.
We will use the notation introduced in (\[cardypermutation\]) and (\[cardypermutationmoebius\]) throughout the paper: ${{\cal C}}$, ${{\cal M}}$ and ${\cal K}$ stand for the loop channel of the cylinder, Möbius and Klein bottle amplitude respectively. The subscripts refer to the automorphism type of the boundary and crosscap states, whereas the two arguments given in brackets are the Cardy labels of the boundary or crosscap states.
Group manifolds
===============
A special example are the cases of group manifolds $H$ [@FFFS; @AFQS; @FS]. Here, boundary states corresponding to boundary conditions twisted by an automorphism $\omega$ have been constructed in [@BFS] and interpreted in terms of branes wrapping twisted conjugacy classes ${{\cal C}}_\omega$ in [@FFFS] [[C]{}]{}\_(g) = { (h\^[-1]{} g (h) h H } . For the special case of products of group manifolds $H=G\times G$ where $\omega$ acts as the exchange of the two factors, one obtains [[C]{}]{}\_[(12)]{}((g\_1,g\_2)) = { (h\_1\^[-1]{} g\_1 h\_2, h\_2\^[-1]{} g\_2 h\_1) h\_i G } . The brane corresponding to the boundary state $J=0$ is the twisted conjugacy class of the identity \[twistedone\] [[C]{}]{}\_[(12)]{}(([[**1**]{}]{},[[**1**]{}]{})) = {(h,h\^[-1]{}) h G } The orientifold actions we want to consider are supposed to exchange the left moving current of the first WZW model with the right moving one of the second. The currents are given by J\^[(i)]{}(z) = k g\_i\^[-1]{} g\_i |[J]{}\^[(i)]{}(|[z]{}) = -k |g\_i g\_i\^[-1]{} , i=1,2 , and the possible orientifold actions involve world sheet parity $\Omega$ combined with an action on the group manifold $g^{(1)} \to (g^{(2)})^{-1}$. This action can be modified with a translation by an element of the center of the group, corresponding in conformal field theory to the dressing by the action of a simple current, reflected in the label $\mu$ in (\[pcross\]).
The basic orientifold action will leave the twisted conjugacy class of the identity (\[twistedone\]) pointwise invariant, and the orientifold fixed point plane is located in the same place. This is in complete agreement with the discussion of the one-loop amplitude. Similar statements hold for the conjugacy classes $(c,c)$ where $c$ is an element of the center.
The geometry of the other conjugacy classes ${{\cal C}}_{(12)}((g_1,g_2))$ with $(g_1,g_2) \neq ({{\bf 1}}, {{\bf 1}})$ or $(c,c)$ has been discussed in [@FS], which we will now review. There is a natural surjection $m: G\times G \to G$ given by group multiplication, $m(g_1,g_2)= g_1g_2$. It follows immediately that the twisted conjugacy classes wrapped by the permutation branes get mapped to ordinary conjugacy classes of $G$. Indeed, one can also easily see the opposite statement, namely that if $g_1$ and $g_2$ are conjugate in $G$ then their preimages $(g_1',g_1'')$ with $g_1'g_1''=g$ and $(g_2',g_2'') $ with $g_2' g_2''=g_2$ in $G\times G$ are in the same twisted conjugacy class in $G\times G$. The conclusion [@FS] is that the twisted conjugacy classes are precisely the inverse images under $m$ of the conjugacy classes in $G$. They are principal $G$-bundles over the conjugacy classes of $G$.
In particular, one sees from this point of view that the corresponding boundary states carry the same set of labels as the ordinary Cardy boundary states describing branes wrapping conjugacy classes in $G$. This is of course in complete agreement with labelling of the permutation boundary states from the conformal field theory point of view (\[permbs\]). In addition, we can conclude that the orientifold $g_1\to g_2^{-1}$ will leave a twisted conjugacy class $(g_1,g_2)$ invariant if $ g=g_1 g_2$ is conjugate to its inverse. However, in general the conjugacy class will not be pointwise fixed. As opposed to the case of Cardy branes on a single factor, orientifold actions dressed by an application of an order $2$ element of the center will map the twisted conjugacy classes (set-wise) in the same way, though might act differently on the individual elements of the class. We will see examples for this in the case of $SU(2)\times SU(2)$ which we will now discuss in detail.
$SU(2)\times SU(2)$
-------------------
Let us consider the case $SU(2) \times SU(2)$. In this case, we will be able to give an interpretation for the orientifold action for all D-branes.
First, we will summarize the results of [@BCW; @HSS; @Bru] on the orientifolds of a single $SU(2)$ model. In this case, there are two orientifolds to consider, parity inversion with a combination of $g\to \pm g^{-1}$. In conformal field theory, this corresponds to the fact that there are two order two simple currents in the model, the identity and the current corresponding to the representation $k/2$. The crosscap states are then given as in (\[PSScross\]) [@PSS], where $\mu=0$ or $\mu=k/2$.
We start by discussing the involution $g\to +g^{-1}$, corresponding to the choice $\mu=0$ on the CFT side. The fixed point set consists of the two group elements $\pm {{\bf 1}}$ such that this parity describes a $0$-dimensional orientifold. The two orientifold points can have equal or opposite tensions, and, using the properties of the $SU(2)$ $P$-matrix, it is easy to see that rational conformal field theory realizes the case of opposite tensions (leading to vanishing total tension) for the case $k$ odd, and equal tension for the case $k$ even. A priori, this tension could be positive or negative, corresponding to an overall sign by which the crosscap can be multiplied.
Turning to the open string sector, D-branes on $SU(2)$ wrap conjugacy classes. Two conjugacy classes, namely those of $\pm {{\bf 1}}$ are pointlike, the others are $2$-spheres. The map $g\to g^{-1}$ induces an inversion on each individual two-sphere.
The ground states of the open string spectrum are spherical harmonics, whose behavior under inversion is standard Y\_[lm]{} (-1)\^[l]{} Y\_[lm]{} . This determines the projection in the open string channel up to an overall sign that can depend on the specific brane and the overall sign of the crosscap.
These geometrical expectations are nicely matched by the explicit evaluation of the conformal field theory Möbius strips, with the result ,0 | e\^[- H\_[c]{}]{} | , J = (-1)\^[2J]{} \_[j=0]{}\^[[min]{} { 2J, k-2J } ]{} (-1)\^j \_j() , where $J$ labels the Cardy boundary state and the sum is taken over integer $j$. The special values $J=0$ and $J=k/2$ correspond to the pointlike conjugacy classes, all other values label two-spheres [@AS; @FFFS].
The other involution $g\to - g^{-1}$ exchanges the two pointlike conjugacy classes and leaves the equatorial $2$ sphere fixed. Hence, one expects the involution to act trivially on the open string states on the brane wrapping the equatorial two-sphere. This can be verified from the conformal field theory point of view for the case $k$ even, where the brane with $J=k/4$ wraps the equator. All other branes are mapped to image branes by a reflection at the equator, in terms of conformal field theory, the image of the brane $J$ is $k/2-J$ as is reflected in the Möbius amplitude , | e\^[- H\_[c]{}]{} | , J = , | e\^[- H\_[c]{}]{} | , -J = \_[j=-2J]{}\^[k/2]{} \_j() . To generalize this to the case of twisted conjugacy classes of a product of two $SU(2)$’s, we have to understand the algebra of functions on the twisted conjugacy class, following [@AFQS]. It is then possible to interpret the orientifold action derived from the Möbius strip in terms of an involution of that algebra, giving a geometric interpretation of the orientifold action. The authors of [@AFQS] consider the open string sector for an arbitrary $\omega$-twisted D-brane on a compact simply connected simple group manifold $H$, where $\omega$ denotes the automorphism. We want to apply their strategy to the case $H=G\times G$, and $\omega$ the permutation of the two factors. The twisted boundary conditions of [@AFQS] are labelled by representations of the $\omega$- invariant subgroup $H^\omega=\{ h\in H \vert \omega(h)=h \}$. In our case $H^{\omega}$ is the diagonal subgroup $G$ of $G\times G$ and we have seen that indeed the permutation D-branes carry representation labels of $G$. Quite generally, the open string sector for a pair of twisted conjugacy classes labelled $(J_1,J_2)$ is realized by the $H$-module ${\cal A}^{(J_1,J_2)}$, where \^[(J\_1,J\_2)]{} \~[Inv]{}\_[H\^]{} ( [F]{}\^[(J\_1,J\_2)]{}) \^[(J\_1,J\_2)]{}:= [F]{}(H) (V\_[J\_1]{}, V\_[J\_2]{}) . Here, ${\cal F}(H)$ denotes the algebra of functions on the group $H$ and $V_{J_i}$ is a representation space for the irreducible representation $J_i$. The group $H\times H$ acts on the space of functions ${\cal F}(H)$ by the regular action so that we have a natural action of $H \times H^{\omega}$ on the space of matrix valued functions ${\cal F}^{(J_1,J_2)}$ by A\^[h\_1,h\_2]{}(g) = R\_[J\_2]{}(h\_2) A(h\_1\^[-1]{} g h\_2) R\_[J\_1]{}(h\_2)\^[-1]{}, where $h_1 \in H$ ($=G\times G=SU(2) \times SU(2)$ in our case) and $h_2 \in H^\omega$ (= $G$ in our case) and $R_{J_i}$ are representation matrices of $h_2$. The space ${\cal A}^{(J_1,J_2)}$ is then the restriction to those matrix valued functions that are invariant under the action of ${{{\bf 1}}} \times H^\omega$ which is ${{{\bf 1}}} \times G$ in our case. To show that this $H$-module is equivalent to the module of open string ground states determined by the open string partition function, [@AFQS] decompose ${\cal A}^{(J_1,J_2)}$ into irreducibles. In our case, using the Peter-Weyl theorem (GG) = [F]{}(G) (G) ( \_[j\_1]{} V\_[j\_1]{} V\_[j\_1]{} ) ( \_[j\_2]{} V\_[j\_2]{} V\_[j\_2]{} ), where $j_i$ label irreducible representations of $SU(2)$. This space, which is a representation space of $(G\times G)^2$ has to be decomposed with respect to the diagonal $G$ acting in the right regular action, which is easily achieved using the non truncated fusion rules of the Lie group. To obtain ${\cal F}^{(J_1,J_2)}$ the result has to be tensored with $V_{J_1} \otimes V_{J_2}$, \^[(J\_1,J\_2)]{}= \_[j\_1, j\_2, j]{} N\_[j\_1 j\_2]{}\^j V\_j V\_[j\_1]{} V\_[j\_2]{} V\_[J\_1]{} V\_[J\_2]{} . To find ${\cal A}^{(J_1,J_2)}$ one has to reduce to the $G$-invariant part, which can again be done using the fusion rules. The result is \^[(J\_1,J\_2)]{}= \_[j\_1, j\_2, j]{} N\_[j\_1 j\_2]{}\^j N\_[J\_1J\_2]{}\^[j]{} V\_[j\_1]{} V\_[j\_2]{}. Comparing to the open string partition function between permutation branes labelled $J_1$ and $J_2$ [[C]{}]{}\_[(12)(12)]{}(J\_1,J\_2) = \_[j,j\_1,j\_2]{} N\_[J\_1J\_2]{}\^j N\_[j\_1 j\_2]{}\^j \_[j\_1]{}() \_[j\_2]{} () we see that these considerations have correctly reproduced the structure of open string ground states. As we have seen [@FS], the twisted conjugacy classes are principal G-bundles over the conjugacy classes of $G$. Hence, they locally look like a conjugacy class times the group itself, and for the $SU(2)$ case this is true also globally, so that the geometry of the twisted conjugacy class is $S^2 \times S^3$. One would expect that the parity acts on $S^3$ either as the identity or the ${\mathbb{Z}}_2$ anti-podal identification. For the branes wrapping the conjugacy classes $S^3\times \{ pt \}$ one therefore expects a trivial action in the first case, which motivates that the Möbius strip should take the form [[M]{}]{}\_[(12)(12)]{}(0,0)= \_[j=0]{}\^ \_j() \_j() . This, as mentioned before, is indeed the Möbius strip for the crosscap corresponding to the trivial simple current $\mu=0$. In the second case one would expect that the open string ground states transform in the same way as when taking a ${\mathbb{Z}}_2$ orbifold of a single $SU(2)$ to obtain $SO(3)$, that is the expectation for the Möbius strip is [[M]{}]{}\_[(12)(12)]{}(,0)= \_[j=0]{}\^ (-1)\^[2j]{} \_j() \_j() , which is indeed the Möbius strip involving the crosscap with $\mu=\frac{k}{2}$. For the other D-branes, wrapping conjugacy class of the topology $S^3\times S^2$, this action has to be combined with the action coming from the $S^2$ part. It can be expected that the latter is simply inherited from the action of the inversion on the conjugacy classes of a single $SU(2)$ factor. As reviewed at the beginning of this section, the latter is an inversion under which the spherical harmonics pick up a sign $(-1)^j$, where $j$ is integer. This leads to the following geometrically motivated expectation for the Möbius strip involving the brane labelled $J$ for the case $\mu =0$ [[M]{}]{}\_[(12)(12)]{}(0,J)= \_[j,j\_1,j\_2=0]{}\^ N\_[j\_1 j\_2]{}\^j N\_[JJ]{}\^j (-1)\^[2J+j]{} \_[j\_1]{}()\_[j\_2]{}(), where we have included the same brane-dependent sign $(-1)^{2J}$ that appeared in the Möbius amplitudes for a single $SU(2)$. On the other hand, the Möbius strip derived from conformal field theory is [[M]{}]{}\_[(12)(12)]{}(0,J)= \_[j\_1, j\_2=0]{}\^ Y\_[J j\_1]{}\^[j\_2]{} \_[j\_1]{}() \_[j\_2]{}(), where we refer to (\[Y definition\]) in the appendix for the definition of the $Y$ tensor. In order to obtain an agreement between these two expressions, we need the identity, (for $J,j_1,j_2\leq k/4$) \[YNN\] Y\_[J j\_1]{}\^[j\_2]{} = \_[j=0]{}\^ N\_[JJ]{}\^j N\_[j\_1 j\_2]{}\^j (-1)\^[2J+j]{}, which can indeed be shown to be true using the explicit form for the $SU(2)$ $Y$-tensor given in the appendix. Likewise, the geometrical expectation for the amplitude between the brane $J$ and the crosscap with label $\mu=\frac{k}{2}$ is [[M]{}]{}\_[(12)(12)]{}(,J)= \_[j,j\_1,j\_2=0]{}\^ N\_[j\_1 j\_2]{}\^j N\_[JJ]{}\^j (-1)\^[2j\_1+j+2J]{} \_[j\_1]{}()\_[j\_2]{}() . The prefactor of $\hat\chi_{j_1}(\tau)\hat\chi_{j_2}(\tau)$ derived from conformal field theory is $Y_{\frac{k}{2}-J,j_1}^{j_2}$, and to get agreement (up to a factor of $(-1)^k$) we use (\[YNN\]) and the following symmetry of the $Y$-tensor of $SU(2)$ (see appendix B) Y\_[-J,j\_1]{}\^[j\_2]{}= (-1)\^[k+2j\_1]{}Y\_[Jj\_1]{}\^[j\_2]{} . One might wonder if there also exists a crosscap state exchanging the permutation boundary states $J=0$ and $J=\frac{k}{2}$, similar to what happened in the case of a single $SU(2)$. This would imply that the conjugacy class of $({{\bf 1}},{{\bf 1}})$ gets mapped to $({{\bf 1}}, -{{\bf 1}})$, as would happen under the map $g_1 \to - g_2^{-1}$, $ g_2\to g_1^{-1}$. This parity squares to $-{{\bf 1}}$ and in particular is non-involutive. That means that the corresponding crosscap states have to be built on circles twisted by $P^2\neq {{\bf 1}}$. In our case the ground states on which the twisted permutation crosscap state are built differ in the first and second factor by an application of the simple current $\frac{k}{2}$. The crosscap Ishibashi states take the form [,(j,-j)]{}\_[(12),P\^2]{}=e\^[i(L\_[o]{}\^[tot]{}-h\_[j]{}\^[tot]{})]{}\_[M,N=0]{}\^j,M -j,N U-j,N Uj,M . This leads to the following inner product between such permutation crosscap states \_[(12),P\^2]{}[,(j,-j) ]{}e\^[- ]{} [,(j’,-j’)]{}\_[(12),P\^2]{} = \_[j,j’]{} \_j(-) \_[-j]{}(-), where the subscript $P^2$ is supposed to indicate that the circle is twisted by $P^2$. The full twisted crosscap state \_[(12)P\^2]{} = \_[j=0,j]{}\^ ( [,(j,j)]{}\_[(12)]{}+[,(j,-j)]{}\_[(12)P\^2]{}) has a natural interpretation as a crosscap state in the simple current orbifold leading to the $D$-modular invariant. For $k=0$ mod $4$ this is a simple current extension. We have checked that this crosscap state leads to consistent one-loop amplitudes, the results can be found in [@mitev]. For a general description of permutation crosscap states on orbifolds see [@hosomichi].\
To complete the geometrical picture of the permutation orientifold, we show how the localization of the orientifold fixed planes can be determined by scattering localized closed string wave packets, following [@MMS], see also [@FFFS; @Bru; @HSS; @GZ]. For the case of permutation D-branes, a similar calculation was done in [@GZ].
The permutation crosscap state associated to the identity simple current is given by the expression involving the Ishibashi crosscap states $$\begin{aligned}
\left|\Scr{C},0\right\rangle_{(1 2)}&=&\sum_{j=0}^{\frac{k}{2}}
\frac{S_{0j}} {S_{0j}}{\vert \Scr{C},j\rangle\!\rangle}_{(1\ 2)}\nonumber\\
&=&\sum_{j=0}^{\frac{k}{2}}e^{\pi i (L_0-h_j)}\sum_{M_1,M_2=0}^{\infty}\underbrace{\left|j,M_1\right\rangle\otimes \left|j,M_2\right\rangle}_{\mbox{left}}\otimes\underbrace{ U\left|j,M_2\right\rangle\otimes U\left|j,M_1\right\rangle}_{\mbox{right}}\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ We now take a closed string state $\left|g_1,g_2\right\rangle$ that is localized at $(g_1,g_2)\in $ SU(2)$\times$ SU(2). Its expansion coefficients are following [@MMS], appendix D, given by $$\label{localization equation}
\left \langle g_1,g_2\right|\big(\underbrace{\left|j_1,m_1,m_2\right\rangle}_{\mbox{ $1^{st}$ SU(2)}}\otimes \underbrace{ \left|j_2,n_1,n_2\right\rangle}_{\mbox{$2^{nd}$ SU(2)}}\big)\approx\sqrt{2j_1+1}\sqrt{2j_2+1}\mathcal{D}^{j_1}_{m_1,m_2}(g_1)\mathcal{D}^{j_2}_{n_1,n_2}(g_2)\nonumber$$ where the $\mathcal{D}^j_{m,n}(g)$ are the matrix coefficients of the group element $g$ in the $2j+1$ dimensional representation of SU(2). Here the indices $m_1,m_2$ label only descendants of the horizontal subalgebra, meaning that we only act with zero modes.\
If we now look at the coupling between the crosscap and this localized state and take the approximation of dropping all the descendants appearing in the expression for $\left|\Scr{C},0\right\rangle_{(1\ 2)}$, then we get $$\begin{aligned}
\left \langle g_1,g_2\right.\left|\Scr{C},0\right\rangle_{(1\ 2)} &\approx& \sum_{j=0}^{\frac{k}{2}}\sum_{M_1,M_2}\left \langle g_1,g_2\right|(\left|j,M_1,M_2\right\rangle\otimes \left|j,M_2,M_1\right\rangle)\nonumber\\
&=& \sum_{j=0}^{\frac{k}{2}}\sum_{M_1,M_2}(2j+1)\mathcal{D}^{j}_{M_1,M_2}(g_1)\mathcal{D}^{j}_{M_2,M_1}(g_2)\nonumber\\&=&\sum_{j=0}^{\frac{k}{2}}(2j+1)\mbox{Tr}(\mathcal{D}^{j}(g_1)\mathcal{D}^{j}(g_2))=\sum_{j=0}^{\frac{k}{2}}(2j+1)\mbox{Tr}(\mathcal{D}^{j}(g_3)) \, \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $g_3=g_1g_2$ by the representation property of the $\mathcal{D}^j$ matrices. If we parametrize SU(2) by the polar angles $(\psi,\theta,\phi)$, then we obtain $$\left \langle g_1,g_2\right.\left|\Scr{C},0\right\rangle_{(1\ 2)}\approx\sum_{j=0}^{\frac{k}{2}}(2j+1)\frac{\sin((2j+1)\psi_3)}{\sin(\psi_3)}=\sum_{n=1,n\in \mathbb{N}}^{k+1}n\frac{\sin(n\psi_3)}{\sin(\psi_3)}$$ which as a function of $\psi_3$ has a strong peak at zero of height $\sum_{n=1}^{k+1}n^2=\frac{(k+1)(k+2)(2k+3)}{6}$ and is practically zero elsewhere. Thus we are interested at the points $(g_1,g_2)$ for which the latitude angle of their product is zero. Since these correspond to the north pole, we get the relation $g_1g_2=1$, so that the crosscap state is localized on the twined conjugacy class $\mathcal{O}_3^+=\left\{(g,g^{-1})|g\in \mbox{SU(2)}\right\}$ as was to be expected from our earlier considerations. This confirms that the permutation crosscap state $\left|\Scr{C},0\right\rangle_{(1\ 2)}$ associated to the identity simple current is localized on the fixed point set of the involution $(g_1,g_2)\mapsto (g_2^{-1},g_1^{-1})$.\
Similarly we can look at the permutation crosscap associated to the simple current $\frac{k}{2}$. Since $S_{\frac{k}{2}j}=(-1)^{2j}S_{0j}$, this differs from the previous one only by a factor of $(-1)^{2j}$ in the expansion, meaning that the calculations are practically identical. One obtains $$\langle g_1,g_2|\Scr{C},\frac{k}{2}\rangle_{(1\ 2)}\approx\sum_{n=1,n\in \mathbb{N}}^{k+1}(-1)^{n-1}n\frac{\sin(n\psi_3)}{\sin(\psi_3)}$$ which no longer has a peak at zero but at $\psi_3=\pi$. Therefore one now has that $g_1g_2=-1$, meaning that the crosscap state is localized on the orientifold fixed plane $\mathcal{O}_3^-=\left\{(g,-g^{-1})|g\in \mbox{SU(2)}\right\}$ of the involution $(g_1,g_2)\mapsto (-g_2^{-1},-g_1^{-1})$.\
In the language of twisted conjugacy classes that we developed previously, we have $$\mathcal{O}_3^+={{\cal C}}_{(12)}(({{\bf 1}},{{\bf 1}}))\quad \mbox{and}\quad \mathcal{O}_3^-={{\cal C}}_{(12)}(({{\bf 1}},-{{\bf 1}})) \ .$$
Rational $U(1)\times U(1)$ theories
-----------------------------------
In this section, we consider D-branes on the torus $T=S^1 \times S^1$, where both circles have equal radius $R=\sqrt{k}$, for a positive integer $k$. As is well known, in this situation one can extend the chiral algebra by exponentials with integer weight, such that the theory becomes rational. The Hilbert space of the theory is for the diagonal modular invariant $${{\cal H}}= \bigoplus_{n_1,n_2 \in {\mathbb{Z}}_{2k}}
\left( {{\cal H}}_{n_1}\otimes {{\cal H}}_{n_1} \right)
\otimes \left( {{\cal H}}_{n_2}\otimes {{\cal H}}_{n_2} \right) \ .$$ There are two kinds of permutation orientifolds to consider, in the first case the $U(1)$ current $J$ gets mapped to P\_B: J\^[(1)]{} |[J]{}\^[(2)]{}, J\^[(2)]{} |[J]{}\^[(1)]{} and the corresponding permutation boundary conditions read J\^[(1)]{}(z) = |[J]{}\^[(2)]{}(|[z]{}), J\^[(2)]{}(z) = |[J]{}\^[(1)]{}(|[z]{}) The second case differs by a sign P\_A: J\^[(1)]{} -\^[(2)]{}, J\^[(2)]{} -\^[(1)]{} and likewise for the boundary conditions. We will in this paper refer to the two different choices of the parity or boundary conditions as A-type and B-type, in analogy to the $N=2$ supersymmetric case, where a $U(1)$ current appears as part of the superconformal algebra.
Since $J^{(i)}= \sqrt{k} \partial X^{(i)}$, where $X^{(i)}$ is the free boson parametrizing the $i$th circle, one can easily deduce that the branes and orientifold fixed planes are closed curves given by the equation $X^{(1)} = \pm X^{(2)} + const$. The permutation boundary state takes the form |, N\_[(12)]{} = \_n [, (n,n)]{}\_[(12)]{} =\_n e\^[-i ]{} [, (n,n)]{}\_[(12)]{} The sign $\pm$ depends on whether the state is A-type or B-type, apart from that the discussion for the two cases is completely parallel. We already know that geometrically these branes are wrapped on circles intersecting the torus baseline at $45$ degrees, and the natural assumption is that the label $N$ determines the intersection point of the D-brane with the torus axes.\
If we parametrize the torus by two angles $\phi_1,\phi_2\in[-\pi,\pi]$, we can apply the same localization procedure as before, just modified appropriately. We obtain $$\langle e^{i\phi_1},e^{i\phi_2}|\big(|m\rangle\otimes |-m\rangle\big)\approx e^{im(\phi_1-\phi_2)}$$ so that the permutation boundary state with label $N$ is localized on the set $$\begin{aligned}
\langle e^{i\phi_1},e^{i\phi_2}|\Scr{B},N\rangle_{(1\ 2)}^B\approx\sum_{m=-k+1}^ke^{im(\phi_1-\phi_2-\frac{N \pi}{k})}\stackrel{k\rightarrow \infty}{\rightarrow}\mbox{const}\cdot\delta(\phi_1-\phi_2-\phi_{N})\end{aligned}$$ where $\phi_{N}\in[-\pi,\pi]$ and $N$ has been taken to vary appropriately so that in the limit $k\rightarrow \infty$, $\frac{N \pi }{k}\rightarrow \phi_{N}$. Hence the permutation D-branes for the $B$-type boundary conditions are simply closed circles given by the equation $\phi_2=\phi_1-\phi_{N}$. The calculations for the $A$ type are analogous, with the result that $\phi_2=-\phi_1+\phi_{N}$.
(7,4) (3.9,0.2) [(0,0)\[bl\][$\phi_1$]{}]{} (-0.1,3.7) [(0,0)\[br\][$\phi_2$]{}]{} (-0.1,2.9) [(0,0)\[br\][$\pi$]{}]{} (3.1,-0.4) [(0,0)\[br\][$\pi$]{}]{} (-0.1,0) [(0,0)\[br\][$-\pi$]{}]{} (-0.3,-0.4) [(0,0)\[bl\][$-\pi$]{}]{} (0,0)(0,4) (0,0)(4,0) (0,0.01)(3,0.01) (0.01,-0.01)(0.01,3) (3,0.01)(3,3.01) (0.01,3)(3.02,3) (0,1.5)(1.5,3) (1.5,0)(3,1.5) (0,2.25)(2.25,0) (2.25,3)(3,2.25) (5,1) [(0,0)\[bl\][$B,\phi_{N}=0$]{}]{} (7.3,1.25)(8,1.25) (5,2) [(0,0)\[bl\][$A,\phi_{N}=\frac{\pi}{2}$]{}]{} (7.3,2.25)(8,2.25)
As we shall see later on, the permutation crosscaps are localized on the same sets as their D-branes counterparts. The one-loop amplitude between two D-branes of equal type is [[C]{}]{}\_[(12)(12)]{} (N,M) = \_[n=-k+1]{}\^k \_n() \_[N-Mn]{}(), such that open string states for $N\neq M$ have non-trivial windings, which is natural, since those branes are separated by a finite distance. Likewise, we have the crosscap state |,\_[(12)]{} =\_n e\^[-i ]{} [,(n,n)]{}\_[(12)]{} Since the closed string couplings to the ground states are the same as for the D-brane carrying the same label, an immediate conclusion that could be reached by a calculation similar to the previous one is that this crosscap state is located in the same place as the brane. Moreover, the one-dimensional orientifold fixed sets can be written as twisted conjugacy classes: $$\mathcal{O}^A_1=\mathcal{C}_{(12)}((e^{i\phi_N},\mathbf{1}))\quad\mbox{and}\quad \mathcal{O}^B_1=\mathcal{C}_{(12)\circ I}((e^{i\phi_N},\mathbf{1})),$$ where $I:e^{i\phi}\rightarrow e^{-i\phi}$ is the inversion. The Möbius amplitude between a crosscap and boundary state of equal type is [[M]{}]{}\_[(12)(12)]{} (,M) = \_[n]{} \_[n]{} () \_[2-2M n]{} () (,M,n) Here, $\sigma(\mu,M,n)$ is a sign taking the values \[sigmadef\] (,M,n) = {
[ll]{} 1&\
(-1)\^[n+k]{}& .
. where $\mathcal{P}(n)=\hat{n}$ sends the argument to the standard range $\{-k+1,\ldots,k\}$. On general grounds, the multiplicities of the characters appearing in the loop channel between permutation crosscap and boundary state are given by the $Y$ tensor, which we have spelled out here explicitly.
By comparing the Cylinder and Möbius strip we see that the image brane of the brane $M$ is the brane $2\mu-M$. In particular, a brane that remains fixed under the involution has to fulfill $M=2\mu -M$ mod $2k$ with the two solutions $M=\mu$ and $ M=\mu+k$. Note that in the two cases in (\[sigmadef\]) are exchanged under $M \to M+k$. In particular, there are no signs for the case $M=\mu$, but a non-trivial orientifold action on the open string states in the case $M=\mu +k$. This indicates that the brane $M=\mu$ is left pointwise fixed, as we discussed earlier. On the other hand, the brane $M=\mu+k$ is left only setwise fixed, the orientifold involution identifies diametrically opposite points of the fixed point circle. The open string states transform accordingly.
The $N=2$ minimal models {#SUSY}
========================
The conformal field theory approach {#SUSYCFT}
-----------------------------------
We consider the tensor product of two $N=2$ supersymmetric minimal models. A single minimal model with a non-chiral GSO projection has a description in terms of a coset model $su(2)_k \oplus u(1)_2 / u(1)_{k+2}$. The representations of the coset algebra are labelled by $(j,n,s)$, where $j$ denotes the spin of the $su(2)$ representation and $n\in {\mathbb{Z}}_{2k+4}$, $s\in {\mathbb{Z}}_4$. These labels are subject to a selection rule that requires $2j+n+s$ to be even. Furthermore, one has to identify (j,n,s) \~(-j, n+k+2, s+2) . We will denote the equivalence classes by $[j,n,s]$. We choose the range for the labels of the $U(1)_{k+2}$ theory to be $-k-1, \dots, k+2$ and denote the sum of $n_1$ and $n_2$ reflected back into that range by $n_1\hat{+} n_2$. Likewise, our range for the $s$ labels is $-1,0,1,2$, with the same notation for the sum of $s$-labels.
The conformal weights and $U(1)$ charges of the highest weight states of the coset representations are, up to integers h\_[j,n,s]{} &=& h\_j-h\_n+h\_s [mod]{} 1\
&=& - + [mod]{} 1\
q\_[j,n,s]{} &=& - [mod]{} 2 These relations hold exactly in the so-called standard range, where $|n-s|\leq 2j$. In the context of orientifolds, one often needs the square root of the $T$ transformation and therefore the value of $h$ modulo $2$. In the coset model, one introduces the sign factors $\sigma_{j,n,s}$ [@BH2] \_[j,n,s]{} = T\^\_[\[j,n,s\]]{}T\^[-]{}\_j T\^\_n T\^[-]{}\_s,where the $T$ matrices with single labels appearing on the right hand side are those of the $su(2)$ and $u(1)$ theories. The explicit value of $\sigma_{j,n,s}$ can be calculated by studying the realization of the coset model ground states within the representation spaces of $su(2)_k \oplus u(1)_2$, see the appendix of [@BH2] for the explicit calculation. The result is $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma_{j,n,s}=\left\{\begin{array}{ll} 1 &\mbox{ for } (j,n,s)\in \mbox{Standard range}\\
1 & \mbox{ for } (j,-2j,2),2j\geq 1\\
1 & \mbox{ for } (\frac{k}{2},k+2,0)\\
(-1)^ {\frac{|n|-|s|}{2}-j} & \mbox{ for } (\frac{k}{2}-j,n \hat{+}(k+2),s\hat{+}2)\in \mbox{Std. range}\\
-1 & \mbox{ for } (j,2j+2,0), j\neq \frac{k}{2}\\
-1 & \mbox{ for } (j,\pm(2j+1), \mp 1)\\
-1 & \mbox{ for } (0,0,2)\end{array}\right.\end{aligned}$$ The Hilbert space for the coset model is \[cosethilbert\] = \_[\[j,n,s\]]{} \_[\[j,n,s\]]{} |\_[\[j,n,s\]]{}, where the choice of sign corresponds to two different GSO projections, type 0A and type 0B. On the other hand, the representation spaces of the $N=2$ super-Virasoro algebra (no GSO projection) are in terms of the representation spaces of the coset theory \[N2hilbert\] [[H]{}]{}\^[N=2]{}\_[\[j,n,\[s\]\]]{} = \_[\[j,n,s\]]{} \_[\[j,n,s+2\]]{} , where $[s]$ is the ${\mathbb{Z}}_2$ reduction of the ${\mathbb{Z}}_4$ label $s$ and takes the value $1$ for the Ramond and $0$ for the Neveu-Schwarz sector. In the theory without GSO projection, the fields are organized in these representations of the $N=2$ algebra.
In this section, we are interested in the crosscap states in the tensor product of two minimal $N=2$ models with a single GSO projection. The Hilbert space of such a theory is \[N2GSOhilbert\] [[H]{}]{}& = & \_[\[j\_1,n\_1,s\_1\],\[j\_2,n\_2,s\_2\]]{} ( (\_[\[j\_1,n\_1,s\_1\]]{} \_[\[j\_2,n\_2,s\_2\]]{} ) ( |\_[\[j\_1,n\_1,s\_1\]]{} |\_[\[j\_2,n\_2,s\_2\]]{} )\
& & (\_[\[j\_1,n\_1,s\_1\]]{} \_[\[j\_2,n\_2,s\_2\]]{} ) ( |\_[\[j\_1,n\_1,s\_1+2\]]{} |\_[\[j\_2,n\_2,s\_2+2\]]{} ) ) , where the sums over $s_1$ and $s_2$ are restricted to $s_1-s_2\in 2{\mathbb{Z}}$. In comparison to the tensor product of two coset models, this theory is spin aligned, so that the states of both factors are either in the NSNS or RR sector. This projection gives rise to a twisted sector, where the $s_i$ values for the left- and right movers differ by $2$, corresponding to the lower line of (\[N2GSOhilbert\]).
The formulas we have developed so far for permutation crosscap states are directly applicable to a tensor product of two coset models, where the Hilbert space is given by the tensor product of two copies of (\[cosethilbert\]). The simple currents of a single copy of the coset theory carry representation labels $(0,\nu,\sigma)$, and hence we can label the crosscap states by $(\nu, \sigma)$. For the tensor product of two coset models, the crosscap state would thus read \[tensorcross\] , , \_[(12)]{}\^[coset]{} = \_[\[j,n,s\]]{} [,\[j,n,s\]\[j,n, s\]]{}\_[(12)]{} . The choice of sign in the Ishibashi state is just like in the $U(1)$ case and refers to different boundary conditions, A-type $(+)$, and B-type $(-)$. We will specialize to the B-type case, the discussion for A-type permutation crosscap states is completely analogous.
Note that the crosscap state for the tensor product of two coset models already obeys the spin alignment condition $s_1-s_2 \in 2{\mathbb{Z}}$. To understand how it has to be modified for the GSO projected tensor product of two minimal $N=2$ models, we consider the Klein bottle amplitude calculated from (\[tensorcross\]) \[cosetkb\] [K]{}\_[(12)]{}\^[coset]{}((,),(’,’)) = \_[\[j\_i,n\_i,s\_i\]]{} \_[j\_1j\_2]{} \^[(2k+4)]{}\_[n\_1+’-,n\_2]{} \^[(4)]{}\_[s\_1+’-,s\_2]{} \_[\[j\_1,n\_1,s\_1\]]{}(2) \_[\[j\_2,n\_2,s\_2\]]{} (2) . This Klein bottle amplitude obviously only gets contributions from the first part of the Hilbert space (\[N2GSOhilbert\]). The orientifold action in the closed string sector of this model can be read off to be (for $\nu'=\nu, \sigma'=\sigma$) a combination of a permutation and a parity action in a single coset model. On the closed string ground states it acts as \[parityuntwist\] && (j\_1,n\_1,s\_1)(j\_2,n\_2,s\_2)\
&& (j\_2,n\_2,s\_2) (j\_1,n\_1,s\_1) . The parity invariant states are those with $j_1=j_2$, $n_1=n_2$, $s_1=s_2$, leading to the Klein bottle (\[cosetkb\]). The natural extension of this parity action to the twisted sector part is given by \[paritytwist\] && (j\_1,n\_1,s\_1)(j\_2,n\_2,s\_2)\
&& (j\_2,n\_2,s\_2+2) (j\_1,n\_1,s\_1+2) , such that state with $j_1=j_2$, $n_1=n_2$, $s_1=s_2+2$ are parity invariant.
The crosscap states that implement this type of parity action on the closed string sector states is given by projections of the coset model crosscap states onto the NSNS (or RR) sector , , \_[(12)]{}\^[NSNS]{} &=& \_[\[j,n,s\]s [ev]{}]{} [,\[j,n,s\]\[j,-n,-s\]]{}\_[(12)]{}\
, , \_[(12)]{}\^[RR]{} &=& \_[\[j,n,s\]s [odd]{}]{} [,\[j,n,s\]\[j,-n,-s\]]{}\_[(12)]{} . The corresponding Klein bottles are \_[(12)]{}\^[NSNS]{} ((,),(’,’))&=& \_[\[j\_i,n\_i,s\_i\]]{} \_[j\_1j\_2]{} \^[(2k+4)]{}\_[n\_1+’-,n\_2]{}\
&&( \^[(4)]{}\_[s\_1+’-,s\_2]{} + \^[(4)]{}\_[s\_1+’-+2,s\_2]{} ) \_[\[j\_1,n\_1,s\_1\]]{}(2) \_[\[j\_2,n\_2,s\_2\]]{} (2)\
\_[(12)]{}\^[RR]{} ((,),(’,’)) &=&\_[\[j\_i,n\_i,s\_i\]]{} \_[j\_1j\_2]{} \^[(2k+4)]{}\_[n\_1+’-,n\_2]{}\
&& ( \^[(4)]{}\_[s\_1+’-,s\_2]{} - \^[(4)]{}\_[s\_1+’-+2,s\_2]{} ) \_[\[j\_1,n\_1,s\_1\]]{}(2) \_[\[j\_2,n\_2,s\_2\]]{} (2 ) . For $\sigma=\sigma'$, $\nu=\nu'$ the Klein bottle in the NSNS sector encodes the parity action (\[parityuntwist\]) and (\[paritytwist\]) in the closed string loop channel. The RR sector crosscap state leads in this case to an additional insertion of $(-1)^{\frac{s_1-2_2}{2}}$, which is the difference in fermion number in the two minimal model factors. [^4]
There is another obvious modification of the parity action, namely we can dress it by space-time fermion number, which is $-1$ on the RR sector states, and $+1$ on the NSNS sector states. \[parityuntwistmod\] && (j\_1,n\_1,s\_1)(j\_2,n\_2,s\_2)\
&& (-1)\^[s\_2]{} (j\_2,n\_2,s\_2) (j\_1,n\_1,s\_1) and likewise its extension to the twisted sector. The crosscap states leading to this modification contain only crosscap Ishibashi states that are built on ground states coming from the twisted sector where $s_i=\bar{s}_i+2$ for $i=1,2$. The corresponding crosscap states are \[twistedcrosscap\] , , \_[(12)]{}\^[NSNS]{} &=& \_ [,\[j,n,s\]\[j,-n,-s\]]{}\_[(12)]{}\
, , \_[(12)]{}\^[RR]{} &=& \_ [,\[j,n,s\]\[j,-n,-s\]]{}\_[(12)]{} The $(jns)$-dependent phase factors introduced in front of the Ishibashi states drop out from the Klein bottle calculation but will be motivated in a moment.
Let us now turn to a discussion of the open string one loop amplitudes. The B-type permutation branes are characterized by the gluing conditions (L\^[(1)]{}\_n - |[L]{}\^[(2)]{}\_[-n]{} ) | = (L\^[(2)]{}\_n - |[L]{}\^[(1)]{}\_[-n]{} ) | & = & 0\
(J\^[(1)]{}\_n + |[J]{}\^[(2)]{}\_[-n]{} ) | = (J\^[(2)]{}\_n + |[J]{}\^[(1)]{}\_[-n]{} ) | & = & 0 \[gluingp\]\
(G\^[(1)]{}\_r + i \_1 |[G]{}\^[(2)]{}\_[-r]{} ) | = (G\^[(2)]{}\_r + i \_2 |[G]{}\^[(1)]{}\_[-r]{} ) | & = & 0 . For A-type permutation branes, one would introduce a minus sign in the condition for the $U(1)$ current $J$, and hence the conditions on the supercharges would have to be modified accordingly.
The B-type permutation boundary states [@BG; @ERR] for the GSO projected theory are given by \[permN2bs\] && |, J,N,S\_1,S\_2 \_[(12)]{} = \_[\[j,n,s\]]{} \
&& ( [, (\[j,n,s\]\[j,-n,-s\])]{}\_[(12)]{} +(-1)\^[S\_2]{} [, (\[j,n,s\]\[j,-n,-(s2)\])]{}\_[(12)]{} ) . The labels $[J,N,S_1,S_2]$ are subject to the constraint $2J+N+S_1-S_2$ even. $S_1$ and $S_2$ are ${\mathbb{Z}}_4$ labels, and $S_1-S_2$ has to be even to preserve the diagonal $N=2$. Compared to equation (\[gluingp\]), $(-1)^{S_1}=\eta_1$ and $(-1)^{S_2}=\eta_2$. The boundary state is subject to the identification $[J,N,S_1,S_2]= [J,N,S_1+2,S_2+2]$, and shifting either $S_1$ or $S_2$ by $2$ corresponds to mapping brane to anti-brane. The open string partition function has been given in [@BG] and reads & & [C]{}\_[(12)(12)]{} (\[J,N,S\_1,S\_2\],\[,,\_1,\_2\]) () = \_[\[j\_i,n\_i,s\_i\]]{} \_[\[j\_1,n\_1,s\_1\]]{}() \_[\[j\_2,n\_2,s\_2\]]{}()\
& & \_ , where $\Delta N = \hat{N} - N$ and $\Delta S_i = \hat{S}_i-S_i$.
Using the properties of the $P$ and $Y$ matrix of the minimal model listed in the appendix, we now derive the following Möbius strip for the NSNS crosscap in the untwisted sector \[NSNSmoebius\] && [M]{}\^[NSNS]{}\_[(12)(12)]{} ((,) (J,N,S\_1,S\_2))() =\
&&= \_[\[j\_i,n\_i,s\_i\]]{} \_[j\_1,n\_1,s\_1]{} \_[j\_2,n\_2,s\_2]{} \^[(2)]{}\_[s\_1]{} \^[(2)]{}\_[s\_2]{}\_[\[j\_1,n\_1,s\_1\]]{} () \_[\[j\_2,n\_2,s\_2\]]{} () \
&& (Y\_[Jj\_1]{}\^[j\_2]{} Y\_[N- n\_1]{}\^[n\_2]{} \^[(4)]{}\_[2(S\_2-S\_1-) + s\_1-s\_2]{} + Y\_[J j\_1]{}\^[-j\_2]{} Y\_[N- n\_1]{}\^[n\_2 (k+2)]{} \^[(4)]{}\_[2(S\_2-S\_1-) +s\_1-s\_2+2]{} (-1)\^ ) One sees that for the $SU(2)$ and $U(1)_{k+2}$ part of the theory the orientifold action is inherited from that of the constituent theories. In particular, the brane labels get mapped as J J, N 2-N . It remains to analyze the labels of the $U(1)_2$ part. By comparison of the Möbius strip with the cylinder amplitude one concludes that =0: S\_i S\_i . The $S_i$ labels of the boundary state remain unaffected. On the other hand, for the crosscaps with $\sigma=1$ one obtains =1: S\_1 S\_1+2, S\_2 S\_2, where equivalently one can exchange the roles of $S_1$ and $S_2$ by the freedom to shift both boundary state labels by $2$. To summarize, the crosscap with $\sigma=0$ maps branes to branes and anti-branes to antibranes, the crosscap with $\sigma=1$ exchanges branes and anti-branes. In a geometrical context, one would interpret such a brane-antibrane flip as an orientation reversal of the cycle wrapped by the brane.
For completeness, we also list the Möbius amplitude for the RR crosscap. The result is &&[M]{}\^[RR]{}\_[(12)(12)]{} ((,)(J,N,S\_1,S\_2)) = \_[j\_i,n\_i,s\_i]{} \_[j\_1n\_1s\_1]{} \_[j\_2n\_2s\_2]{}\
&& ( \^[(4)]{}\_[S\_2-S\_1-+]{} - \^[(4)]{}\_[S\_2-S\_1-++2]{} ) \^[(2)]{}\_[s\_1+1]{} \^[(2)]{}\_[s\_2+1]{} Y\_[Jj\_1]{}\^[j\_2]{} Y\_[N-n\_1]{}\^[n\_2]{} \_[(j\_1,n\_1,s\_1)]{} () \_[(j\_2,n\_2,s\_2)]{} () . In particular, the open string sector is in the R sector, which means that the parity action exchanges even $S_i$ labels of the boundary state with odd ones. A closer look at the amplitudes reveals that &=& 0: S\_1 S\_1+1, S\_2S\_2+1\
&=& 1: S\_1 S\_1+1 S\_2 S\_2-1 , so that we see the brane-antibrane flip also here.
Let us now turn to the amplitudes in the twisted sector. Before going into the details, we can already predict what the difference between the twisted and untwisted sector case is: In the closed string sector, the two parity actions differ by the operation that acts as $-1$ on the RR states and $+1$ on the NSNS. On the level of boundary states, this means that the NSNS part of the boundary state is unaffected, whereas the RR part is transformed with a $-$ sign. This means that the action of this parity on the branes differs from the one discussed previously by a brane-antibrane flip. So one would conclude that in the twisted NSNS sector \[twistedstransformI\] =0: S\_1 S\_1+2, S\_2 S\_2 , whereas \[twistedstransformII\] =1 : S\_i S\_i+2 . Similar arguments can be made for the RR sector.
Recall that $\nu$ has to be even in the case $\sigma=0$ and odd in the case $\sigma=1$, such that there is a difference in the possible parity actions between the untwisted and twisted case.
Let us outline briefly how to obtain these results technically. First, we need to motivate the extra phases appearing in the crosscap state in the twisted sector. For this note that in the fully supersymmetric theory (where the Hilbert space is given by (\[N2hilbert\])) Ishibashi states from the twisted and untwisted sector have to be combined to supersymmetric Ishibashi states. For the boundary state, the supersymmetric Ishibashi states can be directly read off from the boundary state (\[permN2bs\]), explicitly && [, (\[j,n,s\]\[j,-n,-s\])]{}\^[N=2]{}\_[(12)]{} = ( [, \[j,n,s\]\[j,-n,-s\]]{}\_[(12)]{}\
&&+(-1)\^[S\_2]{} [, \[j,n,s\]\[j,-n,-(s2)\]]{}\_[(12)]{} +(-1)\^[S\_1]{} [, \[j,n,s2\]\[j,-n,-s\]]{}\_[(12)]{}\
&&+(-1)\^[S\_1+S\_2]{}[, \[j,n,s2\]\[j,-n,-(s2)\]]{}\_[(12)]{} ), The conditions to be fulfilled by the crosscap states can be obtained from those for the boundary states (\[gluingp\]) by conjugation with $e^{\pi i L_0}$, where $L_0=L_0^{(1)} + L_0^{(2)}$. This conjugate condition is fulfilled by e\^[i L\_0]{} | = e\^[i h]{} |[C]{} Applying $e^{\pi i L_0}$ to the supersymmetric boundary Ishibashi state shows that for the $N=2$ supersymmetric crosscap Ishibashi state there has to be a relative phase equal to $\sqrt{T_{[j,-n,-(s\hat{+}2)]} T^{-1}_{[j,-n,-s]}}$ between the crosscap Ishibashi states ${\vert \Scr{C},[j,n,s][j,-n,-s]\rangle\!\rangle}$ and ${\vert \Scr{C},[j,n,s][j,-n,-(s\hat{+}2)]\rangle\!\rangle}$, as we have anticipated in (\[twistedcrosscap\]). In the calculation of the Möbius strip, one makes use of the following symmetry property of the $P$-matrix of the $N=2$ minimal model P\_[\[j,n,s\]\[j\^,n\^,s\^+2\]]{}=P\_[\[j,n,s+2\]\[j\^,n\^,s\^\]]{} . Effectively, this shifts the $\delta^{(4)}$ functions for the $s$ labels in the Möbius strip (\[NSNSmoebius\]) by $2$ verifying the action (\[twistedstransformI\]), (\[twistedstransformII\]) .
We refer to [@hosomichi] for further discussions of the $N=2$ minimal models and their orbifolds. In addition, applications to Gepner models and the construction of string vacua can be found in that paper.
The Landau Ginzburg approach {#SUSYLG}
----------------------------
A Landau Ginzburg model of chiral superfields $X_i$ has the following action S = d\^4 K(X\_i,|[X]{}\_i) + d\^-d\^+ W(X\_i) \_[|\^=0]{} + d|\^+d|\^- |[W]{} (|[X]{}\_i) \_[\^=0]{} Here, $\pm$ distinguishes left and right movers, whereas bar is the complex conjugation. Parity symmetries of Landau Ginzburg theories have been discussed in [@BH2; @HWLG]. In particular, B-type parity acts on the superspace coordinates as $\theta^\pm \to \theta^{\mp}$, $\bar\theta^\pm \to \bar\theta^{\mp}$. Obviously, the measure in the F-term of the action picks up a sign under B-parity. For the action to be invariant, one must define an action on the superfields, such that $W$ flips sign under the induced action
For the case of a single minimal model, the superpotential is W=X\^[k+2]{} and the action $X\mapsto -X$ leads to a parity invariant F-term in the case that $k$ is odd. For the case $k$ even, there is no pure involutive B-type parity.
For the tensor product theory, the relevant superpotential is W=X\_1\^[k+2]{} + X\_2\^[k+2]{} and a suitable involution is \[LGinv\] : X\_1 X\_2, X\_2 \^[-1]{} X\_1, where $\eta$ is a $(k+2)$th root of $-1$, $ \eta^{k+2}=-1$. So for the tensor product theory, there exists a B-parity for any $k$, which is what we would have expected from our conformal field theory analysis, where we have explicitly constructed B-crosscap states for any level. Furthermore, it is suggestive that the choice of $\eta$ corresponds to the choice of the crosscap state label $\nu$ in conformal field theory.
That this is indeed the case can be understood best in the language of matrix factorizations [@HWLG]. Recall that B-type D-branes in Landau Ginzburg models are described by matrix factorizations of the superpotential [@MK; @DO; @KL; @BHLS; @HLL] W=E(X\_i) F(X\_i) , where $E,F$ are matrices with polynomial entries. The two polynomial matrices are arranged into a larger matrix that plays the role of a BRST operator for the theory with boundary Q= (
[cc]{} 0 & E\
F & 0
) . Two factorizations are equivalent, if they are related by a similarity transformation = U Q U\^[-1]{} , where both $U$ and $U^{-1}$ are block diagonal matrices with polynomial entries. In our case, the superpotential can be written as \[permutationfactorization\] W=X\_1\^[k+2]{} + X\_2\^[k+2]{} = \_ (X\_1-X\_2), where $\eta$ runs over all $(k+2)$th roots of $-1$. Suitable factorization are then obtained by organizing the linear factors into two groups. These factorizations and their geometric relevance have been studied in [@ADD; @ADDF]. In [@BG; @ERR; @Gxx] a subclass of this type was identified with permutation D-branes, namely \[match\] |,J,N,S\_1=S\_2=0 F=\_[m=(N-2J)/2)]{}\^[(N+2J)/2]{} (X\_1-\_m X\_2), where $\eta_m=e^{-\frac{\pi i (2m+1)}{k+2}}$, and the spin structures were taken to be fixed, such that $2J+N$ even. It remains to be clarified how to obtain conformal field theory descriptions for the other factorizations obtained by grouping the factors in (\[permutationfactorization\]) in arbitrary ways.
In [@HWLG] it was realized that also orientifolds have a description in terms of matrix factorizations. Namely, they are described by the matrix factorization that corresponds to the D-brane localized on the fixed point set. The (topological) crosscap state is the same as the boundary state. In our case, the fixed point set of the involution (\[LGinv\]) is given by X\_1-X\_2 =0 , to which one associates the matrix factorization with F=X\_1-X\_2 According to the identification of boundary states with matrix factorizations, this brane has boundary state label $J=0$ and $N$ (which has to be even) is determined by the phase $\eta(N)=\exp(\pi i (N+1)/(k+2))$. It is therefore suggestive that one of the CFT crosscap states labelled $\nu$ with $\nu$ even corresponds on the LG side to the involution (\[LGinv\]) \[etaparametrize\] =()=e\^[-]{} . To see this more precisely, we will consider the action of the parity on the D-branes in Landau Ginzburg language. In [@HWLG] (drawing from the unpublished work [@GH]) it was shown that the parity induces the following operation on the boundary BRST operators Q(X\_i) -Q((X\_i))\^T , where $(-)^T$ is the graded transpose (
[cc]{} a & b\
c & d
)\^T = (
[cc]{} a\^t & -c\^t\
b\^t & d\^t
) , where $(-)^t$ denotes the ordinary transpose. The action is indeed quite natural [@HWLG]: If one associates Chan Paton spaces $V$ and $W$ to the left and right boundary of an open string, the space of open string states includes the Chan Paton factor [[H]{}]{}\^[[CP]{}]{} = [[Hom]{}]{}(V,W) A parity action exchanges the left and right boundary of the open string. If left and right boundary were initially oppositely oriented, then the new (after application of the parity) left boundary is oppositely oriented compared to the initial left boundary. The space of Chan-Paton factors is mapped to ${{\rm Hom}}(W^*,V^*)$ which is naturally implemented on the open string states by taking the transpose. In the case that the vector spaces are graded, as is the case for Landau Ginzburg models, it is suggestive that a graded version of the transpose should be used. This was indeed confirmed in [@HWLG] by analyzing the parity action with the help of the action for the boundary fermions appearing in the Landau Ginzburg action.
This parity acts on the factors $E(X_i)$ and $F(X_i)$ as $F_{image}= - \tau^* E$, and $E_{image}=\tau^*F$, such that $F_{image} E_{image}=-W$ is a factorization of the parity-transformed superpotential. For the factorization with $F$ as in (\[match\]) this means that the image factorization under the parity (\[LGinv\]) is given as E\_[image]{}= -\_[n=(N-2J)/2)]{}\^[(N+2J)/2]{} (X\_2 - \_n ()\^[-1]{} X\_1) = -\_[n=(N-2J)/2)]{}\^[(N+2J)/2]{} (-\^[-1]{}\_n) ( X\_1 - \^2\_n\^[-1]{} X\_2) . Parametrizing the possible $\eta$ by even integers $\nu$ as in (\[etaparametrize\]) allows us to write the image brane as E\_[image]{} = \_[n=(2-N+2J)/2]{}\^[(2-N-2J)/2]{} (X\_1-\_n X\_2) . This is, up to an exchange of the factors $E$ and $F$ which corresponds to an orientation flip, indeed the factorization associated to the boundary state with $N\to 2\nu-N$, $J\to J$. The action $N \to 2\nu-N$ and $J\to J$ is indeed the parity action that we also observed in conformal field theory. Note however that in conformal field theory, depending on the value of the crosscap label $\sigma$, $\nu$ could take even or odd labels. In the Landau Ginzburg theory, the $\nu$ labels are even (with the choices we have made), in particular, the reflection $N \to -N$ is a possible parity action on the brane labels. The natural action on the Chan-Paton factors by a graded transpose induces an orientation flip of the Landau-Ginzburg brane. In the conformal field theory, there was a choice of parities, one of them leading to a brane-anti-brane flip, the other not. Here we have seen that the parity with flip corresponds directly to the Landau Ginzburg parity. To conclude, the parity action on brane labels in (\[twistedstransformI\]) together with $J\to J$ and $N \to 2\nu-N$, $\nu$ even is the CFT description (in the NSNS sector) of the Landau Ginzburg parity.
**Acknowledgements**
We would like to thank Stefan Fredenhagen, Matthias Gaberdiel and Ingo Runkel for discussions. We thank Kazuo Hosomichi for informing us about his work [@hosomichi] . This work was supported by the EURYI award of the European Science Foundation, a TH-grant from ETH Zürich, and the Marie-Curie network Forces Universe (MRTN-CT-2004-005104).
Loop amplitudes
===============
First, we define the following set of matrices from the fusion and $Y$ coefficients $$\label{Y definition}
(N_i)_{mn}:=N_{im}^n=\sum_j\frac{S_{ij}S_{mj}\bar{S}_{nj}}{S_{0j}}\quad \mbox{and }\quad(Y_i)_{mn}:=Y_{im}^n=\sum_j\frac{S_{ij}P_{mj}\bar{P}_{nj}}{S_{0j}}$$ where $S$ are the usual modular matrices and $P:=\sqrt{T}ST^2S\sqrt{T}$. Tensor boundary and crosscap states are denoted with an additional subscript $1$ and carry a boundary index $\alpha$ composed of two labels $\alpha=(\alpha_1,\alpha_2)$, whereas the permutation states are denoted with the transposition $(1\ 2)$ and with only one boundary label $\alpha$. In the following, $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are boundary state labels, whereas $\mu$ and $\nu$ refer to crosscaps, and are in particular simple currents. Then, the one loop amplitudes for the conjugate modular invariant are expressed, first for the cylinder case, as $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{C}_{11}(\alpha,\beta)&=&\sum_{i}\chi_i(\tau)(N_i)_{\beta_1 \alpha_1}\sum_j\chi_j(\tau)(N_j)_{\beta_2\alpha_2}\nonumber\\
\mathcal{C}_{1(1\ 2)}(\alpha,\beta)&=& \sum_{i}\chi_i\left(\frac{\tau}{2}\right)(N_iN_{\bar{\alpha}_1})_{\beta\alpha_2}\nonumber\\
\mathcal{C}_{(1\ 2)(1\ 2)}(\alpha,\beta)&=& \sum_{i,j}\chi_i(\tau)\chi_j(\tau)(N_i N_j)_{\beta\alpha} \end{aligned}$$ As for the Klein bottle amplitudes, the results are $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{K}_{11}(\mu,\nu)&=&\sum_i\chi_i(2\tau)(Y_i)_{\nu_1\mu_1}\sum_j\chi_j(2\tau)(Y_j)_{\nu_2\mu_2}\nonumber\\
\mathcal{K}_{1(1 \ 2)}(\mu,\nu)&=&\sum_i\chi_i(\tau)(Y_iY_{\nu})_{\bar{\mu}_1\mu_2}\nonumber\\
\mathcal{K}_{(1\ 2)(1 \ 2)}(\mu,\nu)&=&\sum_{i,j}\chi_i(2\tau)\chi_j(2\tau)(N_jN_i)_{\nu\mu}\end{aligned}$$ Finally, we obtain for the Möbius strip case the results $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{M}_{1 1}(\mu,\alpha)&=&\sum_i\hat{\chi}_i(\tau)(Y_{\alpha_1})_{i\mu_1}\sum_j\hat{\chi}_j(\tau)(Y_{\alpha_2})_{j\mu_2}\nonumber\\
\mathcal{M}_{(1 \ 2) 1}(\mu,\alpha)&=&\sum_i\hat{\chi}_i(2\tau)(N_{\alpha_1}N_{\alpha_2})_{i\mu}\nonumber\\
\mathcal{M}_{1 (1 \ 2)}(\mu,\alpha)&=&\sum_i\hat{\chi}_i(2\tau)(Y_{\alpha}Y_i)_{\bar{\mu}_1\mu_2}\nonumber\\
\mathcal{M}_{(1 \ 2) (1 \ 2)}(\mu,\alpha)&=&\sum_{i,j}\hat{\chi}_i(\tau)\hat{\chi}_j(\tau)(Y_{\alpha} Y_{\bar{\mu}})_{i\bar{j}},\end{aligned}$$ where we remark that in our convention $\mathcal{M}=\langle\Scr{C}|e^{-\frac{\pi i H_c}{4\tau}}|\Scr{B}\rangle$.
The $Y$ tensor of SU(2) {#Ytensor}
=========================
The coefficients of the $Y$ tensor in the case of $\widehat{su}_k(2)$ are given by Y\_[ij]{}\^n=\^[(2)]{}\_[2i]{}\_[jn]{}&+&\_[l=1,2i+l2]{}\^[2i]{}In particular, these formulas imply that $Y_{ij}^n$ is zero whenever $j\in \mathbb{N}$ and $n\in \mathbb{N}+\frac{1}{2}$ or $j\in \mathbb{N}+\frac{1}{2}$ and $n\in \mathbb{N}$. This means that $(-1)^{2j}=(-1)^{2n}$ so the $Y_i$ matrices are symmetric in $j,n$ as they should be.\
Of great utility to us are going to be the following simpler expressions $$\begin{aligned}
&&Y_{i0}^0=(-1)^{2i}\qquad Y_{i\frac{k}{2}}^{\frac{k}{2}}=1\ \forall i\qquad Y_{i\frac{k}{2}}^0=\frac{1+(-1)^k}{2}\delta_{i\frac{k}{4}}=\delta^{(2)}_k\delta_{i\frac{k}{4}}\nonumber\\ && Y_{\frac{k}{4}i}^{\frac{k}{2}}=\delta^{(2)}_k\delta^{(2)}_{2i}\qquad Y_{\frac{k}{4}i}^0=\delta^{(2)}_k\delta^{(2)}_{2i}(-1)^{i+\frac{k}{2}}
\end{aligned}$$ Similarly, the $Y$ tensor has the symmetry relations $$\begin{aligned}
&&Y_{ij}^n=Y_{in}^j\qquad Y_{i\frac{k}{2}-j}^{\frac{k}{2}-n}=(-1)^{2i+j-n}Y_{ij}^n
\nonumber\\ &&Y_{\frac{k}{2}-i\ j}^n=(-1)^{k+2j}Y_{ij}^n\qquad Y_{i\frac{k}{2}-j}^n=(-1)^{2i+\frac{k}{2}+j+n}Y_{ij}^{\frac{k}{2}-n}\end{aligned}$$ All of these formulas can be easily derived from the general one, or from the symmetries of the SU(2) $P$ matrix.\
In addition to all this, there is a formula that relates the fusion coefficients to the $Y$ tensor, namely $$Y_{Jj_1}^{j_2}=Z_{Jj_1}^{j_2}\sum_{j=0}^{[\frac{k}{2}]}N_{JJ}^jN_{j_1j_2}^j(-1)^j$$ where $Z_{Jj_1}^{j_2}$ is only a sign. Since the sum on the right hand side is invariant under $J\mapsto \frac{k}{2}-J$ or under $(j_1,j_2)\mapsto (\frac{k}{2}-j_1,\frac{k}{2}-j_2)$, we need only to give the values of $Z_{Jj_1}^{j_2}$ for $J\leq \frac{k}{4}$ and $j_1\leq \frac{k}{4}$, because the rest can be found by using the symmetry relations for the $Y$ tensor. One finds $$\begin{aligned}
Z_{Jj_1}^{j_2}=(-1)^{2J}\epsilon\qquad \mbox{ for } J,j_1\leq \frac{k}{4}\end{aligned}$$ where $\epsilon$ is equal to one except when all of the following conditions are fulfilled: $j_2>\frac{k}{4}$, $2J\geq\min\{j_1+j_2,k-j_1-j_2\}$, $2J+j_2-j_1$ is odd and one of the following is true:
- $k$ is odd and $j_1\in \mathbb{N}+\frac{1}{2}$
- $k$ is even, $j_1\in \mathbb{N}$ and $j_1+j_2>\frac{k}{2}$.
Putting all together, we write $$\begin{aligned}
&&Z_{Jj_1}^{j_2}=(-1)^{2J}\epsilon\qquad Z_{\frac{k}{2}-Jj_1}^{j_2}=(-1)^{2J+2j_1+k}\epsilon\nonumber\\
&&Z_{J\frac{k}{2}-j_1}^{\frac{k}{2}-j_2}=(-1)^{j_1-j_2}\epsilon\qquad Z_{\frac{k}{2}-J\frac{k}{2}-j_1}^{\frac{k}{2}-j_2}=(-1)^{2J+j_1+j_2+k}\epsilon\end{aligned}$$ with $\epsilon$ as above and $J,j_1\leq \frac{k}{4}$.
$P$ and $Y$ matrices
====================
For convenience, we list some orientifold specific data for the theories $SU(2)_k$, $U(1)_k$ and the coset model, all of which can be found in the appendix of [@BH2].
### {#section .unnumbered}
The P-matrix of the level k $SU(2)$ WZW model is $$P_{j j'}=\frac{2}{\sqrt{k+2}}
\sin\left[\frac{\pi(2j+1)(2j'+1)}{2(k+2)}\right]\delta_{2j+2j'+k}^{(2)}.$$ The components of the $Y$ tensor are explicitly evaluated in the separate appendix \[Ytensor\].
### {#section-1 .unnumbered}
The P-matrix and Y-tensor of the level $k$ $U(1)$ is &P\_[n n’]{}=\^[-]{} \_[n+n’+k]{}\^[(2)]{},\
&Y\_[n n’]{}\^[n”]{} =\_[n’+n”]{}\^[(2)]{}( \_[n+]{}\^[(2k)]{} +(-1)\^[n’+k]{} \_[n++k]{}\^[(2k)]{}), where $\widehat{n}$ is the unique member of $n+2k{\mathbb{Z}}$ in the standard range $\{-k+1,...,k-1,k\}$. In the following, we will omit the $\hat{}$, but it is understood that all labels are chosen in this way.
### ** {#section-2 .unnumbered}
We first note that the Q-matrix $Q=ST^2S$ of the minimal model can be expressed in terms of the Q-matrices of the constituent theories in the following way Q\_[(j,n,s)(j’,n’,s’)]{} = Q\_[jj’]{} Q\_[nn’]{}\^\* Q\_[ss’]{} + Q\_[j(-j’)]{} Q\_[n(n’(k+2))]{}\^\* Q\_[s(s’2)]{} \[factorizedformofQ\] The P-matrix is then obtained as P\_[(j,n,s)(j’n’s’)]{} &=& T\_[(j,n,s)]{}\^ Q\_[(j,n,s)(j’,n’,s’)]{} T\_[(j’,n’,s’)]{}\^\
&=& \_[j,n,s]{} \_[j’n’s’]{} P\_[jj’]{} P\_[nn’]{}\^\* P\_[ss’]{}\
&& + \_[j,n,s]{} \_[-j’, n’(k+2), s’ 2]{} P\_[j,-j’]{} P\_[n,n’(k+2)]{}\^\* P\_[s,s’2]{}\
&=&\_[j,n,s]{} \_[j’n’s’]{} ( P\_[jj’]{} P\_[nn’]{}\^\* P\_[ss’]{} +(-1)\^ P\_[j,-j’]{} P\_[n,n’(k+2)]{}\^\* P\_[s,s’2]{} ) An explicit expression for the P-matrix is P\_[(j,n,s)(j’n’s’)]{}&=& \_[j,n,s]{} \_[j’n’s’]{} \^[(2)]{}\_[s+s’]{} \^ \^[-]{} ( \^[(2)]{}\_[2j+2j’+k]{} \^[(2)]{}\_[n+n’+k]{}\
&& + (-1)\^ \^ \^[(2)]{}\_[2j+2j’]{} \^[(2)]{}\_[n+n’]{} ) To decompose the $Y$ matrix for the minimal model into $Y$ matrices of the constituent theories, one first introduces the quantity \_[ab]{}\^c = \_d = Y\_[ab]{}\^c. One then finds \_[(j,n,s)(j’,n’,s’)]{}\^[(j”,n”,s”)]{} = \_[jj’]{}\^[j”]{} \_[nn’]{}\^[n”]{} \_[ss’]{}\^[s”]{}+ \_[jj’]{}\^[-j”]{} \_[nn’]{}\^[n”+k+2]{} \_[ss’]{}\^[s”+2]{}. This decomposition allows us to evaluate the following combination of $Y$-matrices && Y\_[(j,n,s)(j’,n’,s’)]{}\^[(j”,n”,s”)]{} + Y\_[(j,n,s+2)(j’,n’,s’)]{}\^[(j”,n”,s”)]{} = 2\_[j\_1,n\_1,s\_1]{} \_[j\_2,n\_2,s\_2]{} \^[(2)]{}\_[s’]{} \^[(2)]{}\_[s”]{} \
&& ( Y\_[jj’]{}\^[j”]{} Y\_[nn’]{}\^[n”]{} \^[(4)]{}\_[2s+s’-s”]{} + (-1)\^ Y\_[jj’]{}\^[ -j”]{} Y\_[nn’]{}\^[n”(k+2)]{} \^[(4)]{}\_[2s+s’-s”+2]{} ) Here, we have made use of the explicit form of the $U(1)_2$ $Y$ matrix, from which one can derive the property Y\_[ss’]{}\^[s”]{} + Y\_[s 2 s’]{}\^[s”]{} = 2 \^[(2)]{}\_[s’]{} \^[(2)]{}\_[s”]{} \^[(4)]{}\_[2s+s’-s”]{}
[99]{}
A. Sagnotti, “Open strings and their symmetry groups,” arXiv:hep-th/0208020. M. Bianchi and A. Sagnotti, “On the systematics of open string theories,” Phys. Lett. B [**247**]{} (1990) 517. P. Horava, “Strings on worldsheet orbifolds,” Nucl. Phys. B [**327**]{}, 461 (1989). E. G. Gimon and J. Polchinski, “Consistency Conditions for Orientifolds and D-Manifolds,” Phys. Rev. D [**54**]{}, 1667 (1996) \[arXiv:hep-th/9601038\]. C. Angelantonj and A. Sagnotti, “Open strings,” Phys. Rept. [**371**]{}, 1 (2002) \[Erratum-ibid. [**376**]{}, 339 (2003)\] \[arXiv:hep-th/0204089\]. G. Pradisi, A. Sagnotti and Y. S. Stanev, “Planar Duality In SU(2) WZW Models,” Phys. Lett. B [**354**]{}, 279 (1995) \[arXiv:hep-th/9503207\]. G. Pradisi, A. Sagnotti and Y. S. Stanev, “The Open descendants of nondiagonal SU(2) WZW models,” Phys. Lett. B [**356**]{}, 230 (1995) \[arXiv:hep-th/9506014\]. G. Pradisi, A. Sagnotti and Y. S. Stanev, “Completeness Conditions for Boundary Operators in 2D Conformal Field Theory,” Phys. Lett. B [**381**]{}, 97 (1996) \[arXiv:hep-th/9603097\]. J. Fuchs, I. Runkel and C. Schweigert, “TFT construction of RCFT correlators. II: Unoriented world sheets,” Nucl. Phys. B [**678**]{} 511 (2004) \[arXiv:hep-th/0306164\]. M. R. Gaberdiel and T. Gannon, “Boundary states for WZW models,” Nucl. Phys. B [**639**]{} (2002) 471 \[arXiv:hep-th/0202067\]. L. Birke, J. Fuchs and C. Schweigert, “Symmetry breaking boundary conditions and WZW orbifolds,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. [**3**]{} (1999) 671 \[arXiv:hep-th/9905038\]. J. L. Cardy, “Boundary Conditions, Fusion Rules And The Verlinde Formula,” Nucl. Phys. B [**324**]{} 581 (1989). A. Y. Alekseev and V. Schomerus, “D-branes in the WZW model,” Phys. Rev. D [**60**]{}, 061901 (1999) \[arXiv:hep-th/9812193\]. G. Felder, J. Fröhlich, J. Fuchs and C. Schweigert, “The geometry of WZW branes,” J. Geom. Phys. [**34**]{} (2000) 162 \[arXiv:hep-th/9909030\]. A. Y. Alekseev, S. Fredenhagen, T. Quella and V. Schomerus, “Non-commutative gauge theory of twisted D-branes,” Nucl. Phys. B [**646**]{} (2002) 127 \[arXiv:hep-th/0205123\]. A. Recknagel, “Permutation branes,” JHEP [**0304**]{}, 041 (2003) \[arXiv:hep-th/0208119\]. M. R. Gaberdiel and S. Schafer-Nameki, “D-branes in an asymmetric orbifold,” Nucl. Phys. B [**654**]{} (2003) 177 \[arXiv:hep-th/0210137\]. S. Fredenhagen and T. Quella, “Generalised permutation branes,” JHEP [**0511**]{} (2005) 004 \[arXiv:hep-th/0509153\]. S. Fredenhagen and M. R. Gaberdiel, “Generalised N = 2 permutation branes,” JHEP [**0611**]{} (2006) 041 \[arXiv:hep-th/0607095\]. I. Brunner, “On orientifolds of WZW models and their relation to geometry,” JHEP [**0201**]{}, 007 (2002) \[arXiv:hep-th/0110219\]. L. R. Huiszoon, K. Schalm and A. N. Schellekens, “Geometry of WZW orientifolds,” Nucl. Phys. B [**624**]{} (2002) 219 \[arXiv:hep-th/0110267\]. C. Bachas, N. Couchoud and P. Windey, “Orientifolds of the 3-sphere,” JHEP [**0112**]{} (2001) 003 \[arXiv:hep-th/0111002\]. L. R. Huiszoon, A. N. Schellekens and N. Sousa, “Klein bottles and simple currents,” Phys. Lett. B [**470**]{} (1999) 95 \[arXiv:hep-th/9909114\]. J. Fuchs, L. R. Huiszoon, A. N. Schellekens, C. Schweigert and J. Walcher, “Boundaries, crosscaps and simple currents,” Phys. Lett. B [**495**]{} (2000) 427 \[arXiv:hep-th/0007174\]. I. Brunner and K. Hori, “Notes on orientifolds of rational conformal field theories,” JHEP [**0407**]{} (2004) 023 \[arXiv:hep-th/0208141\]. J. M. Maldacena, G. W. Moore and N. Seiberg, “Geometrical interpretation of D-branes in gauged WZW models,” JHEP [**0107**]{} (2001) 046 \[arXiv:hep-th/0105038\]. G. Sarkissian and M. Zamaklar, “Symmetry breaking, permutation D-branes on group manifolds: Boundary states and geometric description,” Nucl. Phys. B [**696**]{} (2004) 66 \[arXiv:hep-th/0312215\]. I. Brunner and K. Hori, “Orientifolds and mirror symmetry, JHEP [**0411**]{}, 005 (2004) \[arXiv:hep-th/0303135\]. R. Blumenhagen and T. Weigand, “Chiral supersymmetric Gepner model orientifolds,” JHEP [**0402**]{} (2004) 041 \[arXiv:hep-th/0401148\]. R. Blumenhagen and T. Weigand, “A note on partition functions of Gepner model orientifolds,” Phys. Lett. B [**591**]{} (2004) 161 \[arXiv:hep-th/0403299\]. S. Govindarajan and J. Majumder, “Crosscaps in Gepner models and type IIA orientifolds,” JHEP [**0402**]{} (2004) 026 \[arXiv:hep-th/0306257\]. G. Aldazabal, E. C. Andres, M. Leston and C. Nunez, “Type IIB orientifolds on Gepner points,” JHEP [**0309**]{} (2003) 067 \[arXiv:hep-th/0307183\]. I. Brunner, K. Hori, K. Hosomichi and J. Walcher, “Orientifolds of Gepner models,” arXiv:hep-th/0401137. T. P. T. Dijkstra, L. R. Huiszoon and A. N. Schellekens, “Chiral supersymmetric standard model spectra from orientifolds of Gepner models,” Phys. Lett. B [**609**]{} (2005) 408 \[arXiv:hep-th/0403196\]. C. Angelantonj, M. Bianchi, G. Pradisi, A. Sagnotti and Y. S. Stanev, “Comments on Gepner models and type I vacua in string theory,” Phys. Lett. B [**387**]{}, 743 (1996) \[arXiv:hep-th/9607229\]. R. Blumenhagen and A. Wisskirchen, “Spectra of 4D, N = 1 type I string vacua on non-toroidal CY threefolds,” Phys. Lett. B [**438**]{}, 52 (1998) \[arXiv:hep-th/9806131\]. K. Hori and J. Walcher, “D-brane categories for orientifolds: The Landau-Ginzburg case,” \[arXiv:hep-th/0606179\]. A. Kapustin and Y. Li, “Topological correlators in Landau-Ginzburg models with boundaries,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. [**7**]{} (2004) 727 \[arXiv:hep-th/0305136\]. M. Herbst and C. I. Lazaroiu, “Localization and traces in open-closed topological Landau-Ginzburg models,” JHEP [**0505**]{} (2005) 044 \[arXiv:hep-th/0404184\]. M. Kontsevich, unpublished. K. Hosomichi, “Permutation orientifolds of Gepner models,” JHEP [**0701**]{}, 081 (2007) \[arXiv:hep-th/0612109\]. V.G. Kac, “Infinite dimensional Lie algebras”, Cambridge University Press (1990). J. Fuchs, B. Schellekens and C. Schweigert, “From Dynkin diagram symmetries to fixed point structures,” Commun. Math. Phys. [**180**]{} (1996) 39 \[arXiv:hep-th/9506135\]. J. M. Figueroa-O’Farrill and S. Stanciu, “D-branes in AdS(3) x S(3) x S(3) x S(1),” JHEP [**0004**]{}, 005 (2000) \[arXiv:hep-th/0001199\]. V. Mitev, “Permutation orientifolds and D-branes”, Diploma thesis, ETH Zürich 2006. I. Brunner and M. R. Gaberdiel, “Matrix factorisations and permutation branes,” JHEP [**0507**]{}, 012 (2005) \[arXiv:hep-th/0503207\]. H. Enger, A. Recknagel and D. Roggenkamp, “Permutation branes and linear matrix factorisations,” JHEP [**0601**]{}, 087 (2006) \[arXiv:hep-th/0508053\]. D. Orlov, “Triangulated categories of singularities and D-branes in Landau-Ginzburg models,” \[arXiv:math.ag/0302304\]. A. Kapustin and Y. Li, “D-branes in Landau-Ginzburg models and algebraic geometry,” JHEP [**0312**]{} (2003) 005 \[arXiv:hep-th/0210296\]. I. Brunner, M. Herbst, W. Lerche and B. Scheuner, “Landau-Ginzburg realization of open string TFT,” arXiv:hep-th/0305133. M. Herbst, C. I. Lazaroiu and W. Lerche, “Superpotentials, A(infinity) relations and WDVV equations for open topological strings,” JHEP [**0502**]{} (2005) 071 \[arXiv:hep-th/0402110\]. S. K. Ashok, E. Dell’Aquila and D. E. Diaconescu, “Fractional branes in Landau-Ginzburg orbifolds,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. [**8**]{} (2004) 461 \[arXiv:hep-th/0401135\]. S. K. Ashok, E. Dell’Aquila, D. E. Diaconescu and B. Florea, “Obstructed D-branes in Landau-Ginzburg orbifolds,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. [**8**]{} (2004) 427 \[arXiv:hep-th/0404167\]. B. Ezhuthachan, S. Govindarajan and T. Jayaraman, “A quantum McKay correspondence for fractional 2p-branes on LG orbifolds,” JHEP [**0508**]{} (2005) 050 \[arXiv:hep-th/0504164\]. D. Gao, K. Hori, to appear.
[^1]: [E-mail: [email protected]]{}
[^2]: [E-mail: [email protected]]{}
[^3]: A novel approach in the context of rational conformal field theory is taken in [@FRS], where a full construction of the correlators on orientable and non-orientable world sheets is given. We will not employ it in the current paper.
[^4]: Note that this type of argument does not fix the phases appearing in front of the crosscap Ishibashi states, since any such phase drops out from our calculation.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The radiation at collision of high-energy particles is formed over a rather long distances and therefore is sensitive to an environment. In particular the smallness of the transverse dimensions of the colliding beams leads to suppression of bremsstrahlung cross section for soft photons. This beam-size effect was discovered and investigated at INP, Novosibirsk around 1980. At that time an incomplete expression for the bremsstrahlung spectrum was calculated and used because a subtraction associated with the extraction of pure fluctuation process was not performed. Here this procedure is done. The complete expression for the spectral-angular distribution of incoherent bremsstrahlung probability is obtained. The case of Gaussian colliding beams is investigated in details. In the case of flat beams the expressions for the bremsstrahlung spectrum are simplified essentially. Comparison of theory with VEPP4 and HERA data is performed. Possible application of the effect to linear $e^+e^-$ collider tuning is discussed.'
author:
- |
V. N. Baier and V. M. Katkov\
Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics,\
Novosibirsk, 630090, Russia
title: 'Deviation from standard QED at large distances: influence of transverse dimensions of colliding beams on bremsstrahlung'
---
Introduction
============
The formation of the bremsstrahlung process of high-energy particles occurs with extremely small momentum transfers. In the space-time picture this means that the process takes place at the large (macroscopic) distances. The longitudinal length (with respect to the direction of the initial momentum) of formation of the radiation usually is called the coherence (formation) length $l_f$. For emission of a photon with energy $\omega$ the coherence length is $l_f(\omega) \sim
\varepsilon(\varepsilon-\omega)/m^2\omega$, where $\varepsilon$ and $m$ is the energy and mass of the emitting particle ( here the system $\hbar=c=1$ is used). If the particle experiences some action in this length, the radiation pattern changes (in the case when the action is the multiple scattering of the emitting particle one observes the famous Landau-Pomeranchuk effect [@LP]).
A different situation exists in the bremsstrahlung process at the collision of electron and electron (positron) in colliding beams experiments. The point is that the external factors act differently on the radiating particle and on the recoil particle. For the radiating particle the criterion of influence of external factors is the same both at an electron scattering from a nucleus and at a collision of particles. For the recoil particle the effect turns out to be enhanced by the factor $\varepsilon^2/m^2$, which is due to the fact that the main contribution to the bremsstrahlung cross section give emitted by the recoil particle virtual photons with very low energy $$q_0 \sim \frac{m^2\omega}{\varepsilon (\varepsilon-\omega)},
\label{1.1}$$ so that the formation length of virtual photon is $$L_v(\omega)=l_f(q_0)= \frac{4\varepsilon^3
(\varepsilon-\omega)}{m^4\omega}. \label{1.2}$$ This means that the effect for the recoil particles appears much earlier than for the radiating particles. For example, the Landau-Pomeranchuk effect distorted the whole bremsstrahlung spectrum in a TeV range (for heavy elements) while it turns out that the action on the recoil particle can be important for contemporary colliding beam facilities in GeV range [@BK1].
There are a few factors which could act on the recoil electron. One of them is the presence of an external magnetic field in the region of collision of particles [@BK1]-[@KS2]. If the formation length of virtual photon $L_v$ turns out to be larger than the formation length $l_H(\omega)$ of a photon with energy $\omega$ in a magnetic field $H$ than the magnetic field will limit the region of minimal momentum transfers, which will lead to a decrease of the bremsstrahlung cross section and a change of its spectrum. Another effect can appear due to the smallness of the linear interval $l$ where the collision occurs in comparison with $L_v(\omega)$ (see (\[1.2\])). This was pointed out in [@KS3].
In the experiment [@exp1] devoted to study of the bremsstrahlung spectrum $d\sigma_{\gamma}(\omega)$ carried out in the electron-positron colliding beam facility VEPP-4 of Institute of Nuclear Physics at an energy $\varepsilon=1.84~$GeV, a deviation of the bremsstrahlung spectrum from the standard QED spectrum was observed. This was attributed to the smallness of the transverse size of the colliding beams. Theoretically the problem of finite transverse dimensions was investigated in [@BKS1] were the bremsstrahlung spectrum at $e^+e^-$ collision have was calculated to within the power accuracy (the neglected terms are of the order $1/\gamma=m/\varepsilon$) . Later the problem was analyzed in [@BD], [@KPS], [@KSS] where the found bremsstrahlung spectra coincide with obtained in [@BKS1].
It should be noted that in [@BKS1] (as well as in all other papers mentioned above) an incomplete expression for the bremsstrahlung spectrum was calculated. One has to perform the subtraction associated with the extraction of pure fluctuation process. Let us discuss this item in some details. The momentum transfer ${\bf q}$ at collision is important for the radiation process (the cross section contains factor ${\bf q}^2$ at ${\bf
q}^2 \ll m^2$). At the beam collision the momentum transfer may arise due to interaction of the emitting particle with the opposite beam as a whole (due to coherent interaction with averaged field of the beam) and due to interaction with an individual particle of the opposite beam. Here we are considering [*the incoherent*]{} process only (connected with the incoherent fluctuation of density) and so we have to subtract the coherent contribution. The expression for the bremsstrahlung spectrum found in [@BKS1] contains the mean value $<{\bf q}^2>$, while the coherent contribution contains $<{\bf q}>^2$ and this term has to be subtracted. We encountered with an analogous problem in analysis of incoherent processes in the oriented crystals [@BKS2] where it was pointed out (see p.407) that the subtraction has to be done in the spectrum calculated in [@BKS1]. Without the subtraction the results for the incoherent processes in oriented crystals would be qualitatively erroneous.
In Sec.2 a qualitative analysis of the incoherent radiation process is given. In Sec.3 the general formulas for the spectral-angular distributions of incoherent bremsstrahlung are derived. The incoherent bremsstrahlung spectrum for the Gaussian beams is calculated in Sec.4 in the form of double integrals. In specific case of narrow beams (the size of beam is much smaller than the characteristic impact parameter) the formulas are simplified essentially (Sec.5). The experimental studies of effect were performed with flat beams (the beam vertical size is much smaller than horizontal one). This specific case is analyzed in Sec.6, while comparison with data is given in Sec.7. In Sec.8 the possible application to the linear $e^+e^-$ collider tuning is discussed.
General analysis of probability of incoherent radiation
=======================================================
In this section we discuss in detail the conditions under which we consider the incoherent radiation. One can calculate the photon emission probability in the target rest frame, since the entering combinations $\omega/\varepsilon$ and $\gamma\vartheta$ ($\gamma$ is the Lorentz factor $\gamma=\varepsilon/m$, $\vartheta$ is the angle of photon emission) are invariant (within a relativistic accuracy) and a transfer to any frame is elementary. We use the operator quasiclassical method [@BK2], [@BKS3]. Within this method the photon formation length (time) is $$\begin{aligned}
&& l_f=\frac{\varepsilon'}{\varepsilon
kv}=\frac{\varepsilon'}{\varepsilon \omega(1-\bf{n v})}\simeq
\frac{l_{f0}}{\zeta};
\nonumber \\
&& l_{f0}=\frac{1}{q_{min}}=\frac{2\varepsilon
\varepsilon'}{\omega m^2} = \frac{4\varepsilon' \gamma_c
\varepsilon_r}{\omega m^2};
\nonumber \\
&& \zeta = 1+\gamma^2 \vartheta^2, \quad \varepsilon'=\varepsilon
-\omega,
\label{2.1}\end{aligned}$$ where $p_{\mu}= \varepsilon v_{\mu}~(v_{\mu}=(1, {\bf v}))$ is the 4-momentum of radiating particle, $\gamma_c=\varepsilon_c/m_c$, $\varepsilon_c$ is the energy of target particle in the laboratory frame, $m_c$ is its mass, $\varepsilon_r$ is the energy of radiating particle in the laboratory frame; $k_{\mu}=(\omega,~\omega {\bf n}))$ is the photon 4-momentum, $\vartheta$ is the angle between vectors [**n**]{} and [**v**]{}.
In the case when the transverse dimension of beam $\sigma$ is $\sigma \gg l_{f0}$ the impact parameters $\varrho \leq
\varrho_{max}=l_{f0}$ contribute. One can put that the particle density in the target beam is a constant, so that the standard QED formulas are valid. Note that the value $\varrho_{max}$ is the relativistic invariant which is defined by the minimal value of square of the invariant mass of the intermediate photon $|q^2|$. In the case when the characteristic size of beams is smaller the value $\varrho_{max}$ the lower value of $|q^2|$ is defined by this size.
In the target rest frame the scattering length of emitting particle is of order of the impact parameter $\varrho$. This length is much smaller than the longitudinal dimension of the target $\gamma_c l$ ($l$ is the length of target beam in the laboratory frame). So one can neglect a variation of configuration of the beam during the scattering time. A possible variation of particle configuration in the beam during a long time one can take into account in the adiabatic approximation.
Another limitation is connected with the influence of value of transverse momentum arising from the electromagnetic field $E=|{\bf E}|$ of colliding (target) beam on the photon formation length. This value should be smaller than the characteristic transverse momentum transfer $m\sqrt{\zeta}$ in the photon emission process: $$\begin{aligned}
&& \frac{e E l_f}{m\sqrt{\zeta}} \sim \frac{\alpha
N_c}{(\sigma_z+\sigma_y)l \gamma_c} \frac{1}{m\sqrt{\zeta}}
\frac{4\varepsilon' \gamma_c \varepsilon_r}{\omega \zeta m^2}
\nonumber \\
&& \sim \frac{2 \alpha N_c}{(\sigma_z+\sigma_y)l}
\frac{1}{m\sqrt{\zeta}} \frac{2\varepsilon' \varepsilon_r}{\omega
\zeta m^2}=\frac{4 \alpha N_c \gamma_r \lambda_c^2
\varepsilon'}{(\sigma_z+\sigma_y)l \zeta^{3/2} \omega} \ll 1,
\label{2.2}\end{aligned}$$ here $\alpha = 1/137$, $N_c$ is the number of particles in the target beam, $\sigma_z$ and $\sigma_y$ are the vertical and horizontal transverse dimensions of target beam. Note that the ratio $\gamma/l$ is the relativistic invariant. This condition can be presented in invariant form $$\frac{2 \chi}{u \zeta^{3/2}} \ll 1,
\label{2.3}$$ where $\displaystyle{\chi=\frac{\gamma }{E_0}|{\bf
E}_{\perp}+{\bf v}\times {\bf H}|,~
u=\frac{\omega}{\varepsilon'},~ E_0=\frac{m^2}{e}=1.32 \cdot
10^{16} {\rm V/cm}}$. Since the main contribution to the spectral probability of radiation gives angles $\vartheta \sim 1/\gamma$ ($\zeta \sim 1$) this condition takes the form $\chi/u \ll 1$. For the case $\chi/u \gg 1$ the condition (\[2.3\]) can be satisfied for the large photon emission angles $\zeta \simeq
\gamma^2\vartheta^2> (\chi/u)^{2/3} \gg 1$. Under these conditions the formation length $l_{f}=l_{f0}/\zeta$ decreases as $(\chi/u)^{2/3}$. The same inhibition factor acquires the bremsstrahlung probability [@BKS4].
We consider now the spectral distribution of radiation probability in the case $\chi \ll 1$ (this condition is fulfilled in all existing installations), so $$\chi \sim \alpha N_c \gamma
\frac{\lambda_c^2}{(\sigma_z+\sigma_y)l} \ll 1. \label{2.4}$$ Only the soft photons $(\omega \leq \chi \varepsilon \ll
\varepsilon)$ contribute to the [*coherent*]{} radiation (“beamstrahlung”) while the hard photon region $\omega \gg \chi
\varepsilon$ is suppressed exponentially as it is known from the classical radiation theory. As it was mentioned in the soft photon region $(\omega \leq \chi \varepsilon \ll \varepsilon)$, the spectral probability of [*bremsstrahlung*]{} is suppressed by the factor $(\omega/\varepsilon\chi)^{2/3}$ only. On the contrary, the spectral probability of the bremsstrahlung is negligible comparing with the beamstrahlung taking into consideration that the mean square of multiple scattering angle during all time of beam collisions is small comparing with the value $1/\gamma^2$: $$\gamma^2 <\vartheta_s^2>=\frac{<q_s^2>}{m^2} \simeq
\frac{8\alpha^2N_c \lambda_c^2}{\sigma_z\sigma_y}L \ll 1,
\label{2.5}$$ where $L$ is the characteristic logarithm of scattering problem (in the typical experimental condition $L \sim 10$).
It was supposed in the above estimations of beamstrahlung probability that the radiation formation length is shorter than the target beam length $$\frac{l_f}{l} \sim
\frac{1}{u}\left(1+\frac{\chi}{u}\right)^{-2/3}\frac{\gamma
\lambda_c }{l} < 1.
\label{2.6}$$ Besides it was supposed that one can neglect a variation of the impact parameter $\mbox{\boldmath$\varrho$}$ and therefore of the transverse electric field ${\bf
E}_{\perp}(\mbox{\boldmath$\varrho$})$ during the beam collision. This is true when disruption parameter is enough small $$D_i = \frac{2\alpha N_c \lambda_c l}{\gamma_r \sigma_i
(\sigma_z+\sigma_y)} \ll 1,\quad (i=z,y)
\label{2.7}$$
So, we consider the incoherent bremsstrahlung under following conditions: $$\chi \ll 1,\quad \frac{\chi}{u} \ll 1,\quad D_i \ll 1. \label{2.8}$$
[Spectral-angular distribution of the]{}
=========================================
In this section we derive the basic expression for the incoherent bremsstrahlung probability at collision of two beams with bounded transverse dimensions.
We consider first the photon emission at collision of an electron with one particle with the transverse coordinate [**x**]{}. We select the impact parameter $\varrho_0=|\mbox{\boldmath$\varrho$}_0|$ which is small comparing with the typical transverse beam dimension $\sigma$ but which is large comparing with the electron Compton length $\lambda_c$ ($\lambda_c \ll \varrho_0 \ll \sigma$). In the interval of impact parameters $\varrho = |{\bf r}_\perp -{\bf x}| \geq \varrho_0$, where ${\bf r}_\perp$ is the transverse coordinate of emitting electron, the probability of radiation summed over the momenta of final particle can be calculated using the classical trajectory of particle. Indeed,one can neglect by the value of commutators $|[\hat{p}_{\perp i}, \varrho_j]|=\delta_{ij}$ comparing with the value $p_{\perp} \varrho$ in this interval ($p_{\perp} \varrho
\geq m\varrho_0 \gg 1$). In this case the expression for the probability has the form (see [@BKS3], Eqs.(7.3) and (7.4)) $$dw = |M(\mbox{\boldmath$\varrho$})|^2w_r({\bf r_{\perp}})d^2
r_{\perp} d^3k,
\label{3.1}$$ where $$M(\mbox{\boldmath$\varrho$})=\frac{e}{2\pi\sqrt{\omega}}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}
R(t)\exp(ik'x(t))dt,\quad k'=\frac{\varepsilon}{\varepsilon'}k.
\label{3.2}$$ Here $w_r({\bf r_{\perp}})d^2 r_{\perp}$ is the probability to find the emitting particle with the impact parameter $\mbox{\boldmath$\varrho$} = {\bf r}_\perp -{\bf x}$ in the interval $d^2 \varrho = d^2 r_{\perp},~ R(t)=R({\bf p}(t)),~
kx(t)=\omega t-{\bf kr}(t)$ (for details see [@BKS3], Sec. 7.1). Integrating by parts in the last equation and taking into account that $|{\bf q}_{\perp}(\mbox{\boldmath$\varrho$})| \leq
1/\varrho_0 \ll m$ we find $$M(\mbox{\boldmath$\varrho$}) \simeq \frac{i e}{2\pi
\sqrt{\omega}}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}
\exp(ik'vt)\frac{d}{dt}~\frac{R(t)}{k'v(t)}dt \simeq \frac{i
e}{2\pi \sqrt{\omega}} {\bf m}(\mbox{\boldmath$\varrho$})
\frac{\partial}{\partial {\bf p_{\perp}}} \frac{R({\bf
p_{\perp}})}{k'v}, \label{3.3}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
&&{\bf p}_{\perp}={\bf p}-{\bf n}({\bf n}{\bf p}) \simeq
\varepsilon ({\bf v}-{\bf n}),
\nonumber \\
&& {\bf m}(\mbox{\boldmath$\varrho$}) = \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}
\exp(ik'vt)\dot{{\bf q}}(\mbox{\boldmath$\varrho$}, t) dt =
-\frac{\partial}{\partial \mbox{\boldmath$\varrho$}}
\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}
\exp\left(\frac{it}{l_f}\right)V(\sqrt{\varrho^2+t^2})dt
\nonumber \\
&& = \frac{2\alpha}{l_f}
\frac{\mbox{\boldmath$\varrho$}}{\varrho}K_1(\frac{\varrho}{l_f})=2\alpha
q_{min} \zeta K_1(\varrho q_{min} \zeta)
\frac{\mbox{\boldmath$\varrho$}}{\varrho},
\label{3.4}\end{aligned}$$ for the Coulomb potential, $K_1(z)$ is the modified Bessel function (the Macdonald function), $R({\bf p_{\perp}})$ has a form of matrix element for the free particles: $$\begin{aligned}
&& R({\bf
p_{\perp}})=\varphi_{s'}^{+}(A+i\mbox{\boldmath$\sigma$}{\bf
B})\varphi_{s}; \quad A \simeq
\frac{m(\varepsilon+\varepsilon')}{2\varepsilon
\varepsilon'}({\bf e}^{\ast}{\bf u}),
\nonumber \\
&& {\bf B} \simeq \frac{m\omega}{2\varepsilon \varepsilon'}({\bf
e}^{\ast}\times ({\bf n}-{\bf u})); \quad {\bf u}=\frac{{\bf
p}_{\perp}}{m},~\zeta=1+{\bf u}^2,~k'v=q_{min}\zeta,
\label{3.5}\end{aligned}$$ where the vector [**e**]{} describes the photon polarization and the spinors $\varphi_s$ and $\varphi_{s'}$ describe the polarization of the initial and final electrons correspondingly.
In the interval of impact parameters $\varrho \leq \lambda_c$ the expectation value of operator $<\mbox{\boldmath$\varrho$}|M^{+}M|\mbox{\boldmath$\varrho$}>$ cannot be written in the form (\[3.1\]) since the entering operators become noncommutative inside the expectation value. However because of the condition $\lambda_c \ll \sigma$ in this interval $w_r({\bf r}_{\perp}) \simeq w_r({\bf x}) +
O(\frac{\lambda_c}{\sigma})$ one can neglect effect of the inhomogeneous distribution. For the same reason in the calculation of correction to the probability of photon emission, which is defined as the difference of $dw(\sigma)$ and the probability of photon emission in a inhomogeneous medium, one can extend the integration interval into region $\varrho \leq
\varrho_0$.
In this paper we consider the incoherent bremsstrahlung which can be considered as the photon emission due to fluctuations of the potential $V$ connected with uncertainty of a particle position in the transverse to its momentum plane. Because of this we have to calculate the dispersion of the vector ${\bf
m}(\mbox{\boldmath$\varrho$})$ with respect to the transverse coordinate $\mbox{\boldmath$\varrho$}$: $$\begin{aligned}
&& <m_i m_j> - <m_i>< m_j>= \int m_i({\bf r}_\perp -{\bf x})
m_j({\bf r}_\perp -{\bf x}) w_c({\bf x})d^2x
\nonumber \\
&& - \int m_i({\bf r}_\perp -{\bf x})w_c({\bf x})d^2x \int
m_j({\bf r}_\perp -{\bf x})w_c({\bf x})d^2x,
\label{3.6}\end{aligned}$$ where $w_c({\bf x})$ is the distribution function of target particles normalized to the unity.
As a result we obtain the following expression for the correction to the probability of photon emission connected with the restricted transverse dimensions of colliding beams of charged particles: $$\begin{aligned}
&& dw_1=\frac{\alpha}{(2\pi)^2}\frac{d^3k}{\omega}T_{ij}({\bf e},
{\bf p}_{\perp}, s, s')L_{ij}, \quad
T_{ij}=\left[\frac{\partial}{\partial p_{\perp
i}}\frac{R^{\ast}({\bf
p}_{\perp})}{k'v}\right]\left[\frac{\partial}{\partial p_{\perp
j}}\frac{R^{\ast}({\bf p}_{\perp})}{k'v}\right],
\nonumber \\
&& L_{ij}=\int m_i(\mbox{\boldmath$\varrho$})
m_j(\mbox{\boldmath$\varrho$})\left(w_r({\bf
x}+\mbox{\boldmath$\varrho$})-w_r({\bf x})\right)w_c({\bf
x})d^2xd^2\varrho
\nonumber \\
&&- \left(\int m_i(\mbox{\boldmath$\varrho$})w_c({\bf
x}-\mbox{\boldmath$\varrho$})d^2\varrho \right)\left(\int
m_j(\mbox{\boldmath$\varrho$})w_c({\bf
x}-\mbox{\boldmath$\varrho$})d^2\varrho \right)w_r({\bf x })d^2x.
\label{3.7}\end{aligned}$$
Averaging over the polarization of initial electrons and summing over the polarization of final electrons we find $$T_{ij}=\frac{l_f}{\varepsilon\varepsilon'}\Big[e_i e_j-
\frac{2{\bf e u}}{\zeta}(e_i u_j + u_i e_j) + \frac{4({\bf e
u})^2}{\zeta^2} u_i u_j+
\frac{\omega^2}{4\varepsilon\varepsilon'}\delta_{ij}\Big].
\label{3.8}$$ Note, that one can choose the real vector [**e**]{} since only the linear polarization could arise in the case of unpolarized electrons.
After summation in (\[3.8\]) over the polarization of emitted photon we have $$T_{ij}=\frac{l_f}{2\varepsilon\varepsilon'}\left(v \delta_{ij}-
\frac{8}{\zeta^2}u_i u_j\right),\quad v=\frac{\varepsilon}{\varepsilon'}
+\frac{\varepsilon'}{\varepsilon},\quad \zeta = 1+\gamma^2 \vartheta^2.
\label{3.9}$$
Finally, averaging the last expression over the azimuth angle of emitted photon we obtain $$T_{ij}=\frac{l_f}{2\varepsilon\varepsilon'}U(\zeta)
\delta_{ij},\quad
U(\zeta)=v-\frac{4(\zeta-1)}{\zeta^2}.
\label{3.10}$$
Substituting the expression obtained into (\[3.7\]) we find the correction to the probability of photon emission connected with the restricted transverse dimensions of colliding beams of charged particles: $$dw_1=\frac{\alpha^3}{\pi
m^2}\frac{\varepsilon'}{\varepsilon}\frac{d
\omega}{\omega}U(\zeta) F(\omega, \zeta) d\zeta,
\label{3.11}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
&& F(\omega, \zeta)=F^{(1)}(\omega, \zeta)-F^{(2)}(\omega,
\zeta),
\nonumber \\
&& F^{(1)}(\omega, \zeta)=\frac{2\eta^2}{\zeta^2}\int K_1^2(\eta
\varrho)\left(w_r({\bf x}+\mbox{\boldmath$\varrho$})-w_r({\bf
x})\right)w_c({\bf x})d^2xd^2\varrho,
\nonumber \\
&& F^{(2)}(\omega, \zeta)=\frac{2\eta^2}{\zeta^2}\int\left(\int
K_1(\eta \varrho)\frac{\mbox{\boldmath$\varrho$}}{\varrho}w_c({\bf
x}-\mbox{\boldmath$\varrho$})d^2\varrho \right)^2w_r({\bf x})d^2x,
\label{3.12}\end{aligned}$$ here $\eta=q_{min}\zeta$.
Using the integral $$\int K_1^2(\eta \varrho) \varrho d\varrho =
\frac{\varrho^2}{2}\left[K_1^2(\eta \varrho)-K_0(\eta
\varrho)K_2(\eta \varrho)\right]
\label{3.13}$$ and integrating by parts we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
&& F(\omega, \zeta)= \frac{\eta^2}{\zeta^2}\Big[\int
\left[K_0(\eta \varrho)K_2(\eta \varrho)-K_1^2(\eta
\varrho)\right]\varrho
\frac{d\Phi(\mbox{\boldmath$\varrho$})}{d\varrho}d^2\varrho
\nonumber \\
&& -2\int\left(\int K_1(\eta
\varrho)\frac{\mbox{\boldmath$\varrho$}}{\varrho}w_c({\bf
x}-\mbox{\boldmath$\varrho$})d^2\varrho \right)^2w_r({\bf
x})d^2x\Big],
\label{3.14}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\Phi(\mbox{\boldmath$\varrho$})=\int w_r({\bf
x}+\mbox{\boldmath$\varrho$}) w_c({\bf x})d^2x.
\label{3.15}$$
In the general case the axes of colliding beams are displaced with respect each other in the transverse plane by the vector ${\bf x}_0$ with coordinates $z_0,y_0$. In this case we have to consider $$w_r({\bf x}) \rightarrow w_r({\bf x}+{\bf
x}_0),~F^{(1,2)}(\omega, \zeta) \rightarrow F^{(1,2)}(\omega,
\zeta, {\bf x}_0),~ \Phi(\mbox{\boldmath$\varrho$}) \rightarrow
\Phi(\mbox{\boldmath$\varrho$}+{\bf x}_0)
\label{3.15a}$$
The first term in the expression for $F(\omega, \zeta)$ in (\[3.14\]) coincides with the function $F(\omega, \zeta)$ defined in [@BKS1], Eq.(13). The second (subtraction) term in (\[3.14\])which is naturally arisen in this derivation was missed in Eq.(13), [@BKS1] as it was said above. The expression (\[3.11\]) is consistent with Eq.(21.6) in the book [@BKS3] (see also Eq.(2.2) in [@BKS2]) where another physical problem was analyzed. It is the incoherent bremsstrahlung in the oriented crystals.
Below we restrict ourselves to the case of unpolarized electrons and photons. Influence of bounded transverse size on the probability of process with polarized particles will be considered elsewhere.
Gaussian beams
==============
For calculation of explicit expression for the bremsstrahlung cross section we have to specify the distributions of particles in the colliding beams. Here we consider the actual case of Gaussian beams. Using the Fourier transform we have $$\begin{aligned}
\hspace{-10mm}&& w({\bf x})=\frac{1}{(2\pi)^2}\int d^2q
\exp(-i{\bf q x})w(\bf q);
\nonumber \\
\hspace{-10mm}&& w_r({\bf
q})=\exp\left[-\frac{1}{2}(q_z^2\Delta_z^2+q_y^2\Delta_y^2)\right],~
w_c({\bf
q})=\exp\left[-\frac{1}{2}(q_z^2\sigma_z^2+q_y^2\sigma_y^2)\right],
\label{4.1}\end{aligned}$$ where as above the index $r$ relates to the radiating beam and the index $c$ relates to the target beam, $\Delta_z$ and $\Delta_y$ ($\sigma_z$ and $\sigma_y$) are the vertical and horizontal transverse dimensions of radiating (target) beam. Substituting (\[4.1\]) into Eq.(\[3.15\]) we find $$\begin{aligned}
\hspace{-5mm}&& \Phi(\mbox{\boldmath$\varrho$})=
\frac{1}{(2\pi)^2}\int d^2q \exp(-i{\bf q}
\mbox{\boldmath$\varrho$})\exp\left[-\frac{q_z^2}{4\Sigma_z^2}
-\frac{q_y^2}{4\Sigma_y^2}\right]=
\frac{\Sigma_z\Sigma_y}{\pi}\exp[-\varrho_z^2\Sigma_z^2-\varrho_y^2\Sigma_y^2];
\nonumber \\
\hspace{-5mm}&& \Sigma_z^2=\frac{1}{2(\sigma_z^2+\Delta_z^2)},~
\Sigma_y^2=\frac{1}{2(\sigma_y^2+\Delta_y^2)},
\label{4.2}\end{aligned}$$
Below we consider the general situation when the axes of colliding beams are displaced with respect each other in the transverse plane by the vector ${\bf x}_0$ with the coordinates $z_0,y_0$. This displacement has essential influence on the luminosity. For the processes for which the short distances are essential only (e.g. double bremsstrahlung [@BK1]) the probability of process is the product of the cross section and luminosity. The geometrical luminosity per bunch, not taking into account the disruption effects, is given by $${\cal L}=N_cN_r \Phi({\bf x}_0),
\label{4.3}$$ where as above $N_r$ and $N_c$ are the number of particles in the radiating and target beams correspondingly. We will use the same definition for our case. Then we have $$dw_{\gamma}= \Phi({\bf x}_0)d\sigma_{\gamma} ,\quad d\sigma_1=
\Phi^{-1}({\bf x}_0) dw_1, \label{4.4}$$ where $dw_1$ is defined in Eq.(\[3.11\]).
We calculate first the function $F^{(1)}(\omega, \zeta)$ in Eq.(\[3.12\]) for the case of coaxial beams when ${\bf x}_0=0$. Passing on to the momentum representation with the help of formula (\[4.1\]) we find $$F^{(1)}(\omega, \zeta)= - \frac{1}{2\pi\zeta^2}\int w_r({\bf q})
w_c({\bf q}) F_2\left(\frac{q}{2\eta}\right) qdq d\varphi,
\label{4.5}$$ where $\eta=q_{min}\zeta$ is introduced in (\[3.12\]), $$\begin{aligned}
&& F_2\left(\frac{q}{2\eta}\right) = \frac{\eta^2}{\pi}\int
K_1^2(\eta \varrho)(1-\exp(-i{\bf q}
\mbox{\boldmath$\varrho$}))d^2\varrho,
\nonumber \\
&& F_2(x)=\frac{2x^2+1}{x\sqrt{1+x^2}}\ln(x+\sqrt{1+x^2})-1,\quad
q_{min}=m^3\omega/4\varepsilon^2 \varepsilon',
\label{4.6}\end{aligned}$$ here value $q_{min}$ is defined in c.m.s. of colliding particles. The function $F_2(x)$ encounters in the radiation theory. To calculate the corresponding contribution into the radiation spectrum we have to substitute (\[4.5\]) into Eq.(\[3.11\]) and take the integrals. After substitution of variable in (\[4.5\]) $$w=\frac{q}{2q_{min}\zeta},
\label{4.7}$$ we obtain the integral over $\zeta$ in Eq.(\[3.11\]): $$\begin{aligned}
&&\int_{1}^{\infty} \left( v -\frac{4}{\zeta} +
\frac{4}{\zeta^2}\right)\exp(-s^2\zeta^2)d\zeta \equiv f(s)
\nonumber \\
&& = \frac{\sqrt{\pi}}{2s}(v-8s^2){\rm
Erfc}(s)+4\displaystyle{e^{-s^2}}+2{\rm Ei}(-s^2),
\label{4.8}\end{aligned}$$ where $$s=w r q_{min}, \quad r^2= \Sigma_z^{-2}\cos^2\varphi+
\Sigma_y^{-2}\sin^2\varphi
\label{4.8a}$$ Making use of Eq.(\[4.4\]) we find for the spectrum $$\begin{aligned}
&& d\sigma_1^{(1)}=\frac{2\alpha^3}{m^2}
\frac{\varepsilon'}{\varepsilon}
\frac{d\omega}{\omega}f^{(1)}(\omega),
\nonumber \\
&& f^{(1)}(\omega)= -\frac{1}{\pi\Sigma_z
\Sigma_y}\int_{0}^{2\pi}\frac{d\varphi}{\Sigma_z^{-2}\cos^2\varphi+
\Sigma_y^{-2}\sin^2\varphi} \int_{0}^{\infty}F_2(z)f(s)s ds,
\nonumber \\
&& z^2=\frac{s^2}{q_{min}^2}\frac{1}{\Sigma_z^{-2}\cos^2\varphi+
\Sigma_y^{-2}\sin^2\varphi}.
\label{4.9}\end{aligned}$$ This formula is quite convenient for the numerical calculations.
In the case ${\bf x}_0 \neq 0$ we will use straightforwardly Eqs.(\[3.12\]) and (\[4.4\]). Taking into account (\[4.2\]) we have for the difference $$\begin{aligned}
\hspace{-15mm}&& \Delta^{(1)}({\bf x}_0) \equiv
\frac{1}{2\pi}(\Phi^{-1}({\bf x}_0)F^{(1)}({\bf x}_0)-\Phi^{-1}(0)
F^{(1)}(0))
\nonumber \\
\hspace{-15mm}&&=\frac{\eta^2}{\pi\zeta^2}\int
K_1^2(\eta\varrho)\exp\left[-\varrho_z^2\Sigma_z^2-
\varrho_y^2\Sigma_y^2\right] \{\exp\left[-2\varrho_zz_0\Sigma_z^2-
2\varrho_yy_0\Sigma_y^2\right]-1\}d^2\varrho,
\label{4.10}\end{aligned}$$ where the function $F^{(1)}({\bf x}_0)$ is defined in Eqs.(\[3.12\]), (\[3.15a\]).
Using the Macdonald’s formula (see e.g.[@BE], p.53) $$2K_1^2(\eta\varrho)=\int_{0}^{\infty} \exp\left[ -\varrho^2
t-\frac{\eta^2}{2t} \right]K_1\left(
\frac{\eta^2}{2t}\right)\frac{dt}{t} \label{4.11}$$ and taking the Gaussian integrals over $\varrho_z$ and $\varrho_y$ we get $$\Delta^{(1)}({\bf x}_0) =\frac{1}{\zeta^2}\int_{0}^{\infty}
\frac{\exp\left( -\frac{\eta^2}{2t}\right)K_1\left(
\frac{\eta^2}{2t}\right)}{\sqrt{t+\Sigma_z^2}\sqrt{t+\Sigma_y^2}}
\left\{ \exp\left[ \frac{z_0^2\Sigma_z^4}{t+\Sigma_z^2}+
\frac{y_0^2\Sigma_y^4}{t+\Sigma_y^2}\right]-1
\right\}\frac{\eta^2 dt}{2t}. \label{4.12}$$ For the correction to the cross section (see Eqs.(\[4.4\]) and (\[4.9\])) we have correspondingly $$d\sigma_1^{(1)}=\frac{2\alpha^3}{m^2}
\frac{\varepsilon'}{\varepsilon}
\frac{d\omega}{\omega}[f^{(1)}(\omega)+J^{(1)}(\omega, {\bf x}_0
)],
\label{4.13}$$ where $$J^{(1)}(\omega, {\bf x}_0)= \int_{1}^{\infty} U(\zeta)
\Delta^{(1)}({\bf x}_0)d\zeta.
\label{4.14}$$
Now we pass over to the calculation of the second (subtraction) term $F^{(2)}(\omega, \zeta)$ in Eq.(\[3.12\]). Using Eq.(\[4.1\]) we get $${\bf I}= \eta \int K_1(\eta
\varrho)\frac{\mbox{\boldmath$\varrho$}}{\varrho}w_c({\bf
x}-\mbox{\boldmath$\varrho$})d^2\varrho =
\frac{\eta}{(2\pi)^2}\int S(q) \frac{{\bf q}}{q}\exp(-i{\bf q
x})w_c({\bf q})d^2q, \label{4.15}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
&& S(q)= \int K_1(\eta\varrho)\frac{{\bf q
}\mbox{\boldmath$\varrho$}}{q\varrho}\exp(i{\bf q
}\mbox{\boldmath$\varrho$})d^2\varrho
\nonumber \\
&& = 2\pi i \int K_1(\eta\varrho) J_1(q\varrho) \varrho d\varrho
= 2\pi i~ \frac{q}{\eta} \frac{1}{q^2+\eta^2}.
\label{4.16}\end{aligned}$$ Using the exponential parametrization $$\frac{1}{q^2+\eta^2}=\frac{1}{4}\int_{0}^{\infty}
\exp\left[-\frac{s}{4}(q^2+\eta^2) \right]ds
\label{4.17}$$ and taking the Gaussian integrals over $q_z$ and $q_y$ we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
&& {\bf I}= \int_{0}^{\infty} \exp\left[-\frac{\eta^2 s}{4} -
\frac{z^2}{s+2\sigma_z^2} - \frac{y^2}{s+2\sigma_y^2} \right]
\nonumber \\
&& \times \left[ \frac{z {\bf e}_z}{s+2\sigma_z^2}+ \frac{y {\bf
e}_y}{s+2\sigma_y^2}\right]
\frac{ds}{\sqrt{s+2\sigma_z^2}\sqrt{s+2\sigma_y^2}}, \label{4.18}\end{aligned}$$ where ${\bf e}_z$ and ${\bf e}_y$ are the unit vectors along axes $z$ and $y$. Substituting (\[4.18\]) into Eq.(\[3.12\]), taking the Gaussian integrals over $z$ and $y$ and using Eq.(\[4.4\]) we get the correction to the cross section $$d\sigma_1^{(2)}=-\frac{2\alpha^3}{m^2}
\frac{\varepsilon'}{\varepsilon}
\frac{d\omega}{\omega}J^{(2)}(\omega, {\bf x}_0), \label{4.19}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
&& J^{(2)}(\omega, {\bf x}_0)= \frac{\sqrt{a b}}{\Sigma_z
\Sigma_y} \exp(z_0^2 \Sigma_z^2+y_0^2 \Sigma_y^2)\int_{0}^{\infty}
ds_1 \int_{0}^{\infty} ds_2 g\left( \frac{q_{min}\sqrt{s}}{2}
\right)G(s_1, s_2, {\bf x}_0 ),
\nonumber \\
&& G(s_1, s_2, {\bf x}_0 )= \left( \frac{a_1a_2 b_1 b_2}{A
B}\right)^{1/2}\left[\frac{a_1a_2}{A}\left( \frac{1}{2}+
\frac{z_0^2a^2}{A}\right)+\frac{b_1b_2}{B}\left( \frac{1}{2}+
\frac{y_0^2b^2}{B}\right)\right]
\nonumber \\
&& \times \exp\left[-\frac{z_0^2a}{A}(a_1+a_2)
-\frac{y_0^2b}{B}(b_1+b_2) \right].
\label{4.20}\end{aligned}$$ Here the function $g$ appears as a result of integration over $\zeta$: $$\begin{aligned}
\hspace{-15mm}&&g(q)=\int_{1}^{\infty}\left( v-\frac{4}{\zeta}+
\frac{4}{\zeta^2}\right)\exp(-q^2\zeta^2)\frac{d\zeta}{\zeta^2}=\left(
v -\frac{2}{3}\right)\exp(-q^2)
\nonumber \\
\hspace{-15mm}&&-2q^2 \int_{1}^{\infty}\left( v-\frac{2}{\zeta}+
\frac{4}{3\zeta^2}\right)\exp(-q^2\zeta^2)d\zeta
\nonumber \\
\hspace{-15mm}&&= \left( v -\frac{2}{3}\right)\exp(-q^2)
-2q^2\left[ \frac{\sqrt{\pi}}{2q}\left(v-\frac{8}{3}q^2\right){\rm
Erfc}(q)+\frac{4}{3}\displaystyle{e^{-q^2}}+{\rm Ei}(-q^2)\right].
\label{4.21}\end{aligned}$$ In (\[4.20\]) we introduced the following notations $$\begin{aligned}
&& a=\frac{1}{2\Delta_z^2}, \quad b=\frac{1}{2\Delta_y^2}, \quad
a_{1,2}=\frac{1}{s_{1,2}+2\sigma_z^2},\quad
b_{1,2}=\frac{1}{s_{1,2}+2\sigma_y^2},
\nonumber \\
&& A=a_1+a_2+a, \quad B=b_1+b_2+b,\quad s=s_1+s_2.
\label{4.22}\end{aligned}$$
Narrow beams
============
This is the case when the ratio $q_{min}/(\Sigma_z+\Sigma_y) \ll
1$, so that the main contribution to the integral (\[4.9\]) gives the region $q \sim \zeta \sim 1,~z \gg 1$. Using the asymptotics of function $F_2(z)$ at $z \gg 1$ $$F_2(z) \simeq \ln (2z)^2-1
\label{5.1}$$ and the following integrals $$\begin{aligned}
&&\hspace{-10mm}
\frac{1}{2\pi\Sigma_z\Sigma_y}\int_{0}^{2\pi}\frac{d\varphi}
{\Sigma_z^{-2}\cos^2\varphi+\Sigma_y^{-2}\sin^2\varphi}=1,
\nonumber \\
&&\hspace{-10mm}
\frac{1}{2\pi\Sigma_z\Sigma_y}\int_{0}^{2\pi}\frac{d\varphi}
{\Sigma_z^{-2}\cos^2\varphi+\Sigma_y^{-2}\sin^2\varphi}\ln
\frac{4}{\Sigma_z^{-2}\cos^2\varphi+\Sigma_y^{-2}\sin^2\varphi}=\ln
(\Sigma_z+\Sigma_y)^2,
\nonumber \\
&&\hspace{-10mm}\int_{1}^{\infty}dq^2 \left(\alpha-\beta \ln
q^2\right)\int_{1}^{\infty}\left( v-\frac{4}{\zeta}+
\frac{4}{\zeta^2}\right)\exp(-q^2\zeta^2)d\zeta
\nonumber \\
&&
\hspace{-10mm}=\left(v-\frac{2}{3}\right)[\alpha+\beta(2+C)]+\frac{2}{9}\beta,
\label{5.2}\end{aligned}$$ where C is Euler’s constant $C = 0.577...$, we get for the function $f^{(1)}(\omega)$ (\[4.13\]) the following expression $$f^{(1)}(\omega) \simeq \left(v-\frac{2}{3}\right)\left(2\ln
\frac{q_{min}}{\Sigma_z+\Sigma_y}+3+C \right) + \frac{2}{9},~\quad
q_{min} \ll (\Sigma_z+\Sigma_y). \label{5.3}$$ This expression agrees with Eq.(24) of [@BKS1].
Under the assumption used in (\[5.3\]) and the additional condition $q_{min}(z_0+y_0)\ll 1$ the main contribution to the integral in (\[4.12\]) gives the region $t \gg \eta^2$. In this case one can use the asymptotic expansion $K_1(z) \simeq 1/z (z
\ll 1)$. Then we have for the function $J^{(1)}(\omega, {\bf
x}_0)$ in Eq.(\[4.13\]) the following expression $$\begin{aligned}
&& J^{(1)}(\omega, {\bf x}_0) \simeq \left(v-\frac{2}{3}\right)J
\nonumber \\
&&
J=\int_{0}^{\infty}\left[\exp\left(\frac{z_0^2\Sigma_z^4}{t+\Sigma_z^2}
+\frac{y_0^2\Sigma_y^4}{t+\Sigma_y^2}\right)-1\right]
\frac{dt}{\sqrt{t+\Sigma_z^2}\sqrt{t+\Sigma_y^2}}. \label{5.4}\end{aligned}$$ The expression (\[5.4\]) is consistent with Eq.(26) of [@BKS1].
In the case $({\bf x}_0^2+\sigma_z^2+\sigma_y^2)q_{min}^2 \ll 1$ the main contribution to the integral in (\[4.20\]) gives the interval $s q_{min}^2 \sim ({\bf
x}_0^2+\sigma_z^2+\sigma_y^2)q_{min}^2 \ll 1$. Keeping the main term of expansion over $q^2$ in Eq.(\[4.21\]) we get $$g\left(\frac{q_{min}\sqrt{s}}{2}\right) \simeq v-\frac{2}{3}.
\label{5.5}$$ The same result can be obtained if one neglects the term containing $\eta^2$ in the exponent of integrand in Eq.(\[4.18\]).
Summing the cross section $d\sigma =
d\sigma_1^{(1)}+d\sigma_1^{(2)}$ with the standard QED bremsstrahlung cross section $$d\sigma_0= \frac{2\alpha^3}{m^2} \frac{\varepsilon'}{\varepsilon}
\frac{d\omega}{\omega}\left(v-\frac{2}{3}\right)\left(\ln
\frac{m^2}{q_{min}^2}-1 \right),
\label{5.6}$$ we get the cross section for the case of interaction of narrow beams $$\begin{aligned}
&& d\sigma_{\gamma}= d\sigma_0 + d\sigma_1 =
\frac{2\alpha^3}{m^2} \frac{\varepsilon'}{\varepsilon}
\frac{d\omega}{\omega}\Bigg\{\left(v-\frac{2}{3}\right)\Bigg[2\ln
\frac{m}{\Sigma_z+\Sigma_y} +C +2
\nonumber \\
&& +J -J_{-}\Bigg]+\frac{2}{9}\Bigg\},\quad
v=\frac{\varepsilon}{\varepsilon'}+\frac{\varepsilon'}{\varepsilon},\quad
\varepsilon'=\varepsilon - \omega,
\label{5.7}\end{aligned}$$ where $J$ is given in (\[5.4\]), $$J_{-}=\frac{\sqrt{a b}}{\Sigma_z
\Sigma_y} \exp(z_0^2 \Sigma_z^2+y_0^2 \Sigma_y^2)\int_{0}^{\infty}
ds_1 \int_{0}^{\infty} ds_2 G(s_1, s_2, {\bf x}_0 ),
\label{5.8}$$ where entering functions defined in Eqs.(\[4.20\]) and (\[4.22\]).
In the case of coaxial beams ${\bf x}_0=0,~J=0$ one can take the integral in (\[5.8\]) over one of variables (for definiteness over $s_2$) using the formula $$\int_{0}^{\infty}\frac{dx}{(a_z+b_z x)^{3/2}(a_y+b_y x)^{1/2}}=
\frac{2}{a_z\sqrt{b_z b_y}+b_z\sqrt{a_z a_y}}.
\label{5.8a}$$ After this we have the simple integral over $s \equiv s_1$ $$\begin{aligned}
&& J_{-}(0)=\sqrt{1+\delta_z}\sqrt{1+\delta_y}(J_z+J_y),
\nonumber \\
&& J_{z,y}=\int_{0}^{\infty}D_{z,y}(s)ds,\quad
D_{z,y}=\frac{1}{a_{z,y}\sqrt{b_z b_y}+b_{z,y}\sqrt{a_z a_y}},
\label{5.8b}\end{aligned}$$ where $$a_{z,y}=s(1+\delta_{z,y})+2\sigma_{z,y}^2 (2+\delta_{z,y}),\quad
b_{z,y}=\frac{s}{2\Delta_{z,y}^2}+1+\delta_{z,y},\quad
\delta_{z,y}= \frac{\sigma_{z,y}^2}{\Delta_{z,y}^2},
\label{5.8c}$$
The cross section (\[5.7\]) differs from Eq.(24) of [@BKS1] because the subtraction term $J_{-}$ is included. Without this term, generally speaking, the bremsstrahlung cross section would be qualitatively erroneous. In particular an appearance of the term $J_{-}$ violates, generally speaking, the symmetry of radiation cross section in opposite directions in $e^{-}e^{-}~(e^{-}e^{+})$ collisions.
To elucidate the qualitative features of narrow beams bremsstrahlung process we consider the case of round beams where the calculation becomes more simple: $$\begin{aligned}
&& \sigma_z=\sigma_y=\sigma,\quad \Delta_z=\Delta_y=\Delta, \quad
\Sigma_z^2=\Sigma_y^2=\Sigma^2=\frac{1}{2(\sigma^2+\Delta^2)},
\nonumber \\
&& b=a,\quad b_{1,2}=a_{1,2},\quad B=A, \quad
\delta=\frac{\sigma^2}{\Delta^2}.
\label{5.9}\end{aligned}$$ We consider first the case of coaxial beams (${\bf x}_0=0,~J=0$), $$\begin{aligned}
&& J_{-}=(1+\delta)\int_{0}^{\infty}
\frac{ds}{[s(1+\delta)+2+\delta][s\delta +1+\delta]}
\nonumber \\
&& =(1+\delta) \ln \frac{(1+\delta)^2}{\delta(2+\delta)}.
\label{5.10}\end{aligned}$$ In the limiting cases the function $J_{-}$ has the form $$J_{-}(\delta \gg 1) \simeq \frac{1}{\delta},\quad
J_{-}(\delta=1) = 2\ln\frac{4}{3}, \quad J_{-}(\delta \ll 1)
\simeq \ln \frac{1}{2\delta}.
\label{5.11}$$ In the first case the subtraction term $J_{-}$ is small. For the beams of the same size the subtraction term $J_{-}$ contributes to the constant entering into the expression for the cross section. The subtraction term $J_{-}$ modifies essentially the cross section in the case when the radius of target beam is much smaller than the radius of radiating beam. In this case the cross section (\[5.7\]) contains the combination $$\ln \frac{m^2}{4\Sigma^2}-J_{-} \simeq \ln \frac{m^2\Delta^2}{2}
-\ln \frac{\Delta^2}{2\sigma^2}=\ln (m\sigma)^2.
\label{5.12}$$ So in the all cases considered above the cross section defines the transverse dimension of target beam.
When the axes of round beams are displaced with respect each other in the transverse plane the integral in (\[5.4\]) is $$\begin{aligned}
&&J=\int_{0}^{\infty}
\left[\exp\left(\frac{d}{x+1}\right)-1\right]\frac{dx}{x+1}={\rm
Ei}(d)-C-\ln d ,
\nonumber \\
&& d={\bf x}_0^2\Sigma^2 =
\frac{x_0^2+y_0^2}{2(\Delta^2+\sigma^2)}.
\label{5.13}\end{aligned}$$
It is convenient in this case to calculate the function $J_{-}$ using straightforwardly Eq.(\[4.18\]) where we omit the term with $\eta^2$ in the exponent of integrand $${\bf I}_{cr}= \mbox{\boldmath$\varrho$}\int_{0}^{\infty}
\exp\left(-\frac{\mbox{\boldmath$\varrho$}^2}{s+2\sigma^2}\right)
\frac{ds}{(s+2\sigma^2)^2}=
\frac{\mbox{\boldmath$\varrho$}}{\mbox{\boldmath$\varrho$}^2}\left[1-
\exp\left(-\frac{\mbox{\boldmath$\varrho$}^2}{2\sigma^2}\right)\right]
\label{5.14}$$ Substituting this expression ([**I**]{} is defined in Eq.(\[4.15\])) into the subtraction term Eq.(\[3.12\]) and using the exponential parametrization $$\frac{1}{\mbox{\boldmath$\varrho$}^2}=\int_{0}^{\infty}
\exp(-\mbox{\boldmath$\varrho$}^2s)ds$$ we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
&& J_{-}=\frac{a e^d}{\pi \Sigma^2} \int_{0}^{\infty}ds \int
d^2\varrho \exp(-\mbox{\boldmath$\varrho$}^2s) \left[1-
\exp\left(-\frac{\mbox{\boldmath$\varrho$}^2}{2\sigma^2}\right)\right]
\exp(-a(\mbox{\boldmath$\varrho$}+{\bf x}_0)^2)
\nonumber \\
&& = \frac{a e^{d-d_1}}{\Sigma^2}
\int_{0}^{\infty}\Bigg[\frac{1}{s+a}\exp\left( \frac{d_1 a
}{s+a}\right)-2\frac{1}{s+a+\sigma^{-2}/2}\exp\left(
d_1\frac{a}{s+a+\sigma^{-2}/2} \right)
\nonumber \\
&& + \frac{1}{s+a+\sigma^{-2}}\exp\left(
d_1\frac{a}{s+a+\sigma^{-2}} \right)\Bigg]ds= \frac{a
e^{d-d_1}}{\Sigma^2}\Bigg[ {\rm Ei}(d_1)-2{\rm Ei}\left(d_1
\frac{\sigma^2}{\sigma^2+\Delta^2} \right)
\nonumber \\
&& +{\rm Ei}\left(d_1 \frac{\sigma^2}{\sigma^2+2\Delta^2}
\right)\Bigg],\quad d_1=a{\bf
x}_0^2=\frac{z_0^2+y_0^2}{2\Delta^2}.
\label{5.15}\end{aligned}$$ In the limit $d_1 \rightarrow 0$ the last expression goes over to Eq.(\[5.10\]).
When the displacement of the axes of colliding beams is large enough $({\bf x}_0^2 \gg \sigma^2+\Delta^2)$ one use the asymptotic expansion of the function Ei($z$) in (\[5.15\]): $${\rm Ei}(z) \simeq \frac{e^z}{z}\left( 1+\frac{1}{z}\right),\quad
z \gg 1.
\label{5.16}$$ In this case the main terms in the difference $J-J_{-}$ in Eq.(\[5.7\]) are canceled: $$J-J_{-} \simeq \frac{e^{d}}{d}\left(
\frac{1}{d}-\frac{1}{d_1}\right) = \frac{2 e^{d}}{d}
\frac{\sigma^2}{{\bf x}_0^2}.
\label{5.16a}$$ The compensation of the main terms in (\[5.16\]) is due to the fact that the incoherent scattering originates on the fluctuations of the potential of the target (scattering) beam. Correspondingly we have for the mean square of the momentum transfer dispersion at the large distance from the target beam $$\begin{aligned}
&& <{\bf q}^2(\mbox{\boldmath$\varrho$})>-<{\bf
q}(\mbox{\boldmath$\varrho$})>^2 \propto \left< \frac{1}{({\bf
x}_0+\mbox{\boldmath$\varrho$})^2}-\frac{1}{{\bf x}_0^2}\right>
\nonumber \\
&& \simeq \left< \frac{4({\bf x}_0
\mbox{\boldmath$\varrho$})^2}{{\bf
x}_0^6}-\frac{\mbox{\boldmath$\varrho$}^2}{{\bf x}_0^4}\right> =
\frac{<\mbox{\boldmath$\varrho$}^2>}{{\bf
x}_0^4}=\frac{2\sigma^2}{{\bf x}_0^4}.
\label{5.17}\end{aligned}$$ Substituting (\[5.16a\]) into Eq.(\[5.7\]) and multiplying the result by the luminosity (\[4.3\]): $${\cal L}=N_c N_r\frac{\Sigma^2}{\pi}\exp(-{\bf x}_0^2 \Sigma^2)
\label{5.18}$$ we have for the probability of bremsstrahlung of round beams moving apart at large distance $$\begin{aligned}
&&dw_{\gamma} \simeq 4N_c
N_r\frac{\alpha^3}{\pi}\lambda_c^2\Sigma^2
\frac{\varepsilon'}{\varepsilon}\frac{d\omega}{\omega}\left(
v-\frac{2}{3} \right)
\nonumber \\
&& \times\left[ \exp(-{\bf x}_0^2 \Sigma^2) \ln \frac{m}{\Sigma}+
\frac{\sigma^2\Sigma^2}{({\bf x}_0^2\Sigma^2)^2}+O(\exp(-{\bf
x}_0^2 \Sigma^2))\right]
\nonumber \\
&& \Sigma^2=\frac{1}{2(\Delta^2+\sigma^2)},\quad {\bf x}_0^2
\Sigma^2=\frac{z_0^2+y_0^2}{2(\Delta^2+\sigma^2)} \gg 1, \quad
q_{min}^2(z_0^2+y_0^2) \ll 1.
\label{5.19}\end{aligned}$$ According to (\[5.19\]) when ${\bf x}_0^2$ increases so that one can neglect the first term in square brackets, the probability of bremsstrahlung of the round beams diminishes as a power of distance between beams ($\propto \sigma^2/{\bf x}_0^4$). The cross section Eq.(\[5.7\]) in this case grows exponentially as $e^d/d^2$. Let us note that without the subtraction term one has erroneous qualitative behaviour of probability ($\propto 1/{\bf
x}_0^2$). These circumstances explain also Eq.(\[5.12\]) for the coaxial beams: at integration over $d^2\varrho$ the region contributes where $<{\bf q}^2(\mbox{\boldmath$\varrho$})>- <{\bf
q}(\mbox{\boldmath$\varrho$})>^2 \propto
1/\mbox{\boldmath$\varrho$}^2$, so that $\varrho \leq \sigma$.
Let us consider now the general case $\Sigma_z \neq \Sigma_y$ for enough large displacement of beams ${\bf x}_0^2 \gg
\Sigma_{z,y}^{-2}$. In this case the main contribution into the integral ${\bf I}({\bf x})$ (for $\eta^2=0$) in Eqs.(\[4.15\]),(\[4.18\]) at large $|{\bf x}| \simeq |{\bf
x}_0|$ (see Eq.(\[3.12\])) are given by large values $s \sim
{\bf x}_0^2 \gg \sigma_{z,y}^2$. Expanding the integrand over the powers $\sigma_{z,y}^2/s$ and keeping after integration the two main terms of the decomposition over $1/{\bf x}^2$ we get $${\bf I}^2({\bf x}) \simeq \frac{1}{{\bf
x}^2}\left[1+\frac{2}{({\bf x}^2)^2} (y^2-z^2)(\sigma_y^2 -
\sigma_z^2)\right].
\label{5.20}$$ Expanding the function $1/({\bf x}_0+\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$})^2$ over the powers $\xi/x_0$ at the integration over $\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}={\bf x}-{\bf x}_0$ in Eq.(\[3.12\])) we find $$\begin{aligned}
&&\int {\bf I}^2({\bf
x}_0+\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$})w_r(\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$})d^2\xi
\simeq \frac{1}{{\bf x}_0^2} \Bigg[1 + \frac{4}{({\bf
x}_0^2)^2}(z_0^2\Delta_z^2+y_0^2\Delta_y^2)
\nonumber \\
&& -\frac{\mbox{\boldmath$\Delta$}^2}{{\bf x}_0^2}+ \frac{2}{({\bf
x}_0^2)^2}(y_0^2-z_0^2)(\sigma_y^2 - \sigma_z^2)\Bigg], \quad
\mbox{\boldmath$\Delta$}^2=\Delta_z^2+\Delta_y^2.
\label{5.21}\end{aligned}$$ In this case the region $t \sim 1/{\bf x}_0^2 \ll \Sigma_{z,y}^2$ contributes into the integral $J$ Eq.(\[5.4\])). Expanding the integrand over the powers $t\Sigma_{z,y}^{-2}$ and keeping the two main terms of decomposition over $1/{\bf x}_0^2$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
&& J \simeq \frac{1}{\Sigma_z\Sigma_y {\bf x}_0^2}
\exp(z_0^2\Sigma_z^2+y_0^2\Sigma_y^2)
\Bigg\{1-\frac{\mbox{\boldmath$\sigma$}^2+\mbox{\boldmath$\Delta$}^2}{{\bf
x}_0^2}
\nonumber \\
&& +\frac{4}{({\bf x}_0^2)^2}\left[ z_0^2(\sigma_z^2+\Delta_z^2)
+y_0^2 (\sigma_y^2+\Delta_y^2)\right]\Bigg\}, \quad
\mbox{\boldmath$\sigma$}^2 =\sigma_z^2+\sigma_y^2.
\label{5.22}\end{aligned}$$ For the difference $J-J_{-}$ we obtain finally $$J-J_{-} =
\frac{1}{\Sigma_z\Sigma_y}\exp(z_0^2\Sigma_z^2+y_0^2\Sigma_y^2)
\frac{\mbox{\boldmath$\sigma$}^2}{({\bf x}_0^2)^2}.
\label{5.23}$$
Narrow flat beams ($\sigma_z \ll \sigma_y, \Delta_z \ll \Delta_y)$
==================================================================
Let us begin with the coaxial beams. We consider first the case where the size of radiating beam is much larger than size of target beam ($\delta_{z,y} \ll 1$). In this case one can neglect the terms $\propto \delta_{z,y}, \sigma_z^2, \Delta_y^{-2}$ in the functions $a_{z,y}$ and $b_{z,y}$ in the integral in Eq.(\[5.8b\]). Within this accuracy $$a_z \simeq s,\quad a_y \simeq s +4\sigma_y^2,\quad b_z \simeq
\frac{s}{2\Delta_z^2}+1, \quad b_y \simeq 1.
\label{6.1}$$ After substitution in the integral $J_y$ in Eq.(\[5.8b\]) $s
\rightarrow 4\sigma_y^2 s$ one gets $$J_y(\kappa) = \int_{0}^{\infty}
\frac{ds}{\sqrt{s+1}(\sqrt{s}+\sqrt{s+1}\sqrt{1+2\kappa
s})},\quad \kappa=\frac{\sigma_y^2}{\Delta_z^2}.
\label{6.2}$$ After substitution in the integral $J_z$ in Eq.(\[5.8b\]) $s
\rightarrow 2\Delta_z^2/s$ one gets $J_z=J_y$ so that $$\begin{aligned}
&& J_{-}(\kappa)=2\sqrt{1+\delta_z}\sqrt{1+\delta_y}J_y(\kappa)
\simeq 2J_y(\kappa),
\nonumber \\
&& J_{-}(\kappa \ll 1) \simeq
\ln \frac{8}{\kappa}, \quad J_{-}(\kappa \gg 1) \simeq \pi
\sqrt{\frac{2}{\kappa}}.
\label{6.3}\end{aligned}$$ It is seen from the last equation that at $\Delta_z \ll \sigma_y$ the contribution of the term $J_{-}$ into the cross section Eq.(\[5.7\]) is relatively small. In the opposite case $\Delta_z \gg \sigma_y$ this contribution leads to change of the logarithm argument in Eq.(\[5.7\]) $$2 \ln \frac{m}{(\Sigma_z+\Sigma_y)} - \ln \frac{8}{\kappa} \simeq
2(\ln (\sqrt{2}m \Delta_z)-\ln (2\sqrt{2}
\frac{\Delta_z}{\sigma_y}))=2 \ln \frac{m\sigma_y}{2}.
\label{6.4}$$ This is a new qualitative result.
In the opposite case when the size of radiating beam is smaller or is of the order of size of target beam ($\delta_{z,y} \geq 1$) the contribution into the integral $J_z$ in Eq.(\[5.8b\]) gives the region $s \sim \sigma_z^2$ and into the integral $J_y$ the region $s \sim \sigma_y^2$. Performing in the integral $J_z$ the substitution $s \rightarrow 2\sigma_z^2 s$ and in the integral $J_y$ the substitution $s \rightarrow 2\sigma_y^2/s$ one gets $$\begin{aligned}
&& J_z \simeq \frac{\sigma_z}{\sqrt{2+\delta_y}\sigma_y}
\int_{0}^{\infty}\frac{ds}{((s+1)\delta_z+1)\sqrt{s(1+\delta_z)+2+\delta_z}}
\nonumber \\
&& = \frac{2}{\sqrt{2+\delta_y}}\frac{\Delta_z}{\sigma_y}\arctan
\frac{1}{\sqrt{\delta_z(2+\delta_z)}};
\nonumber \\
&& J_y \simeq \frac{\Delta_z}{\sigma_y}
\int_{0}^{\infty}\frac{ds}{((s+1)(\delta_y+1)+s)\sqrt{(s+1)\delta_y+s}}
\nonumber \\
&& = \frac{2}{\sqrt{2+\delta_y}}\frac{\Delta_z}{\sigma_y}\arctan
\frac{1}{\sqrt{\delta_y(2+\delta_y)}};
\nonumber \\
&& J_{-}=\sqrt{1+\delta_z}\sqrt{1+\delta_y}(J_z+J_y)
\nonumber \\
&& =
\frac{2\sqrt{1+\delta_z}\sqrt{1+\delta_y}}{\sqrt{2+\delta_y}}
\frac{\Delta_z}{\sigma_y}
\left(\arctan \frac{1}{\sqrt{\delta_z(2+\delta_z)}}+\arctan
\frac{1}{\sqrt{\delta_y(2+\delta_y)}} \right).
\label{6.5}\end{aligned}$$ In the case $\delta_{z,y} \ll 1,~ \Delta_z \ll \sigma_y$ this formula is consistent with Eq.(\[6.3\]).
Now we go over to the case of the displaced beams. For enough large displacement of the beams the formulas (\[5.7\]) and (\[5.23\]) are valid. So the intermediate case is of interest. As an example we consider the case $\sigma_y^2 \gg z_0^2 \gg
\sigma_z^2+\Delta_z^2,~y_0^2 \ll \sigma_y^2$. In this case the contribution to the integral in (\[5.4\]) gives the interval $\Sigma_y^2 \ll t \sim z_0^{-2} \ll \Sigma_z^2$. Keeping the main terms of decomposition over $t\Sigma_z^{-2}\ll 1$ and $t\Sigma_y^{-2}\gg 1$ we have $$J \simeq \frac{1}{\Sigma_z} \int_{0}^{\infty}\exp \left( z_0^2
\Sigma_z^2-z_0^2 t
\right)\frac{dt}{\sqrt{t}}=\frac{\sqrt{\pi}}{z_0
\Sigma_z}\exp(z_0^2 \Sigma_z^2).
\label{6.6}$$ Under these conditions (${\bf x}_0^2 \ll \sigma_y^2$) the contribution into the integral for $J_{-}$ in (\[5.8\])of the term in the function $G(s_1, s_2, {\bf x}_0 )$ Eq.(\[4.20\]) in the square brackets containing $b_1b_2/B$ is defined by the function $J_y$ in Eq.(\[6.5\]) to within the terms $\sim
z_0/\sigma_y$. In the term containing $a_1a_2/A$ (which we denote by $J_{-}^{(z)}$) the main contribution gives the summand $z_0^2a^2/A^2$ in the interval $\sigma_y^2 \gg s_{1,2} \sim z_0^2
\gg \sigma_z^2$ where $$a_{1,2} \simeq \frac{1}{s_{1,2}},\quad b_{1,2} \simeq
\frac{1}{2\sigma_y^2},\quad A \simeq a, \quad B \simeq
\frac{1}{\sigma_y^2}+\frac{1}{2\Delta_y^2}.
\label{6.7}$$ As a result we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
&& J_{-}^{(z)}({\bf x}_0) \simeq
\frac{z_0^2}{2\Sigma_z\Sigma_y\sigma_y^2}\sqrt{\frac{b}{B}}
e^{d_z} \int_{0}^{\infty}\frac{ds_1}{s_1^{3/2}}
\int_{0}^{\infty}\exp\left(-z_0^2\left(
\frac{1}{s_1}+\frac{1}{s_2} \right)\right)\frac{ds_2}{s_2^{3/2}}
\nonumber \\
&& =\pi \frac{\Delta_z}{\sigma_y}
\frac{\sqrt{1+\delta_z}\sqrt{1+\delta_y}}{\sqrt{2+\delta_y}}e^{d_z},
\nonumber \\
&& J-J_{-} \simeq \sqrt{\frac{\pi}{d_z}}e^{d_z}h(z_0),\quad
d_z=z_0^2\Sigma_z^2 ,
\nonumber \\
&& h(z_0)=1-\frac{\sqrt{\pi(1+\delta_y)}}{\sqrt{2(2+\delta_y)}}
\frac{z_0}{\sigma_y}\left(
1+\frac{2}{\pi}\arctan\frac{1}{\sqrt{\delta_y(2+\delta_y)}}\right).
\label{6.8}\end{aligned}$$ It should be noted that for the flat beams the probability of radiation as a function of distance between beams (for the considered interval) decreases more slowly $\propto 1/\sqrt{d_z}$ than for the round beams given in Eq.(\[5.19\]) $$dw_{\gamma}^{fl}\simeq
4N_cN_r\frac{\alpha^3}{\pi}\lambda_c^2\Sigma_z\Sigma_y\frac{\varepsilon'}{\varepsilon}
\frac{d\omega}{\omega}\left( v-\frac{2}{3}\right)\left[
e^{-d_z}\ln
\frac{m}{\Sigma_z}+\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\frac{\pi}{d_z}}h(z_0)\right].
\label{6.9}$$ Compensation in the difference $J-J_{-}$ begins in the region $z_0 \sim \sigma_y+\Delta_y$ were Eq.(\[6.8\]) is not valid and one have to use more accurate Eq.(\[5.8\]). In the region $z_0
\gg \sigma_y+\Delta_y$ the probability of radiation decreases as $1/z_0^4$ according to Eqs.(\[4.4\]), (\[5.7\]), (\[5.23\]) provided that one can neglect the exponential term in the square brackets in Eq.(\[6.9\]) (compare with Eq.(\[5.19\])) $$dw_{\gamma}^{fl}(z_0) \simeq
2N_cN_r\frac{\alpha^3}{\pi}\frac{\lambda_c^2
\sigma_y^2}{z_0^4}\frac{\varepsilon'}{\varepsilon} \left(
v-\frac{2}{3}\right)\frac{d\omega}{\omega}, \quad z_0 \gg y_0.
\label{6.10}$$
Observation of beam-size effect
===============================
Above we calculated the incoherent bremsstrahlung spectrum at collision of electron and positron beams with finite transverse dimensions. This spectrum differs from spectrum found previously in [@BKS1], [@BD], [@KPS] because here (in contrast to previous papers) we subtract the coherent contribution. In general expression for correction to the probability of photon emission (\[3.11\]) the subtraction term is $F^{(2)}(\omega,
\zeta)$. For the coaxial beams for numerical calculation it is convenient to use Eqs.(\[4.9\]), (\[4.19\]) and (\[4.20\]). In the last equation one have to put $y_0=z_0=0$. In the case of collision of narrow beams the subtraction term in the bremsstrahlung spectrum (\[5.7\]) is $J_{-}$. The dimensions of beams in the experiment [@exp1] were $\sigma_z=\Delta_z=24~\mu m, \sigma_y=\Delta_y=450~\mu m$, so this is the case of flat beams. The estimate for this case (\[6.5\]) gives $J_{-} \simeq (4/3\sqrt{3})\pi \sigma_z/\sigma_y
\ll 1$. This term is much smaller than other terms in (\[5.7\]). This means that for this case the correction to the spectrum calculated in [@BKS1] is very small.
The result of calculation and VEPP4 (INP, Novosibirsk) data are presented in Fig.1 where the bremsstrahlung intensity spectrum $\omega d\sigma/d\omega$ is given in units $2\alpha r_0^2$ versus the photon energy in units of initial electron energy ($x=\omega/\varepsilon$). The upper curve is the standard QED spectrum, the three close curves below are calculated using Eqs.(\[4.9\]) and (\[4.19\]) for the different vertical dimensions of colliding beams (equal for two colliding beams $\sigma=\sigma_z=\Delta_z$):$\sigma=20~\mu m$ (bottom), $\sigma=24~\mu m$ (middle), $\sigma=27~\mu m$ (top) (this is just the 1-sigma dispersion for the beams used in the experiment). We want to emphasize that all the theoretical curves are calculated to within the relativistic accuracy (the discarded terms are of the order $m/\varepsilon$). It is seen that the effect of the small transverse dimensions is very essential in soft part of spectrum (at $\omega/\varepsilon = 10^{-4}$ the spectral curve diminishes in 25 %), while for $\omega/\varepsilon > 10^{-1}$ the effect becomes negligible. The data measured in [@exp1] are presented as circles (experiment in 1980) and as triangles (experiment in 1981) with 6 % systematic error as obtained in [@exp1] (while the statistical errors are negligible). This presentation is somewhat different from [@exp1]. It is seen that the data points are situated systematically below the theory curves but the difference is not exceed the 2-sigma level [@exp1]. It should be noted that this is true also in the hard part of spectrum where the beam-size effect is very small.
The last remark is connected with the radiative corrections (RC). The RC to the spectrum of double bremsstrahlung [@BG] (this was the normalization process) are essential (of the order 10 %) and were taken into account. The RC to the bremsstrahlung spectrum [@KL] are very small (less than 0.4 %) and may be neglected. It should be noted that the RC to the bremsstrahlung spectrum are insensitive to the effect of small transverse dimensions.
The dependence of bremsstrahlung spectrum on beams characteristics was measures specifically in [@exp1]. The first is the dependence of bremsstrahlung spectrum on vertical sizes of beams $\sigma_z$. It is calculated using Eqs.(\[4.9\]) and (\[4.19\]) for $\omega/\varepsilon = 10^{-3}$. The result is shown in units $2\alpha r_0^2$ in Fig.2. The data is taken from Fig.7 in [@exp1]. The second is the measurement of dependence of bremsstrahlung spectrum on the vertical displacement of beams $z_0$. It is calculated using Eqs.(\[5.4\]) and (\[5.8\]) for $\omega/\varepsilon = 10^{-3}$. Because of displacement it is necessary to normalize the spectrum on the luminosity $${\cal L}=N_c N_r\frac{\Sigma_z
\Sigma_y}{\pi}\exp(-z_0^2\Sigma_z^2),$$ see Eq.(\[4.3\]). This means that when we compare the bremsstrahlung process (where the beam-size effect is essential) with some other process like double bremsstrahlung used in [@exp1] (which is insensitive to the effect) we have to multiply the cross section of the last process by the luminosity ${\cal L}$. This is seen in estimate Eq.(\[6.9\]): after taking out the exponent $e^{-d_z}$ we have the luminosity as the external factor and in expression for ratio $N_{\gamma}/N_{2\gamma}$ (which was observed in [@exp1]) the cross section of double bremsstrahlung will be multiplied by the luminosity. After this operation the second term in square brackets will contain the combination $e^{d_z}h(z_0)/\sqrt{d_z}$ which grows exponentially with the displacement $z_0$ increase. The normalized bremsstrahlung spectrum is shown in units $2\alpha
r_0^2$ in Fig.3. So, the very fast (exponential) increase with $z_0$ is due to fast decrease with $z_0$ of the double bremsstrahlung probability for the displaced beams. The data is taken from Fig.8 in [@exp1]. It should be noted that in soft part of spectrum the dependence on photon energy $\omega$ is very weak. It is seen in these figures that there is quite reasonable agreement between theory and data just as in [@exp1]. This means that contribution of $J_{-}$ term which is calculated only in the present paper is relatively small.
One more measurement of beam-size effect was performed at HERA electron-proton collider (DESY, Germany) [@P]. The electron beam energy was $\varepsilon$=27.5 GeV, the proton beam energy was $\varepsilon_p$=820 GeV. The standard bremsstrahlung spectrum for this case is given by Eq.(\[5.6\]) where $q_{min}$ should be substituted: $$q_{min} \rightarrow q_{min}^D=\frac{\omega m^2 m_p}{4\varepsilon_p
\varepsilon \varepsilon'}, \label{7.1}$$ here $m_p$ is the proton mass. In this situation the characteristic length is $l_{f0}^D=1/q_{min}^D$ and at the photon energy $\omega=1$ GeV one has $l_{f0}^D \sim 2$ mm. Since the beam sizes at HERA are much smaller than this characteristic length, the beam-size effect can be observed at HERA. The parameters of beam in this experiment were (in our notation): $\sigma_z=\Delta_z=(50 \div 58) \mu m$, $\sigma_y=\Delta_y=(250
\div 290) \mu m$. In part of runs the displaced beams were used with $z_0=20~\mu m$ and $y_0=100~\mu m$. The bremsstrahlung intensity spectrum $\omega d\sigma/d\omega$ in units $2\alpha
r_0^2$ versus the photon energy in the units of initial electron energy ($x=\omega/\varepsilon$) for the HERA experiment is given in Fig.4. The upper curve is the standard QED spectrum. We calculated the spectrum with beam-size effect taken into account for three sets of beams parameters; the set 1: $\sigma_z=\Delta_z=50~\mu m, \sigma_y=\Delta_y=250~\mu m,
z_0=y_0=0$, the set 2: $\sigma_z=\Delta_z=50~\mu m,
\sigma_y=\Delta_y=250~\mu m, z_0=20 ~\mu m, y_0=0$, the set 3: $\sigma_z=\Delta_z=54~\mu m, \sigma_y=\Delta_y=250~\mu m,
z_0=y_0=0$. The result of calculation is seen as two close curves below, the top curve is for the set 3, while the bottom curve is actually two merged curves for the sets 1 and 2. Since the ratio of the vertical and the horizontal dimensions is not very small, the general formulas were used in calculation: for coaxial beams Eqs. (\[4.10\]) and (\[4.19\]),and for displaced beams Eqs. (\[4.13\]) and (\[4.19\]). It should be noted that the contribution of subtraction term (Eq.(\[4.19\])) is quite essential (more than 10%) for the beam parameters used at HERA. The data are taken from Fig.5c in [@P]. The errors are the recalculated overall systematic error given in [@P]. It is seen that there is a quite satisfactory agreement of theory and data. The final data are given in [@P] also as the averaged relative difference $\delta=(d\sigma_{QED}-d\sigma_{bs})/d\sigma_{QED}$ (where $d\sigma_{QED}$ is the standard QED spectrum, $\sigma_{bs}$ is the result of calculation with the beam-size effect taken into account) over the whole interval of photon energies (2-8 GeV), e.g. for the set 1 $\delta_{ex}=(3.28 \pm 0.7)\%$, for the set 2 $\delta_{ex}=(3.57 \pm 0.7)\%$, for the set 3 $\delta_{ex}=(3.06
\pm 0.7)\%$, [@P]. The averaged $<\delta>$ over the interval $0.07 \leq x \leq 0.28$ (or 1.95 GeV$ \leq \omega \leq$ 7.7 GeV) in our calculation are for the set 1 is $<\delta>$=2.69%, for the set 2 is $<\delta>$=2.65%, for the set 3 is $<\delta>$=2.54%. So, for these data there is also a satisfactory agreement of data and theory (at the 1-sigma level, except set 2 where the difference is slightly larger).
So, the beam-size effect discovered at BINP (Novosibirsk) was confirmed at DESY (Germany). Of course, more accurate measurement is desirable to verify that we entirely understand this mechanism of deviation from standard QED.
Conclusion
==========
Above the influence of the finite transverse size of the colliding beams on the incoherent bremsstrahlung process is investigated. Previously (see papers [@BKS1], [@BD], [@KPS], [@KSS]) for analysis of this effect an incomplete expression for the bremsstrahlung intensity spectrum was used because in it the subtraction was not fulfilled. It is necessary to carry out this subtraction for the extraction of pure fluctuation process which is just the incoherent bremsstrahlung. We implement this procedure in the present paper. We indicated the cases where the results without the subtraction term are qualitatively erroneous. The first this is the case when the transverse sizes of scattering beam are much smaller than the corresponding sizes of radiating beam. For coaxial round beams see e.g. Eq.(\[5.12\]) and for flat beams Eq.(\[6.4\]). In contrast to previous papers here we draw a conclusion that the bremsstrahlung cross section is determined by the transverse sizes of scattering beam.
The new qualitative result is deduced for the case when the displacement of beams is enough large. Then the square of momentum transfer dispersion, which determines the bremsstrahlung cross section, decreases with displacement increase faster than mean value the momentum transfer squared (see Eqs.(\[5.17\]), (\[5.23\])). As it was noted in Sec.7, it is necessary to normalize the spectrum on the luminosity for displaced beams. Then the bremsstrahlung cross section grows exponentially with displacement increase. This very fast (exponential) increase with $z_0$ is due to fast decrease with $z_0$ normalization process probability for displaced beams.
For Gaussian beams the expression for the bremsstrahlung spectrum is obtained in the form of double integrals convenient for numerical calculations (see Eqs.(\[4.9\]), (\[4.19\]) and (\[4.20\])).For soft part of spectrum we deduced the general expression for spectrum which is independent of minimal momentum transfer $q_{min}$ and is defined only by transverse size of beams (see Eqs.(\[5.3\]), (\[5.4\]) and (\[5.7\])-(\[5.8c\])).
The important feature of the considered beam-size effect is smooth decrease of radiation probability with growth of displacement of beams. For the flat beams we see in Eqs. (\[6.9\]), (\[6.10\]) that the main (logarithmic) term in expression for the probability decreases exponentially ($\propto \exp(-z_0^2\Sigma_z^2)$ as luminosity), but there is the specific long-range term $\propto
1/z_0$ which results in quite appreciable radiation probability even in the case when beam the displacement is large. This phenomenon may be helpful for tuning of high-energy electron-positron colliders. As an example we consider the “typical” collider were the beam energy is $\varepsilon=500~$GeV and the beam dimensions are equal and $\sigma_z=5 nm$ and $\sigma_y=100 nm$. The beam-size effect in this collider is very strong and for $x=10^{-3}$ the intensity spectrum is only $\sim
0.3$ part of the standard $\omega d\sigma_{QED}(\omega)/d\omega$. The dependence of bremsstrahlung probability on the displacement distance $z_0$ (in $nm$) is shown in Fig.5. It is calculated using Eqs. (\[5.6\])- \[5.8\]) for soft photons with $x=10^{-3}$ (the asymptotic formulas (\[6.9\]) are (\[6.10\]) are not enough accurate in this case). Actually the dependence on photon energy is contained in the external factor $(1-x)(v(x)-2/3)$. The curve in Fig.5 reflects the main features mentioned above. One can see that even for $z_0$=100 ($z_0=20~\sigma_z$) the cross section is $\sim 0.002$ part of very large bremsstrahlung probability at head-on collision of beams. So, measuring the radiation for displaced beams one can estimate magnitude of displacement of beams. This information may be useful for beam tuning.
[**Acknowledgments**]{} We would like to thank Prof. Krzysztof Piotrzkowsky for additional information about the HERA experiment. This work was supported in part by the Russian Fund of Basic Research under Grant 00-02-18007.
[99]{}
L. D. Landau and I. Ya. Pomeranchuk, Dokl.Akad.Nauk SSSR [**92**]{} (1953) 535, 735. See in English in [*The Collected Papers of L. D. Landau*]{}, Pergamon Press, 1965. V.N.Baier and V.M.Katkov, Sov.Phys.Doklady [**17**]{} (1973) 1068. V.M.Katkov and V.M.Strakhovenko, Sov.J.Nucl.Phys. [**25**]{} (1977) 660. V.M.Katkov and V.M.Strakhovenko, Sov.J.Nucl.Phys. [**32**]{} (1980) 551. V.M.Katkov and V.M.Strakhovenko, Sov.Phys.Doklady [**21**]{} (1976) 658. A.E.Blinov, A.E.Bondar, Yu.I.Eidelman et al., Phys.Lett. [**B113**]{} (1982) 423. V.N.Baier, V.M.Katkov,and V.M.Strakhovenko, Preprint INP 81-59, Novosibirsk 1981; Sov.J.Nucl.Phys. [**36**]{} (1982) 95. A.I.Burov and Ya.S.Derbenev, Preprint INP 82-07, Novosibirsk 1982. G.L.Kotkin, S.I.Polityko, and V.G.Serbo, Yad.Fiz. [**42**]{} (1985) 692, 925.\
G.L.Kotkin et al., Z.Phys. [**C39**]{} (1988) 61. G.L.Kotkin, V.G.Serbo, and A.Schiller, Int. J. Mod. Phys. [**A7**]{} (1992) 4707. V.N.Baier, V.M.Katkov, and V.M.Strakhovenko, phys.stat.sol.(b) [**149**]{} (1988) 403. V. N. Baier and V. M. Katkov, Sov. Phys. JETP, [**26**]{} (1968) 854; [**28**]{} (1969) 807. V.N.Baier, V.M.Katkov, and V.M.Strakhovenko, [*Electromagnetic Processes at High Energies in Oriented Single Crystals*]{}, World Scientific Publishing Co, Singapore, 1998. V.N.Baier, V.M.Katkov, and V.M.Strakhovenko, Sov. Phys. JETP, [**67**]{} (1988) 70. H.Bateman and A.Erdeélyi, [*Higher Transendental Functions*]{},Vol. 2, MC Graw-Hill Book Company, New York, Toronto, London, 1953. V.N.Baier and V.V.Geidt, Sov.Jour.Nucl.Phys., [**13**]{} (1971) 196. E.A.Kuraev, L.N.Lipatov, N.P.Merenkov and V.S.Fadin, Zh. Exp. Theor. Phys., [**65**]{} (1973) 2155. K.Piotrzkowski, Z.Phys. [**C67**]{} (1995) 577.
[**Figure captions**]{}
- [**Fig.1**]{} The bremsstrahlung intensity spectrum $\omega
d\sigma/d\omega$ in units $2\alpha r_0^2$ versus the photon energy in units of initial electron energy ($x=\omega/\varepsilon$) for VEPP4 experiment. The upper curve is the standard QED spectrum, the three close curves below are calculated for the different vertical dimensions of colliding beams (equal for two colliding beams $\sigma=\sigma_z=\Delta_z$):$\sigma=20~\mu m$ (bottom), $\sigma=24~\mu m$ (middle), $\sigma=27~\mu m$ (top). The data measured in [@exp1] are presented as circles (the experiment in 1980) and as triangles (the experiment in 1981) with 6 % systematic error as obtained in [@exp1].
- [**Fig.2**]{} The bremsstrahlung intensity spectrum $\omega
d\sigma/d\omega$ in units $2\alpha r_0^2$ versus the vertical sizes of beams $\sigma_z$ (in $\mu m$). The data taken from [@exp1].
- [**Fig.3**]{} The normalized to luminosity ${\cal L}$ the bremsstrahlung intensity spectrum $\omega d\sigma/d\omega$ in units $2\alpha r_0^2$ versus the vertical displacement of beams $z_0$ (in $\mu m$). The data taken from [@exp1].
- [**Fig.4**]{} The bremsstrahlung intensity spectrum $\omega d\sigma/d\omega$ in units $2\alpha r_0^2$ versus the photon energy in units of initial electron energy ($x=\omega/\varepsilon$) for the HERA experiment. The upper curve is the standard QED spectrum, the two close curves below are calculated with the beam-size effect taken into account: the bottom curve is actually two merged curves for sets 1 and 2 (the set 1 is $\sigma_z=\Delta_z=50~\mu m, \sigma_y=\Delta_y=250~\mu
m, z_0=y_0=0$, set 2 is $\sigma_z=\Delta_z=50~\mu m,
\sigma_y=\Delta_y=250~\mu m, z_0=20~\mu m,y_0=0$); while the top curve is for set 3 ($\sigma_z=\Delta_z=54~\mu m,
\sigma_y=\Delta_y=250~\mu m, z_0=y_0=0$). The data taken from Fig.5c in [@P].
- [**Fig.5**]{} The spectral intensity probability $\omega dw_{\gamma}/d\omega$ normalized to one particle in the beam in units $2\alpha
r_0^2\Sigma_z\Sigma_y/\pi$ versus the vertical displacement of beams $z_0$ (in $nm$).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We study the behaviour of a Hilbert geometry when going to infinity along a geodesic line. We prove that all the information is contained in the shape of the boundary at the endpoint of this geodesic line and have to introduce a regularity property of convex functions to make this link precise.\
The point of view is a dynamical one and the main interest of this article is in Lyapunov exponents of the geodesic flow.
author:
- Mickaël Crampon
bibliography:
- 'biblio.bib'
title: 'Lyapunov exponents in Hilbert geometry\'
---
Introduction
============
This article is meant to be a contribution to the understanding of Hilbert geometries, by a study of their behaviour when approaching infinity. Most of this work is part of my Ph.D. thesis, which can be found in various places on the Internet.\
Context
-------
A Hilbert geometry is a metric space $(\o,\d)$ where
- $\o$ is a *proper open convex set* of the real projective space $\R\P^n$, $n\geqslant2$; *proper* means there exists a projective hyperplane which does not intersect the closure of $\o$, or, equivalently, there is an affine chart in which $\o$ appears as a relatively compact set;
- $\d$ is the distance on $\o$ defined, for two distinct points $x,y$, by $$\d(x,y) =\frac{1}{2}|\log[a,b,x,y]|,$$ where $a$ and $b$ are the intersection points of the line $(xy)$ with the boundary $\partial \Omega$ and $[a,b,x,y]$ denotes the cross ratio of the four points : if we identify the line $(xy)$ with $\R\cup\{\infty\}$, it is defined by $[a,b,x,y]=\frac{|ax|/|bx|}{|ay|/|by|}$ .
![The Hilbert distance[]{data-label="fighilbert"}](dessins/hilbertdistance.ps)
These geometries had been introduced by Hilbert at the end of the nineteenth century as examples of spaces where lines would be geodesics, which one can see as a motivation for the fourth of his famous problems, which roughly consisted in finding all geometries satisfying this property.\
Different Hilbert geometries can have very different geometric behaviours. For example, the geometry defined by a triangle in $\R\P^2$ is isometric to the $2$-dimensional real space equipped with a norm whose ball is a regular hexagon [@delaharpe]; on the other side, the geometry defined by an ellipsoid is precisely the model that Beltrami proposed for hyperbolic geometry.\
Classifying Hilbert geometries happens to be a quite difficult task, but the global feeling is that any Hilbert geometry has an intermediate behaviour in between Euclidean and hyperbolic geometry. Most of the previous works attempted to determinate those Hilbert geometries which resembles more Euclidean or hyperbolic space:
- [@foertschkarlsson] $(\o,\d)$ is isometric to a normed vector space if and only if $\o$ is a simplex.
- [@cvv] [@vernicos] [@bernig] The following statements are equivalent:
- $\o$ is a polytope;
- $(\o,\d)$ is bi-Lipschitz equivalent to the Euclidean space;
- $(\o,\d)$ is quasi-isometric to the Euclidean space.
- [@cv] If $\o$ is strongly convex, that is, $\doo$ is of class $\C^2$ with positive definite Hessian, then $(\o,\d)$ is bi-Lipschitz equivalent to the hyperbolic space.
These results only consider polytopes or strongly convex sets and, as soon as we permit more irregularity or less symmetry, no global behaviour can be expected. Here we should recall the works of Yves Benoist who studied less regular Hilbert geometries, in particular those which admit compact quotients, called *divisible convex sets*. For the problem of classification we are concerned with here, the major achievement of Benoist is probably the characterization of Gromov-hyperbolic Hilbert geometries: they are those defined by quasi-symmetrically convex sets [@benoistqs]. About divisible convex sets, Benoist proved an hyperbolic/non hyperbolic alternative in [@benoistcv1]: if $\o$ is a divisible convex set, then the following are equivalent:
- $\o$ is strictly convex;
- $\doo$ is of class $\C^1$;
- $(\o,\d)$ is Gromov-hyperbolic.\
The goal of the present work is to get interested in all those forgotten Hilbert geometries which enjoy neither high regularity nor numerous symmetries, the strategy being the following: pick a geodesic ray (a line), follow this line to infinity and look at the geometry around it.\
Consider as an easy example the Hilbert geometry defined by a half disc, and call $a$ and $b$ the extremities of the diameter. Pick two distinct geodesic rays $c_1, c_2 : [0,+\infty) \longrightarrow \o $, ending at points $x_1$ and $x_2$ in $\doo$.
- Assume $x_1\not = x_2$. The distance between the two geodesic rays goes to infinity, except when both points $x_1$ and $x_2$ are inside the open segment $]ab[$, in which case one can parametrize the rays such that $$\lim_{t\to +\infty} \d(c_1(t),c_2(t)) = \frac{1}{2} |\log [a b x_1 x_2]|.$$
- Assume $x_1=x_2=:x$. If $x=a$ (or $x=b$), the distance between the two geodesic rays tends to some positive constant $d>0$, whose value depends on the parametrization; the smallest of which being $d = \frac{1}{2} |\log [(ab) D c_1 c_2]|$, where $D$ is the line tangent to the half-circle at $a$ (or $b$), and $[(ab) D c_1 c_2]$ denotes the cross-ratio of the four lines.\
In the other cases, one can parametrize the rays such that the distance $\d(c_1(t),c_2(t))$ decreases to $0$. Nevertheless, it does not go to $0$ at the same rate: if $x$ is in the (open) circular part, then $\d(c_1(t),c_2(t)) \sim e^{-t}$; if $x$ is in the flat part $]ab[$ then $\d(c_1(t),c_2(t)) \sim e^{-2t}$.
These simple remarks show, first, that the boundary at infinity given by asymptotic geodesic rays does not correspond to the geometric boundary $\doo$ and, second, that the geometry when going to infinity heavily depends on the point we are aiming at. This work studies this second point in details.\
For what concerns the first one, notice that geodesic and geometric boundaries will correspond if and only if the convex set is strictly convex and has $\C^1$ boundary. For polytopes or even more general non-strictly convex sets, another problem arises: there can be geodesics which are not lines. In these cases, the best thing is probably to look at the Busemann boundary, as made in [@walsh], which contains the geometric and geodesic boundaries.\
\
What we study here
------------------
In this article, we focus on those Hilbert geometries defined by a strictly convex set with $\C^1$ boundary. Since our aim is to look at the geometry around a specific geodesic line going to a point $x\in\doo$, we could equivalently assume that $x$ is an extremal point of $\o$ and that $\doo$ is $\C^1$ at $x$. This assumption is then not a very restrictive one, and we can illustrate most of the interesting behaviours; furthermore, it allows us to use and make connections with some differential and dynamical objects that I already used in a previous work [@crampon]. In section \[extension\], we explain how to get rid of this restriction and extend the main achievements.\
So we want to understand how the distance $\d(c_1(t),c_2(t))$ between two well parametrized asymptotic geodesic rays decreases to $0$ when $t$ goes to infinity. In particular, as suggested by the example of the half-disc, we would like to see when the decreasing is exponential, and in this case, to determinate the exponential rate.\
In the case of a strongly convex set, it is easy to see, as we already saw in the case of the half-disc, that $\d(c_1(t),c_2(t))\sim e^{-t}$, as in the hyperbolic space. The main result of this article about this is probably corollary \[maincorollary2\], that says that all these informations are enclosed in the shape of the boundary at the endpoint.\
I should confess that the original motivation of this work is not of a geometric nature but of a dynamical one. It is inspired by proposition 5.4 of [@crampon], which I wanted to generalize in order to understand Lyapunov exponents, decomposition and manifolds, associated to the geodesic flow of the Hilbert metric. The text is then written in this spirit, and the geodesic flow is the main object that is studied.\
The geodesic flow is the flow $\ph^t$ defined on the homogeneous tangent bundle $H\o = T\o \smallsetminus \{0\} / \R_+^*$, which consists of pairs $(x,[\xi])$, where $x$ is a point of $\o$ and $[\xi]$ a direction tangent to $\o$ at $x$. To find the image of a point $w=(x,[\xi])\in H\o$ by $\ph^t$, one follows the geodesic line $c_{w}$ leaving $x$ in the direction $[\xi]$, and one has $\ph^t(w) = (c_{w}(t), [c_w'(t)])$.\
The geodesic flow is generated by the vector field $X: H\o \longrightarrow TH\o$. If we choose an affine chart and a Euclidean norm $|\ .\ |$ on it in which $\o$ appears as a bounded convex set, then $X$ is related to the generator $X^e$ of the Euclidean geodesic flow by $X=m X^e$, where $m:H\o \longrightarrow \R$ is defined by $$m(x,[\xi]) = \frac{2}{\displaystyle\frac{1}{|xx^+|} + \frac{1}{|xx^-|}},$$ where $x^+$ and $x^-$ are the intersection points of the line $x+\R.\xi$ with the boundary $\doo$. In particular, we see that, under our hypothesis of $\C^1$ regularity of $\doo$, the function $m$ and the geodesic flow itself are of class $\C^1$.\
![The Finsler metric[]{data-label="figfinsler"}](dessins/finslermetric.ps)
This fact has to be related with the Finsler nature of the Hilbert metric. Indeed, the Hilbert metric is generated by a field of norms $F: T\o \longrightarrow \R$, with $$F(x,\xi) = \frac{|\xi|}{2} \left(\frac{1}{|xx^+|} + \frac{1}{|xx^-|}\right) = \frac{|\xi|}{m(x,[\xi])}.$$ By *generated*, we mean that the Hilbert distance between two points $x,y\in\o$ is given by $$\d(x,y) = \inf_{c : x\to y} \int_{0}^{1} F(\dot c(t))\ dt,$$ where the infimum is taken with respect to all $\C^1$ curves $c: [0,1] \longrightarrow \o$ such that $c(0)=x$, $c(1)=y$.\
\
Contents
--------
The geodesic flow of Hilbert metrics has been studied by Yves Benoist in [@benoistcv1] and by myself in [@crampon]. In the second section of this article, I recall the dynamical objects I had used in [@crampon] and the fundamental results about them; in particular, the existence of stable and unstable distributions, so that $TH\o$ admits a $\ph^t$-invariant decomposition $$TH\o = \R.X \oplus E^s \oplus E^u.$$ Stable and unstable distributions are characterized by the fact that, for a stable (resp. unstable) vector $Z\in TH\o$, the norm $\|d\ph^t(Z)\|$ decreases to $0$ when $t$ goes to $+\infty$ (resp. $-\infty$); the Finsler norm $\|\ .\ \|$ on $H\o$ that we consider here is naturally related to the Finsler metric on $\o$ (see section \[metriconHo\]).\
These two distributions are tangent to the stable and unstable foliations $W^s$ and $W^u$ of $H\o$. If one takes a point $w_0 = (x_0,[\xi_0])\in H\o$, its orbit in the future $\{\ph^t(w_0)\}_{t\geqslant 0}$ projects on the geodesic ray $c=\{x_0+\l \xi_0\}_{\l\in\R}$; the orbits, in the future, of the points $w$ in the leaf $W^s(w_0)$ passing through $w_0$ of the stable foliation, project to those geodesic rays $c$ such that $\d(c(t),c_0(t))$ tends to $0$ when $t$ goes to $+\infty$.\
The goal is then to understand how the norm $\|d\ph^t(Z)\|$ of a stable vector $Z$ goes to $0$ when $t$ goes to $+\infty$; results about distances between geodesic rays will follow by integration.\
The third and fourth parts look at the exponential growth rate of these norms $\|d\ph^t(Z)\|$, for a stable vector $Z$. This is captured by the following limit, when it exists: $$\chi(Z) = \lim_{t\to+\infty} \frac{1}{t} \log \|d\ph^t(Z)\|;$$ the quantity $\chi(Z)$ is called the Lyapunov exponent of the vector $Z$. These numbers are investigated in section 3, and section 4 shows that all the information about them is contained in the shape of the boundary at the endpoint of the geodesic ray that had been chosen. This needs the introduction of a new regularity property that we call *approximate regularity*, whose study requires some time in section 4.\
In section 5, we state the main consequences about the asymptotic behaviour of distances when following a geodesic line and explain how to extend it to the nonregular cases. We also show how Lyapunov submanifolds of the geodesic flow appear very naturally in our context.\
The sixth part is dedicated to examples, with a focus on divisible convex sets, while the last one gives connections with volume entropy, whose study might benefit from the present work.
*Unless it is explicitly stated, in particular in sections \[extension\] and \[sectionvolentropy\], the convex set $\o$ is always assumed to be strictly convex with $\C^1$ boundary.*
Foulon’s dynamical formalism and consequences
=============================================
Dynamical decomposition
-----------------------
In [@crampon], I explained why the dynamical objects introduced by Patrick Foulon in [@foulon86] to study smooth second order differential equations were still relevant and useful in the case of a Hilbert geometry defined by a strictly convex set with $\C^1$ boundary. I briefly recall them here, and refer the reader to [@crampon], [@foulon86] or the appendix of [@fouloneng].\
All the operators, functions or vector fields that we will consider are $C_X$-regular, or equivalently $C_{X^e}$-regular. That means that they are smooth in the direction $X$ of the flow. This is the essential regularity that we need because Hilbert geometries are flat geometries. Remark that this notion makes sense for those objects which are only defined along one specific orbit of the flow.\
The *vertical bundle* $VH\o$ is the smooth subbundle of vertical vectors, which are tangent to the fibers; it is defined as $VH\o=\ker d\pi$, and has dimension $n-1$. By the letter $Y$, we will always denote a $C_X$-vertical vector field. The *vertical operator* $v_X$ is well defined (this has to be checked) on $TH\o$ by $$v_X(X)=v_X(Y)=0,\ v_X([X,Y])=-Y,\ Y\in VH\o.$$ The operators $v_X$ and $v_{X^e}$ are related by $$v_X=mv_X^e.$$
The *horizontal operator* $H_{X}: VH\o \longrightarrow TH\o$ is the $C_X$-linear operator defined by $$H_{X}(Y) = -[X,Y] - \frac{1}{2} v_{X} ([X,[X,Y]]),\ Y\in VHM.$$ The *horizontal bundle* $h^XH\o$ is the $C_X$-regular subbundle defined as the image of $VHM$ by $H_X$. An important property is the one which relates the operators $H_X$ and $H_{X^e}$: $$\label{horizontal} H_{X}(Y) = mH_{X^e}(Y) + L_Y m X^e + \frac{1}{2}L_{X^e} m Y.$$
The tangent bundle of $H\o$ admits then a $C_X$-regular decomposition into $$TH\o = VH\o \oplus h^XH\o \oplus \R.X,$$ which is the counterpart of the Levi-Civita connection for Riemannian metrics.\
The $C_X$-linear operator $J^X: VH\o \oplus h^XH\o \longrightarrow VH\o \oplus h^XH\o$ is defined as $J_X=v_X$ on $h^XH\o$ and $J^X=-H_X$ on $h^XH\o$. It provides a pseudo-complex structure on $VH\o \oplus h^XH\o$: $J^X$ satisfies $J^X \circ J^X=-Id$ and exchanges $VH\o$ and $h^XH\o$.
Dynamical derivation and parallel transport {#sectionparom}
-------------------------------------------
As an analog of the covariant derivation along $X$, the *dynamical derivation* $D^{X}$ is the $C_X$-differential operator of order 1 defined by $$D^{X}(X)=0, \ D^{X}(Y)=\displaystyle -\frac{1}{2} v_{X}([X,[ X,Y]]), \ [D^{X}, H_{X}]= 0,\ Y\in VH\o.$$
Being a $C_X$-differential operator of order 1 means that for any function $f\in C_X$, $$D^{X}(fZ)=fD^{X}(Z) + (L_{X}f) Z.$$ On $VH\o$, we can write $$\label{dxhori} D^{X}(Y) = H_{X}(Y) +[X,Y].$$ The operators $D^X$ and $D^{X^e}$ are related by $$\label{formuladerivation} D^{X}=mD^{X^e} + \frac{1}{2} (L_{X^e} m)Id.$$
A vector field $Z$ is said to be *parallel* along $X$, or along any orbit of the flow if $D^{X}(Z)=0$. This allows us to consider the *parallel transport* of a $C_X$-vector field along an orbit: given $Z(w)\in T_wH\o$, the parallel transport of $Z(w)$ along $\ph.w$ is the parallel vector field $Z$ along the orbit $\ph.w$ of $w$ whose value at $w$ is $Z(w)$; the parallel transport of $Z(w)$ at $\ph^t(w)$ is the vector $Z(\ph^t(w))=T^t(Z(w)) \in T_{\ph^t(w)}H\o$. Since $D^X$ commutes with $J^X$, the parallel transport also commutes with $J^X$. If $X$ is the generator of a Riemannian geodesic flow, the projection on the base of this transport coincides with the usual parallel transport along geodesics.\
We can relate the parallel transports with respect to $X^e$ and $X$, as stated in the next lemma. This lemma is essential in this work and will be used in many different parts.
\[horver\] Let $w\in HM$ and pick a vertical vector $Y(w)\in V_wHM$. Denote by $Y$ and $Y^e$ its parallel transports with respect to $X$ and $X^e$ along the orbit $\ph.w$. Let $h=J^X(Y)$ and $h^e=J^{X^e}(Y^e)$ be the corresponding parallel transports of $h(w)=J^X(Y(w))$ and $h^e(w)=J^{X^e}(Y^e(w))$ along $\ph.w$. Then $$Y= \left(\frac{m(w)}{m}\right)^{1/2} Y^e$$ and $$h= -L_Ym\ X^e +(m(w)m)^{1/2}\ h^e - \frac{m(w)}{m}\ L_{X^e}m\ Y^e.$$
We look for the unique vector field $Y$ along $\ph.w$ such that $D^{X}(Y)=0$ and which takes the value $Y(w)$ at the point $w$. Equation (\[formuladerivation\]) gives $$D^{X}(Y)=mD^{X^e}(Y) + \frac{1}{2} L_{X}(\log m) Y.$$ Assume we can write $Y=fY^e$ along $\ph.w$. Then $f$ is the solution of the equation $$L_{X} (\log f) + \frac{1}{2} L_{X}(\log m)=0,$$ which, with $f(w)=1$, gives $$f( \ph^t(w))=\left(\frac{m(w)}{m(\ph^t(w))}\right)^{1/2}.$$ Finally, $$\label{tut}
Y(\ph^t w)= \left(\frac{m(w)}{m(\ph^t(w))}\right)^{1/2} Y^e(\ph^t w).$$
Now, using (\[dxhori\]), we have $$h=H_{X}(Y)=-[X,Y]+D^{X}(Y)=-[X,Y]$$ along $\ph.w$. Hence, from (\[tut\]), we have
$$\begin{array}{rcl}
h=-[ X,Y] & = & -L_Ym\ X^e-m\ [X^e,Y]\\\\
& = & -L_Ym\ X^e-m\ [X^e, \frac{m(w)}{m}Y^e] \\\\
& =& -L_Ym\ X^e -(m(w)m)^{1/2}\ [X^e,Y^e] + m(w) m\ L_{X^e}(m^{-1})\ Y^e\\\\
&= & -L_Ym\ X^e +(m(w)m)^{1/2}\ h^e - \frac{m(w)}{m}\ L_{X^e}m\ Y^e.
\end{array}$$
Metrics on $H\o$ {#metriconHo}
----------------
Dynamical flows are usually studied on Riemannian manifolds, and most of the definitions or theorems are stated in this context. In the case of geodesic flows on complete Riemannian manifolds $M$, $HM$ inherits a natural Riemannian metric from the base metric. In our case, we define a Finsler metric $\|\ .\ \|$ on $H\o$, using the decomposition $TH\o = \R.X \oplus h^{X}H\o \oplus VH\o$: if $Z=aX+h+Y$ is some vector of $TH\o$, we set $$\label{metriconHM} \|Z\| = \left(|a|^2+\frac{1}{2}\left((F(d\pi h))^2+(F(d\pi J^{X} (Y)))^2\right)\right)^{1/2}.$$ Since the last decomposition is only $C_X$-regular in general, $\|\ .\ \|$ is also only $C_X$-regular. It allows us to define the length of a $\C^1$ curve $c: [0,1] \rightarrow H\o$ as $$l(c) = \int_{0}^{1} \|\dot{c}(t)\|\ dt.$$ It induces a continuous metric $d_{H\o}$ on $H\o$: the distance between two points $v,w \in H\o$ is the minimal length for $\|\ .\ \|$ of a $\C^1$ curve joining $v$ and $w$.\
Remark that, if $\o\subset\R\P^2$, then $\|\ .\ \|$ is actually a $C_X$-regular Riemannian metric on $H\o$. When $\o$ is an ellipsoid, we recover the classical Riemannian metric. In any case, $\|\ .\ \|$ is obviously $J^{X}$-invariant on $h^{X}H\o \oplus VH\o$.\
Stable and unstable distributions
---------------------------------
In [@crampon], I showed why the subbundles $E^u$ and $E^s$ given by $$E^u=\{Y+J^{X}(Y),\ Y\in VH\o\},\ E^s=\{Y-J^{X}(Y),\ Y\in VH\o\},$$ naturally appeared in the study of the geodesic flow. Recall the
\[dd\] $E^u$ and $E^s$ are invariant under the flow, and if $Z^s\in E^s,\ Z^u\in E^u$, then $$d\ph^t(Z^u)= e^{t} T^t(Z^u),\ d\ph^t(Z^s)= e^{-t} T^t(Z^s).$$ The operator $J^{X}$ exhanges $E^u$ and $E^s$ and $$d\ph^t J^{X} (Z^s) = e^{2t} J^{X} (d\ph^t Z^s).$$
Remark that the second equality is just a consequence of the fact that $J^{X}$ commutes with the parallel transport: we have $$d\ph^t J^{X} (Z^s) = e^{t} T^t J^{X} (Z^s) = e^{t} J^{X} T^t(Z^s) = e^{2t} J^{X} (d\ph^t Z^s).$$ The tangent space $TH\o$ splits into $$TH\o = \R.X \oplus E^s \oplus E^u;$$ this decomposition will be called the *Anosov decomposition*. The main result about the distributions $E^u$ and $E^s$ is the following
\[stable\] Let $Z^s\in E^s,\ Z^u\in E^u$. Then $t\longmapsto \|d\ph^t Z^s\|$ is a strictly decreasing bijection from $\R$ onto $(0,+\infty)$, and $t\longmapsto \|d\ph^t Z^u\|$ is a strictly increasing bijection from $\R$ onto $(0,+\infty)$.
In what follows, the image of a point $w = (x,[\xi]) \in H\o$ under the flow is denoted by $\ph^t(w)= (x_t,[\xi_t])$, for $t\in\R$. We first need a
\[equivalents\] We have $$\frac{|x_tx^-|}{|x_tx^+|}=e^{2t}\frac{|xx^-|}{|xx^+|}.$$ In particular the following asymptotic expansion holds: $$|x_tx^+| = \frac{|xx^+|^2}{m(w)}e^{-2t} + O(e^{-4t}).$$
We have $d_{\o}(x,x_t) = t$, which implies $$e^{2t} = \frac{|xx^-|}{|xx^+|} \frac{|x_tx^-|}{|x_tx^+|},$$ and yields the result.
In order to make computations easier, we will need the following. [*A chart adapted to the point $w\in HM$ or to its orbit $\ph.w$*]{} is an affine chart where the intersection $T_{x^+}\partial\o\cap T_{x^-}\partial\o$ is contained in the hyperplane at infinity, and a Euclidean structure on it so that the line $(xx^+)$ is orthogonal to $T_{x^+}\partial\o$ and $T_{x^-}\partial\o$.
![A good chart at $w=(x,[\xi])$[]{data-label="figgoodchart"}](dessins/goodchart.ps)
\[transport\] In a good chart at $w=(x,[\xi])$ there exists a constant $C(w)$ such that, for any $Z(w) \in E^s(w)\cup E^u(w)$, $$\|T^t Z(w)\|= C(w) (|x_tx^+||x_tx^-|)^{1/2}\left(\frac{1}{|x_ty_t^+|}+\frac{1}{|x_ty_t^-|}\right),$$ where $y_t^+$ and $y_t^-$ denote the points of intersection of the line $\{x + \l d\pi(Z(w))\}_{\l\in\R}$ with $\doo$ (see figure \[parallelfigure\]).
![Parallel transport on $H\o$[]{data-label="parallelfigure"}](dessins/transport.ps)
Assume for example that $Z(w)\in E^u(w)$. Then $Z(w) = h(w) + J^X(h(w))$, for some horizontal vector $h(w)$. Let $h$ denote the parallel transport of $h(w)$, which is defined on the orbit $\ph.w$. We have $T^t Z = h + J^X(h)$ on $\ph.w$. In a good chart at $w$, lemma \[horver\] gives $$d\pi(h) = (m(w)m)^{1/2}\ d\pi(h^e);$$ in this case, since the chart is adapted, $h^e$ is just the Euclidean parallel transport of $h(w)$ along $\ph.w$. In particular, $|d\pi(h^e)| = |d\pi(h^e(w))|=|d\pi(h(w))|$. Hence $$\|T^t Z(w)\| = F(d\pi(h(\ph^t w)))= \frac{|d\pi(h(w))| m(w)}{2} m(\ph^t(w))^{1/2}\left(\frac{1}{|x_ty_t^+|}+\frac{1}{|x_ty_t^-|}\right).$$
We can now give a
Choose a stable vector $Z^s(w)\in E^s(w)$ and a chart adapted to $w=(x,[\xi])$. In that chart, the vector $d\pi(T^t Z^s(w))$ is orthogonal to $x_tx^+$ with respect to the Euclidean structure on the chart; hence so are $x_ty_t^+$ and $x_ty_t^-$. We have from lemma \[dd\], $$\|d\ph^t Z^s(w)\| = e^{-t} \|T^t Z^s(w)\|.$$ Lemma \[equivalents\] gives $$|x_tx^-| = e^{2t}|x_tx^+|\frac{|xx^-|}{|xx^+|},$$ hence from lemma \[transport\], there is a constant $C'(w)$ such that $$\|d\ph^t Z^s(w)\| = C'(w)\left(\frac{|x_tx^+|}{|x_ty_t^+|}+\frac{|x_tx^+|}{|x_ty_t^-|}\right)$$ The strict convexity of $\o$ implies that the function $h: t \mapsto \frac{|x_tx^+|}{|x_ty_t^+|} + \frac{|x_tx^+|}{|x_ty_t^-|}$ is strictly decreasing on $\R$, the $\C^1$ regularity of $\partial\o$ that $\lim_{t\to +\infty} h(t)=0$ and the strict convexity of $\o$ that $\lim_{t\to +\infty} h(t)=+\infty$.\
The same computation holds for $t \mapsto \|d\ph^{-t}(Z^u)\|$ for $Z^u\in E^u$.
Horopsheres, stable and unstable manifolds
------------------------------------------
*Horospheres* can be defined for *any* Hilbert geometry $(\o,\d)$. Pick a point $x^+\in\doo$. For any point $x\in\o$, call $(xx^+):\R\longrightarrow \o$ the geodesic line such that $(xx^+)(0)=x,\ (xx^+)(+\infty)=x^+$. Given a point $x\in\o$, there is for each point $y\in\o$ a unique time $t_y\in\R$ such that $$\lim_{t\to+\infty} \d((xx^+)(t), (yx^+)(t+t_0)) = \inf_{z\in(yx^+)} \left\{\lim_{t\to+\infty} \d((xx^+)(t), (zx^+)(t))\right\}.$$ The horosphere $\H_{x^+}(x)$ through $x$ about $x^+$ is the set of such “minimal points”: $$\H_{x^+}(x) = \{(yx^+)(t_y),\ y\in\o\}.$$ This is a continuous submanifold of $\o$.\
Come back now to a strictly convex set $\o$ with $\C^1$ boundary. In this case, as in the hyperbolic space, horospheres can also be defined as level sets of the Busemann functions $b_{x^+}(x,.)$ given by $$b_{x^+}(x,y) = \lim_{p\to x^+} \d(x,p) - \d(y,p).$$ For $w=(x,[\xi])\in H\o$, let us denote by $\H_w = \H_{x^+}(x)$ the horosphere based at $x^+=\ph^{+\infty}(w)$ and passing through $x$. The horosphere $\H_{\sigma w}$, where $\sigma: (x,[\xi])\in H\o \longmapsto (x,[-\xi])$, is the horosphere $\H_{x^-}(x)$ the horosphere based at $x^-=\ph^{-\infty}(w)$ and passing through $x$.\
The *stable and unstable manifolds* at $w_0=(x_0,[\xi_0])\in H\o$ are the $\C^1$ submanifolds of $H\o$ defined as $$W^s(w_0)=\{w=(x,[xw_0^+])\in H\o,\ x\in \H_{w}\},$$ $$W^u(w_0)=\{w=(x,[w_0^-x])\in H\o,\ x\in H_{\sigma w}\}.$$
![Stable and unstable manifolds[]{data-label="stablemanifold"}](dessins/varietestable.ps)
We can check (see [@benoistcv1]) that $$W^s(w_0)=\{w\in H\o,\ \lim_{t\to +\infty} \d(\pi\ph^t(w),\pi\ph^t(w_0))=0\} = \{w\in H\o,\ \lim_{t\to +\infty} d_{H\o}(\ph^t(w),\ph^t(w_0))=0\} ,$$ $$W^u(w_0)=\{w\in H\o,\ \lim_{t\to -\infty} \d(\pi\ph^t(w),\pi\ph^t(w_0))=0\} =\{w\in H\o,\ \lim_{t\to -\infty} d_{H\o}(\ph^t(w),\ph^t(w_0))=0\} .$$ (Recall that $\pi: H\o \longrightarrow \o$ denotes the bundle projection.) As a corollary of proposition \[stable\], we have:
The distributions $E^s$ and $E^u$ are the tangent spaces to $W^s$ and $W^u$.
\[rmkdistance\] To deduce results on $(\o,\d)$ from results on $(H\o,d_{H\o})$, it is useful to remark that the projection $\pi:H\o\longrightarrow \o$ send isometrically stable and unstable manifolds equipped with the metric induced by $\|\ .\ \|$, on horospheres, with the metric induced by $\d$.
Lyapunov exponents
==================
The goal now is to understand for a given tangent vector $Z\in TH\o$ the asymptotic behaviour of the norms $\|d\ph^t Z\|$ when $t$ goes to $\pm\infty$. In particular, we want to catch some exponential behaviour by looking at the limits, when they exist, $$\chi^{\pm}(Z)=\limsup_{t\to \pm\infty} \frac{1}{t} \log \|d\ph^t(Z)\|.$$ When $\chi^{\pm}(Z)\not= 0$, this means that $\|d\ph^t Z\|$ has exponential behaviour when $t\to\pm\infty$: for any $\epsilon>0$, there exists some $C_{\epsilon}>0$ such that, whenever $t>0$, $$C_{\epsilon}^{-1} e^{\pm(\chi^{\pm}(Z)-\epsilon) t} \leqslant \|d\ph^t(Z)\| \leqslant C_{\epsilon} e^{\pm(\chi^{\pm}(Z)+\epsilon)t}.$$ These two numbers ${\chi}^+(Z)$ and $\chi^-(Z)$ are the forward and backward Lyapunov exponents of the vector $Z$ and they are the main characters of the two next sections.
Symmetries
----------
There are lots of symmetries in our geodesic flow that we should exploit to reduce our study.\
First, thanks to the Anosov decomposition $TH\o = \R.X \oplus E^s \oplus E^u$, it is enough to study the asymptotic behaviour of the norms $\|d\ph^t Z\|$ for $Z\in E^s$ or $Z\in E^u$; of course, $d\ph^t X=X$, and we can recover the asymptotic behaviour of any vector $Z$ by decomposing it with respect to the Anosov decomposition.\
Second, thanks to the reversibility of the Hilbert metric, it suffices to study what occurs when $t$ goes to $+\infty$ by using the *flip map*: it is the $\C^{\infty}$ involutive diffeomorphism $\sigma$ defined by $$\begin{array}{lclc}
\sigma:& H\o & \longrightarrow & H\o\\
& w=(x,[\xi]) & \longmapsto & (x,[-\xi]).
\end{array}$$ The reversiblity of the Hilbert metric implies that $\sigma$ conjugates the flows $\ph^t$ and $\ph^{-t}$: $$\ph^{-t} = \sigma \circ \ph^t \circ \sigma.$$
\[flipmap\] The differential $d\sigma$ anticommutes with $J^X$, that is, $J^X\circ d\sigma = -d\sigma \circ J^X$. As a consequence, $\sigma$ preserves the decomposition $TH\o = \R.X \oplus h^XH\o \oplus VH\o$, is a $\|\ .\ \|$-isometry and exchanges stable and unstable distributions and foliations.
Clearly, $d\sigma(X)=-X$ and $d\sigma$ preserves $VH\o$. Now, just recall how $v_X$ is defined: for any $Y\in VH\o$, we have $v_X(X)=v_X(Y)=0$, and $v_X([X,Y])=-Y$, so $$d\sigma v_X(X)=v_X(d\sigma(X))=0=d\sigma v_X(Y)=v_X(d\sigma(Y)),$$ and $$v_X d\sigma([X,Y])=v_X ([d\sigma(X),d\sigma(Y)]) = v_X([-X,d\sigma(Y)] = d\sigma(Y) = -d\sigma v_X([X,Y]).$$ So $d\sigma\circ v_X = - v_X\circ d\sigma$. As for $H_X$: $$\begin{array}{rl}
d\sigma H_X(Y) = d\sigma (-[X,Y] - \displaystyle\frac{1}{2}v_X[X,[X,Y]]) & = -[d\sigma (X),d\sigma (Y)] + \displaystyle\frac{1}{2}v_X[d\sigma(X),[d\sigma(X),d\sigma(Y)]]\\\\
& = [X,d\sigma(Y)] + \displaystyle\frac{1}{2}v_X[X,[X,d\sigma(Y)]]\\\\
& = -H_X (d\sigma(Y)).
\end{array}$$ Finally, we get that $d\sigma$ and $J^X$ anticommute. This implies in particular that $\sigma$ preserves the horizontal bundle $h^XH\o$ and the metric $\|\ .\ \|$. It also gives that, if $Z=Y+J^X(Y)\in E^u$, then $d\sigma(Z) = d\sigma(Y) - J^X d\sigma (Y)\in E^s$, hence $d\sigma(E^u)=E^s$, and conversely; so $\sigma$ exchanges stable and unstable distributions and foliations.\
Now, since $\ph^{-t} = \sigma \circ \ph^t \circ \sigma$, we have $$\limsup_{t\to -\infty} \frac{1}{t} \log \|d \ph^t Z\|= \limsup_{t\to-\infty} \frac{1}{t} \log \|d\sigma d\ph^{-t} d\sigma Z\|=\limsup_{t\to+\infty} \frac{1}{-t} \log \|d\ph^{t} d\sigma Z\|$$ because $\sigma$ preserves $\|\ .\ \|$. Hence $$\label{pastfuture}
\limsup_{t\to -\infty} \frac{1}{t} \log \|d \ph^t Z\|=-\liminf_{t\to+\infty} \frac{1}{t} \log \|d\ph^{t} d\sigma Z\|.$$ This equality allows us to deduce the behaviour in the future from the one in the past: to catch the behaviour of stable vectors in the past, one can study the behaviour of unstable vectors in the future; and conversely.\
Finally the operator $J^X$ provides a symmetry between $E^u$ and $E^s$: it sends the stable vector $Z^s = Y - J^X(Y)$ to the unstable vector $Z^u = Y + J^X(Y)$. Furthermore, since $J^X$ commutes with $T^t$ and $T^t$ preserves horizontal and vertical distributions, we have $$d\ph^t Z^u = e^{t} T^t Z^u = e^t(T^t Y - J^X (T^t Y)) ,\ d\ph^t Z^s = e^{-t} T^t Z^s=e^{-t}(T^t Y - J^X (T^t Y)).$$ But, from the very definition of the metric $\|\ .\ \|$, we have $$\|T^t Z^u\| = \|T^t Z^s\| = F(d\pi J^X(T^t Y)).$$
To understand the asymptotic behaviour of the norms $\|d\ph^t Z^u\|$ and $\|d\ph^t Z^s\|$, it then suffices to understand the behaviour of the quantities $F(d\pi T^t h)$ for $h\in h^XH\o$ (recall that $J^X$ exchanges $VH\o$ and $h^XH\o$, so that $J^X(T^t Y)\in h^XH\o$). This is what we will do in the next part.
Parallel Lyapunov exponents
---------------------------
Remark that, given a point $w = (x,[\xi])\in H\o$, the projection of the horizontal space $h_w^XH\o$ at $w$ on $T\o$ is precisely the tangent space $T_x\H_w$ to the horosphere $\H_w$ at the point $x$. We now define a parallel transport along oriented geodesics on $\o$ that will contain all the information we need and become the main object of our study.\
Let fix a point $x^+\in\doo$. Denote by $W^s(x^+)=\{w\in H\o,\ \ph^{+\infty}(w)=x^+\}$ the weak stable manifold associated to $x^+$, consisting of these points $w$ that end at $x^+$. Obviously, the map $\pi$ identifies $W^s(x^+)$ with $\o$, and we will call $\pi^{-1}_{x^+}$ the inverse of $\pi_{|_{W^s(x^+)}}$; we have $\pi^{-1}_{x^+}(x) = (x,[xx^+])$.\
The radial flow $\ph_{x^+}^t$ is the flow on $\o$ defined via $$\ph_{x^+}^t = \pi\ph^t\pi^{-1}_{x^+}.$$ It is generated by the vector field $X_{x^+}$ such that $[X_{x^+}]=[xx^+]$ and $F(X_{x^+})=1$. Obviously, this flow preserves the set $\{\H_w,\ w\in W^s(x^+)\}$ of horospheres based at $x^+$, by sending $\H_w$ on $\H_{\ph^t(w)}$; also it contracts the Hilbert distance $\d$. Finally, the space $T\o$ admits a $\ph_{x^+}^t$-invariant decomposition $$T\o = \R.X_{x^+} \oplus T\H_{x^+},$$ where $T\H_{x^+}$ is the bundle over $\o$ defined as $$T\H_{x^+} = \{T_x\H_w,\ w=(x,[\xi])\in W^s(x^+)\}.$$ Furthermore, from the very definition of the radial flow, we have $d\ph_{x^+}^t = d\pi d\ph^t d\pi^{-1}_{x^+}$; so, for any vector $v\in T\H_{x^+}$, we have $$d\ph^t_{x^+}(v) = d\pi d\ph^t d\pi^{-1}_{x^+}(v),$$ where $d\pi^{-1}_{x^+}(v)$ is a stable vector. The action of $d\ph^t$ on $E^s$ can be deduced from the action of the parallel transport on $E^s$, and we now define a parallel transport on $\o$ to get the same kind of relations.
Let $x^+\in\doo$. The parallel transport $T_{x^+}^t$, $t\in\R$, in the direction of $x^+$ is defined by $$T_{x^+}^t = d\pi T^t d\pi^{-1}_{x^+}.$$
Given a vector $v\in T\o$, we deduce its parallel transport $T_{x^+}^t(v)$ by taking the unique vector $Z(v) \in E^s \oplus \R.X$ that projects on $v$, take its parallel transport $T^t Z(v)$ and project it again. Equivalently, since $E^s=\{Y-J^X(Y),\ Y\in VH\o\}$, we can also take the unique vector $h(v)$ in $\R.X \oplus h^XH\o$ that projects on $v$.\
From proposition \[stable\], we deduce that, for any $v\in T\H_{x^+}$, $$d\ph_{x^+}^t(v) = e^{-t} T_{x^+}^t(v)$$
The only thing we have to do now is to understand the behaviour of the quantities $F(T_{x^+}^t v)$ for $v\in T\H_{x^+}$.
Let $x^+\in\doo$. The *upper and lower parallel Lyapunov exponents* $\overline{\eta}(x^+,v)$ and $\overline{\eta}(x^+,v)$ of a vector $v\in T\H_{x^+}$ in the direction of $x^+$, are defined as $$\overline{\eta}(w,v)=\limsup_{t\to+\infty} \frac{1}{t} \log F( T_{x^+}^t v),\ \underline{\eta}(w,v)=\liminf_{t\to+\infty} \frac{1}{t} \log F( T_{x^+}^t v).$$
Given $w=(x,[\xi])\in W^s(x^+)$, it is not difficult to see that the numbers $\overline{\eta}(x^+,v)$ and $\underline{\eta}(x^+,v)$ can take only a finite number $\overline{p}(w)$ and $\underline{p}(w)$ of values when $v$ describes $T_x\H_w$. More precisely, there exist a $\ph^t_{x^+}$-invariant filtration $$\{0\}=\overline{H}_{0} \varsubsetneq \overline{H}_{1} \varsubsetneq \cdots \varsubsetneq \overline{H}_{\overline{p}(w)} = T_w \H_w$$ along the orbit $\ph_{x^+}.x$, and real numbers $$\overline{\eta}_{1}(w) < \cdots < \overline{\eta}_{\overline{p}(w)}(w),$$ called upper parallel Lyapunov exponents, such that for any vector $v_i\in \overline{H}_{i}\smallsetminus \overline{H}_{i-1}$, $1\leqslant i\leqslant \overline{p}(w)$, $$\limsup_{t\to\pm} \frac{1}{t} \log F(T_{x^+}^t v_i) = \overline{\eta}_{i}(w).$$ The same occurs for lower parallel Lyapunov exponents.\
As a consequence of part \[sectionlyapunovboundary\], we will have the following
Let $x^+\in\doo$. The numbers $\overline{p}$ and $\underline{p}$ are constants on $W^s(x^+)$, as well as the numbers $\overline{\eta}_i,\ 1\leqslant i\leqslant \overline{p}$ and $\underline{\eta}_i,\ 1\leqslant i\leqslant \underline{p}$.
Regular points {#sectionregular}
--------------
Recall the following general
\[regular\] Let $\ph^t$ be a $\C^1$-flow on a Finsler manifold $(W,\|\ . \ \|)$. A point $w\in W$ is said to be *regular* if there exist a $\ph^t$-invariant decomposition $$TW = E_1 \oplus \cdots \oplus E_p,$$ along the orbit $\ph.w$, called Lyapunov decomposition, and real numbers $$\chi_1(w) < \cdots < \chi_{p}(w),$$ called Lyapunov exponents, such that, for any vector $Z_i\in E_i\smallsetminus \{0\}$, $$\label{regularg}\lim_{t\to\pm\infty} \frac{1}{t} \log \|d\ph^t(Z_i)\| = \chi_i(w),$$ and $$\label{regulardet} \lim_{t\to\pm\infty} \frac{1}{t} \log |\det d\ph^t| = \sum_{i=1}^p \dim E_i\ \chi_i(w).$$ The point $w$ is said to be *forward* or *backward regular* if this behaviour occurs only when $t$ goes respectively to $+\infty$ or $-\infty$.
In this definition, we have to precise what is meant by $\det d\ph^t$, since $\|\ .\ \|$ is not a Riemannian metric. The determinant $\det d\ph^t$ just measures the effect of $\ph^t$ on volumes. But associated to the Finsler metric $\|\ .\ \|$ is the Busemann volume $vol_{W}$, which is the volume form defined by saying that, in each tangent space $T_wW$, the volume of the unit ball of $\|\ .\ \|$ is the same as the volume of the Euclidean unit ball of the same dimension. In other words, given an arbitrary Riemannian metric $g$ on $W$ with Riemannian volume $vol_g$, we have, at the point $w \in W$, $$dvol_{W}(w) = \frac{vol_g(B_g(w,1))}{vol_g(B(w,1))} dvol_g(w),$$ where $B(w,1)$ and $B_g(w,1)$ denote the unit balls in $T_wW$ for, respectively, $\|\ .\ \|$ and $g$. The determinant $\det d\ph^t$ is then defined in this way: if $A$ is some Borel subset of $T_wW$ with non-zero volume, then $$|\det d_w\ph^t | = \frac{vol_{W}(\ph^t(w)) (d\ph^t A)}{vol_{W}(w)(A)}.$$
\
Let us specify what happens in our case at a regular point $w\in H\o$. First, it has always $0$ as Lyapunov exponent since $\|d\ph^t(X)\|=1$, and we will say that $w$ has *no zero Lyapunov exponent* if the subspace $E_0$ corresponding to the exponent $0$ is $E_0=\R.X$.\
Second, proposition \[stable\] implies that $\chi(Z^s)\leqslant 0$ and $\chi(Z^u)\geqslant 0$ for any $Z^s\in E^s(w),\ Z^u\in E^u(w)$. Furthermore, if $Z^s\in E^s(w)$ and $Z^u=J^X Z^s$ is the corresponding vector of $E^u(w)$, proposition \[stable\] gives $$\chi(Z^u) = 2 + \chi(Z^s).$$ Now, choose a tangent vector $Z$ whose Lyapunov exponent is $0$. $Z$ can be written as $Z=aX+Z^u+Z^s$ for some $a\in\R,\ Z^s\in E^s,\ Z^u\in E^u$. Since $$\lim_{t\to\pm\infty} \frac{1}{t} \log \|d\ph^t(Z)\| = 0,$$ we conclude that $\chi(Z^u)=\chi(Z^s)=0$. Thus, the subspace $E_0$ corresponding to the Lyapunov exponent $0$ can be decomposed as $$E_0 = \R.X \oplus E^- \oplus E^+,$$ where $E^- \subset E^s,\ E^+ \subset E^u$.\
At a regular point, the Lyapunov decomposition can thus be written in the following way: $$\label{oseledetsdecomposition}
TH\o = E^s_0 \oplus (\oplus_{i=1}^p E^s_i) \oplus E_{p+1}^s \oplus \R.X \oplus E_0^u \oplus (\oplus_{i=1}^p E^u_i) \oplus E^u_{p+1},$$ with the relations $$E_i^s=J^X(E_i^u),\ 0\leqslant i\leqslant p+1.$$ The subspaces $E^s_0$ and $E^u_0$, or $E_{p+1}^s$ and $E_{p+1}^s$, might be $\{0\}$. The corresponding Lyapunov exponents are $$-2=\chi^-_0 < \chi_1^s < \cdots <\chi^s_p < \chi^s_{p+1} = 0 = \chi^u_0 < \chi^u_1 <\cdots<\chi^u_p < \chi^u_{p+1} = 2,$$ with $$\chi_i^u=\chi_i^s+2,\ 0\leqslant i\leqslant p.$$ If $w$ has no zero Lyapunov exponent then $E^s_0=E^u_0=E_{p+1}^s=E_{p+1}^s=\{0\}$ and all the Lyapunov exponents are [*strictly*]{} between $-2$ and $2$.\
If we now look down at the base manifold $\o$, we see that, if $w=(x,[\xi])\in H\o$ is a regular point ending at $x^+\in\doo$, the decomposition (\[oseledetsdecomposition\]) induces by projection a decomposition $$T\o = \R.X_{x^+} \oplus H_0 \oplus H_1 \oplus \cdots \oplus \cdots \oplus H_p \oplus H_{p+1}$$ along the orbit $\ph_{x^+}.x$ and there exist real numbers $-1=\eta_0<\eta_1 < \cdots < \eta_p<\eta_{p+1}=1$, that we call parallel Lyapunov exponents, such that, for any vector $v_i \in H_i\smallsetminus \{0\}$, $$\lim_{t\to+\infty} \frac{1}{t} \log F(T^t_{x^+}(v_i)) = \eta_i,$$ and $$\lim_{t\to+\infty} \frac{1}{t} \log |\det T_{x^+}^t| = \sum_{i=1}^p \dim H_i\ \eta_i.$$
We have $\R.X_{x^+}=d\pi(\R.X)$ and $$\label{dechautbas}
H_i = d\pi (E_i^s) = d\pi(E_i^u);$$ in particular, $H_0$ and $H_{p+1}$ can be $\{0\}$. Also, the parallel Lyapunov exponents $\eta_i$ are given by $$\label{lyaphautbas}
\eta_i = \chi^s_i+1 = \chi^u_i-1.$$
We then have the following characterization of regular points:
Let $x^+\in\doo$. A point $w=(x,[\xi])\in W^s(x^+)$ is regular for $\ph^t$ if and only if the point $x$ is regular for $\ph^t_{x^+}$. The decomposition and Lyapunov exponents are linked by the relations (\[dechautbas\]) and (\[lyaphautbas\]).
Obviously, all of this makes sense for forward and backward regular points.
Oseledets theorem
-----------------
The essential result about regular points is the following theorem of Oseledets, which, given an invariant probability measure of the flow, gives a condition for almost all points to be regular.
\[fullmeasure\] Let $\ph^t$ be a $\C^1$ flow on a Finsler manifold $(W,\|\ .\ \|)$ and $\mu$ a $\ph^t$-invariant probability measure. If $$\label{hyposeledets}
\frac{d}{dt}_{|_{t=0}} \log \|d\ph^{\pm t}\| \in L^1(W,\mu),$$ then the set of regular points has full measure.
Assumption $(\ref{hyposeledets})$ means that the flow does not expand or contract locally too fast. This essentially allows us to use Birkhoff’s ergodic theorem to prove the theorem.\
The next lemma proves that our geodesic flow satisfies assumption $(\ref{hyposeledets})$. Obviously, Oseledets’ theorem is not interesting on $H\o$ itself since there is no finite invariant measure. But it can be applied for any invariant measure of the geodesic flow of a given a quotient manifold $M=\o/\G$.\
Remark that our Finsler metric is $C_X$-regular so condition $(\ref{hyposeledets})$ makes sense. Furthermore, Oseledets’ theorem is usually stated on a Riemannian manifold but it is still valid for a Finsler one: using John’s ellipsoid, it is always possible to define a Riemannian metric $\|\ .\ \|_{J}$ which is bi-Lipschitz equivalent to $\|\ .\ \|$, that is, such that $$\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}} \|Z\|_{J} \leqslant \|Z\| \leqslant \sqrt{n} \|Z\|_{J},\ Z\in TW$$ where $n$ is the dimension of the manifold; of course, there is no reason for this metric $\|\ .\ \|_J$ to be even continuous but it is not important.
For any $Z^s\in E^{s},\ Z^u\in E^{u}$, we have $$-2 \leqslant \frac{d}{dt}_{|_{t=0}} \|d\ph^{t} Z^s\|\log \leqslant 0 \leqslant \frac{d}{dt}_{|_{t=0}} \|d\ph^{t} Z^u\| \leqslant 2.$$ In particular, for any $t\in\R$ and $Z\in TH\o$, $$e^{-2|t|} \|Z\| \leqslant \|d\ph^t(Z)\| \leqslant e^{2|t|} \|Z\|.$$
This lemma clearly implies the already known fact (coming from proposition \[stable\]) that Lyapunov exponents are all between $-2$ and $2$. But it is more precise: it gives that the rate of expansion/contraction is [*at any time*]{} between $-2$ and $2$, not only asymptotically, and that is what is essential to apply Oseledets’ theorem.
It is a direct corollary of proposition \[stable\]: we know that $t\mapsto \|d\ph^t Z^s\|$ is decreasing, hence $$\lim_{t\to 0}\frac{1}{t} \log \|d\ph^t Z^s\| \leqslant 0.$$ But we also know from proposition \[dd\] that $$\|d\ph^t Z^s\| = e^{-2t} \|d\ph^t J^X(Z^s)\|.$$ Since $J^X(Z^s) \in E^u$, proposition \[stable\] tells us that $t\mapsto \|d\ph^t J^X(Z^s)\|$ is increasing, hence $$\lim_{t\to 0} \frac{1}{t} \log \|d\ph^t J^X(Z^s)\| \geqslant 0$$ and $$\lim_{t\to 0} \frac{1}{t} \log \|d\ph^t Z^s\|\geqslant -2.$$ Using $J^X$, we get the second inequality, and by integrating, we get the last one.
Structure of the boundary $\doo$ {#sectionlyapunovboundary}
================================
In this part, we give a link between parallel Lyapunov exponents and the shape of the boundary at the endpoint of the orbit.\
Motivation
----------
We first give the idea in dimension $2$. Let $x^+\in\doo$, $w = (x,[\xi])\in W^s(x^+)$ and choose a vector $v$ tangent to $\H_w$ at $x$, with parallel Lyapunov exponent $\eta$. In a good chart at $w$, lemma \[transport\] gives $$F(T_{x^+}^t v) = C(w) (|x_tx^+||x_tx^-|)^{1/2}\left(\frac{1}{|x_ty_t^+|}+\frac{1}{|x_ty_t^-|}\right).$$
Assume that $|x_ty_t^-|\asymp |x_ty_t^+|$. Then $$\lim_{t\to +\infty} \frac{1}{t} \log \frac{F( T_{x^+}^t v)}{|x_tx^+|^{1/2}} = -\lim_{t\to +\infty} \frac{1}{t}\log |x_ty_t^+|,$$ hence, dividing by $\log |x_tx^+|^{1/2}$, $$\lim_{t\to +\infty}\frac{\log F( T_{x^+}^t )}{\log |x_tx^+|^{1/2}} -1 = -\lim_{t\to +\infty}\frac{\log |x_ty_t^+|}{\log |x_tx^+|^{1/2}}.$$ Since $|x_tx^+|\asymp e^{-2t}$, that yields $$\lim_{t\to +\infty}\frac{\log |x_ty_t^+|}{\log |x_tx^+|} = \frac{1+\eta}{2}.$$ Let $f: T_{x^+}\doo \longrightarrow \R^n$ be the graph of $\doo$ at $x^+$, so that $|x_tx^+|= f(|x_ty_t^+|)$. We thus obtain $$\lim_{s\to 0} \frac{\log f(s)}{\log s} = \frac{2}{1+\eta},$$ that is, for any $\epsilon>0$, there exists $C>0$ such that $$\label{eeee}
C^{-1} s^{\frac{2}{1+\eta}+\epsilon}\leqslant f(s) \leqslant C s^{\frac{2}{1+\eta}-\epsilon}.$$
This link was first established in [@crampon] for divisible convex sets, where the condition $|x_ty_t^-|\asymp |x_ty_t^+|$ is always satisfied. In order to generalize it, we must introduce new definitions. It may be a bit fastidious so you could prefer going directly to proposition \[linkboundary\], and have a look to the part in between when it is needed.
Locally convex submanifolds of $\R\P^n$
---------------------------------------
A codimension 1 $\C^0$ submanifold $N$ of $\R^n$ is *locally (strictly) convex* if for any $x\in N$, there is a neighbourhood $V_x$ of $x$ in $\R^n$ such that $V_x\smallsetminus N$ consists of two connected components, one of them being (strictly) convex.\
A codimension 1 $\C^0$ submanifold $N$ of $\R\P^n$ is *locally* (strictly) *convex* if its trace in any affine chart is locally (strictly) convex.
Obviously, to check if $N\subset \R\P^n$ is convex around $x$, it is enough to look at the trace of $N$ in [*one*]{} affine chart at $x$. Choose a point $x\in N$ in a locally convex submanifold $N$ and an affine chart centered at $x$. We can find a tangent space $T_x$ of $N$ at $x$ such that $V_x\cap N$ is entirely contained in one of the closed half-spaces defined by $T_x$. We can then endow the chart with a suitable Euclidean structure, so that, around $x$, $N$ appears as the graph of a convex function $f: U\subset T_x \longrightarrow [0,+\infty)$ defined on an open neighbourhood $U$ of $0\in T_x$. This function is (at least) as regular as $N$, is positive, $f(0)=0$ and $f'(0)=0$ if $N$ is $\C^1$ at $x$. When $N$ is strictly locally convex, then $f$ is strictly convex, in particular $f(v)>0$ for $v\not= 0$.\
In what follows, we are interested in the shape of the boundary $\doo$ of $\o$ at some specific point, or, more generally, in the local shape of locally strictly convex $\C^1$ submanifolds of $\R\P^n$. Denote by $\mathtt{Cvx}(n)$ the set of strictly convex $\C^1$ functions $f: U\subset\R^n \longrightarrow \R$ such that $f(0)=f'(0)=0$, where $U$ is an open convex subset of $\R^n$ containing $0$. We look for properties of such functions at the origin which are invariant by projective transformations.\
Approximate $\alpha$-regularity
-------------------------------
We introduce here the main notion of approximate $\alpha$-regularity, describe its meaning and prove some useful lemmas.
### Definition
\[defiappreg\] A function $f\in\mathtt{Cvx}(1)$ is said to be *approximately $\alpha$-regular*, $\alpha\in [1,+\infty]$, if $$\lim_{t\to 0} \frac{\log \displaystyle\frac{f(t)+f(-t)}{2}}{\log |t|} = \alpha.$$
This property is clearly invariant by affine transformations, and in particular by change of Euclidean structure. It is in fact invariant by projective ones, but we do not need to prove it directly, since it will be a consequence of proposition \[linkboundary\].\
Obviously, the function $t\in\R \mapsto |t|^{\alpha}$, $\alpha>1$ is approximately $\alpha$-regular. To be $\alpha$-regular, with $1<\alpha<+\infty$, means that we roughly behave like $t\mapsto |t|^{\alpha}$.\
The case $\alpha=\infty$ is a particular one: $f$ is $\infty$-regular means that for any $\alpha\geqslant 1$, $f(t) \ll |t|^\alpha$ for small $|t|$. An easy example of such a function is provided by $f:t \longmapsto e^{-1/t^2}$. On the other side, $f$ is $1$-regular means that for any $\alpha>1$, $f(t) \gg |t|^\alpha$. An example of function which is $1$-regular is provided by the Legendre transform of the last one (see section \[sectionlegendre\]).\
In the case where $1<\alpha<+\infty$, we can state the following equivalent definitions. The proof is straightforward.
\[calpha\] Let $f\in\mathtt{Cvx}(1)$ and $1<\alpha<+\infty$. The following propositions are equivalent:
- $f$ is approximately $\alpha$-regular;
- for any $\epsilon>0$ and small $|t|$, $$|t|^{\alpha+\epsilon} \leqslant \frac{f(t)+f(-t)}{2} \leqslant |t|^{\alpha-\epsilon};$$
- the function $t\longmapsto \displaystyle\frac{f(t)+f(-t)}{2}$ is $\C^{\alpha-\epsilon}$ and $\alpha+\epsilon$-convex at $0$ for any $\epsilon>0$.
To understand the last proposition, we recall the following
\[deficalpha\] Let $\alpha,\beta\geqslant 1$ We say that a function $f\in\mathtt{Cvx}(n)$ is
- $\C^{\alpha}$ if for small $|t|$, there is some $C>0$ such that $$f(t) \leqslant C|t|^{\alpha};$$
- $\beta$-convex if for small $|t|$, there is some $C>0$ such that $$f(t) \geqslant C|t|^{\beta}.$$
### A useful equivalent definition
We now give another equivalent definition of approximate regularity, that shows the relation with the motivation above. Theorem \[linkboundary\] is the most important consequence of it.\
Let $f\in\mathtt{Cvx}(1)$. Denote by $f^+=f_{|_{[0,1]}}^{-1}$ and $f^-=-f_{|_{[-1,0]}}^{-1}$. These functions are both nonnegative, increasing and concave and their value at $0$ is $0$; they are $\C^1$ on $(0,1]$ and their tangent at $0$ is vertical.\
The harmonic mean of two numbers $a,b >0$ is defined as $$H(a,b) = \frac{2}{a^{-1} + b^{-1}}.$$ The harmonic mean of two functions $f,\ g: X \to (0,+\infty)$ defined on the same set $X$ is the function $H(f,g)$ defined for $x\in X$ by $$H(f,g)(x) = H(f(x),g(x)) = \frac{2}{\frac{1}{f(x)}+\frac{1}{g(x)}}.$$
\[approxeq\] A function $f\in\mathtt{Cvx}(1)$ is approximately $\alpha$-regular, $\alpha \in [1,+\infty]$ if and only if $$\lim_{t\to 0^+} \frac{\log H(f^+,f^-)(t)}{\log t} = \alpha^{-1},$$ with the convention that $\frac{1}{+\infty} = 0$.
As we will see, it is enough to take $f$ continuous, so by replacing $f^+$ and $f^-$ by $\min(f^+,f^-)$ and $\max(f^+,f^-)$, we can assume that $f^+\leqslant f^-$, that is $f(t)\geqslant f(-t)$ for $t\geqslant 0$. Now, assuming that the limit exists,
$$\lim_{t\to 0^+} \frac{\log H(f^+,f^-)(t)}{\log t} =- \lim_{t\to 0^+} \frac{\log \left(\displaystyle\frac{1}{f^+(t)} + \displaystyle\frac{1}{f^-(t)}\right)}{\log t}
= \lim_{t\to 0^+} \frac{\log f^+(t)}{\log t} - \lim_{t\to 0^+}\frac{\log \left(1 + \displaystyle\frac{f^+(t)}{f^-(t)}\right)}{\log t}.$$ Since $f^+\leqslant f^-$, the second limit is $0$, and the first one is $$\lim_{t\to 0^+} \frac{\log f^+(t)}{\log t} = \lim_{u\to 0^+} \frac{\log u}{\log f(u)}.$$
But, since $f(u)\geqslant f(-u)$ for $u\geqslant 0$, we get $$\lim_{u\to 0^+} \frac{\log u}{\log \frac{f(u)+f(-u)}{2}} = \lim_{u\to 0^+} \frac{\log u}{\log f(u) + \log \left( 1+\frac{f(-u)}{f(u)}\right)} = \lim_{u\to 0^+} \frac{\log u}{\log f(u)},$$ hence the result.
The last construction can be generalized in a way that will be useful later, for proving proposition \[linkboundary\]. Let $f\in\mathtt{Cvx}(1)$ and pick $a>0$. We define two new “inverse functions” $f_a^+(s)$ and $f^-_a(s)$ for $s\in[0,\epsilon]$, $\epsilon>0$ small enough, depending on $a$; these are positive functions defined by the equations $$f(f^+_a(s))=s-sf^+_a(s); f(-f^-_a(s))=s+sf^-_a(s).$$
\[figureapprox\]
Geometrically, for $s\in [0,\epsilon]$ on the vertical axis, the line $(as)$ cuts the graph of $f$ at two points $a^+$ and $a-$, with $s$ between $a^+$ and $a^-$; $f_a^+(s)$ and $f^-_a(s)$ are the abscissae of $a^+$ and $a^-$ (c.f. figure \[figureapprox\]). $f^+$ and $f^-$ can be considered as $f_{+\infty}^+$ and $f_{+\infty}^-$.
\[bordtordu\] Let $f\in\mathtt{Cvx}(1)$ and $a>0$. The functions $\displaystyle\frac{f_a^+}{f^+}$ and $\displaystyle\frac{f_a^-}{f^-}$ can be extended by continuity at $0$ by $$\frac{f_a^+}{f^+}(0)=\frac{f_a^-}{f^-}(0)=1.$$ In particular, for $s>0$ small enough, $$f^+(s) \asymp f_a^+(s),\ f^-(s) \asymp f_a^-(s).$$
We prove it for $f^+$ and $f_a^+$. Clearly, we have $\frac{f_a^+(s)}{f^+(s)} \leqslant 1$. Since $f$ is convex and $f(0)=0$, we get $$s-sf_a^+(s) = f(f_a^+(s)) = f\left(\frac{f_a^+(s)}{f^+(s)} f^+(s)\right) \leqslant \frac{f_a^+(s)}{f^+(s)} f(f^+(s)) = \frac{f_a^+(s)}{f^+(s)}s.$$ Hence, for $0<s\leqslant \epsilon<1$ $$\frac{f_a^+(s)}{f^+(s)} \geqslant 1-f_a^+(s) \geqslant 1 - f_a^+(\epsilon).$$ The function $\displaystyle \frac{f_a^+}{f^+}$ can even be extended at $0$ by $\displaystyle\frac{f_a^+}{f^+}(0)=1$
The result to remember is the following consequence of lemmas \[bordtordu\] and \[approxeq\]:
\[corotordu\] Pick $a>0$. A function $f\in\mathtt{Cvx}(1)$ is approximately $\alpha$-regular if and only if $$\lim_{t\to 0^+} \frac{\log H(f_a^+,f_a^-)(t)}{\log t} = \alpha^{-1}.$$
Higher dimensions
-----------------
We end this section by extending the definitions in higher dimensions:
A function $f\in\mathtt{Cvx}(n)$ is said to be *approximately regular* at $x$ if it is approximately regular in any direction, that is, for any $v\in \R^n\smallsetminus\{0\}$, there exists $\alpha(v)\in [1,\infty]$ such that $$\lim_{t\to 0} \frac{\log \displaystyle\frac{f(tv) + f(-tv)}{2}}{\log |t|} = \alpha(v).$$
Let $f\in\mathtt{Cvx}(n)$ . The upper and lower Lyapunov exponents $\overline{\alpha}(v)$ and $\underline{\alpha}(v)$ of $v\in \R^n$ are defined by
$$\overline{\alpha}(v) = \limsup_{t\to 0} \frac{\log \displaystyle\frac{f(tv) + f(-tv)}{2}}{\log |t|},$$
$$\underline{\alpha}(v) = \liminf_{t\to 0} \frac{\log \displaystyle\frac{f(tv) + f(-tv)}{2}}{\log |t|}.$$
The function is then approximately regular if and only if the preceding limits are indeed limits in $[1,+\infty]$, that is, for any $v\in \R^n$, $\overline{\alpha}(v)=\underline{\alpha}(v)$. Obviously, lemma \[approxeq\] and corollary \[corotordu\] have their counterpart in higher dimensions.
Approximate regularity of the boundary
--------------------------------------
If $\o$ is a bounded convex set in the Euclidean space $\R^n$ with $\C^1$ boundary, the graph of $\doo$ at $x$ is the function $$\begin{array}{rrcl}
f: & U\subset T_x\doo & \longrightarrow & \R^n \\
& u & \longmapsto & \{u + \l n(x)\}_{\l\in\R} \cap \doo,
\end{array}$$ where $n(x)$ denotes a normal vector to $\doo$ at $x$, and $U$ is a sufficiently small open neighbourhood of $x\in\doo$ for the function to be defined.\
We can now state our main result. Let $x^+\in\doo$. If $w=(x,[\xi])\in W^s(x^+)$ and $v\in T_x\H_w$, we denote by $p_{x^+}(v)$ the projection of $v$ on the space $T_{x^+}\doo$ in the direction $[xx^+]$. The map $p_{x^+}$ clearly induces an isomorphism $p_{x^+}(x)$ between each $T_x\H_w$ and $T_{x^+}\doo$.
\[linkboundary\] Let $\o$ be a strictly convex proper open set of $\R\P^n$ with $\C^1$ boundary. Pick $x^+\in\doo$, choose any affine chart containing $x^+$ and a Euclidean metric on it.\
Then for any $v\in T\H_{x^+}$, we have
$$\overline{\eta}(x^+,v)= \frac{2}{\underline{\alpha}(x^{+},p_{x^+}(v))}-1, \ \underline{\eta}(x^+,v)= \frac{2}{\overline{\alpha}(x^{+},p_{x^+}(v))}-1,$$ where $\underline{\alpha}(x^{+},p_{x^+}(v))$ and $\overline{\alpha}(x^{+},p_{x^+}(v))$ denote the lower and upper Lyapunov exponents of the graph of $\doo$ at $x^+$ in the direction $p_{x^+}(v)$, as defined at the very end of the last section.
\[bord\]
![For proposition \[linkboundary\]](dessins/bord.ps)
Let $w=(x,[\xi])$ be a point ending at $x^+$, $(x_t,[\xi_t]) = \ph^t(x,[\xi])$ its image by $\ph^t$, and $v\in T_x\H_w$. The vector $ T_{x^+}^t v$ is at any time contained in the plane generated by $\xi$ and $v$, thus, by working in restriction to this plane, we can assume that $n=2$.\
We cannot choose a good chart at $w$, since the chart is already fixed. But, by affine invariance, we can choose the Euclidean metric $|\ .\ |$ and $\xi_t$ so that $\xi \bot T_{x^+}\doo = \R.p_{x^+}(v)$ and $|v|=|\xi_t|=1$. Let $a$ be the point of intersection of $T_{x^+}\doo$ and $T_{x^-}\doo$. The vector $ T_{x^+} v$ always points to $a$, that is, $ T_{x^+}^t v \in \R.x_ta$. Thus,
$$F( T_{x^+}^t v) = \frac{| T_{x^+}^t v|}{2} \left(\frac{1}{|x_ty_t^+|}+\frac{1}{|x_ty_t^-|}\right),$$ where $y_t^+$ and $y_t^-$ are the intersection points of $(ax_t)$ and $\doo$. If $f:U \subset T_{x^+}\doo \longrightarrow~\R$ denotes the function whose graph is a neighbourhood of $x^+$ in $\doo$, then $$\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{1}{|x_ty_t^+|}+\frac{1}{|x_ty_t^-|}\right) = \frac{1}{H(f_a^+,f_a^-)(|x_tx^+|)},$$ where $f_a^+$ and $f_a^-$ are defined as in corollary \[corotordu\]. This corollary tells us that $$\begin{array}{rl}
\displaystyle\limsup_{t\to+\infty} \frac{1}{t}\log\frac{1}{H(f_a^+,f_a^-)(|x_tx^+|)} & = \displaystyle\limsup_{t\to+\infty} \displaystyle-\frac{\log|x_tx^+|}{t}\displaystyle \frac{\log H(f_a^+,f_a^-)(|x_tx^+|)}{\log|x_tx^+|}\\\\
& = \displaystyle\limsup_{t\to+\infty} \displaystyle-\frac{\log|x_tx^+|}{t} \displaystyle\limsup_{s\to 0} \displaystyle\frac{\log H(f_a^+,f_a^-)(s)}{\log s} \\\\
& = \displaystyle\frac{2}{\underline{\alpha}(x^+,v)}
\end{array}$$
(recall from lemma \[equivalents\] that $|x_tx^+|= \frac{|xx^+|^2}{m(w)} e^{-2t}$). Hence $$\limsup_{t\to+\infty} \frac{1}{t} \log F( T_{x^+}^t v) = \frac{2}{\underline{\alpha}(x^+,v)} + \limsup_{t\to+\infty} \frac{1}{t} \log | T_{x^+}^t v|.$$ From our choice of Euclidean metric, we have $| T^t v(w)| \asymp \langle T^t v(w), v \rangle$. Lemma $\ref{horver}$ gives $$T_{x^+}^t v = -L_Y m(\ph^t w) \xi_t + (m(w)m(\ph^t w))^{1/2} d\pi(J^{X^e}(Y)),$$ where $Y\in VH\o$ is such that $d\pi(J^X(Y))=v(w)$; $d\pi(J^{X^e}(Y))$ is collinear to $v$ and has constant Euclidean norm, which implies that $$\lim_{t\to +\infty} \frac{1}{t}\log \langle T_{x^+}^t v, v \rangle = \lim_{t\to +\infty} \frac{1}{t}\log (m(w)m(\ph^t w))^{1/2} = -1.$$
Hence $$\overline{\eta}_{+}(w,v(w))=\limsup_{t\to+\infty} \frac{1}{t}F( T_{x^+}^t v) = \frac{2}{\underline{\alpha}(x^+,v)} -1.$$
Obviously, the same holds for lower exponents.
The last theorem tells us that the notions of Lyapunov regularity and exponents are projectively invariant, that is, it makes sense for codimension 1 submanifolds of $\R\P^n$. It then justifies the following
A locally strictly convex $\C^1$ submanifold $N$ of $\R\P^n$ is said to be *approximately regular* at $x\in N$ if its trace in some (or, equivalently, any) affine chart at $x$ is locally the graph of an approximately regular function. The numbers $\alpha_1(x)\geqslant\cdots\geqslant \alpha_p(x)$ attached to $x$ are called the *Lyapunov exponents* of $x$.
Also, remark the following properties:
\[alpha\] Let $f\in\mathtt{Cvx}(n)$. Then
- the numbers $\overline{\alpha}(v),\ v\in \R^n\smallsetminus\{0\}$, can take only a finite numbers of values. More precisely, there exist a number $\overline p$, a filtration $$\{0\} = \overline{G}_0 \varsubsetneq \overline{G}_1 \varsubsetneq \cdots \varsubsetneq \overline{G}_{\overline p}=\R^n$$ and numbers $$+\infty \geqslant \overline{\alpha}_1 > \cdots > \overline{\alpha}_{\overline p} \geqslant 1,$$ such that for any $v_i\in \overline{G}_i\smallsetminus \overline{G}_{i-1}$, $1\leqslant i \leqslant \overline p$, $$\limsup_{t\to 0} \frac{\log \displaystyle\frac{f(tv_i) + f(-tv_i)}{2}}{\log |t|} = \overline{\alpha}_i.$$ The same holds for lower Lyapunov exponents.\
- the following propositions are equivalent:
1. $f$ is approximately regular;
2. there exist a decomposition $\R^n=\oplus_{i=1}^p H_i$ and numbers $+\infty \geqslant \alpha_1 > \cdots > \alpha_p \geqslant 1$ such that the restriction $f|_{H_i\cap U}$ is approximately regular with exponent $\alpha_i$;
3. there exist a filtration $$\{0\}=G_0 \varsubsetneq G_1 \varsubsetneq \cdots \varsubsetneq G_p = \R^n$$ and numbers $+\infty \geqslant \alpha_1 > \cdots > \alpha_p \geqslant 1$ such that, for any $v_i\in G_i\smallsetminus G_{i-1}$, the restriction $f|_{\R.v_i\cap U}$ is approximately regular with exponent $\alpha_i$.
When $f$ is approximately regular, we call the numbers $\alpha_i$ the Lyapunov exponents of $f$.
The graph of $f$ can always be considered as the boundary of a strictly convex set $\o\subset \R^{n+1}$ with $\C^1$ boundary. We can then apply theorem \[linkboundary\] to this set $\o$.
Lyapunov regularity of the boundary
-----------------------------------
To characterize regular points $w\in H\o$, we need to add a property to approximate regularity because of the second point in definition \[regular\].
\[lyapunovregularity\] A function $f\in\mathtt{Cvx}(n)$ is said to be *Lyapunov regular* if
- $f$ is approximately regular with exponents $+\infty \geqslant \alpha_1 \geqslant \cdots \geqslant \alpha_p \geqslant 1$ counted with multiplicities;
- $$\lim_{t\to 0} \frac{\log \displaystyle\int_{f(u)\leqslant |t|} |u|\ du}{\log t} = \frac{1}{\alpha} ,$$ where $$\frac{1}{\alpha} = \sum_{i=1}^n \frac{1}{\alpha_i}.$$
A locally strictly convex $\C^1$ submanifold $N$ of $\R\P^n$ is said to be *Lyapunov regular* at $x\in N$ if its trace in some (or, equivalently, any) affine chart at $x$ is locally the graph of a Lyapunov regular function.
Remark that we should prove the second point in definition \[lyapunovregularity\] is projectively invariant to state the last definition. In fact, we could proceed as before in theorem \[linkboundary\] by proving the next theorem in any affine chart; but the idea is totally similar so we will not do it.
\[mainthm\] A point $w=(x,[\xi])\in H\o$ is forward regular if and only if the boundary $\doo$ is Lyapunov regular at the endpoint $x^+=\ph^{+\infty}(w)$. The Lyapunov decomposition of $T\H_{x^+}$ along $\ph_{x^+}.x$ projects under $p_{x^+}$ on the Lyapunov decomposition of $T_{x^+}\doo$, and Lyapunov exponents are related by $$\eta(v) = \frac{2}{\alpha(p_{x^+}(v))}-1,\ v\in T_x\H_w.$$
The only if part is now clear from the last theorem. Assume $\doo$ is approximately regular at $x^+$. The decomposition of $T_{x^+}\doo$ gives by projection a decomposition $$\label{rrr}
T_x\H_w = E_1 \oplus \cdots \oplus E_p,$$ such that, for any $v_i\in E_i\smallsetminus\{0\}$, $$\lim_{t\to +\infty} \frac{1}{t} \log F(T_{x^+}^t v_i) = \eta_i,$$ where $\eta_1<\cdots <\eta_p$ are the parallel Lyapunov exponents of $w$. The only thing that we have to prove is the second point in definition \[regular\], that is, $$\lim_{t\to +\infty} \frac{1}{t} \log \det T_{x^+}^t = \sum_{i=1}^p \dim E_i\ \eta_i.$$ We can assume we have chosen a good chart and the Euclidean metric so that the decomposition \[rrr\] is orthogonal. Recall that, by definition of the determinant and the Busemann volume, $$\det T_{x^+}^t = vol T_{x^+}^t(B_{x}(1)) = \frac{vol^e (T_{x^+}^t(B_{x}(1)))}{vol^e (B_{\ph^t_{x^+}(x)}(1))}.$$ Since the map $T_{x^+}^t$ is linear, the quantity $vol^e (T_{x^+}^t(B_{x}(1)))$ is just the determinant $\det^e T_{x^+}^t $ of $T_{x^+}^t$ with respect to the Euclidean metric that we have chosen; lemma \[transport\] implies that $${\det}^e T_{x^+}^t = (m(w)m(\ph^t(w))^{\frac{n-1}{2}} {\det}^e (T_{x^+}^e)^t,$$ so that $$\lim_{t\to +\infty} \frac{1}{t} \log vol^e (T_{x^+}^t(B_{x}(1))) = \frac{n-1}{2} \lim_{t\to +\infty} \frac{1}{t} \log m(\ph^t(w)) = \frac{n-1}{2} \lim_{t\to +\infty} \frac{1}{t} \log |x_tx^+| = n-1,$$ by lemma \[equivalents\].\
So we just have to study the quantity $ \frac{1}{t} \log vol^e (B_{\ph^t_{x^+}(x)}(1)).$ Call $x_t=\ph^t_{x^+}$ as usual, and for each vector $u\in T_x\H_w$, call $u_t$ the unit vector in $T_{\ph^t_{x^+}(x)}\o$ which is collinear to $u$. Since the vector $u_t$ has Finsler norm $1$, we have $$1 = \frac{|u_t|}{2}\left(\frac{1}{|x_ty_t^+|}+\frac{1}{|x_ty_t^-|}\right),$$ so $$|u_t| = \frac{2}{\frac{1}{|x_ty_t^+|}+\frac{1}{|x_ty_t^-|}} = m(x_t,[u_t]).$$ In particular, by lemmas \[transport\] and \[equivalents\], $$\lim_{t\to+\infty} \frac{1}{t} \log |u_t| = -\eta(u) + 1.$$ By convexity of the unit balls, we then get $$\lim_{t\to+\infty} \frac{1}{t} \log vol^e (B_{\ph^t_{x^+}(x)}(1)) \geqslant -\eta + (n-1) = -\frac{2}{\alpha}.$$ For the inequality from above, we just have to notice that $$vol^e (B_{\ph^t_{x^+}(x)}(1)) \leqslant vol^e \left(\o \cap T_{\ph^t_{x^+}(x)}\H_{x^+}(\ph^t_{x^+}(x))\right),$$ hence $$\begin{array}{rl}
\displaystyle\lim_{t\to+\infty} \frac{1}{t} \log vol^e (B_{\ph^t_{x^+}(x)}(1)) &\leqslant \displaystyle\lim_{t\to+\infty} \frac{1}{t} \log vol^e \left(\o \cap T_{\ph^t_{x^+}(x)}\H_{x^+}(\ph^t_{x^+}(x))\right) \\\\
&\leqslant \displaystyle\lim_{t\to+\infty} -2\displaystyle\frac{\log vol^e \left(\o \cap T_{\ph^t_{x^+}(x)}\H_{x^+}(\ph^t_{x^+}(x))\right)}{\log |x_tx^+|},
\end{array}$$ from lemma \[equivalents\]. The second property in definition \[lyapunovregularity\] implies $$\lim_{t\to+\infty} \frac{1}{t} \log vol^e (B_{\ph^t_{x^+}(x)}(1)) \leqslant -\frac{2}{\alpha}.$$ That means that $\lim_{t\to+\infty} \frac{1}{t} \log vol^e (B_{\ph^t_{x^+}(x)}(1)) = -\frac{2}{\alpha}$ and finally, $$\lim_{t\to+\infty} \frac{1}{t} \log \det T_{x^+}^t = \frac{2}{\alpha} + (n-1) = \eta.$$
In reality, I am not sure the second property in definition \[lyapunovregularity\] is necessary. I thought at the beginning it could be deduced from convexity and the other properties but I did not manage to prove it.
Lyapunov manifolds of the geodesic flow {#sectionlyapunovmanifolds}
=======================================
From the very definition of the metric $\|\ . \ \|$ (by using remark \[rmkdistance\]), we get the following corollary of theorem \[mainthm\]. Obviously, we could give an equivalent statement for non-approximately regular points by using upper and lower exponents.
\[maincorollary\] Let $\o$ be a strictly convex proper open subfset of $\R\P^n$ with $\C^1$ boundary and fix $o\in\o$. Assume $x^+\in\doo$ is approximately regular with exponents $+\infty \geqslant \alpha_1 > \cdots > \alpha_p \geqslant 1$ and filtration $$\{0\}=H_0 \varsubsetneq H_1 \varsubsetneq \cdots \varsubsetneq H_p = T_{x^+}\doo.$$ Then the horosphere $\H$ about $x^+$ passing through $o$ admits a filtration $$\{o\}=\H_0 \varsubsetneq \H_1 \varsubsetneq \cdots \varsubsetneq \H_p = \H,$$ given by $\H_i=\{x\in\H\cap (H_i\oplus \R.ox^+)\},\ 1\leqslant i \leqslant p,$ and such that $$\mathcal{H}_i\smallsetminus \mathcal{H}_{i-1} = \{x \in \H\smallsetminus\{o\},\ \lim_{t\to +\infty} \frac{1}{t} \log \d(\ph_{x^+}^t(o), \ph_{x^+}^t(x)) = \chi^s_i\},$$ with $\chi^s_i = -2+\frac{2}{\alpha_i}$.
This allows us to define Lyapunov manifolds of the geodesic flow, that is, submanifolds tangent to the subspaces appearing in the Lyapunov filtration. In the classical theory of nonuniformly hyperbolic systems, the local existence of these manifolds is a nontrivial result traditionnally achieved with the help of Hadamard-Perron theorem.\
Here these manifolds appear naturally from the decomposition of the boundary at the endpoint of the orbit we are looking at. This result can be seen as a consequence of the flatness of Hilbert geometries.
Assume $\doo$ is approximately regular at the point $x^+$. Each point $w$ of $W^s(x^+)$ is forward regular with decomposition $$TH\o = E^s_0 \oplus (\oplus_{i=1}^p E^s_i) \oplus E_{p+1}^s \oplus \R.X \oplus E_0^u \oplus (\oplus_{i=1}^p E^u_i) \oplus E^u_{p+1},$$ and Lyapunov exponents $$-2=\chi^s_0 < \chi_1^s < \cdots <\chi^s_p < \chi^s_{p+1} = 0 = \chi^u_0 < \chi^u_1 <\cdots<\chi^u_p < \chi^u_{p+1} = 2.$$ For each $w_0=(o,[ox^+])\in W^s(x^+)$, the stable manifold $W^s(w_0)$ admits a filtration by $$\{w_0\} \subset W^s_0(w_0) \varsubsetneq W^s_1(w_0) \varsubsetneq \cdots \varsubsetneq W^s_p(w_0) \subset W^s_{p+1}(w_0)=W^s(w_0),$$ with $$W^s_i(w):= \{w=(x,[xx^+])\in W^s(w_0),\ x\in \mathcal{H}_i\} = \{w \in H\o,\ \limsup_{t\to +\infty} \frac{1}{t} \log d_{H\o}(\ph^t(w_0), \ph^t(w)) \leqslant \chi^-_i\}.$$ The tangent distribution to $W^s_i(w)$ is precisely $\oplus_{k=0}^i E^s_k$. (Recall that the subspaces $E^s_0$ and $E_{p+1}^s$ can be $\{0\}$, in which case $W^s_0(w_0)=\{w\}$, and $W^s_{p}(w_0)=W^s_{p+1}(w_0)=W^s(w_0)$.)
Obviously, the last corollary can be stated also for an approximately regular point $x^-\in\doo$ and the corresponding unstable manifold $$W^u(x^-) = \{w\in H\o,\ \ph^{-\infty}(w)=x^-\}.$$
Non-strict convexity, non-$C^1$ points {#extension}
--------------------------------------
We now explain how to extend corollary \[maincorollary\] to an arbitrary convex set. Let $\o$ be *any* convex proper open subset of $\R\P^n$ and choose a point $x^+\in\doo$. The flow $\ph_{x^+}^t$ is well defined, the definition of approximate regularity given in section \[sectionlyapunovboundary\] still makes sense and the results we achieve before can be extended to this general convex set by using the following easy lemma.
Let $\o$ be any proper convex subset of $\R\P^n$ and $x\in\doo$.
- The maximal flat $$\mathcal{F}(x)=\{y\in\doo,\ [xy]\subset\doo\}$$ containing $x$ in $\doo$ is a closed convex subset of a projective subspace $\R\P^q$, for some $0\leqslant q\leqslant n-1$, whose interior is open in this $\R\P^q$ when $\mathcal{F}(x)$ is not reduced to $\{x\}$.
- The set of $C^1$ directions $$\mathcal{D}(x) = \{0\}\cup\{v\in T_x\doo\smallsetminus\{0\},\ \doo\ \text{is differentiable in the direction}\ v \}$$ is a subspace of $T_x\doo$.
The set $\mathcal{F}(x)$ is obviously closed. It is convex because of the convexity of $\o$. The projective subspace $\R\P^q$ is the one spanned by $\mathcal{F}(x)$. The second point is just a consequence of convexity.
Choose a direction $v\in T_x\doo$ in which the boundary $\doo$ is not differentiable and any vector $u\not \in T_x\doo$. We can consider the $2$-dimensional convex set $C_{v}(w)=\o \cap (\R.v \oplus \R.u)$. As we have seen in the introduction, for two distinct geodesic lines of $C_v(u)$ ending at $x$, the distance between them does not tend to $0$. Hence the negative Lyapunov exponent $\chi^s$ of such a geodesic, if it were defined, would be $\chi^s=0$; it is coherent with the fact that $\alpha(v) = 1$ and the relation $\chi^s = -2 + \frac{2}{\alpha(v)}$.\
We can now consider the subspace $\mathcal{D}(x)$ of $\C^1$ directions and the convex set $C_{x}(u) = \o \cap (D(x) \oplus \R.u)$ for an arbitrary vector $u\not \in T_x\doo$. For example, the stable manifold $\H^s_{x^+}(x)$ of $\ph_{x^+}^t$ at $x$ is the set $$\H^s_{x^+}(x) = C_x(xx^+)\cap \H_{x^+}(x).$$ The boundary $\partial C_x(u)$ is $\C^1$ at Lebesgue-almost every point $x^-$, so all we did before is relevant along Lebesgue almost-all geodesic $(x^-x^+)$. We just have to be careful for those vectors in $\span\ \mathcal{F}(x)$ which were not considered before: in such a direction $v$, the boundary is obviously $+\infty$-approximately regular, and as we have seen in the introduction, the distance between two geodesics of $C_v(u)$ with origin on the same horosphere and ending at $x^+$ goes to $0$ as $e^{-2t}$.\
As a consequence, we get that corollary \[maincorollary\] is valid for any Hilbert geometry:
\[maincorollary2\] Let $\o$ be a convex proper open subfset of $\R\P^n$ and fix $o\in\o$. Assume $x^+\in\doo$ is approximately regular with exponents $+\infty \geqslant \alpha_1 > \cdots > \alpha_p \geqslant 1$ and filtration $$\{0\} = H_0 \varsubsetneq H_1 \varsubsetneq \cdots \varsubsetneq H_p = T_{x^+}\doo.$$ Then the horosphere $\H=\H_{x^+}(o)$ about $x^+$ passing through $o$ admits a filtration $$\{o\}=\H_0 \varsubsetneq \H_1 \varsubsetneq \cdots \varsubsetneq \H_p = \H,$$ given by $\H_i=\{x\in\H\cap (H_i\oplus \R.ox^+)\},\ \leqslant i \leqslant p,$ such that $$\mathcal{H}_i\smallsetminus \mathcal{H}_{i-1} = \{x \in \H\smallsetminus\{o\},\ \lim_{t\to +\infty} \frac{1}{t} \log \d(\ph_{x^+}^t(o), \ph_{x^+}^t(x)) = \chi^s_i\},$$ with $\chi^s_i = -2+\frac{2}{\alpha_i}$.
In this last corollary, if $\mathcal{F}(x^+)$ is not reduced to $x^+$, then the subspace $H_1$ itself admits a filtration $\{0\} \varsubsetneq \span\ \mathcal{F}(x^+) \varsubsetneq H_1$; $H_1\smallsetminus \span\ \mathcal{F}(x^+)$ consists of these vectors $v$ with Lyapunov exponent $\alpha(v) = +\infty$ which are not in $\span\ \mathcal{F}(x^+)$, that is, the directions in which $\doo$ is not flat, but infinitesimally flat. Of course this also provides a filtration of $\H_1$.\
Similarly, if $\mathcal{D}(x^+)$ is not all of $T_{x^+}\doo$, we can refine the filtration into $$\cdots \varsubsetneq H_{p-1} \varsubsetneq \mathcal{D}(x^+) \varsubsetneq H_p = T_{x^+}\doo.$$ The subspace $\mathcal{D}(x^+)$ is precisely the tangent space to the stable manifold $\H^s_{x^+}(o)$ of $\ph^t_{x^+}$ at $o$, and $\H$ admits a subfiltration $$\cdots \varsubsetneq \H_{p-1} \varsubsetneq \H^s_{x^+}(o) \varsubsetneq \H_p = \H.$$
Examples
========
I do not know what can be said in general about the notion of approximate-regularity for a given strictly convex set $\o$ with $\C^1$-boundary. We can relate this with Alexandrov’s theorem which says that the boundary $\doo$ of $\o$ is $\C^2$ Lebesgue-almost everywhere. This implies that for almost every point $x\in\doo$, we have $\underline{\alpha}(v)\geqslant 2$ for all vectors $v\in T_x\doo$. It might be interesting for example to know if $\doo$ is approximately regular at almost every point.\
Here I give some more properties of approximate-regularity and study the case of divisible convex sets. In particular I show that in this case $\doo$ is approximately regular at almost every point with the same Lyapunov exponents.
Duality and approximate regularity
----------------------------------
### Legendre transform {#sectionlegendre}
Pick a function $f\in \mathtt{Cvx}(n)$. Since $f$ is $\C^1$ and strictly convex, the gradient $$\nabla: x\in U \longmapsto \nabla_x f = \left(\frac{\partial f}{\partial x_1}(x),\cdots, \frac{\partial f}{\partial x_n}(x)\right)$$ is an injective map onto a convex subset $V$ of $\R^n$. Using the gradient, a point $x$ can thus be defined by its coordinates $(x_1,\cdots,x_n)$ or by its “dual” coordinates $\left(\frac{\partial f}{\partial x_1}(x),\cdots, \frac{\partial f}{\partial x_n}(x)\right)$.\
The [**Legendre transform**]{} of $f$ is the function $f^*$ defined by $$f(x) + f^*(\nabla_x f) = \langle \nabla_x f, x \rangle.$$ It happens that the transform $f\longmapsto f^*$ is an involution of $\mathtt{Cvx}(n)$. We will see in the next section that it appears naturally when one considers the dual of a convex set. Our goal in the next section is to make a link between the shape of the boundary of the convex set and the one of its dual. For this, we study here the link between the approximate regularity of $f$ and of its Legendre transform $f^*$. I am not very familiar with Legendre transform and I did not manage to prove the next lemma in higher dimensions; but it is probably true...
\[legendre\] Assume $f\in \mathtt{Cvx}(1)$ is approximately $\alpha$-regular, $\alpha\in[1,+\infty]$. Then the Legendre transform $f^*$ of $f$ is approximately $\alpha^*$-regular with $$\frac{1}{\alpha^*} + \frac{1}{\alpha} = 1.$$
We only prove the proposition when $\alpha\in (1,+\infty)$. The Legendre transform of $f\in \mathtt{Cvx}(1)$ is given by $$f^*(f'(x))=xf'(x) - f(x).$$ By considering $f(x)+f(-x)$ instead, we can assume that $f$ is an even function, so that approximate $\alpha$-regularity gives $$\lim_{x\to 0^+} \frac{\log f(x)}{\log x} = \alpha.$$ Since $f(0)=f(x)-xf'(x) + o(x)$, we get $$\lim_{x\to 0^+} \frac{\log f'(x)}{\log x} = \alpha-1.$$ We need to understand the limit $$\lim_{x\to 0^+} \frac{\log xf'(x)-f(x)}{\log f'(x)}.$$ Fix $\epsilon>0$. There is some $x>0$ such that for $0\leqslant t\leqslant x$, we have $$\label{ggg}
t^{\alpha-1+\epsilon} \leqslant f'(t) \leqslant t^{\alpha-1-\epsilon}.$$ Remark that $$xf'(x) - f(x) = xf'(x) - \int_0^x f'(t) dt.$$ From (\[ggg\]), that means the value of $xf'(x) - f(x)$ is in between the two areas between $0$ and $x$ delimited by the line $y=f'(x)$ above and, respectively, the curves $t\mapsto t^{\alpha-1-\epsilon}$ and $t\mapsto t^{\alpha-1+\epsilon}$ below: $$f'(x)^{\frac{1}{\alpha-1-\epsilon}}f'(x) - \int_0^{f'(x)^{\frac{1}{\alpha-1-\epsilon}}} t^{\alpha-1-\epsilon}\ dt \leqslant xf'(x) - f(x) \leqslant xf'(x) - \int_0^x t^{\alpha-1+\epsilon}\ dt.$$ Hence $$(f'(x))^{\frac{\alpha-\epsilon}{\alpha-1-\epsilon}} - \frac{1}{\alpha-\epsilon} (f'(x))^{\frac{\alpha-\epsilon}{\alpha-1-\epsilon}} \leqslant xf'(x) - f(x) \leqslant xf'(x) - \frac{1}{\alpha+\epsilon} x^{\alpha+\epsilon}.$$ Using (\[ggg\]) again, we get $$\frac{\alpha-\epsilon-1}{\alpha-\epsilon}(f'(x))^{\frac{\alpha-\epsilon}{\alpha-1-\epsilon}} \leqslant xf'(x) - f(x) \leqslant x^{\alpha-\epsilon} - \frac{1}{\alpha+\epsilon} x^{\alpha+\epsilon} \leqslant x^{\alpha-\epsilon}.$$ So $$\frac{\alpha-\epsilon}{\alpha-1} = (\alpha -\epsilon)\lim_{x\to 0^+} \frac{\log x}{\log f'(x)}\leqslant \lim_{x\to 0^+} \frac{\log xf'(x)-f(x)}{\log f'(x)} \leqslant \frac{\alpha-\epsilon}{\alpha-1-\epsilon}.$$ Since $\epsilon$ is arbitrary small, we get the result.
### Dual convex set
To each convex set $\o\subset\R\P^n$ is associated its dual convex set $\o^*$. To define it, consider one of the two convex cones $C \subset \R^{n+1}$ whose trace is $\o$. The dual convex set $\o^*$ is the trace of the dual cone $$C^* = \{f\in (\R^{n+1})^*,\ \forall x\in C,\ f(x)> 0\}.$$ The cone $C^*$ is a subset of the dual of $\R^{n+1}$ but of course, it can be seen as the subset $$\{y\in \R^{n+1},\ \forall x\in C,\ \langle x,y \rangle \geqslant 0\}.$$
The set $\o^*$ can be identified with the set of projective hyperplanes which do not intersect $\overline\o$: to such a hyperplane corresponds the line of linear maps whose kernel is the given hyperplane. For example, we can see the boundary of $\o^*$ as the set of tangent spaces to $\doo$. In particular, when $\o$ is strictly convex with $\C^1$ boundary, there is a homeomorphism between the boundaries of $\o$ and $\o^*$: to the point $x\in\doo$ we associate the (projective class of the) linear map $x^*$ such that $\ker x^* = T_x\doo$.\
In the following we would like to link the shape of $\doo$ and $\doo^*$. We will work in $\R^{n+1}$ with the cones $C$ and $C^*$ where it is more usual to make computations. Choose a point $p\in\partial C$ and fix a Euclidean structure on $\R^{n+1}$ and an orthonormal basis $(u_1,\cdots,u_{n+1})$ so that $p=u_1+u_{n+1}$, $T_p\partial C = \span \{p,u_2,\cdots,u_{n+1}\}$ and $C \subset \{x=(x_1,\cdots,x_{n+1}),\ x_{n+1}>0\}$. We identify $\o$ with the intersection $C\cap\{x_{n+1}=1\}$ and the tangent space $T_p\doo$ is $p+\span \{u_2,\cdots,u_{n+1}\}$.\
Call $f : U\subset T_p\doo \longrightarrow \R$ the local graph of $\doo$ at $p$, such that, around $p$, $$\doo = \{(1-f(x_2,\cdots,x_n),x_2,\cdots,x_n,1)\}.$$
Around $p^*=(1,0,\cdots,0,-1)$, the boundary $\doo^*$ is given by $$\doo^* = \{(1,\l_2,\cdots,\l_n,-1-f^*(\l_2,\cdots,\l_n))\},$$ where $f^*$ is the Legendre transform of $f$. In other words, the local graph of $\doo^*$ at $p$ is given by the Legendre tranform $f^*$ of $f$.
Take a point $x = (1-f(x_2,\cdots,x_n),x_2,\cdots,x_n,1)\in\doo$ and call $x_{2n}=x_2u_2+\cdots+x_nu_n\in \span \{u_2,\cdots,u_{n+1}\}$ its projection on $\span \{u_2,\cdots,u_{n+1}\}$. Call $F : T_p\doo \longrightarrow \R^{n+1}$ the map given by $$F(p+x_{2n}) = p + x_{2n} - f(x_{2n})u_1 = (1-f(x_2,\cdots,x_n),x_2,\cdots,x_n,1).$$ The tangent space of $\doo$ at $x$ is then given by $$T_x\doo = x + d_xF(\span \{u_2,\cdots,u_{n+1}\}).$$ But, for $h\in\span \{u_2,\cdots,u_{n+1}\}$, we have $d_xF(h) = -d_xf(h) + h$. Hence $$T_x\doo = x + \{ h - d_xf(h),\ h\in \span \{u_2,\cdots,u_{n+1}\} \}.$$ Now the dual point of $x$ is the linear map $x^*=(x_1^*,\cdots,x_{n+1}^*)$ such that $x^*(x)=0$, $x^*(T_x\doo)=0$ and $x^*(u_1)=1$. (This last condition is just a normalization condition, since there is a line of corresponding linear maps.) The third condition gives $x_1^* = 1$. The second implies that for any $h\in\span \{u_2,\cdots,u_{n+1}\}$, $$0 = x^*(h - d_xf(h))=\langle x^* - \nabla_x f, h \rangle;$$ hence $x_{2n}^* = \nabla_x f$, that is, $x_i^* = \frac{\partial f}{\partial u_i}(x_{2n}),\ i=2,\cdots, n$. Finally, the first condition gives $$1-f(x_2,\cdots,x_n) + \langle \nabla_x f, x_{2n}\rangle + x_{n+1}^* = 0,$$ so $$x_{n+1}^* = -1-(\langle \nabla_x f, x_{2n}\rangle - f(x_{2n})).$$ By considering the set of variables $(\l_2,\cdots,\l_n)= \left(\frac{\partial f}{\partial u_2},\cdots, \frac{\partial f}{\partial u_n}\right)$, one finally gets $$x^* = (1,\l_2,\cdots,\l_n,-1-f^*(\l_2,\cdots,\l_n)).$$
From lemma \[legendre\], we get the following
Assume $\doo\subset\R\P^2$ is approximately $\alpha$-regular at the point $x$. Then $\doo^*$ is approximately $\alpha^*$-regular at the point $x^*$ with $$\frac{1}{\alpha^*} + \frac{1}{\alpha} = 1.$$
Hyperbolic isometries
---------------------
If $\o$ is strictly convex with $\C^1$ boundary, the group of isometries $Isom(\o,\d)$ of the Hilbert geometry $(\o,\d)$ consists of those projective transformations which preserve the convex set $\o$: $$Isom(\o,\d) = \{g\in PGL(n+1,\R),\ g(\o)=\o\}.$$ As in the hyperbolic space, isometries can be classified into three types, elliptic, parabolic and hyperbolic. This is proved in the forthcoming paper [@cramponmarquis].\
A hyperbolic isometry $g$ fixes exactly two points $x_g^+$ and $x_g^-$ on $\doo$. The point $x_g^+$ is the attractive point of $g$, $x_g^-$ is the repulsive point of $g$ : for any point $x\in\overline{\o}\smallsetminus\{x_g^-,x_g^+\}$, $\lim_{n\to \pm\infty} g^n(x)=x_g^{\pm}$. These two points are the eigenvectors associated to the biggest and smallest eigenvalues $\l_0$ and $\l_{p+1}$ of $g$. The isometry $g$ acts as a translation of length $\log \frac{\l_{p+1}}{\l_0}$ on the open segment $]x_g^-x_g^+[$. The following result is proved in [@crampon]:
\[lyapunovperiodic\] Let $g$ be a periodic orbit of the flow, corresponding to a hyperbolic element $g\in\Gamma$. Denote by $\l_0 > \l_1 > \cdots > \l_{p} > \l_{p+1}$ the moduli of the eigenvalues of $g$. Then
- $\g$ is regular and has no zero Lyapunov exponent;
- the Lyapunov exponents $(\eta_i(g))$ of the parallel transport along $\g$ are given by $$\eta_i(g) = -1 + 2\ \frac{\log \l_0-\log \l_i}{\log \l_{0} -\log \l_{p+1}},\ i=1\cdots p;$$
- the sum of the parallel Lyapunov exponents is given by $$\eta(g) = (n+1)\frac{\log \l_0 +\log \l_{p+1}}{\log \l_0 - \log \l_{p+1}}.$$
As a consequence of the results before, we see that, if $g$ is a hyperbolic isometry, the boundary $\doo$ is Lyapunov regular at the points $x_g^-$ and $x_g^+$, with Lyapunov exponents $$\label{exposanthyp}
\alpha_i = \frac{\log \l_{0} -\log \l_{p+1}}{\log \l_0-\log \l_i},\ i=1\cdots p.$$
The isometry $g\in Isom(\o,\d)$ acts on the dual convex set $\o^*$ by $g.y = (^tg)^{-1}(y)$. To $g\in Isom(\o,\d)$, we thus associate the isometry $g^* = (^tg)^{-1}\in Isom(\o^*,d_{\o^*})$. The dual points to $x_g^-$ and $x_g^+$ are respectively the points $x_{g^*}^+$ and $x_{g^*}^-$, at which $\doo^*$ is Lyapunov regular with Lyapunov exponents $$\alpha_i^* = \frac{\log \l_{0} -\log \l_{p+1}}{\log \l_i-\log \l_{p+1}},\ i=1\cdots p:$$ this corresponds to what gives formula (\[exposanthyp\]) for the isometry $g^{-1}$. Remark that, as expected, we have $$\frac{1}{\alpha_i^*} + \frac{1}{\alpha_i} = 1,\ i=1\cdots p.$$
Divisible convex sets
---------------------
The convex set $\o$ is said to be divisible if it admits a discrete cocompact subgroup $\G$ of projective isometries. By Selberg lemma, we can assume $\G$ has no torsion and the quotient $M=\o/\G$ is then a smooth manifold. The first example of divisible convex set is the ellipsoid, that is, the hyperbolic space. Benoist proved in [@benoistcv1] that, for a divisible convex set $\o$, the following properties were equivalent:\
- $\o$ is strictly convex;
- $\doo$ is of class $\C^1$;
- $(\o,\d)$ is Gromov-hyperbolic.\
Apart from the ellipsoid, various examples of strictly convex divisible sets have been given. Some can be constructed using Coxeter groups ([@kav], [@benoistqi]), some by deformations of hyperbolic manifolds (based on [@johnsonmillson] and [@koszul], see also [@goldman] for the $2$-dimensional case); we should also quote the exotic examples of Kapovich [@kapo] of divisible convex sets in all dimensions which are not quasi-isometric to the hyperbolic space (Benoist [@benoistqi] had already given an example in dimension 4).\
In what follows, we are given a compact manifold $M=\o/\G$, quotient of a strictly convex set $\o$ with $\C^1$ boundary.\
### Regularity of the boundary
Benoist proved that the geodesic flow on $HM$ has the Anosov property, with decomposition $$THM = \R.X \oplus E^u \oplus E^s.$$ That means there exist constants $C,\alpha>0$ such that for any $ t\geqslant 0$, $$\|d\ph^t(Z^s)\| \leqslant C e^{-\alpha t} \|Z^s\|,\ Z^s\in E^s,$$ $$\|d\ph^{-t}(Z^u)\| \leqslant C e^{-\alpha t} \|Z^u\|,\ Z^u \in E^u.$$
As a consequence, we get that the boundary $\doo$ is $\C^{\alpha}$ and $\beta$-convex for some $1<\alpha\leqslant 2 \leqslant \beta<+\infty$. This had already been remarked by Benoist in [@benoistcv1], and Guichard proved that the biggest $1<\alpha \leqslant 2$ and smallest $2 \leqslant\beta$ one can take are related to the group $\G$: $$\alpha(\o) = \sup_{g\in\G} \frac{\log \l_{0}(g) -\log \l_{p+1}(g)}{\log \l_0(g)-\log \l_1(g)}.$$ $$\beta(\o) = \inf_{g\in\G} \frac{\log \l_{0}(g) -\log \l_{p+1}(g)}{\log \l_0(g)-\log \l_p(g)}.$$ Guichard result is stated in another form: the dual group $\G^*$ also acts cocompactly on the dual convex set $\o^*$, providing another compact manifold $M^*=\o^*/\G^*$; Guichard showed that $\alpha(\o)=\alpha(\o^*)$ and $\beta(\o)=\beta(\o^*)$. In [@cramponmarquis], we will give another proof of Guichard result that we also extend to some non cocompact actions.\
The case of the ellipsoid is a particular one. Indeed, the following facts are equivalent:
- $\o$ is an ellipsoid;
- $\alpha(\o) = \beta(\o) = 2$;
- $\G$ is not Zariski-dense in $SL(n+1,\R)$;
- the parallel transport on $HM$ is an isometry;
- the Lyapunov exponents are to $-1$, $0$ and $1$, corresponding to the Anosov decomposition $THM = E^s\oplus \R.X \oplus E^u$.
### Ergodic measures
Let $\Lambda(H\o)$ be the set of regular points on $H\o$, which is obviously $\G$-invariant, and call $\Lambda$ the projection of $\Lambda(H\o)$ on $HM$. From Oseledets’ theorem, we know that for any invariant measure $m$ of the geodesic flow on $HM$, $\Lambda$ has full $m$-measure; in particular, Lyapunov exponents are defined almost everywhere. If $m$ is an ergodic measure, that is, such that invariant sets have zero or full measure, then Lyapunov exponents are constant almost everywhere: to each ergodic measure $m$ we can thus associate a number $p=p(m)$ and its parallel Lyapunov exponents $\eta_1(m) < \cdots < \eta_p(m)$.\
Kaimanovich [@kaimanovich] explained how to associate in a one-to-one way to each invariant probability measure $m$ on $HM$ a $\G$-invariant Radon measure $M=M(m)$ on the space of oriented geodesics of $\o$ given by $\partial^2\o=\doo\times\doo\smallsetminus\Delta$, where $\Delta = \{(x,x),\ x\in\doo\}$. If $m$ is ergodic, Oseledets’ theorem implies that for $M$-almost all $(x,y)\in\partial^2\o$, the geodesic from $x$ to $y$ is regular with parallel Lyapunov exponents $\eta_1(m) < \cdots < \eta_p(m)$; thus, for $M$-almost all $(x,y)\in\partial^2\o$, the boundary $\doo$ is Lyapunov regular at $x$ and $y$ with Lyapunov exponents $\alpha_i(m),\ 1\leqslant i \leqslant p$, given by $$\alpha_i(m) = \frac{2}{\eta_i(m)+1}.$$ By projecting on the first and second coordinates in $\partial^2\o$, we get for each ergodic measure $m$ two $\G$-invariant sets $\doo^-(m)$ and $\doo^+(m)$ where the boundary $\doo$ is Lyapunov regular with the same Lyapunov exponents $\alpha_i(m),\ 1\leqslant i \leqslant p$. Recall that the action of $\G$ on $\doo$ is minimal, that is, every orbit is dense; the sets $\doo^-(m)$ and $\doo^+(m)$ are then dense subsets of $\doo$.\
The diversity of invariant measures can then give an idea of the complexity of the boundary of a divisible convex set. Here are some examples.\
The easiest examples of ergodic measures are the Lebesgue measures $l_{g}$ supported by a closed orbit $g$, associated to a conjugacy class of a hyperbolic element $g\in \G$. The corresponding set of full $M(l_{g})$-measure is precisely the orbit of $(x_g^-,x_g^+)$ under $\G$ while its projections $\doo^-(m)$ and $\doo^+(m)$ are the $\G$-orbits of $x_g^-$ and $x_g^+$.\
Other examples are provided by Gibbs measure which are equilibrium states of Hölder continuous potentials $f:HM \longrightarrow \R$: the Gibbs measure of $f$ is the unique invariant probability measure $\mu_f$ such that $$h_{\mu_f} + \int f\ d\mu_f = \sup\{h_{m} + \int f\ dm,\ m\ \text{invariant probability measure}\}.$$ Two distinct potentials $f$ and $g$ have the same equilibrium states if and only if their difference is invariant under the flow. The corresponding measure $M_f$ on $\partial^2\o$ can always be written as $M_f = F M_f^s\times M_f^u$, where $F$ is a continuous function on $\partial^2\o$, and $M_f^s$ and $M_f^u$ are two finite measures on $\doo$. The three objects are determined by the potential; in particular, $M_f^u$ and $M_f^s$ are given by the Patterson-Sullivan construction, associated to the potentials $f$ and $\sigma * f$, where $\sigma$ is the flip map.\
Among them are two particular measures. The first one is the Bowen-Margulis measure $\mu_{BM}$ which is the measure of maximal entropy of the flow, that is, the equilibrium state associated to the potential $f\equiv 0$. The corresponding measure $M_{BM}$ is given by $$dM_{BM}(\xi^+,\xi^-) =e^{2\delta(\xi^+|\xi^-)_o} d\mu_{o}^2(\xi^+,\xi^-),$$ where $\mu_{o}$ is the Patterson-Sullivan measure at an arbitrary point $o\in\o$, and $(\xi^+|\xi^-)_o$ is the Gromov product $\xi^+$ and $\xi^-$ based at the point $o$. In [@crampon], I had proved that $\eta(\mu_{BM}) = \sum \eta_i(\mu_{BM}) = n-1$. Thus, we get that $\mu_o$-almost every point of $\doo$ is Lyapunov regular with exponents $\alpha_i,\ i=1,\cdots,p$, such that $\alpha = 2(n-1)$, with $\frac{1}{\alpha} = \sum_i \frac{1}{\alpha_i}$. For example, in dimension $2$, $\mu_o$-almost every point of $\doo$ is Lyapunov $2$-regular. A question I could not answer was to know if, in dimension $n\geqslant3$, there was only one parallel Lyapunov exponent if and only if $\o$ was an ellipsoid, that is, $M$ was a hyperbolic manifold.\
The second measure which is important is the Sinai-Ruelle-Bowen (SRB) measure $\mu^+$, which is the equilibrium state associated to the potential $$f^+ = \frac{d}{dt}|_{t=0} \log \det d\ph^t_{|_{E^u}}.$$ It is the only invariant measure whose conditional measures $(\mu^+)^u$ along unstable manifolds are absolutely continuous, and which satisfies the equality in the Ruelle inequality. Recall that the Ruelle inequality relates the entropy of an invariant measure $m$ to the sum of positive Lyapunov exponents $\chi^+=n-1+\eta$ of the flow: $$h_{m} \leqslant \int \chi^+\ dm.$$ Closely related to this measure is the “reverse” SRB measure $\mu^- = \sigma* \mu^+$, which is the equilibrium state of the potential $$f^- = \frac{d}{dt}|_{t=0} \log \det d\ph^t_{|_{E^s}}.$$ The measure $\mu^-$ is the only invariant measure whose conditional measures along stable manifolds are absolutely continuous.\
In the case of the ellipsoid, $\mu^+$, $\mu^-$ and $\mu_{BM}$ all coincide, since $f^+=f^-=0$, and they are all absolutely continuous; indeed, they coincide with the Liouville measure of the flow. When $\o$ is not an ellipsoid, the Zariski-density of the cocompact group $\G$ implies via Livschitz-Sinai theorem that there is no absolutely continuous measure (see [@benoistcv1]). So the three measures are distinct.\
The measures $\mu^+$ and $\mu^-$ have the same entropy $h_{SRB}$ given by $$h_{SRB} = \int \chi^+\ d\mu^+ = -\int \chi^-\ d\mu^-,$$ where $\chi^- = -(n-1)+\eta$ is the sum of negative Lyapunov exponents. In particular, since the Bowen-Margulis measure is the measure of maximal entropy and has entropy $h_{BM}\leqslant n-1$, from Ruelle inequality, we get that the almost sure value $\eta(SRB)$ (with respect to $\mu^+$ or $\mu^-$) of the sum of parallel Lyapunov exponents satisfies $\eta(SRB) < 0.$\
The measure $\mu^+$ corresponds to the measure $M^+$ on $\partial^2\o$ which can be written $M^+ = F^+ M^s \times M^u$, with $M^u$ absolutely continuous, while the measure $\mu^-$ corresponds $M^- = F^- M^u \times M^s$. In particular,
Let $\o$ be a divisible strictly convex set. Then Lebesgue-almost every point of $\doo$ is Lyapunov regular with exponents $$\alpha_i(SRB) = \frac{2}{\eta_i(SRB)+1},\ 1\leqslant i \leqslant p.$$
Since $\doo$ is also $\C^2$ Lebesgue almost-everywhere, we have that $\alpha_i(SRB)\leqslant 2$. When $\o$ is an ellipsoid, we have $p=1$ and $\alpha_1(SRB)=2$. In the other cases, the fact that $\eta(SRB)<0$ implies that $\eta_1(SRB)<0$ hence $\alpha_1(SRB)>2$. In particular, we recover the fact that the curvature of $\doo$ is concentrated on a set of Lebesgue-measure $0$ (see [@benoistcv1]).
About volume entropy {#sectionvolentropy}
====================
The volume entropy of a Riemannian metric $g$ on a manifold $M$ measures the asymptotic exponential growth of the volume of balls in the universal cover $\tilde M$; it is defined by $$\label{entvol} h_{vol}(g)=\limsup_{R\to+\infty} \frac{1}{r} \log vol_g(B(x,R)),$$
where $vol_g$ denotes the Riemannian volume corresponding to $g$. We define the volume entropy of a Hilbert geometry $(\o,\d)$ by the same formula, with respect the Busemann volume.\
Some results are already known: for instance, if $\o$ is a polytope then $h_{vol}(\o,d_{\o})=0$; at the opposite, we have the
\[volentropy\] Let $\o\subset\R\P^n$ be a convex proper open set. If the boundary $\partial\o$ of $\o$ is $\C^{1,1}$, that is, has Lipschitz derivative, then $h_{vol}(\o,d_{\o})=n-1$.
The global feeling is that any Hilbert geometry is in between the two extremal cases of the ellipsoid and the simplex. In particular, the following conjecture is still open:
\[conjectureentropy\] For any $\o\subset \R\P^n$, $$h_{vol}(\o,d_{\o})\leqslant n-1.$$
In [@bbv] the conjecture is proved in dimension $n=2$ and an example is explicitly constructed where $0<h_{vol}<1$. Following their idea for proving theorem \[volentropy\], we can get the
Let $(\o,\d)$ be any Hilbert geometry, and $\mathcal{L}$ a probability Lebesgue measure on $\doo$. Then $$h_{vol}\geqslant \int \frac{2}{\underline{\alpha}}\ d\mathcal{L},$$ where $\underline{\alpha}$ is defined by $$\frac{1}{\underline{\alpha}(x)} = \sum_{i=1}^{n} \frac{1}{\underline{\alpha}_i(x)},\ x\in\doo,$$ with $\alpha_1(x) \geqslant \cdots \geqslant \alpha_n(x)$ being the Lyapunov exponents at $x$, counted with multiplicity.
In [@bbv], the authors proved that $h_{vol}$ also measures the exponential growth rate of the volume of spheres: $$h_{vol} = \limsup_{R\to +\infty} \frac{1}{R} \log vol(S(o,R)),$$ where $S(o,R) = \{x\in\o,\ \d(o,x)=R\}$ is the sphere of radius $R$ about the arbitrary point $o$, and $vol$ denotes the Busemann volume on the sphere. This is well defined because metric balls are convex, hence $S(o,R)$ is $\C^1$ Lebesgue-almost everywhere, so we can consider the Finsler metric induced by $F$ on $S(o,R)$ and define Busemann volume.\
Fix a probability Lebesgue measure $d\xi$ on the set of directions $H_o\o$ about the point $o$, that we identify with the unit sphere $S(o,1)$. The volume of the sphere $S(o,R)$ is then given by $$vol(S(o,R)) = \int f(\xi,R)\ d\xi,$$ where $f(\xi,R) = \det dF(\xi,R)$ with $F$ being the projection about $o$ from $S(o,1)$ to $S(o,R)$. Now, using Jensen inequality and the concavity of $\log$, we get that $$h_{vol} \geqslant \limsup_{R\to +\infty} \int \frac{1}{R} \log f(\xi,R)\ d\xi;$$ then, the dominated convergence theorem gives $$h_{vol} \geqslant \int \limsup_{R\to +\infty} \frac{1}{R} \log f(\xi,R)\ d\xi.$$ But it is not difficult to see that, almost everywhere, $$\limsup_{R\to +\infty} \frac{1}{R} \log f(\xi,R) = \overline{\chi}^+(o,\xi) = \frac{2}{\underline{\alpha}(\xi^+)},$$ with $\xi^+ = \ph^{+\infty}(o,[\xi])$. Hence the result.
As a corollary, we can for example state the following result.
Let $(\o,\d)$ be any Hilbert geometry. If the boundary $\doo$ is $\beta$-convex for some $1 \leqslant \beta < +\infty$ then $h_{vol}>0$.
[**Acknowledgements.**]{} I would like to thank my two advisors Patrick Foulon and Gerhard Knieper for all the useful discussions we had in Strasbourg or in Bochum. A great thanks goes to Aurélien Bosché who helped me fighting against convex functions. Finally, I thank François Ledrappier for his interest in this work and for encouraging me to write everything down in an article.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Very recent observations of the Li isotope in halo stars reveal a Li plateau about 1000 times above the predicted BBN abundance. We calculate the evolution of Li versus redshift generated from an initial burst of cosmological cosmic rays (CCRs) up to the formation of the Galaxy. We show that the pregalactic production of the Li isotope can account for the 6 plateau observed in metal poor halo stars without additional over-production of 7. The derived relation between the amplitude of the CCR energy spectra and the redshift of the initial CCR production puts constraints on the physics and history of the objects, such as pop III stars, responsible for these early cosmic rays. Consequently, we consider the evolution of Li in the Galaxy. Since Li is also produced in Galactic cosmic ray nucleosynthesis, we argue that halo stars with metallicities between \[Fe/H\] = -2 and -1, must be somewhat depleted in Li.'
author:
- 'Emmanuel Rollinde, Elisabeth Vangioni, Keith Olive'
title: Cosmological Cosmic Rays and the observed $^6$Li plateau in metal poor halo stars
---
Introduction {#s:introduction}
============
To account for the origin and evolution of lithium, beryllium and boron, we rely on our understanding of several very different aspects of nucleosynthesis, namely: Big Bang, non thermal, stellar nucleosynthesis, all of which must be correlated through cosmic and chemical evolution. These rare light nuclei are not generated in the normal course of stellar nucleosynthesis (except Li in the galactic disk) and are in fact destroyed in stellar interiors. This explains the relatively low abundance of these species. While a significant fraction of the observed Li is produced in the Big Bang, the Big Bang nucleosynthesis (BBN) production of Li, Be and B results in abundances which are orders of magnitude below that observed in halo stars. For example, BBN production of Li is dominated by the process D$(\alpha,\gamma)$Li. At the baryon density deduced from observations of the anisotropies of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation by WMAP [@Spergel], its BBN value is Li/H $\simeq$ $10^{-14}$ [@tsof; @Vangioni99]. On the other hand the BBN mean value of the Li abundance is, according to @Cyburt04 Li/H = $4.27^{+1.02}_{-0.83}\times 10^{-10}$, according to @Cuoco Li/H = $4.9^{+1.4}_{-1.2}\times10^{-10}$, or according to @Coc Li/H = $4.15^{+0.49}_{-0.45}\times10^{-10}$. As such, the Li/Li ratio in BBN is about $4 \times 10^4$.
The very low abundances of the Li, $^{9}$Be and $^{10,11}$B isotopes predicted by BBN theory imply that their most plausible production process was the interaction of Galactic Cosmic rays (GCRs) with the interstellar medium [for a review see @Vangioni00]. Of these isotopes, Li is of particular interest because it has only recently been measured in halo stars [@sln1; @ht1; @ht2; @sln2; @cetal; @Nissen99; @Nissen00; @Asplund1; @Asplund2; @Aoki] thus offering new constraints on the very early evolution of light elements [@sfosw]. Many studies have followed the evolution of Li in our Galaxy [see e.g. @Fields99; @Vangioni99]. Of particular importance in this context is the $\alpha+\alpha$ reaction that leads to the synthesis of this isotope (as well as Li) and is efficient very early in the evolutionary history of the Galaxy.
Different scenarios have been discussed to explain the abundance of Li in metal-poor halo stars (MPHS). @Suzuki discussed the possibility of cosmic rays produced in shocks during the formation of the Galaxy, which was consistent with Li data available at that time. @Jedamzik considers the decay of relic particles, during the epoch of the big bang nucleosynthesis, that can yield to a large primordial abundance of Li. @Fields have studied in detail the lithium production in connection to gamma rays, using a formalism similar to ours but with a different point of view as far as the observational constraints are concerned (see ).
Until recently, the abundance of Li had been observed in only a few MPHS with metallicity \[Fe/H\] larger than -2.3. New values of the ratio Li/Li have been measured with UVES at the VLT-UT2 Kueyen ESO telescope, in halo stars with metallicity ranging from -2.7 to -0.5 (see ). These observations indicate the presence of a plateau in Li/H $\simeq\, 10^{-11}$ which suggests a pregalactic origin for the formation of Li.
In this paper, we consider the synthesis of lithium due to the interaction of cosmological cosmic rays (CCRs), produced at an early epoch, with the intergalactic medium [@Montmerlea; @Montmerleb; @Montmerlec and ]. As $\alpha + \alpha$ processes also produce 7, these models are constrained by the 7 plateau observed in the same MPHS. This constraint is made more severe by the current discrepancy between the BBN predicted value of 7 and the observational abundance. We demonstrate how this model can explain the recent observations and constrain the history of cosmological structure formation (Section \[s:result\]) and the galactic evolution of Li (Section \[s:discussion\]). We compare these results with the expected evolution of 6 from GCR nucleosynthesis. Without the pregalactic production of 6, the latter model can not account for the elevated 6 abundances at very low metallicity. In contrast, models for which O/Fe increases at low metallicity are able to produce sufficient 6 at low metallicity, without pregalactic production. However, in this case, the bulk of the 6 data seen in higher metallicity stars must be argued to be depleted. The same is true for our model of CCR nucleosynthesis, but to a lesser extent. We argue that 6 data in stars with \[Fe/H\] = -3 to -4 will be required to distinguish between these scenarios. Our predictions will be compared to other work in and our conclusions are given in .
Observational and nuclear data {#s:observation}
==============================
The determination of the 6 abundance in MPHS is extremely difficult and requires high resolution and high signal to noise spectra due to the tiny hyperfine splitting between the two lithium isotopes. The line splitting is only seen as the narrowly shifted lines are thermally broadened. Though the fits to the width of this feature are sensitive to the 7/6 ratio, it is very difficult to obtain accurate measurements of the isotopic ratio. 6 can only be realistically expected to be observed in stars with high surface temperatures and at low metallicities of \[Fe/H\] $ < -1.3$. @bs determined that only in stars with surface temperatures greater than about 6300 K will 6 survive in the observable surface layers of the star. At metallicities \[Fe/H\] $\ga -1.3$, even higher effective temperatures would be required to preserve 6.
As noted above, the previous sets of data on the lithium isotope ratio has been significantly expanded by @Asplund2 [see also @Lambert] with the observations of 24 MPHS. Previously, only 3 stars with metallicity \[Fe/H\] $ < -1.3$ showed net detections of 6 [@sln1; @ht1; @ht2; @sln2; @cetal; @Nissen00]. The observed abundances of Li/H and Li/H are displayed versus the metallicity, \[Fe/H\], in . There are in addition several stars with metallicities in the range \[Fe/H\] = -3 to -0.5 for which only upper limits (not shown) to the 6/7 ratio are available. Note that the Li abundance at solar metallicity is plotted for both the meteoritic value [@Lodders03] and the solar photospheric value [@Asplund3]. The latter is derived from the photospheric value of Li assuming the solar ratio 7/6 =12 and therefore really represents an upper limit to the 6 photospheric abundance.
These new data at low metallicity reveal the existence of a plateau for Li, whose abundance is about 1000 times higher than that predicted by BBN. As such, another production mechanism which is capable of producing what appears to be an initial enrichment of 6 in the intergalactic medium is required. Here, we concentrate on the interaction of $\alpha$ particles present in CCRs produced at high redshift, with He at rest in the IGM, as a potential description of this pregalactic enrichment process. The abundances in higher metallicity stars will be discussed in .
Note that there is, however, considerable dispersion in the data, and as noted above, there are many stars for which there was no detectable 6, indicating that depletion may have played a role in the observed 6 abundance for stars in the plateau as well. This is in contrast to the 7 plateau which shows very little dispersion and for which we expect the role of depletion to have been minor [@rbofn].
Galactic production of lithium arises from the interaction of GCRs with the ISM via the $\alpha + \alpha$ reaction. This is a primary process which yields a logarithmic slope of 1 in the lithium abundance versus metallicity (\[Fe/H\]) relation as seen in . The amplitude for 6 production is constrained by the abundances of Be and B (see for an additional discussion). As one can see, this model can not explain the elevated 6 abundances at low metallicity and requires some 6 depletion at higher metallicity (as will all of the models discussed here).
Recently, @Mercer have performed new measurements related to the $\alpha+\alpha$ reaction and provide a new fit for the production of Liand Li. The calculated Li abundances from the GCR process using the often applied @read84 cross sections and the fit at higher energy provided by @Mercer resulting in slightly less (30 – 50 % at solar metallicity) 6 are compared in . In what follows, we use the most recent cross sections of @Mercer.
(12,9) (0,0)
CCR production of lithium in the IGM : Formalism {#s:formalism}
================================================
On the Existence of Cosmological Cosmic Rays
--------------------------------------------
The existence and global properties of cosmic rays in the Galaxy are often related to supernova explosions and/or gamma-ray bursts, in massive stars. Motivated by the WMAP results indicating an early epoch of reionization, @Daigne have developed models that include an early burst of massive stars with several possible mass ranges, capable of reionizing the intergalactic medium, while satisfying observational constraints on cosmic chemical evolution in pre-galactic structures and in the intergalactic medium. In particular, @Daigne have demonstrated that the presence of massive stars ($M\sim$ 40-100 M$_\odot$) is required at high redshift ($z{\mbox{$\:\stackrel{>}{_{\sim}}\:$} }15-20$). This early population of stars (pop III) is able to reionize the intergalactic medium and generate a prompt initial enrichment (PIE) in metals. It is likely that particles will be accelerated within the same process.
Gamma-ray emission, as well as cosmic rays, may also come from active [@stecker; @mukherjee] and normal [@pavlidou] galaxies [see also @lemoine]. Depending on the strengh of the magnetic fields in those structures, cosmic rays will be confined or will propagate into the intergalactic medium [e.g. @Berezinsky; @Zweibel]. In addition, recent numerical simulations have shown that the formation of large scale structures leads to accretion shocks in the baryonic gas, and thus to particle acceleration directly in the intergalactic medium [@kang; @Miniati; @keshet; @ryu]. Finally, at ultrahigh energies, more exotic sources of cosmic rays have also been studied [@bhattacharjee; @sigl]. Clearly, there are several viable mechanisms for the production of CCRs and just as clearly, there is a great deal of uncertainty surrounding their production.
In this paper, CCRs are assumed to be produced in a single burst correlated to a very early generation of pop III stars as discussed in @Daigne at a given redshift . Note that very little is known about the cosmic ray injection spectra at these energies. Here, our formalism is directly derived from the work of @Montmerlea, hereafter M77. We briefly summarize this formalism and note explicitly our differences with this model. A power-law distribution in particle energy is adopted for the CR injection spectrum, $$\begin{aligned}
\phi_\alpha(E)&=&{\mbox{$\cal F$}}\,12.5\,K_{\alpha p}(E+E_0)\{E(E+2\,E_0)\}^{-(\gamma+1)/2}\nonumber\\
& & {\rm cm}^{-2}{\rm s}^{-1}{\rm (GeV\ per\ nucleon)}^{-1}\,,
\EQN{phialpha}\end{aligned}$$ which is the form expected from standard shock acceleration theory [@Blandford]. ${\mbox{$\cal F$}}$ is a normalization factor which is fixed by the value of the injection spectral index, chosen to be $\gamma=3$ [@Suzuki], and by $z_s$. It will ultimately be constrained by the observed abundance of Li in the MPHS (see ). $E$ is the kinetic energy per nucleon, $E_0=939$ MeV is the nucleon rest mass energy and $K_{\alpha p}=0.08$ is the abundance by number of $^4$He/H. Lithium production is sensitive to $\alpha's$ with energy $E \approx 10$ MeV/n.
Transport function in an expanding universe
-------------------------------------------
The initial burst of cosmological cosmic rays evolves in the framework of an expanding universe with a cosmological constant.
If $N_i(E,z)$ is the comoving number density per (GeV/n) of a given species at a given time or redshift, and energy, we define $N_{i,{\rm H}}(E,z)\, \equiv
\, N(E,z)/n_{\rm H}(z)$, the abundance by number with respect to the ambient gaseous hydrogen (in units of (Gev/n)$^{-1}$). The evolution of $N_{i,{\rm H}}$ is defined through the transport function $$\frac{\partial N_{i,{\rm H}}}{\partial t} + \frac{\partial}
{\partial E}(bN_{i,{\rm H}}) + \frac{N_{i,{\rm H}}}{T_{\rm D}} = Q_{i,{\rm H}}\,.$$ $Q$ is a source function which accounts for different sources of particle production while ${T_{\rm D}}$ is the lifetime against destruction. $b$ describes the energy losses due to expansion or ionization processes ((Gev/n)s$^{-1}$). The energy and time dependencies can be separated as $b(E,z)=-B(E)f(z)$. We can distinguish two cases depending on whether losses are dominated by expansion or by ionization. The general form for the redshift dependence, when expansion dominates is $f_{\rm E}(z)=(1+z)^{-1}|\d{z}/\d{t}|\,H_0^{-1}$ [e.g. @Wick]. Other contributions to $B$ or $f$, do not depend on the assumed cosmology and are given explicitly in M77. Two important quantities, $\zstar(E,E',z)$ and $\Eps(E,z)$ are used in this formalism. Given a particle ($\alpha$ or lithium) with an energy $E$ at a redshift $z$, $\zstar(E,E',z)$ corresponds to the redshift at which this particle had an energy $E'$. $\Eps(E,z)$ is the initial energy required if this particle was produced at the redshift of the burst, $z_s$. In particular, $\zstar(E,\Eps,z)=z_s$. The equation that defines $\zstar$ (Eq. A5, M77) is $\partial{\zstar}/\partial{E} = - \left[B(E)f(z)\,|\d{z}/\d{t}|\right]^{-1}\, \left(\partial{\zstar}/\partial{z}\right)$. M77 gives analytical solutions for when =0. When $\Ol\,\neq\,0$, it cannot be solved analytically when ionization dominates. Integration of this equation shows that $\zstar(E,\Eps,z)$ is the solution of $$\int_z^{z^\star}\,\d{z''}\,f(z'')\,\left(|\d{z}/\d{t}|\right)_{z''}\ =\ \int_E^{{E_s^\prime}}\,\frac{\d{E''}}{B(E'')}
\EQN{zstar}$$ We solve this relation for numerically whenever analytical solutions are not available.
The CCR flux and the lithium abundance
--------------------------------------
The evolution of the CCR $\alpha$ energy spectrum is derived, using Eq. A8 of M77 and the single burst properties, as $$\Phi_{\alpha, {\rm H}}(E,z) = {\phi_\alpha(E)\over \ n_{\rm H}^0}\frac{\beta}{\beta'}\frac{\phi_\alpha(\Eps)}{\phi_\alpha(E)}\left|\frac{\d{z}}{\d{t}}\right|_{z_s}\frac{\exp{(-\xi)}}{|b(E,z_s)|}\,\frac{1}{\left|\partial\zstar/\partial E'\right|_{{E_s^\prime}}}
\EQN{phialphaevol}$$ where $\Phi_{\alpha, {\rm H}}(E,z)\equiv \Phi_\alpha(E,z)/n_{\rm H}(z)$ is the flux of $\alpha$’s per comoving volume $$\Phi_{\alpha, {\rm H}}(E,z) = \beta\,N_{\alpha,{\rm H}}(E,z)
\EQN{phialphadef}$$ and $\beta$ ($\beta'$) is the velocity corresponding to energy $E$ ($\Eps$); $\xi$ accounts for the destruction term (Eq. A9, M77).
The abundance by number of lithium ($l$=Li or Li) of energy $E$, produced at a given redshift $z$, is computed from $$\begin{aligned}
{\partial N_{l,\, {\rm H}}(E,z) \over \partial t} & = & \int \sigma_{\alpha\alpha\rightarrow l}(E,E')n_{\rm He}(z)\Phi_{\alpha\, ,{\rm H}}(E',z)\,\d{E'} \nonumber\\
& = & \sigma_l(E) K_{\alpha p} \Phi_{\alpha}(4\,E,z)\ \ [\mbox{(Gev/n)$^{-1}$\,s$^{-1}$}]\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $\sigma_{\alpha\alpha\rightarrow l}(E,E')=\sigma_l(E)\delta(E-E'/4)$. The cross sections used have been discussed in . Note that this equation does not take into account the destruction of lithium in the intergalactic medium. We show below that this is a reasonable approximation.
Furthermore, we want to compute the abundance of lithium in the gas that is present at the redshift of the formation of the Galaxy (see below). We assume that all the lithium produced will be thermalized in the protogalaxy before stars form. Thus, the quantity that should be compared to the data is, $$[l/{\rm H]}(z) = [l/{\rm H}]_{\rm BBN}+\int_z^{z^\star} \int {\partial N_{l,\, {\rm H}}(E,z')\over \partial t }\, \d{E}\, |\d{t}/\d{z'}|\, \d{z'}\,.
\EQN{lh}$$ where $[l/{\rm H}]_{\rm BBN}$ is the primordial abundance predicted by BBN. The redshift evolution of Li/H and Li/H are the main results that will be compared to observations, and used to constrain the CCR [*proton*]{} energy density, $${\cal E}_p(z) = \int_{E_{\rm cut}}\left[\Phi_\alpha(E_p,z)/K_{\alpha p}\right]\,E_p\, /\, \beta\ \d{E_p}.
\EQN{enerdens}$$ where $E_{\rm cut}=10$ MeV corresponds to the $\alpha$ energy cut-off (MeV/n) for the $\alpha+\alpha \rightarrow$ Li reaction.
Finally, we comment on the subsequent destruction of Lithium. The differential rate of destruction (by protons) is equal to $\sigma_{\rm D}(E)\, n_{\rm H}(z)\, N_{l,\, {\rm H}}(E,z) \beta(E)$ and is proportional to the Lithium abundance. The cross section $\sigma_{\rm D}$, decreases rapidly with energy below 10 MeV/n (see Fig. 2 of M77). Assuming a constant energy of 10 MeV/n we can derive an upper limit to the destruction process. We find that taking destruction into account increases the final proton energy density only up to 7% for = 100 and has virtually no effect for $\zs {\mbox{$\:\stackrel{<}{_{\sim}}\:$} }50$.
Updated quantities
------------------
Since 1977, the cosmological parameters, the Li and Liabundances predicted by BBN and observed in MPHS have changed considerably. They have been updated here. Unless otherwise noted, we use the standard $\Lambda$CDM cosmology [@Spergel] for which $H_0=71$ km, $\Om=0.27$, $\Ol=0.73$ with $\Ob$h$^2$ = 0.0224. The Hubble constant is defined as $H(z) = H_0\,\left(\Om\,(1+z)^3+(1-\Omega_m - \Omega_\Lambda)(1+z)^2
+\Ol\right)^{0.5}$ valid in a post-radiation dominated universe and we assume an equation of state parameter for the dark energy, $w = -1$. Finally, $\d{z}/\d{t}\, =\, -\, (1+z)\, H(z)$.
We use the recently calculated BBN abundances of lithium by @Coc and the observed Li and 7 abundances in MPHS. From , we define the MPHS abundance for Li as the value corresponding to the plateau, \[$^6$Li\]$_p$ = $\log($6/H$)+ 12 = 0.8$.
Constraints on CCR production {#s:result}
=============================
The process described above occurs in the IGM, and modifies the abundance pattern of the medium that will later form the Galaxy. Observations of MPHS trace the evolution of the gas in the halo of the Galaxy at an early epoch at low metallicity. The observed abundance for the lowest metallicity is then assumed to be a pregalactic abundance, i.e. the predicted abundance at the redshift of the formation of the Galaxy. This may be justified by the presence of the Liplateau. We will assume that the peak of the formation of the structures occurs at $\zgal\simeq 3$ [e.g. @font; @juneau; @Hop]. Therefore, the abundance observed for the lowest metallicity stars must correspond to the abundance in the intergalactic medium at $z=\zgal$. We next define the procedure used to constrain the CCR burst parameters from the lithium observations.
Procedure {#s:procedure}
---------
We begin by working within the context of the standard framework described in , that is a $\Lambda$CDM + WMAP cosmology. The shape of the CCR spectrum is given by , with $\gamma=3$. Then, the evolution of the lithium abundance with redshift in our model is uniquely specified by the normalization constant and the redshift of the CCR burst, .
Our CCR spectrum is constrained by $(i)$ the Spite plateau [@spites] for Li and $(ii)$ the hint for a Li plateau [@Asplund2]. The Spite plateau should correspond to the primordial value of the 7 abundance. However, the observed Li abundance is a factor of 2-3 lower than the calculated one (based on the WMAP baryon density). As a result of this discrepancy, the 7 plateau acts as a strong constraint in our model, since it forbids us to produce a non-negligible amount of Li. This constraint is weakened if the observational value of 7 were higher [see e.g. @mr] as the GCR component of 7 would become more difficult to observe as the ratio of GCR to BBN produced 7 is diminished [@fieldsal]. Nevertheless, our model must produce a small quantity of this isotope compared to the BBN abundance. The abundance of Li observed at very low metallicity is assumed to trace the abundance in the [*before*]{} the formation of the Galaxy. As mentioned above, our model must be able to reproduce this abundance at $z=\zgal$.
The constraints on the Li abundance from the calculated BBN abundance at $z\sim\infty$ and from its observed ‘pregalactic’ value at $z=\zgal$ specify a unique amplitude for the CCR energy spectrum, , for a given . Therefore, the normalization constant, , is determined by the choice of parameters ($\Ol,\,\Om,\, \gamma,\, \zs$), under the constraint given by the initial and final Li abundances. The initial Li abundance is fixed by the BBN. Then, for each set of parameters, we check that the model does not produce too large of an additional pregalactic component of Li.
The Li plateau and the evolution of Li versus redshift
------------------------------------------------------
The evolution of the abundance of Li with redshift is shown in for three values of $z_s=$10, 30 and 100. In each case a Li plateau is produced. By construction, the abundance of Li at $z=\zgal$ is fixed. In addition, the rate of production of 6 decreases rapidly soon after the initial burst. This was noted in M77 and corresponds to the dilution of the CCR flux with the expansion of the Universe. Unless the burst occurs just prior to the formation of the Galaxy (), the Li abundance is almost constant for $z{\mbox{$\:\stackrel{<}{_{\sim}}\:$} }\zgal$.
(12,19.4) (0,0) (0,14.5)
Since the production rates of Li and Li are similar, the additional production of Lidue to CCRs ($\simeq\, 10^{-11}$) is negligible compared to the BBN primordial values ($\simeq$ a few $ \times 10^{-10}$). Note that the predicted abundance in the Spite plateau is increased by only 6%, 8% or 10% for =100, 30 or 10 respectively. The ratio Li/Li follows the same trend as Li (upper panel of ) and reaches a final value of about 60.
Influence of the different parameters on the CCR amplitude
----------------------------------------------------------
We next investigate the influence of the parameters of the model ($\Ol$, $\Om$; $\gamma$, $z_s$) on the required amplitude of the CCR flux (${\mbox{$\cal F$}}$) using the same constraint on the ‘pregalactic’ value \[6\]$_p = 0.8$ at $z=\zgal$. Results are given in . Note that, as mentioned above, the evolution of the lithium production is dominated by the dilution of the CCR flux that roughly follows a $(1+z)^3$ law. Thus, the cosmological parameters and the shape of the energy spectrum have very little influence on the shape of the curves in . Only the amplitude of the initial CCR flux varies.
------- -------------------------------- ---------- --------------------------- ---------------------------
$z_s$ ($\Omega_\Lambda$, $\Omega_m$) $\gamma$ $\log({\mbox{$\cal F$}})$ $\log({\cal E}_p(z=\zs))$
100 (0.7,0.3) 3.0 -4.6 -10.2
2.0 -4.1 -9.4
(0.0,1.0) 3.0 -4.6 -10.2
2.0 -4.0 -9.3
30 (0.7,0.3) 3.0 -4.4 -11.6
2.0 -3.7 -10.6
(0.0,1.0) 3.0 -4.1 -11.4
2.0 -3.4 -10.3
10 (0.7,0.3) 3.0 -3.5 -12.2
2.0 -2.7 -10.9
(0.0,1.0) 3.0 -3.0 -11.8
2.0 -2.3 -10.5
------- -------------------------------- ---------- --------------------------- ---------------------------
: CCR amplitude versus input parameters
The redshift of the CCR burst (), the cosmology, and the shape of the energy spectrum ($\gamma$) are varied. The amplitude of the CCR spectrum () is determined in order to reproduce the observed ‘pregalactic’ ($z=\zgal$) abundance \[$^6$Li\]$ _p = 0.8$ (). ${\cal E}_p$ is the total initial energy density of protons in the CCRs (). \[t:result\]
As one can see from the Table, our results are very sensitive to the redshift of the burst, $z_s$. At high energy, one can show that $\Phi_{\alpha, {\rm H}}(E,z) \propto \phi_\alpha(E) \left(\frac{1+z}{1+\zs}\right)^{\gamma-1}$. Thus, the required energy density at $z=\zs$ in the CCR is roughly proportionnal to $(1+\zs)^{1.5}$. The CCR normalization also depends on the shape of the energy spectrum, $\gamma$. A steeper spectrum (higher $\gamma$) favors the low energy part of the spectrum, where the lithium production peaks. Thus, for a fixed amplitude , the abundance of Liwill be higher for $\gamma=3$ than for $\gamma=2$. Conversely, for a fixed abundance, $\cal F$ must be lower for $\gamma=3$. Finally, there is little dependence on the cosmological parameters, especially for large values of $\zs$.
We have used the observed plateau of 6 to set the amount of pregalactic 6 production. Then, assuming a given epoch for the formation of CCRs, the amplitude of the energy spectrum, $\cal F$, and the energy density are fixed (). The overall range of the proton energy density, ${\cal E}_p$ at $z=\zs$ is $10^{-10.2}$ to $10^{-12.2}$, for WMAP concordance model when $\gamma =3$ or $10^{-9.3}$ to $10^{-12.2}$ more generally. Yet, those CRs may also play a role in heating and ionizing the IGM at high redshift. In fact, when $z_s = 10$, the energy density of 6.3 $\times 10^{-13}$ ergs/cm$^{-3}$ is marginally consistent with the resulting temperature of the IGM today. At higher $z_s$, this constraint is far less important as the resulting IGM temperature scales as $ {\cal E}_p /(1 + z_s)^{4}$ and since ${\cal E}_p$ increases slower than $(1+z_s)^4$. It is interesting to note that CCRs were predicted to heat the IGM and thus avoid the problem of overcooling in the IGM gas [@blanchard]. Furthermore, @nath have put other constraints on the total luminosity of the CRs from the Gunn-Peterson optical depth at $z=4.2$, the Compton $y$-parameter and metal enrichment. Assuming the production of CCRs from galaxies at $z=10$, they obtained an initial luminosity of about $1.6\times 10^{-27}$ $h$ ergs//s. Alternatively, from the amount of metals ejected by SN, they place an upper limit on the cosmic ray energy density of $10^{-14}$ ergs/ at $z = 0$ and solar metallicity. At $z = 10$, the metallicity of the local ISM corresponding to the site of the CCR production is about .01 solar. Note that this is much larger than the resulting IGM metallicity where 6 production occurs. At $z = 10$ and at a metallicity of 0.01 solar, their limit is effectively relaxed to ${\cal E}_p < 10^{-12}$ erg/cm$^{3}$.
Thus, we see that the CCR production of 6 is capable of explaining the large abundance of 6 with negligible production of 7 (both relative to the BBN value). Sufficient 6 production is achieved by adjusting the flux of CCRs and depends primarily on the assumed redshift of the initial burst, $z_s$. Subsequently, the 6 abundance remains roughly constant until additional 6 is produced in the Galaxy through CGRs as we discuss in the next section.
Discussion
==========
Galactic evolution of Li {#s:discussion}
------------------------
The above model for the CCR production can be thought of as a form of prompt initial enrichment if our Galaxy is formed hierarchically from previously evolved structures. CCRs produce 6 and a small amount (about a few % of the BBN value) of 7. Subsequently, the abundances of these element isotopes as well as all other element abundances are controlled by galactic chemical evolution. At this point, we assume only that the initial abundances in the gas in the Galaxy correspond to those in the IGM at $z = z_{\rm gal}$.
It is certain that 6 will be produced in the ISM through GCR nucleosynthesis (described briefly below) as this is the primary mechanism for the production of 9 and 10. These isotopes will not have been produced in any significant quantities as the IGM was initially devoid of C, N, and O needed for spallation processes. In contrast, the presence of primordial 4 allows for the CCR production of Li.
Cosmic rays produced in the early Galaxy will invariably interact with the existing ISM. In standard GCR nucleosynthesis [@rfh] LiBeB nuclei are produced by spallation when protons and $\alpha$s in the cosmic rays impinge on ISM C, N, or O. LiBeB is also produced when CNO in the cosmic rays are spalled by ISM protons and $\alpha$s. As such, spallation requires heavy elements (‘metals’) to be present in either the cosmic rays or the ISM. In addition, $\alpha + \alpha$ fusion reactions between cosmic rays and the ISM lead to the production of the lithium isotopes. Indeed, these were precisely the types of process considered above in our model of CCR nucleosynthesis. Note that 7 and 11 also receive contributions from the $\nu-process$ [@nuproc; @opsv; @vcfo], but these will not be important for our present discussion.
As in the case of CCR nucleosynthesis, $\alpha$ fusion in GCR nucleosynthesis is a primary process in contrast to the production of Be and B in standard models. The spallation of ISM CNO is a secondary process so these abundances scale as the square of a metallicity tracer such as O or Fe if \[O/Fe\] is constant at low values of \[Fe/H\]. Motivated by the observational fact that the log of the Be and B abundances appear to scale linearly with \[Fe/H\] it has been proposed that the bulk of cosmic rays are not accelerated in the general ISM, but rather in the metal-rich interiors of superbubbles [@clvf; @PD], specifically at low metallicity. Because the superbubble composition is enriched in metals, any cosmic rays which are accelerated in superbubble interiors would have a composition which is both metal-rich and time-independent. The low-energy component of the hard energy spectra associated with superbubbles results in the primary production of Be and B. We refer to this process as LEC. In general both the LEC and standard GCR nucleosynthesis are responsible for the observed LiBeB abundances.
In Fig \[f:obs\], we display the GCR production of 6 in the absence of the prompt initial enrichment produced by CCR nucleosynthesis. Here, we have normalized the flux of galactic cosmic rays so as to correctly reproduce the solar value of Be/H. The overall flux is the only parameter available in GCR nucleosynthesis, and as a consequence the abundances of 10 and 6 are predictions of the model (recall that the 11 and 7 receive an additional contribution from the $\nu$-process). As expected the logarithmic slope of \[Li\] versus \[Fe/H\] is 1 [@Fields99; @Vangioni99].
In we show the evolution of Li vs \[Fe/H\] when both CCR and LEC processes are included. As one can see in Figure 3, without the initial enrichment of 6 due to CCRs, the evolution of 6 resembles that of standard GCRs. In this case, the 6 abundance begins at very low values and rises with a slope of unity until late times. This model alone can not explain the observational data. At low \[Fe/H\] ($\la -2$), the observed 6 abundance is too high to be accounted for by standard CGR + LEC nucleosynthesis.
In addition, to explain the data at higher \[Fe/H\] ($\ga -2$), one must argue that depletion has lowered the abundance of 6. This is perhaps reasonable as the depth of the convection zone is increased at higher metallicity for a fixed surface temperature. We note that many of the stars observed only reveal upper limits to the 6 abundance. That is, in roughly 15 examples of stars with similar temperatures and metallicities as those shown, no 6 was detected. The lack of 6 in some stars, coupled with the dispersion seen in the data may also indicate that some depletion of 6 has occurred in some of these stars. Indeed, the difference between the solar photospheric and meteoritic values corresponds to a destruction of Li of at least a factor of about 200. In this model, we would argue that the destruction of Li is negligible at \[Fe/H\] $\la -2$ where the calculation from galactic processes cross the plateau.
(12,9)
We also show in the evolution of 6 when the prompt enrichment due to CCRs is included. In this case, the data at low \[Fe/H\] is nicely modeled but depletion is still required to explain the data at higher metallicity. At present, the evidence for the plateau hinges on the abundances in only a few stars at low metallicity. However the two models shown in can be distinguished by future observations of 6 at metallicities \[Fe/H\] $< -2.7$ which would establish the role of CCR nucleosynthesis as a mechanism for the early production of 6. As mentionned above, a prompt initial enrichment (PIE) in heavy elements is also expected in the intergalactic medium, especially within this Pop III stars scenario. However, the initial mass fraction of iron may be of the order of X(Fe) = $10^{-7}$ [@Daigne] and thus do not modify the curves in and , for \[Fe/H\]${\mbox{$\:\stackrel{>}{_{\sim}}\:$} }\ -4$. Thus, models with a 6 plateau are not affected by the iron PIE generated by pop III stars.
The GCR nucleosynthesis models described above were based on the assumption that \[O/Fe\] was constant at low \[Fe/H\]. That is, we can use the iron abundance to trace the evolution of the LiBeB elements. However some data show that \[O/Fe\] increases with decreasing \[Fe/H\] [@is; @boes; @ietal]. As a consequence, the evolution of Be and B may appear to be primary with respect to \[Fe/H\], but in fact is secondary with respect to \[O/H\] [@fo]. In reality, the data show that with the respect to \[O/H\], BeB have admixtures of primary and secondary components. That is, the slope for log(BeB/H) vs. \[O/H\] is between 1 and 2 [@fovc; @king].
In , we show the resulting evolution of 6 when the slope of \[O/Fe\] vs. \[Fe/H\] is taken to be -0.45 [cf. @fovc; @fieldsal]. For a slope larger than -0.45, a prompt initial enrichment is not required since the galactic production of 6 would already exceed the abundance observed in all stars. However, within such a model, the destruction rate of Li must be non-negligible for metallicities as low as \[Fe/H\]$\simeq$ -3. In and , the slope was chosen to be 0 corresponding to constant \[O/Fe\].
(12,9)
Before concluding this part of the discussion, we note that the dispersion in the data may be due to irregular production rather than depletion. Due to the dilution of the CCR flux, the production of lithium saturates soon after the initial burst () at $z = z_s$. However, if this burst does not occur at a redshift much larger than $\zgal$, the abundance of lithium can still increase. shows the expected variation of the Li and Li abundances from $z=0$ to 3. If the IGM can pollute the Galaxy [e.g. through the merging of satellites, see e.g. @navarro] at $z<\zgal$, the abundance pattern in stars that form later may reflect this dispersion. For our choice of $z_{\rm gal} = 3$, the late production of Li may constrain the redshift of the CCR burst to be greater than about 5-6.
(12,9)
Comparison with previous work {#s:comparison}
-----------------------------
@Suzuki consider a model where cosmic rays generated by structure formation, during the process of Galaxy formation, produce Li in the course of the evolution of the Galaxy. In their model, much of the 6 is produced early and therefore they also predict a 6 plateau which extends down to at most \[Fe/H\] $\approx -3$. The characteristics of the plateau depend on the history of structure formation. If this process occurs early enough in the formation of the Galaxy, model I of @Suzuki is consistent with the new observations (see their Fig. 1). Once again, observations of 6 at metallicities between -3 and -4 can distinguish between this model and the one we have presented here for which the plateau is predicted to extend to much lower metallicities. Furthermore, within the model of @Suzuki, the exact evolution of the Li abundance can be linked to the mean azimuthal rotation velocity of MPHSs. Consequently, they predict larger dispersion among the observed Li abundances, together with a correlation between the Liabundance and the rotation velocity. This could also help distinguish between galactic $\alpha+\alpha$ GCR production from the early $\alpha+\alpha$ CCR production considered in this paper.
The work by [@Fields] uses a similar formalism to that described above, though redshift evolution is not formally taken into account. However, their main focus is on the lithium-gamma ray connection in relation to the solar Li abundance. Under this assumption, they claim that, if CCR interactions account for all of the Liproduction, it will also account for all of the observed extragalactic gamma-ray background (EGRB). In this paper, we claim that CCRs must produce a pregalactic Li abundance, that is about 10 times smaller than the solar abundance since most of the Li in stars at solar metallicity is produced during galactic evolution (). Hence, we would argue that it should produce only 10% of the total EGRB (from their Eq. 13), which is consistent with theoretical predictions [e.g. @Berezinsky; @Colafrancesco; @Miniati]. @PF argue that the observation of Li in high-velocity clouds may help establish the necessity of an early source of Li.
Finally, we note that @Jedamzik [@Jedamzik1; @Jedamzik2] considers the very early production of Li during BBN from decay [@Jedamzik; @Jedamzik1] or annihilation [@Jedamzik1; @Jedamzik2] of relic particles. Naturally, this model will also predict the existence of an elevated plateau.
Conclusion {#s:conclusion}
==========
The existence of the Spite plateau for Liindicates that low metallicity halo stars are representative of the primordial BBN abundance, although the discrepancy with predictions based on WMAP results is still an issue [@Asplund; @cfo4; @Coc; @Lambert; @ryan04]. On the other hand, the hint for a plateau in Li at very low metallicity, and at a higher abundance than predicted in standard BBN (by a factor of 1000), requires an additional process that produces Li in a pregalactic phase. The process studied in this paper involves the interaction of $\alpha$ particles present in early cosmological cosmic rays with primordial Helium present in the intergalactic medium. We have shown that it is possible to produce sufficient quantities of Li, without the additionnal over-production of Li.
The early production of Li will be present in the gas that forms the Galaxy at $z=\zgal$ and provides a simple explanation for the existence of the observed Li plateau in MPHS. The level of the Li plateau may provide a strong constraint on the - plane for the initial burst of CCRs, and hence on its total energy. However, the existence of this plateau needs to be confirmed with additional observations of Li in stars with metallicities lower than -3. If the 6 plateau persists down to lower metallicities, it could confirm the predictions of this model and distinguish the physical processes occurring during Galaxy formation.
In a forthcoming paper, we will go further than the single burst approximation. The CCR production could be related to the formation and chemical evolution of pop III stars [@Daigne]. The influence of this process in the production of other elements, such as Be, B and D, will also be studied.
We are very grateful to Roger Cayrel for his always pertinent and fruitful comments. We thank E. Thiébaut, and D. Munro for freely distributing his Yorick programming language (available at [*ftp://ftp-icf.llnl.gov:/pub/Yorick*]{}), which we used to implement our analysis. The work of ER was supported by a grant LAVOISIER from the French foreign office. The work of EVF has been supported by PICS 1076 CNRS France/USA. The work of K.A.O. was partially supported by DOE grant DE-FG02-94ER-40823. 3.5cm
[20]{}
Aoki, W., Inoue, S., Kawanomoto, S., Ryan, S. G., Smith, I. M., Suzuki, T. K., & Takada-Hidai M. 2004, A&A, 428, 579
Asplund, M., Nordlund, Å, Trampedach, R., & Stein, R. F. 1999, A&A, 346, L17
Asplund, M., Lambert, D.L., Nissen, P.E., Primas, F., & Smith, V.V. 2001, in [*Cosmic Evolution*]{} ed. E. Vangioni-Flam, R. Ferlet, and M. Lemoine, World Scientific, 95
Asplund, M. [[etal.]{} ]{}, 2004b, [*in preparation*]{}
Asplund, M., Grevesse, N., & Sauval, A. 2004, astro-ph/0410214
Bhattacharjee, P., Hill, C. T. & Schramm, D. N., 1992, PhRvL, 69, 567
Berezinsky, V.S., Blasi, P., & Ptuskin, V. S. 1997, ApJ, 487, 529
Blanchard, A., Valls-Gabaud, D., & Mamon, G.A. 1992, , 264, 365
Blandford, R. D., & Eichler, D. 1987, Phys. Rep., 154, 1 Boesgaard, A.M., King, J.R., Deliyannis, C.P., & Vogt, S.S. 1999, AJ, 117, 492
Brown, L. & Schramm, D.N. 1988, ApJ, 329, L103
Cassé, M., Lehoucq, R., & Vangioni-Flam, E. 1995, Nature, 373, 38
Cayrel, R., Spite M., Spite F., Vangioni-Flam, E., Cassé, M. and Audouze, J. 1999, , 343, 923
Coc, A., Vangioni-Flam, E., Descouvemont, P., Adahchour, A., & Angulo, C. 2004, ApJ, 600, 544 Colafrancesco, S., & Blasi, P. 1998, Astroparticle Phys., 9, 227
Cuoco, A., Iocco, I., Mangano, G., Pisanti, O., & Serpico, P.D. 2004, Int Mod Phys, A19, 4431
Cyburt, R., 2004, Phys. Rev., D, 70, 023505
Cyburt, R.H., Fields, B.D., & Olive, K.A. 2004, Phys Rev D, 69, 123519
Daigne, F., Olive, K. A., Vangioni-Flam, E., Silk, J., & Audouze, J. 2004, , 617, 693
Fields, B.D., & Olive, K.A. 1999a, ApJ, 516, 797
Fields, B.D., & Olive, K.A., 1999b, New. Astron. 4, 255
Fields, B.D., Olive, K.A., Vangioni-Flam, E., & Cassé, M. 2000 ApJ, 540, 930
Fields, B. D., Olive, K.A., & Vangioni-Flam, E. 2004, astro-ph/0411728
Fields, B. D., & Prodanović, T. 2004, astro-ph/0407314 Fontana, A., Menci, N., D’Odorico, S., Giallongo, E., Poli, F., Cristiani, S., Moorwood, A. & Saracco, P. 1999, MNRAS, 310, 27L
Hobbs, L.M. & Thorburn, J.A. 1994, ApJ, 428, L25
Hobbs, L.M. & Thorburn, J.A. 1997, ApJ, 491, 772
Hopkins, A.M., 2004, ApJ, 615, 209.
Israelian, G., et al., 2001, ApJ, 551, 833.
Israelian, G., García-López, R.J., & Rebolo, R. 1998, ApJ, 507, 805
Jedamzik, K. 2000, , 84, L15 Jedamzik, K. 2004a, , 70, 063524 Jedamzik, K. 2004b, , 70, 083510 Juneau, S., [Glazebrook]{}, K., [Crampton]{}, D., [McCarthy]{}, P. J., [Savaglio]{}, S., [Abraham]{}, R., [Carlberg]{}, R. G., [Chen]{}, H., [Le Borgne]{}, D., [Marzke]{} et al. 2005, ApJ, 619, 135
Kang, H. & Jones, T.W. 2002, Journal of The Korean Astronomical Society, 35, 159
Keshet, U., Waxman, E., Loeb, A., Springle, V. & Hernquist, L. 2003, ApJ, 585, 128
King, J.R. 2001, AJ, 122, 3115
Lambert D.L, 2004, astro-ph/0410418
Lemoine, M. 2002, AA 390, L31
Lodders, K. 2003, ApJ, 591, 1220
Meléndez J. & Ramírez, I. 2004, ApJ, 615, 33 Mercer, D.J., Austin, S. M., Brown, J. A., Danczyk, S. A., Hirzebruch, S. E., Kelley, J. H., Suomijärvi, T., Roberts, D. A., & Walker, T. P. 2001, , 63, 065805 Miniati, F. 2002, MNRAS, 337,199
Montmerle, T. 1977a, ApJ, 216, 177 (M77) Montmerle, T. 1977b, ApJ, 216, 620 Montmerle, T. 1977c, ApJ, 217, 878
Mukherjee, R. & Chiang, J. 1999, Astroparticle Physics, 11, 213
Nath, B. B., Biermann, P. L. 1993, MNRAS, 265, 241 Navarro, J.F. 2004, astro-ph/0405497
Nissen, P.E., Lambert, D.L., Primas,F. & Smith, V.V. 1999, A& A 348, 211
Nissen, P.E., Asplund, M., Hill, V. & D’Odorico, S. 2000, A & A 357, L49
Olive, K.A., Prantzos, N., Scully, S., & Vangioni-Flam, E. 1994, ApJ, 424, 666
Parizot, E. & Drury, L. 1999, , 349, 673
Pavlidou, V. & Fields, B. 2002, ApJ, 575, L5
Prodanović, T. & Fields, B. D. 2004, astro-ph/0412238 Read, S.M., & Viola, V.E. 1984, At. Data Nucl. Data Tables 31, 359
Reeves, H., Fowler, W.A., & Hoyle, F. 1970, Nature, 226, 727
Ryan, S.G., Beers, T.C., Olive, K.A., Fields, B.D., & Norris, J.E. 2000, ApJL, 530, L57
Ryan S. G., & Elliot, L. 2004, astro-ph/0410472
Ryu, D., Kang., H., Hallman, E. & Jones, T.W. 2003, ApJ, 593,599
Sigl, G., Lee, S., Bhattacharjee, P., Yoshida, S. 1999, Phys Rev. D, 59, 043504
Smith, V.V., Lambert D.L. & Nissen P.E. 1993, ApJ, 408, 262
Smith, V.V., Lambert, D.L. & Nissen, P.E., 1998, ApJ, 506, 405
Spergel, D. N., et al. 2003, ApJS, 148, 175 Spite, F. & Spite, M. 1982. , 115, 357
Stecker, F.W. & Salamon, M.H. 1993, ApJ, 464, 600
Steigman, G., Fields, B.D., Olive, K.A., Schramm, D.N., & Walker, T.P. 1993, , 415, L35
Suzuki, T.K., & Inoue, S. 2002, ApJ, 573,168 Thomas, D., Schramm, D. N., Olive, K. A., & Fields, B. D. 1993, , 406, 569
Vangioni-Flam, E., Cassé, M., Fields, B.D., & Olive, K.A. 1996, ApJ, 468, 199
Vangioni-Flam, E. [[etal.]{} ]{}, 1999, New. Astron. 4, 245
Vangioni-Flam, E., Cassé, M. & Audouze, J., 2000, Physics Reports , 333-334, 365
Wick, S. D., Dermer, C. D., & Atoyan, A. 2004, AstroParticles Physics, 21, 125
Woosley, S.E. Hartmann, D.H., Hoffman, R.D., & Haxton, W.C., 1990, ApJ, 356, 272
Zweibel, E.G. 2003, ApJ, 587, 625
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- |
E. Khain$^{1}$, Y. T. Lin$^{2}$, and L. M. Sander $^{2,3}$\
[$^{1}$ Physics Department, Oakland University, Rochester Mi, 48309, USA]{}\
[$^{2}$ Department of Physics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor Michigan, 48109-1040, USA]{}\
[$^{3}$ Center for the Study of Complex Systems, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor Michigan, 48109-1040, USA]{}
title: Fluctuations and stability in front propagation
---
Introduction
============
The study of front propagation arising from reaction-diffusion equations is a fundamental problem in nonequilibrium physics. In this work we consider cases with two equilibria, a bistable system. If such a deterministic system forms a propagating front, we can say that the “stable" state invades the “metastable" state, and the theory [@Murray03] gives a simple criterion for which is which.
However, we can also consider a stochastic system where fluctuations play a role, such that in the limit of small noise, we approach the deterministic system. Then the situation is not so simple, and fluctuations can play a role in determining the velocity and even the *direction* of motion of the front, because fluctuations can give rise to spontaneous transitions between equilibria. That is, fluctuations can reverse the stability of the two equilibria. In this paper we will discuss the mechanism for such reversals, and give an explicit example based on the well-known spruce budworm problem [@Ludwig78; @Ludwig79; @Murray03].
Noise-driven transition between equilibria can be treated using the formalism of rare events. In systems with stochastic birth-death processes this approach has recently attracted considerable attention. In these systems, fluctuations lead may lead to extinction, the phenomenon that is not described by the continuum rate equations [@extinction]. The interplay between stochastic and deterministic effects becomes much more intriguing when spatial degrees of freedom are introduced and agents can diffuse on a lattice [@diffusion]. Here we focus on the role of fluctuations in the phenomenon of front propagation
Deterministic definition of stability
=====================================
The standard deterministic treatment of moving fronts in reaction-diffusion systems [@Murray03] begins with an equation of the form: $$u_t = Du_{xx} + f(u).
\label{generalform}$$ Bistability means that $$\label{potentialV}
V(u)=-\int^u dw f(w)$$ has two minima, $u_1, u_3$ separated by a maximum, $u_2$. We will refer to $V$ as a potential.
A moving front occurs when the system is divided into regions where $u$ is at different equilibria. For example, $u=u_3$ for $x<0$, $u=u_1$ for $x>0$. To analyze the dynamics, we seek a traveling front solution of Eq. (\[generalform\]): $u(x,t) = u(\xi=x-vt)$, where $v$ is the front velocity. Substituting this into Eq. (\[generalform\]) we get: $$Du^{\prime\prime}+v\,u^{\prime}+f(u)=0,
\label{frontode}$$ The prime indicates the derivative with respect to $\xi$. Multiplying Eq. (\[frontode\]) by $u^{\prime}$ and integrating from $\xi=-\infty$ to $\infty$, we have: $$v= -\int_{u_3}^{u_1} du f(u) / \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d\xi D[u^\prime]^2 \propto V(u_1)-V(u_3).
\label{velocityeq}$$
Note that the velocity will be positive, i.e. the state at $u_3$ will invade $u_1$ if $V_1-V_3$ is positive, so that $u_3$ corresponds to a lower potential: thus $u_3$ is stable, and $u_1$ metastable if $V_3 < V_1$. If $V_1-V_3=0=\int_{u_3}^{u_1} du f(u)$ the front will not move (area rule). We refer to this as the “stall point"; note that the stall point does not depend on $D$, but only on $V$. If $V_1-V_3$ is negative, the front will move towards negative $x$, i.e. $u_1$ will invade $u_3$.
We will need to actually compute $v$ below, i.e. we need the denominator in the Eq. (\[velocityeq\]). Note that Eq. (\[frontode\]) can be thought of as a dynamical system; there are two stable fixed points: $u=u_1, u^{\prime}=0$ and $u=u_3, u^{\prime}=0$. To calculate $v$ we need to find the heteroclinic orbit connecting the two fixed points. We do this by using a standard shooting method [@Sauer05].
Stochastic definition of stability
==================================
Equations like Eq. \[generalform\] often arise as a mean-field description of a stochastic process such as population dynamics in spatially extended systems. To be specific, consider a birth-death process for a number, $n(j)$, of agents that live on sites $x_j$ with birth rate $\lambda(n)$ and death rate $\mu(n)$. Bistability means that there are three solutions to $\lambda(n)=\mu(n)$ corresponding to equilibrium population sizes on single sites, two stable and one unstable. In the spruce budworm problem, to be treated below, there are two possible stable states due to predation: $n_1$, the refuge state, and $n_3$, the outbreak state. In our example, below, we couple the sites diffusively, i.e. by introducing a rate for transfer to nearest-neighbor sites, e.g., $(n(j), n(j\pm1)) \to (n(j)-1, n(j\pm1)+1)$.
It is well-known that the mean-field (large $n$) limit of the dynamics can be treated by scaling by some population scale, $A$, and thinking of $n(j)/A=u(x)$ as a continuous variable. From the master equation we find that the average behavior is given by an equation of the form of Eq. (\[generalform\]) with $f = (\lambda-\mu)/A$.
However, fluctuations introduce another process, spontaneous transitions between $n_1$ and $n_3$ on a single site. The rate of transitions between the two equilibria involves a *different* potential [@Doering05; @Doering07]: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{potentialPhi}
\Phi(u) &=& - \int^u dw \ln\left(\frac{\lambda(w)}{\mu(w)}\right) \nonumber \\
&\approx& -2 \int^u \left(\frac{f(w)}{\lambda(w)+\mu(w)}\right).
\end{aligned}$$ The last line is the limiting form when $f/(\lambda + \mu)$ is small (the Fokker-Planck limit). The transition time from state 3 to state 1 is of the form $t_{3 \to 1}=t_o \exp(A[\Phi(u_2) - \Phi(u_3)]$, where $t_o$ is a slowly-varying prefactor. The transition time depends on the *barrier height* $\Phi_2-\Phi_3$. A similar expression holds for transitions from $u_1$ to $u_3$, $t_{1 \to 3}$.
The smaller time will correspond to the smaller barrier. Based on this, we can give a different definition of stability: if $t_{3 \to 1} > t_{1 \to 3}$ we say that $u_3$ is stable, and *vice-versa*. For example, $u_3$ will be more stable than $u_1$ if the barrier is larger, i.e., if $\Phi_3 < \Phi_1$.
This discussion is for a single site. However, spontaneous transitions can move the front if they occur at the interface between the two states. If there are transitions far from the front, and they are not too frequent, the “hole" will quickly be filled by diffusion. We have seen examples of this in the simulations to be described below.
Competition
===========
The two potentials, $V$ and $\Phi$ are similar, but not identical. In particular, there is no reason for them to give the same result for stability. Thus a deterministic wave could move from $u_3$ to $u_1$, but noise-induced barrier climbing could cause it to move the other way. In this regime, the two effects compete. In the next section we give a numerical example where this occurs. Also, fluctuations will shift the stall point.
We note that there is a natural length scale for the system given by the width of the wavefront, $w$. On dimensional grounds, $w \propto \sqrt{D}$. This leads us to imagine dividing the system into boxes of width $w$; see Figure \[front\]. Focus on the central box at the front interface. Suppose the continuum front is stalled. If the probability for spontaneous jumps $u_3 \rightarrow u_1$ in the left box is larger than the probability for spontaneous jumps $u_1 \rightarrow u_3$ in the right box, the discrete front would move to the left, and the system will not be stalled. Thus the observed stall point will be different from that for a purely deterministic front. By the same token, if the two transition times are equal, the velocity will be exactly deterministic, but for other parameters the velocity will be increased or decreased by spontaneous transitions.
The relative importance of fluctuations usually depends on the size of the population. For large populations on each site, so that $n_1,n_3 \gg 1$, fluctuations are negligible. As populations decrease stochastic effects will start to affect the stall point and $v$. Finally, for finite systems (perhaps of length $< w$) and very large fluctuations the picture of wave motion will break down altogether, and transitions of the system as a whole will be the dominant path for transitions from metastable to unstable.
We will be interested here in the first two regimes, and the development of waves. All of our qualitative notions about the effects of fluctuations on waves will be illustrated by an example in the next section.
In this work we use periodic boundary conditions. We should note that with absorbing boundary conditions, $u=0$ at ends of the system, a small system may not be bistable at all [@Ludwig79].
Waves in the spruce budworm problem
===================================
There is a classic model in the literature, the spruce budworm model [@Ludwig78; @Ludwig79; @Murray03], which we will use to illustrate the effects we have discussed. The model is based on real experience in forestry where it is found that a pest which damages balsam fir trees can exist in two states, the “refuge" state (small numbers), and the “outbreak" state, larger numbers. Bistability is thought to be due to the non-linear effects of birds on controlling the insect population [@Ludwig78].
The spatially extended model [@Ludwig79] is written as follows: $$\frac{\partial n}{\partial t} = D\,\frac{\partial^2 n}{\partial
x^2} + r_b\,n\,\left(1-\frac{n}{K_b}\right) - \frac{B\,n^2}{A^2 + n^2}.
\label{budwormspace}$$ The first term on the right hand side of Equation 1 schematically describes migration, assuming random motion. The second term describes the usual logistic growth: insects proliferate with rate $r_b$, but there is some carrying capacity $K_b$, related to available food, which restricts exponential proliferation. The third term represents predation by birds, which saturates at large $n$: birds are not able to consume more than some maximal number of insects per unit time. When $n$ is small, the rate of predation is very small, since birds prefer other regions with a larger population of insects. Introducing dimensionless time $\bar{t}=Bt/A$, coordinate $\bar{x}=\sqrt{B/(AD)}x$, and dimensionless number of insects $u=n/A$, we arrive at (bars are omitted for clarity) $$\frac{\partial u}{\partial t} = \frac{\partial^2 u}{\partial
x^2} + r\,u\,\left(1-\frac{u}{q}\right) - \frac{u^2}{1 + u^2}.
\label{budwormscaled}$$ Here, the proliferation parameter is $r=r_b\,A/B$ and the dimensionless carrying capacity parameter is $q=K_b/A$. In case there is no spatial dependence (a single-site problem), there exists a region in the parameter space $(r, q)$, such that there are two stable states: $u_1$ describes the normal population size and $u_3 \gg u_1$ corresponds to the outbreak [@Ludwig78; @Ludwig79]. We consider now this region in parameter space and apply the formalism outlined above to Eq. (\[budwormscaled\]). Figure \[velocity\] shows the front velocity as a function of the birth parameter $r$ (solid line). For a specific birth parameter, $r^*$, the two states coexist and the front stalls, $v=0$.
![Velocity, $v$, as a function of birth parameter $r$ for $q=9$, $D = 2.5$. The solid line is computed from Eq. (\[budwormscaled\]) and the dotted line from simulations of the discrete model. Positive velocity means that the outbreak state takes over the whole system; negative velocity means that the refuge state wins. The dashed line is $v=0$. The “continuum” stall point $r^*$ can be found from the area rule. Note that the “discrete” stall point does not coincide with the “continuum” one: $r^*_{d}>r^*$. For $r$ between $r^*$ and $r^*_d$ fluctuations reverse the velocity of the front.[]{data-label="velocity"}](velocity_th_exp.pdf){width="3in"}
Next we analyze the same phenomena as a continuous time Markov process for agents (insects) on a lattice. Every site of the one-dimensional lattice can be occupied by any number of insects. At each time step, a site, $j$, is picked at random and then an insect on the site is picked at random. It can either jump to a neighboring site (to the right or to the left), proliferate, or die with probabilities related to the diffusion, birth and death rates on the site. $$\begin{aligned}
p_{birth}&=&r_b/(r_b+\mu+2D) \nonumber \\
p_{death}&=&\mu/(r_b+\mu+2D) \nonumber \\
p_{right}\quad= \quad p_{left}&=&D/(r_b+\mu+2D) \nonumber \\
\mu&=& \frac{r_b n(j)}{K_b} + \frac{Bn(j)}{A^2+n(j)^2}.
\label{probabilities}
\end{aligned}$$ The birth parameter $r_b$ is what we called $\lambda$ above. The death rate per insect, $\mu$, represents the negative terms in Eq. (\[budwormspace\]). After every event, the time is advanced by $1/[n_{total}(r_b+\mu+2D)]$, where $n_{total}$ is the total number of insects. Clearly, Eq. (\[budwormspace\]) is the continuum analog of this discrete lattice model.
We performed many simulations of the discrete model. To compute the front velocity, we first did a time-average for a single run; this was done by plotting the space-time diagram, see Figure \[spacetime\], and computing the slope. Then we averaged the results over many ($50-100$) simulations. Figure \[velocity\] presents the front velocity as a function of the birth parameter $r$ (dotted line). Strikingly, the discrete stall point $r^*_{d}$ is not equal to the continuum stall point: $r^*_{d}>r^*$.
This is precisely the result presented above: since the jump probability from $n_1$ to $n_3$ is not equal to the jump probability from $n_3$ to $n_1$, spontaneous jumps contribute to the velocity. Since the probability decreases exponentially with the population scale $A$, the stall point shift $r^*_{d}-r^*$ should tend to zero when the number of particles increases. Simulations of the discrete model show that this is indeed the case: $r^*_{d}$ tends to its continuum value $r^*$ as $n$ increases.
We suggested above that the “continuum” and “discrete” velocities in Figure \[velocity\] should be equal when the mean transition time from $n_1$ to $n_3$, $t_{1 \to 3}$ equals the time for the reverse transition, $t_{3 \to 1}$. Figure \[transition\] shows $k=[t_{1\to 3}/t_{3 \to 1}-1]$ versus the birth parameter $r$. Note that the times are equal at approximately $\bar{r}=0.5075$. This suggests that at this value of birth parameter $r$, there is no stochastic correction to the continuum velocity. Our simulations support this prediction: Figure \[velocity\] shows that the continuum and the discrete velocities are equal at $r=\bar{r}$.
As was mentioned above, the stall point obtained from the continuum theory, $r^*$, does not depend on the diffusion coefficient. This is not the case in discrete lattice system: Figure \[velocity2\] shows the $v(r)$ dependence for various diffusion coefficients; $r^*_{d}$ depends on $D$. We might expect that the shift $r^*_{d}-r^*$ would tend to zero as the diffusion coefficient increases, and effectively coarse-grains the system. We might argue as follows: stochastic transitions contribute to the front velocity when they occur in all the sites inside the left or the right box, see Figure \[front\]. The typical front width scales as $\sqrt{D}$. The larger the box, the smaller the probability for such a collective jump. Therefore, as $D$ increases, the stall point shift should tend to zero. However, Figure \[velocity2\] shows a small discrepancy for large $D$ and no sign of convergence to $r^* =0.4605$. In fact, our simulations (not shown) reveal that the equilibria, $n_1, n_3$ for the discrete model do not approach those for the continuum model for large $D$, but are uniformly shifted by a small amount. We do not understand the large $D$ limit for this system.
There is another effect that we observed in our simulations. We are dealing with quite small numbers, $n$, so that spontaneous transitions are reasonably common. In this case “islands" of the stable state can appear ahead of the front and either disappear, presumably because they are smaller than some critical nucleation size, or be enveloped by the advancing front. This has been observed previously in other stochastic wave-front problems for similar reasons [@Islands].
Discussion
==========
It is well known that fluctuations can strongly affect front propagation for situations when a stable state invades an unstable state [@Brunet97; @Kessler98; @Panja04], the “pulled case". Here we are dealing with “pushed" fronts, and the qualitative effects are more subtle, and only occur in a limited region of parameter space. Nevertheless, we have shown that they can occur. They should be considered whenever small populations of discrete agents are involved in a spatially spreading process.
Acknowledgments
===============
E.K. thanks B. Meerson and Y. Louzoun and LMS thanks C. Doering and D. Lubensky for useful discussions.
J. D. Murray, [*Mathematical Biology. I: An Introduction*]{} (third edition, Springer, New York Berlin Heidelberg, 2003).
D. Ludwig, D. Jones, and C. Holling, The Journal of Animal Ecology, [**47**]{}, 315 (1978).
D. Ludwig, D. Aronson, and H. Weinberger, Journal of Mathematical Biology, [**8**]{}, 217 (1979).
, [Phys. Rev. Lett.]{}, [**97**]{}, [200602]{} (2006); [Kessler D. A. and Shnerb N. M.]{}, [J. Stat. Phys.]{}, [**127**]{}, [861]{}, (2007); [Kamenev A., Meerson B. and Shklovskii B.]{}, [Phys. Rev. Lett.]{}, [**101**]{}, [268103]{}, (2008); [Assaf M., Kamenev A. and Meerson B.]{}, [Phys. Rev. E]{}, [**78**]{}, 041123 (2008); [Dykman M. I., Schwartz I. B. and Landsman A. S.]{}, [Phys. Rev. Lett.]{}, [**101**]{}, 078101 (2008); [Kamenev A. and Meerson B.]{} , [Phys. Rev. E]{} [**77**]{}, [061107]{} (2008); [Khasin M. and Dykman M. I.]{}, [Phys. Rev. Lett.]{} [**103**]{}, [068101]{} (2009); [Khasin M., Meerson B. and P. V. Sasorov]{}, [Phys. Rev. E]{} [**81**]{}, [031126]{} (2010).
, [EPL]{}, [**38**]{}, 91 (1997); [Cardy J. L. and Tauber U. C.]{}, [J. Stat. Phys.]{}, [**90**]{}, 1 (1998); [Shnerb N. M., Louzoun Y., Bettelheim E. and Solomon S.]{}, [PNAS]{} [**97**]{}, [10322]{} (2000); [Shnerb N. M., Bettelheim E., Louzoun Y., Agam O. and Solomon S.]{}, [Phys. Rev. E]{} [**63**]{}[2001]{}[021103]{}; [Escudero C., Buceta J., de la Rubia F. J. and Lindenberg K.]{}, [Phys. Rev. E]{} [**69**]{}, 021908 (2004); [Elgart V. and Kamenev A.]{}, [Phys. Rev. E]{} [**74**]{}, 041101 (2006); [Callaghan T., Khain E., Sander L. M. and Ziff R. M.]{}, [J. Stat. Phys.]{} [**122**]{} 909 (2006); [Mobilia M., Georgiev I. T. and Tauber U. C.]{}, [J. Stat. Phys.]{} [**128**]{}, 447(2007); [Kessler D. A. and Sander L. M.]{}, [Phys. Rev. E]{} [**80**]{}, 041907 (2009); [Mendez V., Llopis I., Campos D. and Horsthemke W.]{}, [Theor. Popul. Biol.]{} [**77**]{}, [250]{} (2009); [Waddell J. N., Sander L. M. and Doering C. R.]{}, [Theor. Popul. Biol.]{} [**77**]{}, [279]{} (2010); [Evron G., Kessler D. A. and Shnerb N. M.]{}, [Physica A]{} [**389**]{}, [428]{} (2010).
T. Sauer, [*Numerical Analysis*]{}, (Addison-Wesley, Boston, 2005)
C. R. Doering, K. V. Sargsyan and L. M. Sander, Multiscale Model. Simul. [**3**]{}, 283 (2005).
C. R. Doering, K. V. Sargysan, L. M. Sander, and E. Vanden-Eijnden, J. Phys. Condens. Matter, [**19**]{}, 065145 (2007)
, [J. Stat. Phys.]{}, [**128**]{}, [209]{} (2007); [Khain E. and Sander L. M.]{}, [Phys. Rev. E]{}, [**77**]{}, [051129]{} (2008).
E. Brunet and B. Derrida, Phys. Rev. E, [**56**]{}, 2597. 2604 (1997 ).
D. A. Kessler, Z. Ner, and L. M. Sander, Physical Review E, [**58**]{}, 107 (1998).
D. Panja, Physics Reports-Review Section of Physics Letters, 393, 87 (2004).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this note we prove the claim given in the title. A group $G$ is noncommutatively slender if each map from the fundamental group of the Hawaiian Earring to $G$ factors through projection to a canonical free subgroup. Graham Higman, in his seminal 1952 paper [@H], proved that free groups are noncommutatively slender. Such groups were first defined by K. Eda in [@E]. Eda has asked which finitely presented groups are noncommutatively slender. This result demonstrates that random finitely presented groups in the few-relator sense of Gromov are noncommutatively slender.'
address: |
Mathematics Department\
1326 Stevenson Center\
Vanderbilt University\
Nashville, TN 37240\
USA
author:
- 'Samuel M. Corson'
title: 'Torsion-free Word Hyperbolic Groups are Noncommutatively Slender'
---
[Introduction]{} Certain groups that allow for infinite multiplication exhibit a curious behavior, namely that maps to particular well understood groups are always boring. This phenomenon was first noticed by Specker in [@S], who proved that for each integer valued homomorphism from the countable product of integers $\phi: \prod_{\omega} \mathbb{Z} \rightarrow \mathbb{Z}$ there exists a natural number $N$ such that the projection $p_N: \prod_{\omega} \mathbb{Z} \rightarrow \prod_{n=0}^{N} \mathbb{Z}$ satisfies $\phi = \phi \circ p_N$. The phenomenon was studied by Łos and lead him to define a slender group to be a torsion-free abelian group $A$ for which any homomorphism $\phi: \prod_{\omega} \mathbb{Z} \rightarrow A$ has an $N \in \omega$ for which $\phi = \phi\circ p_N$. These groups have been extensively studied and also classified via subgroups (see for example [@F] volume 2, Sections 94, 95).
The term noncommutatively slender (we will use the contraction n-slender to be short) was introduced by K. Eda. The first examples of such groups were free groups as demonstrated by Higman (in [@H]) 40 years before Eda defined such groups. Eda’s idea is essentially the same as with the abelian case, with the domain being replaced by the fundamental group of the Hawaiian Earring. He showed that n-slender groups are necessarily torsion-free and all abelian n-slender groups are indeed slender in the abelian sense. Also, the class of n-slender groups is closed under direct sums and free products (see [@E] for the definition and such results). The Hawaiian Earring group can be used to endow a group with an infinite multiplicative structure, thus n-slender groups are those which resist such a structure.
In contrast to slender groups, no nice characterization for n-slender groups via subgroups is known. Eda has noted that n-slenderness is an open question even for finitely presented groups [@E']. This note gives a broad class of finitely presented groups which are n-slender, and shows that most finitely generated groups are n-slender in the few-relator sense of Gromov [@G]. The theorem is the following:
\[main\] If $G$ is a a torsion-free word hyperbolic group then $G$ is n-slender.
The hypothesis torsion-free cannot be dropped, as any group with torsion fails to be n-slender ([@CS] provides some interesting examples of homomorphisms to torsion). The proof of the theorem uses an interesting theorem about torsion-free hyperbolic groups and a modification of a theorem in [@H]. In Section 2 some background definitions and results are provided. We define the universal monotone condition (u.m.), which is that there exists a length function on the group such that for any real number $r$ there exists a power $K_r$ such that $g^{K_r}$ is of length at least $r$ for any $g \neq 1$. We show that this condition is sufficient to imply that a group is n-slender. In Section 3 we prove torsion-free hyperbolic groups are u.m. which concludes the proof of Theorem \[main\].
In Section 4 we prove the following theorem, which generalizes the fact that n-slender groups are closed under direct sums and direct products:
\[Graphprod\] The class of n-slender groups is closed under taking graph products.
In Section 5 we motivate the question of whether Thompson’s group $F$ is n-slender. We also show that the natural length function defined by the characterization of $F$ as a diagram group is not u.m. Finally in Section 6 we give a family of examples to show that even very uncompicated n-slender groups can fail to be u.m.
[Non-commutatively Slender Groups]{}
In this section we give a characterization of the Hawaiian Earring fundamental group, define n-slenderness, and prove a modification of Higman’s original theorem of the n-slenderness of free groups.
The Hawaiian Earring is a shrinking wedge of countably-infinitely-many circles. More formally, given a point $p\in \mathbb{R}^2$ and $r\in (0, \infty)$ we let $C(p, r)$ denote the circle centered at $p$ of radius $r$ and define the Hawaiian Earring to be the subspace $E=\bigcup_{n\in \omega} C((0, \frac{1}{n+2}),\frac{1}{n+2})$ of $\mathbb{R}^2$. Naively the fundamental group of $E$ might seem to be a free group of countably infinite rank (one free generator for each circle in the union defining $E$), but the fundamental group is in fact uncountable. We give a combinatorial characterization of this group using countable words.
Let $\{a_n^{\pm 1}\}_{n=0}^{\infty}$ be a countably infinite set with formal inverses, the elements of which we call **letters**. A map $W: \overline{W}\rightarrow \{a_n^{\pm 1}\}_{n=0}^{\infty}$ from a countable totally ordered set $\overline{W}$ is a **word** if for each $n\in \omega$ the set $W^{-1}(\{a_n^{\pm 1}\})$ is finite. Two words $U$ and $V$ are isomorphic, denoted $U \simeq V$, if there exists an order isomorphism of the domains of each word $f: \overline{U} \rightarrow \overline{V}$ such that $U(t) = V(f(t))$. We identify isomorphic words. The class of isomorphic words is a set of cardinality continuum which we denote ${\mathcal{W}}$. For each $N\in \omega$ there is a projection map $p_N$ to the set of finite words given by letting $p_N(W) = W|\{t\in \overline{W}: W(t) \in \{a_n^{\pm 1}\}_{n=0}^{N}\}$. For words $U, V\in {\mathcal{W}}$ we let $U \sim V$ if for each $N\in \omega$ we have that $p_N(U) = p_N(V)$ in the free group $F(\{a_0, \ldots, a_N\})$. This is an equivalence relation. For each word $U$ there is an inverse word $U^{-1}$ whose domain is the totally ordered set $\overline{U}$ under the reverse order and $U^{-1}(t) = U(t)^{-1}$. Given two words $U, V\in {\mathcal{W}}$ there is a natural way to form the concatenation $UV$. In particular, one takes the domain of $UV$ to be the disjoint union of $\overline{U}$ with $\overline{V}$, with order extending that of $\overline{U}$ and $\overline{V}$ and placing all elements of $\overline{U}$ before those of $\overline{V}$, and $UV(t) = \begin{cases}U(t)$ if $t\in \overline{U}\\V(t)$ if $t\in \overline{V} \end{cases}$. The set ${\mathcal{W}}/\sim$ now has a group structure with binary operation given by $[U][V] = [UV]$, inverses defined by $[U]^{-1} = [U^{-1}]$ and the trivial element given by the equivalence class of the empty word.
Let ${\textbf{HEG}}$ denote the group ${\mathcal{W}}/\sim$. The free group $F(\{a_0, \ldots, a_N\})$, which we shall denote ${\textbf{HEG}}_N$, may be though of as a subgroup in ${\textbf{HEG}}$ in the obvious way. Moreover, the word map $p_N$ defines a group retraction ${\textbf{HEG}}\rightarrow {\textbf{HEG}}_N$ which we denote $p_N$ by abuse of notation. There is another word map $p^N$ given by $p^N(W) = W|\{t\in \overline{W}: W(t) \in \{a_n^{\pm 1}\}_{n=N+1}^{\infty}\}$ which gives a group retraction from ${\textbf{HEG}}$ to the subgroup ${\textbf{HEG}}^N$ consisting of those equivalence classes which contain words involving no letters in $\{a_n^{\pm 1}\}_{n=0}^N$. We again abuse notation by calling this retraction $p^N$. There is a canonical isomorphism ${\textbf{HEG}}\simeq {\textbf{HEG}}_N \ast {\textbf{HEG}}^N$ obtained by considering a word $W$ as a concatenation of finitely many words in the letters $\{a_n^{\pm 1}\}_{n=0}^N$ and finitely many words in the letters $\{a_n^{\pm 1}\}_{n=N+1}^{\infty}$.
A group $G$ is noncommutatively slender (or n-slender) if for each homomorphism $\phi: {\textbf{HEG}}\rightarrow G$ there exists $N\in \omega$ such that $\phi = \phi\circ p_N$.
In other words, $G$ is n-slender if for each homomorphism $\phi:{\textbf{HEG}}\rightarrow G$ there exists $N$ so that the restriction of $\phi$ to ${\textbf{HEG}}^N$ is the trivial homomorphism.
For our purposes a **length function** on a group $G$ is a map $l: G \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ such that the following hold:
1. $l(g) \geq 0$ with $l(1) = 0$
2. $l(g) = l(g^{-1})$
3. $l(gh) \leq l(g) + l(h)$
As an example, if $G$ has a generating set $X$ one may define a length function $l_X$ on $G$ by letting $l_X(g)$ be the distance from $1$ to $g$ in the Cayley graph $\Gamma(G, X)$. In other words, $l_X(g)$ is the length of a minimal word in the generators $X$ that is needed to represent the group element $g$ in $G$. We say that a length function $l$ is **universally monotone** if for each $r\in \mathbb{R}$ there exists $K_r \in \omega$ such that for each $g\in G-\{1\}$ we have that $l(g^{K_r}) \geq l(g) + r$. In particular, for a universally monotone length function we have $l(g) = 0$ if and only if $g=1$. We say a group is **universally monotone** (or **u.m.**) if it has a length function which is universally monotone.
The following is the critical theorem, the ideas of which are in [@H]:
\[u.m.\] If the group $G$ is u.m. then $G$ is n-slender.
Let $l$ be a universally monotone length function on $G$. Let $\phi:{\textbf{HEG}}\rightarrow G$ be a homomorphism and suppose for contradiction that the restriction of $\phi$ to each ${\textbf{HEG}}^N$ is nontrivial. Select a sequence of words $\{W_m\}_{m=0}^{\infty}$ such that $W_m$ uses only letters in $\{a_n^{\pm 1}\}_{n=m}^{\infty}$ and $\phi([W_m]) \neq 1$. Let $r_m= l(\phi([W_m]))$ and $k_m\in \omega$ be such that $g\in G-\{1\}$ implies $l(g^{k_m}) \geq l(g)+ r_m +1$.
Consider the word $U = U_0$ defined by the equations $U_{p-1} = W_pU_{p}^{k_m}$. In other words, one can think of $U$ as being of form $U = W_1(W_2(W_3(\cdots)^{k_3})^{k_2})^{k_1}$. Notice that if $\phi([U_p]) \neq 1$ we have
$l(\phi([U_p]^{k_p})) = l((\phi([U_p]))^{k_p}) \geq l(\phi([U_p]))+ r_p +1 = l(\phi([U_p])) + l(\phi([W_p])) +1$
from which we have
$l(\phi([U_{p-1}])) = l(\phi([W_p])\phi([U_p]^{k_p})) \geq l(\phi([U_p]^{k_p})) - l(\phi([W_p])) \geq l(\phi([U_p]))+1$
Thus $\phi([U_{p-1}]) \neq 1$ and the argument may be repeated. By induction we get that $l(\phi([U_{p-p'}])) \geq l(\phi([U_{p}])) + p'$ for $p'\leq p$. Thus if $p> l(\phi([U_0]))$ we have $\phi([U_p])=1$, which gives $1 = \phi([U_p]) = \phi([W_{p+1}])(\phi([U_{p+1}]))^{k_{p+1}} = \phi([W_{p+1}])$, a contradiction.
[Hyperbolic Groups]{}
We review some basic concepts related to hyperbolic groups and prove that every torsion-free word hyperbolic group is u.m.
Recall that a metric space $(Z, d)$ is **hyperbolic** if there exists a $\delta$ such that for all $p, x,y,z\in Z$ we have $$(x,z)_p \geq \min\{(x,y)_p, (y,z)_p\} - \delta$$ where $(x,y)_p = \frac{1}{2}(d(x,p) + d(y,p) - d(x,y))$ is the Gromov product. A geodesic metric space $(Z, d)$ is hyperbolic if and only if there exists a $\delta$ such that for all points $x,y,z \in S$, and geodesics $[x,y]$ and $[x,z]$, the points $v\in [x,y]$ and $w\in [x,z]$ satisfying $d(x, v) = d(x,w) = (y,z)_x$ also satisfy $d(v,w) \leq 2\delta$. The $\delta$ used in the alternative criterion for geodesic spaces is not necessarily the same as in the original definition. Bounded spaces and the classical hyperbolic metric spaces $\mathbb{H}^n$ are examples of hyperbolic spaces.
A finitely generated group $G$ is word hyperbolic if for some finite generating set $X$ the Cayley graph $\Gamma(G, X)$ is a hyperbolic space under the combinatorial path metric (under which $\Gamma(G, X)$ is a geodesic space). It turns out that for a hyperbolic group $G$ it is the case that for any finite generating set $X$ the Cayley graph $\Gamma(G, X)$ is hyperbolic.
Now we fix some notation. Let $G$ be a group with generating set $X$. Any word $W$ in the letters $X^{\pm 1}$ gives an element of the group $G$ by performing the necessary multiplication of the letters. Write $W=_G g$ if the word $W$ represents the element $g\in G$ and $W=_G U$ if the words $W$ and $U$ represent the same element in $G$. Let $\|W\|$ denote the length of a word $W$ in the letters $X^{\pm 1}$. Let $l_X$ be the length function induced by $X$ on $G$, that is $l_X(g) = \min\{\|W\|: W =_G g\}$, and by abuse of notation let $l_X(W) = l_X(g)$ where $W=_G g$. Obviously $l_X(W)\leq \|W\|$. Given words $V, W$ in the letters $X^{\pm 1}$ we say that $V$ is $W$-periodic if $V$ is a subword of a power of $W^{\pm 1}$. We say a word $W$ in $X^{\pm 1}$ is **cyclically minimal** if the equality $W = VUV^{-1}$ in $G$ implies that $l_X(W) \leq \|U\|$. For $R\in \mathbb{R}$ let $D(R) = \{g\in G: l_X(g) \leq R\}$.
We use the following two results which appear as Lemmas 21 and 26 respectively in [@O]:
\[ol1\] Let $G$ be a word hyperbolic group and $\delta$ be a constant such that for all $p, x,y,z\in Z$ we have $(x,z)_p \geq \min\{(x,y)_p, (y,z)_p\} - \delta$. Let $K\geq 14 \delta$ and $K_1 > 12(K+\delta)$ and suppose that a geodesic n-gon $[x_1, \ldots, x_n]$ satisfies the conditions $d(x_{i-1}, x_i) >K_1$ for $i = 2, \ldots, n$ and $(x_{i-2}, x_i)_{x_{i-1}}<K$ for $i = 3, \ldots, n$ (if $n \geq 3$). Then the polygonal line $p = [x_1, x_2] \cup [x_2, x_3]\cup \cdots \cup [x_{n-1}, x_n]$ is contained in a $2K$-neighborhood of the side $[x_1, x_n]$ and the side $[x_1, x_n]$ is contained in a $14\delta$-neighborhood of $p$.
\[ol2\] For every hyperbolic group $G$ with finite generating set $X$ and every $\theta>0$ there exists a number $C$ such that for every $W$-periodic word $V$, where $W$ is a cyclically minimal word with $\|W\| >C$ it is true that $l_X(V) \geq (1-\theta)\|V\|$.
Recall the following classical facts:
\[undistorted\] If $G$ is word hyperbolic, generated by the finite set $X$, and $g\in G$ is of infinite order then the following two conditions hold:
1. There exists $\lambda>0$ such that $|n| \leq \lambda l_X(g^n)$ for all $n\in \mathbb{Z}$.
2. There exists $L \geq 0$ such that each geodesic $\gamma$ in $\Gamma(G, X)$ between two elements in the subgroup $\langle g\rangle$ is within the $L$-neighborhood of $\langle g\rangle$.
The unifom monotonicity of word hyperbolic groups follows immediately from the following theorem, which together with Theorem \[u.m.\] proves Theorem \[main\].
If $G$ is a torsion-free word hyperbolic group and $X$ a finite generating set there exists a constant $N\in \omega$ such that if $g\in G-\{1\}$ then $l_X(g^N)>l_X(g)$.
Fix $\delta$ which satisfies both the original and the geodesic definitions of hyperbolic space. Let $l_X(\cdot) = l(\cdot)$ for simplicity of notation. In Lemma \[ol2\] we let $\theta = \frac{1}{1000}$ and pick $C$ accordingly where without loss of generality $C> 1000\delta$. For each $h\in D(C) -\{1\}$ pick $\lambda_h, L_h \in \omega-\{0\}$ as in the statement of Lemma \[undistorted\]. Let $\lambda = \max\{\lambda_h\}_{h\in D(C)-\{1\}}$ and $L \geq \max\{L_h\}_{h\in D(C) - \{1\}}, C$. Let $N \geq 100, 241 L \lambda$. Let $g\in G-\{1\}$. We treat cases. In Cases 1a and 1b we use the fact that $N \geq 100$ and in Cases 2a and 2b we use the fact that $N \geq 241 L \lambda$. Pick $h$ which is conjugate to $g$ and of minimal length. Pick $x$ of minimal length such that $g = xhx^{-1}$.
**Case 1a**. Suppose $l(h)>C$ and $l(x) \leq 7l(h)$. Then we have that
$l(g^N) \geq l(h^N) - 2l(x) \geq l(h^N) - 14 l(h)$
$\geq 100(\frac{1}{2}l(h)) -14l(h)$ (here we are using $N \geq 100$ and $\theta \leq \frac{1}{2}$)
$\geq 36l(h) > l(h) + 14 l(h) \geq l(h) + 2l(x) \geq l(g)$
**Case 1b**. Suppose $l(h)>C$ and $l(x) > 7l(h)$. Consider the geodesic n-gon $[x, xh, xh^2, \ldots, xh^N]$, which is an isometric translate of the geodesic n-gon $[1, h, h^2, \ldots, h^N]$. Notice that
$(h^i, h^{i+2})_{h^{i+1}}= (1, h^2)_{h}$
$=\frac{1}{2}(l(h) + d(h, h^2) -l(h^2))$
$\leq \frac{1}{2}(2l(h) - (1-\frac{1}{100})2l(h))$
$=\frac{1}{100}l(h) < \frac{1}{50}l(h)$
for $0 \leq i \leq N-2$. Also, $d(h^i, h^{i+1}) = l(h)$. Thus letting $K = \frac{1}{50}l(h)$ and $K_1 = \frac{1}{2}l(h)$ in Lemma \[ol1\], we have that $[x, xh^N]$ is in the $14\delta$-neighborhood of $[x, xh]\cup [xh, xh^2] \cup \cdots \cup [xh^{N-1}, xh^N]$.
We use Lemma \[ol1\] again. Notice that $l(x) \leq l(xh^i)$ for all $i\in \mathbb{Z}$ by the minimality of the length of $x$ (else $(xh^i)h(xh^i)^{-1} = g$ and we have a contradiction). Letting $v\in [x, xh^N]$ be such that $d(x,v) = (1, xh^N)_x$ we may pick $v'\in [x, xh]\cup [xh, xh^2] \cup \cdots \cup [xh^{N-1}, xh^N]$ such that $d(v, v') \leq 14 \delta$. For some $0 \leq i \leq N$ we have that $d(v', xh^i) \leq \frac{l(h)}{2}$. Thus $d(v, xh^i) \leq \frac{l(h)}{2} + 14 \delta$. Then
$d(1, v) \geq d(1, xh^i) - d(v, xh^i)$
$\geq l(x) - \frac{l(h)}{2} - 14 \delta$
Letting $w\in [1, x]$ be such that $d(x, w) = (1, xh^N)_x$ we have that $d(w, v) \leq 2\delta$, and so
$d(1, w) \geq d(1, v) - d(v,w)$
$\geq l(x) - \frac{l(h)}{2} - 14 \delta -2 \delta$
$= l(x) - \frac{l(h)}{2} - 16 \delta$
Thus $(1, xh^N)_x \leq \frac{l(h)}{2} + 16\delta$. The similar argument shows that $(x, g^N)_{xh^N}\leq \frac{l(h)}{2} + 16\delta$. Now letting $K = \frac{l(h)}{2} + 17\delta$ and $K_1 = 7l(h)$, we see that $K_1 = 7l(h) \geq 12(\frac{l(h)}{2} + 18\delta)$ since $l(h)>C> 1000\delta$. Considering the geodesic quadrangle $[1, x, xh^N, g^N = xh^Nx^{-1}]$ we see by Lemma \[ol1\] that $[1, x] \cup [x, xh^N] \cup [xh^N, g]$ is in the $2K$-neighborhood of $[1, g^N]$. Pick $s_0, s_1\in [1, g^N]$ such that $d(x, s_0) \leq 2K = l(h) + 34 \delta$ and $d(xh^N, s_1) \leq 2K = l(h) + 34\delta$. It is easy to see that $s_0\in [1, s_1] \subseteq [1, g^N]$.
Now
$l(g^N)= d(1, s_0) + d(s_0, s_1) + d(s_1, g^N)$
$\geq (l(x) - l(h) - 34 \delta) + (l(h^N) -2l(h)- 68 \delta) + (l(x) - l(h) - 34 \delta)$
$= 2l(x) + l(h^N) -4l(h) - 136\delta$
$\geq 2l(x)+ 100(\frac{999}{1000}l(h))-4 l(h)-136 \delta$
$> 2l(x)+ 99l(h))-4 l(h)-136 \delta$
$> 2l(x) + l(h)$
$\geq l(g)$
so that we are done in this case.
**Case 2a**. Suppose that $l(h) \leq C$ and $l(x) \leq 60 L$. Then we have
$l(g^N) \geq l(h^N) - 2l(x)$
$\geq l(h^N) - 120L$
$\geq \frac{N}{\lambda} -120L$
$> 241L -120 L = L + 120L \geq l(h)+ 2l(x) \geq l(g)$
**Case 2b**. Suppose that $l(h)\leq C$ and $l(x) > 60L$. Let $v\in [x, xh^N]$ be such that $d(x, v) = (1, xh^N)_x$. As $[x, xh^N]$ is an isometric translation of $[1, h^N]$ we have that there is some $i\in \mathbb{Z}$ such that $d(v, xh^i)\leq L$. We know $l(xh^i) \geq l(x)$ by the minimality condition on $l(x)$. Pick $w\in [1, x]$ such that $d(x, w) = (1, xh^N)_x$, so that $d(v,w) \leq 2\delta$. Then
$(1, xh^N)_x = l(x) - d(1, w)$
$\leq l(x) - (d(1, v) - 2\delta)$
$\leq l(x)+ 2\delta - (l(xh^i)-L)$
$\leq l(x) + 2\delta +L - l(x) = 2\delta + L$
The condition $(x, g^N)_{xh^N} \leq 2\delta +L$ is proven similarly. Now we employ Lemma \[ol1\] again using $K = 2\delta + 2L$ and $K_1 = 24L + 36 \delta$, so that $[1, x]\cup[x, xh^N]\cup[xh^N, g^N]$ is within the $2K = 4\delta + 4L$-neighborhood of $[1, g^N]$. Select $s_0, s_1 \in [1, g^N]$ so that $d(x, s_0), d(xh^N, s_1)\leq 4\delta + 4L$. Now
$l(g^N) = d(1, s_0) + d(s_0, s_1) + d(s_1, g^N)$
$\geq (l(x) -4\delta - 4L) + (l(h^N) - 8\delta -8L) + (l(x) - 4\delta -4L)$
$\geq 2l(x) + l(h^N) - 32L > 2l(x) + l(h) \geq l(g)$
so we are done in this case as well.
[Graph Products of n-slender Groups]{}
We recall the definition of a graph product of groups and some machinery, then prove Theorem \[Graphprod\]. Suppose $\Gamma = (V, E)$ is a graph (we allow the sets of vertices and edges to be of arbitrary cardinality but do not allow an edge to connect a vertex to itself) and to each vertex $v\in V$ we associate a group $G_v$. We call the $G_v$ the generating groups. The graph product $G = \Gamma(\{G_v\}_{v\in V})$ is defined by taking the free product $\ast_{v\in V} G_v$ and modding out by the normal closure of the set $\{[g_{v_0}, g_{v_1}]\}_{g_{v_0} \in G_{v_0}, g_{v_1} \in G_{v_1}, \{v_0, v_1\}\in E}$. Thus free products of groups and direct sums of groups are examples of graph products of groups, with the graphs having either no edges or being complete in the respective cases.
Each $G_v$ is a retract subgroup of $G$ and $G$ is generated by the elements of the generating subgroups $G_v$. Thus each element $g\in G$ has a representation as a word $g =_{G} g_0 g_1g_2\cdots g_{n-1}$ with each $g_i$ in a generating group. In such a word we call each $g_i$ a syllable. Given two generating groups $G_{v_0}$ and $G_{v_1}$ it is easy to see that the subgroup $\langle G_{v_0}\cup G_{v_1}\rangle \leq G$ is a retract of $G$ and is either isomorphic to $G_{v_0} \ast G_{v_1}$ or $G_{v_0}\times G_{v_1}$, the first being the case if and only if $\{v_0, v_1\} \notin E$. Thus for nontrivial elements $g_0\in G_{v_0}$ and $g_1\in G_{v_1}$ we have that $[g_0, g_1] = 1$ if and only if $\{v_0, v_1\} \in E$.
We present some machinery found in [@Gre], where graph products were first introduced. We say a word $g_0 g_1\cdots g_{n-1}$ in elements of the generating groups is reduced if the following hold:
1. Each $g_i$ is a nontrivial element in a generating group and $g_i$ and $g_{i+1}$ are in different generating groups for all $0\leq i<n-1$
2. If $i \leq k < j$ and $[g_i, g_{i+1}] = [g_i, g_{i+2}]= \cdots = [g_i, g_k] = 1 = [g_{k+1}, g_j] = [g_{k+2}, g_j] = \cdots = [g_{j-1}, g_j]$ then $g_i$ and $g_j$ are in different generating groups.
We say that two reduced words $w_0, w_1$ are equivalent, if one can obtain $w_1$ from $w_0$ by a permutation of syllables as allowed in the group (i.e. one can permute the syllables $g_i$ and $g_{i+1}$ if and only if $[g_i, g_{i+1}] =1$). Clearly the equivalence of $w_0$ to $w_1$ implies that $w_0$ and $w_1$ have the same word length and $w_0 =_G w_1$. Using $\bigcup_{v\in V} G_v$ as a generating set for $G$ we get a length function $l$ on $G$.
The following result combines the statements of Theorem 3.9 and Corollary 3.13 of [@Gre]:
\[Green\] Each $g \neq 1$ has a reduced word representation $g =_G g_0g_1\cdots g_{n-1}$ which is unique up to equivalence, with $l(g) = n$.
We give a lemma before proving Theorem \[Graphprod\].
\[extension\] An n-slender by n-slender group is n-slender.
Suppose that $1\rightarrow K \rightarrow^{\iota} G \rightarrow^q Q \rightarrow 1$ is a short exact sequence of groups with $K$ and $Q$ n-slender groups, where for simplicity we identify $K$ with its image in $G$. Let $\phi: {\textbf{HEG}}\rightarrow G$ be a homomorphism. By the n-slenderness of $Q$ we see that for $q\circ \phi$ there exists an $N'\in \omega$ such that $\phi|{\textbf{HEG}}^{N'}$ maps into the kernel of $q$. In other words, $\phi$ maps ${\textbf{HEG}}^{N'}$ into $K$. As ${\textbf{HEG}}\simeq {\textbf{HEG}}_{N'}\ast {\textbf{HEG}}^{N'}$ we may define a homomorphism $\phi':{\textbf{HEG}}\rightarrow G$ by letting $\phi'|{\textbf{HEG}}_{N'}$ be the trivial map and $\phi'|{\textbf{HEG}}^{N'} = \phi|{\textbf{HEG}}^{N'}$. By n-slenderness of $K$ there exists an $N \in \omega$, without loss of generality $N >N'$ such that $\phi'|{\textbf{HEG}}^N$ is the trivial map. Then $\phi|{\textbf{HEG}}^N$ is the trivial map.
[(of Theorem \[Graphprod\])]{} Let $G_v$ be n-slender for each $v\in V$. Let $\sigma: G \rightarrow \bigoplus_{v\in V} G_v$ be the obvious surjective map. Eda proved in [@E] that $\bigoplus_{v\in V} G_v$ is n-slender. Thus by the previous lemma we will be done if we can show that $\ker(\sigma)$ is n-slender. We prove in fact that $\ker(\sigma)$ is u.m.
The length function $l$ on $G$ described above restricts to a length function on $\ker(\sigma)$. We show that for $g\in \ker(\sigma)-\{1\}$ we have $l(g^2)> l(g)$, which is sufficient to show that $l$ is a uniformly monotone length function. Let $g\in \ker(\sigma)-\{1\}$ be given and $g =_G g_0g_1\cdots g_{n-1}$ be a reduced word representation as described in Lemma \[Green\]. We permute the syllables of the word $g_0g_1\cdots g_{n-1}$ to get a possibly nicer reduced word representation. To start, suppose that for some $0\leq i<j\leq n-1$ we have that $[g_i, g_{i-1}] = [g_i, g_{i-1}] = \cdots = [g_i, g_0] = 1 = [g_j, g_{j+1}] = \cdots = [g_j, g_{n-1}]$ and $g_i = g_j^{-1}$. Then permute the syllables and relabel them so that $i = 0$ and $j = n-1$ and $g_0=g_{n-1}^{-1}$. Perform the same process on the word $g_1g_2\cdots g_{n-2}$, moving a pair of mutual inverses to the front and rear of the word if possible. Continue this process until it is impossible to go further, so that by relabeling we get a (possibly empty, in case the process can never be performed) initial segment $g_0g_1\cdots g_{k-1}$ and a (possibly empty) terminal segment $g_{n-k} \cdots g_{n-1}$ such that for $0 \leq i<k$ we have $g_i = g_{n-i-1}^{-1}$ and the process cannot be performed on the word $g_{k} g_{k+1}\cdots g_{n-k-1}$.
We next manipulate the word $g_kg_{k+1}\cdots g_{n-k-1}$. If there exists $k \leq i< j \leq n-k$ such that $[g_i, g_{i-1}] = [g_i, g_{i-2}] = \cdots = [g_{i}, g_k] = 1 = [g_j, g_{j+1}] = \cdots = [g_j, g_{n-k-1}]$ and both $g_i$ and $g_j$ are in the same generating group, then move the syllable $g_i$ to the front and the syllable $g_j$ to the rear of the word $g_kg_{k+1}\cdots g_{n-k-1}$ so that by relabeling we may assume $i=k$ and $j= n-k-1$. For the word $g_{k+1}g_{k+2}\cdots g_{n-k-2}$ consider whether there exist $k+1\leq i<j\leq n-k-2$ such that $[g_i, g_{i-1}] = [g_i, g_{i-2}] = \cdots = [g_{i}, g_k] = 1 = [g_j, g_{j+1}] = \cdots = [g_j, g_{n-k-1}]$ and both $g_i$ and $g_j$ are in the same generating group. If so, permute the syllables of the word $g_{k+1}g_{k+2}\cdots g_{n-k-2}$ so that the syllable $g_i$ is now in the front and the syllable $g_j$ is at the rear. By relabeling we our modified word we may assume that $i = k+1$ and $j = n-2$. Perform the same process on the word $g_{k+2}g_{k+3}\cdots g_{n-k-3}$, and continue the process until it becomes impossible. Thus we obtain a (possibly empty, in case the process cannot be performed) initial segment $g_kg_{k+1}\cdots g_{k+p-1}$ and (possibly empty) terminal segment $g_{n-k-p}\cdots g_{n-k-1}$ of the word $g_kg_{k+1}\cdots g_{n-k-1}$ such that all elements of the set $\{g_k, \ldots, g_{k+p-1}\}$ commute with each other and for $k \leq i \leq k+p$ we have that $g_i$ is in the same generating group as $g_{n-i-1}$. For $k\leq i \leq k+p-1$ let $h_i$ be the element $g_{n-i-1}g_i$ in the generating group containing $g_i$. By the first process that was performed, we have that $h_i \neq 1$.
Notice that the syllables $g_{k+p-1}$ and $g_{n-k-p}$ cannot be side by side, since otherwise we have that all syllables of $g_kg_{k+1}\cdots g_{n-k-1}$ commute with each other and thus the word $g_0 g_1 \cdots g_{n-1}$ was not reduced. Thus necessarily $n-k-p> k+p$ and there is a nonempty word $w_0$ in between $g_{k+p-1}$ and $g_{n-k-p}$ such that for each $k \leq i\leq k+p-1$there is a syllable in $w_0$ which does not commute with the syllable $g_i$ (else the word $g_0\cdots g_{n-1}$ was not reduced). Let $w_1$ be the word $g_k\cdots g_{k+p-1}$, $w_1'$ be the word $g_{n-k-p}\cdots g_{n-k-1}$, $w_1''$ be the word $h_k\cdots h_{k+p-1}$, and $w_2$ be the word $g_0\cdots g_{k-1}$. We already have that $w_2 w_1w_0w_1'(w_2)^{-1}$ is a reduced word representation for $g$. The equalities
$g^2 =_G w_2 w_1w_0w_1'(w_2)^{-1}w_2 w_1w_0w_1'(w_2)^{-1}$
$=_G w_2 w_1w_0w_1'w_1w_0w_1'(w_2)^{-1}$
$=_G w_2w_1w_0w_1''w_0w_1'(w_2)^{-1}$
are clear.
We claim that the word $w_2w_1w_0w_1''w_0w_1'(w_2)^{-1}$ is reduced. Each of the words $w_0, w_1, w_1', w_1'', w_2, (w_2)^{-1}$ is reduced. The words $w_0, w_1, w_1', w_2, (w_2)^{-1}$ are reduced since they are subwords of a reduced word. The word $w_1''$ is reduced since the $h_i$ constituting $w_1''$ are nontrivial, commute with each other, are in the same generating groups as the syllables of $w_1$ (or $w_1'$), and $w_1$ is reduced. No syllable of the word $w_2$ can be permuted to be next to a syllable of the same generating group in the word $w_1$, the first occurence of $w_0$, or $w_1''$ since the original word $w_2w_1w_0w_1'(w_2)^{-1}$ was reduced and the $h_i$ syllables that constitute the word $w_1''$ are from precisely the same generating groups as those syllables that constitute $w_1$ and $w_1'$. Also, no syllable of the word $w_2$ can be permuted next to a syllable of the same generating group in the second occurence of $w_0$ since the same is true of the first occurence of $w_0$. No syllable of $w_2$ can be permuted next to a syllable of the same generating group in the words $w_1'$ and $(w_2)^{-1}$ since the original word $w_2 w_1w_0w_1'(w_2)^{-1}$ was reduced. That no syllable in $w_1$ can be permuted next to a syllable of the same generating group in any of the words to the right of $w_1$ follows similar lines. No syllable in the first occurence of $w_0$ can be permuted next to a syllable of the same generating group in $w_1'$ since the subword $w_0w_1$ of the word $w_2 w_1w_0w_1'(w_2)^{-1}$ is reduced. If the syllable $g_q$ of the first occurence of $w_0$ can be permuted next to a syllable $g_{q'}$ in the second occurence of $w_0$, where $g_q, g_{q'}\in G_v$, then $g_q$ must commute with all the syllables of $w_1$ (and of $w_1'$ and $w_1''$). By the second process, which was performed on the word $g_k\cdots g_{n-k-1}$, it must be that $g_q=g_{q'}$ and thus in fact $g_q$ commutes with all syllables in the word $g_k\cdots g_{n-k-1}$. We have that all other syllables of the word $g_k\cdots g_{n-k-1}$ are not in $G_v$ (since $g_k\cdots g_{n-k-1}$ is reduced) and so $\sigma(g_k\cdots g_{n-k-1}) = g_q =\neq 1$ is conjugate to $\sigma(g) = 1$, a contradiction. The remaining cases are straightforward to check and follow the same lines.
Thus we have that
$l(g^2) = 2l(w_2) + 3l(w_1) + 2l(w_0) > 2l(w_2) + 2l(w_1) + l(w_0) = l(g)$
since, although $l(w_2)$ and/or $l(w_1)$ might be zero, we demonstrated that $l(w_0)$ is not zero.
[Thompson’s Group]{}
The group $F$ of R. Thompson is a well-known finitely presented group which satisfies many curious properties, and about which many open problems remain. The group has no infinitely divisible elements and has the unique extraction of roots property (i.e. if $g^n = h^n$ and $n >0$ then $g = h$). Thus one might ask the following:
Is Thompson’s group $F$ n-slender?
We show that the natural length function defined on diagram groups is not universally monotone. This does not rule out the possibility of a universally monotone length function, nor the n-slenderness of $F$.
We begin with a discussion of diagram groups (essentially following [@GS]), of which $F$ is an example. Start with an alphabet $X$. Given two words $u, v$ in the elements of $X$ a **cell** $(u \rightarrow v)$ is a directed planar graph consisting of exactly two directed paths with the same initial and terminal vertices and which share no other vertices, which share no edges, and with the two paths labeled by the words $u$ and $v$. The path labeled by $u$ is called the top path and that labeled by $v$ is called the bottom path. A **trivial diagram** is a single directed path labeled by a word in the elements of $X$; if that word is $u$ we denote the trivial diagram by $\epsilon(u)$. For a trivial diagram we say that the path defining the trivial diagram is both the top and the bottom path.
(47.75,50)(0,0) (0,28.25)(22.625,58.625)(48.5,28.25) (48.5,28.25)(21.5,0)(0,27.75) (23,48.5)[(0,0)\[cc\][u]{}]{} (22.625,8.75)[(0,0)\[cc\][v]{}]{} (0,28.25) (48.5,28.25)
We declare that diagrams are defined only up to planar isotopy and that cells and trivial diagrams are diagrams. Thus the diagrams that we have so far have an initial and a terminal vertex, that is, any two maximal paths begin and end at the same vertices. Also, each diagram has a top and a bottom path. Given a diagram $\Delta$ we let $\iota(\Delta)$ and $\tau(\Delta)$ denote the initial and terminal vertices respectively. All diagrams will similarly have an initial and terminal vertex as well as a top and a bottom path. In addition to the cells and the trivial diagrams, we close the collection of diagrams under the following three operations:
1\. Addition. Given two diagrams $\Delta_0$ and $\Delta_1$ we let $\Delta_0 + \Delta_1$ be the planar graph created by identifying $\tau(\Delta_0)$ with $\iota(\Delta_1)$. Thus the top path of $\Delta_0 + \Delta_1$ is the concatenation of the top paths of $\Delta_0$ and $\Delta_1$, and similarly for the bottom paths. Also we have $\iota(\Delta_0 + \Delta_1) = \iota(\Delta_0)$ and $\tau(\Delta_0 + \Delta_1) = \tau(\Delta_1)$. The operation $+$ is clearly associative. If $u = x_0x_1\cdots x_k$ then we may write $\epsilon(u) = \epsilon(x_0) + \epsilon(x_1) + \cdots + \epsilon(x_k)$.
(124.553,64)(0,0) (0,29)(16.214,60.125)(33,29) (33,29)(15.427,1.5)(0,29) (16.477,50)[(0,0)\[cc\][u]{}]{} (16.301,10.25)[(0,0)\[cc\][v]{}]{} (50,29)(60.401,64)(71,29) (71,29)(58.826,0)(50,29) (60.401,51.25)[(0,0)\[cc\][u’]{}]{} (60.576,8.75)[(0,0)\[cc\][v’]{}]{} (77, 30)[(0,0)\[cc\][$=$]{}]{} (84,29)(94.701,51.5)(106,29) (106,29)(94.876,9.75)(84,29) (123,29)(113.864,60.875)(106,29) (106,29)(111.064,6.375)(123,29) (94.701,45)[(0,0)\[cc\][u]{}]{} (114.302,48.5)[(0,0)\[cc\][u’]{}]{} (94.352,16.5)[(0,0)\[cc\][v]{}]{} (114.302,15.5)[(0,0)\[cc\][v’]{}]{} (0,29) (33,29) (50,29) (71,29) (84,29) (106,29) (123,29)
(40, 30)[(0,0)\[cc\][$+$]{}]{}
2\. Multiplication. Given diagrams $\Delta_0$ and $\Delta_1$ such that the bottom path of $\Delta_0$ has the same label as the top path of $\Delta_1$ we let $\Delta_0 \circ \Delta_1$ be the planar graph obtained by identifying the bottom path of $\Delta_0$ with the top of $\Delta_1$. Thus under the identification we have $\iota(\Delta_0\circ\Delta_1) = \iota(\Delta_0) = \iota(\Delta_1)$ (and similarly for $\tau$), the top of $\Delta_0\circ \Delta_1$ is the top of $\Delta_0$ and the bottom of $\Delta_0 \circ \Delta_1$ is the bottom of $\Delta_1$.
(112.276,77.375)(0,0) (39,54)(21.901,77.375)(0,54) (0,54)(24.276,37.75)(39,54) (20,68)[(0,0)\[cc\][u]{}]{} (20,42)[(0,0)\[cc\][v]{}]{} (20, 36)[(0,0)\[cc\][$\circ$]{}]{} (54, 36)[(0,0)\[cc\][$=$]{}]{} (71,39)(86.401,65.25)(100,39) (0,17)(19.901,39.25)(39,17) (39,17)(17.901,0)(0,17) (20,30.625)[(0,0)\[cc\][v]{}]{} (20,6.375)[(0,0)\[cc\][w]{}]{} (71,39)(83.526,9.125)(100,39) (71,39)[(1,0)[30]{}]{} (84,54.375)[(0,0)\[cc\][u]{}]{} (84,40.125)[(0,0)\[cc\][v]{}]{} (84,20.625)[(0,0)\[cc\][w]{}]{} (0,54) (39,54) (39,17) (0,17) (71,39) (100,39)
3\. Inversion. Given a diagram $\Delta$ we define $\Delta^{-1}$ to be the diagram obtained by flipping the diagram $\Delta$ about a horizontal line, so that the top path becomes the bottom path and vice versa.
By definition, the class of diagrams (over $X$) is built out of cells and trivial diagrams using the above operations. If we wish, we can restrict our attention to those diagrams which are built only from trivial diagrams and cells in a set $P$ and the three operations above and let $D(P)$ denote this class. If a diagram $\Delta$ has two cells such that the top of the second is identified with the bottom of the first, and the first and second cells are inverses of each other, then we call this pair of cells a **dipole**. Notice that if one eliminates the two cells from the diagram and identifies the top of the first cell with the bottom of the second, then we have a new diagram $\Delta'$ and say that $\Delta$ and $\Delta'$ are equivalent. This induces an equivalence relation on $D(P)$ by making the relation reflexive, symmetric and transitive. We say $\Delta$ is **reduced** in case $\Delta$ has no dipoles, and note that every diagram is equivalent to a unique reduced diagram (see [@GS]).
Given a word $u$ and a collection of cells $P$ we let $D(P, u)$ denote the collection of reduced diagrams built by using cells in $P$, trivial diagrams, and the above three operations and whose top and bottom paths are labeled by the word $u$. This forms a group by letting the binary operation be given by $\Delta_0 \Delta_1 = \Delta$, where $\Delta$ is the reduced diagram equivalent to $\Delta_0 \circ \Delta_1$ (see [@GS] for a proof). The identity element and the inverse operation are clear.
Now we state a characterization of $F$ as a diagram group. We shall use this as our working definition of $F$, and the isomorphism of $F$ with the group we define is given in [@GS]. Letting $X = \{x\}$ and $P = \{(x^2 \rightarrow x)\}$ it is shown that $D(P, x) \simeq F$. Given a reduced diagram $\Delta \in F$ we let $l(\Delta)$ be the number of cells in $\Delta$. It is easy to check that $l$ is a length function.
We now show that $l$ is not universally monotone. Letting $n>1$ be given we give an example of a diagram $\Delta$ such that $l(\Delta)> l(\Delta^n)$. Since the alphabet $X$ includes only the letter $x$, we may assume that each arc in our diagrams is labeled by the letter $x$ as read from left to right. Let $\rho$ denote the $(1, 2)$ diagram. Let $\theta$ be the reduced diagram with $4$ cells given below.
(50,55)(0,0) (0,47.375)[(1,0)[51.75]{}]{} (0,47)(21.5,72.125)(37,47) (52,47)(34.375,23)(17,47) (0,47)(24.75,93)(52,47) (52,47)(26.25,0)(0,47) (52,47) (37,47) (17,47) (0,47)
For $n \in \mathbb{Z}$ let $\theta^n$ denote the reduced diagram associated with multiplying $\theta$ with itself $n$ times. The diagrams for $\theta^2$ and respectively for $\theta^m$ for $m \geq 1$ are straightforward to compute and are pictured below having $6$ and $2 +2m$ cells, resp.
(120.531,80)(0,0) (68,47)[(1,0)[51]{}]{} (0,47)[(1,0)[51]{}]{} (68,47)(88.531,72.125)(104,47) (0,47)(21.031,72.375)(37,47) (120,47)(101.406,23)(84,47) (52,47)(33.906,23.25)(17,47) (68,47)(91.781,93)(120,47) (0,47)(24.281,93.25)(52,47) (120,47)(93.281,0)(68,47) (52,47)(25.781,.25)(0,47) (68,47) (0,47) (84,47) (17,47) (104,47) (37,47) (120,47) (52,47) (0,47)(17.656,63.875)(26,47) (26,47)(33.781,31)(51,47) (26,47) (68,47)(84.281,57.375)(91,47) (91,47)(103.531,27.75)(120,47) (91,47) (68,47)(86.656,67.625)(100,47) (100,47)(105.156,39.875)(120,47) (100,47) (94.461,44.055)(.6,.35)[6]{}
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Define $\Delta_n$ to be $\underbrace{\theta^{-1} + \theta^{-1}\cdots + \theta^{-1}}_{n-1\text{times}}+\theta^{n-1}$. Select $k\in \omega$ large enough that $2n^2< 2k +2$. Let $k_1, k_2 >n+1$ be such that $1+k_1+nk+k_2 = 2^m$ for some $m\in \omega$. Let $\Psi$ be the diagram pictured below with top path of length $1$ and bottom path of length $2^m +2$.
(129.031,60)(0,0) (0,0)[(1,0)[127]{}]{} (0,0)(7,14.825)(10,0) (4,0)(7,7.65)(10,0) (10,0)(13.675,16.838)(17,0) (17,0)(20.575,16.488)(23,0) (23,0)(26.8,16.488)(30,0) (30,0)(32.275,17.188)(35,0) (35,0)(39.025,18.938)(42,0) (42,0)(44.95,18.5)(47,0) (47,0)(51.925,17.713)(54,0) (54,0)(59.8,21.387)(64,0) (64,0)(67.45,19.55)(70,0) (70,0)(75.625,19.813)(78,0) (0,0)(13,30.137)(17,0) (17,0)(24.175,33.287)(30,0) (30,0)(36.475,36.262)(42,0) (42,0)(49.075,42.387)(54,0) (54,0)(63.25,41.688)(70,0) (0,0)(20.65,59.275)(30,0) (30,0)(44.65,68.2)(54,0) (78,0)(84.025,24.012)(85,0) (70,0)(81.175,45.1)(85,0) (54,0)(76.6,76.95)(85,0) (0,0)(38.65,105.212)(54,0)
(47, 42)[(0,0)\[cc\][$\udots$]{}]{} (49, 44)[(0,0)\[cc\][$\udots$]{}]{}
(73,46)[(0,0)\[cc\][$\vdots$]{}]{} (73,48)[(0,0)\[cc\][$\vdots$]{}]{} (88, 6)[(0,0)\[cc\][$\cdots$]{}]{} (90, 6)[(0,0)\[cc\][$\cdots$]{}]{}
(105, 6)[(0,0)\[cc\][$\cdots$]{}]{}
(127,0)(121.45,21.3)(115,0) (115,0)(110.35,23.05)(107,0) (115,0)(120.4,9.75)(122,0) (107,0)(114.025,45.1)(127,0) (0,0) (4,0) (7,0) (10,0) (13,0) (17,0) (20,0) (23,0) (27,0) (30,0) (32.5,0) (35,0) (39,0) (42,0) (45,0) (47,0) (51,0) (54,0) (59,0) (64,0) (67,0) (70,0) (74,0) (78,0) (81,0) (85,0) (107,0) (111,0) (115,0) (118.5,0) (122,0) (127,0)
Let $\chi$ be the diagram $\rho + \epsilon{k_1}+ \underbrace{\Delta_n + \Delta_n + \cdots + \Delta_n}_{k \text{times}} + \epsilon(k_2) + \rho^{-1}$ and finally let $\Delta = \Psi \circ \chi \circ \circ \Psi^{-1}$. It is straightforward to check that $\Delta$ is a reduced diagram with top and bottom path of length $1$, so $\Delta$ is in the Thompson group $F$. To compute $\l(\Delta)$ we note that each $\Delta_n$ has $2+6(n-1)$ cells in it, so that $\chi$ has $1 + k(2 + 6(n-1)) +1$ cells in it. The diagram $\Psi$ contains $2^m +1$ cells, so that $\l(\Delta) = 1 + k(2 + 6(n-1)) +1 + 2(2^m +1)= 4-4k +6kn+2^{m+1}$. Clearly $\Delta^n$ is equivalent to $\Psi\circ \chi^n \circ \Psi$. We count the number of cells in $\Psi\circ \chi^n \circ \Psi$ to obtain an upper bound on $l(\Delta^n)$. First of all we have $2(2^m+1)$ cells in $\Psi$ and $\Psi^{-1}$ combined. The reduced diagram $\chi^n$ is given by the equality
$\chi^n = \Gamma_1+ \epsilon(k_1 - n)+ \theta^{-1}+ \theta^{-2}+ \cdots + \theta^{1-n} + \epsilon((k-1)n +2) + \theta + \theta^{2} +\cdots + \theta^{n-1} + \epsilon(k_2) + \Gamma_2$
where $\Gamma_1$ is the diagram with $n$ cells pictured below and $\Gamma_2$ is the rotation of $\Gamma_1$ by $180$ degrees.
(61.781,50)(0,0) (0,0)[(1,0)[59.25]{}]{} (0,0)(29.281,68.5)(60,0) (0,0)(11.781,17.25)(16,0) (0,0)(15.781,26.75)(21,0) (0,0)(18.156,37.875)(30,0) (0,0) (16,0) (8,0) (21,0) (30,0) (60,0) (43,9)[(0,0)\[cc\][$\cdots$]{}]{} (41,9)[(0,0)\[cc\][$\cdots$]{}]{}
Thus $\chi^n$ has $n + (4+6+ \cdots + (2+2(n-1))) + (4+6+ \cdots + (2+2(n-1))) + n = 2n + 2(n^2 - n) = 2n^2$ cells. Hence $l(\Delta^n) \leq 2n^2 + 2(2^m+1)< 4-4k +6kn +2^{m+1} = l(\Delta)$ by our choice of $k$, as desired.
[A Family of Non-Examples]{}
Although the uniformly monotone condition gives a very nice sufficient condition for n-slenderness, it is not a necessary condition. We give an example of a very basic family of groups that are n-slender but which are not uniformly monotone.
The countable slender abelian groups have the following criterion (see [@F]):
A countable abelian group $A$ is slender if and only if $A$ is torsion-free and reduced (i.e. $\bigcap_{m = 1}^{\infty} mA = \bigcap_{m = 1}^{\infty}\{ma: a\in A\}$ is trivial.)
The groups $BS(1, n)$ are n-slender but not u.m. for $n>1$. Moreover, these groups are HNN extensions of the u.m. group $\mathbb{Z}$.
Recall that $BS(1, n) = \langle a,b| bab^{-1} = a^n\rangle$. The retraction map $q: BS(1,n) \rightarrow \langle b\rangle$ defined by $b\mapsto b$ and $a\mapsto 1$ has kernel which is easily seen to be isomorphic to the additive group of the $n$-adic rational numbers, $\mathbb{Z}[\frac{1}{n}]$.
The group $\mathbb{Z}[\frac{1}{n}]$ is clearly torsion-free and countable. To see that $\mathbb{Z}[\frac{1}{n}]$ is reduced we notice that an element $\frac{r}{n^k}$ with $r\in \mathbb{Z}$ is not a $p$-th power for any $p$ that divides neither $n$ nor $r$. Thus $\mathbb{Z}[\frac{1}{n}]$ is slender and therefore n-slender, and since $\mathbb{Z} \simeq \langle b\rangle$ is also n-slender we know that $BS(1, n)$ is n-slender as an n-slender by n-slender group (Lemma \[extension\]).
However we know that $BS(1, n)$ cannot be u.m. since it contains a subgroup isomorphic to $\mathbb{Z}[\frac{1}{n}]$. Each element of $\mathbb{Z}[\frac{1}{n}]$ is infinitely divisible, and a u.m. group cannot have any infinitely divisible elements besides the identity element.
[abcdefghijk]{}
G. R. Conner, K. Spencer. Anomalous behavior of the Hawaiian Earring group. J. Group Theory 8 (2005), 225–-227.
K. Eda. Free $\sigma$-products and noncommutatively slender groups. J. Algebra 148 (1992), 243-263.
K. Eda http://www.logic.info.waseda.ac.jp/ eda/
L. Fuchs. “Infinite Abelian Groups,” Vols 1,2, Academic Press, San Diego 1970, 1973.
M. Gromov. Hyperbolic groups. Essays in group theory, 75-263, Math. Sci. Res. Inst. Publ., 8, Springer, New York, 1987.
E. Green, Graph products of groups, PhD thesis, University of Leeds, 1990.
V. S. Guba, M. S. Sapir, Diagram Groups, Memoirs of the AMS, 130 (1997)
G. Higman. Unrestricted free products and varieties of topological groups. J. London Math. Soc. 27 (1952), 73-81.
A. Yu. Ol’shanskii. Periodic quotient groups of hyperbolic groups. Math. USSR Sbornik 72 (1992) no 2, 519-541
E. Specker. Additive Gruppen von folgen Ganzer Zahlen, Portugal. Math. 9 (1950), 131-140.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
In this paper we study the four-dimensional dominance range reporting problem and present data structures with linear or almost-linear space usage. Our results can be also used to answer four-dimensional queries that are bounded on five sides. The first data structure presented in this paper uses linear space and answers queries in $O(\log^{1+{\varepsilon}}n + k\log^{{\varepsilon}} n)$ time, where $k$ is the number of reported points, $n$ is the number of points in the data structure, and ${\varepsilon}$ is an arbitrarily small positive constant. Our second data structure uses $O(n \log^{{\varepsilon}} n)$ space and answers queries in $O(\log n+k)$ time.
These are the first data structures for this problem that use linear (resp. $O(n\log^{{\varepsilon}} n)$) space and answer queries in poly-logarithmic time. For comparison the fastest previously known linear-space or $O(n\log^{{\varepsilon}} n)$-space data structure supports queries in $O(n^{{\varepsilon}} + k)$ time (Bentley and Mauer, 1980). Our results can be generalized to $d\ge 4$ dimensions. For example, we can answer $d$-dimensional dominance range reporting queries in $O(\log\log n (\log n/\log\log n)^{d-3} + k)$ time using $O(n\log^{d-4+{\varepsilon}}n)$ space. Compared to the fastest previously known result (Chan, 2013), our data structure reduces the space usage by $O(\log n)$ without increasing the query time.
author:
- Yakov Nekrich
bibliography:
- 'range-rep.bib'
title: 'Four-Dimensional Dominance Range Reporting in Linear Space'
---
Introduction
============
In the orthogonal range searching problem we keep a set $S$ of multi-dimensional points in a data structure so that for an arbitrary axis-parallel query rectangle $Q$ some information about points in $Q\cap S$ can be computed efficiently. Range searching is one of the most fundamental and widely studied problems in computational geometry. Typically we want to compute some aggregate function on $Q\cap S$ (range aggregate queries), generate the list of points in $S$ (reporting queries) or determine whether $Q\cap S=\emptyset$ (emptiness queries). In this paper we study the complexity of four-dimensional orthogonal range reporting and orthogonal range emptiness queries in the case of dominance queries and in the case when the query range is bounded on five sides. We demonstrate for the first time that in this scenario both queries can be answered in poly-logarithmic time using linear or almost-linear space.
Range trees, introduced by Lueker [@Lueker78] in 1978 and Bentley [@Bentley80] in 1980, provide a solution for the range reporting problem in $O(n\log^dn)$ space and $O(\log^d n+k)$ time for any constant dimension $d$. Henceforth $k$ denotes the number of points in the answer to a reporting query and $n$ denotes the number of points in the data structure. A number of improvements both in time and in space complexity were obtained in the following decades. See e.g., [@McCreight85; @Chazelle86; @ChazelleG86; @ChazelleG86a; @ChazelleE87; @Chazelle88; @Overmars88; @Chazelle90a; @Chazelle90b; @SubramanianR95; @VengroffV96; @AlstrupBR00; @AlstrupBR01; @Nekrich07isaac; @Nekrich07; @Nekrich07algorithmica; @KarpinskiN09; @NN12; @ChanLP11; @Chan13] for a selection of previous works on range reporting and related problems. Surveys of previous results can be found in [@Agarwal04; @agarwal1999geometric; @Nekrich16]. We say that a range query is $f$-sided if the query range is bounded on $f$ sides, i.e., a query can be specified with $f$ inequalities; see Fig. \[fig:queriesex\] on p. . Researchers noticed that the space and time complexity of range reporting depends not only on the dimensionality: the number of sides that bound the query range is also important. Priority search tree, introduced by McCreight [@McCreight85], provides an $O(n)$ space and $O(\log n + k)$ time solution for 3-sided range reporting queries in two dimensions. In [@ChazelleE87] Chazelle and Edelsbrunner have demonstrated that three-dimensional $3$-sided queries (aka three-dimensional dominance queries) can be answered in $O(\log^2 n+k)$ time using an $O(n)$ space data structure. In 1985 Chazelle [@Chazelle88] described a compact version of the two-dimensional range tree that uses $O(n)$ space and supports general (4-sided) two-dimensional range reporting queries in $O(\log n+ k\log^{{\varepsilon}} n)$ time, where ${\varepsilon}$ denotes an arbitrarily small positive constant. In [@Chazelle88] the author also presented an $O(n)$ space data structure that supports 5-sided three-dimensional reporting queries in $O(\log^{1+{\varepsilon}}n+k\log^{{\varepsilon}}n)$ time. Bentley and Mauer [@BentleyM80] described a linear-space data structure that supports $d$-dimensional range reporting queries for any constant $d$; however, their data structure has prohibitive query cost $O(n^{{\varepsilon}} + k)$.
Summing up, we can answer range reporting queries in poly-logarithmic time using an $O(n)$ space data structure when the query is bounded on at most 5 sides and the query is in two or three dimensions. Significant improvements were achieved on the query complexity of this problem in each case; see Table \[tbl:linspace\]. However, surprisingly, linear-space and polylog-time data structures are known only for the above mentioned special cases of the range reporting. For example, to answer four-dimensional 4-sided queries (four-dimensional dominance queries) in polylogarithmic time using previously known solutions one would need $\Omega(n\log n/\log\log n)$ space. This situation does not change when we increase the space usage to $O(n\log^{{\varepsilon}}n)$ words: data structures with poly-logarithmic time are known for the above described special cases only. See Table \[tbl:almostlin\].
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![Examples of queries in two and three dimensions. (a) A two-dimensional 3-sided query (b) A three-dimensional 3-sided (dominance) query (c) A three-dimensional 5-sided query.[]{data-label="fig:queriesex"}](range-queries-examples "fig:"){width=".3\textwidth"} ![Examples of queries in two and three dimensions. (a) A two-dimensional 3-sided query (b) A three-dimensional 3-sided (dominance) query (c) A three-dimensional 5-sided query.[]{data-label="fig:queriesex"}](range-queries-examples "fig:"){width=".15\textwidth"} ![Examples of queries in two and three dimensions. (a) A two-dimensional 3-sided query (b) A three-dimensional 3-sided (dominance) query (c) A three-dimensional 5-sided query.[]{data-label="fig:queriesex"}](range-queries-examples "fig:"){width=".2\textwidth"}
(a) (b) (c)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous results raise the question about low-dimensional range reporting. What determines the complexity of range reporting data structures in $d\ge 4$ dimensions: the dimensionality or the number of sides in the query range? The lower bound of Patrascu [@Patrascu11] resolves this question with respect to query complexity. It is shown in [@Patrascu11] that any data structure using $O(n\mathtt{polylog}(n))$ space needs $\Omega(\log n/\log\log n)$ time to answer four-dimensional dominance (4-sided) queries. On the other hand, two- and three-dimensional 4-sided queries can be answered in $O(\log\log n + k)$ time using $O(n\mathtt{polylog}(n))$ space. In this paper we address the same question with respect to space complexity.
We demonstrate that four-dimensional 5-sided queries can be answered in $O(\log^{1+{\varepsilon}} n+k\log^{{\varepsilon}} n)$ time using an $O(n)$ space data structure. Our data structure can also support 5-sided emptiness queries in $O(\log^{1+{\varepsilon}}n)$ time. If the space usage is slightly increased to $O(n\log^{{\varepsilon}} n)$, then we can answer reporting and emptiness queries in $O(\log n +k)$ and $O(\log n)$ time respectively. For comparison, the fastest previous method [@Chan11] requires $O(n\log^{1+{\varepsilon}} n)$ space and supports queries in $O(\log n + k)$ time. Since dominance queries are a special case of 5-sided queries, our results can be used to answer four-dimensional dominance queries within the same time and space bounds. Using standard techniques, our results can be generalized to $d$ dimensions for any constant $d\ge 4$: We can answer $d$-dimensional dominance queries in $O(\log\log n (\log n/\log\log n)^{d-3} + k)$ time and $O(n \log^{d-4+{\varepsilon}} n)$ space. We can also answer arbitrary $(2d-3)$-sided $d$-dimensional range reporting queries within the same time and space bounds.
Our base data structure is the range tree on the fourth coordinate and every tree node contains a data structure that answers three-dimensional dominance queries. We design a space-efficient representation of points stored in tree nodes, so that each point uses only $O(\log\log n)$ bits. Since each point is stored $O(\log n/\log\log n)$ times in our range tree, the total space usage is $O(n\log n)$ bits. Using our representation we can answer three-dimensional queries on tree nodes in $O(\log^{{\varepsilon}}n)$ time; we can also “decode” each point, i.e., obtain the actual point coordinates from its compact representation, in $O(\log^{{\varepsilon}} n)$ time. Efficient representation of points is the core idea of our method: we keep a geometric construct called *shallow cutting* in each tree node and exploit the relationship between shallow cuttings in different nodes. Shallow cuttings were extensively used in previous works to decrease the query time. But, to the best of our knowledge, this paper is the first that uses shallow cuttings to reduce the space usage. The novel part of our construction is a combination of several shallow cuttings that allows us to navigate between the nodes of the range tree and “decode” points from their compact representations. We recall standard techniques used by our data structure in Section \[sec:prelim\]. The linear-space data structure is described in Section \[sec:5sid4dim\]. In Section \[sec:decodingfast\] we show how the decoding cost can be reduced to $O(1)$ by slightly increasing the space usage. The data structure described in Section \[sec:decodingfast\] supports queries in $O(\log n +k)$ time and uses $O(n\log^{{\varepsilon}} n)$ space. Previous and new results for 4-sided queries in four dimensions are listed in Table \[tbl:dom4dim\]. Compared to the only previous linear-space data structure [@BentleyM80], we achieve exponential speed-up in query time. Compared to the fastest previous result [@Chan13], our data structure reduces the space usage by $O(\log n)$ without increasing the query time.
The model of computation used in this paper is the standard RAM model. The space is measured in words of $\log n$ bits and we can perform standard arithmetic operations, such as addition and subtraction, in $O(1)$ time. Our data structures rely on bit operations, such as bitwise AND or bit shifts or identifying the most significant bit in a word. However such operations are performed only on small integer values (i.e., on positive integers bounded by $n$) and can be easily implemented using look-up tables. Thus our data structures can be implemented on the RAM model with standard arithmetic operations and arrays.
We will assume in the rest of this paper that all point coordinates are bounded by $n$. The general case can be reduced to this special case using the reduction to rank space, described in Section \[sec:prelim\]. All results of this paper remain valid when the original point coordinates are real numbers.
------------- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------- ----------------------------------
Query
Type Ref Query Time Ref Query Time
2-D 3-sided [@McCreight85], 1985 $O(\log n+k)$ [@AlstrupBR00], 2000 $O(k+1)$
2-D 4-sided [@Chazelle88], 1985 $O(\log n + k\log^{{\varepsilon}} n)$ [@ChanLP11], 2011 $O((k+1)\log^{{\varepsilon}} n)$
3-D 3-sided [@ChazelleE87], 1986 $O(\log^2 n+k)$ [@Chan11], 2011 $O(\log\log n+k)$
3-D 5-sided [@Chazelle88], 1985 $O(\log^{1+{\varepsilon}} n + k\log^{{\varepsilon}} n)$ [@FarzanMR12], 2012 $O(\log n\log\log n)$^[E]{}^
4-D 5-sided New
------------- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------- ----------------------------------
: Linear-space data structures for different types of queries. The second column provides the reference to the first data structure achieving linear space and the year of the first publication. The third column contains the query time of the first data structure. The fourth and the fifth columns contain the same information about the best (fastest) currently known data structure. Result marked with [E]{} supports only emptiness queries. Data structures in rows 4 and 5 also support $4$-sided queries.[]{data-label="tbl:linspace"}
------------- --------------------- ----------------- ---------------------- ---------------------
Query
Type Ref Query Time Ref Query Time
2-D 4-sided [@Chazelle88], 1985 $O(\log n +k)$ [@AlstrupBR00], 2000 $O(\log \log n +k)$
3-D 5-sided [@Chazelle88], 1985 $O(\log n + k)$ [@ChanLP11], 2011 $O(\log\log n+k)$
4-D 5-sided New
------------- --------------------- ----------------- ---------------------- ---------------------
: $O(n\log^{{\varepsilon}} n)$-space data structures for orthogonal range reporting. The second and the third columns contain the reference to and the query time of the first data structure. The fourth and the fifth columns contain the reference to and the query time of the best (fastest) currently known data structure. Data structures in rows 2 and 3 also support $4$-sided queries.[]{data-label="tbl:almostlin"}
Ref. Space Query Time
---------------- -------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------
[@BentleyM80] $O(n)$ $O(n^{{\varepsilon}} +k)$
[@ChazelleE87] $O(n\log n)$ $O(\log^2 n + k)$
[@JaJaMS04] $O(n\log n)$ $O(\log^2 n/\log \log n+ k)$
[@Nekrich07] $O(n\log^{2+{\varepsilon}} n)$ $O(\log n\log\log n + k)$
[@Afshani08] $O(n\log^{1+{\varepsilon}} n)$ $O(\log n\log\log n + k)$
[@Chan11] $O(n\log^{1+{\varepsilon}} n)$ $O(\log n + k)$
[@Chan11] $O(n \log n)$ $O(\log n \log\log n + k)$
New $O(n\log^{{\varepsilon}} n)$ $O(\log n + k)$
New $O(n)$ $O(\log^{1+{\varepsilon}} n + k\log^{{\varepsilon}} n)$
: Previous and new results on dominance range reporting in four dimensions. Results in lines 2, 3, and 7 can be modified so that space is decreased to $O(n\log n/\log \log n)$ and the query time is increased by $O(\log^{{\varepsilon}}n)$ factor.[]{data-label="tbl:dom4dim"}
Preliminaries {#sec:prelim}
=============
In this paper ${\varepsilon}$ will denote an arbitrarily small positive constant. We will consider four-dimensional points in a space with coordinate axes denoted by $x$, $y$, $z$, and $z'$. The following techniques belong to the standard repertoire of geometric data structures.
##### Shallow Cuttings. {#shallow-cuttings. .unnumbered}
A point $q$ dominates a point $p$ if and only if every coordinate of $q$ is larger than or equal to the corresponding coordinate of $p$. The *level* of a point $q$ in a set $S$ is the number of points $p$ in $S$, such that $q$ dominates $p$ (the point $q$ is not necessarily in $S$). We will say that a *cell* $C$ is a region of space dominated by a point $q_c$ and we will call $q_c$ the apex point of $C$. A $t$-shallow cutting of a set $S$ is a collection of cells ${{\cal C}}$, such that (i) every point in $\mathbb{R}^d$ with level at most $t$ (with respect to $S$) is contained in some cell $C_i$ of ${{\cal C}}$ and (ii) if a point $p$ is contained in some cell $C_j$ of ${{\cal C}}$, then the level of $p$ in $S$ does not exceed $2t$. The size of a shallow cutting is the number of its cells. We can uniquely identify a shallow cutting ${{\cal C}}$ by listing its cells and every cell can be identified by its apex point. Since the level of any point in a cell $C_j$ does not exceed $2t$, every cell $C_j$ contains at most $2t$ points from $S$, $|C_j\cap S|\le 2t$ for any $C_j$ in ${{\cal C}}$.
There exists a $t$-shallow cutting of size $O(n/t)$ for $d=2$ [@VengroffV96] or $d=3$ dimensions [@Afshani08]. Shallow cuttings and related concepts are frequently used in data structures for three-dimensional dominance range reporting queries.
Consider a three-dimensional point $q_3=(a,b,c)$ and the corresponding dominance range $Q_3={(-\infty,a]}\times {(-\infty,b]}\times {(-\infty,c]}$. We can find a cell $C$ of a $t$-shallow cutting ${{\cal C}}$ that contains $q_3$ (or report that there is no such $C$) by answering a point location query in a planar rectangular subdivision of size $O(n/t)$. Point location queries in a rectangular subdivision of size $n$ can be answered in $O(\log\log n)$ time using an $O(n)$-space data structure [@Chan13].
##### Range Trees. {#range-trees. .unnumbered}
A range tree is a data structure that reduces $d$-dimensional orthogonal range reporting queries to a small number of $(d-1)$-dimensional queries. Range trees provide a general method to solve $d$-dimensional range reporting queries for any constant dimension $d$. In this paper we use this data structure to reduce four-dimensional 5-sided reporting queries to three-dimensional 3-sided queries. A range tree for a set $S$ is a balanced tree that holds the points of $S$ in the leaf nodes, sorted by their $z'$-coordinate. We associated a set $S(u)$ with every internal node $u$. $S(u)$ contains all points $p$ that are stored in the leaf descendants of $u$. We assume that each internal node of $T$ has $\rho=\log^{{\varepsilon}} n$ children. Thus every point is stored in $O(\log n/\log \log n)$ sets $S(u)$. We keep a data structure that supports three-dimensional reporting queries on $S(u)$ for every node $u$ of the range tree.
Consider a query $Q=Q_3\times [a,b]$, where $Q_3$ denotes a 3-sided three-dimensional query range. Let $\ell_a$ be the rightmost leaf that holds some $z'$-coordinate $a'< a$ and let $\ell_b$ be the leftmost leaf that holds some $b'> b$. Let $v_{ab}$ denote the lowest common ancestor of $\ell_a$ and $\ell_b$. We denote by $\pi_a$ (resp. $\pi_b$) the set of nodes on the path from $\ell_a$ ($\ell_b$) to $v_{ab}$, excluding the node $v_{ab}$. We will say that $u$ is a left (right) sibling of $v$ iff $u$ and $v$ have the same parent node and $u$ is to the left (respectively, to the right) of $v$. The set $\pi'_a$ consists of all nodes $u$ that have some left sibling $v\in \pi_a$ and $\pi'_b$ consists of all nodes $u$ that have a right sibling $v\in \pi_b$. The set $\pi''_a$ ($\pi''_b$) consists of all nodes in $\pi'_a$ (resp. in $\pi'_b$) that are not children of $v_{ab}$. The set $\pi'_{ab}$ consists of all children of $v_{ab}$ that are in $\pi'_a\cap \pi'_b$. For any point $p\in S$, $a\le p.z'\le b$ iff $p\in S(u)$ for some $u$ in $\pi''_a\cup \pi''_b\cup \pi'_{ab}$. Nodes $u\in \pi''_a\cup\pi''_b\cup\pi'_{ab}$ are called canonical nodes for the range $[a,b]$. See an example on Fig. \[fig:rangetree\]. In order to answer a four-dimensional query $Q$ we visit every canonical node $u$ and report all points $p\in S(u)\cap Q_3$.
![Example of a query in a range tree with node degree $\rho=3$. Canonical nodes are shown in red. Only nodes of $\pi_a\cup \pi_b$ and $\pi'_a\cup \pi'_b$ are shown. []{data-label="fig:rangetree"}](range-tree){width=".45\textwidth"}
Thus we can answer a four-dimensional 5-sided query by answering $O(\rho\cdot \log n/\log\log n)$ three-dimensional 3-sided queries in canonical nodes.
##### Rank Space. {#rank-space. .unnumbered}
Let $E$ be a set of numbers. The *rank* of a number $x$ in $E$ is the number of elements in $E$ that do not exceed $x$: ${\mathrm{rank}}(x,E)=|\{\,e\in E\,|\, e\le x\,\}|$. Let ${\mathrm{pred}}(x,E)=\max\{\,e\in E\,|\,e\le x\,\}$ and ${\mathrm{succ}}(x,E)=\min\{\,e\in E\,|\, e\ge x\,\}$. An element $e\in E$ is in the range $[a,b]$, $a\le e\le b$, iff its rank satisfies the inequality $a'\le {\mathrm{rank}}(e,E) \le b'$ where $a'={\mathrm{rank}}({\mathrm{succ}}(a,E),E)$ and $b'={\mathrm{rank}}(b,E)$. Hence we can report all $e\in E$ satisfying $a\le e\le b$ by finding all elements $e$ satisfying $a'\le {\mathrm{rank}}(e,E)\le b'$.
The same approach can be also extended to multi-dimensional range reporting. A three-dimensional transformation is implemented as follows. We say that a three-dimensional point $p\in S$ is reduced to rank space (or $p$ is in the rank space) if each coordinate of $p$ is replaced by its rank in the set of corresponding coordinates. That is, each point $p=(p.x,p.y,p.z)$ is replaced with $\xi(p)=({\mathrm{rank}}(p.x,S_x),{\mathrm{rank}}(p.y,S.y), {\mathrm{rank}}(p.z,S_z))$, where $S_x$, $S_y$, and $S_z$ denote the sets of $x$-, $y$-, and $z$-coordinates of points in $S$. For a point $p\in S$ we have $$p\in [a,b]\times [c,d]\times [e,f] \Leftrightarrow \xi(p)\in [a',b']\times [c',d']\times [e',f']$$ where $a'={\mathrm{rank}}({\mathrm{succ}}(a,S_x),S_x)$, $c'={\mathrm{rank}}({\mathrm{succ}}(c,S_y),S_y)$, $e'={\mathrm{rank}}({\mathrm{succ}}(e,S_z),S_z)$, $b'={\mathrm{rank}}(b,S_x)$, $d'={\mathrm{rank}}(d,S_y)$, and $f'={\mathrm{rank}}(f,S_z)$. Thus we can reduce three-dimensional queries on a set $S$ to three-dimensional queries on a set $\{\,\xi(p)\,|\,p\in S\,\}$. Suppose that we store the set $\xi(S)$ in a data structure that answers queries in time $t(n)$ and uses space $s(n)$. Suppose that we also keep data structures that answers predecessor queries on $S_x$, $S_y$, and $S_z$. Then we can answer orthogonal range reporting queries on $S$ in time $t(n)+O(t_{{\mathrm{pred}}}(n))$ using space $s(n)+O(s_{{\mathrm{pred}}}(n))$. Here $s_{{\mathrm{pred}}}(n)$ and $t_{{\mathrm{pred}}}(n)$ are the space usage and query time of the predecessor data structure. Additionally we need a look-up table that computes $\xi^{-1}(p)$, i.e., computes the coordinates of a point $p$ from its coordinates in the rank space. As we will show later, in some situations this table is not necessary. Summing up, reduction to rank space enables us to reduce the range reporting problem on a set $S\subset \mathbb{R}^3$ to a special case when all point coordinates are positive integers bounded by $|S|$.
The same rank reduction technique can be applied to range reporting in any constant dimension $d$. In the rest of this paper we will assume for simplicity that all points of $S$ are in the rank space.
Five-Sided Range Reporting in Linear Space {#sec:5sid4dim}
==========================================
##### Base Structure. {#base-structure. .unnumbered}
We keep all points in a range tree that is built on the fourth coordinate. Each tree node has $\rho=\log^{{\varepsilon}} n$ children; thus the tree height is $O(\log n/\log\log n)$. Let $S(u)$ denote the set of points assigned to a node $u$. To simplify the notation, we will not distinguish between points in $S(u)$ and their projections onto $(x,y,z)$-space. We will say for example that a point $p$ is in a range $Q={(-\infty,a]}\times{(-\infty,b]}\times{(-\infty,c]}$ if the projection of $p$ onto $(x,y,z)$-space is in $Q$.
Since we aim for a linear-space data structure, we cannot store sets $S(u)$ in the nodes of the range tree. We keep a $t_0$-shallow cutting ${{\cal C}}(u)$ of $S(u)$ where $t_0=\log^2 n$. For every cell $C_i(u)$ of the shallow cutting we store all points from $S(u)\cap C_i$ in a data structure supporting three-dimensional dominance queries. We do not store the original (real) coordinates of points[^1] in $C_i$. Instead we keep coordinates in the rank space of $S(u)\cap C_i$. Since $S(u)\cap C_i$ contains $O(\log^2 n)$ points, we need only $O(\log \log n)$ bits per point to answer three-dimensional dominance queries in the rank space.
We can answer a 5-sided query ${(-\infty,q_x]}\times {(-\infty,q_y]}\times{(-\infty,q_z]}\times [z'_l,z'_r]$ by visiting all canonical nodes that cover the range $[z'_l,z'_r]$. In every visited node we answer a three-dimensional dominance query, i.e., report all points dominated by $q_3=(q_x,q_y,q_z)$ in two steps: first, we search for some cell $C_i(u)$ that contains $q_3$. If such a cell $C_i(u)$ exists, then we answer the dominance query in the rank space of $S(u)\cap C_i(u)$ in $O(1)$ time per point. We describe the data structure for dominance queries on $t_0$ rank-reduced points in Section \[sec:small\].
We must address several issues in order to obtain a working solution: How can we transform a three-dimensional query to the rank space of $C_i(u)$? A data structure for cell $C_i(u)$ reports points in the rank space of $C_i(u)$. How can we obtain the original point coordinates? Finally how do we answer a query on $S(u)$ if $q_3$ is not contained in any cell $C_i(u)$? First, we will explain how to decode points from a cell $C(u)$ and obtain their original coordinates. We also show how to transform a query to the rank space of a cell. Next we will describe a complete procedure for answering a query. Finally we will improve the query time and achieve the main result of this section.
##### Decoding Points. {#decoding-points. .unnumbered}
This is the crucial component of our construction. We will need additional structures to obtain the original coordinates of points from ${{\cal C}}(u)$. To this end we keep an additional $(4t_0$)-shallow cutting ${{\cal C}}'(u)$ in every node of the range tree. For each cell $C'_i(u)$ of ${{\cal C}}'(u)$ we create a separate $(2t_0)$-shallow cutting of $S(u)\cap C'_i(u)$, called ${{\cal D}}_i(u)$.
\[lemma:contain\] Let ${{\cal A}}$ be an $f$-shallow cutting for a set $S$ and let ${{\cal B}}$ be an $(f')$-shallow cutting for a set $S'\subseteq S$ so that $f'\ge 2f$. Every cell $A_i$ of ${{\cal A}}$ is contained in some cell $B_j$ of ${{\cal B}}$.
Consider an apex point $a_i$ of $A_i$ (i.e., the point with maximum $x$- $y$-, and $z$-coordinates in $A_i$). The level of $a_i$ in $S$ is at most $2f$ by definition of a shallow cutting. Since $S'\subseteq S$, the level of $a_i$ in $S'$ does not exceed $2f$. Hence there exists a cell $B_j$ of ${{\cal B}}$ that contains $a_i$. The apex $b_j$ of $B_j$ dominates $a_i$. Hence $b_j$ also dominates all points from $A_i$ and $B_j$ contains $A_i$.
Lemma \[lemma:contain\] will be extensively used in our decoding procedure. We will say that a point $p$ in $C'_i(u)$ is *interesting* if $p$ is contained in some $C_k(w)$, where $w$ is an ancestor of $u$. Each interesting point $p\in S(u)$ can be uniquely represented by (a) a cell $C'_i(u)$ of ${{\cal C}}'(u)$ that contains $p$ and (b) coordinates of $p$ in the rank space of $C'_i(u)$. The following relationship between shallow cuttings provides the key insight.
\[lemma:cuttings\] (i) Every cell $C_i(u)$ of ${{\cal C}}(u)$ is contained in some cell $C'_j(u)$ of ${{\cal C}}'(u)$\
(ii) Let $u_r$ be a child of an internal node $u$. Every cell $D_{ij}(u)$ of every ${{\cal D}}_i(u)$ is contained in some cell $C'_k(u_r)$ of ${{\cal C}}'(u_r)$.\
(iii) Every interesting point from $C'_i(u)$ is stored in some cell $D_{ij}(u)$ of ${{\cal D}}_i(u)$.
\(i) Immediately follows from Lemma \[lemma:contain\].(ii) Consider the apex point $p_a$ of $D_{ij}(u)$. The point $p_a$ dominates at most $4t_0$ points from $S(u)$ and at most $4t_0$ points from $S(u_r)$ because $S(u_r)\subset S(u)$. Hence both $p_a$ and $D_{ij}(u)$ are contained in some cell of $C'(u_r)$. (iii) Suppose that a point $p\in S(w)$ is stored in some cell $C_k(w)$ of ${{\cal C}}(w)$ where $w$ is an ancestor of $u$. The point $p$ dominates at most $2t_0$ points from $S(w)$. Since $S(u)$ is a subset of $S(w)$, $p$ dominates at most $2t_0$ points in $S(u)$. Hence $p$ is contained in some cell $C'_i(u)$ of the shallow cutting ${{\cal C}}'(u)$. Every point of $C'_i(u)\cap S(u)$ that dominates at most $2t_0$ points of $S(u)$ is contained in some cell $D_{ij}(u)$ of ${{\cal D}}_{i}(u)$.
Consider an arbitrary point $p$ in a cell $C_i(u)$ of ${{\cal C}}(u)$. Our decoding procedure finds a representation of $p$ in ${{\cal C}}'(u)$. That is, we find the cell $C'_j(u)$ of ${{\cal C}}'(u)$, such that $p\in C'_j(u)$, and the rank of $p$ in $C'_j(u)$. The key observation is that $C_i(u)$ is contained in some $C'_j(u)$ (Lemma \[lemma:cuttings\], item (i)) Therefore we need to store a pointer to $C'_j(u)$ only once for all points $p$ in $C_i(u)$. For every $p$ from $C_i(u)$, we can store its rank in $C'_j(u)$ using $O(\log\log n)$ bits. Next, our decoding procedure moves from a node $u$ to its child $u_f$, such that $p\in S(u_f)$, and computes a representation of $p$ in ${{\cal C}}'(u_f)$. This is done in two steps: First we examine the shallow cutting ${{\cal D}}_j(u)$ and find the cell $D_{jl}(u)$ that contains $p$. By Lemma \[lemma:cuttings\], item (iii), such a cell always exists. The shallow cutting ${{\cal D}}_{jl}(u)$ consists of $O(1)$ cells. Therefore we can store, for any interesting point $p$, the cell $D_{jl}(u)$ containing $p$ and the rank of $p$ in $D_{jl}(u)$ using $O(\log\log n)$ bits. Then we move from $D_{jl}(u)$ to ${{\cal C}}(u_f)$: by Lemma \[lemma:cuttings\], item (ii), $D_{jl}(u)$ is contained in some $C'_k(u_f)$. Thus we need to store the pointer to $C'_k(u_f)$ only once for all interesting points $p$ in $D_{jl}(u)$. We can store the rank of $p$ in $C'_k(u_f)$ using $O(\log \log n)$ bits. When the representation of $p$ in ${{\cal C}}'(u_f)$ is known, we move to the child $u_d$ of $u_f$, such that $p\in S(u_d)$ and compute a representation of $p$ in ${{\cal C}}'(u_d)$. We continue in the same way until a leaf node is reached. Every leaf node $\ell$ contains original (real) coordinates of points in $S(\ell)$. Hence we can obtain the coordinates of $p$ when a leaf is reached. Summing up, shallow cuttings ${{\cal C}}'(u)$ and ${{\cal D}}_i(u)$ allow us to move from a node $u$ to a child of $u$ using only $O(\log \log n)$ additional bits per point. A more detailed description of auxiliary data structures needed for decoding is given in the next paragraph.
For each cell $C_i(u)$ of ${{\cal C}}(u)$ we keep a pointer to the cell $C'_{{\mathtt{cont}}(i)}(u)$ of ${{\cal C}}'(u)$ that contains $C_i(u)$. For every cell $D_{ij}(u)\in {{\cal D}}_{i}(u)$ and for each child $u_r$ of $u$, we keep a pointer to the cell $C_{{\mathtt{down}}(i,j,r)}'(u_r)\in {{\cal C}}'(u_r)$, such that $C_{{\mathtt{down}}(i,j,r)}'(u_r)$ contains $D_{ij}(u)$. We can identify a point in each cell of a shallow cutting ${{\cal C}}(u)$ (resp. ${{\cal C}}'(u)$ or ${{\cal D}}'_i(u)$) with $O(\log\log n)$ bits because each cell contains a poly-logarithmic number of points. The $x$-rank of a point in a cell will be used as its identifier. We keep a mapping from points in a cell $C_i$ to the corresponding points in a containing cell $C'_{{\mathtt{cont}}(i)}$. The array $F_X(C_i)$ maps $x$-ranks of points in $C_i$ to their $x$-ranks in $C'_{{\mathtt{cont}}(i)}$: if the $x$-rank of a point $p\in C_i$ is equal to $f$, then $F_X[f]=g$ where $g$ is the $x$-rank of $p$ in $C'_{{\mathtt{cont}}(i)}$. The array $F''_{X,r}$ for a cell $D_{ij}(u)$ and a child $u_r$ of $u$ maps $x$-ranks of points in $D_{ij}(u)$ to their $x$-ranks in $C'_{{\mathtt{down}}(i,j,r)}$. If the $x$-rank of a point $p\in C_i$ is equal to $f$, then $F''_{X,r}[f]=g$ where $g$ is the $x$-rank of $p$ in $C'_{{\mathtt{down}}(i,j,r)}$. We also keep a mapping from $C'_i(u)$ to cells of ${{\cal D}}_i(u)$: for every point $p\in C_i(u)$ we store the cell $D_{ij}$ that contains $p$ and the $x$-rank of $p$ in $C_{ij}$ (or $NULL$ if $p$ is not in ${{\cal C}}_{ij}$). For every point $p$ in each cell $D_{ij}(u)$ of ${{\cal C}}'_i(u)$, we store the index of the child $u_r$ such that $p\in S(u_r)$. Our method requires $O(\log\log n)$ bits per point. Each pointer from $C_i(u)$ to $C'_{{\mathtt{cont}}(i)}(u)$ and from $D_{ij}(u)$ to $C'_{{\mathtt{down}}(i,j,r)}(u)$ consumes $O(\log n)$ bits. We store $O(\log^{2{\varepsilon}}n)$ pointers per cell and there are $O(n/(\log n\log\log n))$ cells in all shallow cuttings of the range tree. Hence the total space used by all pointers is $O(n\log^{2{\varepsilon}}n)$ bits.
\[lemma:down\] For any interesting point $p$ in a cell $C'_i(u)$, we can find the representation of $p$ in $C'_i(u_f)$, where $u_f$ is the child of $u$ that contains $p$.
First we identify the cell $D_{ij}(u)$ of ${{\cal D}}_i(u)$ that contains $p$ and compute the $x$-rank of $p$ in $D_{ij}(u)$. Since $p$ is interesting, such a cell exists. Then we use the array $F''_{X,k}$ of this cell and find the $x$-rank of $p$ in the cell $C'_{{\mathtt{down}}(i,j,k)}$.
For any point from $C_i(u)$ we can obtain its position in some cell $C'_{{\mathtt{cont}}(i)}(u)$ in $O(1)$ time. Then we can move down and obtain its representation in a child of $u$ in $O(1)$ time. We can access the original coordinates of $p$ when a leaf node is reached. Thus we can “decode” a point $p$ if we know its position in a cell $C_i(u)$ in $O(\log n/\log\log n)$ time.
We can reduce a three-dimensional query ${(-\infty,a]}\times{(-\infty,b]}\times{(-\infty,c]}$ to the rank space of a cell by binary search. Let $X(C_i)$ denote the list of points in a cell $C_i$ sorted by $x$-coordinates. To compare $a$ with the $x$-coordinate of $X(C_i)[g]$ for some index $g$, we decode the point $p=X(C_i)[g]$ as explained above. Hence we can find the predecessor of $a$ in $X(C_i)$ by binary search in $O(\log \log n)$ time. We can find the predecessor of $b$ in $Y(C_i)$ and the predecessor of $c$ in $Z(C_i)$ using the same procedure, where $Y(C_i)$ and $Z(C_i)$ are the lists of points in $C_i$ sorted by their $y$- and $z$-coordinates respectively.
##### Queries. {#queries. .unnumbered}
Consider a four-dimensional 5-sided query ${(-\infty,a]}\times{(-\infty,b]}\times{(-\infty,c]}\times [z'_l,z'_r]$. We visit all canonical nodes that cover the range $[z'_l,z'_r]$. In every visited node we answer a three-dimensional query using the following procedure. We find a cell $C_i(u)$ that contains $p$. We transform ${(-\infty,a]}\times {(-\infty,b]}\times {(-\infty,c]}$ to the rank space of $C_i(u)$ and answer the transformed query on $C_i(u)\cap S(u)$. Every reported point is decoded using the procedure described above. If there is no cell $C_i(u)$ that contains $p$, then $p$ dominates at least $t_0$ points from $S(u)$. In this case we visit all children of $u$ and recursively answer three-dimensional dominance query in each child using the same procedure.
We need $O(\log \log n)$ time to find the cell $C_i(u)$ or determine that $C_i(u)$ does not exist. To answer a query on $C_i(u)$ we need $O(\log n)$ time (ignoring the time to report points, but taking into account the time that we need to transform a query to the rank space of $C_i(u)$). Thus the total time spent in a node $u$ is $O(\log n)$. The time spent in descendants of $u$ can be estimated as follows. Let $T_u$ be the subtree of the range tree induced by $u$ and its visited descendants. Let $T_u'$ denote the subtree of $T_u$ obtained by removing all leaves of $T_u$. Every leaf of $T'_u$ is an internal node of $T_u$. Hence we report at least $t_0$ points for every leaf in $T'_u$. The height of $T'_u$ is bounded by $O(\log n/\log\log n)$. Let $l_u$ denote the number of leaves in $T'_u$. The total number of nodes in $T'_u$ is bounded by $O(l_u\log n/\log \log n)$. Every node of $T'_u$ has $\rho$ children. Hence the total number of nodes in $T_u$ does not exceed $O(l_u(\log^{1+{\varepsilon}}n/\log\log n))$. The time spent in all nodes of $T_u$ can be bounded by $O(l_u\log^{2+{\varepsilon}} n)$ (again, ignoring the time to decode and report points). When we visit descendants of $u$ we report at least $k_u=\Omega(l_u\cdot t_0)$ points and each point is decoded in $O(\log n/\log\log n)$ time. The total time spent in descendants of $u$ is $O(l_u\log^{2+{\varepsilon}}n+ k_u(\log n/\log\log n)=O(k_u(\log n/\log\log n))$. The time spent in all canonical nodes and their descendants is $O(\log^{2+{\varepsilon}}n +k(\log n/\log\log n))$.
##### Faster Decoding. {#faster-decoding. .unnumbered}
We can speed-up the decoding procedure and thus the overall query time without increasing the asymptotic space usage. Our approach is very similar to the method used in compact two-dimensional range trees [@Chazelle88; @Nekrich09; @ChanLP11]. All nodes in the range tree are classified according to their depth. A node $u$ is an $i$-node if the depth $h_u$ of $u$ divides $\rho^i$ where $\rho=\log^{{\varepsilon}} n$, $h_u=x\cdot \rho^i$ for some $i\ge 0$, but $h_u$ does not divide $\rho^j$ for $j>i$. We keep an additional $4t_i$-shallow cutting ${{\cal C}}^i$ in every $i$-node $u$ where $t_i=\rho^i\cdot \log^2 n$. As before for each cell $C^j_i$ of ${{\cal C}}^j$ we construct a $2t_j$-shallow cutting ${{\cal D}}^j_{i}$. Let an $i$-descendant of a node $u$ denote the highest $i$-node $v$ that is a descendant of $u$. If a node $u$ is an $i$-node, then it has $\rho^i$ $i$-descendants. For every cell $D^j_{ik}$ of each ${{\cal D}}^j_i$ and for every $j$-descendant $u_l$ of $u$, we keep the index $r={\mathtt{down}}(j,i,l)$ of the cell $C^j_r(u_l)$ that contains $D^j_{ik}(u)$. For each point in $D^j_{ik}(u)$ we keep the index $l$ of the $i$-descendant that contains $p$ and the $x$-rank of $p$ in $C^j_r(u_l)$ where $r={\mathtt{down}}(j,i,l)$.
Using these additional shallow cuttings, we can reduce the decoding time to $O(\log^{{\varepsilon}} n)$. To decode a point $p$ in $S(u)$ we move down from a node $u$ to its child $u_{0,1}$ and find a representation of $p$ in ${{\cal C}}'(u_{0,1})$. Then we move to the child $u_{0,2}$ of $u_{0,1}$ and continue in the same manner until a $1$-node $u_{1,1}$ is reached. Next we move from $u_{1,1}$ to its $1$-descendant $u_{1,2}$, then to a $1$-descendant $u_{1,3}$ of $u_{1,2}$, and so on until a $2$-node is reached. During the $j$-th iteration we move down along a sequence of $j$-nodes until a $(j+1)$-node or a leaf node is reached. During each iteration we visit $O(\log^{{\varepsilon}} n)$ nodes and spend $O(1)$ time in every node. There are at most $\log_{\rho}\log n=O(1/{\varepsilon})$ iterations. Hence the decoding time for a point is $O(\log^{{\varepsilon}} n)$. The total query time is reduced to $O(\log^{1+2{\varepsilon}}n+k\log^{{\varepsilon}}n)$. If we replace ${\varepsilon}$ with ${\varepsilon}/2$ in the above proof, we obtain our first result.
\[theor:linspace\] There exists a linear-space data structure that answers four-dimensional 5-sided reporting queries in $O(\log^{1+{\varepsilon}} n+ k\log^{{\varepsilon}} n)$ time and four-dimensional 5-sided emptiness queries in $O(\log^{1+{\varepsilon}} n)$ time.
Faster Queries using More Space {#sec:decodingfast}
===============================
In this section we will show how to reduce the decoding time to $O(1)$ per point by increasing the space usage. We make several modifications in the basic construction of Section \[sec:5sid4dim\]. For any $i$ and $j$ such that $1\le i\le j \le \rho$ and for any internal node $u$ of the range tree, we store the set $S(u,i,j)$. $S(u,i,j)$ is the union of sets $S(u_i)$, $S(u_{i+1})$, $\ldots$, $S(u_j)$. For every set $S(u,i,j)$ we construct a $t_0$-shallow cutting ${{\cal C}}(u,i,j)$. For each cell $C_l$ of ${{\cal C}}(u,i,j)$ we store a three-dimensional data structure that keeps points from $C_l\cap S(u,i,j)$ in the rank space and answers three-dimensional dominance queries in $O(k+1)$ time.
The decoding procedure is implemented in the same way as in Section \[sec:5sid4dim\], but with different parameter values. Recall that a node $u$ is an $i$-node for some $i\ge 0$ if the depth of $u$ divides $\rho^i$ but does not divide $\rho^{i+1}$. We keep an additional $4t_{i+1}$-shallow cutting ${{\cal C}}^i(u,l,r)$ for every $i$-node $u$ and every pair $1\le l\le r\le \rho$. For every cell $C_s$ of ${{\cal C}}^i(u,l,r)$ we keep a $2t_{i+1}$-shallow cutting ${{\cal D}}_s$. Consider a cell $D_g$ of ${{\cal D}}_s$. For every $(i+1)$-descendant $v$ of $u$ and for every pair $l$, $r$ satisfying $1\le l\le r\le\rho$, we keep the index $x={\mathtt{down}}(D_g,v,l,r)$ such that the cell $C_x$ of ${{\cal C}}^{i+1}(v,l,r)$ contains $D_g$. We also store a mapping from ${{\cal C}}(u,l,r)$ to ${{\cal C}}^i(u,l,r)$ for every $i$-node $u$. That is, for every cell $C_f$ of ${{\cal C}}(u,l,r)$ we keep the index $g={\mathtt{cont}}(f)$, such that the cell $C_g\in {{\cal C}}^i(u,l,r)$ contains $C_f$; for every point $p\in S(u)\cap C_f$ we keep its identifier in $C_{{\mathtt{cont}}(f)}$. For every cell $C_g$ of ${{\cal C}}^i(u,l,r)$ we keep a mapping from $C_g$ to ${{\cal D}}_g$. That is, for every point $p$ in $C_g\cap S(u,l,r)$ we store the cell $D_s$ of ${{\cal D}}_g$ that contains $p$ and the identifier of $p$ in $D_s$. Finally we also store a mapping from every cell $D_s$ of each ${{\cal D}}_g$ to shallow cuttings in $(i+1)$-descendants of $u$. For every point $p\in D_s\cap S(u,l,r)$ we store (i) the $i$-descendant $v$ of $u$ such that $p\in S(v)$ and (ii) the identifier of $p$ in $C_x$ where $x={\mathtt{down}}(D_s,v,l,r)$.
Our modified data structure uses $O(n\log^{3{\varepsilon}}n)$ words of space. The representation of a point in ${{\cal C}}(u,i,j)$ takes $O(\log \log n)$ bits per point and every point is stored in $O(\log^{1+2{\varepsilon}}n/\log \log n)$ shallow cuttings ${{\cal C}}(u,i,j)$. The mapping from ${{\cal C}}(u,l,r)$ to ${{\cal C}}^i(u,l,r)$ in an $i$-node $u$ takes $O(\log^{(i+1){\varepsilon}}n)$ bits per point. We also need $O(\log^{(i+1){\varepsilon}}n)$ bits per point to store the mapping from a cell $C_g$ of ${{\cal C}}^i(u,l,r)$ to ${{\cal D}}_g$. The mapping from a cell $D_s$ of ${{\cal D}}_g$ to shallow cuttings in $(i+1)$-descendants of $u$ consumes the same space. The total number of points in all $S(u)$ where $u$ is an $i$-node is $O(n\log^{1-i{\varepsilon}}n)$. The total number of points in all $S(u,l,r)$ where $u$ is an $i$-node and $1\le l\le r\le \rho$ is $O(n\log^{1+(2-i){\varepsilon}}n)$. Hence the total space used by all mappings in all $i$-nodes is $O(n\log^{1+3{\varepsilon}} n)$ bits or $O(n\log^{3{\varepsilon}}n)$ words of $\log n$ bits.
Every point $p$ in $C_i\cap S(u,l,r)$, where $C_i$ is a cell of ${{\cal C}}(u,l,r)$, can be decoded in $O(1)$ time. Suppose that $u$ is a $j$-node. Using the mapping from $C_i$ to ${{\cal C}}^j(u,l,r)$, we can find the representation of $p$ in ${{\cal C}}^j(u,l,r)$, i.e., a cell $C_s$ that contains $p$ and the identifier of $p$ in $C_s$. If we know the identifier of $p$ in $C_s$, we can find the representation of $p$ in ${{\cal D}}_s$. Using the mapping from a cell of ${{\cal D}}_s$ to $(j+1)$-descendants of $u$, we can compute the representation of $p$ in a cell $C_v$ of ${{\cal C}}^{j+1}(v,l',r')$, where $v$ is a direct $(j+1)$-descendant of $u$. Thus we moved from a $j$-node to its $(j+1)$-descendant in $O(1)$ time. We continue in the same way and move to a $(j+2)$-descendant of $u$, then a $(j+3)$-descendant of $u$, and so on. After at most $(1/{\varepsilon})=O(1)$ iterations, we reach a leaf node and obtain the original coordinates of $p$.
We can translate a query ${(-\infty,a]}\times{(-\infty,b]}\times{(-\infty,c]}$ into the rank space of a cell $C_i$ in constant time. Let $X(C_i)$ denote the list of $x$-coordinates of $S(u,l,r)\cap C_i$. We keep $X(C_i)$ in the compact trie data structure of [@GrossiORR09]. This data structure requires $O(\log\log n)$ bits per point. Elements of $X(C_i)$ are not stored in the compact trie; we only store some auxiliary information using $O(\log \log n)$ bits per element. Compact trie supports predecessor queries on $X(C_i)$ in $O(1)$ time, but the search procedure must access $O(1)$ elements of $X(C_i)$. Since we can decode a point from $C_i$ in $O(1)$ time, we can also access an element of $X(C_i)$ in $O(1)$ time. Hence, we can compute the predecessor of $a$ in $X(C_i)$ (and its rank) in $O(1)$ time. We can translate $b$ and $c$ to the rank space in the same way.
##### Queries. {#queries.-1 .unnumbered}
Consider a four-dimensional 5-sided query ${(-\infty,a]}\times{(-\infty,b]}\times{(-\infty,c]}\times [z'_1,z'_2]$. There are $O(\log n/\log\log n)$ canonical sets $S(u_i,l_i,r_i)$, such that $p.z\in [z'_1,z'_2]$ iff $p\in S(u_i,l_i,r_i)$ for some $i$. Canonical sets can be found as follows. Let $\ell_1$ be the leaf that holds the largest $l_1 < z_1'$ and $\ell_2$ be the leaf that holds the smallest $l_2>z'_2$. Let $v$ denote the lowest common ancestor of $\ell_1$ and $\ell_2$. Let $\pi_1$ denote the path from $\ell_1$ to $v$ (excluding $v$) and let $\pi_2$ denote the path from $\ell_2$ to $v$ (excluding $v$). For each node $u\in \pi_2$, we consider a canonical set $S(u,l,r)$ such that $u_l$, $\ldots$, $u_r$ are left siblings of some node $u_{r+1}\in \pi_2$. For each node $u\in \pi_1$, we consider a canonical set $S(u,l,r)$ such that $u_l$, $\ldots$, $u_r$ are right siblings of some node $u_{l-1}\in \pi_1$. Finally we consider the set $S(v,l,r)$ such that $v_l$, $\ldots$, $v_r$ have a left sibling on $\pi_1$ and a right sibling on $\pi_2$. The fourth coordinate of a point $p$ is in the interval $[z'_1,z'_2]$ iff $p$ is stored in one of the canonical sets described above. Hence we need to visit all canonical sets and answer a three-dimensional query ${(-\infty,a]}\times{(-\infty,b]}\times{(-\infty,c]}$ in each set.
There are $O(\log n/\log \log n)$ canonical sets $S(u,l,r)$. Each canonical set is processed as follows. We find the cell $C_u$ of ${{\cal C}}(u,l,r)$ that contains $q_3=(a,b,c)$. Then we translate $q_3$ into the rank space of $C_u\cap S(u,l,r)$ and answer the dominance query. Reported points are decoded in $O(1)$ time per point as explained above. We can also translate the query into the rank space of $C_u$ in $O(1)$ time. If $q_3$ is not contained in any cell of ${{\cal C}}(u,l,r)$, then $q_3$ dominates at least $\log^2 n$ points of $S(u,l,r)$. We visit all children $u_i$ of $u$ for $l\le i \le r$ and recursively answer the dominance query in each child. Using the same arguments as in Section \[sec:5sid4dim\], we can show that the total number of visited nodes does not exceed $O(k/\log^{{\varepsilon}} n)$, where $k$ is the number of reported points.
If we replace ${\varepsilon}$ with ${\varepsilon}/3$ in the above proof, we obtain the following result.
\[lemma:faster\] There exists an $O(n\log^{{\varepsilon}}n)$ space data structure that answers four-dimensional 5-sided reporting queries in $O(\log n+ k)$ time and four-dimensional 5-sided emptiness queries in $O(\log n)$ time.
We can extend our result to support dominance queries (or any $(2d-3)$-sided queries) in $d\ge 4$ dimensions using standard techniques.
There exists an $O(n\log^{d-4+{\varepsilon}}n)$ space data structure that supports $d$-dimensional dominance range reporting queries in $O(\log^{d-3} n/(\log\log n)^{d-4}+k)$ time for any constant $d\ge 4$.\
There exists an $O(n\log^{d-4+{\varepsilon}}n)$ space data structure that supports $d$-dimensional $(2d-3)$-sided range reporting queries in $O(\log^{d-3} n/(\log\log n)^{d-4}+k)$ time for any constant $d\ge 4$.
Conclusions {#sec:conclusion}
===========
In this paper we described data structures with linear and almost-linear space usage that answer four-dimensional range reporting queries in poly-logarithmic time provided that the query range is bounded on 5 sides. This scenario includes an important special case of dominance range reporting queries that was studied in a number of previous works [@ChazelleE87; @VengroffV96; @Nekrich07; @Afshani08; @ChanLP11; @Chan13]; for instance, the offline variant of four-dimensional dominance reporting is used to solve the rectangle enclosure problem [@ChanLP11; @AfshaniCT14]. Our result immediately leads to better data structures in $d\ge 4$ dimensions. E.g., we can answer $d$-dimensional dominance range reporting queries in $O(n\log^{d-4+{\varepsilon}}n)$ space and $O(\log\log n (\log n/\log\log n)^{d-3})$ time. We expect that the methods of this paper can be applied to other geometric problems, such as the offline rectangle enclosure problem.
Our result demonstrates that the space complexity of four-dimensional queries is determined by the number of sides, i.e., the number of inequalities that are needed to specify the query range. This raises the question about the space complexity of dominance range reporting in five dimensions. Is it possible to construct a linear-space data structure that supports five-dimensional dominance range reporting queries in poly-logarithmic time?
Compared to the fastest previous solution for the four-dimensional dominance range reporting problem [@Chan13], our method decreases the space usage by $O(\log n)$ factor without increasing the query time. However, there is still a small gap between the $O(\log n + k)$ query time, achieved by the fastest data structures, and the lower bound of $\Omega(\log n/\log\log n)$, proved in [@Patrascu11]. Closing this gap is another interesting open problem.
Dominance Reporting on a Small Set {#sec:small}
==================================
In this section we explain, for completeness, how to answer three-dimensional dominance range reporting queries on a set $S$ of $t=\log^2 n$ points. We assume that points are stored in the rank space.
\[lemma:small\] If a set $S$ contains $t=O(\log^2 n)$ points in the rank space of $S$, then we can keep $S$ in a data structure that uses $O(t\log\log n)$ bits and answers three-dimensional dominance range reporting queries in $O(k)$ time. This data structure uses a universal look-up table of size $o(n)$.
We can answer a query on a set $S'$ that contains at most $t'=(1/4)\log n/\log\log n$ points using a look-up table of size $o(n)$. Suppose that all points in $S'$ have positive integer coordinates bounded by $t'$. There are $2^{t'\log t'}$ combinatorially different sets $S'$. For every instance of $S'$, we can ask $(t')^3$ different queries and the answer to each query consists of $O(t')$ points. Hence the total space needed to keep answers to all possible queries on all instances of $S'$ is $O(2^{(\log t')t'}(t')^5)=o(n)$ points. The general case when point coordinates are bounded by $d$ can be reduced to the case when point coordinates are bounded by $t'$ using reduction to rank space [@GabowBT84; @AlstrupBR00]; see Section \[sec:prelim\].
A query on $S$ can be reduced to $O(1)$ queries on sets that contain $O(t')$ points using the grid approach [@ChanLP11; @AlstrupBR00]. The set of points $S$ is divided into $\sqrt{t'}$ columns $C_i$ and $\sqrt{t'}$ rows $R_j$ so that every row and every column contains $t/\sqrt{t'}$ points. The bottom set $S_b$ contains a meta-point $(i,j,z_{\min})$ iff the intersection of the $i$-th column and the $j$-th row is not empty: if $R_j\cap C_i\not=\emptyset$ we store the point $(i,j,z_{ij})$ where $z_{ij}$ is the smallest $z$-coordinate of a point in $R_j\cap C_i$. Since $S_b$ contains at most $d'$ points, we can support queries on $S_b$ in $O(k)$ time. For each meta-point $(i,j)$ in $S_b$ we store the list of points $L_{ij}$ contained in the intersection of the $i$-th column and the $j$-th row, $L_{ij}=C_i\cap R_j\cap P$. Points in $L_{ij}$ are sorted in increasing order of their $z$-coordinates. Every column $C_i$ and every row $R_j$ is recursively divided in the same manner: if $C_i$ or $R_j$ contains more than $t'$ points, we divide $C_i$ ($R_j$) into $\sqrt{t'}$ rows and $\sqrt{t'}$ columns of equal size and construct a data structure for the set $S_b$. Since the number of points in a row (column) is decreased by a factor $\sqrt{t'}$ on every recursion level, our data structure has at most five levels of recursion.
Consider a query $Q={(-\infty,a]}\times{(-\infty,b]}\times {(-\infty,c]}$. If $Q$ is contained in one column or one row, we answer the query using the data structure for that column/row. Otherwise we identify the row $R_u$ that contains $b$ and the column $C_r$ that contains $a$. Using the data structure on $S_b$, we find all meta-points $(i,j,z)$ satisfying $i<r$, $j<u$, and $z\le c$. For every found meta-point $(i,j,z)$ we output all points in $L_{ij}$ with $z$-coordinates not exceeding $c$. Then we recursively answer the query $Q$ on $R_u$ and $C_r$. Since there is a constant number of recursion levels, a query is answered in $O(k)$ time, where $k$ is the number of reported points. Since each point is stored a constant number of times, the total space usage is $O(t\log\log n)$ bits.
This result can be extended to any set with poly-logarithmic number of points, provided coordinates are in the rank space.
[^1]: To avoid clumsy notation, we will sometimes omit the node specification when the node is clear from the context. Thus we will sometimes write $C_i$ instead of $C_i(u)$ and ${{\cal C}}$ instead of ${{\cal C}}(u)$. The same simplification will be used for other shallow cuttings.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We discuss gravitational perturbations in the Randall-Sundrum two branes model with radius stabilization. Following the idea by Goldberger and Wise for the radius stabilization, we introduce a scalar field which has potentials localized on the branes in addition to a bulk potential. In our previous paper we discussed gravitational perturbations induced by static, spherically symmetric and nonrelativistic matter distribution on the branes under the condition that the values of the scalar field on the respective branes cannot fluctuate due to its extremely narrow brane potentials. We call this case the strong coupling limit. Our concern in this paper is to generalize our previous analysis relaxing the limitation of taking the strong coupling limit. We find that new corrections in metric perturbations due to relaxing the strong coupling limit enhance the deviation from the 4D Einstein gravity only in some exceptional cases. In the case that matter fields reside on the negative tension brane, the stabilized radion mass becomes very small when the new correction becomes large.'
author:
- 'Hideaki Kudoh${^{1}}$'
- 'Takahiro Tanaka${^{2}}$'
title: |
Second order perturbations in the radius stabilized\
Randall-Sundrum two branes model. II.\
*— Effect of relaxing strong coupling approximation —*
---
Introduction
============
Understanding the role of extra dimensions has long been a focus of research. Recent developments in string theory stimulate a new possibility in a way to realize our Universe, i.e., the “braneworld,” The braneworld scenario suggests that our Universe is realized on a brane embedded in a higher dimensional spacetime [@Arkani-Hamed:1998rs; @Randall:1999ee; @Randall:1999vf] (see also [@Rubakov:1983bb; @Visser:1985qm; @Akama:1987ig]).
The explicit models introduced by Randall and Sundrum (RS) are simple but have attractive features [@Randall:1999ee; @Randall:1999vf]. The two branes model, which was proposed earlier, is constructed by orbifold compactification of the 5D anti-de Sitter (AdS) spacetime, in which the two flat branes are on the $Z_2$ symmetric fixed points. The single brane model, which was proposed later, is obtained by pushing the second brane to infinity in the first model.
Since the bulk geometry of these models is warped, the behavior of gravity is not so trivial, and various interesting aspects of gravity in these models have been discussed [@Lykken:2000nb; @Mukohyama:2001wq; @Garriga:2000yh; @Tanaka:2000er; @Shiromizu:2000wj; @Giddings:2000mu; @Tanaka:2000zv; @Mukohyama:2001ks; @Mukohyama:2001jv]. One fundamental but remarkable fact is that in the RS single brane model 4D linearized Einstein gravity on the brane is derived from 5D Einstein gravity [@Randall:1999vf; @Garriga:2000yh; @Giddings:2000mu]. Also in the RS two branes model, 4D linearized Einstein gravity is restored [@Tanaka:2000er; @Mukohyama:2001ks] if the distance between branes, which we refer to as radius, is stabilized [@Goldberger:1999uk; @Goldberger:2000un; @DeWolfe:2000cp; @Goldberger:2000dv; @Arkani-Hamed:2001kx; @Luty:2001ec; @Hofmann:2001cj; @Garriga:2001jb; @Garriga:2001ar; @Flachi:2001bj; @Csaki:2000mp; @Nojiri:2000bz; @Nojiri:2000eb]. Although 4D Einstein gravity is approximately recovered in both models, the corrections arise in different manners. In the single brane model, the leading correction to Newtonian potential appears in the form of an inverse cubic potential, and therefore the correction is long ranged. This is because the mass spectrum of the Kaluza-Klein modes is continuous starting with (mass)$^2=0$. On the other hand, in the two branes model, the mass spectrum is discrete, and hence the correction becomes short ranged. As was pointed out in Ref. [@Tanaka:2000zv], the leading correction to the metric perturbation can be relatively large in amplitude but it is proportional to the local energy density of the distributed matter on the branes.
The gravity beyond linear perturbations is also an interesting subject to study. For the single brane model, to study non-perturbative aspects of gravity, many authors have discussed black holes in the braneworld [@Gregory:1993vy; @Chamblin:2000by; @Emparan:2000wa; @Dadhich:2000am; @Giannakis:2001ss; @Chamblin:2001ra; @Bruni:2001fd; @Horowitz:2001cz; @Cadeau:2001tj; @Vacaru:2001rf; @Vacaru:2001wc; @Emparan:2001wn; @Kanti:2001cj; @Casadio:2001jg; @Tanaka:2002rb]. However, any black hole solutions that can be thought of as a state after gravitational collapse on the brane have not been found yet. On the other hand, there are studies of compact star on the brane [@Germani:2001du; @Deruelle:2001fb]. A pioneering work of numerically solving a relativistic star on the brane was done by Wiseman [@Wiseman:2001xt]. Another direction of research is to study higher order perturbations. Second order perturbations have been studied, and 4D Einstein gravity was proven to be restored under certain restrictions [@Giannakis:2001zx; @Kudoh:2001wb].
For the two branes model, the recovery of 4D Einstein gravity is also concluded in our previous paper [@Kudoh:2001kz] under some assumptions. However, the mechanism for the recovery in each model is not so clearly understood as in the case of linear perturbations.
The basic assumptions taken in the second order perturbations of the two branes model are that the radius is stabilized by the mechanism proposed by Goldberger and Wise (GW) [@Goldberger:1999uk], and that the matter distribution on the brane is static, spherically symmetric and non-relativistic. In the GW model for radius stabilization, a bulk scalar field is introduced. This scalar field has potentials localized on the branes as well as a bulk potential. A further technical assumption taken in the previous analyses [@Tanaka:2000er; @Kudoh:2001kz] is that the values of the scalar field on the respective branes are stuck to fixed values due to extremely narrow brane potentials. We refer to this simplified setup as the strong coupling limit. In this paper we generalize our previous analyses of linear and second order perturbations [@Kudoh:2001kz] relaxing the restriction of the strong coupling limit [^1], and study whether there arise observable effects and/or no pathological feature in the metric perturbations.
The paper is organized as follows. In Sec. \[sec:review\] we briefly review the formulation developed in Ref. [@Kudoh:2001kz], which we call paper I, summarizing the notations and the basic equations. We do not give the explicit form of all the necessary formulas that are already presented in paper I to avoid repetitions of rather lengthy expressions. We quote the equations in paper I such as (I-1.1). Throughout this paper, we use the same notations as those in paper I except for the subscripts ${`` \mathrm{pse}" }$ and ${``\lambda,"}$ which are introduced in Eq. (\[eq:Y=Y\_0+Y\_S\]). In Sec. \[sec:finite coupling\], we study the corrections caused by the finiteness of the coupling strength. Section \[sec:summary\] is devoted to the summary.
Brief review of the formulation {#sec:review}
===============================
In this section, we briefly review the formalism and the results presented in paper I. We consider second order perturbations in the RS two branes model assuming that matter distribution is confined on one of the branes and it is static and spherically symmetric.
Notation and assumption
-----------------------
The Lagrangian for the scalar field $\tilde\varphi$ introduced for the radius stabilization is $${\cal L}= - \frac{1}{2} \tilde g^{ab}
\tilde\varphi_{,a} \tilde\varphi_{,b}
-V_B(\tilde\varphi)
-\sum_{\sigma=\pm} V_{(\sigma)}(\tilde\varphi)
\delta(y-y_{\sigma}) \,,
\label{eq:Lagrangian}$$ where $V_B$ and $V_{(\pm)}$ are the bulk potential and the potential on each brane, respectively.
In analyzing metric perturbations in the bulk, we use the “Newton gauge,” in which $$\begin{aligned}
ds^2
= e^{2 Y } dy^2 + a^2
\left[- e^{ A - \psi } dt^2
+ e^{ B - \psi } dr^2
+ e^{ C - \psi } r^2 d\Omega^2
\right],
\label{eq:metric}\end{aligned}$$ where the metric functions $A, B, C, Y$, and $\psi$ depend only on $y$ and $r$, and $a(y)$ is the warp factor that is determined by solving the background equations (I-2.10). The metric functions and the scalar field are expanded up to the second order as $$\begin{aligned}
A(r,y) &=& A^{(1)}(r,y) +A^{(2)} (r,y) ,
\\
\tilde\varphi (r, y)
&=& \phi_0(y) + \varphi^{(1)}(r,y)+\varphi^{(2)}(r,y) ,\end{aligned}$$ where $\phi_0$ represents the background scalar field configuration, which depends only on $y$. The metric functions $A$, $B$, and $C$ are related to each other by the relations (I-2.5) so that they compose the transverse-traceless part at the linear level.
Our interest is the gravity induced by non-relativistic matter fields confined on the positive and the negative tension branes, which are located at $y=y_+$ and $y=y_- (> y_+)$, respectively. The energy-momentum tensors of these fields are assumed to be given in the perfect fluid form as $$\begin{aligned}
T_{{\pm} \nu }{}^{\!\mu} =
a_\pm^{-4} \,
{\mathrm{diag}}
\{- \rho_{\pm}, P_{\pm}, P_{\pm}, P_{\pm} \}.
\label{eq:EM tensor}\end{aligned}$$ The warp factor $a_\pm:=a(y_\pm)$ in the definition of the energy-momentum tensors is incorporated so that $\rho$ and $P$ become the physical quantities measured by using the metric on the positive tension brane.
The 5D Einstein equations give four independent perturbation equations. The two equations are the constraint equations for $\psi^{(J)}$ and $\varphi^{(J)}$, which relate them to $Y^{(J)}$ \[Eqs. (I-2.12) and (I-2.13)\]: $$\begin{aligned}
&& \psi^{(J)} (r,y) = Y^{(J)} + \epsilon^{(J)} \Delta^{-1} S_\psi \,,
\label{eq: phi^J=Y^J+...}
\\
&& \varphi^{(J)} (r,y)
= \frac{3}{2\kappa \dot \phi_0 a^2} \partial_y( a^2 Y^{(J)})
+ \frac{3}{2\kappa \dot \phi_0} \epsilon^{(J)} \Bigl[
S_\varphi
+ \partial_y \Delta^{-1}
S_\psi
\Bigr] \,,
\label{eq:d varphi = Y^J +...}\end{aligned}$$ where we have introduced $\epsilon^{(J)}$ defined by $\epsilon^{(1)}=0$ and $\epsilon^{(2)}=1$. Hence, as for the scalar type perturbation, once we solve the perturbation $Y^{(J)}$, other variables $\psi^{(J)}$ and $\varphi^{(J)}$ are also known. The other two equations are the master equations for $A^{(J)}$ and $Y^{(J)}$ \[Eqs. (I-2.14) and (I-2.15)\]: $$\begin{aligned}
&& \left[ {1\over a^2}\partial_y a^4\partial_y {1\over a^2} +\frac{1}{a^2} \Delta
\right] (a^2A^{(J)})= \epsilon^{(J)} S_A \,,
\label{eq:Ein-A^J}
\\
&& \left[
a^2\dot\phi_0^2\partial_y{1\over a^{2}\dot\phi_0^2}
\partial_y
- {2\kappa\over 3} \dot\phi_0^2 + {1\over a^2} \Delta
\right] (a^2Y^{(J)} ) = \epsilon^{(J)} S_Y\,.
\label{eq:Ein-Y^J}\end{aligned}$$
To solve the master equations, we must specify the boundary conditions on the branes. The boundary condition for $A^{(J)}$ is given by Israel’s junction condition, whereas the boundary condition for the scalar type perturbation is derived by integrating the equation of motion for the scalar field across the branes. It is well known that these junction conditions are easily obtained in Gaussian normal coordinates $\bar x^a$ in which a brane is located at $\bar y=\mathrm{const}$ hypersurface. Here we associate an over-bar with quantities written in Gaussian normal coordinates. The boundary conditions in the Newton gauge are derived by applying infinitesimal gauge transformations $\bar x^a = x^a + \xi^a$ to those written in Gaussian normal coordinates. These transformations are described in Sec. II B in paper I.
The boundary condition for the scalar type perturbation is given by \[Eq. (I-2.37)\] $$\begin{aligned}
\varphi^{(J)} - \dot\phi_{0 }
{ \stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle {(J)~}}{\hat\xi_{\pm}^y} }
=
\frac{\lambda_{\pm}}{2}
\left(
\mp \frac{3}{ \kappa a_\pm^2 \dot\phi_{0 }}
\Delta Y^{(J)}
+ \epsilon^{(J)} S^{ \pm }_{jun} \right)
\quad
({\mathrm{at~}} y=y_\pm)
\,,
\label{eq:Jun of varphi}\end{aligned}$$ where we have introduced a coupling constant $$\lambda_{\pm}
:=\frac{2}{ V''_{(\pm)}\mp 2(\ddot\phi_{0\pm}/\dot\phi_{0\pm})} \,.
\label{eq:lambdadef}$$ An over-dot denotes differentiation with respect to $y$, and $\phi_{0\pm}:=\phi_{0}(y_\pm)$. Note that the explicit expression for $S_{jun}$ is given in Eq. (I-2.39). The parameter of the gauge transformation in $y$ direction, ${\hat\xi^y_{\pm}}(r)$, is a function of $r$, and it is related to the energy-momentum tensor on the corresponding brane by Eq. (I-2.34).
In paper I, the problem was simplified by taking the strong coupling limit. The condition of the strong coupling is that $V_{(\pm)}''$ is sufficiently large. Taking this limit, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda_{\pm} \to 0 .
\label{eq:large limit}\end{aligned}$$ In this paper we discuss the effects due to the terms that arise by considering non-vanishing $\lambda_\pm$. For brevity, we refer to these terms as interaction terms.
Derivative expansion
--------------------
Formal solutions for perturbation equations (\[eq:Ein-A\^J\]) and (\[eq:Ein-Y\^J\]) were derived in paper I. The transverse-traceless perturbations $A$ are decomposed to massless zero mode $A_0$ and massive mode $A_S$. Using the zero mode truncation approximation, the long-ranged part of the transverse-traceless perturbation $A_0$ is evaluated \[Eq. (I-3.5)\]. The remaining part $A_S$ \[Eq. (I-3.9) and (I-3.12)\], which arises due to the contribution from massive Kaluza-Klein modes, is evaluated by using a derivative expansion method. In this method, we expand perturbation variables in terms of the expansion parameter $(H r_\star)^{-1} \sim H^{-1} \partial_r$ assuming that the typical length scale $r_\star$ of perturbations is much longer than the 5D curvature scale $H^{-1}:=(\dot a/a)^{-1}$. It is important to stress that this derivative expansion method is valid only when the mass of the first excited mode is sufficiently large. In the limit $y_- \to \infty$, the excited mass spectrum becomes continuous, and therefore the derivative expansion method is no longer valid. (See Secs. III B.1 and IV B in paper I for more details.)
As for the scalar type perturbation, there is no zero mode owing to the stabilization mechanism [@Tanaka:2000er]. To discuss the contributions from massive modes, we expand the perturbation variables by using the derivative expansion. Although the massive modes seem to give only the short-ranged part, it turns out that the formal solution of the lowest order in the expansion includes long-ranged metric perturbations. Hence, we refer to this part as the pseudo long-ranged part. The formal solution of the next order, which is obtained by an iteration, is referred to as the short-ranged part $Y_S$. (See Sec. III C in paper I.)
The pseudo-long-ranged part includes the contribution from the interaction terms that are higher order in derivative expansion as the short-ranged part. Hence we further divide the pseudo-long-ranged part into two pieces; the contribution from the interaction terms, which we denote $Y_{\lambda}$, and the remaining terms, which we denote $Y_{ \mathrm{pse}}$. We quote the explicit expression for the pseudo-long-ranged part \[see Eqs. (I-3.21) and (I-B.6)\], $$\begin{aligned}
Y^{(J)} &=& Y^{(J)}_{ {\mathrm{pse}} } + Y^{(J)}_{\lambda} + Y^{(J)}_{S} ,
\label{eq:Y=Y_0+Y_S}
\cr
\Delta Y^{(J)}_{\mathrm{pse} } (r, y_{\pm})
&=&
- \frac{\kappa N}{3} \sum_{\sigma=\pm} a_{\sigma}^4
T^{(J)}_{\sigma}
\mp \frac{\kappa H}{3} a_{\pm}^2 T_{\pm}^{(J)}
- \epsilon ^{(J)}
\Bigl( S_\psi + 2H a_{\pm}^2 S_{\xi}^{\pm}
\Bigr)
\nonumber
\\
&&
- 2N \epsilon^{(J)} \biggl[
\sum_{\sigma=\pm} \sigma a_{\sigma}^4
S_{\xi}^{\sigma}
+ \int^{y_{-}}_{y_{+}} dy
\Bigl(
a^2 v_{\pm} \Delta {\mathbb S}_\varphi
+ \frac{3u_{\pm}} {2\kappa \dot \phi_0^2} \Delta {\mathbb S}_Y
-a^2 S_\psi
\Bigr)
\biggr] \,,
\label{eq:Y^J_[0] y_+-}
\cr
\Delta Y^{(J)}_{ \lambda } (r, y_\pm)
&=&
- 2N \Delta \left(
\sum_{\sigma= \pm} \sigma \frac{ L_\sigma^{(J)} }{H_\sigma}
+ \frac{ L_\pm^{(J)} }{a^2_\pm N}
\right) \,,
\label{eq:Y^J_[0lambda] y_+-}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
L_\sigma^{(J)}(r) = H(y_\sigma)
\biggl[
- \sigma \frac{3 \lambda_{\sigma}}{2\kappa\dot\phi_0^2} \Delta Y^{(J)}
+ \epsilon^{(J)} a_{\sigma}^2
\Bigl(
\frac{ \lambda_{\sigma}}{2\dot\phi_0} S^{\sigma}_{jun}
- \frac{ \ddot\phi_0 \varphi^2}{2 \dot\phi_0^3}
+ \frac{3 \varphi \Delta Y }
{2\kappa a^2 \dot\phi_0^3}
\Bigr)
\biggr] _{y=y_{\sigma}}\,.
\label{eq:L_sigma}\end{aligned}$$ Here $N$ is the normalization factor defined by $$\begin{aligned}
N^{-1} := 2\int_{y_{+}}^{y_{-}} a^2 dy,
\label{eq:N}\end{aligned}$$ and $u_\pm$ is given by $$u_{\pm}(y) :=1-2 H v_{\pm},
\quad
v_{\pm}(y) :=\frac{1}{a ^2}\int_{y_{\mp}}^y a^2 dy' \,.
\label{eq:def. v}$$ We mention that the source term $S^{\pm}_{jun}$ that is defined in Eq. (\[eq:Jun of varphi\]) contains $V''_{(\pm)}$ and $V'''_{(\pm)}$, and hence $\lambda_\pm S^\pm_{jun}$ does not vanish even in the limit (\[eq:large limit\]). However, it was shown that the combination that appears in Eq. (\[eq:L\_sigma\]) vanishes in the strong coupling limit. Namely, we have $$\begin{aligned}
L^{(J)}_{ \pm} \approx 0 \quad (\mathrm{for~} \lambda_\pm \to 0 )\,.
\label{eq:L=0}\end{aligned}$$
Note also that, in Eq. (\[eq:Y\^J\_\[0lambda\] y\_+-\]), the number of $r$ derivatives on the right hand side is larger by two than that on the left hand side. This fact is manifest for linear perturbations, and it also turns out to be the case for the second order. Hence, when we evaluate $Y_{\lambda}^{(J)}$ iteratively, the leading term with respect to gradient expansion is obtained by substituting pseudo-long-ranged part $Y_{\mathrm{pse}}^{(J)}$ into $Y^{(J)}$ on the right hand side of Eq. (\[eq:L\_sigma\]). Although the short-ranged part $Y_S^{(J)}$ also contains interaction terms, we do not discuss them in this paper because they are even higher order in $r_{\star}^{-2}$.
At the linear level, the transverse traceless part composed of $A$, $B$, and $C$ does not have interaction terms. The parameter of the gauge transformation ${ \stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle {(1)}}{\hat\xi^y_\pm} }$ is also unaltered by the effect of non-vanishing $\lambda_\pm$. On the other hand, $\varphi^{(1)}$ is related to $Y^{(1)}$ and changes according to the change in $Y^{(1)}$.
By repeating the derivation of the expression for the temporal component of the metric perturbation induced on the branes (I-5.1) starting with the equation for gauge transformation (I-2.25), we will find Eq. (I-5.1) is slightly modified as $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta \bar A^{(J)} _{0 }(r,y_{\pm})
&=& 8 \pi G
(\rho ^{(J)}_{\pm} + 3P ^{(J)}_{\pm} )
- {\Delta}
\Bigl[
{\hat\xi_{ \pm }^y} \bar{A} _{\pm,y}
+ {\hat\xi_{ \pm }^r} \bar{A} _{\pm,r}
+ \dot H ( {\hat\xi_{ \pm }^y})^2
\Bigr]
+ 2N \sum_\sigma \sigma a_{\sigma}^4 (S_{\xi}^{\sigma} - S_{\Sigma}^{\sigma})
\nonumber
\\
& &
+ {2N} \int^{y_{-}}_{y_{+}} dy
\biggl[
a^2 ( S_{A\pm} - S_{\psi\pm})
+ a^2 v_{\pm} \Delta {\mathbb S}_{\varphi\pm}
+ \frac{3u_{\pm}}{2 \kappa \dot \phi_0^2}
\Delta {\mathbb S}_{Y\pm}
\biggr]
-
\Delta Y^{(J)}_{ \lambda }
\,.
\label{eq:bar A_0}\end{aligned}$$ For the spatial components, it is convenient to take the isotropic gauge. We simply quote Eq. (I-3.15) in which the isotropic gauge is taken in $J$th order: $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta \bar B^{(J)} (r,y_\pm )
= - \frac{1}{2} \Delta \bar A^{(J)}
\mp \frac{\kappa H}{2}a^2_\pm T^{(J)}_\pm
- \frac{3}{2} \Delta Y^{(J)}
- \frac{3}{2} \epsilon^{(J)}
\left(
\frac{2}{3}\Delta S_B
+ S_\psi + 2Ha^2_\pm S^\pm_\xi
\right) \,.
\label{eq:bar B^2}\end{aligned}$$ The explicit additional term in these equations is only the last term in Eq. (\[eq:bar A\_0\]), but there are implicit changes through $Y^{(J)}$, $\varphi^{(J)}$, and $\bar A^{(J)}$. The explicit expressions for the source terms $S_*$ and ${\mathbb S}_*$ are given in Eqs. (I-2.16), (I-2.18), (I-2.19), (I-2.21), (I-2.33), (I-2.35) and (I-3.14).
Corrections
-----------
As we have done in paper I, we assume that matter fields reside on one of the two branes. By this simplification, the sum of the Newton potentials $\Phi_\pm $, which are defined by $\Delta \Phi_\pm (r) = \kappa N \rho_\pm^{(1)}/2$, is replaced as $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_\sigma \Phi_\sigma
\to
\Phi_\pm
\quad (y=y_{\pm}) \,.
\label{eq:simp} \end{aligned}$$ Then, the long-ranged part of the transverse traceless metric perturbations is given by (I-4.7) and (I-4.8) as $$\begin{aligned}
[\bar A^{(1)}_{0\pm}(r, y_\pm)]_{SC} =
- [\bar B^{(1)}_{0\pm} (r, y_\pm)]_{SC} = 2\Phi_{\pm} \,, \end{aligned}$$ where $[\cdots]_{SC}$ means the quantity in the $\lambda_\pm\to 0$ limit. The index $\pm$ associated with the metric functions (not with $\lambda$ and $L$) specifies the side on which matter fields are distributed.
To obtain an approximate estimation for the short-ranged part, we assume that the back reaction of the bulk scalar field to the background geometry is weak; ${|\dot H|}/{H^2} \ll 1$. In this case the metric approximately takes the AdS form $$\begin{aligned}
a (y) \approx e^{-|y|/\ell} \,,
\label{eq: a=exp}\end{aligned}$$ where $\ell$ is the curvature radius of the bulk. For later convenience, we evaluate $N$ in this weak back reaction case. It is approximately given by $$\begin{aligned}
N^{-1} \approx - \frac{1}{H_+}
\left( 1 + \frac{\dot H_+}{2H_+^2} \right) \,,
\label{eq:Ninv}\end{aligned}$$ taking into account the fact that the integral (\[eq:N\]) is dominated around $y=y_+$. The second term in the round brackets is the leading order correction due to the back reaction. Hereafter we set $a_{+}=1$.
Under the assumption of weak back reaction, it was shown that [@Tanaka:2000er; @Kudoh:2001kz] $$\begin{aligned}
\bigl[ A_{S\pm}^{(1)}(r,y_\pm) \bigr]_{SC} =
\beta_\pm O(r_\star^2 \Delta \Phi_\pm) \,,
\label{eq:A - KK corr}\end{aligned}$$ where the suppression factors are $$\begin{aligned}
\beta_+ = \frac{\ell^2}{r_\star^2}\,, \quad\quad
\beta_- = \frac{\ell^2}{a^4_- r_\star^2}
=\Bigl( \frac{ 0.1 {\mathrm{mm}} }{r_\star} \Bigr)^2
\Bigl( \frac{ 10^{-16} }{a_-} \Bigr)^4
\Bigl( \frac{ \ell}{\ell_{Pl}} \Bigr)^2\,.
\label{eq:suppres factor 1}\end{aligned}$$ The short-ranged part for the scalar type perturbation is similarly suppressed as $$\bigl[ Y_{S\pm}^{(1)}(r,y_\pm) \bigr]_{SC} =
\frac{a_-^2\beta_\pm}{m_S^2\ell^2}
O(r_\star^2 \Delta \Phi_\pm) \,,$$ where $m_S^2$ is the mass squared of the so-called radion, which is the mode corresponding to the radius fluctuation, in the strong coupling limit. To be precise, the radion is defined by the mode with the lowest mass eigenvalue in the scalar type perturbation. Since $m_S^2 \lesssim O(a_-^2 \ell^{-2})$, which is given by Eq. (\[eq:mass\]) below with $\lambda_\pm=0$, the corrections from the scalar type perturbation tend to be larger than those from the Kaluza-Klein modes in the tensor type perturbation.
On the positive tension brane, the short-ranged part is suppressed when the typical length scale $r_\star$ of perturbations is much larger than $a_{-} m_S^{-1} $. On the negative tension brane, the short-ranged part is suppressed for $r_\star \gtrsim 0.1 (a_-/m_S\ell)$ mm, where the ratio $a_+/a_-$ is set to $10^{16}$, the value to solve the hierarchy between Planck and electroweak scales. One may think that this effect is potentially observable especially on the negative tension brane. As we have mentioned in the introduction, however, the short-ranged part is proportional to the local matter energy density $\rho_\pm^{(1)} \propto \Delta \Phi_\pm$. Therefore, the short-ranged part dose not contribute to the force outside the matter distribution, and it is not observed as a change of the Newton’s law. Not the force but the change of the metric perturbation due to the short-ranged part becomes significant on the negative tension brane only when $\rho^{(1)}_- \gtrsim (m_S^2\ell^2/a_-^2) O (\textrm{TeV}^4)$.
Extending the linear analysis mentioned above, second order perturbations were investigated in paper I. In the case that matter fields are confined on the negative tension brane, the long-ranged part at the second order contains corrections to 4D Einstein gravity with relative amplitude of $O(\beta_-/a_-^2)$ compared to the ordinary post-Newtonian terms. The relative amplitude of the corrections at the second order looks less suppressed by an extra factor of $1/a_-^{2}$ than that at the linear order. However, in the strong coupling limit, it was shown that these enhanced corrections are completely canceled by the contributions from the short-ranged part, and the recovery of 4D Einstein gravity was confirmed. In the case that matter fields are confined on the positive tension brane, the corrections in second order perturbations are relatively $O(\beta_+/a_-^{2})$ compared to the usual post-Newtonian terms. However, the appearance of the enhancement by the factor of $1/a_-^2$ is very likely to be an artifact due to the gradient expansion method. Since the condition that the typical length scale of spatial gradient is larger than that of the change in the fifth direction becomes $(\ell^2/a^2_- r_\star^2) = (\beta_+/a^2_-)\ll 1$ near the negative tension brane, $\beta_+/a^2_-$ appears as an expansion parameter.
Contributions due to non-vanishing $\lambda_\pm$ {#sec:finite coupling}
================================================
In the analysis taking the strong coupling limit, we neglected the terms that vanish when $\lambda_\pm$ is set to zero. Here we consider the effect of non-vanishing $\lambda_\pm$ to remove this technical limitation. We first discuss linear perturbations, and after that we study second order perturbations.
Mass spectrum
-------------
Before discussing metric perturbations induced by matter fields, we study the change of mass eigenvalues for the scalar type perturbations due to the effect of $\lambda_\pm$. Setting $\hat\xi_\pm^y =0$ in Eq. (I-2.41) with $J=1$, we obtain an eigenvalue equation for $Y^{(1)}$ as $$\left[a^2\dot\phi^2_0\partial_y \frac{1}{a^2\dot\phi_0^2}\partial_y
a^2 -\frac{2\kappa}{3} a^2\dot\phi_0^2
+m^2\left(1+2\sum_\sigma \lambda_\sigma \delta (y-y_\sigma)\right)\right]
Y^{(1)}=0,
\label{eq:eigenY}$$ where the 4D Laplacian operator $\Delta$ was replaced with the mass squared $m^2$. A general solution for small $m^2$ ignoring boundary conditions at $y=y_{\pm}$ was approximately constructed in Ref. [@Tanaka:2000er] as $$\begin{aligned}
Y^{(1)} & = & \frac{{\cal N}}{a^2}+\cdots\,,
\cr
\frac{2\kappa \varphi^{(1)}}{3\dot\phi_0}
&=&
\frac{1}{a^2\dot\phi_0^2}\partial_y (a^2 Y^{(1)})
=
{\cal N}\left[\int_{y_+}^{y} \left(
\frac{2\kappa}{3 a^2 }
-\frac{m^2}{a^4 \dot\phi_0^2 }\right)dy'
+c \right]+\cdots\, ,
\label{eq:expansion}\end{aligned}$$ where $c$ is a constant and ${\cal N}$ is a normalization constant. Imposing the boundary condition (\[eq:Jun of varphi\]) on this approximate solution, we find that $c=-\lambda_+m^2/\dot\phi_{0+}^2a^4_+$ and a mass eigenvalue close to zero is given by $$\begin{aligned}
m^2 \approx \left(\frac{2\kappa}{3}\int_{y_+}^{y_-}
\frac{dy'}{a^2 }\right)
~\left(\int_{y_+}^{y_-}
\frac{dy'}{a^4 \dot\phi_0^2 }+\sum_\sigma \frac{\lambda_\sigma}
{a^4_\sigma\dot\phi_{0\sigma}^2}
\right)^{-1} \,.
\label{eq:mass}\end{aligned}$$ Using Eq. (I-B22) with the assumption of weak back reaction, the above expression is approximately rewritten as $$\begin{aligned}
m^2 \approx m_S^2
\left[1
+ \frac{3}{2} \sum_\sigma \alpha_\sigma \left(
\frac{a_-}{a_\sigma}\right)^4
\left(\frac{m_S^2}
{a_-^2 N^2} \right) \right]^{-1}\, ,
\label{eq:m2small}\end{aligned}$$ where we have introduced non-dimensional parameters related to the coupling $\lambda_\pm$ by $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha_\pm := \frac{2N^3 \lambda_\pm}{ \kappa \dot\phi_{0\pm}^2 }
= - \frac{2N^3 \lambda_\pm}{ 3 \dot H_\pm } \,.
\label{eq:def. alpha}\end{aligned}$$ When $\lambda_+ \agt m_S^{-2}\ell^{-1}$, the expansion (\[eq:expansion\]) is no longer valid since the correction that comes from the constant $c$ becomes larger than ${\mathcal N}/a^2$. In such cases, instead, we can consider the large $\lambda_+$ limit keeping $m^2\lambda_+$ finite. Since we can neglect $m^2$ term in the bulk when $m^2 \ll m_S^2$, we find that an approximate solution to the above equation is given by $Y^{(1)} \approx u_+(y)$ in this limit. From the condition (\[eq:Jun of varphi\]) at the boundary $y=y_+$ the mass eigenvalue corresponding to this mode is determined as $$m^2=\frac{2\dot H_+ v_+(y_+)}{\lambda_+ u_+(y_+)}
\approx \frac{2}{\lambda_+ \ell},
\label{eq:m2limit}$$ where we used Eq. (I-B3) with the aid of Eq. (\[eq:Ninv\]).
When $\lambda_+$ (or $\lambda_-$) takes a large negative value, we can see that the above mode of small mass becomes tachyonic, and hence such a model is manifestly unstable. As we decrease $|\lambda_\pm|$ starting with $ \lambda_\pm =-\infty$, the absolute value of $m^2$ in the expression (\[eq:m2small\]) increases from $m^2=0$ and diverges to $|-\infty|$ when $\lambda_\pm$ is a certain negative value $\Lambda_\pm$, which depends on the details of stabilization model, e.g., $\dot \phi_{0\pm}^2$. Then the mass eigenvalue returns from $+\infty$ to $m_S^2$ as $\lambda_\pm$ increases from $\Lambda_\pm$. However, this does not directly indicate that the tachyonic mode disappears for $\lambda_\pm$ $> \Lambda_\pm$. This is because Eq. (\[eq:m2small\]) is no longer valid for relatively large $|m^2|$. For large $\nu^2:=-m^2$, one can solve Eq. (\[eq:eigenY\]) by using the WKB approximation as $$Y^{(1)}\approx C_1 e^{\nu \int^y dy'/a(y')} +
C_2 e^{-\nu \int^y dy'/a(y')}\,,$$ where $C_1$ and $C_2$ are constants. Imposing the boundary conditions (\[eq:Jun of varphi\]) at $y=y_\pm$, we obtain $(\lambda_+\nu-a_+)(\lambda_-\nu - a_-)
-\exp[2\nu \int_{y_+}^{y_-}a^{-1} dy]
(\lambda_+\nu + a_+) (\lambda_- \nu + a_-) \approx 0$. Without loss of generality we can assume that $\nu$ is positive. Then the exponential factor $\exp[2\nu \int_{y_+}^{y_-}a^{-1} dy ]$ is very large, and hence a solution to the above equation is approximately obtained when either $\lambda_+$ or $\lambda_-$ is negative as $$\nu \approx \max (- a_+\lambda_+^{-1}, - a_- \lambda_-^{-1}).$$ This eigenmode is the anticipated tachyonic mode, which remains to exist for any small negative value of $\lambda_+$ or $\lambda_-$. Although the values of $\lambda_\pm$ depend on the details of the stabilization model, it is natural to consider the case in which $|\lambda_\pm|$ is less than or equal to $O(\ell)$, and $\lambda_\pm$ must be positive. To conclude, we find that the model has tachyonic mode if $\lambda_+$ or $\lambda_-$ is negative.
Linear perturbation
-------------------
From Eq. (\[eq:bar A\_0\]), the temporal component of the linear perturbation is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\bar A^{(1)} _{0\pm}(r,y_{\pm})
= \bigl[ \bar A^{(1)} _{0\pm}\bigr]_{SC}
- Y^{(1)}_{\lambda}.
\label{eq:bar A_0^1}\end{aligned}$$ As for the spatial part, we obtain from Eqs. (\[eq:bar B\^2\]) and (\[eq:bar A\_0\^1\]) $$\begin{aligned}
\bar B^{(1)} _{0\pm}(r,y_{\pm})
= \bigl[ \bar B^{(1)} _{0\pm}\bigr]_{SC}
- Y^{(1)}_{\lambda}.
\label{eq:bar B_0^1}\end{aligned}$$ Substituting Eq. (\[eq:Y\^J\_\[0\] y\_+-\]) into Eq. (\[eq:L\_sigma\]), we can evaluate $L_\pm^{(1)}$ by iteration. Keeping up to the order $r_\star^{-2}$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{L^{(1)}_\pm }{ H_\pm } =
- \frac{ \alpha_\pm }{ 2N^3 } \Delta
\left[
\Bigl( \frac{H_\pm}{a^2_\pm N} \Bigr) \Phi_\pm \pm \sum_\sigma \Phi_\sigma \right] .
\label{eq:L^1 explicit}\end{aligned}$$ Then Eq. (\[eq:Y\^J\_\[0lambda\] y\_+-\]) is evaluated by using Eq. (\[eq:Ninv\]) as $$\begin{aligned}
Y^{(1)}_{ \lambda -} (r,y_-)
&\approx& 2N \left[
- \frac{ L_+^{(1)} }{H_+}
+ \frac{ L_-^{(1)} }{H_-}\left(1+\frac{a^2_+ H_-}{a^2_- H_+}\right)\right]
= \beta_- O (r_\star^2 {\Delta \Phi_-} )
\bigl[ a_-^4 \alpha_+ + \alpha_- \bigr]
\,,
\label{eq:Y^1_lam - alpha1a}\\
Y^{(1)}_{ \lambda +} (r,y_+)
&\approx& 2N \left[
\Bigl(\frac{\dot H_+}{3H_+^2} \Bigr) \frac{ L_+^{(1)} }{H_+}
+ \frac{ L_-^{(1)} }{H_-}\right]
= \beta_+ O (r_\star^2 {\Delta \Phi_+} )
\left[
\Bigl(\frac{\dot H_+}{3H_+^2} \Bigr)^2 \alpha_{+}+\alpha_-\right] \,.
\label{eq:Y^1_lam - alpha1b} \end{aligned}$$ On the negative tension brane, this new correction becomes important compared to that from the short-ranged part when the factor in the square brackets on the right hand side exceeds $O(a_-^2/m_S^2 \ell^2)$. In particular, when $a_-^4 \alpha_+\gg 1$, Eq. (\[eq:m2limit\]) applies and we find $m^2\approx 4N^4/(3 \alpha_+ |\dot H_+|)\ll a_-^4 H^2_+/ ( \ell^{2}|\dot
H_+|)$. Because of the factor $a_-^4$, the mass of the stabilized radion becomes even smaller. On the positive tension brane, the first term in the square brackets on the right hand side is suppressed only by the factor $\dot H_+/H_+^2$, which is small but is not hierarchically suppressed. As long as $\lambda_+$ takes the natural order of magnitude smaller than $\ell$, $\alpha_+$ is at most $O(H_+^2/\dot H_+)$. Then, the correction to $Y_{ \lambda +}(r,y_+)$ stays less than $O(\beta_{+})O(r_\star^2 \Delta \Phi_+)$. However, when $\lambda_+$ is much larger than $\ell$, the correction becomes larger by the factor of $\lambda_+/\ell$ than that in the strong coupling limit. Although these choices of parameters are not natural, the possibility of the enhanced correction without changing the order of radion mass might be interesting.
Second order perturbation
-------------------------
### Temporal component
Let us discuss the contribution due to interaction terms to second order perturbations. In the strong coupling limit, the leading terms in second order perturbations are shown to be identical to that given by 4D Einstein gravity; $$\begin{aligned}
\bigl[ \Delta \bar A^{(2)} _{0\pm} \bigr]_{SC}
= 8 \pi G(\rho_\pm^{(2)} +3P_\pm^{(2)})
- 4 \Phi_\pm \Delta \Phi_\pm
+ O\left( \frac{1}{a_-^2 a_{\pm}^2 r_\star^4} \right)
\,. \end{aligned}$$ We will show that the corrections due to interaction terms are similarly suppressed as $O(1/a_{-}^2 a_{\pm}^2 r_\star^{4})$, where and hereafter we assume that $\lambda_\pm$ is not hierarchically enhanced and hence $\alpha_\pm$ is at most $O(1)$. In the following discussion we concentrate on the terms of $O(r_\star^{-4})$ with respect to the derivative expansion, neglecting the higher order terms than $O(r_\star^{-6})$. For simplicity, we adopt ${ \stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle {(1)\,}}{\hat \xi^r} }=0$ as a choice of radial gauge in linear perturbations, keeping second order perturbations still in the isotropic gauge.
We quote the dependence of the first order perturbation variables on the warp factor from Eq. (I-5.4): $$\begin{aligned}
A_{0\pm}^{(1)} \sim a^0, ~~~~
Y_{ \mathrm{pse} \pm}^{(1)} \,, ~
\varphi_{ \mathrm{pse} \pm}^{(1)} \sim \frac{a_{\mp}^2}{a^2}+1, ~~~~
\hat\xi^y_{\pm} \sim \frac{1}{a_{\pm}^2} \,.
\label{eq:count a r 1}\end{aligned}$$ As for $u_\pm$ and $v_\pm$, we have Eqs. (I-4.11) and (I-4.12) as $$u_{\pm} \sim \frac{a_{\mp}^2}{a^2}+1\,, ~~~~
v_{\pm} \sim \frac{a_{\mp}^2}{a^2}-1\,.
\label{eq:count uv}$$
We list the perturbation variables of the first order that have a correction due to non-vanishing $\lambda_\pm$. As we have discussed, there is correction to $Y^{(1)}$, which is denoted by $Y^{(1)}_{ \lambda }$ in Eq. (\[eq:Y=Y\_0+Y\_S\]). Since $\varphi^{(1)}$ is related to $Y^{(1)}$ by Eq. (I-2.13), $\varphi^{(1)}$ also has correction accordingly, which we denote by $\varphi^{(1)}_{ \lambda }$. In the following discussion, the values of $\varphi^{(1)}_{ \lambda }$ evaluated at $y=y_\pm$ are necessary. They are obtained from Eq. (\[eq:Jun of varphi\]) as $$\varphi_{ \lambda }^{(1)}(y_\pm)
= \mp\frac{3\lambda_\pm}{2\kappa a_\pm^2\dot\phi_{0\pm}}
\Delta Y^{(1)}_{ \mathrm{pse} }(y_\pm)
+ O\left( \frac{1}{r^4_\star} \right) .
\label{eq:varphi_lambda}$$ Although the source terms for second order perturbations are mostly written in terms of the variables in the Newton gauge, the expression $\bar A^{(1)}_{,y}$ in Gaussian normal coordinates is also necessary. From Eq. (I-2.31), we can read the interaction term in $\bar A^{(1)}_{,y}$ as $$\partial_y\bar A^{(1)}_{ \lambda }=\mp \frac{2\kappa \dot{\phi}_0}{3}
\varphi_{ \lambda }^{(1)}
\quad ({\mathrm{at~}} y=y_\pm) ,$$ where we used $\bar \varphi_{ \lambda }^{(1)}(y_\pm) = \varphi_{\lambda}^{(1)}(y_\pm)$, which follows from the fact that the gauge transformation (I-2.26) of $\varphi^{(1)}$ is not altered by the effect of non-vanishing $\lambda_\pm$. Also for the variables $Y_{ \lambda }^{(1)}$ and $\varphi^{(1)}_{ \lambda }$, we give the dependence on $a_-$ and $r_\star$. From Eqs. (\[eq:Y\^J\_\[0lambda\] y\_+-\]) and (\[eq:varphi\_lambda\]), we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
Y_{ \lambda -}^{(1)}(y_\pm),~
\varphi_{ \lambda -}^{(1)}(y_\pm)
\sim \frac{1}{a_\pm^4 r_\star^2}. \end{aligned}$$ For later use, we quote the relations (I-B12) and (I-B13) in the notation of present paper as $$\begin{aligned}
Y^{(1)}_{ \mathrm{pse} } + 2H_\pm { \stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle {(1)}}{\hat\xi^y_\pm} }
&=& \frac{2}{3} \sum _{\sigma=\pm } \Phi_\sigma
\quad (\mathrm{at~} y=y_\pm)
\,,
\nonumber
\\
Y^{(1)}_{ \mathrm{pse} }
+ \frac{2H_\pm}{\dot\phi_{0} }
\varphi^{(1)}_{ \mathrm{pse} }
&=& \frac{2}{3} \sum_{\sigma=\pm} \Phi_\sigma
\quad (\mathrm{at~} y=y_\pm)
\,.
\label{eq:comb Y varphi} \end{aligned}$$
We begin with the case that matter fields are confined on the negative tension brane. We discuss the contributions from each term in Eq. (\[eq:bar A\_0\]) one by one. The second term on the right hand side of Eq. (\[eq:bar A\_0\]) gives $$\begin{aligned}
-\Delta \Bigl[ {\hat\xi_{-}^y} \bar{A} _{-,y}
+ {\hat\xi_{-}^r} \bar{A} _{-,r}
+ \dot H ({\hat\xi_{-}^y})^2
\Bigr]
=
\bigl[ \cdots \bigr]_{SC}
+ \frac{2\kappa \dot\phi_{0-}}{3}
\Delta \bigl[\hat\xi^y_- \varphi_{\lambda-}(y_-) \bigr]
+ O\left(\frac{1}{a_-^2 r_\star^4}\right) .
\label{eq:A2 part-gauge}\end{aligned}$$ The contribution from the source terms $S_\xi$ and $S_\Sigma$ is evaluated by using the expressions given in Eqs. (I-2.33) and (I-2.35) as $$\begin{aligned}
2N \sum_\sigma \sigma a^4_\sigma ( S_\xi^\sigma - S_\Sigma^\sigma)
=
-2N a^4_- \bigl[ S_\xi^- - S_\Sigma^- \bigr]_{SC}
+ O \left(\frac{ \Phi_-}{r_\star^2}Y_{ \lambda-}(y_-) \right)
+ O\left(\frac{1}{a_-^2 r_\star ^4}\right) .\end{aligned}$$ As for $(S_A - S_\psi)$, the underlined terms in Eqs. (I-2.16) and (I-2.19) give the leading correction as $$\begin{aligned}
2N\int_{y_+}^{y_-} a^2 (S_A - S_\psi)
= [\cdots]_{SC}
+ O \left(\frac{\Phi_-}{r_\star^2}Y_{ \lambda -}(y_-) \right)
+ O\left(\frac{1}{a_-^2 r_\star ^4}\right) , \end{aligned}$$ where we have used the fact that $\varphi_{\lambda-}(y_-)/\dot\phi_{0-}
= O(H^{-1}_- Y_{ \lambda-}(y_-))$. The leading order correction from $\mathbb{S}_\varphi$ comes from the last two terms in Eq. (I-2.18). These terms are rewritten as in Eq. (I-5.7), in which we did not assume the strong coupling limit. The underlined terms on the right hand side of Eq. (I-5.7) give the leading order correction as $$\begin{aligned}
2N \int^{y_{-}}_{y_{+}} dy ~
a^2 v_{-} \Delta {\mathbb S}_{\varphi}
&=&
[\cdots ]_{SC}
- \frac{2\kappa}{3}\left[ \varphi_{ \mathrm{pse} -} \varphi_{ \lambda -} \right]_{y=y_-}
- 2N \Delta \int dy
\left[ \frac{a^2 u_-}{2} \bigl(Y^2 - Y^2_{ \mathrm{pse} } \bigr) \right]
\nonumber
\\
&&
+ O \left(\frac{\Phi_-}{r_\star^2} Y_{ \lambda -}(y_-) \right)
+ O \left(\frac{1}{a_-^2 r_\star ^4}\right)\,.
\label{eq:A2 part-S_varp}\end{aligned}$$ The last term cancels the contribution from $\mathbb{S}_Y$ that is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta {\mathbb{S}}_Y = [\Delta {\mathbb{S}}_Y ]_{SC}
+ \frac{\kappa}{3}a^2\dot\phi_0^2 \Delta
\bigl(Y^2 - Y^2_{ {\mathrm{pse}}} \bigr)
+ O\left(\frac{1}{a_-^2 r_\star ^4}\right) \,,\end{aligned}$$ where again the leading correction comes from the underlined terms in Eq. (I-2.21). The second term in Eq. (\[eq:A2 part-gauge\]) and that in Eq. (\[eq:A2 part-S\_varp\]), which potentially give enhanced correction to $\bar A^{(2)}_0$ of $O(\ell^2 \Phi_-^2/r_{\star}^2 a_-^6)$, cancel each other with the aid of Eq. (I-3.27). The terms of $
O \left(r_\star^{-2}\Phi_- Y_{ \lambda -}(y_-) \right)$ are smaller by the factor of $\Phi_-$ than the correction we have found for linear perturbations.
Now we consider the last term of Eq. (\[eq:bar A\_0\]), i.e., the contribution from $Y^{(2)}_{ \lambda }$. To evaluate $Y^{(2)}_{ \lambda }$, we study $L_-$ given in Eq. (\[eq:L\_sigma\]). According to the dependence (\[eq:count a r 1\]), some terms have possibility to give an enhanced correction to $\Delta
Y_{ \lambda }^{(2)}$ of order $O(1/a_-^6 r^4_\star)$. Note that the terms of $O(1/a_-^4 r^4_\star)$ in $\Delta L_-$ give the terms of $O(1/a_-^6 r^4_\star)$ in $\Delta
Y_{ \lambda }^{(2)}$, while the contribution from $\Delta L_+$ does not change its order with respect to $a_-$. In the following discussion, we keep only the relevant terms that might give enhanced contributions of $O(1/a_-^6 r^4_\star)$ to $\Delta
Y_{ \lambda }^{(2)}$.
Keeping the terms of $O(1/a_-^6 r^2_\star)$, the source term $S^{-}_{jun}$ in Eq. (\[eq:L\_sigma\]) becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{ \lambda_{-}}{2\dot\phi_0} S^{-}_{jun}
- \frac{ \ddot\phi_0 \varphi^2}{2 \dot\phi_0^3}
+ \frac{3 \varphi \Delta Y }
{2\kappa a^2_- \dot\phi_0^3}
\approx
-\lambda_-
\left[
\frac{(\hat\xi^y_{-,r})^2}{2a_-^2}
+ \frac{3}{2\kappa a_-^2 \dot\phi_{0-}^2 }
\Bigl( {\mathbb S}_Y + a_-^2 \dot H Y^2\Bigr)
\right]_{y=y_-} ,
\label{eq:Sjun terms}\end{aligned}$$ where we used the expression given in Eq. (I-B18). Here the term of ${\mathbb S}_Y$ is evaluated by using Eq. (I-2.21). Keeping the terms of $O(1/a_-^4 r_\star^2)$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb S}_Y + a_-^2 \dot H Y^2
&\approx&
- \int \biggl[
3 Y_{,r} \Delta Y
+ \frac{2H\varphi}{\dot \phi_0} (\Delta Y)_{,r}
+ \frac{2 \kappa}{3}
\bigl(
\varphi_{,r} \Delta \varphi
- \varphi (\Delta \varphi)_{,r}
\bigr)
+4 a^2 B_{,y}
\Bigl( 2 H Y_{,r}+ \dot H \frac{\varphi_{,r}}{\dot\phi_0} \Bigr)
\biggr] dr \,,\end{aligned}$$ where we have used Eq. (\[eq:comb Y varphi\]). The right hand side of Eq. (\[eq:L\_sigma\]) also contains $Y^{(2)}$. To obtain the lowest order correction, this $Y^{(2)}$ can be replaced with $Y_{ \mathrm{pse} }^{(2)}$. We can neglect the contribution from $Y_{ \mathrm{pse} }^{(2)}(r,y_{+})$ in Eq. (\[eq:Y\^J\_\[0lambda\] y\_+-\]), which is not enhanced with respect to the factor of $a_-$. The relevant terms in $\Delta Y_{ \mathrm{pse} }^{(2)}(r, y_{-})$ are $O(1/a_-^4 r_\star^2)$, which are $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta Y^{(2)}_{ \mathrm{pse}} (r, y_{-})
\approx
\frac{\kappa}{3} \Delta ( \varphi^2_- )
- \Bigl( S_\psi + 2H a_{-}^2 S_{\xi}^{-} \Bigr),
\label{eq:Y^2 terms}\end{aligned}$$ where the first term comes from the integration of ${\mathbb
S}_\varphi$. Using Eq. (I-2.16), $S_\psi$ in the second term can be explicitly written down. The relevant contribution comes from only the underlined terms in Eq. (I-2.16). With the aid of Eqs. (I-2.10), (I-2.13), (I-B14) and the fact that $(a^4 B_{,y})_{,y}=O(a^2/r_\star^2)$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
S_\psi
&\approx&
\int dr
\biggl\{
4a^2 B_{,y} \Bigl(HY_{,r} +\dot H \frac{\varphi_{,r}}{\dot \phi_0}\Bigr)
+ \frac{1}{ r^{8/3}} \partial_r
\Bigl[ r^{8/3}
\Bigl( \frac{3}{2} Y_{,r}^2 + \kappa \varphi_{,r}^2
\Bigr)
\Bigr]
\biggr\} \,. \end{aligned}$$ As for $S_\xi^-$, we can read from Eq. (I-2.35) as $$\begin{aligned}
a_{-}^2S_\xi^-
&\approx &
2 \int \Bigl[ a_{-}^2 B_{,y} Y_{,r}
+ \hat \xi^y_- (\Delta Y)_{,r} \Bigr] dr
- \hat\xi_{-}^y \Delta Y
- H \bigl( {\hat\xi_{-,r}^y} \bigr)^2 ,\end{aligned}$$ where we have again used Eqs. (\[eq:comb Y varphi\]). Substituting all the results into Eq. (\[eq:L\_sigma\]), we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{L_-^{(2)}}{H_-}
\approx
\frac{3\alpha_- }{ 4 N^3 }
\int dr \biggl[
\frac{ \kappa}{3} ( \varphi_{,r}^2 - (\dot\phi_0 \hat\xi^y_{,r})^2)_{,r}
+ \frac{2H (\Delta Y)_{,r}}{\dot\phi_0} (\varphi - \dot\phi_0 \hat\xi^y)
+ \frac{2}{r} \Bigl( Y_{,r}^2 - (2H \hat \xi^y_{,r})^2 \Bigr)
+ 2H \hat\xi^y_{,r} \Delta (Y+2H\hat\xi^y)
\biggr] .\end{aligned}$$ Further application of Eqs. (\[eq:varphi\_lambda\]) and (\[eq:comb Y varphi\]) reduces the order with respect to either $a_-^{-1}$ or $r_\star$. Therefore we find $L_-^{(2)}= \alpha_- O(\ell^2 \Phi_-^2/r_{\star}^2 a_-^2)+O(1/r_{\star}^4)$. Although we have not discussed the contributions associated with the factor $\alpha_+$ in detail, it is manifest that they do not have any enhancement with respect to the hierarchy factor of $1/a_-$. Therefore the interaction terms in second order perturbations become $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta \bar A^{(2)}_{0-}(r,y_-)
= \left[\Delta \bar A^{(2)}_{0-}(r,y_-)\right]_{SC}
+ O\left( \frac{\beta_- \Phi_-^2}{ r_\star^{ 2}} \right)
\left[O(a^4_- \alpha_+) + O(\alpha_-)\right]\,,
\label{eq:barA2}\end{aligned}$$ which are suppressed compared to the correction at the linear order by the factor of $\Phi_-$.
Next we consider the case that the matter distribution is concentrated on the positive tension brane. In this case, the first order quantities listed in Eqs. (\[eq:count a r 1\]) and (\[eq:count uv\]) do not suffer enhancement with respect to the factor of $1/a_-$. The factor $1/a_-$ arises only through $Y_{ \lambda +}(y_-)$ and $\varphi_{ \lambda +}(y_-)$, both of which are $O(1/a_-^2)$. Note also that the terms with $\lambda_+$ are always associated with $u_+(y_+)=O(\dot H_+/H_+^2)$. From these observations, we find $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta \bar A^{(2)}_{0+}(r,y_+)
= \left[\Delta \bar A^{(2)}_{0+}(r,y_+)\right]_{SC}
+ O\left( \frac{\beta_+ \Phi_+^2}{ r_\star^{ 2}} \right)
\left[ \Bigl(\frac{\dot H_+}{ H_+^2} \Bigr)^2 O( \alpha_+ )
+ O \Bigl( \frac{ \alpha_- }{a^2_-} \Bigr)\right] \,.
\label{eq:A2+}\end{aligned}$$ The amplitude of this second order correction is not simply suppressed by the factor of $\Phi_+$ compared to the correction at the linear order. There is a difference with respect to the power of $a_-$ in the term with $\alpha_-$. In paper I, we have met a similar phenomenon in the analysis of correction due to Kaluza-Klein modes at the second order. As was discussed there, this phenomenon is a natural consequence of our gradient expansion approximation.
### Spatial component
Finally, we comment on the spatial component. The last two terms on the right hand side of Eq. (\[eq:bar B\^2\]) are evaluated in the same manner as was done for $\Delta \bar A_{0\pm}^{(2)}$. The source terms except for $S_B$ have been already computed in evaluating $\Delta \bar A_{0\pm}^{(2)}$. The contribution from $S_B$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta S_B\approx \bigl[ \Delta S_B \bigr]_{SC}
- \kappa \dot\phi_0 \Delta \bigl[
\hat \xi_\pm^y (\varphi - \dot \phi_0 \hat \xi^y_\pm)
\bigr]\,, \end{aligned}$$ which is similar to that given in Eq. (\[eq:A2 part-gauge\]). Combining all, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\bar B
=
\bigl[ \bar B \bigr]_{SC}
+ O \left( \bar A^{(2)}_{0 \pm} -[ \bar A^{(2)}_{0 \pm}]_{SC}
\right) \,,\end{aligned}$$ and therefore the correction is the same order as that of the temporal component.
Summary {#sec:summary}
=======
We have discussed metric perturbations in the Randall-Sundrum two branes model with radius stabilization. As a mechanism for radius stabilization, we have assumed a scalar field with a potential in the bulk and that on each brane. In our previous work (paper I), we took the strong coupling limit, in which the brane potential is extremely narrow so that the values of the scalar field on the branes cannot fluctuate. In this paper, we extended the previous analysis relaxing the limitation of taking the strong coupling limit.
In the strong coupling limit, it is known that the mass squared of the stabilized radion tends to be hierarchically small as $m_S^2=O((a_-/a_+)^2 \ell^{-2})$, where $\ell$ is the bulk curvature scale and $(a_-/a_+)$ is the ratio of the values of the warp factor on the respective branes. First we examined the shift of this mass eigenvalue when we relax the limitation of taking the strong coupling limit. We have shown that a tachyonic mode appears when either of the coupling constants $\lambda_\pm$ defined in Eq. (\[eq:lambdadef\]) is negative. Hence, the models with such parameters are unstable. When both $\lambda_+$ and $\lambda_-$ are positive, we derived formulas for the mass squared of the stabilized radion in Eq. (\[eq:m2limit\]) for $\lambda_+ \gg m_S^{-2}\ell^{-1}$ and in Eq. (\[eq:m2small\]) for $\lambda_+ \ll m_S^{-2}\ell^{-1}$. The mass squared of the stabilized radion is affected by $\lambda_-$ when $\lambda_-\gtrsim \ell$ while $\lambda_+$ only when $\lambda_+ \agt m_S^{-2}\ell^{-1}$. These are rather exceptional cases since the order of $\lambda_\pm$ is typically less than or equal to $O(\ell)$.
Next, we have examined the effects on metric perturbations induced on the branes by matter fields up to second order, assuming that the matter distribution confined on the branes is static and spherically symmetric. For simplicity, we assumed that matter fields reside on either of the two branes. The results for the case that the matter fields are on the negative tension brane are summarized by Eqs. (\[eq:Y\^1\_lam - alpha1a\]) and (\[eq:barA2\]), where $\alpha_\pm$ and $\beta_\pm$ are defined in Eq. (\[eq:def. alpha\]) and Eq. (\[eq:suppres factor 1\]), respectively. The correction due to the finite coupling becomes important compared to that already existing in the strong coupling limit only when the mass of the stabilized radion is significantly reduced by the effect of nonvanishing $\lambda_\pm$. The results for the case that the matter fields reside on the positive tension brane are summarized by Eqs. (\[eq:Y\^1\_lam - alpha1b\]) and (\[eq:A2+\]). It is possible that the correction due to the finite coupling becomes important when $\lambda_+$ becomes much larger than $\ell$ without changing the mass of the stabilized radion. The corrections are enhanced by the factor of $\lambda_+/\ell$ compared to those present in the strong coupling limit. The result for second order perturbations (\[eq:A2+\]) seems to show that the correction associated with $\lambda_-$ are enhanced by a factor of $a_+^2/a_-^2$. However, this is an artifact due to the limitation of the present approximation using gradient expansion method.
In conclusion, under the assumption that the matter distribution is static and spherically symmetric, we have confirmed that 4D Einstein gravity is approximately recovered up to second order perturbations relaxing the limitation of taking the strong coupling limit. The condition that the corrections due to $\alpha_\pm$, $\beta_\pm$, and radion mass are sufficiently suppressed gives a consistency check for any stabilization model to use the scalar field of Eq. (\[eq:Lagrangian\]) [@Gibbons:2001tf].
H.K. would like to thank Takashi Nakamura and Hideo Kodama for their continuous encouragement. To complete this work, the discussion during and after the YITP workshop YIYP-W-01-15 on “Braneworld - Dynamics of spacetime boundary” was useful. H.K. is supported by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science under the Predoctoral Research Program. This work is partly supported by the Monbukagakusho Grant-in-Aid No. 1270154 and the Yamada Foundation.
[99]{}
N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos and G. R. Dvali, “The hierarchy problem and new dimensions at a millimeter,” Phys. Lett. B [**429**]{}, 263 (1998); I. Antoniadis, N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos and G. R. Dvali, “New dimensions at a millimeter to a Fermi and superstrings at a TeV,” Phys. Lett. B [**436**]{}, 257 (1998)
L. Randall and R. Sundrum, “A large mass hierarchy from a small extra dimension,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**83**]{}, 3370 (1999)
L. Randall and R. Sundrum, “An alternative to compactification,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**83**]{}, 4690 (1999)
V. A. Rubakov and M. E. Shaposhnikov, “Do We Live Inside A Domain Wall?,” Phys. Lett. B [**125**]{}, 136 (1983).
M. Visser, “An Exotic Class Of Kaluza-Klein Models,” Phys. Lett. B [**159**]{}, 22 (1985) \[hep-th/9910093\].
K. Akama, “Unification Scenario Of The Gravitational And Gauge Forces Via The Higher Dimensional Soliton,” Prog. Theor. Phys. [**78**]{}, 184 (1987) ; K. Akama, “Pregeometry," Lecture Notes in Physics [**176**]{}, Gauge Theory and Gravitation (Springer-Verlag, 1983), 267-271 \[hep-th/0001113\].
J. Lykken and L. Randall, “The shape of gravity,” JHEP [**0006**]{}, 014 (2000)
S. Mukohyama, “Quantum effects, brane tension and large hierarchy in the brane world,” Phys. Rev. D [**63**]{}, 044008 (2001)
J. Garriga and T. Tanaka, “Gravity in the brane-world,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**84**]{}, 2778 (2000)
T. Tanaka and X. Montes, “Gravity in the brane-world for two-branes model with stabilized modulus,” Nucl. Phys. B [**582**]{}, 259 (2000)
T. Shiromizu, K. I. Maeda and M. Sasaki, “The Einstein equations on the 3-brane world,” Phys. Rev. D [**62**]{}, 024012 (2000); M. Sasaki, T. Shiromizu and K. I. Maeda, “Gravity, stability and energy conservation on the Randall-Sundrum brane-world,” Phys. Rev. D [**62**]{}, 024008 (2000)
S. B. Giddings, E. Katz and L. Randall, “Linearized gravity in brane backgrounds,” JHEP [**0003**]{}, 023 (2000)
T. Tanaka, “Asymptotic behavior of perturbations in Randall-Sundrum brane-world,” Prog. Theor. Phys. [**104**]{}, 545 (2000)
S. Mukohyama and L. Kofman, “Brane Gravity at Low Energy,” hep-th/0112115.
S. Mukohyama, “Brane gravity, higher derivative terms and non-locality,” hep-th/0112205.
W. D. Goldberger and M. B. Wise, “Modulus stabilization with bulk fields,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**83**]{}, 4922 (1999)
W. D. Goldberger and M. B. Wise, “Phenomenology of a stabilized modulus,” Phys. Lett. B [**475**]{}, 275 (2000)
O. DeWolfe, D. Z. Freedman, S. S. Gubser and A. Karch, “Modeling the fifth dimension with scalars and gravity,” Phys. Rev. D [**62**]{}, 046008 (2000)
W. D. Goldberger and I. Z. Rothstein, “Quantum stabilization of compactified AdS(5),” Phys. Lett. B [**491**]{}, 339 (2000)
N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos and J. March-Russell, “Stabilization of sub-millimeter dimensions: The new guise of the hierarchy problem,” Phys. Rev. D [**63**]{}, 064020 (2001)
M. A. Luty and R. Sundrum, “Hierarchy stabilization in warped supersymmetry,” Phys. Rev. D [**64**]{}, 065012 (2001); “Radius stabilization and anomaly-mediated supersymmetry breaking,”
Phys. Rev. D [**62**]{}, 035008 (2000)
R. Hofmann, P. Kanti and M. Pospelov, “(De-)stabilization of an extra dimension due to a Casimir force,” Phys. Rev. D [**63**]{}, 124020 (2001)
J. Garriga, O. Pujolas and T. Tanaka, “Radion effective potential in the brane-world,” Nucl. Phys. B [**605**]{}, 192 (2001)
J. Garriga, O. Pujolas and T. Tanaka, “Moduli effective action in warped brane world compactifications,” hep-th/0111277.
A. Flachi, I. G. Moss and D. J. Toms, “Quantized bulk fermions in the Randall-Sundrum brane model,” Phys. Rev. D [**64**]{}, 105029 (2001)
C. Csaki, M. Graesser, L. Randall and J. Terning, “Cosmology of brane models with radion stabilization,” Phys. Rev. D [**62**]{}, 045015 (2000)
S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov and S. Zerbini, “Bulk versus boundary (gravitational Casimir) effects in quantum creation of inflationary brane world universe,” Class. Quant. Grav. [**17**]{}, 4855 (2000)
S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov and S. Zerbini, “Quantum (in)stability of dilatonic AdS backgrounds and holographic renormalization group with gravity,” Phys. Rev. D [**62**]{}, 064006 (2000)
R. Gregory and R. Laflamme, “Black strings and p-branes are unstable,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**70**]{}, 2837 (1993)
A. Chamblin, S. W. Hawking and H. S. Reall, “Brane-world black holes,” Phys. Rev. D [**61**]{}, 065007 (2000).
R. Emparan, G. T. Horowitz and R. C. Myers, “Exact description of black holes on branes,” JHEP[**0001**]{}, 007 (2000).
N. Dadhich, R. Maartens, P. Papadopoulos and V. Rezania, “Black holes on the brane,” Phys. Lett. B [**487**]{}, 1 (2000)
I. Giannakis and H. C. Ren, “Possible extensions of the 4-D Schwarzschild horizon in the brane world,” Phys. Rev. D [**63**]{}, 125017 (2001)
A. Chamblin, H. S. Reall, H. A. Shinkai and T. Shiromizu, “Charged brane-world black holes,” Phys. Rev. D [**63**]{}, 064015 (2001)
M. Bruni, C. Germani and R. Maartens, “Gravitational collapse on the brane,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**87**]{}, 231302 (2001)
G. T. Horowitz and K. Maeda, “Fate of the black string instability,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**87**]{}, 131301 (2001)
C. Cadeau and E. Woolgar, “New five dimensional black holes classified by horizon geometry, and a Bianchi VI braneworld,” Class. Quant. Grav. [**18**]{}, 527 (2001)
S. I. Vacaru and E. Gaburov, “Anisotropic black holes in Einstein and brane gravity,” hep-th/0108065.
S. I. Vacaru, “A new method of constructing black hole solutions in Einstein and 5D gravity,” hep-th/0110250.
R. Emparan and H. S. Reall, “A rotating black ring in five dimensions,” hep-th/0110260.
P. Kanti and K. Tamvakis, “Quest for localized 4-D black holes in brane worlds,” hep-th/0110298.
R. Casadio, A. Fabbri and L. Mazzacurati, “New black holes in the brane-world?,” gr-qc/0111072.
T. Tanaka, “Classical black hole evaporation in Randall-Sundrum infinite braneworld,” gr-qc/0203082.
C. Germani and R. Maartens, “Stars in the braneworld,” hep-th/0107011.
N. Deruelle, “Stars on branes: The view from the brane,” gr-qc/0111065.
T. Wiseman, “Relativistic stars in Randall-Sundrum gravity,” hep-th/0111057.
I. Giannakis and H. C. Ren, “Recovery of the Schwarzschild metric in theories with localized gravity beyond linear order,” Phys. Rev. D [**63**]{}, 024001 (2001)
H. Kudoh and T. Tanaka, “Second order perturbations in the Randall-Sundrum infinite brane-world model,” Phys. Rev. D [**64**]{}, 084022 (2001)
H. Kudoh and T. Tanaka, “Second order perturbations in the radius stabilized Randall-Sundrum two branes model,” hep-th/0112013. (paper I)
G. W. Gibbons, R. Kallosh and A. D. Linde, “Brane world sum rules,” JHEP [**0101**]{}, 022 (2001).
[^1]: Recently, Mukohyama gave a similar analysis of linear perturbations by a completely different approach [@Mukohyama:2001jv].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In [@transgen] is was shown that for any group $G$ whose rank (i.e., minimal number of generators) is at most 3, and any finite index subgroup $H{\leqslant}G$ with index $[G:H]{\geqslant}\operatorname{rank}(G)$, one can always find a left-right transversal of $H$ which generates $G$. In this paper we extend this result to groups of rank at most 4. We also extend this to groups $G$ of arbitrary (finite) rank $r$ provided all the non-trivial divisors of $[G:\operatorname{Core}_G(H)]$ are at least $2r-1$. Finally, we extend this to groups $G$ of arbitrary (finite) rank provided $H$ is malnormal in $G$.'
author:
- 'Maurice Chiodo, Robert Crumplin, Oscar Donlan, Paweł Piwek'
title: Investigating transversals as generating sets for groups
---
Introduction
============
Given a group $G$ and a subgroup $H {\leqslant}G$ of finite index, one can consider sets $S \subset G$ which are a *left* (resp. *right*) *transversals* of $H$ in $G$. That is, a complete set of left (resp. right) coset representatives. It then follows that we can consider *left-right transversals*; sets which are simultaneously a left transversal, and right transversal, for $H$ in $G$. While it is immediate in the case of finite index subgroups that left (resp. right) transversals exist (the case of infinite index subgroups is more complicated; existence of left or right transversals is equivalent to the axiom of choice, as shown in [@choice Theorem 2.1]), one might then ask the following question:
Given a finitely generated group $G$ and a finite index subgroup $H$, does there always exist a left-right transversal of $H$ in $G$?
It turns out that such a transversal always exists, by an application (see [@cosetgraph]) of Hall’s Marriage Theorem to the *coset intersection graph* $\Gamma_{H,H}^{G}$ of $H$ in $G$ (); a graph whose vertex set is the disjoint union of the left and the right cosets of $H$ in $G$, with edges between vertices whenever the corresponding cosets intersect. $\Gamma_{H, H}^{G}$ is thus bipartite as the set of left (and right) cosets are mutually disjoint. A proof without using Hall’s Theorem was given in [@cosetgraph Theorem 3].
In the context of a finitely generated group $G$, by defining $\operatorname{rank}(G)$ to be the smallest size of a generating set for $G$, one might ask the following question relating generating sets to transversals:
Given a finitely generated group $G$ and a finite index subgroup $H$ with $\operatorname{rank}(G){\leqslant}[G:H]$, does there always exist a left transversal of $H$ which generates $G$?
It is also true that such a transversal always exists, as shown in [@transgen Theorem 3.7]. And clearly the reverse statement is true: if there exists a left transversal of $H$ which generates $G$ then $\operatorname{rank}(G){\leqslant}[G:H]$. So we now have a necessary and sufficient condition for a finite index subgroup $H$ of a finitely generated group $G$ to have a left transversal which generates $G$; namely, that $\operatorname{rank}(G){\leqslant}[G:H]$. Moreover, by taking inverses, and noting that the element-wise inverse of a left transversal is a right transversal, we see that the same condition holds for the existence of right transversals as generating sets. Combining all the observations so far, one might now consider the following more general question, which forms the main motivation of this paper:
\[ques: motivating\] Given a finitely generated group $G$ and a finite index subgroup $H$ with $\operatorname{rank}(G){\leqslant}[G:H]$, does there always exist a left-right transversal of $H$ which generates $G$?
This question was first studied in [@transgen], where it was shown in [@transgen Theorem 3.11] that such a transversal always exists under the additional hypothesis that $\operatorname{rank}(G){\leqslant}3$. To achieve this, the authors introduced a new technique called *shifting boxes*. This involves using the transitive action of a group $G$ on the set of left (or right) cosets of a subgroup $H {\leqslant}G$ to apply Nielsen transformations to a generating set of $G$ in a way such that the resulting generators lie inside (or outside) particular desired cosets of $H$. A study of the graph $\Gamma_{H,H}^{G}$ was conducted in [@cosetgraph], and it was shown that the components are always complete bipartite graphs. This description of $\Gamma_{H,H}^{G}$ gave rise to a combinatorial model of coset intersections known as ‘chessboards’. Chessboards provide an approach to answering versions of , as indeed was done in [@transgen], and which we do throughout this paper. In particular, we use these techniques, as done in [@transgen Theorem 3.11], to relax the hypothesis of $\operatorname{rank}(G){\leqslant}3$, up to $\operatorname{rank}(G){\leqslant}4$. That is, we show as the first main result of this paper that:
\[thm: rank4case\] Let $G$ be a group of rank $4$ with a finite index subgroup $H$, such that $[G:H] {\geqslant}4$. Suppose $S$ is a set of $4$ elements which generate $G$, then there exists a sequence of Nielsen transformations taking $S$ to a new set $\tilde{S}$, such that the elements of $\tilde{S}$ may be extended to a left-right transversal of $H$ in $G$.\
Hence, given a finitely generated group $G$ of rank $4$ and a finite index subgroup $H$, there exists a left-right transversal of $H$ which generates $G$ if and only if $\operatorname{rank}(G){\leqslant}[G:H]$.
Notice that in the above theorem we speak of a much stricter condition on the left-right transversal found. Rather than showing existence of *some* left-right transversal which generates the group, we instead take a generating set $S$ and Nielsen-transform it to a new generating set $S'$ which *extends* to a left-right transversal (that is, $S'$ is a subset of a left-right transversal). As it turns out, all of our results making progress on are of this form: taking a generating set $S$ and Nielsen-transforming it to one which extends to a left-right transversal. We discuss this in more detail in , where we re-phrase our motivating question as .
The technique of shifting boxes, as applied to chessboards, also allows us to make progress on under different additional hypotheses, this time invoking divisibility conditions on various subgroup indices. Taking $\operatorname{Core}_G(H) := \cap_{g \in G}gHg^{-1}$ to be the *core* of the subgroup $H$ in $G$ (that is, the largest normal subgroup of $G$ contained in $H$), we state another main result of this paper which makes further progress on .
\[thm: divisor\_thm\] Let $G$ be a group of rank $r$ with a finite index subgroup $H$, such that $[G:H] {\geqslant}r$. Suppose that each non-trivial divisor of $[G:\operatorname{Core}_G(H)]$ is at least $2r-1$. Then any generating set $S$ having size $r$ may be Nielsen-transformed to a set $\tilde{S}$ that may be extended to a left-right transversal of $H$ in $G$.
Unfortunately the method of shifting boxes becomes combinatorially intractable when the rank of the underlying group gets sufficiently large. Hence other techniques become necessary. In this paper we introduce one such technique, which we call *L-spins* applied to *configurations* of multisets. A configuration of a multiset $S\subset G$ is simply a selection of some rows and columns of a chessboard of $H{\leqslant}G$ and the corresponding elements of $S$ lying in the intersections of these rows and columns (); one might think of this as a “minor” of a chessboard. And an L-spin is a way to re-arrange, via Nielsen transformations, this multiset on the configuration (). We use these new techniques to prove the following version of with the added hypothesis that $H{\leqslant}G$ is a malnormal subgroup:
\[thm:malnormal\] Given a malnormal $H{\leqslant}G$ of finite index and a generating multiset $S$ of size $[G:H]$, $S$ can be Nielsen transformed to a left-right transversal.
Of course, only finite groups have finite index malnormal subgroups, as discussed in , so the above theorem is only relevant for finite groups. Note that the case when $H$ is normal is easily resolved in the affirmative, as left and right cosets of normal subgroups match up so one can immediately apply [@transgen Theorem 3.7]. Moreover, we resolve the special case of where $H$ is very close to normal (that is, when $[H:xHx^{-1}\cap H]{\leqslant}2$ for all $x\in G$), again in the affirmative as . Thus we see that if $H{\leqslant}G$ is very close to normal or very far from normal, then our motivating question is resolved in the affirmative in each case. So it is the instances where $H$ is somewhere between normal and malnormal where further investigation could be done, as are the instances where $\operatorname{rank}(G)>4$.
This paper is laid out as follows:\
In we give an overview of the structure results and techniques introduced in [@cosetgraph; @transgen] on coset intersection graphs and chessboards. In we generalise some of the shifting boxes techniques from [@transgen] to obtain further results which become our main approach to answering questions about left-right transversals as generating sets. We then use these new results to prove . In we apply our new techniques on shifting boxes developed in , to prove the rank-4 case of our motivating question; this is . This proof is done in the similar style as the proof of the rank-3 case given in [@transgen Theorem 3.11]; as a sequence of reductions to various sub-cases depending on where certain generators lie in the chessboards of $H{\leqslant}G$. In we focus on the special case of where $G$ is finite, looking at additional hypotheses on $H{\leqslant}G$. Namely, when $H$ is cyclic () or isomorphic to $C_{p}\times C_{p}$ for $p$ prime (), answering in the affirmative in all of these cases. In we define configurations and L-spins, and then use these to show some normal form theorems for configurations. We use these results to answer under the additional hypothesis that $H$ is very close to normal in $G$ () and when $H$ is malnormal in $G$ ().
Coset intersection graphs and transversals as generating sets {#sec:graphs}
=============================================================
The work in Sections \[sec:graphs\],\[sec:shifting\],\[sec:rank4\] is a direct extension of work done by Button, Chiodo and Zeron-Medina in the two papers [@cosetgraph; @transgen]. In [@cosetgraph], the coset intersection graphs associated to a group $G$ were studied:
\[defn:coset-intersection\] For a group $G$ with finite index subgroups $H,K {\leqslant}G$, the associated *coset intersection graph*, $\Gamma_{H,K}^{G}$, is the bipartite graph on vertex set $V = \{gH \ | \ g \in G\}\sqcup\{Kg \ | \ g \in G\}$ (where we treat $gH$ and $Kg$ as different vertices even if $gH=Kg$ as sets), with an edge joining two cosets with non-empty intersection in $G$.
[[[@cosetgraph Theorem 3]]{}]{} Let $G$ be a group and $H,K {\leqslant}G$ of finite index. Then $\Gamma_{H,K}^G$ is a disjoint union of components of the form $K_{s_i,t_i}$, where $\frac{t_i}{s_i}$ is independent of $i$.
The main application of this result is to the case when $H = K$, where it says that every right $H$ coset contained in a double coset $HgH$ intersects every left $H$ coset in the double coset. Pictorially, one can consider $G$ as a disjoint union of square grids corresponding to double cosets of $H$, where the columns and rows of each grid respectively correspond to left and right $H$ cosets contained in the double coset, and each square in each grid corresponds to a non-empty intersection of the (cosets represented by) the associated row and column; see . In [@transgen], these square grids are referred to as *chessboards*. We will work extensively with chessboards in this paper, and from hereon in keeping with the notation in [@cosetgraph; @transgen] we will always take rows to represent right cosets and columns to represent left cosets.
in [0,1,...,3]{} [ (1+,0) – (1+, 3); ]{} in [0,1,...,3]{} [ (1, ) – (4, ); ]{}
(0.6, 0.4) node [$Hg_3$]{}; (0.6, 1.4) node [$Hg_2$]{}; (0.6, 2.4) node [$Hg_1$]{}; (1.5, 3.3) node [$g_1'H$]{}; (2.5, 3.3) node [$g_2'H$]{}; (3.5, 3.3) node [$g_3'H$]{}; (1.5, 2.5) node\[scale = 0.7\] [$g_1'H \cap Hg_1$]{}; (2.5, 2.5) node\[scale = 0.7\] [$g_2'H \cap Hg_1$]{}; (3.5, 2.5) node\[scale = 0.7\] [$g_3'H \cap Hg_1$]{};
The main results of this paper concern *transversals*.
Given a group $G$ and $H{\leqslant}G$, a set $S \subset G$ is called a *left* (resp. *right*) *transversal* for $H$ in $G$ if it is a collection of representatives of all of the left (resp. right) cosets in $G$. A *left-right transversal* is a set which is simultaneously a left and a right transversal for $H$ in $G$. We say a transversal $S$ is a *generating transversal* if it generates $G$ as a group.
A well known application of Hall’s marriage theorem implies that every finite index subgroup possesses a simultaneous left-right transversal. In [@cosetgraph], it was noted that a left-right transversal of a finite index subgroup $H {\leqslant}G$ can be obtained directly, simply by choosing an element from each diagonal entry of each chessboard of $H$. The ease and directness of this observation suggests that chessboards may be a useful tool to answer related questions.
The question approached in this paper is whether a finitely generated group $G$ necessarily has a generating set contained in a left-right transversal of a given finite index subgroup $H$. The direction of approach is ‘constructive’ via chessboards, in the style of the above paragraph. In particular, using chessboards, we study how the positions (relative to cosets of $H$) of elements of a multiset[^1] $S \subset G$ change under Nielsen moves.
Given a multiset of elements $S \subset G$, a multiset $\tilde{S}$ is said to be obtained from $S$ via a *Nielsen move* if it is obtained by either of the following procedures:
1. obtained by replacing some $g \in S$ with $g^{-1}$
2. obtained by replacing some $g \in S$ with $hg$ or $gh$ for some $h \in S\smallsetminus\{g\}$
Two multisets are *Nielsen equivalent* if they can be obtained from one another via a finite sequence of Nielsen moves; such a finite sequence is referred to as a *Nielsen transformation*.
To illustrate how chessboards provide a method of viewing ‘transversality’ of generating sets, consider the most basic result in this direction, established in [[[@transgen Theorem 3.7]]{}]{}. The proof is included because many arguments in this paper will be of a similar style.
\[prop: left-clean\] Let $G$ be a group with finite index subgroup $H$, and take a multiset $S \subset G$ whose elements generate $G$. If $[G:H] {\geqslant}|S|$, then $S$ is Nielsen equivalent to a multiset with entries in distinct left cosets of $H$ (in particular, there exists a left transversal of $H$ generating $G$).
We shall refer to a coset as *empty* if it contains no elements of $S$.
Left cosets of $H$ correspond to columns in the chessboards. Two elements of $S$ belong to the same left coset of $H$ if they belong to the same column of a chessboard. Suppose $s, s' \in S $ belong to the same column. Then $s'$ may be replaced by $s^{-1}s'$ (corresponding to a pair of Nielsen moves), which now belongs to $H$. Hence we may suppose every element of $S$ either belongs to $H$ (a $1\times 1$ chessboard), or to a column which contains no other entries of $S$. An example of such a configuration is shown in , with the dots representing elements of $S$.
in [0,1,...,[1]{}]{} [ (0,+1.5) – ([1]{},+1.5); ]{} in [0,1,...,[1]{}]{} [ (,1.5) – (,[1]{}+1.5); ]{}
in [0,1,...,[3]{}]{} [ (2.5,+0.5) – ([3]{}+2.5,+0.5); ]{} in [0,1,...,[3]{}]{} [ (+2.5,0.5) – (+2.5,[3]{}+0.5); ]{}
in [0,1,...,[3]{}]{} [ (7,+0.5) – ([3]{}+ 7, +0.5); ]{} in [0,1,...,[3]{}]{} [ (+ 7, 0.5) – (+ 7, [3]{}+ 0.5); ]{} (0.5, 2.25) circle (3.5pt); (0.5, 1.75) circle (3.5pt); (3, 3) circle (3.5pt); (4, 3) circle (3.5pt); (5, 2) circle (3.5pt); (7.5, 1) circle (3.5pt); (8.5, 2) circle (3.5pt);
The final stage of the proof is to ‘extract’, via Nielsen moves, elements of $S\cap H$ into columns not yet containing elements of $S$. $S$ generates $G$ (this property is preserved under Nielsen equivalence) and $G$ acts transitively on the columns of the chessboards (i.e. on left cosets of $H$), and because $[G:H] {\geqslant}|S|$ there is at least one empty column provided $|S\cap H| {\geqslant}2$ (if this is not the case, then the elements of $S$ already lie in distinct columns).
Suppose $gH$ is an empty column. It is possible to write $g = t_{1}^{\epsilon_1}\ldots t_{n}^{\epsilon_n}$, where $t_i \in S$, $\epsilon_i \in \{1,-1\}$ for each $i$. By taking $n$ minimal, it follows that there is an empty column of the form $s_2^{\epsilon}s_1H$, where $s_2,s_1 \in S$ (this works even when $n = 1$ because $S\cap H$ is non-empty). Because $|S\cap H| {\geqslant}2$, we may find $h \in S\cap H$ such that $h \neq s_2$. Then the replacement $h \mapsto s_2^{\epsilon}s_1h$ is a composition of Nielsen moves, and $s_2^{\epsilon}s_1h$ belongs to the empty column. This can be repeated until the multiset has only one entry in $H$.
To obtain the parenthetical claim in the proposition, the set $S'$ obtained from $S$ by the above sequence of Nielsen moves still generates $G$, and may be extended to a left transversal of $H$ by adjoining elements from the remaining empty columns of the chessboards.
There were two main steps in the above proof. The first was the ‘cleaning’ procedure: performing Nielsen moves until no two elements of $S$ shared a column outside of $H$. The second was the ‘extraction’ procedure, Nielsen-moving elements of $S\cap H$ outside of $H$, preserving the property that no two elements share a column outside of $H$.
Let $H {\leqslant}G$ be of finite index, and take $S \subset G$. We say $S$ is *left-clean* relative to $H$ if $S\smallsetminus H$ is non-empty and its elements lie in distinct left cosets of $H$, and so distinct columns of the chessboards. We similarly define *right-clean*, and *left-right clean*.
Given $H$, in addition to a multiset being clean we will also refer to a set of elements being *diagonal*. A set is diagonal if no two elements belong to the same left or right coset of $H$. This terminology is motivated by chessboard diagrams: with appropriate ordering of columns and rows, a diagonal set can be drawn as belonging only to the diagonal of each board.
Let $S \subset G$ be a multiset which is left-clean relative to $H$. A *left-extraction* of an element of $S$ is a Nielsen transformation $S \rightarrow S'$ such that $|S'\cap H| = |S\cap H|-1$ and if $S$ is left-clean, then $S'$ is. We can define *right-extraction* analogously. For the majority of this paper we will be interested in *left-right extraction* and when this is clear from the context we will omit the ‘left-right’.
It is clear that presents a procedure to Nielsen transform a given multiset into a left-clean set, and a general left-extraction procedure. Furthermore it is clear that the proposition holds with ‘right’ replacing ‘left’ throughout. In particular, given a multiset $S$, one may combine the left- and right- cleaning procedures (e.g. perform them in turn) to give a left-right cleaning procedure. However, it is not obvious how to combine the left- and right- extraction processes to give a left-right extraction process. Such a general procedure would, by modifying the argument in the proposition, result in a proof that any finitely generated group has a left-right transversal (of any subgroup $H$ with sufficiently large finite index) which generates the group.
The next section of the paper gives some general left-right extraction techniques. Before proceeding with this, it is noted that when $S$ has few elements, it is possible to explicitly devise ad-hoc left-right extraction procedures. Such procedures were presented in [@transgen] (the method of ‘shifting boxes’), and an example of a result obtained is given below.
[[[@transgen Theorem 3.11]]{}]{} Let $G$ be a group, $S$ a generating set for $G$ such that $|S| {\leqslant}3$, and $H {\leqslant}G$ a subgroup of finite index such that $|S| {\leqslant}[G:H]$. Then $S$ is Nielsen-equivalent to a set $S'$ which is contained in a left-right transversal of $H$ in $G$.
Results on shifting boxes, and a proof of {#sec:shifting}
==========================================
In this section we present some left-right extraction procedures which are possible under certain conditions, as well as make some definitions which will be useful in the proof of . To conclude the section, we apply our new extraction procedures to give a range of groups and subgroups for which any generating set of the group may be Nielsen transformed into a set which extends to a left-right transversal of the subgroup, finishing with a proof of .
Taking $H{\leqslant}G$, our first definition here is motivated by viewing chessboards as orbits of $H$ acting on its coset space $G/H$ by multiplication. We can visualise the left (respectively right) action of $H$ on $G/H$ (respectively $H \backslash G$) via the permutations it induces on the columns (respectively rows) of each chessboard. The same is true if we further restrict the action to $K {\leqslant}H$, however in this case whilst clearly the action still preserves the chessboards, it needn’t be transitive on the columns/rows of a given chessboard. We will be interested in the case $K = {\langle S \cap H \rangle}$, where $S$ is a multiset of elements which we are trying to left-right extract from.
Let $K {\leqslant}H {\leqslant}G$, and suppose $S$ is a multiset of elements in $G$. With $K$ acting by left-multiplication on $G/H$, a $K$-orbit of a left coset of $H$ is *sparse* if it contains a coset which doesn’t contain an element of $S$. We also take the corresponding definition of sparseness for the right-multiplication action of $K$.
For example, if we consider $K$ acting on the left, then saying $gH$ has a sparse $K$-orbit means we can find $k \in K$ such that $kgH$ is represented by a column (in the same chessboard as $gH$, as $K{\leqslant}H$) with no element of $S$ belonging to this new column.
The following lemma gives a left-right extraction technique which works provided ${\langle S \cap H \rangle}$ has left *and* right sparse orbits in some chessboard.
\[rem: natural\_condition\] To see why this is a natural condition, consider the simple scenario where there exists $g \in S\smallsetminus H$ and distinct $h$, $ h'\in S \cap H$ with $hgH$ and $Hgh'$ representing a column and row (respectively) which do not contain any element of $S$. Then combining the pair of Nielsen moves: $$h \mapsto hg$$ $$hg \mapsto hgh'$$ constitutes a left-right extraction of an element (in this case $h$) from $S$.
\[lem: EL\] Let $G$ be a group, $H{\leqslant}G$ be of finite index, and $S\subset G$ a left-right clean multiset such that $|S| {\leqslant}[G:H]$. Suppose all of the following hypotheses hold:
1. $|S \cap H|{\geqslant}2$
2. There exists $g \in S$ such that $gH$ and $Hg$ have sparse ${\langle S \cap H \rangle}$-orbits
Then it is possible to left-right extract an element from $S \cap H$.
Let $S\cap H = {\{h_1,\ldots,h_a\}}$ and $S\smallsetminus H = {\{g_1, \ldots, g_b\}}$ (note that $S$ is a multiset so $|S\cap H| = a {\geqslant}2$, but distinct indices do not necessarily correspond to distinct elements). The first aim is to show that suitable Nielsen transformations reduce the hypotheses to a situation which is only slightly harder than the simple scenario presented in ; that is, we are looking for an element $g \in S\smallsetminus H$, elements $h_l, h_k \in H\cap S$ and $\delta, \epsilon = \pm 1$ such that the cosets $h_{l}^{\delta}gH$, $Hgh_{k}^{\epsilon}$ are empty. We do it in two stages: we first find $g'_1$, $h_k$, $\epsilon$ such that $Hg_1h_k^{\epsilon}$ is empty. Then we modify the element $g_1'$ to $g_1''$ by a Nielsen transformation, and find an $h_f$ and $\delta$ such that $h_l^{\delta}g_1''H$ is also empty.
Taking $g_1$ satisfying the second condition of the lemma, then there exists $h_{i_{1}},\ldots, h_{i_{n}}$ (not necessarily distinct indices) and $\epsilon_{1},\ldots, \epsilon_{n} \in {\{-1, 1\}}$ such that $$Hg_{1}h_{i_{1}}^{\epsilon_{1}}\ldots h_{i_{n}}^{\epsilon_{n}}$$ does not contain any elements of $S$. We may assume $n$ is minimal. If $n=1$ we proceed to the next step. Suppose then that $n > 1$ so, by minimality we have $$Hg_{1}h_{i_{1}}^{\epsilon_{1}}\ldots h_{i_{n-1}}^{\epsilon_{n-1}} = Hg_{j} \ \ \ \ \textnormal{ for some } j \neq 1$$ And so now we make the pair of Nielsen transformations: $$g_{1} \mapsto g_{1}h_{i_{1}}^{\epsilon_{1}}\ldots h_{i_{n-1}}^{\epsilon_{n-1}} =: g_{1}'$$ $$g_{j} \mapsto g_{j}h_{i_{n-1}}^{-\epsilon_{n-1}}\ldots h_{i_{1}}^{-\epsilon_{1}}=: g_{j}'$$ labeling the new elements of $S$ as $g_{1}', g_{j}'$ respectively. To see pictorially what has happened (), the rows of the elements $g_{1}$, $g_{j}$ have been ‘swapped’ and the columns have remained unchanged:
in [0,1,...,[3]{}]{} [ (0,+0.5) – ([3]{},+0.5); ]{} in [0,1,...,[3]{}]{} [ (,0.5) – (,[3]{}+0.5); ]{} (3.5,2) – (4,2);
in [0,1,...,[3]{}]{} [ (4.5,+0.5) – ([3]{}+ 4.5, +0.5); ]{} in [0,1,...,[3]{}]{} [ (+ 4.5, 0.5) – (+ 4.5, [3]{}+ 0.5); ]{} (0.5,3) node [$g_1$]{}; (1.5, 2) node [$g_j$]{}; (5,2) node [$g_1'$]{}; (6,3) node [$g_j'$]{};
Note that this preserves left-right cleanliness, and the fact that the columns are unchanged is to say that the left cosets are unchanged and in particular the orbits of the left cosets are unchanged. So $g_{1}'H = g_{1}H$ has a sparse ${\langle S\cap H \rangle}$-orbit. As before this says that there are indices $j_{1},\ldots, j_{m}$ and signs $\delta_{1},\ldots,\delta_{m}$ such that $$h_{j_{1}}^{\delta_{1}}\ldots h_{j_{m}}^{\delta_{m}}g_{1}'H$$ does not contain an element of $S$. We now repeat the previous argument but on the left. Suppose $m$ is minimal. If $m = 1$, we have found $h_{j_{1}}^{\delta_{1}}g_{1}'H$, $Hg_{1}'h_{i_{n}}^{\epsilon_{n}}$ both empty. Otherwise $m > 1$ and so $$h_{j_{2}}^{\delta_{2}}\ldots h_{j_{m}}^{\delta_{m}}g_{1}'H = g_{k}H$$ where $g_{k}$, $g_{1}'$ are distinct elements of the multiset. Then we make the following Nielsen transformations: $$g_{1}' \mapsto h_{j_{2}}^{\delta_{2}}\ldots h_{j_{m}}^{\delta_{m}}g_{1}' =:g_{1}''$$ $$g_{k} \mapsto h_{j_{m}}^{-\delta_{m}}\ldots h_{j_{2}}^{-\delta_{2}}g_{k}$$
Once again we can see that this doesn’t alter rows, but swaps the columns. In particular it preserves left-right cleanliness.
Now, we know that the cosets $h_{j_1}^{\delta_1} g_1''H$ and $Hg_1''h_{i_n}^{\epsilon_n}$ are empty. If $j_1 \ne i_n$, then $h_{j_1}^{\delta_1}g_1''h_{i_n}^{\epsilon_n}$ lies in an empty row and empty column, so we can perform the desired extraction $$h_{j_1} \mapsto h_{j_1}^{\delta_1}\cdot g_1'' \mapsto h_{j_1}^{\delta_1}g_1''\cdot h_{i_n}^{\epsilon_n}$$ Thus, let’s assume without loss of generality that $j_1 = i_n = 1$ and let’s rename $\delta_1 =: \delta$, $\epsilon_n =: \epsilon$ and $g_1'' =: g_1$ (for simplicity).
Now the empty cosets are $h_{1}^{\delta}g_{1}H$ and $Hg_{1}h_{1}^{\epsilon}$. Take $h_2$ (we can do this since $|S\cap H| {\geqslant}2$) and consider the element $h_{2}g_{1}h_{1}^{\epsilon}$. If this lies in a left coset representing an empty column, then we’re done (since we extract $h_2 \mapsto h_2 \cdot g_1 \mapsto h_2g_1\cdot h_1^\epsilon$). Otherwise $h_{2}g_{1}H = g_{r}H$ for some $r$. This case requires two Nielsen transformations but the order depends on whether $r = 1$ or $r \neq 1$.
Both of the cases are illustrated with diagrams (Figures \[fig:second\_swap\] and \[fig:first\_swap\]), to help visualise the underlying process. The Nielsen transformations are represented with dashed arrows, whereas the elements in the chessboards which are not members of $S$ are underlined. We use this underlining notation from this point onwards in the rest of the paper.
If $r = 1$, we make the following Nielsen moves, as illustrated in . $$h_{2} \mapsto h_{2}\cdot g_{1} \mapsto h_{2}g_{1} \cdot h_{1}^{\epsilon}$$ $$g_{1} \mapsto h_{1}^{\delta} \cdot g_{1}$$ Here, since $Hg_1h_1^\epsilon$ is an empty row, it is one different from $Hg_1$. Thus $h_2g_1h_1^\epsilon$ actually lies in a row different to one that $g_1$ lies in. Similarly, $h_1^\delta g_1$ lies in a column different to one of $g_1$.
in [0,1,...,[3]{}]{} [ (0,+0.5) – ([3]{},+0.5); ]{} in [0,1,...,[3]{}]{} [ (,0.5) – (,[3]{}+0.5); ]{} (3.5,2) – (4,2);
in [0,1,...,[3]{}]{} [ (4.5,+0.5) – ([3]{}+ 4.5, +0.5); ]{} in [0,1,...,[3]{}]{} [ (+ 4.5, 0.5) – (+ 4.5, [3]{}+ 0.5); ]{} (8, 2) – (8.5, 2);
in [0,1,...,[3]{}]{} [ (9 + , 0.5) – (9 + , 0.5 + [3]{}); ]{} in [0,1,...,[3]{}]{} [ (9, +0.5) – (9 + [3]{}, +0.5); ]{}
(0.5, 3) node [$g_1$]{}; (0.5, 2) node ; (1.5, 3) node ; (-0.5, 1) node [$h_2$]{}; (-0.5+0.2,1) .. controls (-0.5+0.2+0.3,1) and (0.5,2-0.3-0.2) .. (0.5,2-0.2);
(5, 3) node [$g_1$]{}; (5, 2) node [$h_2g_1h_1^\epsilon$]{}; (6, 3) node ; (5, 3+0.2) .. controls (5+0.3, 3+0.2+0.3) and (6-0.3-0.1, 3+0.2+0.3) .. (6-0.1, 3+0.2);
(5+4.5, 2) node [$h_2g_1h_1^\epsilon$]{}; (6+4.5, 3) node [$h_1^\delta g_1$]{};
In the second case, $r \neq 1$, we put for simplicity $r=2$. We can make the pair of Nielsen transformations: $$g_{2} \mapsto h_{2}^{-1} \cdot g_{2} \mapsto h_{1}^{\delta} \cdot h_{2}^{-1}g_{2}$$ $$h_{2} \mapsto h_{2}\cdot g_{1} \mapsto h_{2}g_{1} \cdot h_{1}^{\epsilon}$$ This is a left-right extraction, as shown pictorially in . In this picture, $g_1$ and $g_2$ are diagonal, the row $Hg_1h_1^\epsilon$ is different to $Hg_1$ and $Hg_2$ because it is empty. Similarly, $h_1^\delta h_2^{-1}g_2H$ is different to $g_1H$ and $g_2H$ because $h_1^\delta g_1 h_1^\epsilon$ lies in an empty row and column.
in [0,1,...,[3]{}]{} [ (0,+0.5) – ([3]{},+0.5); ]{} in [0,1,...,[3]{}]{} [ (,0.5) – (,[3]{}+0.5); ]{} (3.5,2) – (4,2);
in [0,1,...,[3]{}]{} [ (4.5,+0.5) – ([3]{}+ 4.5, +0.5); ]{} in [0,1,...,[3]{}]{} [ (+ 4.5, 0.5) – (+ 4.5, [3]{}+ 0.5); ]{} (8, 2) – (8.5, 2);
in [0,1,...,[3]{}]{} [ (9 + , 0.5) – (9 + , 0.5 + [3]{}); ]{} in [0,1,...,[3]{}]{} [ (9, +0.5) – (9 + [3]{}, +0.5); ]{}
(0.5, 3) node [$g_1$]{}; (1.5, 2) node [$g_2$]{}; (1.5, 1) node ; (2.5, 2) node ; (2.5, 1) node ; (1.5,2+0.2) .. controls (1.5+0.3,2+0.3+0.2) and (2.5-0.3,2+0.3+0.2) .. (2.5,2+0.2);
(5, 3) node [$g_1$]{}; (7, 2) node [$h_1^\delta h_2^{-1}g_2$]{}; (6, 1) node ; (4, 1) node [$h_2$]{}; (4,1+0.2) .. controls (4+0.3,1+0.3+0.2) and (6-0.3,1+0.3+0.2) .. (6,1+0.2);
(9.5, 3) node [$g_1$]{}; (11.5, 2) node [$h_1^\delta h_2^{-1}g_2$]{}; (10.5, 1) node [$h_2g_1h_1^\epsilon$]{};
And so in any case, we have left-right extracted an element of $S\cap H$.
This lemma will be very useful in shortening the arguments needed in the case-by-case analysis done in the proof of , which we do in . More importantly it is the first extraction algorithm which can be applied to a general $H
{\leqslant}G$ and (no constraints on the index $[G:H]$), with only combinatorial hypotheses on $S$. For example, below is a neat situation where the hypotheses of hold.
\[cor: DPL\] Let $G$, $H$ and $S$ be as in . Suppose that there is an element $s \in S$ such that $s^{n}$ lies diagonal to every element of $S$ for some $n$. Then, if $|S \cap H|{\geqslant}2$, a left-right extraction is possible.
Suppose $h \in S \cap H$. Consider the element $hs^{n}$. This lies in $Hs^{n}$, which contains no other elements of $S$ by assumption. If $hs^{n}H$ contains no elements of $S$ then we may perform $n$ Nielsen moves to extract $h \mapsto hs^{n}$ and we’re done. Otherwise, we have $gH = hs^{n}H$ for some $g \in S\smallsetminus H$. We break this up into two cases.\
Case 1: If $s$, $g$ are distinct elements, then we may make the pair of Nielsen moves: $g \mapsto h^{-1}g$, followed by $h \mapsto hs^{n}$ (noting that $g \notin H$ so $g_1$, $h$ are distinct entries). This is the desired left-right extraction because we have moved $g$ to an empty row without changing its column, and then have extracted $h$ to the empty row $Hs^{n}$ and the (newly) empty column $gH$.\
Case 2: $sH = hs^{n}H$. The previous sequence of Nielsen moves would no longer be valid. Instead we can note that the equation implies that $sH$ has a sparse orbit. Hence if we repeat the argument instead considering the right action, with $s^{n}h$ instead of $hs^{n}$, either we’re done or we encounter the same barrier, i.e. $Hs = Hs^{n}h$. In this case both $sH$ and $Hs$ both have sparse orbits, and so we can extract by .
Before using this corollary to prove , one further result of elementary group theory is needed.
For $G$ an arbitrary group and $H$ a finite index subgroup of $G$, the *$H$-exponent* of $g \in G$ is the smallest positive integer $e$ such that $g^e \in H$.
We will use $H$-exponents to enumerate cases of the proof in the next section. Below we will show that they are divisors of $[G:\operatorname{Core}_G(H)]$, which will then allow us to prove . The subgroup $\operatorname{Core}_G(H)$ is defined as:
\[defn:core\_sg\] If $G$ is a group with subgroup $H$, the *core subgroup* of $H$ in $G$ is $$\operatorname{Core}_G(H) := \bigcap\limits_{g \in G}gHg^{-1}$$
The core is the largest normal subgroup of $G$ contained in $H$. If $H$ has index $n$, $\operatorname{Core}_G(H)$ is the kernel of the homomorphism $G \rightarrow S_n$ induced by the left-multiplication action of $G$ on $H$. The first isomorphism theorem implies that $G/\operatorname{Core}_G(H)$ is isomorphic to a subgroup of $S_n$, and in particular $\operatorname{Core}_G(H)$ has finite index in $G$. This index is connected to $H$-exponents by the following proposition:
The $H$-exponent of $g\in G$ divides $[G:\operatorname{Core}_G(H)]$.
Let $m = [G:\operatorname{Core}_G(H)]$, and $e$ be the $H$-exponent of $g$. If the proposition is false, then we may write $m = eq + r$ where $q$, $r$ are integers such that $1 {\leqslant}r < e $. But now, because $g^m, g^e \in H$, we have that: $$g^r = g^{m -eq} = g^m(g^e)^{-q} \in H$$ contradicting minimality of $e$.
We conclude with the proof , which relies on everything mentioned in this section.
Let $d$ be the minimal non-trivial divisor of $[G:\operatorname{Core}_G(H)]$. Suppose that $S$ is a generating set of $G$ with size $r$. If $|S\cap H| = 1$ then $S$ is already diagonal, and we may extend it to a left-right transversal of $H$ in $G$. Otherwise, suppose $|S \cap H| {\geqslant}2$ with $S$ left-right clean. It is sufficient to show that a left-right extraction is possible.
Choose $s \in S\smallsetminus H$, and let $e$ be its $H$-exponent. The previous proposition implies $e {\geqslant}d$. Minimality of $e$ implies that the set $A = {\{s^2, \ldots, s^{e-1}\}}$ is diagonal (every pair of elements lie in distinct rows and columns), and that $A \subset G\smallsetminus H$.
Now suppose that the hypothesis of does not apply. That is, that every element of $A$ belongs to the same row or column of some element of $S \smallsetminus H$. Under this assumption, a chessboard which contains $k$ elements of $S$ can contain at most $2k$ elements of $A$ (counting over each row, and then each column). If we count the elements of $A$ per chessboard, this leads to the inequality $$e - 2 {\leqslant}2|S\smallsetminus H|$$ And because $|S\cap H| {\geqslant}2$, $$e - 2 {\leqslant}2(r-2)$$ But $d$ is the smallest non-trivial divisor of $[G:\operatorname{Core}_G(H)]$, so we deduce from the above that $d {\leqslant}2r -2 $. The contrapositive assertion shows that if $d {\geqslant}2r - 1$ we can indeed extract via , as required.
Proof of ; transversals as generating sets for rank 4 groups {#sec:rank4}
============================================================
In this section we prove , by performing a case-by-case analysis of where elements in $S$ lie relative to chessboards of $H{\leqslant}G$. This is an extension of the main theorem of [@transgen] to groups of rank 4. The proof in [@transgen Theorem 3.11] for groups of rank at most $3$ uses the technique of shifting boxes, but also relies heavily on the fact that having just $3$ elements in the chessboards makes the case-by-case analysis of Nielsen moves tractable. Without further insight into shifting boxes as a general technique, attempting to mimic the arguments in [@transgen] for the case when the group has rank 4 quickly leads to case analysis which is too large to carry out. The results of are enough to allow the argument style of [@transgen] to extend the proof technique of [@transgen Theorem 3.11] to the case where $G$ has rank 4.
In addition to the results of , we will also make use of the inversion map on chessboards.
\[defn:inversion\] Consider the boards $HgH$ and $Hg^{-1}H$. The *inversion map* is the standard map on group elements $x \mapsto x^{-1}$. This naturally induces:
- A map on chessboards via $HgH \mapsto Hg^{-1}H$,
- A map between the set of left cosets and the set of right cosets via $gH \mapsto Hg^{-1}$.
If a board is mapped to itself via the inversion map, $HgH = Hg^{-1}H$, we say the board is *self-inverse*.
A chessboard is self-inverse if and only if it contains an element of $H$-exponent $2$. We make use of this in .
As a map between left and right cosets of $H$, the inversion map commutes with the multiplication action of $G$. What we mean by this is that the diagram in commutes. This simple observation makes the inversion map a useful way to connect the orbits of left and right cosets, and hence we will make use of it to apply .
gH & xgH\
Hg\^[-1]{} & Hg\^[-1]{}x\^[-1]{}
Throughout the proof of , the term *box* will be used to refer to the intersection of a left and right coset in a double coset (forming a ‘box’ in the corresponding chessboard). Also, we will always have a generating set $S$ of elements whose Nielsen transformations we are considering. Recall a coset or a box is referred to as *empty* if it doesn’t contain any elements of $S$. We are now ready to prove .
Given the left-right cleaning procedure given in , we may suppose $S$ is left-right clean with respect to $H$. There are either 1,2 or 3 elements of $S$ remaining in $H$.
If there is only 1 element of $S$ in $H$, then $S$ is already diagonal and may be immediately extended to a left-right transversal.
If there are 3 elements of $S$ inside $H$, we may extract one as follows: Suppose $h_1, h_2, h_3$ are the elements of $S$ belonging to $H$, and $g$ is the entry not in $H$. Firstly, if $g$ has $H$-exponent (simply referred to as *exponent* subsequently) at least $3$, then $g^{2}$ lies outside of $H$, and diagonally to $g$. By , we may extract one of the $h_i$ from $H$. Now suppose $g$ has exponent $2$. By the argument given in the proof of , there is an empty right coset of the form $Hs_is_j^{\epsilon}$ with $s_i$, $s_j$ elements of $S$. Since each $Hg^{\pm1} = Hg$ and each $h_i \in H$ we see the empty coset must be of the form $Hgh_i^{\epsilon} $ for some $i$, some $\epsilon \in \{\pm1\} $. This implies that the orbit of $Hg$ is sparse under the action of ${\langle h_1, h_2, h_3 \rangle}$. Because $g^2 \in H$, the inversion map preserves the chessboard $HgH$ (that is, its columns are mapped to its rows and vice versa). Furthermore, because $g$ is the only entry of $S$ in the chessboard, and $gH \mapsto Hg$ under inversion, it follows that empty right cosets are mapped to empty left cosets under inversion. In particular $h_i^{-\epsilon}g^{-1}H = h_i^{-\epsilon}gH$ is empty, and so $g$ has a left and right sparse orbit, so we can extract by . This process of extraction works for several more difficult configurations occurring later.
Hence we are left with the case where there are 2 elements of $S$ in $H$, and we can label $S$ by $S \cap H = \{h_1, h_2\}$ and $S \smallsetminus H = \{g_1, g_2\}$. As we have seen above, the exponents of the elements outside of $H$ play an important role. Accordingly the remaining cases are indexed by the exponents of $g_1$ and $g_2$ ($e_1$ and $e_2$ respectively), where $e_{1}, e_{2}>1$ as $g_{1}, g_{2}\notin H$. Reordering so that $e_1 {\leqslant}e_2$, the cases are:
- $e_2 {\geqslant}4$
- $e_1 = 2 < e_2$
- $e_1 = e_2 = 3$
- $e_1 = e_2 = 2$
In diagrams, $g_1$ and $g_2$ will be depicted as belonging to the same chessboard. Whilst this is not necessarily the case, generally the arguments made apply equally well in both cases and so will not be made twice.
Case I. {#case-i. .unnumbered}
-------
As $e_2 {\geqslant}4$, we have that ${\{g_2, g_2^{2}, g_2^{3}\}}$ is a diagonal set lying outside of $H$. If either of $g_2^{2}$ or $g_2^{3}$ lies diagonally to $g_1$, then it necessarily lies diagonally to every entry of $S$. We may therefore extract by . Hence we need only consider the case when neither $g_2^{2}, g_2^{3}$ lies diagonally to $g_1$. That is, they both lie in $g_1H \cup Hg_1$.
The powers of $g_{2}$ are mutually diagonal so in this case neither power can lie in $g_1H \cap Hg_1$. That is, exactly one of $g_2^{2}$, $g_2^{3}$ lies in the row of $g_1$ (and not the column), and the other lies in the the column (and not the row). Suppose $g_2^{i}H = g_1H$, then perform $g_1 \mapsto g_2^{-i}g_1 = h_3 \in H$. Now, within the chessboard $Hg_1H$ there is the diagonal set ${\{g_2^{2}, g_2^{3}\}}$ and potentially also $g_2$.
We have $3$ elements in $H$, and to achieve our goal we must extract $2$ of them from $H$. To do this we will extract one element to such a position that we still have a diagonal power of $g_2$, i.e. a power of $g_2$ is diagonal to everything in the Nielsen transformed multiset $S$. Then we can apply to extract the other.
Consider the elements $h_ig_2^{2}$ for $i = 1,2,3$. These each lie in $Hg_2^{2}$, and if one lies outside of the columns $g_2^{3}H$, $g_2H$ then we can extract it, noting that $g_2^{3}$ remains diagonal to the arrangement. If none of the $h_ig^{2}$ lie outside of the two columns $g_2^{3}H$, $g_2H$, then by the pigeonhole principle, without loss of generality $h_1g_2^{2}$, $h_2g_2^{2}$ lie in the same columns. Hence $h_1^{-1}h_2g_2^{2} \in g_2^{2}H$ and so $h_1^{-1}h_2g_2^{2} \in g_2^{2}H \cap Hg_2^{2}$. After extracting $h_2 \mapsto h_1^{-1}h_2g_2^{2}$, $g_2^{3}$ remains diagonal to the entire configuration, so we may extract again by . shows this extraction, assuming that $g_2^2 \in Hg_1$ and $g_2^2 \in g_1H$ (transposing $g_2^2$ and $g_2^3$ doesn’t alter the argument).
in [0,1,...,[3]{}]{} [ (-0.5, 0-0.5) – (-0.5, 3-0.5); ]{} in [0,1,...,[3]{}]{} [ (0-0.5, -0.5) – (3-0.5,-0.5); ]{}
(0, 0) node ; (0, 2) node ; (1, 1) node [$g_2$]{}; (2, 2.2) node ; (2, 1.8) node ; (-1, 1) node [$h_2$]{};
(-0.8, 1) .. controls (-0.8+0.6, 1) and (1.5-0.4, 1.8) .. (1.5, 1.8);
Case II. {#case-ii. .unnumbered}
--------
In this case $e_1 = 2$ and so the inversion map is useful. Because $e_2 \neq 2$, we have that $1 \not \equiv -1 \mod{e_2}$ and hence ${\{g_2, g_2^{-1}\}}$ is a diagonal set. The inversion map gives a bijection between left and right cosets of $H$, and because $Hg_1 \neq Hg_2$ we have $g_2^{-1}H \neq g_1^{-1}H = g_1H$ and similarly on the right. Hence ${\{g_1, g_2, g_2^{-1}\}}$ is diagonal, and so we may extract by .
Case III. {#case-iii. .unnumbered}
---------
We consider the set of inverses ${\{g_1^{-1}, g_2^{-1}\}}$. From remarks on the inversion map, this new pair of elements is diagonal. Furthermore, neither of the $g_i$ have exponent $2$, so ${\{g_i, g_i^{-1}\}}$ is diagonal. It follows that if $g_1^{-1}$ lies diagonally to $g_2$, or vice-versa, then we may extract by . Therefore, we may suppose that neither inverse lies diagonally to ${\{g_1, g_2\}}$ and so $g_1^{-1} \in g_2H \cup Hg_2$, and $g_2^{-1} \in g_1H \cup Hg_1$.
Within this configuration, we firstly consider the special case where $g_1^{-1} \in g_2H \cap Hg_2$. This says that the inverse of $g_i$ lies in the exact chessboard box of the other, so that $Hg_2^{-1} = Hg_1$ and $g_2^{-1}H = g_1H$ (by inverting we can see that the situation is symmetric with respect to $g_1$, $g_2$). Consider an empty right coset of the form $Hs_is_j^{\epsilon}$ where $\epsilon \in \{\pm 1\}$. In this subcase we have $$Hg_ig_j^{\epsilon} = Hg_j^{\epsilon - 1} \in {\{H , Hg_1, Hg_2\}}$$ In particular the empty coset $Hs_is_j^{\epsilon}$ must be of the form $Hg_ih_j^{\epsilon}$. By symmetry, we may assume $Hg_1h_1$ is empty. Applying the same argument to the left shows that there is an empty left coset of the form $h_k^{\delta}g_jH$ for $\delta \in \{ \pm 1 \}$.
If $j = 1$, then $g_1$ has a left and right sparse orbit (under the ${\langle h_1, h_2 \rangle}$ action) so we’re done by . So suppose $j = 2$. Hence $Hg_1h_1$, $h_k^{\epsilon}g_2H$ are the pair of empty cosets. This says that $g_1$ has a right-sparse orbit and $g_2$ has a left-sparse orbit.
If we are able to deduce that $g_1$, $g_2$ have the same left or right coset orbit (under the ${\langle h_1, h_2 \rangle}$ action) then we’re done, as this will imply that one of ${\{g_1, g_2\}}$ has a left and right sparse orbit.
To show this, consider the element $ x = g_1h_k^{\epsilon}g_2$. Immediately one can see that $x \notin g_1H \cup Hg_2$. Furthermore $x \notin H$, because otherwise we would have $h_k^{\epsilon}g_2H = g_1^{-1}H = g_2H$ which contradicts the emptiness of $h_k^{\epsilon}g_2H$. If $x$ lies diagonally to ${\{g_1, g_2\}}$, then we may extract via $h_k \mapsto g_1h_k^{\epsilon}g_2$. Else we have $x \in Hg_1$ or $x \in g_2H$ (considering the cases we have just eliminated). Examining both of these cases: $$x \in Hg_1 \iff Hg_1h_k^{\epsilon}g_2 = Hg_1 \implies Hg_1h_k^{\epsilon} = Hg_1g_2^{-1} = Hg_2^{-2}$$ $$x \in g_2H \iff g_1h_k^{\epsilon}g_2H = g_2H \implies h_k^{\epsilon}g_2H = g_1^{-1}g_2H = g_1^{-2}H$$ Recalling that $g_1$ and $g_2$ have exponent $3$, the two equations at the end of each line may be written as: $$Hg_1h_k^{\epsilon} = Hg_2$$ $$h_k^{\epsilon}g_2H = g_1H$$ Either case implies that $g_1,g_2$ have the same ${\langle h_1,h_2 \rangle}$-orbit as desired.
The above argument deals with the special case where neither inverse $g_1^{-1}$, $g_2^{-1}$ was diagonal to $S$, and the inverse of $g_2$ lies in $g_1H \cap Hg_1$. It remains to consider the case where $g_2^{-1} \in g_1H \Delta Hg_1$, where $\Delta$ denotes symmetric difference of sets. This implies that $g_1^{-1} \in g_2H \Delta Hg_2$. In particular: $$g_i^{-1} \in Hg_j \iff g_j^{-1} \in g_iH$$ Hence, without loss of generality we suppose $g_1^{-1} \in Hg_2 \smallsetminus g_2H$ and so $g_2^{-1} \in g_1H \smallsetminus Hg_1$; this is illustrated in . This figure shows two conventions which we adopt from here on: by a suitable permutation of the rows and columns of the chessboards, the inversion map corresponds to reflection in the main diagonal (this clarifies arguments in ), and that the elements outside of $S$ (prior to any of the transformations which might also be drawn) are underlined.
in [0,1,...,[3]{}]{} [ (, 0) – (, 3); ]{} in [0,1,...,[3]{}]{} [ (0, ) – (3,); ]{}
(0.5, 1.5) node [$g_1$]{}; (0.5, 0.5) node ; (1.5, 2.5) node ; (2.5, 2.5) node [$g_2$]{};
The main aim of the next calculation is to reduce this subcase to the situation dealt with earlier in Case III, where $g_1^{-1} \in g_2H \cap Hg_2$. Consider the element $y = g_2g_1^{-1}$. We note that $y \in Hg_1$, and $y \notin g_2H$. If $ y \notin g_1H$ then consider $g_1 \mapsto y$ (which is a Nielsen move). The set ${\{g_2, y\}}$ is still diagonal, but now $g_2^{-1}$ is diagonal to ${\{y, g_2\}}$, and so we’re done by . This is shown in for the case when $g_1$, $g_2$ belong to the same chessboard:
in [0,1,...,[4]{}]{} [ (, 0) – (, 4); ]{} in [0,1,...,[4]{}]{} [ (0, ) – (4,); ]{}
(0.5, 2.5) node [$g_1$]{}; (1.5, 3.5) node ; (0.5, 1.5) node ; (2.5, 3.5) node [$g_2$]{}; (3.5, 2.5) node ;
(0.5+0.2, 2.5+0.1) .. controls (0.5+0.2+0.3, 2.5+0.1+0.2) and (3.5-0.2-0.3, 2.5+0.1+0.2) .. (3.5-0.2, 2.5+0.1);
If, instead, $y$ belongs to $g_1H$ then $y \in g_1H\cap Hg_1$, and so $y^{-1} \in g_1^{-1}H \cap Hg_1^{-1}$. Making the Nielsen move $g_2 \mapsto y^{-1}$, we see that ${\{g_1, y^{-1}\}}$ is diagonal, and also $g_1^{-1} \in yH\cap Hy$, $y \in g_1H \cap Hg_1$ (in particular $y^{-1}$ doesn’t have exponent $2$). Either $y^{-1}$ has exponent greater than $3$, in which case we can extract by appealing to Case I, or $y^{-1}$ has exponent $3$, and we are done by the exact argument used in the first paragraph of Case III in which the inversion map swaps the boxes of the two elements of $S$ lying outside of $H$. We illustrate this in .
in [0,1,...,[3]{}]{} [ (-0.5, 0-0.5) – (-0.5, 3-0.5); ]{} in [0,1,...,[3]{}]{} [ (0-0.5, -0.5) – (3-0.5,-0.5); ]{}
(0, 1) node [$g_1$, ]{}; (0, 0) node ; (1, 2) node [, ]{}; (2, 2) node [$g_2$]{};
(2-0.1, 2+0.15) .. controls (2-0.1-0.2, 2+0.2+0.2) and (0.8+0.2, 2+0.2+0.2) .. (0.8, 2+0.1);
Case IV. {#case-iv. .unnumbered}
--------
Observe that an element $g_i$ of exponent $2$ satisfies $g_iH = g_i^{-1}H$, $Hg_i = Hg_i^{-1}$. From this it follows that having a one-sided sparse orbit is sufficient to have a left-right sparse orbit. For example if the orbit of $Hg_1$ is sparse, then $Hg_1x$ contains no entry of $S$ for some $x \in {\langle h_1, h_2 \rangle}$. Then if we consider the image of this right coset under the inversion map $x^{-1}g_1^{-1}H = x^{-1}g_1H$, and note that the set of full cosets (those containing at least one element of $S$) is preserved by inversion, it follows that $x^{-1}g_1H$ is empty and hence $g_1$ has a right-and-left sparse orbit. This is shown in . In light of this observation, we may suppose that no cosets of $g_1$, $g_2$ have sparse orbits (or else we may extract by ).
in [0,1,...,[3]{}]{} [ (-0.5, 0-0.5) – (-0.5, 3-0.5); ]{} in [0,1,...,[3]{}]{} [ (0-0.5, -0.5) – (3-0.5,-0.5); ]{}
(0, 0) node ; (0, 2) node [$g_1$, ]{}; (1, 1) node [$g_2$, ]{}; (2, 2) node ;
As always, there exists an empty right coset of the form $Hs_is_j^{\epsilon}$, where $s_i$, $s_j \in S$. It must be the case that $s_i \notin H$ (because $Hg_i^{\pm1} = Hg_i$ is clearly non-empty). Furthermore, because we have assumed to have no sparse orbits, it must also be the case that $s_j \notin {\{h_1, h_2\}}$. Hence there is an empty right coset of the form $Hg_ig_j^{\epsilon}$ (where $i$, $j$ are necessarily distinct). By symmetry between the $g_i$s and their inverses, we may suppose that $\epsilon = 1$, so that $Hg_1g_2$ is empty.
By assumption, sparse orbits do not exist, so $Hg_1g_2h_1$ is also empty. If $g_1g_2H$ is also empty, then $g_1g_2h_1$ lies diagonally to $S$ and hence the Nielsen transformation $h_1 \mapsto g_1g_2h_1$ is an extraction. If instead, $g_1g_2H$ contains an entry of $S$ then it must be the case that $g_2H = g_1g_2H$. This is because $H \neq Hg_1g_2 $ implies $H \neq g_1g_2H$, and $g_2H \neq H$ implies $g_1g_2H \neq g_1H$. The configuration is shown in . From the equations $g_1g_2H = g_2H = g_2^{-1}H$ it follows that $g_2g_1g_2 \in H$ and so $g_1(g_2g_1g_2) = (g_1g_2)^{2} \notin H$. It can be seen from , the Nielsen transformation ${\{g_1, g_2\}} \mapsto {\{g_1, g_1g_2\}}$ preserves diagonality and increases an exponent: $(g_1g_2)^{2} \notin H$. Hence our ability to extract from this configuration is covered by one of the cases I, II or III.
in [0,1,...,[3]{}]{} [ (-0.5, 0-0.5) – (-0.5, 3-0.5); ]{} in [0,1,...,[3]{}]{} [ (0-0.5, -0.5) – (3-0.5,-0.5); ]{}
(0,2) node [$g_1$]{}; (1,1) node [$g_2$]{}; (1,0) node ;
(1-0.15,1-0.1) .. controls (1-0.15-0.2,1-0.1-0.2) and (1-0.15-0.2,0+0.2+0.2) .. (1-0.15,0+0.2);
Results in the finite setting {#sec:finite-setting}
=============================
On closer inspection of and , we see that in each instance we are proving special cases of a slightly stronger question than . That is, it seems that the question we have been approaching so far is:
\[main Q\] Let $S$ be a generating set of minimal size in a finitely generated group $G$, and $H$ a finite index subgroup with $[G:H] {\geqslant}|S|.$ Is $S$ Nielsen equivalent to a set which extends to a left-right transversal of $H$ in $G$?
In fact, by examining our statements and proofs of and , the question we are making progress on is even tighter. We do not need to work with a generating set of minimal size; our results allow us to Nielsen transform any generating set of the group, provided that set has size no greater than $[G:H]$. That is:
\[general Q\] Let $S$ be a finite multiset generating a group $G$, and $H$ a finite index subgroup with $[G:H] {\geqslant}|S|$. Is $S$ Nielsen equivalent to a set which extends to a left-right transversal of $H$ in $G$?
We note that was raised in [@transgen], where it was also noted that an affirmative answer for general $G$ would be implied by an affirmative answer for the case when $G$ is a free group of finite rank. In this section we make a reduction in the opposite direction, to the case where $G$ is a finite group, and use some of our techniques to make progress in this setting.
As noted following , if $H$ is a finite index subgroup of $G$, then so is $N := \operatorname{Core}_G(H)$. We provide the following two elementary lemmata without proof.
\[lem:lem1\_np\] Let $H{\leqslant}G$, and let $N:= \operatorname{Core}_G(H)$. Because $N {\leqslant}H$, there is a natural bijection between left (right) cosets of $H/N$ in $G/N$, and left (right) cosets of $H$ in $G$. It follows that two elements of $G/N$ belong to the same left (right) coset of $H/N$ if and only if any two representatives of the elements lie in the same left (right) cosets of $H$ in $G$.
\[lem:lem2\_np\] Let $N\trianglelefteq G$. Given a set $S$ in $G/N$, and a corresponding set of representatives $\tilde{S}\subset G$, any Nielsen transformation $S \rightarrow S_1 $ has a naturally corresponding Nielsen transformation $\tilde{S} \rightarrow \tilde{S_1}$, which commutes with the natural projection map $G \rightarrow G/N$. Explicitly, a Nielsen move on $S$ can be replicated on $\tilde{S}$ by performing the same move on the corresponding representatives.
The reason that and do not allow us to reduce the question to the case where $G$ is finite is because the homomorphic image of minimal generating set is not necessarily a *minimal* generating set. To get around this, we note that at no point in the previous sections do the arguments rely on the minimality of the generating set. That is, our results thus far make just as much progress towards the slightly more general .
Clearly an affirmative answer to would imply the same for . It is enough to answer in the case where $G$ is finite.
\[finite reduction\] has an affirmative answer whenever $G$ is finite, if and only if it has an affirmative answer for all $G$.
Suppose that the answer to is ‘yes’ whenever $G$ is finite. Let $G$ be arbitrary, $H$ a finite index subgroup and $S$ a generating multiset in $G$.
Letting $\overline{G}$ denote quotient by $\operatorname{Core}_G(H)$, $\overline{G}$ is a finite group containing the multiset $\overline{S}$ which generates $\overline{G}$. By assumption there is a Nielsen transformation $\overline{S} \mapsto \overline{S}_1$, such that $\overline{S}_1$ is a set of elements which each lie in distinct left and right cosets of $\overline{H}$. By , we may perform a corresponding Nielsen transformation $S \mapsto S_1$. Because this correspondence commutes with the map $G \rightarrow \overline{G}$, it follows from that the elements of $S_1$ each lie in distinct left and right cosets of $G$.
Thus, while we cannot reduce our motivating question () to the finite case, we can reduce the question that we would like to answer () to the finite case. With this reduction in mind, we now present two results for the case where $G$ is finite which give affirmative answers to when $H$ is cyclic or the product of two prime-order cyclic groups. The first argument is completely elementary whilst the second relies on .
\[lem:cyclic-nielsen\] Suppose $H$ is a finite cyclic group of order $n$ and ${\{x,y\}} \subset H$. Then ${\{x,y\}}$ is Nielsen equivalent to a set containing the identity, $e$.
Assume that $H = {\langle g \rangle}$ and that $x = g^a, y = g^b$ for $a,b \in {\{0,1,\ldots, n-1\}}$ and $a{\geqslant}b$. Then we can perform Euclid’s algorithm: if $b \ne 0$ take $q \in \mathbb{N}$ such that $|a-qb|< b$ and do the sequence of Nielsen moves: $${\{x,y\}} \mapsto {\{xy^{-1},y\}} \mapsto \ldots \mapsto {\{xy^{-q},y\}}$$ Then, we can change the roles of $x$ and $y$ with $y$ and $xy^{-q}$, and proceed with the algorithm.
The minimal positive exponent of $g$ appearing in the set strictly decreases on each iteration, and so this process terminates at ${\{g^{\gcd(a,b)},g^0\}} = {\{z,e\}}$.
We apply this lemma to answer when $H$ is cyclic.
Let $G$ be a finite group, and $H{\leqslant}G$ be a cyclic subgroup. Any generating multiset $S$ such that $|S|{\leqslant}[G:H]$ can be Nielsen transformed into a set contained in a left-right transversal of $H$ in $G$.
By left-right cleaning, we may suppose that $S$ is a disjoint union of: 1) a multiset whose elements are in $H$, and 2) a left-right diagonal set of elements outside of $H$.
If $|S\cap H| = 1$, then the set is already diagonal with respect to $H$. Hence we may assume that there are at least two elements, $x, y \in S\cap H$. According to , we can Nielsen transform ${\{x,y\}}$ to a pair ${\{z,e\}}$ for some $z\in H$. Therefore we can assume $e \in S\cap H$.
By assumption, $S$ generates $G$, so every element of $G$ can be written as a product of elements of $S$. Pick an element $g \in G$ that lies diagonally to $S$ (such an element exists by the index condition). $g$ can be written as a product of non-trivial elements of $S$, say $s_{i_1}s_{i_2}\ldots s_{i_n}$ Thus, the series $$e \mapsto e\cdot s_{i_1} \mapsto s_{i_1}\cdot s_{i_2} \mapsto \ldots \mapsto s_{i_1}s_{i_2}\ldots s_{i_{n-1}}\cdot s_{i_n}$$ is a series of valid Nielsen moves. This sequence of Nielsen moves amounts to a left-right extraction of an element of $S\cap H$. We may repeat this until $|S \cap H| = 1$.
It is immediate from the reduction method of that the corresponding result which doesn’t require $|G| < \infty$ is:
Let $G$ be a group with finite generating set $S$, and $H$ a finite index subgroup such that $[G:H] {\geqslant}|S|$. If $H/\operatorname{Core}_G(H) \cong C_n$ for some $n {\geqslant}1$, then $S$ is Nielsen equivalent to a set contained in a left-right transversal of $H$ in $G$.
A similar corollary follows from the next proposition.
\[lem:CpxCp\] Let $G$ be a finite group, and $H {\leqslant}G$ such that $H \cong C_p \times C_p$ for some prime $p$. Suppose $S$ is a generating multiset in $G$ such that $[G : H] {\geqslant}|S|$. Then $S$ is a Nielsen-equivalent to a set contained in a left-right transversal of $H$ in $G$.
We use the following property of $C_p \times C_p$: any two non-trivial elements either generate the whole group or are powers of each other. To see this, take $x, y \in C_p\times C_p$ and suppose they are not both trivial. If they don’t generate the entire group, they belong to a proper non-trivial subgroup. Such a subgroup is necessarily $C_p$ and so any non-trivial element (in particular one of $x$ and $y$) generates it.
As usual we may suppose $S$ is left-right clean. If $|S\cap H| = 1 $, we’re done. Else, suppose we have a distinct pair $x, y \in S \cap H$. Suppose ${\langle x, y \rangle} \neq H$. Then by the first remark we (w.l.o.g) have $x = y^k$ for some $k {\geqslant}0$, and we can perform a sequence of Nielsen moves resulting in $x \mapsto x y^{-k} = e$. As in the proof of , we can left-right extract $e$ from $S\cap H$. Hence we may suppose ${\langle x, y \rangle} = H$. It follows that ${\langle S\cap H \rangle}$ acts transitively on the rows and columns of any chessboard.
Because $[G: H] {\geqslant}|S|$, there is a chessboard with a row and column not containing any element of $S$. Furthermore, we may suppose that there is such a chessboard which also contains an element of $S$ (otherwise, we may easily extract to the empty row of the form $Hs_is_j^{\epsilon}$ as in , which would also be a left-right extraction). It follows that the element of $S$ in this chessboard has a sparse ${\langle S \cap H \rangle}$ orbit on the left and the right, and so we may perform a left-right extraction by .
Further techniques and constructions {#sec: configurations}
====================================
Motivated by the method of shifting boxes, we introduce some new techniques along a similar vein which help us resolve more special cases of and . In contrast to the extraction methods, which are useful in the situations of having relatively few elements of the multiset, these new techniques work well when the elements in chessboards are ‘packed densely’.
This section concerns a technique called an *L-spin* of transforming particular configurations with a specific Nielsen transformation. The technique rests heavily on the fact that the inversion map induces a canonical bijection between the left and right cosets of a given subgroup as described in .
In this section we will always take $G$ to be an arbitrary group and $H{\leqslant}G$ a finite index subgroup. We will consider subsets of the chessboards of $H$ in $G$, given as follows:
\[defn:configuration\] Given $H{\leqslant}G$ and a multiset $S$ of elements of the group $G$, we define a *configuration* to be a table $T$ representing intersections of cosets $a_iH\cap Hb_j$ for some sets of cosets $\{a_1H,\ldots, a_lH\}$, $\{Hb_1, \ldots, Hb_k\}$, and a submultiset $R\subset S$, such that all elements of $R$ belong to the coset intersections described by the table $T$. We represent the elements by either writing them in the corresponding boxes in the table, or putting dots representing them in the boxes. Sometimes we also denote some arbitrary elements of $G$, not necessarily belonging to the multiset $R$, by writing them in the corresponding boxes underlined or represented by hollow dots.
We can think of a configuration as “choosing some rows and columns of a chessboard”; an example of what a configuration can be is given in . An important property of configurations is that if two elements of a chessboard lie in the same row/column and both of them feature in the configuration, then they lie in the same row/column in the configuration too. Similarly, if two elements lie in the same row/column of the configuration, then they lie in the same row/column of the chessboard.
in [0,1,...,[4]{}]{} [ (0,) – ([4]{},); ]{} in [0,1,...,[4]{}]{} [ (,0) – (,[4]{}); ]{} (4.5,2) – (5.5,2);
in [0,1,...,[3]{}]{} [ (0+6.5,+0.5) – ([2]{}+6.5,+0.5); ]{} in [0,1,...,[2]{}]{} [ (+6.5,0+0.5) – (+6.5,[3]{}+0.5); ]{} (-0.5,3.5) node [$Ha_1$]{}; (-0.5,2.5) node [$Ha_2$]{}; (-0.5,0.5) node [$Ha_3$]{}; (0.5,4.2) node [$b_1H$]{}; (2.5,4.2) node [$b_2H$]{};
(6,3) node [$Ha_1$]{}; (6,2) node [$Ha_2$]{}; (6,1) node [$Ha_3$]{}; (7,3.7) node [$b_1H$]{}; (8,3.7) node [$b_2H$]{};
(0.5,3.5) circle (3.5pt); (1.5,3.5) circle (3.5pt); (1.5,1.5) circle (3.5pt); (2.3,3.5) circle (3.5pt); (2.7,3.5) circle (3.5pt); (2.5,2.5) circle (3.5pt); (3.5,2.5) circle (3.5pt); (3.5,0.5) circle (3.5pt);
(7,3) circle (3.5pt); (7.8,3) circle (3.5pt); (8.2,3) circle (3.5pt); (8,2) circle (3.5pt);
L-spins
-------
We start with an elementary result on configurations, which allows us to define the L-spin – a useful technique. It applies to the configuration shown in , where $a,b,c$ are elements of $G$ belonging to the multiset $S$.
in [0,1,...,[2]{}]{} [ (0,) – ([2]{},); ]{} in [0,1,...,[2]{}]{} [ (,0) – (,[2]{}); ]{} (0.5,1.5) node [$b$]{}; (0.5,0.5) node [$c$]{}; (1.5,1.5) node [$a$]{}; (1.5,0.5) node ;
\[lem:above\] Given a configuration of a multiset $R$ in a table $T$, if there are elements $a,b,c\in R$ such that $a,b$ belong to the same row (right $H$ coset) and $b,c$ belong to the same column (left $H$ coset), then the element $ab^{-1}c$ lies in the same column as $a$ and the same row as $c$. Furthermore, we can perform Nielsen moves substituting any of the elements of the multiset $\{a,b,c\}$ with $ab^{-1}c$.
If $Ha = Hb$ and $bH=cH$, then $ab^{-1}\in H$ and $b^{-1}c\in H$. This means that $ab^{-1}cH = aH$ and that $Hab^{-1}c = Hc$. Thus indeed $ab^{-1}c$ lies in the column of $a$ and the row of $c$. Also, any of the following is a sequence of Nielsen moves: $$\{a,b,c\} \mapsto \{ab^{-1},b,c\} \mapsto \{ab^{-1}c,b,c\}$$ $$\{a,b,c\} \mapsto \{a,b,b^{-1}c\} \mapsto \{a,b,ab^{-1}c\}$$ $$\{a,b,c\} \mapsto \{a,b^{-1},c\} \mapsto \{a,ab^{-1},c\} \mapsto \{a,ab^{-1}c,c\}$$
This motivates the following definition.
\[defn:L-spin\] Given the configuration from (i.e. $Ha=Hb$, $bH=cH$), we call the transformation substituting an element of the multiset $\{a,b,c\}$ with the element $ab^{-1}c$ an *L-spin*.
Visually, an L-spin corresponds to rotating the L-shape formed in the table by the three elements $a,b,c$ in the configuration in question. This is shown in .
in [0,1,...,[2]{}]{} [ (0,) – ([2]{},); ]{} in [0,1,...,[2]{}]{} [ (,0) – (,[2]{}); ]{} (0.5,1.5) circle (3.5pt); (0.5,0.5) circle (3.5pt); (1.5,1.5) circle (3.5pt); (1.5,0.5) circle (3.5pt); (0.5,0.5) – (0.5,1.5); (0.5,1.5) – (1.5,1.5);
(2.5,1) – (3.5,1);
in [0,1,...,[2]{}]{} [ (0+4,) – ([2]{}+4,); ]{} in [0,1,...,[2]{}]{} [ (+4,0) – (+4,[2]{}); ]{} (0.5+4,1.5) circle (3.5pt); (0.5+4,0.5) circle (3.5pt); (1.5+4,1.5) circle (3.5pt); (1.5+4,0.5) circle (3.5pt); (0.5+4,1.5) – (1.5+4,1.5); (1.5+4,0.5) – (1.5+4,1.5);
If some of $a,b,c$ happen to lie in the same box, we can still perform an operation of the above form. We call such a move a *degenerate L-spin*, since the visual representation is somewhat different – one of the dots in a box with two dots moves to a different non-empty box in the same column/row. This is shown in .
in [0,1,...,[2]{}]{} [ (0,) – ([2]{},); ]{} in [0,1,...,[2]{}]{} [ (,0) – (,[2]{}); ]{} (0.33,1.5) circle (3.5pt); (0.33,0.5) circle (3.5pt); (0.66,0.5) circle (3.5pt); (0.66,1.5) circle (3.5pt); (0.33,0.5) – (0.66,0.5); (0.33,1.5) – (0.33,0.5);
(2.5,1) – (3.5,1);
in [0,1,...,[2]{}]{} [ (0+4,) – ([2]{}+4,); ]{} in [0,1,...,[2]{}]{} [ (+4,0) – (+4,[2]{}); ]{} (0.33+4,1.5) circle (3.5pt); (0.33+4,0.5) circle (3.5pt); (0.66+4,0.5) circle (3.5pt); (0.66+4,1.5) circle (3.5pt); (0.33+4,0.5) – (0.33+4,1.5); (0.33+4,1.5) – (0.66+4,1.5);
There is a similar, but more powerful construction if the chessboard containing the configuration is self-inverse. This is because it requires a configuration of only two elements instead of three.
Suppose that the element $a$ has $H$-exponent $2$ and that $b\in aH$. Then, the element $b^{-1}ab$ belongs to the row of $b$ and the column of $b^{-1}$. Furthermore, we can make a sequence of Nielsen moves transforming $\{a,b\}$ to $\{b^{-1}ab,b\}$. \[lem:loop-shift\]
The configuration is presented in . Firstly, if $a$ is of exponent $2$, then $a^2\in H$ and so $a^2H = H$, which implies $aH=a^{-1}H$. Similarly for the right cosets: $Ha = Ha^{-1}$. Also, $a\notin H$, so the box of $a$ is definitely outside $H$. The configuration is presented in . Looking at the element $b^{-1}ab$ we see that it belongs to $b^{-1}H$ since $a^{-1}$ and $b$ lie in the same column; it also belongs to $Hb$ as $a$ and $b$ lie in the same column. Then we can perform the Nielsen transformations: $$\{a,b\} \mapsto \{b^{-1} a,b\} \mapsto \{b^{-1}a^{-1}b,b\}$$
in [0,1,...,[2]{}]{} [ (0,) – ([2]{},); ]{} in [0,1,...,[2]{}]{} [ (,0) – (,[2]{}); ]{} (0.33,1.5) circle (3.5pt); (0.33-0.16,1.5-0.2) node [$a$]{}; (0.66,1.5) circle (3.5pt); (0.66+0.16,1.5-0.23) node ; (1.5,1.5) circle (3.5pt); (1.5-0.16,1.5-0.23) node ; (0.5,0.5) circle (3.5pt); (0.5-0.16,0.5-0.16) node [$b$]{}; (1.5,0.5) circle (3.5pt); (1.5,0.5-0.23) node ;
(2.5,1) – (3.5,1);
in [0,1,...,[2]{}]{} [ (0+4,) – ([2]{}+4,); ]{} in [0,1,...,[2]{}]{} [ (+4,0) – (+4,[2]{}); ]{} (0.33+4,1.5) circle (3.5pt); (0.66+4,1.5) circle (3.5pt); (1.5+4,1.5) circle (3.5pt); (0.5+4,0.5) circle (3.5pt); (1.5+4,0.5) circle (3.5pt);
Non self-inverse chessboards {#sec:non-self-inverse-chessboards}
----------------------------
In this section we investigate subgroups which posses some non self-inverse chessboards. Recall which says that a generating set of size equal to $[G:H]$ can be Nielsen transformed to a full left transversal.
Let $S$ be a left transversal for $H$ (which is a set of elements in distinct columns). Given $g \in G$, we define a *$g$-section of $S$* to be the set $S_g := HgH \cap S$.
The reason we have defined $g$-sections is that if $HgH$ isn’t a self-inverse chessboard (i.e. $HgH \neq Hg^{-1}H$), given a left transversal $S$ we can look at the set $S_{g^{-1}}^{-1}$, interpreted as $(S_{g^{-1}})^{-1}$. Its elements are inverses of the elements of the $g^{-1}$-section $S_{g^{-1}}$ of $S$. Then, since $S_{g^{-1}}$ is left-diagonal (i.e. no two elements in the same left coset), the set $S_{g^{-1}}^{-1}$ is a right-diagonal set inside $HgH$.
The following definition will be useful in the proof of the next lemma, as well as in later sections.
Given a configuration $S$ we define the *graph of $S$* to be a graph whose vertices are elements of $S$ (with multiplicity). The edges are defined in the following way: for each row put an edge between every pair of elements lying in that row (call these *horizontal edges*) and for each column put an edge between every pair of elements lying in that column (call them *vertical edges*). We denote the graph by $\Sigma_S$. An example of how such a graph is created can be found in .
\[lem: solvable\] Let $HgH \ne Hg^{-1}H$. Let $S$ be a multiset of elements in $HgH$ such that each row and each column contains exactly two elements of $S$. Then we can partition $S$ into two multisets $A$ and $B$ such that $A \cup B^{-1}$ is a left-right diagonal set with respect to $H {\leqslant}G$.
in [0,1,...,[4]{}]{} [ (0,) – ([4]{},); ]{} in [0,1,...,[4]{}]{} [ (,0) – (,[4]{}); ]{} (0.5,3.5) circle (3.5pt); (1.5,3.5) circle (3.5pt); (1.5,2.5) circle (3.5pt); (1.5,0.5) circle (3.5pt); (2.5,2.5) circle (3.5pt); (3.33,1.5) circle (3.5pt); (3.66,1.5) circle (3.5pt);
(0.5-0.16,3.5-0.16) node [$v_1$]{}; (1.5-0.16,3.5-0.16) node [$v_2$]{}; (1.5-0.16,2.5-0.16) node [$v_3$]{}; (1.5-0.16,0.5-0.16) node [$v_4$]{}; (2.5-0.16,2.5-0.16) node [$v_5$]{}; (3.33-0.16,1.5-0.16) node [$v_6$]{}; (3.66+0.16,1.5-0.16) node [$v_7$]{};
(0.5+6-0.5-1,3.5) – (1.5+6-1,3.5); (1.5+6-1,3.5) – (1.5+6-0.5-1,2.5); (1.5+6-1,3.5) – (1.5+6-1,0.5); (1.5+6-0.5-1,2.5) – (1.5+6-1,0.5); (1.5+6-0.5-1,2.5) – (2.5+6-1,2.5); (3.33+6-1,1.5) .. controls (3.33+6+0.2-1,1.5+0.2) and (3.66+6.5-0.2-1,1.5+0.2) .. (3.66+6.5-1,1.5); (3.33+6-1,1.5) .. controls (3.33+6+0.2-1,1.5-0.2) and (3.66+6.5-0.2-1,1.5-0.2) .. (3.66+6.5-1,1.5);
(0.5+6-0.5-1,3.5) circle (3.5pt); (0.5-0.16+6-0.5-1,3.5-0.16) node [$v_1$]{}; (1.5+6-1,3.5) circle (3.5pt); (1.5+0.16+6-1,3.5-0.16) node [$v_2$]{}; (1.5+6-0.5-1,2.5) circle (3.5pt); (1.5-0.16+6-0.5-1,2.5-0.16) node [$v_3$]{}; (1.5+6-1,0.5) circle (3.5pt); (1.5-0.16+6-1,0.5-0.16) node [$v_4$]{}; (2.5+6-1,2.5) circle (3.5pt); (2.5+0.16+6-1,2.5-0.16) node [$v_5$]{}; (3.33+6-1,1.5) circle (3.5pt); (3.33-0.16+6-1,1.5-0.16) node [$v_6$]{}; (3.66+6.5-1,1.5) circle (3.5pt); (3.66+0.16+6.5-1,1.5-0.16) node [$v_7$]{};
Firstly, the graph $\Sigma_{S}$ is a union of disjoint cycles. This is because every column and every row of $HgH$ contains exactly two elements of $S$, so for every element of $S$ there exists precisely one element in the same column and precisely one element in the same row. Any graph in which every vertex is of degree $2$ is a union of disjoint cycles.
Now, since each column and row contains only two elements, two consecutive edges can’t be both horizontal or both vertical. Thus, all of the cycles of $\Sigma_{S}$ are of even length, so the graph is bipartite. Let’s take $A$ and $B$ to be the sets of elements of $S$ corresponding to the bipartite components of $\Sigma_{S}$.
In such a setting, in each of the rows and columns there is exactly one element of $A$ and one element of $B$, which means that both $A$ and $B$ are left-right diagonal sets. This in turn means that $A\cup B^{-1}$ is a left-right diagonal set, since $A \subset HgH$ and $B^{-1} \subset Hg^{-1}H$ while because of the assumption that $HgH \neq Hg^{-1}H$, we have $HgH \cap Hg^{-1}H = \emptyset$.
This gives the following corollary.
Suppose that $G$ has no self-inverse chessboards with respect to $H$ other than $H$ itself, and that $S$ is a left transversal such that for each $g \in G$ not in $H$, $S' = S_g \cup S_{g^{-1}}^{-1}$ satisfies the following condition: each row and column of $HgH$ contains exactly two elements of $S'$. Then, $S$ is Nielsen equivalent to a left-right transversal for $H$. \[cor:trans-solv\]
Let $S$ be as in the statement of the corollary. For each pair of inverse chessboards $HgH, Hg^{-1}H$, we can move all of the elements in these chessboards to just one of them using the inversion map, transforming $S_g\cup S_{g^{-1}}$ to $S_g \cup S_{g^{-1}}^{-1}$, which by the assumption is a configuration with two elements in each row and two elements in each column. By this can be partitioned into two multisets $A$ and $B$ such that $A\cup B^{-1}$ is diagonal with respect to $H$. After transforming $S_{g}\cup S_{g^{-1}} = A\cup B$ to $A\cup B^{-1}$, we obtain a diagonal set in the two chessboards $HgH$ and $Hg^{-1}H$. Doing this for each pair of inverse chessboards, we get a full left-right diagonal set (i.e. a left-right transversal).
### Normal form of configurations {#sec:normal-form}
In this section we will present a normal form of a configuration in a chessboard, meaning a representative of the equivalence class of configurations obtainable from a given one by performing L-spins. We start with a definition.
Let $S$ be a configuration. The connected components of its graph $\Sigma_S$ are called *connected components* (or just *components*) of the configuration. We call a configuration *connected* if it has only one connected component.
It is clear that two elements of the configuration lying in the same row or column are in the same connected component, so the sets of rows and columns are partitioned as $R=\cup_{i=1}^k R_i$, $C=\cup_{i=1}^k C_i$ (where $R_i$ is a set of rows for each $i$, similarly $C_i$ is a set of columns) with:
- The elements of $S$ lying in $R_i\times C_i$ form a connected component.
- There are no elements in $R_i\times C_j$ for $i\neq j$,
where by $R_i\times C_j$ we mean the union of boxes lying in the rows belonging to $R_i$ and at the same time lying in the columns belonging to $C_j$.
We can perform permutations on the rows and columns to get a situation where $R_i$’s and $C_j$’s consist of consecutive rows and columns and the top-left boxes of $R_i\times C_i$ are not empty. An example showing the connected components is in there, the partition is as follows. $$R_1 = {\{1,2\}}, \ R_2 = {\{3,4\}}, \ R_3 = {\{5\}}, \ C_1 = {\{1\}}, \ C_2 = {\{2,3,4\}}, \ C_3 = {\{5\}}$$
in [0,1,...,[5]{}]{} [ (0,) – ([5]{},); ]{} in [0,1,...,[5]{}]{} [ (,0) – (,[5]{}); ]{}
(0.5,4.5) circle (3.5pt); (0.33,3.5) circle (3.5pt); (0.66,3.5) circle (3.5pt); (1.5,2.5) circle (3.5pt); (2.5,2.5) circle (3.5pt); (3.5,2.5) circle (3.5pt); (2.5,1.5) circle (3.5pt); (4.5,0.5) circle (3.5pt);
(0,5) – (0,3) – (1,3) – (1,5) – (0,5); (1,3) – (1,1) – (4,1) – (4,3) – (1,3); (4,1) – (4,0) – (5,0) – (5,1) – (4,1);
The following is an important observation.
\[prop:connectedness L-spins\] L-spins don’t change the connectedness of configurations in a chessboard.
We use the notation as in . In the case of a degenerate L-spin the result is clear since non-empty boxes before the L-spin are precisely those that are non-empty after the L-spin. In the case of a non-degenerate L-spin, note that the image of $c$ lies in the same column of $a$. Thus if our configuration were connected initially, the component containing the image of $c$ contains both $a$ and $b$, and so it remains connected.
We can therefore focus our attention on the connected components. We want to transform a given configuration into a particularly ordered one.
Let’s consider a single connected component $D$, and let $s$ be one of its elements. By permuting the columns and rows, we can assume that it is in the top left box. Then, if in the graph $\Sigma_D$ of $D$ there are any vertices of distance $2$ (in the graph $\Sigma_{D}$) from $s$, we can transform $D$ by an L-spin, decreasing the distance from $s$ to $1$, as shown in .
in [0,1,...,[2]{}]{} [ (0,) – ([2]{},); ]{} in [0,1,...,[2]{}]{} [ (,0) – (,[2]{}); ]{} (0.5,1.5) circle (3.5pt); (0.5-0.2,1.5-0.2) node [$s$]{}; (1.5,1.5) circle (3.5pt); (1.5,0.5) circle (3.5pt);
(2.5,1) – (3.5,1);
in [0,1,...,[2]{}]{} [ (0+4,) – ([2]{}+4,); ]{} in [0,1,...,[2]{}]{} [ (+4,0) – (+4,[2]{}); ]{} (0.5+4,1.5) circle (3.5pt); (0.5-0.2+4,1.5-0.2) node [$s$]{}; (0.5+4,0.5) circle (3.5pt); (1.5+4,1.5) circle (3.5pt);
As the process doesn’t increase the distance from $s$ of any elements, applying this repeatedly we can get to a point where all elements are of distance $1$ away from each other in $\Sigma_D$. Then, if there is a box, other than the top-left corner, such that there are at least two elements in it, we perform a degenerate L-spin to put the additional element in the top-left corner as shown in the .
in [0,1,...,[2]{}]{} [ (0,) – ([2]{},); ]{} in [0,1,...,[2]{}]{} [ (,0) – (,[2]{}); ]{} (0.5,1.5) circle (3.5pt); (0.5-0.2,1.5-0.2) node [$s$]{}; (1.33,1.5) circle (3.5pt); (1.66,1.5) circle (3.5pt);
(2.5,1) – (3.5,1);
in [0,1,...,[2]{}]{} [ (0+4,) – ([2]{}+4,); ]{} in [0,1,...,[2]{}]{} [ (+4,0) – (+4,[2]{}); ]{} (0.33+4,1.5) circle (3.5pt); (0.33-0.2+4,1.5-0.2) node [$s$]{}; (0.66+4,1.5) circle (3.5pt); (1.5+4,1.5) circle (3.5pt);
This leads us to define the normal form of a connected configuration.
\[defn:config-nf\] A connected configuration $S$ is said to be in its *normal form* if all the elements of $S$ are in the first row/column, with at most $1$ element in each such box, aside from potentially the top left corner box. We also enforce that the non-empty boxes all lie next to each other (i.e. permute rows/columns such that there are no gaps).
An example of a normal form is given in .
in [0,1,...,[3]{}]{} [ (0,) – ([3]{},); ]{} in [0,1,...,[3]{}]{} [ (,0) – (,[3]{}); ]{} (0.25,2.5) circle (3.5pt); (0.5,2.5) circle (3.5pt); (0.75,2.5) circle (3.5pt); (1.5,2.5) circle (3.5pt); (2.5,2.5) circle (3.5pt); (0.5,1.5) circle (3.5pt);
Finally, we introduce the following.
Two configurations are said to be *L-spin equivalent* if there exists a series of L-spins, and possibly permutation of rows and columns, transforming one configuration into the other.
The next immediate result helps us in classifying the configuration.
\[prop:L-spin form determined\] Let $C$ and $D$ be two L-spin equivalent configurations. Then they have the same:
1. number of elements,
2. connected components,
3. numbers of rows and columns.
1\) is immediate from the definition of an L-spin. 2) is a consequence of . 3) comes from the fact that if a column contains an element taking part in an L-spin, after the L-spin either the element in the column isn’t transformed or it is transformed to a new element, but lying in the same column. The same applies to rows.
Every connected configuration is L-spin equivalent to a unique normal form.
We proved that there is some normal form that a configuration is L-spin equivalent to in the course of defining normal forms. On the other hand, a normal form is determined by the number of its columns, the number of its rows and the number of its elements, neither of which is changed by L-spins (by ) or by permutation of rows or columns.
### Solvable configurations {#sec:solvable_non-self-inverse}
In light of , we make the following definition.
A configuration is called *solvable* if it is L-spin equivalent to a configuration with exactly two elements in each row and in each column.
The term ‘solvable’ is motivated by the observation in that if the left transversal $S$ has the property that for each $g \in G$ the multiset $S_g \cup S_{g^{-1}}^{-1}$ is in a solvable configuration, then $S$ can be Nielsen transformed to a left-right transversal.
The normal forms provide a useful criterion for determining when a configuration is solvable.
\[prop:solv\] A connected configuration $S$ of $2n$ elements is solvable if and only if it has exactly $n$ rows and $n$ columns. In general, a configuration is solvable if and only if each of its connected components is solvable.
From hereon we call connected solvable components *square*.
The ‘only if’ direction is due to the fact that if the number of element in every row and in every column is $2$, then the total number of elements is equal to twice the number of rows and equal to twice the number of columns (which thus have to be equal).
For the ‘if’ direction, we will give an explicit transformation, constructed of the L-spins taking an element in top left corner to the bottom right corner, as shown in .
in [0,1,...,[2]{}]{} [ (0,) – ([2]{},); ]{} in [0,1,...,[2]{}]{} [ (,0) – (,[2]{}); ]{} (0.5,1.5) circle (3.5pt); (1.5,1.5) circle (3.5pt); (0.5,0.5) circle (3.5pt);
(2.5,1) – (3.5,1);
in [0,1,...,[2]{}]{} [ (0+4,) – ([2]{}+4,); ]{} in [0,1,...,[2]{}]{} [ (+4,0) – (+4,[2]{}); ]{} (1.5+4,0.5) circle (3.5pt); (0.5+4,0.5) circle (3.5pt); (1.5+4,1.5) circle (3.5pt);
For the descriptions of transformations we assume the convention that the top left corner is a box with coordinates $(1,1)$.
In the first move we apply the described L-spin to move one element from box $(1,1)$ to box $(2,2)$ (we use the fact that the boxes $(1,2)$ and $(2,1)$ contain some elements).
In the $i^{th}$ move (where $2{\leqslant}i {\leqslant}n-1$), we move the elements in boxes $(1,i), (2, i-1), \ldots, (i,1)$ to boxes $(2,i+1), (3, i+2), \ldots, (i+1,2)$. Because there are elements in boxes $(1,i+1),(2,i+2), \ldots, (i+1,1)$ we can perform these L-spins. This is shown pictorially in .
The configuration that we get in the end has exactly two elements in every row and in every column, which is what we needed. We provide an indicative illustration of this in .
in [0,1,...,[4]{}]{} [ (0,) – ([4]{},); ]{} in [0,1,...,[4]{}]{} [ (,0) – (,[4]{}); ]{} (0.33,3.5) circle (3.5pt); (0.66,3.5) circle (3.5pt); (0.5,2.5) circle (3.5pt); (0.5,1.5) circle (3.5pt); (0.5,0.5) circle (3.5pt); (1.5,3.5) circle (3.5pt); (2.5,3.5) circle (3.5pt); (3.5,3.5) circle (3.5pt);
(0.33,3.5) .. controls (0.33,3.5-0.5) and (1.5-0.5,2.5) .. (1.5,2.5);
(4.5,2) – (5.5,2);
in [0,1,...,[4]{}]{} [ (0+6,) – ([4]{}+6,); ]{} in [0,1,...,[4]{}]{} [ (+6,0) – (+6,[4]{}); ]{} (0.5+6,3.5) circle (3.5pt); (1.5+6,2.5) circle (3.5pt); (0.5+6,2.5) circle (3.5pt); (0.5+6,1.5) circle (3.5pt); (0.5+6,0.5) circle (3.5pt); (1.5+6,3.5) circle (3.5pt); (2.5+6,3.5) circle (3.5pt); (3.5+6,3.5) circle (3.5pt);
(0.5+6,2.5) .. controls (0.5+6,2.5-0.5) and (1.5+6-0.5,1.5) .. (1.5+6,1.5); (1.5+6,3.5) .. controls (1.5+6,3.5-0.5) and (2.5+6-0.5,2.5) .. (2.5+6,2.5);
(4.5+6,2) – (5.5+6,2);
(-1.5,2-5) – (-0.5,2-5);
in [0,1,...,[4]{}]{} [ (0,-5) – ([4]{},-5); ]{} in [0,1,...,[4]{}]{} [ (,0-5) – (,[4]{}-5); ]{} (0.5,3.5-5) circle (3.5pt); (1.5,1.5-5) circle (3.5pt); (2.5,2.5-5) circle (3.5pt); (0.5,1.5-5) circle (3.5pt); (0.5,0.5-5) circle (3.5pt); (1.5,2.5-5) circle (3.5pt); (2.5,3.5-5) circle (3.5pt); (3.5,3.5-5) circle (3.5pt);
(0.5,1.5-5) .. controls (0.5,1.5-5-0.5) and (1.5-0.5,0.5-5) .. (1.5,0.5-5); (1.5,2.5-5) .. controls (1.5,2.5-5-0.5) and (2.5-0.5,1.5-5) .. (2.5,1.5-5); (2.5,3.5-5) .. controls (2.5,3.5-5-0.5) and (3.5-0.5,2.5-5) .. (3.5,2.5-5);
(4.5,2-5) – (5.5,2-5);
in [0,1,...,[4]{}]{} [ (0+6,-5) – ([4]{}+6,-5); ]{} in [0,1,...,[4]{}]{} [ (+6,0-5) – (+6,[4]{}-5); ]{} (0.5+6,3.5-5) circle (3.5pt); (0.5+6,0.5-5) circle (3.5pt); (1.5+6,0.5-5) circle (3.5pt); (1.5+6,1.5-5) circle (3.5pt); (2.5+6,1.5-5) circle (3.5pt); (2.5+6,2.5-5) circle (3.5pt); (3.5+6,2.5-5) circle (3.5pt); (3.5+6,3.5-5) circle (3.5pt);
Self-inverse chessboards {#sec:self-inverse-chessboards}
------------------------
\[rem:self-inverse\] In the case of a self-inverse chessboard $HgH=Hg^{-1}H$ we have a very different setting — the inversion map won’t enable us to move more elements into that chessboard. However, it gives us an additional operation in a given chessboard, apart from the L-spin. Note that without the inversion, when starting with a left transversal, we couldn’t perform any L-spins — this is since every column contained a single element.
### Inverse-dual graphs
We now give a convenient way of describing what happens with self-inverse chessboards. It turns out that again graphs are useful for this.
Let $HgH = Hg^{-1}H$ and let $S$ be a configuration in this chessboard. According to , let the columns be $a_1H,a_2H,\ldots, a_nH$ and let the rows be $Ha_1^{-1},Ha_2^{-1}, \ldots, Ha_n^{-1}$. Then, we create a directed graph $\Theta_S$ as follows. Take $n$ vertices $v_1, \ldots, v_n$ and for each element $s$ of $S$, put a directed edge $v_iv_j$ if $s$ lies in the box of coordinates $(i,j)$ (that is, $s \in a_jH \cap Ha_i^{-1}$).
We call this graph the *inverse-dual graph* for a configuration $S$, reflecting the fact that, contrary to the previous graph of a configuration $\Sigma_S$, in $\Theta_S$ the elements of a configuration are represented with edges, not vertices (hence inverse-*dual*); also, the graph is defined in the context of self-inverse chessboards (hence *inverse*-dual).
The construction for such a graph is shown in . It is worth noting that the inverse-dual graph can contain both parallel edges (corresponding to elements lying in the same box) and loops (corresponding to elements lying on the diagonal).
in [0,1,...,[4]{}]{} [ (0,) – ([4]{},); ]{} in [0,1,...,[4]{}]{} [ (,0) – (,[4]{}); ]{} (0.5,3.5) circle (3.5pt); (1.5,3.5) circle (3.5pt); (1.5,2.5) circle (3.5pt); (1.5,0.5) circle (3.5pt); (2.5,2.5) circle (3.5pt); (3.33,1.5) circle (3.5pt); (3.66,1.5) circle (3.5pt);
(0.5-0.16,3.5-0.16) node [$a$]{}; (1.5-0.16,3.5-0.16) node [$b$]{}; (1.5-0.16,2.5-0.16) node [$c$]{}; (1.5-0.16,0.5-0.16) node [$d$]{}; (2.5-0.16,2.5-0.16) node [$e$]{}; (3.33-0.16,1.5-0.16) node [$f$]{}; (3.66+0.16,1.5-0.16) node [$g$]{};
(1+5,1) circle (3.5pt); (1+5-0.2,1-0.2) node [$v_3$]{}; (3+5,1) circle (3.5pt); (3+5+0.2,1-0.2) node [$v_4$]{}; (1+5,3) circle (3.5pt); (1+5-0.2,3-0.2) node [$v_1$]{}; (3+5,3) circle (3.5pt); (3+5+0.3,3-0.1) node [$v_2$]{};
(1+5,3) .. controls (1+5-0.5,3+0.5) and (1+5+0.5,3+0.5) .. (1+5,3); (1+5,3+0.5) node [$a$]{}; (1+5,3) .. controls (1+5+0.5,3) and (3+5-0.5,3) .. (3+5,3); (2+5,3+0.2) node [$b$]{}; (3+5,3) .. controls (3+5-0.5,3+0.5) and (3+5+0.5,3+0.5) .. (3+5,3); (3+5,3+0.5) node [$c$]{}; (3+5,3) .. controls (3+5-1,3-0.5) and (1+5+0.5,1+1) .. (1+5,1); (2+5-0.05,2+0.05) node [$e$]{}; (1+5,1) .. controls (1+5+0.5,1+0.5) and (3+5-0.3,1+0.3) .. (3+5,1); (2+5,1+0.5) node [$f$]{}; (1+5,1) .. controls (1+5+0.5,1-0.5) and (3+5-0.3,1-0.3) .. (3+5,1); (2+5,1-0.5) node [$g$]{}; (3+5,3) .. controls (3+5+0.5,3-0.5) and (3+5+0.3,1+0.3) .. (3+5,1); (3+5+0.1,2) node [$d$]{};
Now, we want to know what the inversions and L-spins correspond to in the context of inverse-dual graphs. The inversion map turns out to be simple.
Let $S$ be a configuration in a self-inverse chessboard and $\Theta_S$ be its inverse-dual graph. Then, for $x\in S$, the Nielsen move $x \mapsto x^{-1}$ corresponds to changing the orientation of the edge corresponding to $x$.
Let $x$ be the edge $v_iv_j$, i.e. $x \in a_jH \cap Ha_i^{-1}$. Then $x^{-1} \in a_iH\cap Ha_j^{-1}$ and so it corresponds to the edge $v_jv_i$.
Because of this, unless otherwise stated, from hereon we will consider our inverse-dual graphs to be undirected, since changing direction of an edge is one of the Nielsen moves. Now we want to understand what the L-spins correspond to.
1. Let $a,b,c$ be elements of a configuration $S$ in a self-inverse chessboard $HgH$. Then: $a,b,c$ are in a configuration allowing an L-spin if and only if the three edges corresponding to these elements in the inverse-dual graph $\Theta_S$, when ordered appropriately satisfy: the first and the second go into the same vertex; the second and the third go out of the same vertex.
2. If $a,b,c$ are indeed in a configuration allowing an L-spin, then an L-spin on ${\{a,b,c\}}$ corresponds to exchanging one of the edges with the directed edge from the vertex at the beginning of the first edge to the vertex at the end of the third edge, as shown in .
(0,-2)– (0,0); (0,0)– (2,0); (2,0)– (2,-2); (0,-2)– (2,-2); (0,-2) circle (2.5pt); (0,0) circle (2.5pt); (2,0) circle (2.5pt); (2,-2) circle (2.5pt); (-0.3,-1) node [$a$]{}; (1,0.3) node [$b$]{}; (2.3,-1) node [$c$]{}; (1,-2.3) node ; (-0.2,0.2) node [$v_i$]{}; (2.2,0.2) node [$v_j$]{};
The elements $a,b,c$ are in a configuration allowing an L-spin if (in the context of a chessboard) two of them lie in the same column and two of them lie in the same row. Without loss of generality, let’s suppose that $b, c$ lie in the same column $a_iH$ and $a, b$ in the same row $Ha_j^{-1}$ (like the situation in ). This gives a situation shown in – the edges $a$ and $b$ both go into the vertex $v_i$, while the edges $b$ and $c$ both go out of the vertex $v_j$. This proves the first part of the proposition.
For the second part, let’s note that the new element created in the L-spin is $ab^{-1}c$ lying in the same row as $c$ and the same column as $a$. These correspond to vertices at the beginning and the end of the first and third edge, respectively. Thus, the element created in the L-spin corresponds to an edge from the beginning of the first edge to the end of the third edge (drawn dashed in ).
on page show what the L-spins correspond to in the inverse-dual graph in situations differing by whether or not $\Theta_S$ involves parallel edges (i.e. two elements in the same box) and whether or not $\Theta_S$ involves loops (elements on the diagonal). The Nielsen moves are exactly the same as described above, the difference is purely visual.
(0,-2)– (0,0); (0,0)– (2,0); (2,0)– (2,-2); (0,-2)– (2,-2); (0,-2) circle (2.5pt); (0,0) circle (2.5pt); (2,0) circle (2.5pt); (2,-2) circle (2.5pt); (-0.3,-1) node [$d_{1}$]{}; (1,0.3) node [$d_{2}$]{}; (2.3,-1) node [$d_{3}$]{}; (1,-2.3) node ;
(5,-1)– (3,-1);
(6,-2)– (6,0); (6,0)– (8,0); (8,0)– (8,-2); (6,-2)– (8,-2); (6,-2) circle (2.5pt); (6,0) circle (2.5pt); (8,0) circle (2.5pt); (8,-2) circle (2.5pt); (5.7,-1) node ; (7,0.3) node [$d_{2}$]{}; (8.3,-1) node [$d_{3}$]{}; (7,-2.3) node [$d_{4}$]{};
(0,0)– (2,0); (2,0)– (1,1.732); (1,1.732)– (0,0); (1,1.732) .. controls (1+1,1.732+1) and (1-1,1.732+1) .. (1,1.732); (1,1.732) circle (2.5pt); (0,0) circle (2.5pt); (2,0) circle (2.5pt); (0.5-0.3\*1.732/2,1.732/2+0.3/2) node [$d_{1}$]{}; (1,-0.3) node [$d_{2}$]{}; (1.5+0.3\*1.732/2,1.732/2+0.3/2) node [$d_{3}$]{}; (1,2.8) node ;
(5,1)– (3,1);
(0+6,0)– (2+6,0); (2+6,0)– (1+6,1.732); (1+6,1.732)– (0+6,0); (1+6,1.732) .. controls (1+1+6,1.732+1) and (1-1+6,1.732+1) .. (1+6,1.732); (1+6,1.732) circle (2.5pt); (0+6,0) circle (2.5pt); (2+6,0) circle (2.5pt); (0.5-0.3\*1.732/2+6,1.732/2+0.3/2) node ; (1+6,-0.3) node [$d_{2}$]{}; (1.5+0.3\*1.732/2+6,1.732/2+0.3/2) node [$d_{3}$]{}; (1+6,2.8) node [$d_{4}$]{};
(5+6,1)– (3+6,1);
(0+12,0)– (2+12,0); (2+12,0)– (1+12,1.732); (1+12,1.732)– (0+12,0); (1+12,1.732) .. controls (1+1+12,1.732+1) and (1-1+12,1.732+1) .. (1+12,1.732); (1+12,1.732) circle (2.5pt); (0+12,0) circle (2.5pt); (2+12,0) circle (2.5pt); (0.5-0.3\*1.732/2+12,1.732/2+0.3/2) node [$d_{1}$]{}; (1+12,-0.3) node ; (1.5+0.3\*1.732/2+12,1.732/2+0.3/2) node [$d_{3}$]{}; (1+12,2.8) node [$d_{4}$]{};
(0,0) .. controls (0+0.5,0+0.5) and (2-0.5,0+0.5) .. (2,0); (0,0) .. controls (0+0.5,0-0.5) and (2-0.5,0-0.5) .. (2,0); (2,0) .. controls (2+0.5,0+0.5) and (4-0.5,0+0.5) .. (4,0); (2,0) .. controls (2+0.5,0-0.5) and (4-0.5,0-0.5) .. (4,0); (0,0) circle (2.5pt); (2,0) circle (2.5pt); (4,0) circle (2.5pt); (1,0.6) node [$d_1$]{}; (1,-0.6) node [$d_2$]{}; (3,0.6) node [$d_3$]{}; (3,-0.6) node ;
(7,0)– (5,0);
(0+8,0) .. controls (0+0.5+8,0+0.5) and (2-0.5+8,0+0.5) .. (2+8,0); (0+8,0) .. controls (0+0.5+8,0-0.5) and (2-0.5+8,0-0.5) .. (2+8,0); (2+8,0) .. controls (2+0.5+8,0+0.5) and (4-0.5+8,0+0.5) .. (4+8,0); (2+8,0) .. controls (2+0.5+8,0-0.5) and (4-0.5+8,0-0.5) .. (4+8,0); (0+8,0) circle (2.5pt); (2+8,0) circle (2.5pt); (4+8,0) circle (2.5pt); (1+8,0.6) node ; (1+8,-0.6) node [$d_2$]{}; (3+8,0.6) node [$d_3$]{}; (3+8,-0.6) node [$d_4$]{};
(0,0) .. controls (0+0.5,0+0.5) and (2-0.5,0+0.5) .. (2,0); (0,0) .. controls (0+0.5,0-0.5) and (2-0.5,0-0.5) .. (2,0); (2,0) .. controls (2+0.5,0+0.5) and (2+0.5,0-0.5) .. (2,0); (0,0) .. controls (-0.5,-0.5) and (-0.5,+0.5) .. (0,0); (0,0) circle (2.5pt); (2,0) circle (2.5pt); (1,0.6) node [$d_1$]{}; (1,-0.6) node [$d_2$]{}; (2.7,0) node [$d_3$]{}; (-0.7,0) node ;
(6,0)– (4,0);
(0+8,0) .. controls (0+0.5+8,0+0.5) and (2-0.5+8,0+0.5) .. (2+8,0); (0+8,0) .. controls (0+0.5+8,0-0.5) and (2-0.5+8,0-0.5) .. (2+8,0); (2+8,0) .. controls (2+0.5+8,0+0.5) and (2+0.5+8,0-0.5) .. (2+8,0); (0+8,0) .. controls (-0.5+8,-0.5) and (-0.5+8,+0.5) .. (0+8,0); (0+8,0) circle (2.5pt); (2+8,0) circle (2.5pt); (1+8,0.6) node ; (1+8,-0.6) node [$d_2$]{}; (2.7+8,0) node [$d_3$]{}; (-0.7+8,0) node [$d_4$]{};
We now give an operation similar to an L-spin, which can be performed with only two elements – it was alluded to in in the context of chessboards.
Suppose $HgH$ represents a self-inverse chessboard and $a \in S$ lies on its diagonal (so $a$ corresponds to a loop in $\Theta_S$). Let $b \in S$ lie in the column of $a$. Then the transformation $a \mapsto ab \mapsto b^{-1}ab$ corresponds to moving the loop $a$ from one vertex of the edge $b$ to the other. \[prop:loop-shift\]
Since $b\in aH$, we have $b^{-1}a \in H$, so $b^{-1}ab \in Hb$. At the same time $b\in a^{-1}H$ (since $a$ and $a^{-1}$ lie in the same box), so $ab \in H$ and so $b^{-1}ab \in b^{-1}H$. The box $Hb \cap b^{-1}H$ is on the diagonal, so $b^{-1}ab$ is a loop in $\Theta_S$ based at the vertex corresponding to $Hb$ and $b^{-1}H$.
We call a transformation described in a *loop shift*, since it corresponds to shifting a loop from one vertex to another, as shown in on page .
(0,0) .. controls (0+0.5,0+0.5) and (0-0.5,0+0.5) .. (0,0); (2,0) .. controls (2+0.5,0+0.5) and (2-0.5,0+0.5) .. (2,0); (0,0) – (2,0); (0,0) circle (2.5pt); (2,0) circle (2.5pt); (1,-0.3) node [$b$]{}; (-0.3,0.6) node [$a$]{}; (2.3,0.6) node ;
(5,0)– (3.0,0);
(0+6,0) .. controls (0+0.5+6,0+0.5) and (0-0.5+6,0+0.5) .. (0+6,0); (2+6,0) .. controls (2+0.5+6,0+0.5) and (2-0.5+6,0+0.5) .. (2+6,0); (0+6,0) – (2+6,0); (0+6,0) circle (2.5pt); (2+6,0) circle (2.5pt); (1+6,-0.3) node [$b$]{}; (-0.3+6,0.6) node ; (2.3+6,0.6) node [$b^{-1}ab$]{};
### Normal forms - octopuses and sweets
As in , we wish to classify the configurations which can be obtained from a given one by performing the operations listed above – inversions, L-spins and loop shifts. We want to give representatives of each of the classes and show that they are not equivalent to each other.
When given an inverse-dual graph of a configuration (in a self-inverse chessboard), we will call inversions, L-spins and loop shifts *simple moves*. Two configurations (in a self-inverse chessboard) are called *simply equivalent* if one can be obtained from the other with a series of simple moves.
In fact, since we are considering the undirected inverse-dual graphs, the inversion doesn’t do anything to the graph.
\[prop:sweets\_inv\] Let $S$ be a configuration in a self-inverse chessboard. Let $\Theta_S$ be its inverse-dual graph. Then, performing simple moves doesn’t change:
1. the number of edges of $\Theta_S$,
2. the connectedness of the (undirected) $\Theta_S$ (i.e. whether two vertices are connected by a path or not remains unchanged), which implies that we can restrict our attention to connected components of inverse-dual graphs,
3. whether or not a connected component of $\Theta_S$ is bipartite, and if it is:
4. (if a connected component of $\Theta_S$ is indeed bipartite), the bipartite components of the connected component of $\Theta_S$ (and so, in particular, their sizes).
\(1) Since Nielsen moves don’t change the number of elements of a configuration and each simple move corresponds to series of Nielsen moves, none of them changes the number of elements of $S$, i.e. the number of edges of $\Theta_S$.
\(2) In an L-spin all vertices involved are connected in the beginning and remain connected after the L-spin. This is also the case for the loop shift. Thus, simple moves don’t change the connected components of $\Theta_S$.
(3 & 4) If a connected component of $\Theta_S$ is bipartite, then there are no loops (so, no loop shifts are possible) and then the walk (i.e. a path which may self-intersect) of length $3$ needed for performing the L-spin must have the vertices alternatingly in the two bipartite components. The new edge is between the first and last vertex, which must be in different connected components, and therefore the new edge is between the two bipartite components, not changing them.
Now, we are going to show the possible ‘normal forms’ of connected graphs that aren’t bipartite.
An undirected graph is called an *octopus* if there exists a vertex $v_0$ (called the *base*) such that for all vertices $v \ne v_0$ the degree of $v$ is $1$ and there exists a unique edge $vv_0$; these edges are called *legs* of an octopus. The loops on $v_0$ are called *heads* of an octopus.
It is easy to see that the number of legs of an octopus is one less than the number of the vertices. An example of an octopus is given in .
(0,0)– (-1.73,-1); (0,0)– (-1,-1.73); (0,0)– (0,-2); (0,0)– (+1,-1.73); (0,0)– (+1.73,-1); (0,0) .. controls (-2,0) and (0,2) .. (0,0); (0,0) .. controls (2,0) and (0,2) .. (0,0); (0,0) .. controls (-1.5,1.5) and (1.5,1.5) .. (0,0); (0,0) circle (2.5pt); (-1.73,-1) circle (2.5pt); (-1,-1.73) circle (2.5pt); (0,-2) circle (2.5pt); (+1,-1.73) circle (2.5pt); (+1.73,-1) circle (2.5pt);
\[prop:normal\_form\_oct\] Let $S$ be a configuration in a self-inverse chessboard, such that $\Theta_S$ is connected but not bipartite. Then, using simple moves, we can transform $S$ to some $S'$ such that $\Theta_{S'}$ is an octopus.
Since $\Theta_S$ isn’t bipartite, there is an odd cycle in it, let’s say it is $v_0v_1 \ldots v_{2n}$. We can use it to obtain a loop at $v_n$ by performing an L-spin on $v_1v_0,\:v_0v_{2n},\:v_{2n}v_{2n-1}$ interchanging $v_0v_{2n}$ with $v_1v_{2n-1}$, then with $v_2v_{2n-2}$ until getting $v_nv_n$, which is a loop at $v_n$. This procedure for $2n = 4$ is shown in .
(0,2) circle (3pt); (-1.9,0.62) circle (3pt); (-1.18,-1.62) circle (3pt); (+1.9,0.62) circle (3pt); (+1.18,-1.62) circle (3pt); (0,2) – (-1.9,0.62); (0,2) – (+1.9,0.62); (-1.9,0.62) – (-1.18,-1.62); (+1.9,0.62) – (+1.18,-1.62); (-1.18,-1.62) – (+1.18,-1.62); (0,2.3) node [$v_2$]{}; (-2.4,0.62) node [$v_1$]{}; (+2.4,0.62) node [$v_3$]{}; (-1.3,-2) node [$v_0$]{}; (+1.3,-2) node [$v_4$]{};
(5,0)– (3.0,0);
(0+8,2) circle (3pt); (-1.9+8,0.62) circle (3pt); (-1.18+8,-1.62) circle (3pt); (+1.9+8,0.62) circle (3pt); (+1.18+8,-1.62) circle (3pt); (0+8,2) – (-1.9+8,0.62); (0+8,2) – (+1.9+8,0.62); (-1.9+8,0.62) – (-1.18+8,-1.62); (+1.9+8,0.62) – (+1.18+8,-1.62); (-1.9+8,0.62) – (+1.9+8,0.62);
(5+8,0)– (3.0+8,0);
(0+16,2) circle (3pt); (-1.9+16,0.62) circle (3pt); (-1.18+16,-1.62) circle (3pt); (+1.9+16,0.62) circle (3pt); (+1.18+16,-1.62) circle (3pt); (0+16,2) – (-1.9+16,0.62); (0+16,2) – (+1.9+16,0.62); (-1.9+16,0.62) – (-1.18+16,-1.62); (+1.9+16,0.62) – (+1.18+16,-1.62); (16,2) .. controls (16-1,2+1) and (16+1,2+1) .. (16,2);
Having obtained a loop at a vertex $v_0$, we can reduce the distance to $v_0$ of any vertex performing the following operation (which bears similarity to what we’ve done in the process of defining normal forms for non self-inverse chessboards). If $v_2$ is of distance 2 (in $\Theta_S$) from $v_0$, then let $v_0v_1v_2$ be a path. We can perform an L-spin on $v_0v_0, \: v_0v_1, \: v_1v_2$ interchanging $v_1v_2$ with $v_0v_2$ and thereby decreasing the distance of $v_2$ to $v_0$ without increasing the distance to $v_0$ of any other vertex. This procedure is illustrated in .
(0+6,0)– (2+6,0); (2+6,0)– (1+6,1.732); (1+6,1.732) .. controls (1+1+6,1.732+1) and (1-1+6,1.732+1) .. (1+6,1.732); (1+6,1.732) circle (2.5pt); (0+6,0) circle (2.5pt); (2+6,0) circle (2.5pt); (-0.3+6,-0.2) node [$v_2$]{}; (2.3+6,-0.2) node [$v_1$]{}; (-0.4+1+6,1.732) node [$v_0$]{};
(5+6,1)– (3+6,1);
(2+12,0)– (1+12,1.732); (1+12,1.732)– (0+12,0); (1+12,1.732) .. controls (1+1+12,1.732+1) and (1-1+12,1.732+1) .. (1+12,1.732); (1+12,1.732) circle (2.5pt); (0+12,0) circle (2.5pt); (2+12,0) circle (2.5pt);
Now we can assume that all vertices of $\Theta_S$ other than $v_0$ are of distance $1$ to $v_0$. Finally, if we get any edges between the vertices of distance $1$ to $v_0$, say an edge $v_1v_2$, we can move them to loops at $v_0$ via an L-spin on $v_1v_2, \:v_2v_0, \:v_0v_0$ interchanging $v_1v_2$ with $v_0v_0$ giving an additional head of the octopus. This procedure is illustrated in .
(0+6,0)– (2+6,0); (2+6,0)– (1+6,1.732); (1+6,1.732)– (0+6,0); (1+6,1.732) .. controls (1+1+6,1.732+1) and (1-1+6,1.732+1) .. (1+6,1.732); (1+6,1.732) circle (2.5pt); (0+6,0) circle (2.5pt); (2+6,0) circle (2.5pt); (-0.3+6,-0.2) node [$v_2$]{}; (2.3+6,-0.2) node [$v_1$]{}; (-0.4+1+6,1.732) node [$v_0$]{};
(5+6,1)– (3+6,1);
(2+12,0)– (1+12,1.732); (1+12,1.732)– (0+12,0); (1+12,1.732) .. controls (1-2+12,1.732) and (1+12,1.732+2) .. (1+12,1.732); (1+12,1.732) .. controls (1+12,1.732+2) and (1+12+2,1.732) .. (1+12,1.732); (1+12,1.732) circle (2.5pt); (0+12,0) circle (2.5pt); (2+12,0) circle (2.5pt);
In the end we are left with a (possibly multiheaded) octopus.
Now, we need to consider the case of the graph being bipartite.
A graph is called a *sweet* if there is an edge $v_0v_1$ such that every vertex $v$ other than $v_0$ and $v_1$ is connected by an edge to either $v_0$ or $v_1$, and such that every vertex other than $v_0$ and $v_1$ is of degree $1$. We call $v_0$ and $v_1$ the *bases* of the sweet, the set of all edges $v_0v_1$ the *core* of the sweet, while the other edges are called *sticks*.
\[prop:normal\_form\_sweet\] Let $S$ be a configuration in a self-inverse chessboard, such that $\Theta_S$ is connected and bipartite. Then, using simple moves, we can transform $S$ to some $S'$ such that $\Theta_{S'}$ is a sweet.
Let us then choose a particular edge $v_0v_1$, where $v_0$ and $v_1$ will be bases for the sweet. Now, if there is a vertex (say $v_3$) of distance to ${\{v_0,v_1\}}$ bigger than $1$, we can reduce it in a similar way to what was done in the proof of : Let $v_1v_2v_3$ be the path of length $2$. We perform an L-spin on $v_0v_1, \:v_1v_2,\:v_2v_3$ interchanging $v_2v_3$ with $v_0v_3$ and thereby reducing the distance of $v_3$ to ${\{v_0,v_1\}}$ without increasing the distances of any other vertices to it. A double usage of that procedure is shown in , first applying that to $v_3$, then to $v_4$.
(0,0)– (2,0); (2,0)– (2,-2); (2,-2)– (0,-2); (2,-2)– (1,-3); (0,0) circle (2.5pt); (2,0) circle (2.5pt); (2,-2) circle (2.5pt); (0,-2) circle (2.5pt); (1,-3) circle (2.5pt); (-0.25,0.25) node [$v_0$]{}; (2.25,0.25) node [$v_1$]{}; (-0.25,-2.25) node [$v_3$]{}; (2.25,-2.25) node [$v_2$]{}; (1-0.3,-3) node [$v_4$]{};;
(5,-1.5)– (3,-1.5);
(0+6,0)– (2+6,0); (2+6,0)– (2+6,-2); (0+6,0)– (0+6,-2); (2+6,-2)– (1+6,-3); (0+6,0) circle (2.5pt); (2+6,0) circle (2.5pt); (2+6,-2) circle (2.5pt); (0+6,-2) circle (2.5pt); (1+6,-3) circle (2.5pt);
(5+6,-1.5)– (3+6,-1.5);
(0+6+6,0)– (2+6+6,0); (2+6+6,0)– (2+6+6,-2); (0+6+6,0)– (0+6+6,-2); (0+6+6,0)– (1+6+6,-3); (0+6+6,0) circle (2.5pt); (2+6+6,0) circle (2.5pt); (2+6+6,-2) circle (2.5pt); (0+6+6,-2) circle (2.5pt); (1+6+6,-3) circle (2.5pt);
Now, we can assume that all of the vertices are of distance $1$ to ${\{v_0,v_1\}}$. Note that there can’t be any edges within the neighbours of $v_0$ since the graph is bipartite, similarly with the neighbours of $v_1$. If there are any edges between the neighbours of $v_0$ and the neighbours of $v_1$, we can move these edges parallel to $v_0v_1$ obtaining a sweet. This is done via an L-spin. A double usage is shown in where we first move the edge $v_2v_3$ and then $v_2v_4$.
(0,0)– (2,0); (2,0)– (2+0.81,0+0.59); (2,0)– (2+0.81,0-0.59); (0,0)– (-0.5,1.732/2); (0,0)– (-0.5,-1.732/2); (0,0)– (-1,0); (0,0) circle (2.5pt); (2,0) circle (2.5pt); (2+0.81,0+0.59) circle (2.5pt); (2+0.81,0-0.59) circle (2.5pt); (-0.5,1.732/2) circle (2.5pt); (-0.5,-1.732/2) circle (2.5pt); (-1,0) circle (2.5pt); (3.1,0.8) node [$v_2$]{}; (-1.4,0) node [$v_3$]{}; (-0.8,1) node [$v_4$]{}; (0.3,-0.3) node [$v_0$]{}; (1.7,-0.3) node [$v_1$]{};
(-0.5,1.732/2)– (2+0.81,0+0.59); (-1,0)– (2+0.81,0+0.59);
(6,0)– (4,0);
(0+8,0)– (2+8,0); (2+8,0)– (2+0.81+8,0+0.59); (2+8,0)– (2+0.81+8,0-0.59); (0+8,0)– (-0.5+8,1.732/2); (0+8,0)– (-0.5+8,-1.732/2); (0+8,0)– (-1+8,0); (0+8,0) circle (2.5pt); (2+8,0) circle (2.5pt); (2+0.81+8,0+0.59) circle (2.5pt); (2+0.81+8,0-0.59) circle (2.5pt); (-0.5+8,1.732/2) circle (2.5pt); (-0.5+8,-1.732/2) circle (2.5pt); (-1+8,0) circle (2.5pt);
(-0.5+8,1.732/2)– (2+0.81+8,0+0.59); (0+8,0) .. controls (0.5+8,-0.5) and (1.5+8,-0.5) .. (2+8,0);
(6+8,0)– (4+8,0);
(0+8+8,0)– (2+8+8,0); (2+8+8,0)– (2+0.81+8+8,0+0.59); (2+8+8,0)– (2+0.81+8+8,0-0.59); (0+8+8,0)– (-0.5+8+8,1.732/2); (0+8+8,0)– (-0.5+8+8,-1.732/2); (0+8+8,0)– (-1+8+8,0); (0+8+8,0) circle (2.5pt); (2+8+8,0) circle (2.5pt); (2+0.81+8+8,0+0.59) circle (2.5pt); (2+0.81+8+8,0-0.59) circle (2.5pt); (-0.5+8+8,1.732/2) circle (2.5pt); (-0.5+8+8,-1.732/2) circle (2.5pt); (-1+8+8,0) circle (2.5pt);
(0+8+8,0) .. controls (0.5+8+8,-0.5) and (1.5+8+8,-0.5) .. (2+8+8,0); (0+8+8,0) .. controls (0.5+8+8,+0.5) and (1.5+8+8,+0.5) .. (2+8+8,0);
Now, we notice that a sweet is specified by the number of edges in total and the number of sticks on each side. This allows us to conclude the following.
\[prop:os-nf\] Let $S$ be a configuration in a self-inverse chessboard with a connected inverse-dual graph $\Theta_S$. Then $\Theta_S$ can be transformed via simple moves to a (unique up to vertex relabelling) octopus or sweet, which we call the *normal form* of $S$. Furthermore, the normal form is a sweet if and only if the inverse-dual graph $\Theta_S$ is bipartite.
The fact that $\Theta_S$ can be transformed to an octopus (if $\Theta_S$ isn’t bipartite) and a sweet (if $\Theta_S$ is bipartite) is a consequence of Propositions \[prop:normal\_form\_oct\] and \[prop:normal\_form\_sweet\].
Now, as shown in , the simple moves do not change whether or not $\Theta_S$ is bipartite, and, if it is bipartite, its bipartite components. So an octopus is possible if and only if $\Theta_S$ isn’t bipartite, while a sweet only if $\Theta_S$ is bipartite. An octopus is determined by the number of elements of $S$ and number of its vertices (i.e. rows/columns that $S$ can occupy), so no two different octopuses are equivalent. A sweet is similarly determined by the number of its edges, its vertices and the sizes of its connected components. Since these are invariant by , two sweets can be transformed by simple moves into each other only by relabelling of the vertices.
### Solvable configurations {#solvable-configurations}
Just like in , we want to be able to tell which of the inverse-dual graphs can be transformed into left-right diagonal sets. For that we first study what being left-right diagonal corresponds to in the inverse-dual graph.
Let $S$ be a configuration in a self-inverse chessboard. Then $S$ is left-right diagonal if and only if $\Theta_S$ is a union of disjoint (directed) cycles.
Being left-right diagonal means that there is exactly one element in each of the columns and in each of the rows. Coming back to the directed graphs, this means that every vertex has exactly one edge coming in to it and exactly one edge coming out of it. Such a graph is a union of disjoint directed cycles (possibly including loops and $2$-cycles).
Now, we want to identify the normal forms that these have.
\[prop:normal-forms\] In the context of inverse-dual graphs, the normal form of an odd cycle is a single-headed octopus with an even number of legs, while the normal form of an even cycle is a sweet with two edges in the core and equal number of sticks on either side. Also, all such forms correspond to configurations that can be transformed to left-right diagonal configurations via simple moves.
Odd cycles aren’t bipartite, so their normal forms are octopuses by . Since the number of edges and the number of vertices involved are equal, these octopuses must be single-headed. Odd length implies even number of legs.
Even cycles are bipartite with the bipartite components of equal sizes, so their normal forms are sweets () with equal sizes of bipartite components. The number of edges equal to the number of vertices determines the size of the core to be $2$.
Finally, for each number $n$, there are cycles of length $2n$ and $2n+1$, equivalent to respectively a sweet with $n-1$ sticks on each side and an octopus with $2n$ legs. Thus all such normal forms correspond to configurations that can be transformed to be left-right diagonal with simple transformations.
The proposition motivates the following definition.
A connected inverse-dual graph $\Theta_S$ is *solvable* if its normal form is either an octopus with even number of legs, or a sweet with equal number of sticks on each side.
Examples of such an octopus and a sweet are illustrated in .
(0,0)– (-1.62,-1.18); (0,0)– (-0.62,-1.9); (0,0)– (+1.62,-1.18); (0,0)– (+0.62,-1.9); (0,0) .. controls (-2,2) and (2,2) .. (0,0); (0,0) circle (2.5pt); (-1.62,-1.18) circle (2.5pt); (-0.62,-1.9) circle (2.5pt); (+1.62,-1.18) circle (2.5pt); (+0.62,-1.9) circle (2.5pt);
(0+6,0) .. controls (0.5+6,0.5) and (1.5+6,0.5) .. (2+6,0); (0+6,0) .. controls (0.5+6,-0.5) and (1.5+6,-0.5) .. (2+6,0); (2+6,0)– (2+0.5+6,0+1.732/2); (2+6,0)– (2+0.5+6,0-1.732/2); (2+6,0)– (2+1+6,0); (0+6,0)– (-0.5+6,1.732/2); (0+6,0)– (-0.5+6,-1.732/2); (0+6,0)– (-1+6,0); (0+6,0) circle (2.5pt); (2+6,0) circle (2.5pt); (2+0.5+6,0+1.732/2) circle (2.5pt); (2+0.5+6,0-1.732/2) circle (2.5pt); (2+1+6,0) circle (2.5pt); (-0.5+6,1.732/2) circle (2.5pt); (-0.5+6,-1.732/2) circle (2.5pt); (-1+6,0) circle (2.5pt);
is restated in the following corollary.
\[cor:solv\_self-inverse\] If a configuration $S$ in a self-inverse chessboard is such that its inverse-dual graph $\Theta_S$ has all connected components solvable, then it is Nielsen equivalent to a left-right diagonal configuration in that chessboard.
### Additional solvable configuration {#sec:odd-octopi}
We now know that octopuses with an odd number of legs and sweets with bipartite components of different sizes cannot be solved with simple moves (inversions, L-spins and loop shifts). However, we are able to weaken the condition of .
For brevity, from now on we refer to configurations that can be transformed with simple moves to octopuses with even or odd number of legs, or sweets with equal number of sticks on each side as *even octopi*, *odd octopi* and *equal sweets* respectively.
\[prop:additional-solv\] Let $S$ be a union of a singleton configuration and a configuration $S'$ in a self-inverse chessboard $HgH$ which satisfy following conditions.
1. The singleton configuration consists of an element $h$ lying in $H$;
2. $S'$ is such that all of its connected components are solvable or are odd octopuses;
3. (possibly after inversions) $S'$ is left-diagonal.
Then, $S$ is Nielsen-equivalent to a left-right diagonal configuration with one element in $H$ and the rest in $HgH$.
We are going to proceed by repeated use of an algorithm, which can be performed as long as there is some connected component in the form of an odd octopus. Each usage will decrease the value of the following counter: $$C(S) = \#(\textrm{connected components of $S$}) + 2\times \#(\textrm{connected components of $S$ being odd octopuses})$$ thereby ensuring that at some point we are left with no odd octopuses. Then, by the configuration can be transformed into a left-right diagonal form via simple moves.
The condition that possibly after inversions $S$ is left-diagonal implies that no vertex in $\Theta_{S}$ has degree $0$. It also enforces the connected components to be either single-headed octopuses or sweets with two edges in the core.
**Algorithm**
Suppose that there is at least one connected component being an odd octopus, call it $S_0$. Take the element $x_0 \in S_0$ corresponding to the head of $S_0$ (i.e. the unique loop $v_0v_0$, where $v_0$ is the base of $S_0$) and the element $h\in H$, and perform the Nielsen move $h \mapsto x_0h$. Now, there are two options:
1. either $x_0h$ lies in one of the columns corresponding to vertices in $S_0$,
2. or $x_0h$ lies in a column that doesn’t correspond to a vertex in $S_0$.
In the first case, we get a additional edge in $\Theta_{S_0}$, while the number of vertices remains unchanged, so the normal form of $S_0\cup{\{x_0h\}}$ is an octopus with two heads and an odd number of legs. The additional head can be shifted to the end (say $v_1$) of one of the legs via a loop shift and then this leg can be cut. Let $x_1$ be the element of $S_0$ corresponding to $v_0v_1$, we perform the Nielsen move $x_0 \mapsto x_0x_1^{-1} \in H$ (where $x_0$ corresponds to the loop) which leaves us with: two even octopuses and an element of $H$. Furthermore, none of the vertices (i.e. none of the rows of $HgH$) became empty, so we are in a situation satisfying the original hypotheses. This procedure is illustrated in .
In the second case, we put an edge between two connected components of $\Theta_S$. Since we haven’t done anything to the loop at the base of $S_0$, the new component must be a double-headed octopus. Let’s transform it to that form and take $x_0, x_1$ to be elements corresponding to the two heads of the octopus. We perform the Nielsen move $x_0 \mapsto x_0x_1^{-1} \in H$, ‘cutting’ one of the heads and thereby getting a single octopus and a single element in $H$. Also, no vertex became of degree $0$, so we have a configuration satisfying the original hypotheses.
**Counter decreasing**
The effect of both cases is summarised in .
no. components no. odd octopuses $C(S)$
--------- ---------------- ------------------- --------------
Case 1. $+1$ $-1$ $-1$
Case 2. $-1$ $0$ or $-1$ $-1$ or $-3$
: The effect of algorithm on the counter.[]{data-label="tab:counter"}
In the first case, the number of connected components increased by $1$ (since we ‘cut the octopuses into two’), while the number of odd octopuses decreased by $1$, so in total the counter $C(S)$ decreased by $1$.
In the second case, since the number of connected components decreased by $1$ and the number of odd octopuses remained the same (if we connected to a component of even number of elements) or decreased by $1$ (if we connected to a component with odd number of elements), the counter $C(S)$ decreased by $1$ or $3$.
In both cases we observe the counter $C(S)$ decreasing, so at some point we get to a configuration where it is impossible to continue the algorithm, which is one that doesn’t contain any odd octopuses. This is precisely what we wanted to get.
(0,0)– (-1.62,-1.18); (0,0)– (-0.62,-1.9); (0,0)– (+1.62,-1.18); (0,0)– (+0.62,-1.9); (0,0)– (-2,0); (-2,0) circle (2.5pt); (0,0) .. controls (0,+2) and (-2,0) .. (0,0); (0,0) .. controls (0,+2) and (+2,0) .. (0,0); (0,0) circle (2.5pt); (-1.62,-1.18) circle (2.5pt); (-0.62,-1.9) circle (2.5pt); (+1.62,-1.18) circle (2.5pt); (+0.62,-1.9) circle (2.5pt);
(4+1,0) – (2+1,0);
(0+7+1+0.5,0)– (-1.62+7+1+0.5,-1.18); (0+7+1+0.5,0)– (-0.62+7+1+0.5,-1.9); (0+7+1+0.5,0)– (+1.62+7+1+0.5,-1.18); (0+7+1+0.5,0)– (+0.62+7+1+0.5,-1.9); (0+7+1+0.5,0)– (-2+7+1+0.5,0); (-2+7+1+0.5,0) circle (2.5pt); (0+7+1+0.5,0) .. controls (0+7-2+1+0.5,+2) and (2+7+1+0.5,+2) .. (0+7+1+0.5,0); (0+7-2+1+0.5,0) .. controls (0+7-2-2+1+0.5,+2) and (+2+7-2+1+0.5,2) .. (0+7-2+1+0.5,0); (0+7+1+0.5,0) circle (2.5pt); (-1.62+7+1+0.5,-1.18) circle (2.5pt); (-0.62+7+1+0.5,-1.9) circle (2.5pt); (+1.62+7+1+0.5,-1.18) circle (2.5pt); (+0.62+7+1+0.5,-1.9) circle (2.5pt);
(4+6+1+3,0) – (2+6+1+3,0);
(0+7+7+4-0.5,0)– (-1.62+7+7+4-0.5,-1.18); (0+7+7+4-0.5,0)– (-0.62+7+7+4-0.5,-1.9); (0+7+7+4-0.5,0)– (+1.62+7+7+4-0.5,-1.18); (0+7+7+4-0.5,0)– (+0.62+7+7+4-0.5,-1.9); (-2+7+7+4-0.5,0) circle (2.5pt); (0+7+7+4-0.5,0) .. controls (0+7-2+7+4-0.5,+2) and (2+7+7+4-0.5,+2) .. (0+7+7+4-0.5,0); (0+7-2+7+4-0.5,0) .. controls (0+7-2-2+7+4-0.5,+2) and (+2+7-2+7+4-0.5,2) .. (0+7-2+7+4-0.5,0); (0+7+7+4-0.5,0) circle (2.5pt); (-1.62+7+7+4-0.5,-1.18) circle (2.5pt); (-0.62+7+7+4-0.5,-1.9) circle (2.5pt); (+1.62+7+7+4-0.5,-1.18) circle (2.5pt); (+0.62+7+7+4-0.5,-1.9) circle (2.5pt);
Applications of configurations and inverse-dual graphs {#sec:applications}
------------------------------------------------------
The combined techniques of sections \[sec:non-self-inverse-chessboards\] and \[sec:self-inverse-chessboards\] give us the following proposition.
\[cor:final\] Let $H{\leqslant}G$ be a subgroup and $S$ be a left transversal generating $G$. Then, if the following conditions are satisfied, $S$ is Nielsen-equivalent to a left-right transversal.
1. For $g\in G$ such that $HgH \neq Hg^{-1}H$, for $T_g = S_g\cup S_{g^{-1}}^{-1}$, the configuration $T_g$ has only square connected components.
2. For $g\in G$ such that $HgH = Hg^{-1}H$, the graph $\Theta_{S_g}$ has connected components in the form of any octopuses or equal sweets.
We look one-by-one at the self-inverse chessboards and pairs of non-self-inverse chessboards which are inverses of each other.
For each pair $HgH$ and $Hg^{-1}H$ of non-self-inverse chessboards, we note that the hypotheses of are satisfied, since each connected component of $T_g$ has an equal number of rows and columns, while because $T_g = S_g\cup S_{g^{-1}}^{-1}$ and $S_g$ has exactly one element in each row, while $S_{g^{-1}}^{-1}$ has one element in each column, each connected component must have the number of elements equal to twice the number of rows (and columns).
For a self-inverse chessboard, we can apply directly.
After these procedures, for each $g$, the set $S_g$ is diagonal and therefore the whole set $S$ is diagonal.
We now present two consequences of our results on configurations and inverse-dual graphs. One application is to a situation where the possible chessboards are small enough to not allow non-square connected components, i.e. when $[H:xHx^{-1}\cap H]{\leqslant}2$ for all $x$ (so $H$ is very close to normal in $G$). The other application uses a technique similar to the proof of for finding left-right transversal generating sets for $H{\leqslant}G$ when $H\cong C_n$ , i.e. being able to Nielsen transform the trivial element $e$ to any other element of the group.
In each case, we make incremental progress on or , by adding additional hypotheses.
\[prop:almost-normal\] Let $H{\leqslant}G$ be a subgroup of finite index such that $\forall x\in G$ we have $ [H:xHx^{-1}\cap H]{\leqslant}2$. Then any generating multiset of size $[G:H]$ can be Nielsen transformed to a left-right transversal.
We start by taking a generating multiset $S$ of size $[G:H]$ and Nielsen transforming it to a left transversal. All of the chessboards are either $1\times 1$ or $2\times 2$ as by [@cosetgraph Proposition 9] the size of the chessboard containing $gH$ is $[G : gHg^{-1} \cap H]/[G:H]$. The $1\times 1$ chessboards correspond to the cosets of $H$ in the normaliser, and the elements of $S$ in them already form a diagonal set. Therefore, we’ll only consider the $2\times 2$ chessboards from now on.
For the self-inverse chessboards, we are either in the situation of having a diagonal set, or a configuration represented by a single-headed octopus with one leg. In particular, we cannot get a non-equal sweet.
For the non-self inverse chessboards, after moving the elements from $Hg^{-1}H$ to $HgH$ with the inversion map, we get $4$ elements in a $2\times 2$ board, which can either form two connected components (each of size $1\times 1$) or form one connected component of size $2\times 2$. In both cases, these are square.
Now, we can apply to conclude that $S$ can be Nielsen transformed to a left-right transversal.
We now provide a proof for . We note that the hypotheses of this theorem imply that $G$ must be finite. This is due to the fact that infinite groups can’t have malnormal groups of finite index. Indeed, taking $H$ malnormal in $G$, if $[G:H]=[G:gHg^{-1}] < \infty$, then we also have $[G:H\cap gHg^{-1}] < \infty$, but $H\cap gHg^{-1} = {\{e\}}$, so this would imply that $|G|< \infty$.
We start with the observation that for a malnormal subgroup $H{\leqslant}G$, the individual boxes in the chessboards other than $H$ correspond to singleton sets, since $$|xH\cap Hx| = |xHx^{-1}\cap H| = 1$$ for $x\not \in H$. This means that whenever two dots end up in the same box, we are able to obtain the trivial element $e$, which can be Nielsen transformed to any other element. Similarly to the previous lemma, we start with a left generating transversal $S$.
Firstly, given a pair $HgH\neq Hg^{-1}H$, we move all of the elements to one of these chessboards by inversion. Then, after transforming the configuration to its normal form () we get some number of connected components, each having two dots in its top left corner. We use this to first get $e$ in our multiset and then Nielsen transform $e$ (without using it in the Nielsen moves) to a box which will connect two distinct connected components in that chessboard. After a finite number of such operations we obtain just one connected component in $HgH$, which has to have equal vertical and horizontal dimensions. By this is a solvable configuration, so by it is L-spin equivalent to one of the form $A\cup B^{-1}$, were $A \subset HgH$ and $B \subset Hg^{-1}H$ are diagonal sets.
Secondly, given a self-inverse chessboard, i.e., a double coset $HgH=Hg^{-1}H$, by the normal forms of connected components of $S_g$ are either octopuses or sweets with core consisting of two edges. In the case of sweets, the two parallel edges in the core represent two elements in the same box, one of which can then be transformed to $e$, which then can be transformed to add a loop on one of the vertices of the inverse-dual graph of the component, thereby changing its normal form from a sweet to an octopus. Repeating the procedure for every self-inverse chessboard, for every connected component whose normal form is a sweet, we get to a situation, where all of components are actually octopuses. Now we can apply to conclude that $S$ is indeed equivalent to a left-right transversal.
The procedure also gives us the following quantitative result.
Let $H{\leqslant}G$ be a malnormal subgroup such that $\operatorname{rank}(G) {\leqslant}[G:H]$. Then: $$\operatorname{rank}(G) {\leqslant}[G:H] - \frac{\#(\emph{non-self-inverse chessboards})}{2}$$
According to , we can take any generating set of size $[G:H]$ and Nielsen-transform it to a left-right transversal $S$.
Now, for each pair $HgH,Hg^{-1}H$ of non-self inverse chessboards which are inverses to each other, we can use the inversion map to transform elements of the multiset from $Hg^{-1}H$ to $HgH$, forming configurations $S_g \cup S_{g^{-1}}^{-1}$ which are solvable. Now, when we transform these to their normal forms, tells us that these normal forms have two dots in the top-left corner.
Thus, denoting by $k$ the number of pairs $HgH,Hg^{-1}H$ of non-self-inverse chessboards, we Nielsen-transformed $S$ to a configuration with at least $k$ occurrences of two elements being in one box. Because $H$ is a malnormal subgroup, each box in a chessboard of $H$ (excluding the chessboard $H$ itself) contains precisely one group element. Thus a pair of elements of $S$ in the same box must be of the form [{g,g}]{}. Any such pair can be Nielsen transformed in the following way: ${\{g,g\}} \mapsto {\{g,e\}}$. Thus, we get $k$ occurrences of the trivial element $e$ in $S$, which don’t play a role in generating $G$.
This implies that the minimal size of a generating set, i.e. the rank of $G$, is less or equal to $|S|-k$, which is equal to $$[G:H] - \frac{\#(\textrm{non-self-inverse chessboards})}{2}$$
[9]{}
A. Blass, *Injectivity, projectivity, and the axiom of choice*, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. **255** (1979), 31–59.
J. Button, M. Chiodo, M. Zeron-Medina Laris *Coset intersection graphs for groups*. Amer. Math. Monthly **121** (2014), No. 10, 922–926.
J. Button, M. Chiodo, M. Zeron-Medina Laris *Transversals as generating sets in finitely generated groups*. Bulletin of the Australian Mathematical Society **93** (2015), 47–60.
[^1]: The reason why multisets are used instead of sets is that a Nielsen transformation of a set may result in multiple occurrences of a group element, which we do not want to discard. We do not use $n$-tuples because the order of the elements plays no role.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Increasing penetration of renewable energy introduces significant uncertainty into power systems. Traditional simulation-based verification methods may not be applicable due to the unknown-but-bounded feature of the uncertainty sets. Emerging set-theoretic methods have been intensively investigated to tackle this challenge. The paper comprehensively reviews these methods categorized by underlying mathematical principles, that is, set operation-based methods and passivity-based methods. Set operation-based methods are more computationally efficient, while passivity-based methods provide semi-analytical expression of reachable sets, which can be readily employed for control. Other features between different methods are also discussed and illustrated by numerical examples. A benchmark example is presented and solved by different methods to verify consistency.'
author:
- 'Yichen Zhang, Yan Li, Kevin Tomsovic, Seddik M. Djouadi, and Meng Yue, [^1]'
bibliography:
- 'IEEEabrv\_zyc.bib'
- 'Ref\_Set.bib'
title: 'Review on Set-Theoretic Methods for Safety Verification and Control of Power System'
---
Set theoretic methods, uncertainty quantification, unknown-but-bounded uncertainty, safety verification, zonotope, barrier certificate, positivity, safety-critical systems, renewable penetration
Introduction
============
The importance of safety verification increases tremendously for modern engineering systems whose functions are safety-critical such as the transportation systems and power systems. Safety verification is to secure the evolution of dynamic system states, or more specifically to prove that there exists no trajectory entering a set of forbidden, normally denoted as unsafe states [@althoff2010reachability]. Most safety verification approaches can be categorized into three main groups: simulation, set operation and passivity-based methods, which are illustrated in Fig. \[fig\_Verifications\]. The traditional and most widely-used method is simulation. When the system is subjected to input and parameter uncertainties, sampling over the sets is a premise of the simulation task, which requires the statistical information. The objective is to generate a finite set of trajectories that will exhibit all the behaviors of the system [@le2009reachability], or provide a sufficient confidence level [@clarke2011statistical]. Rapidly-exploring random trees [@Bhatia2004], robust test case generation[@julius2007robust], and Monte Carlo simulation [@hegazy2003adequacy] are the major techniques to achieve this goal. In power industry, this procedure is a routine known as the dynamic security assessment (DSA) [@Ni2002] and extremely important to guarantee a reliable electric energy transmission.
![Safety verification based on (a) simulation, (b) set operating and (c) passivity.[]{data-label="fig_Verifications"}](fig/Verifications)
Although the simulation method is efficient, it cannot handle the uncertainties with only unknown-but-bounded assumption. More importantly, simulation is often terminated inconclusively if no counter-example is produced, since there exist infinitely many possible trajectories [@althoff2010reachability]. Set-theoretic methods can be employed to tackle these issues. Set-theoretic methods can be loosely defined as any method which exploits the properties of the properly chosen sets or constructed sets in the state space [@blanchini2008set; @villanueva2015set]. The set operation-based methods aim to evaluate the bounds of all possible trajectories at each time step in an over-approximated fashion. The bounds can be obtained by solving nonlinear optimization [@choi2016propagating], interval mathematics [@althoff2007reachability; @Althoff2014], or the Hamilton-Jacobi partial differential equations [@Tomlin2003; @Jin2010]. Similar to the simulation, these methods also rely on numerical discretization of the continuous systems as well as the explicit representation of the system solutions. Therefore, although provable bounds can be obtained, the computation is intensive and the results may be conservative to a certain level.
On the other hand, the passivity-based methods search for certificates that prove the safety of the system. A common technique is to compute a function in terms of the system states, the zero level set of which provides a “barrier” between the possible system trajectories and the given unsafe region, in the sense that no trajectory of the system starting from the initial set can cross this level set to reach the unsafe region [@Prajna2007a]. It is, in spirit, closely linked to the Lyapunov theory. The Lie deviation is used to represent the underlying vector field, and thus no explicit solution needs to be computed. The invariance principle can guarantee the safety of a system over an infinite time horizon. Since the function is in terms of the system states, it can naturally provide a supervisory function if the state estimation is available [@zhang2018set], admitting an extension to hybrid systems [@zyc_hybrid_JCS_2017]. Nevertheless, the condition is only sufficient. The certificate searching algorithms can terminate inconclusively.
In power networks, with deep penetration of converter-interfaced devices, such as different types of renewable energy, electric vehicles, flexible alternating current transmission systems (FACTS) and high-voltage direct current (HVDC) electric power transmission systems, uncertainty sources continue increasing. The traditional simulation and DSA suffer from a combinatorial explosion and lack of statistical information. The set-theoretic methods are appealing as alternative solutions. In this paper, we will review different both the set-theoretic and passivity-based methods in the categorized manner as well as their applications in power systems.
The outline of the paper is as follows. In Section \[sec\_reach\_set\], the set operation-based methods, including Lagrangian and Eulerian methods, are reviewed. In Section \[sec\_reach\_BC\], the passivity-based methods are presented, where different algorithmic solutions are discussed with an illustration of several examples, followed by the conclusions in \[sec\_con\].
### Preliminaries and Notations
Safety denotes the property that all system trajectories stay within the given bounded regions, thus, the equipment damage or relay triggering can be avoided. Note this is similar, but not identical, to what is called the security in power industry but for the purposes of this paper we will assume satisfying safety conditions ensures a secure operation. Consider the dynamics of a power system governed by a set of ordinary differential equations (ODEs) as $$\label{eq_ode}
\dot{x}(t)=f(x(t),d(t)),\quad t\in[0,T]$$ where $T>0$ is a terminal time, $x(\cdot): [0,T]\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{n}$ denotes the vector of state variables and $d(\cdot): [0,T]\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{m}$ denotes the vector of certain disturbances, such as, generation losses or abrupt load changes. The vector fields $f: \mathbb{R}^{n}\times\mathbb{R}^{m}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{n}$ is such that for any $d$ and initial condition $x_0$, the state equation (\[eq\_ode\]) has a unique solution defined for all $t\in[0,T]$, denoted by $\phi(t;d(t),x_0): [0,T]\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{n}$. Note that we employ a semicolon to distinguish the arguments and the trajectory parameters.
For the verification tasks in power systems, the disturbances may be assumed bounded in the set $D\subseteq\mathbb{R}^{m}$, that is, $d(\cdot): [0,T]\rightarrow D$. Let $X\subseteq\mathbb{R}^{n}$ be the computational domain of interests, $X_{I}\subseteq X$ be the initial set and $X_{U}\subseteq X$ be the unsafe set, then the formal definition of the safety property is given as follows.
\[thm\_safety\_def\] Given (\[eq\_ode\]), $X$, $X_{I}$, $X_{U}$ and $D$, the *safety* property holds if there exists no time instant $T\geq 0$ and no piece-wise continuous and bounded disturbance $d: [0,T]\rightarrow D$ such that $\phi(t;d(t),x_{0})\cap X_{U}\neq\varnothing$ for all $t\in[0,T]$ and $x_0\in X_{I}$.
Set Operation-Based Methods {#sec_reach_set}
===========================
The set operation-based verification can be categorized in different ways. From the *execution* point of view, the set operation-based verification can be conducted using either the forward reachable sets or backward reachable sets as illustrated in Fig. \[fig\_ReachVerifications\] [@Maidens2013]. In the forward verification, the reachable set for the given initial set denoted by $X_{F}$ is computed under the system vector fields to examine whether $X_{F}$ intersects with $X_{U}$. While, in the backward verification, the reachable set denoted by $X_{B}$ is computed in the reverse time and the intersecting condition between $X_{I}$ and $X_B$ is examined.
![Safety verification based on (a) forward reachable set, (b) backward reachable set.[]{data-label="fig_ReachVerifications"}](fig/ReachVerifications)
From the *computation* point of view, there are Lagrangian and Eulerian methods [@Maidens2013]. Both types of methods can be executed in either the forward or the backward setting. Lagrangian methods work with linear systems and seek efficient over-approximation of the reachable sets. Eulerian method (also known as the level set method), which can deal with the general dynamic systems, is to calculate as closely as possible the true reachable set by computing a numerical solution to the Hamilton-Jacobi partial differential equation (HJ PDE). Both methods are briefly introduced in this subsection.
Lagrangian Methods {#sec_sub_reach_set_L}
------------------
Lagrangian methods compute over-approximation of the reachable sets by propagating the sets under the vector fields of linear systems efficiently. The efficiency relies on the special representations of sets as boxes, ellipsoids, polytopes, support functions and so on. Among all representations, the ellipsoids [@Kurzhanskiy2007] and zonotopes [@Girard2005], a sub-class of polytopes, are widely-used. Applications of these techniques in power and energy systems are concluded in Table \[tab\_ch3\_Lagrangian\_app\]. It is worth mentioning that nonlinear differential-algebraic systems have been addressed in [@Althoff2014] by using the conservative linearization.
Reference Technique Topics
------------------------------------------------------- --------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------ -- -- -- --
[@Jiang2013][@YuChristineChen2011] Ellipsoid Uncertainty impact on power flow
[@Chen2012] Ellipsoid Uncertainty impact on dynamic performance
[@Hope2011] Ellipsoid Large-signal behavior of DC-DC converters
[@Xu2016] Ellipsoid Locational impacts of virtual inertia on the frequency responses
[@Pico2013] Zonotope Frequency dynamics with HVAC and HVDC transmission lines
[@Pico2014b][@Pico2014] Zonotope Voltage ride-through capability of wind turbine generators
[@Jiang2014] Zonotope Uncertainty impact on power flow
[@Althoff2014][@Althoff2014b][@El-Guindy2017] Zonotope Transient stability
[@El-Guindy2016] Zonotope Load-following capabilities maximization
[@Al-Digs2016] Zonotope Feasible nodal power injections estimation
[@li2017formal; @li2018networked; @li2018distributed] Zonotope Microgrid stability
[@wang2019reachability] Supporting function Power electronic system
The essence of the Lagrangian methods is to find the boundary of all possible trajectories of a nonlinear differential-algebraic system under various input and parameter uncertainties [@althoff2019reachability]. Specifically, through the Lagrangian methods, one can compute the reachable sets for each short time interval $\eta_j=[t_j, t_{j+1}]$, where $t_j$ and $t_{j+1}$ are time steps.
For instance, when the system is modeled by using a set of differential-algebraic equations as shown in (\[Eq\_DAE\]), the state matrix $\boldsymbol{A}$ can be obtained through $\boldsymbol{f}_{\boldsymbol{x}} -\boldsymbol{f}_{\boldsymbol{y}} \boldsymbol{g}_{\boldsymbol{y}}^{-1} \boldsymbol{g}_{\boldsymbol{x}}$, where $\boldsymbol{f}_{\boldsymbol{x}}={\partial \boldsymbol{f}}/{\partial \boldsymbol{x}}$ is the partial derivative matrix of differential equations with respect to state variables, $\boldsymbol{f}_{\boldsymbol{y}}={\partial \boldsymbol{f}}/{\partial \boldsymbol{y}}$ is the partial derivative matrix of differential equations with respect to the algebraic variables, $\boldsymbol{g}_{\boldsymbol{x}}={\partial \boldsymbol{g}}/{\partial \boldsymbol{x}}$ is the partial derivative matrix of algebraic equations with respect to the state variables, and $\boldsymbol{g}_{\boldsymbol{y}}={\partial \boldsymbol{g}}/{\partial \boldsymbol{y}}$ is the partial derivative matrix of algebraic equations with respect to the algebraic variables.
$$\label{Eq_DAE}
\left \{ \begin{aligned}
&\dot{\boldsymbol{x}}(t)=\boldsymbol{f}\big(\boldsymbol{x}(t),\boldsymbol{y}(t),\boldsymbol{d}(t)\big)\\
&\boldsymbol{0}=\boldsymbol{g}\big(\boldsymbol{x}(t),\boldsymbol{y}(t),\boldsymbol{d}(t)\big), \quad t\in[0,T]
\end{aligned} \right.$$
One important step for reachable set calculation is to properly model the uncertainties $\boldsymbol{d}(t)$. Although the uncertainties in the power grid are time-varying, the most frequent uncertainties and their ranges can be obtained through the measurements. Taking into account the dependence between uncertainties, instead of modeling those uncertainties one by one, which is inefficient, a sub-class of polytopes are widely-used. Taking zonotope as an example, Fig. \[fig\_Zonotope\] illustrates the system uncertainties by using one-, two- and three-dimensional zonotopes. Mathematically, a zonotope $\boldsymbol{d}(t)$ can be modeled by a center and multiple generators as follows [@althoff2014formal; @althoff2011zonotope]: $$\label{Eq21}
\boldsymbol{d}(t)=\{\boldsymbol{c}+\sum_{i=1}^m\alpha_i\boldsymbol{g}_i\mid\alpha_i\in [-1,1]\},$$ where $\boldsymbol{c} \in \mathbb{R}^n$ is the center and $\boldsymbol{g}_i \in \mathbb{R}^n$ are generators.
![Illustration of one-, two- and three-dimension zonotope.[]{data-label="fig_Zonotope"}](fig/zonotope)
Besides the regular zonotope, several other polytopes can be adopted according to the features of uncertainties, e.g., using a sparse polynomial zonotope method [@kochdumper2019sparse] to model the interdependence among uncertainties.
After obtaining the system state matrix $\boldsymbol{A}$ and properly modeling the uncertainties $\boldsymbol{d}(t)$, the reachable sets at each time step and during time steps can be over-approximated via the following closed-form solutions: $$\label{Eq_reachable_set}
\mathcal{S}(t_{j+1})=\mathrm{e}^{\boldsymbol{A}\eta_j}\mathcal{S}(t_j)\oplus\phi_0(\boldsymbol{A}, \eta_j, \boldsymbol{\mathcal{Z}_0})\oplus \varphi_\Delta(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Z}_{\Delta}},\eta_j),$$
\[Eq\_reachable\_set\_2\] (\_j) &=C((t\_j), \^[\_j]{} (t\_j)\_0(, \_j, ))\
& \_(,\_j),
where $\mathcal{S}(t_{j+1})$ is the reachable set at the time step $t_{j+1}$; $\mathcal{S}(\eta_j)$ is the reachable set during time step $t_j$ and $t_{j+1}$; $\mathrm{e}^{\boldsymbol{A}\eta_j}\mathcal{S}(t_j)$ is the impact of the history reachable set on the current one; $\phi_0(\boldsymbol{A}, \eta_j, \boldsymbol{\mathcal{Z}_0})$ represents the increment of reachable set caused by the deterministic uncertainty $\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Z}_0}$ (the center of the zonotope); $\varphi_\Delta(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Z}_{\Delta}},\eta_j)$ represents the increment of reachable set caused by the uncertainty $\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Z}_{\Delta}}$; $\psi$ represents the increment of the reachable set caused by the curvature of trajectories from $t_j$ to $t_{j+1}$; $C(\cdot)$ means the convex hull calculation; and $\oplus$ means Minkowski addition. The items involved in (\[Eq\_reachable\_set\]) and (\[Eq\_reachable\_set\_2\]) can be further expressed as follows [@althoff2008reachability; @althoff2014formal; @schurmann2018reachset]:
$$\label{Eq_phi}
\phi_0(\boldsymbol{A}, \eta_j, \boldsymbol{\mathcal{Z}_0}) =\bigg\{\sum\limits_{i=0}^{\beta} \frac{\boldsymbol{A}^{i}\eta_j^{i+1}}{(i+1)!}\oplus \mathcal{F} \bigg\}\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Z}_0},$$
$$\label{Eq_f}
\mathcal{F}= \big[-\Upsilon(\boldsymbol{A},\eta_j)\eta_j, \Upsilon(\boldsymbol{A},\eta_j)\eta_j\big],$$
\_(,\_j) &=\_[i=0]{}\^ ( ) { },
$$\psi= \big\{\big(\mathcal{I}\oplus \mathcal{G}\big)\cdot\mathcal{S}(t_{j})\big\}
\oplus \big\{\big(\tilde{\mathcal{I}}\oplus \mathcal{F} \big)\cdot\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Z}_0} \big\},$$
\[Eq\_g\] = \[-(,\_j), (,\_j)\].
And $\Upsilon(\boldsymbol{A},\eta_j)$, $\mathcal{I}$, $\tilde{\mathcal{I}}$ involved in (\[Eq\_f\])-(\[Eq\_g\]) are given as follows: $$\Upsilon(\boldsymbol{A},\eta_j)=e^{|\boldsymbol{A}|\eta_j}-\sum\limits_{i=0}^{\beta} \frac{(|\boldsymbol{A}|\eta_j)^{i}}{i!},$$ $$\mathcal{I}=\sum\limits_{i=2}^{\beta} \big[(i^{\frac{-i}{i-1}}-i^{\frac{-1}{i-1}})\eta_j^i,0\big] \frac{\boldsymbol{A}^{i}}{i!},$$ $$\tilde{\mathcal{I}}=\sum\limits_{i=2}^{\beta+1} \big[(i^{\frac{-i}{i-1}}-i^{\frac{-1}{i-1}})\eta_j^i,0\big] \frac{\boldsymbol{A}^{i-1}}{i!}.$$
Overall, (\[Eq\_reachable\_set\]) and (\[Eq\_reachable\_set\_2\]) show the reachable sets calculation over time through the centralized Lagrangian methods. This method can be used for control verification [@el2017formal; @susuki2008verifying; @althoff2019effortless; @koschi2019computationally], identifications of stability regions [@li2017formal], transient stability analysis [@el2017compositional], model conformance [@kochdumper2020establishing; @roehm2019model], risk evaluation [@jin2019risk], etc. For instance, [@althoff2014reachability] computes reachable sets of nonlinear differential-algebraic systems under uncertain initial states and inputs. It can be further developed and used for control verification of power system properties. A quasi-diagonalized Geršgorin theory was established in [@li2017formal] and then combined with the centralized Lagrangian method to efficiently identify microgrids’ stability region under disturbances as illustrated in Fig. \[fig\_margin\]. It shows the impact of disturbances on a networked microgrid system’s stability margin.
![Illustration of system’s operational region under disturbances.[]{data-label="fig_margin"}](fig/margin.pdf)
Although the centralized Lagrangian methods are powerful in evaluating system dynamics subject to disturbances, it is computationally impractical to apply these methods to a large-scale nonlinear dynamic system due to the high dimensionality and operational flexibility [@li2018networked]. A distributed formal analysis [@althoff2014formal; @el2017compositional] (or compositional formal analysis) is studied for efficient calculation and verification. [@althoff2014formal] abstracts the dynamics of a large-scale system to linear differential inclusions by using the full model and then compositionally computes the set of linearization errors. [@el2017compositional] splits a large-scale interconnected grid into subsystems for which the reachable sets are computed separately.
Eulerian Methods {#sec_sub_reach_set_E}
----------------
*Strictly speaking*, the Eulerian method is known as the level set method. In this method, the initial set at time $t$ is implicitly represented by the zero sublevel sets of an appropriate function denoted by $\phi(x,t): \mathbb{R}^{n}\times\mathbb{R}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$, where the surface of the initial set at time $t$ is expressed as $\phi(x,t)=0$. Consider a small variation along this surface, i.e., moving $(x,t)$ to a neighboring point $(x+dx,t+dt)$ on the surface, the variation in $\phi$ will be zero $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq_surface}
d\phi=\phi(x+dx,t+dt)-\phi(x,t)=0\end{aligned}$$ which finally leads to the HJ PDE $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq_HJ_PDE}
\sum\limits_{i}\frac{\partial\phi}{\partial x_{i}}\frac{dx}{dt}+\frac{\partial\phi}{\partial t}=0\end{aligned}$$ The state evolution is governed by the ODE in (\[eq\_ode\]). Thus, Eq. (\[eq\_HJ\_PDE\]) is cast as follows $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq_HJ_PDE_f}
\sum\limits_{i}\frac{\partial\phi}{\partial x_{i}}f(x,d)+\frac{\partial\phi}{\partial t}=0\end{aligned}$$ This PDE describes the propagation of the reachable set boundary as a function of time under the system vector field. By solving the PDE, the precise reachable sets can be obtained, and therefore this method is known as the convergent approximation [@Tomlin2003]. Transient stability [@Jin2010][@Susuki2012] and voltage stability [@Susuki2007] are analyzed using this approach. However, to obtain numerical solutions, one needs to discretize the state space, which leads to an exponentially increasing computational complexity and limits its applications to systems with no more than four continuous states [@Althoff2014].
*Broadly speaking*, the initial set at time $t$ can be expressed alternatively like the occupation measure in [@Henrion2014]. Propagating such a measure (set-valued function) will lead to the Liouville’s PDE. In spirit, the type of methods is closer to the level set method, although may be in a different category from the computation perspective.
Passivity-Based Methods {#sec_reach_BC}
=======================
Different from the set operation-based approaches, which can be regarded essentially as the set-valued simulation, the passivity-based methods exploit and extract invariance features from the vector field of (\[eq\_ode\]), and provide certificates (as a function of system states and thus in state space) proving *unreachability* to unsafe sets. Such a certificate is denoted as a barrier certificate [@Prajna2007a]. If these unsafe sets are infinitely far from the system’s equilibrium point(s), then the certificate provides a stability proof, and are therefore a Lyapunov function. Essentially the barrier certificates and the Lyapunov functions are the same. The key to computing a barrier certificate is to search the functions that are point-wise positive over a set. In this section, the barrier certificate and its extension will be discussed first. Then, theorems and algorithms that admit the positivity condition are introduced, followed by a review of the barrier certificate applications in power systems.
Barrier Certificate and Region of Safety
----------------------------------------
The concept of the barrier certificate for safety verification is firstly proposed in [@Prajna2007a] and formally stated in the following theorem.
\[thm\_barrier\_a\] Let the system $\dot{x}=f(x,d)$, and the sets $X\subseteq\mathbb{R}^{n}$, $X_{I}\subseteq X$, $X_{U}\subseteq X$ and $D\in\mathbb{R}^{m}$ be given, with $f\in C(\mathbb{R}^{n+m},\mathbb{R}^{n})$. If there exists a differentiable function $B:\mathbb{R}^{n}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ such that
$$\begin{aligned}
B(x)\leq 0& \qquad \forall x \in X_{I}\label{eq_barrier_a1}\\
B(x)> 0& \qquad \forall x \in X_{U}\label{eq_barrier_a2}\\
\dfrac{\partial B(x)}{\partial x}f(x,d)<0& \qquad \forall (x,d) \in X\times D \label{eq_barrier_a3}
\end{aligned}$$
then the safety of the system in the sense of Definition \[thm\_safety\_def\] is guaranteed.
The function $B(x)$ satisfied the above theorem is called a barrier certificate. The zero level set of $B(x)$ defines an invariant set containing $X_{I}$, that is, no trajectory starting in $X_{I}$ can cross the boundary to reach the unsafe set. It is guaranteed by the negativity of $B(x)$ over $X_{I}$ and the decrease of $B(x)$ along the system vector fields. Although conditions in Theorem \[thm\_barrier\_a\] is convex, it is rather conservative due to the satisfaction of (\[eq\_barrier\_a3\]) over the entire state space. A non-convex but less conservative condition is also proposed in [@Prajna2007a] as follows.
\[thm\_barrier\_b\] Let the system $\dot{x}=f(x,d)$, and the sets $X\subseteq\mathbb{R}^{n}$, $X_{I}\subseteq X$, $X_{U}\subseteq X$ and $D\in\mathbb{R}^{m}$ be given, with $f\in C(\mathbb{R}^{n+m},\mathbb{R}^{m})$. If there exists a differentiable function $B:\mathbb{R}^{n}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ such that
$$\begin{aligned}
B(x)\leq 0& \qquad \forall x \in X_{I}\label{eq_barrier_1}\\
B(x)> 0& \qquad \forall x \in X_{U}\label{eq_barrier_2}\\
\dfrac{\partial B}{\partial x}f(x,d)<0& \quad \forall (x,d) \in X\times D \quad \mathrm{s.t.} \quad B(x)=0 \label{eq_barrier_3}
\end{aligned}$$
then the safety of the system in the sense of Definition \[thm\_safety\_def\] is guaranteed.
Eq. (\[eq\_barrier\_3\]) reduces conservatism in the sense that the passivity condition only needs to hold on the zero level set of $B(x)$ instead of the whole state space. Compositional barrier certificates are discussed in [@Sloth2012] and [@Sloth2012a] for verification of the interconnected systems. By using the barrier certificate, safety can be verified without explicitly computing trajectories nor reachable sets.
In the above methods, the initial condition $X_{I}$ has to be known. In many problems, however, we would like to know the set of initial condition that only admits safe trajectories. Analogous to the region of attraction in describing stability features, the concept *region of safety* is proposed in [@zyc_hybrid_JCS_2017]. In addition, estimation of the largest region of safety (ROS) will be important to controller synthesis. The corresponding conceptual problem is proposed in [@zyc_hybrid_JCS_2017], and formally formulated as below.
\[thm\_max\_volume\] Let $\dot{x}=f(x,d)$, $X$, $X_{U}$ and $D$ be given. The region of safety $X_{I}$ is obtained by solving: $$\begin{aligned}
&\max_{X_{I},B(x)}& &\quad \text{Volume}(X_{I}) \\
& \text{s. t. }& &B(x)\leq 0 \quad \forall x \in X_{I} \\
& & &B(x)> 0 \quad \forall x \in X_{U} \\
& & &\dfrac{\partial B}{\partial x}f(x,d)<0\quad\forall (x,d) \in X\times D \text{ s.t. } B(x)=0
\end{aligned}$$
Since the non-convexity is introduced by making the initial set as a variable, an iterative solution is proposed in [@zyc_hybrid_JCS_2017] starting by several guessed initial sets illustrated in Fig. \[fig\_Iterative\_Demo\]. The principle of the proposed algorithm is to use the zero level set of a feasible barrier certificate as an initial condition and to search for a larger invariant set. Once feasible, this initial condition becomes the ROS due to the existence of corresponding invariant sets. But this algorithm does not provide information on how *good* the estimation is.
![Demonstration of the iterative algorithm to estimate the largest ROS.[]{data-label="fig_Iterative_Demo"}](fig/Iterative_Demo.pdf)
A recent novel approach proposed in [@Henrion2014] uses occupation measures to formulate the reachability computation as an infinite-dimensional linear program. Its dual problem is formulated on the space of nonnegative continuous functions to compute the ROS shown in (\[eq\_main\])
\[thm\_max\_volume\_om\]
\[eq\_main\] $$\begin{aligned}
&\inf_{B(x),\varOmega(x)} & &\int\limits_{X}\varOmega(x)d\lambda(x)\label{eq_main_1}\\
&\text{s.t.} & & B(x)> 0\quad\forall x\in X_{U}\label{eq_main_2}\\
& & &\dfrac{\partial B}{\partial x}f(x,d)\leq 0\quad\forall(x,d)\in X\times D\label{eq_main_3}\\
& & &\varOmega(x)\geq B(x)+1\quad\forall x\in X\label{eq_main_4}\\
& & & \varOmega(x)\geq 0\quad\forall x\in X\label{eq_main_5}
\end{aligned}$$
The infimum is over $B\in C^{1}(X)$ and $\varOmega\in C(X)$. $\lambda$ denotes the Lebesgue measure. If the problem is feasible, the safety $f(x,d)$ with $d\in D$ is preserved and the zero level set of $\varOmega(x)-1$ converges below to $X_{I}^{*}$.
A strict mathematical proof is given in [@Henrion2014], while a geometric interpretation is illustrated in [@zhang2018set], which is briefly described as follows. Let any trajectory eventually ending up in the set $X_{U}$ at certain time $T$ be denoted as $\phi(T|x_{0})$. Based on the conditions of $B(\phi(T|x_{0}))>0$ in (\[eq\_main\_2\]) and the passivity in (\[eq\_main\_3\]), one can easily show $B(x_{0})>0$. Thus, (\[eq\_main\_2\]) and (\[eq\_main\_3\]) ensure that $B(x)>0$ for any $x\in X_{B}^{*}$ illustrated as a one dimensional case in Fig. \[fig\_Geometry\]. The conservatism lies in the fact that $B(x)>0$ for some $x\in X_{I}^{*}$, which overestimates the BRS (i.e., ${X}_{B}^{*}\subset\overline{X}_{B}$) and in turn underestimates the ROS (i.e., ${X}_{I}^{*}\supset\overline{X}_{I}$). Fortunately, this conservatism can be reduced by introducing a positive slack function $\varOmega(x)$ that is point-wise above the function $B(x)+1$ over the computation domain $X$. Assume the complement set of $X_{I}^{*}$ is represented by the indicator function $\delta_{X\setminus X_{I}^{*}}(x)$, i.e., a function is equal to one on $X\setminus X_{I}^{*}$ and 0 elsewhere. The key idea of the problem in (\[eq\_main\]) is that by minimizing the area of function $\varOmega(x)$ over the computation domain $X$, the function $B(x)+1$ will be forced to approach $\delta_{X\setminus X_{I}^{*}}(x)$ from above as shown in Fig. \[fig\_Geometry\]. Thus, the zero sublevel set of $\varOmega(x)-1$ is an inner approximation of $X_{I}^{*}$. Essentially, the problem in (\[eq\_main\]) is trying to approximate an indicator function using a polynomial. The conservatism of the estimate vanishes with increasing order of the polynomial.
![Geometry interpretation of proposed optimization problem for estimating the ROS. $\Omega(x)$ and $B(x)+1$ are guaranteed to be positive on $X_{U}$ and $X_{B}^{*}$.[]{data-label="fig_Geometry"}](fig//Geometry_1.pdf)
Positivity for Algorithmic Solutions {#sec_sub_BC_pos}
------------------------------------
The key property for the barrier certificates is to enforce positivity or non-negativity (also denoted as semi-positivity) of functions over a given set $K \subseteq\mathbb{R}^{n}$ as
- $p(x)$ is positive definite over a set $K$ if and only if for any $x \in K$, $p(x)>0$
- $p(x)$ is positive semi-definite over a set $K$ if and only if for any $x \in K$, $p(x)\geq 0$
Any such description is called a *positivstellensatz* or *nichtnegativstellensatz*, which ends with a combination of two German words *stellen* (places) and *satz* (theorem) [@Parrilo2000]. This is a very important problem, and a variety of efforts have been devoted to it. However, there is no general solution to prove the above property. To tackle the problem algorithmically, the classes of functions $p(x)$ have to be further restricted. A good compromise is achieved by considering the case of polynomial functions as every continuous function defined on a closed interval $[a,b]$ can be uniformly approximated as closely as desired by a polynomial function based on the Weierstrass approximation theorem.
Once confined to polynomial data, that is, the function $p(x)$ is polynomial and the set $K$ is defined by finitely many polynomial inequalities and equality constraints (denoted as semi-algebraic sets), the problem is solvable under certain cases. In 1900, Hilbert posted a list of 23 problems, the 17th of which was: Given a multivariate polynomial that takes only non-negative values over the reals, can it be represented as a SOS of rational functions [@reznick2000some]? The Hilbert’s 17th problem was answered by Artin in 1927 [@Sassi2015]. But generally the positivity of polynomials is still under intensive studies, mainly being tackled from the algebraic geometry point of view [@powers2011positive]. From now on, we will focus on problems that are represented or approximated using polynomials. In this subsection, two main computation techniques are reviewed.
### SOS Representations
\[thm\_ch3\_SOS\] A polynomial $P(x)$ is a SOS if and only if there exist polynomials $p_1(x),\cdots,p_k(x)$ over $x$ such that $P(x)$ can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
P(x)\equiv p_{1}^2(x)+\cdots+p_{k}^2(x)
\end{aligned}$$
We denote a SOS polynomial as $p\in\varSigma^{2}\left[ x\right]$. Any SOS polynomial is positive semi-definite over $\mathbb{R}^{n}$, while not every positive semi-definite polynomial is a SOS. A counter-example was provided by Motzkin known as the Motzkin polynomial shown as follows [@reznick2000some] $$\begin{aligned}
M(x_1,x_2,x_3)= x_{1}^{4}x_{2}^{2} + x_{1}^{2}x_{2}^{4} - 3x_{1}^{2}x_{2}^{2}x_{3}^{2}+x_{3}^{6}\end{aligned}$$ which is a non-negative degree 6 polynomial and is not a SOS.
For a positivstellensatz, it is sufficient to seek if $p$ is positive semi-definite over a semi-algebraic set $K$ represented as $$\begin{aligned}
K=\{x\in\mathbb{R}^{n}:g_{i}(x)\geq 0, g_{i}\in\mathbb{R}[x]\text{ for }i=1,\cdots,m\}\end{aligned}$$ or written as $K:(g_1(x)\geq 0 \wedge\cdots\wedge g_m(x)\geq 0)$ for short. Then the following theorem can be used to verify the positivity [@Sassi2015].
\[thm\_ch2\_putinar\_p\] If a polynomial $p$ can be expressed as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq_ch2_putinar}
p\equiv q_0 + q_{1}g_{1} + \cdots + q_{m}g_{m}\end{aligned}$$ for SOS polynomials $q_{0},q_{1},\cdots,q_{m}$, then $p$ is positive semi-definite over $K$.
Representing a polynomial in the form of (\[eq\_ch2\_putinar\]) is denoted as the *Putinar representation* [@kamyar2015polynomial]. In [@putinar1993positive] Putinar has proved that every polynomial that is strictly positive on $K$ has a Putinar representation. Thus, it is sufficient from computation point of view to search for a Putinar representation to provide the positivity certificate for a polynomial over a set.
In most cases, $p_{i}(x)$ for $i=1,\cdots,k$ are constructed using the monomial basis under a bounded degree. Searching for appropriate coefficients such that $P(x)$ admits a sum of squares decomposition is denoted as the SOS programming (SOSP) and can be solved by relaxation to a semi-definite program (SDP) [@Parrilo2000; @Parrilo2003]. Now Problem \[thm\_max\_volume\_om\] can be formally solved by the following problem.
\[thm\_om\_sos\]
\[eq\_sos\] $$\begin{aligned}
\inf_{B(x),\varOmega(x)} & \omega'l\\
B(x)-\epsilon - \sigma_{1}(x)g_{U}(x)& \in \varSigma^{2}\left[ x\right]\\
\begin{split}
-\dfrac{\partial B}{\partial x}(x)f_{0}(x,d)-\sigma_{2}(x,d)g_{D}(d)\\-\sigma_{3}(x,d)g_{X}(x)&\in \varSigma^{2}\left[ x\right]\label{eq_sos_3}
\end{split}\\
\varOmega(x)-B(x)-1-\sigma_{4}(x)g_{X}(x) &\in \varSigma^{2}\left[ x\right]\\
\varOmega(x)-\sigma_{5}(x)g_{X}(x) &\in \varSigma^{2}\left[ x\right]
\end{aligned}$$
where $l$ is the vector of the moments of the Lebesgue measure over $X$ indexed in the same basis in which the polynomial $\varOmega(x)$ with coefficients $\omega$ is expressed. For example, for a two-dimensional case, if $\varOmega(x)=c_{1}x_{1}^{2}+c_{2}x_{1}x_{2}+c_{3}x_{2}^{2}$, then $\omega=[c_1,c_2,c_3]$ and $l=\int_{X}[x_{1}^{2},x_{1}x_{2},x_{2}^{2}]\text{d}x_{1}\text{d}x_{2}$.
Conversion of Problem \[thm\_om\_sos\] to SDP has been implemented in solvers such as SOSTOOLS [@sostools] or the SOS module [@sos_yalmip] in YALMIP [@yalmip]. Then, the powerful SDP solvers like MOSEK can be employed [@mosek].
### Linear Representations
As an alternative to the SOS representation, another class of linear representations involves the expression of the target polynomial to be proven non-negative over the set $K$ as a linear combination of polynomials that are known to be nonnegative over the set $K$. This approach reduces the polynomial positivity problem to a linear program (LP) [@kamyar2015polynomial][@Sassi2015]. Then the so-called *Handelman representations* are employed to ensure the non-negativity of a polynomial form over a region. Let $K$ be defined as a semi-algebraic set again: $K=\{x\in\mathbb{R}^{n}:p_{j}(x)\geq 0,j=1,2,\cdots,m\}$. Denote the set of polynomials $P$ as $\{p_{1},p_{2},...,p_{m}\}$. This approach writes the given polynomial $p(x)$ as a conic combination of products of the constraints defining $K$, i.e., $p(x)=\lambda_{f}f$, where $\lambda_{f}\in\mathbb{R}^{+}$ are the coefficients, $D$ is the bounded degree and $f$ belongs to the following set $$f\in\mathcal{P}(P,D)=\{p_{1}^{n_{1}}p_{2}^{n_{2}}\cdots p_{m}^{n_{m}}:n_{j}\leq D,j=1,2,\cdots,m\}$$ If the semi-algebraic set reduces into a polyhedron, that is, $p_{j}(x)=a_{j}x-b_{j}$, then the following conclusion known as the Handelman’s Theorem provides a useful LP relaxation for proving polynomial positivity [@Handelman1988].
\[thm\_ch3\_handelman\] If $p(x)$ is strictly positive over a compact polyhedron $K$, there exists a degree bound $D>0$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq_ch3_handelman}
p(x)=\sum\lambda_{f}f \text{ for } \lambda_{f}\geq 0 \text{ and } f\in\mathcal{P}(P,D)
\end{aligned}$$
An example in [@Sassi2015] is presented here for better illustration. Consider the polynomial $p(x_1,x_2)=-2x_{1}^{3} + 6x_{1}^{2}x_{2} + 7x_{1}^{2} - 6x_{1}x_{2}^2 -14x_{1}x_{2} + 2x_{2}^{3} + 7x_{2}^{2} - 9$ and the set $K:(x_1 - x_2 - 3\geq 0 \wedge x_2 - x_1 - 1\geq 0)$. Then, the positivity of $p$ over $K$ can be proved by representing $p$ as follows $$\begin{aligned}
p(x_1,x_2)=\lambda_{1}f_{1}^{2}f_{2}+3f_{1}f_{2}\end{aligned}$$ where $f_{1}=x_1 - x_2 - 3$, $f_{2}=x_2 - x_1 - 1\geq 0$, $\lambda_{1}=2$ and $\lambda_{2}=3$.
The general procedure is described as follows [@Sassi2015]:
1. Choose a degree limit $D$ and construct all terms in $\mathcal{P}(P,D)$, where $P=\{p_{1},p_{2},...,p_{m}\}$ are the lines defining polyhedron $K$.
2. Let $p(x)=\sum_{f\in\mathcal{P}(P,D)}\lambda_{f}f$ for unknown multipliers $\lambda_{f}\geq 0$.
3. Equate coefficients on both sides (the given polynomial and the Handelman representation) to obtain a set of linear inequality constraints involving $\lambda_{f}$.
4. Use a LP solver to solve these constraints. If feasible, the results yields a proof that $p(x)$ is positive semi-definite over $K$.
Handelman’s Theorem results in a LP, and thus reduces the computation burden. However, since the multipliers $\lambda_{f}$ are real numbers instead of SOS polynomials in Putinar representation, it admits a less chance to find a Handelman representation, leaving the problem inconclusive.
### An Illustrative Example
We employ the example in [@Prajna2007a] to illustrate these two representation by solving Theorem \[thm\_barrier\_a\] as a precursor. Similar attempt is made in [@Yang2016b] as well. Consider the following system $$\begin{aligned}
\left[\begin{array}{c}\dot{x}_{1}\\\dot{x}_{2}\end{array}\right] =
\left[ \begin{array}{c}
x_{2}\\
-x_{1}+\frac{1}{3}x_{1}^{3}-x_{2}
\end{array} \right]\end{aligned}$$ The original sets are defined as: $X=\mathbb{R}^{2}$, $X_{I}=\{x\in\mathbb{R}^{2}:(x_{1}-1.5)^{2}+x_{2}^{2}\leq 0.25\}$, $X_{U}=\{x\in\mathbb{R}^{2}:(x_{1}+1)^{2}+(x_{2}+1)^{2}\leq 0.16\}$. To employ the Handelman’s Theorem, they are modified to be polyhedrons as shown in Fig. \[fig\_Handelman\]. The barrier certificate computed using the Handelman’s Theorem is plotted as the blue curve, while the one obtained by SOSP is plotted as the dark curve. As seen, although the barrier certificates are different, both approaches successfully verify the safety of the system.
![Safety verification using the Handelman representation.[]{data-label="fig_Handelman"}](fig/Handelman-eps-converted-to){width="3.0"}
Power System Applications {#sec_sub_BC_app}
-------------------------
The initial application of barrier certificates appeared in [@Wisniewski2013] and [@Laurijsse2014a]. The barrier certificate methodology is employed to design the safety supervisor such that the wind turbines can be shutdown timely in emergent conditions. Voltage constraint satisfaction under variable distributed generation and time-varying consumption is verified in [@Pedersen2016]. In [@zyc_hybrid_JCS_2017; @zhang2018set], a safety supervisory control is designed to timely activate the inertia emulation functions within a wind turbine generator such that the system frequency is adequate with respect to a given worst case. In [@kundu2019distributed], a control policy is designed and certified using barrier certificates such that the voltage limits during transients are respected under generated active and reactive power setpoints. Closely related works are the stability analysis based on Lyapunov functions [@anghel2013algorithmic; @kundu2015stability; @mishra2017stability; @mishra2019transient; @josz2019transient].
One advantage of passivity-based methods compared with the set operation-based methods is that the certificate is a function of system states. As analyzable and quantifiable, the certificates can be readily employed as a supervisory control for multi-mode control systems such as grid-interactive converters. This supervisory control can not only generate switching commands, but also provide real-time margin for a critical safe switching. The works in [@Wisniewski2013; @Laurijsse2014a; @zyc_hybrid_JCS_2017; @zhang2018set] have taken this advantages.
### Benchmark Example
To further demonstrate the approaches, a simple example is illustrated as a benchmark. Lagrangian methods, Eulerian Method and passivity-based methods are compared showing highly consistent results. Consider the linearized single-machine infinite-bus system as follows $$\begin{aligned}
\left[\begin{array}{c}\Delta\dot{\delta}\\\Delta\dot{\omega}\end{array}\right] =
\left[ \begin{array}{cc}
0 & 6.2833\\
-6.2696 & -0.1429
\end{array} \right]
\left[\begin{array}{c}\Delta\delta\\\Delta\omega\end{array}\right]\end{aligned}$$ Define the safety specification as $X_U=\{[\delta,\omega]^{T}: -0.5\leq\omega\leq 0.5\}$. First, the zonotope-based set operating method is applied in backward to find the largest backward reachable set of the unsafe set. Define an unsafe set as the red box shown in Fig. \[fig\_zonotope\] and propagate this set in reverse time.
![Backward reachable set computation using zonotopes for 1 s in reverse time. $x_{1}$ is the rotor angle and $x_{2}$ is the machine speed.[]{data-label="fig_zonotope"}](fig/zonotope2-eps-converted-to){width="3"}
If the computation is long enough, then an invariant set in the middle of the backward reachable set of the unsafe set is obtained, which is actually the ROS. The ROSs computed by the level set method and the iterative algorithm in Fig. \[fig\_Iterative\_Demo\] are shown in Fig. \[fig\_ROS\_Comparison\] together with the backward reachable set via the zonotope method. The three results are in accordance with each other, and the backward reachability interpretation of the largest ROS is verified.
![ROS computed by the level set method and iterative algorithm in Fig. \[fig\_Iterative\_Demo\] and compared with the backward reachable set of the unsafe set using zonotope representations.[]{data-label="fig_ROS_Comparison"}](fig/ROS_Comparison-eps-converted-to){width="3"}
The results obtained by the algorithm in Fig. \[fig\_Iterative\_Demo\] and Problem \[thm\_max\_volume\_om\] are compared in Fig. \[fig\_ch4\_ROS\_Comparison2\].
![ROS computed by the algorithm in Fig. \[fig\_Iterative\_Demo\] and Problem \[thm\_max\_volume\_om\].[]{data-label="fig_ch4_ROS_Comparison2"}](fig/ROS_Comparison2-eps-converted-to){width="3"}
In this simple case, the two results are consistent. The zero level set of $B(x)$ solved by Problem \[thm\_max\_volume\_om\] is enlarged by $\varOmega(x)-1$ as much as possible to the largest ROS under the fixed highest degree. With increasing dimensions of the system, higher degrees may need to obtain a convergent result from Problem \[thm\_max\_volume\_om\]. Limited by the computation complexity, Problem \[thm\_max\_volume\_om\] sometimes fails to converge. The algorithm in Fig. \[fig\_Iterative\_Demo\] can always provide certain results, however, with unknown conservatism.
Conclusion {#sec_con}
==========
In this paper, set-theoretic methods for power system safety verification and control are reviewed. The methods are categorized into set operation-based and passivity-based methods according to their underlying mathematical principle. In general, set operating-based methods are computationally more efficient and applicable to higher-order systems. On the other hand, passivity-based methods provide semi-analytical representations of reachable sets and can be readily deployed for multi-mode control systems. A benchmark example is given. The ROS is computed via different methods, resulting in high consistency. The reviewed methods provide vivid solutions to handle unknown-but-bounded uncertainty in power system operations. Generally speaking, however, scalability of set-theoretic methods is the most challenging factor that prohibit it from power system application as realistic power networks are significantly large-scale. Sparse SDP, distributed and parallel computation as well as large-scale dynamic equivalencing are potential solutions and under intensively studied.
[^1]: This work was supported in part by the National Science Foundation under the Grant ECCS-1711432, and in part by the Engineering Research Center Program of the National Science Foundation and the Department of Energy under NSF Award Number EEC-1041877.
Y. Zhang is with Energy System Division, Argonne National Laboratory, Lemont, IL 60439 USA (email: [email protected]).
Y. Li is with School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Pennsylvania State University, State College, PA 16801 USA (email: [email protected]).
K. Tomsovic and S. M. Djouadi are with the Min H. Kao Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996 USA (e-mail: [email protected], [email protected]).
M. Yue is with the Department of Sustainable Energy Technologies, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY 11973 USA (e-mail: [email protected]).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Classical novae are expected to contribute to the 1809-keV Galactic $\gamma$-ray emission by producing its precursor $^{26}$Al, but the yield depends on the thermonuclear rate of the unmeasured $^{25}$Al($p,\gamma$)$^{26}$Si reaction. Using the $\beta$ decay of $^{26}$P to populate the key $J^{\pi}=3^+$ resonance in this reaction, we report the first evidence for the observation of its exit channel via a $1741.6 \pm 0.6 (\textrm{stat}) \pm 0.3 (\textrm{syst})$ keV primary $\gamma$ ray, where the uncertainties are statistical and systematic, respectively. By combining the measured $\gamma$-ray energy and intensity with other experimental data on $^{26}$Si, we find the center-of-mass energy and strength of the resonance to be $E_r = 414.9 \pm 0.6(\textrm{stat}) \pm 0.3 (\textrm{syst}) \pm 0.6(\textrm{lit.})$ keV and $\omega\gamma = 23 \pm 6 (\textrm{stat})^{+11}_{-10}(\textrm{lit.})$ meV, respectively, where the last uncertainties are from adopted literature data. We use hydrodynamic nova simulations to model $^{26}$Al production showing that these measurements effectively eliminate the dominant experimental nuclear-physics uncertainty and we estimate that novae may contribute up to 30 % of the Galactic $^{26}$Al.'
author:
- 'M. B. Bennett'
- 'C. Wrede'
- 'K. A. Chipps'
- 'J. Jos[é]{}'
- 'S. N. Liddick'
- 'M. Santia'
- 'A. Bowe'
- 'A. A. Chen'
- 'N. Cooper'
- 'D. Irvine'
- 'E. McNeice'
- 'F. Montes'
- 'F. Naqvi'
- 'R. Ortez'
- 'S. D. Pain'
- 'J. Pereira'
- 'C. Prokop'
- 'J. Quaglia'
- 'S. J. Quinn'
- 'S. B. Schwartz'
- 'S. Shanab'
- 'A. Simon'
- 'A. Spyrou'
- 'E. Thiagalingam'
title: 'Classical-Nova Contribution to the Milky Way’s $^{26}$Al Abundance: Exit Channel of the Key $^{25}$Al($p,\gamma$)$^{26}$Si Resonance'
---
Gamma-ray telescopes pointed at the Milky Way have detected a diffuse 1809-keV line that is characteristic of $^{26}$Al decay ($\tau = 1.0$ Ma) [@ma84apj; @sh85apj; @ma87apj; @di95aa; @di06nat]. Observation of this line provides direct evidence for ongoing nucleosynthesis processes contributing to the interstellar medium and maintaining a total steady-state $^{26}$Al mass of $2.7 \pm 0.7$ $M_{\odot}$ [@di06nat; @wa09aa]. The abundance of $^{26}$Al in protoplanetary disks orbiting young stars may influence the formation of habitable planetary systems such as our own because, in sufficient quantities, the energy released by its *in situ* decay can heat planetesimals inducing differentiation and water sublimation [@ur55pnas; @sr99sci; @ti12conf]. The inhomogeneous spatial distribution of the 1809-keV emission across the Milky Way suggests that the outflows of massive stars and their supernovae are the primary sites for $^{26}$Al production [@pr96pr]. In the limit where secondary sites such as classical novae and asymptotic giant branch stars are well understood, one can use the $^{26}$Al line to estimate the rate of core-collapse supernovae in the Milky Way [@di06nat] or compare with the $^{60}$Fe gamma-ray line intensity [@wa07aa] to benchmark simulations of nucleosynthesis in models of massive-star evolution and death [@li06apj].
Classical novae are thermonuclear explosions on hydrogen-accreting white-dwarf stars that have been estimated to contribute up to 0.4 $M_{\odot}$ to the Galactic $^{26}$Al inventory [@jo97apj]. This contribution needs to be quantified accurately for the intrinsic study of classical novae and because it could present a significant background to the massive-star component. Fortunately, modeling of nucleosynthesis in novae is relatively advanced and now includes experimental constraints on most of the essential thermonuclear reaction rates [@il10npaII], which are primarily resonant radiative proton captures at peak temperatures between 0.1 and 0.4 GK. For example, the direct production mechanism for $^{26}$Al, the $^{25}$Mg($p,\gamma$)$^{26}$Al reaction, is well studied experimentally [@il90npa; @il96prc; @il10npaIII; @st12plb] because the reactants are stable. A recent experiment using a $^{26}$Al rare isotope beam has reduced the uncertainty in the rate of the direct destruction mechanism, the $^{26}$Al($p,\gamma$)$^{27}$Si reaction [@ru06prl]. The dominant outstanding experimental nuclear-physics uncertainty lies in the thermonuclear rate of the $^{25}$Al($p,\gamma$)$^{26}$Si reaction ($Q = 5513.8 \pm 0.5$ keV [@pa05prc; @er09prc; @au12cpc]), which bypasses production of the $^{26}$Al ground state [@il96prc] and, therefore, reduces the intensity of 1809-keV gamma ray emission.
The $^{25}$Al($p,\gamma$)$^{26}$Si rate depends on the center-of-mass energies and strengths of $^{26}$Si resonances (for a recent summary see Ref. [@wr09prc]). Direct measurements of the resonance strengths using a $^{25}$Al ($\tau = 10.4$ s) beam are not yet possible at rare-isotope beam facilities due to insufficient intensities. Efforts to constrain the reaction rate indirectly by studying the proton-unbound states and mass of $^{26}$Si have included a variety of experimental nuclear-physics methods utilizing both stable and rare isotope beams [@ba02prc; @pa04prc; @th04epj; @pa05prc; @ba06prc; @se07prc; @kw08jkp; @er09prc; @pe09prc; @ma10prc; @ch10prc; @de10pos; @ch12prc; @ko12pos]. In addition, reaction-rate evaluations employing available data and supplemented by shell-model calculations or information from the isospin mirror nucleus $^{26}$Mg have been conducted [@il96prc; @il01apj; @wr09prc; @ri11prc; @pa13prc].
Currently, there are three known $^{26}$Si states (spin and parity 1$^+$, 0$^+$, and 3$^+$) that could potentially contribute to the $^{25}$Al($p,\gamma$)$^{26}$Si reaction rate as resonances at nova temperatures. The center-of-mass energy of the 1$^+$ resonance is $163.2 \pm 1.8$ keV based on the excitation energy derived from its gamma decay [@se07prc] and the $Q$ value. The 1$^+$ resonance likely only contributes to the total reaction rate at temperatures below 0.2 GK, where the $^{25}$Al($p,\gamma$)$^{26}$Si route bypassing $^{26}$Al is not strongly activated [@pa13prc]. The energy of the 0$^+$ resonance is not settled, but it appears to lie in the vicinity of 400 keV based on its population in the $^{24}$Mg($^3$He,$n$)$^{26}$Si reaction [@pa04prc; @de10pos; @ko12pos]. The strength of the 0$^+$ resonance is expected [@ba06prc] to be much lower than the nearby 3$^+$ resonance and, therefore, the 3$^+$ resonance likely dominates the reaction rate at the highest nova temperatures, where $^{25}$Al($p,\gamma$)$^{26}$Si is most active, making experimental constraints on the energy and strength of the 3$^+$ resonance essential. It has been argued [@wr09prc] that the 3$^+$ resonance energy is $412 \pm 2$ keV based on $^{26}$P beta-delayed proton decay [@th04epj] and other experimental data, corresponding to a $^{26}$Si excitation energy of $5926 \pm 2$ keV when combined with the $Q$ value; an excitation-energy value of $5927 \pm 4$ keV measured more recently using the $^{28}$Si($p,t$)$^{26}$Si$^*$($p$)$^{25}$Al reaction [@ch10prc] is in good agreement. The proton-decay partial width of the 3$^+$ resonance has been determined to be $\Gamma_p = 2.9 \pm 1.0$ eV using the $^{25}$Al($d,n$)$^{26}$Si$^*$($p$)$^{25}$Al reaction [@pe09prc], providing valuable further information on the $^{25}$Al($p,\gamma$)$^{26}$Si entrance channel.
The radiative exit channel of the key 3$^+$ $^{25}$Al($p,\gamma$)$^{26}$Si resonance sets the resonance strength, but it has not yet been observed due to the dominance of the proton-decay channel, which is generally expected to be about 2 orders of magnitude stronger. Discovery of the exit channel via the strongest expected primary gamma-ray transition ($E_{\gamma} = 1739 \pm 2$ keV [@th04epj; @au12cpc] or $1740 \pm 4$ keV [@ch10prc]) to the 3$^+$ level at 4187 keV [@se07prc] could lead to an experimental value for the small gamma-ray branching ratio $\Gamma_{\gamma}/\Gamma \approx \Gamma_{\gamma}/\Gamma_p$ of the 3$^+$ resonance. Together with $\Gamma_p$ [@pe09prc], such a value would complete the experimental information on $^{26}$Si that is needed to calculate the resonance strength without relying heavily on shell-model calculations or properties of the mirror nucleus. Even a sufficiently strong upper limit could prove that the $^{25}$Al($p,\gamma$)$^{26}$Si reaction channel bypassing $^{26}$Al production is effectively closed in novae.
We have exploited the strong population of the third $3^+$ ($3^+_3$) $^{26}$Si level of interest in $^{26}$P beta decay [@th04epj; @wr09prc] to search for the radiative exit channel and measure the gamma-ray branching ratio. Fast ions of $^{26}$P were produced at Michigan State University’s National Superconducting Cyclotron Laboratory (NSCL) using projectile fragmentation of a 150 MeV/*u*, 75 pnA $^{36}$Ar primary beam from the Coupled Cyclotron Facility, incident upon a 1.55 g/cm$^2$ Be transmission target. The $^{26}$P ions were separated from other fragmentation products by magnetic rigidity using the A1900 fragment separator [@mo03nim] (employing a 120 mg/cm$^2$ Al wedge) and by time of flight using a radio-frequency fragment separator [@ba09nim]. Up to 100 $^{26}$P ions s$^{-1}$ were delivered to the experimental setup. Clean ion identification was accomplished using both the time of flight from a scintillator at the focal plane of the A1900 to two 60 $\mu$m-thick silicon detectors located $\approx70$ cm upstream of the counting station, and the energy losses in the latter. On average, the composition of the beam delivered to the experiment was found to be 74% $^{26}$P with 18% contamination by $^{24}$Al and small fractions of lighter ions. The $^{26}$P ions were implanted in a 1-cm thick planar germanium detector (GeDSSD) [@la13nim] that was divided electronically by 16 segmented strips of 5 mm pitch on the front side and 16 orthogonal ones on the back. The GeDSSD recorded the radioactive ion implantations and their subsequent beta decays using parallel low- and high-gain amplifications, respectively. The SeGA array of Ge detectors [@mu01nim] surrounded the GeDSSD in two coaxial 13-cm radius rings consisting of eight germanium detectors apiece and was used to detect gamma rays. The NSCL digital data acquisition [@st09nim] was employed.
The SeGA spectra were gain matched to produce cumulative spectra with 1-keV-wide bins using the strong gamma-ray lines from room-background activity at 1460.8 keV (from $^{40}$K decay) and 2614.5 keV (from $^{208}$Tl decay) as reference points, providing an *in situ* first-order relative-energy calibration. Efficiency calibrations were performed using standard sources of $^{154,155}$Eu and $^{56}$Co placed along the beam axis on the outside surface of the GeDSSD cryostat (5 cm downstream of the $^{26}$P implantation position). The calibration data were used together with <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">geant4</span> Monte Carlo simulations incorporating the essential components of the experimental geometry to determine the efficiency at the $^{26}$P position 300 $\mu$m deep inside the GeDSSD crystal.
In order to reduce the room-background contribution to the online gamma-ray spectra, a beta-delayed gamma-ray spectrum (see Fig. \[fig: bigfit\]) was produced by requiring coincidences with high-gain events in the GeDSSD, which included beta particles, in a $1.2~\mu$s software gate. Although there were clear contributions from beam contaminants, room background, and daughter activities, this $\beta\gamma$ spectrum was dominated in the region of interest by $^{26}$Si and $^{25}$Al lines from the decay of $^{26}$P.
![(color online). Cumulative $^{26}$P($\beta\gamma$)$^{26}$Si (left axis) and $^{26}$P($\beta\gamma\gamma$)$^{26}$Si (right axis) spectra. The data points show the $\beta\gamma$ spectrum with error bars spanning 1 standard deviation. The solid line is a fit to the data including known gamma-ray transitions (Doppler broadened for $^{25}$Al), a straight-line background, and a new peak at 1742 keV. The gamma-ray emitting nuclides contributing to each feature in the spectrum are labeled, where two asterisks denote peaks produced by the escape of two 511-keV positron-annihilation gamma rays. The open histogram shows $\beta\gamma\gamma$ coincidences with 1401-keV gamma rays. The hatched histogram shows coincidences with continuum background in a relatively broad energy region just above 1401 keV in 9-keV-wide bins and normalized to correspond to the expected background per keV in the 1401-keV coincidence spectrum. []{data-label="fig: bigfit"}](bigfit_arxiv_test){width="50.00000%"}
The spectrum was fit (see Fig. \[fig: bigfit\]) in the region of interest using an exponentially modified Gaussian effective response function whose shape was fixed based on peaks of similar energy in the high statistics gamma-ray singles spectrum. A small extra peak was needed at 1801 keV to achieve a reasonable fit, but we considered this to be part of the intense 1797-keV line, which could not be fit adequately with our simplified response model. Doppler broadening of peaks originating from the $^{26}$P($\beta p \gamma$)$^{25}$Al decay sequence was incorporated to account for nuclear recoil. Where relative energies or intensities of lines were sufficiently well known, they were constrained in the fit. The continuum background from Compton scattering of higher-energy gamma rays was modeled with a straight line spanning the range shown in Fig. \[fig: bigfit\]; there was no evidence for significant curvature.
We observed evidence for an unbroadened peak in the region of interest that was 3.9 standard deviations above the expected background level. The energy of this peak was found to be $1741.6 \pm 0.6 (\textrm{stat}) \pm 0.3 (\textrm{syst})$ keV with reference to the literature energies of well-known gamma-ray lines included in the fit and the relative-energy scale derived from the gain-matching procedure, where the uncertainties are statistical and systematic, respectively. The systematic uncertainty was assigned based on small variations in the result obtained using various calibration points. We could not find a previously observed gamma-ray transition to attribute this peak to, but its energy and (as shown below) intensity are consistent with expectations for the previously unobserved $3_3^+ \rightarrow 3_2^+$ transition to the 4187-keV state in $^{26}$Si. When additional narrow peaks were added to the fit in the vicinities of 1735 and 1754 keV (neither one included in the fit shown in Fig. \[fig: bigfit\]), they were found to be 2.6 standard deviations above the expected background level. The 1742-keV peak is the most statistically significant new peak in the spectrum and it is consistent with the expected energy for the $3_3^+ \rightarrow 3_2^+$ transition.
In order to further test the hypothesis that the new 1742-keV peak is from the $3_3^+ \rightarrow 3_2^+$ $^{26}$Si gamma-ray transition following the beta decay of $^{26}$P, we searched for gamma-ray coincidences with the 1401-keV gamma ray, which is known to be the strongest transition deexciting the $3_2^+$ level at 4187 keV [@se07prc]. Supposing that the 1742-keV peak in the $\beta\gamma$ spectrum was from the $3_3^+$ level and using its measured intensity together with the known branching [@se07prc; @wr09prc] and detection efficiency for the 1401-keV gamma ray, we would expect to observe $3.4 \pm 0.9(\textrm{stat}) \pm 0.4(\textrm{syst})$ real coincidences between 1401- and 1742-keV gamma rays. Figure \[fig: bigfit\] shows the observed $\beta\gamma\gamma$ coincidence spectrum with nine candidate events over a 10-keV range that could be reasonably attributed to the 1742-keV peak in the $\beta\gamma$ spectrum. We estimate the background to be 0.3 counts/keV using both coincidences in nearby bins and the spectrum observed in coincidence with a relatively broad background region just above 1401 keV, suggesting an expected background of three counts over the 10-keV range. Assuming a Poisson distribution, the probability of obtaining nine or more counts when three background counts are expected is only 0.4 %. This 99.6 % confidence-level excess in the vicinity of the 1742-keV peak is the most statistically significant coincidence signal in the region of interest with the exception of the signal from the 1797-keV peak, for which the corresponding gamma ray is known [@th04epj; @se07prc] to be emitted in cascade with the 1401-keV gamma ray. Considering the expected coincidence background of three counts and the nine observed events, we find the observed number of real coincidences to be $6.0^{+3.8}_{-2.7}$, where the uncertainties are adopted from the tables of Ref. [@fe98prd]. This $\beta\gamma\gamma$ coincidence result is consistent with the hypothesis that the 1742-keV peak in the $\beta\gamma$ spectrum is produced by deexcitation of the $3_3^+$ $^{26}$Si level, providing further evidence for such an identification.
While no individual piece of evidence on the identification of the 1742-keV gamma ray (energy, intensity, coincidences) is absolutely conclusive on its own, consideration of the evidence as a whole presents a relatively strong case that this gamma ray is from the $3_3^+ \rightarrow 3_2^+$ $^{26}$Si transition. The most significant excess in the region of interest of both the $\beta\gamma$ and $\beta\gamma\gamma$ spectra is at 1742 keV, which is consistent with the expected transition energy. The intensities of the signals at 1742 keV in the two spectra are mutually consistent. The $\beta\gamma$ feature at 1754 keV and, to a lesser extent the one at 1735 keV, are inconsistent with the transition energy. In addition, these less statistically significant $\beta\gamma$ features do not have significant corresponding excesses in the $\beta\gamma\gamma$ spectrum. We will, therefore, consider the 1742-keV gamma ray to be from the $3_3^+ \rightarrow 3_2^+$ $^{26}$Si transition for subsequent calculations.
Using the fits of the 1742- and 1797-keV peaks in the $\beta\gamma$ spectrum shown in Fig. \[fig: bigfit\] [@th04epj; @se07prc], the ratio of their respective areas was derived to be $(3.4 \pm 0.9) \times 10^{-3}$. Using this value, the known intensity of the 1797-keV line ($52\% \pm 11 \%$ [@th04epj]), and the ratio of efficiencies between these two energies (effectively unity) we derive the $\beta\gamma$ intensity of the 1742-keV gamma ray to be $[0.18 \pm 0.05(\textrm{stat}) \pm 0.04(\textrm{lit.})] \%$, where the latter uncertainty is due to adopted literature data. The 1742-keV partial gamma-decay branch of the $3_3^+$ level is expected to be $71^{+13}_{-19}\%$ based on the decay of the $^{26}$Mg mirror level [@wr09prc] (the shell model also predicts 71% [@br13priv]), suggesting that the total $\beta\gamma$ intensity of all primary gamma rays from this level is $[0.25 \pm 0.07(\textrm{stat})^{+0.08}_{-0.07}(\textrm{lit.})]\%$. For comparison, the beta delayed proton decay intensity through this level is $17.96\% \pm 0.90 \%$ [@th04epj]. Dividing the gamma intensity by the proton intensity yields the ratio of partial widths, $\Gamma_{\gamma}/\Gamma_p= 0.014 \pm 0.004 (\textrm{stat})^{+0.005}_{-0.004}(\textrm{lit.})$. Adopting the experimentally determined value of $\Gamma_p = 2.9 \pm 1.0$ eV [@pe09prc] yields $\Gamma_{\gamma} = 40 \pm 11(\textrm{stat})^{+19}_{-18}(\textrm{lit.})$ meV allowing us to calculate a $^{25}$Al($p,\gamma$)$^{26}$Si resonance strength $\omega\gamma = 23 \pm 6 (\textrm{stat}) ^{+11}_{-10}(\textrm{lit.})$ meV.
The presently derived $^{25}$Al($p,\gamma$)$^{26}$Si resonance strength is the first one based on measurements of $^{26}$Si partial widths and branching ratios. The shell model has been used elsewhere [@ri11prc] to predict a resonance strength of 68 meV, whereas estimates [@ba02prc; @wr09prc] based on a lifetime measurement [@gl86zpa] of the $^{26}$Mg mirror level yield a value of $18^{+18}_{-9}$ meV. The resonance strength derived in the present work favors those based on the mirror level.
We derive a $^{25}$Al($p,\gamma$)$^{26}$Si resonance energy for the $3_3^+$ level using our measured primary gamma-ray energy by adding it to the excitation energy of the $3_2^+$ state ($4187.1 \pm 0.3$ keV) [@se07prc], which yields an excitation energy of $5928.7 \pm 0.6(\textrm{stat}) \pm 0.3 (\textrm{syst}) \pm 0.3 (\textrm{lit.})$ keV. Combining this with the $Q$ value yields a resonance energy of $414.9 \pm 0.6(\textrm{stat}) \pm 0.3 (\textrm{syst}) \pm 0.6(\textrm{lit.})$ keV. This energy is compatible with, and more precise than, the values of $412 \pm 2$ keV derived from the beta-delayed proton-decay energy [@th04epj; @wr09prc] and $413 \pm 4$ keV from the ($p,t$) reaction [@ch10prc].
We calculated a new thermonuclear $^{25}$Al($p,\gamma$)$^{26}$Si reaction rate using the $3^+$ resonance energy and strength (and corresponding uncertainties) from the present work. For the $1^+$ and $0^+$ resonances and the direct-capture component, we adopted the values and uncertainties from Ref. [@wr09prc]. We simulated the production of $^{26}$Al in novae on oxygen-neon (ONe) white dwarfs with masses of 1.15, 1.25, and 1.35 $M_{\odot}$ using the spherically symmetric, Lagrangian, hydrodynamic code <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">shiva</span> [@jo98apj] and a nuclear reaction network that includes the rates from Ref. [@il10npaII] and our new $^{25}$Al($p,\gamma$)$^{26}$Si rate. The simulations were repeated with the standard-deviation limits on our rate. The results are summarized in Table \[tab:26Al\], which shows that the uncertainties related to the $^{25}$Al($p,\gamma$)$^{26}$Si reaction are typically $\ll10\%$. Since the $^{25}$Al($p,\gamma$)$^{26}$Si reaction-rate uncertainty was the last substantial experimental nuclear-physics uncertainty associated directly with the explosion, the reported $^{26}$Al yields represent model predictions that are effectively independent of these experimental nuclear-physics uncertainties — a significant milestone.
Following the estimate of Ref. [@jo97apj] (based on Ref. [@we90aa]) and changing only the amount of $^{26}$Al produced in novae on 1.15 $M_{\odot}$ ONe white dwarfs (see Table \[tab:26Al\]), we find an increase from 20% to 30% in the maximum contribution of classical novae to the $^{26}$Al observed [@di06nat; @wa09aa] in the Milky Way. In order to deduce the nova contribution more accurately, the number of ONe novae per year in the Galaxy needs to be determined more accurately and multidimensional aspects of nova modeling, including mixing at the core-envelope interface, need to be integrated with the nucleosynthesis.
White-dwarf mass 1.15 $M_{\odot}$ 1.25 $M_{\odot}$ 1.35 $M_{\odot}$
----------------------------------------------- --------------------------- --------------------------- ---------------------------
$M_{\textrm{tot}}$ ($10^{28}$ g) $4.9$ $3.8$ $0.90$
$M$($^{27}$Al)/$M_{\textrm{tot}}$ ($10^{-4}$) $85^{+1(+0)}_{-0}$ $45^{+0(+0)}_{-0}$ $32^{+1(+20)}_{-1}$
$M$($^{26}$Al)/$M_{\textrm{tot}}$ ($10^{-4}$) $9.9^{+0.0(+0.0)}_{-0.1}$ $5.8^{+0.0(+0.0)}_{-0.1}$ $5.2^{+0.4(+4.8)}_{-0.3}$
: \[tab:26Al\] Mass ejected from <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">shiva</span> [@jo98apj] simulations of novae occurring on oxygen-neon white dwarfs of various masses. $M_{\textrm{tot}}$ is the total mass ejected in a single outburst; $M$($^{26,27}$Al) are the masses of $^{26,27}$Al ejected. The uncertainties shown include only the effects of the standard deviation of the $^{25}$Al($p,\gamma$)$^{26}$Si reaction rate from the present work. The uncertainties in parentheses represent the results when the lower limit on the $^{25}$Al($p,\gamma$)$^{26}$Si reaction rate is calculated with the 3$^+$ resonance strength set equal to zero.
In conclusion, we have observed evidence for a new $^{26}$P beta-delayed gamma ray at 1742 keV. The gamma-ray energy and intensity are consistent with those expected for the strongest primary transition deexciting the $3_3^+$ $^{26}$Si level. Coincidences with the secondary gamma ray at 1401 keV provide further evidence for such an identification. This is the first experimental evidence for the exit channel of the key $3^+$ resonance in the thermonuclear $^{25}$Al($p,\gamma$)$^{26}$Si reaction rate, which influences the production of $^{26}$Al in classical-nova models. Using the energy and intensity of the observed $^{26}$Si gamma-ray line, we have derived the resonance energy and strength, allowing us to estimate $^{26}$Al production in novae in a manner that is effectively independent of nuclear-physics uncertainties. We checked the sensitivity of $^{26}$Al production to our lower limit by running our nova simulations with the 3$^+$ resonance strength set equal to zero and found that that only the simulation employing a $1.35 M_{\odot}$ white dwarf displayed any change (see Table \[tab:26Al\]). Therefore, one could also interpret our experimental result as an upper limit and reach essentially the same astrophysical conclusions: our experiment is sufficiently sensitive to prove for the first time that the $^{25}$Al($p,\gamma$)$^{26}$Si reaction rate is very slow so that the path bypassing $^{26}$Al production is closed in novae hosted by typical oxygen-neon white dwarfs with masses below $1.3 M_{\odot}$ and only open for a short period of time near peak temperature for higher white-dwarf masses, which are expected to be scarce according to stellar evolution models.
We encourage future measurements to further reduce the uncertainties in the 3$^+$ $^{25}$Al($p,\gamma$)$^{26}$Si rate, which are dominated by the resonance strength uncertainty. For example, a $5\sigma$ detection of the 1742-keV gamma ray would be an improvement and higher-statistics data on $\gamma\gamma$ coincidences are desirable. First evidence for the weaker primary gamma-decay branches from the 5929-keV $^{26}$Si level could provide direct experimental constraints on the $3_3^+ \rightarrow 3_2^+$ branch we adopted from Ref. [@wr09prc]. Independent measurements of $\Gamma_p$ could be conducted to confirm the existing value [@pe09prc] and improve the uncertainty. Direct measurements of the $3^+$ resonance with intense low-energy $^{25}$Al beams will hopefully be feasible at the next generation of rare-isotope facilities; the present results provide essential information for the planning of such experiments.
This work was supported by the U.S. National Science Foundation under Grants No. PHY-1102511 and No. PHY 08-22648, the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-FG02-97ER41020, the U.S. National Nuclear Security Agency under Contract No. DE-NA0000979, MEC Grant No. AYA2010-15685, and the ESF EUROCORES Program EuroGENESIS through Grant No. EUI2009-04167. We gratefully acknowledge A. García for advice during the preparation of our experimental proposal and the NSCL Operations staff for delivering the beam.
[48]{}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 [****, ()](\doibase 10.1086/162632) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1086/184473) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1086/165337) @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase 10.1038/nature04364) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1051/0004-6361/200811175) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1073/pnas.41.3.127) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1126/science.284.5418.1348) @noop [“,” ]{} @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase
10.1051/0004-6361:20066982) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1086/505164) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1086/310575) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2010.04.009) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1016/0375-9474(90)90084-Y) @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2010.04.010) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1016/j.physletb.2011.12.029) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.252501) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevC.71.055804) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevC.79.032802) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1088/1674-1137/36/12/001) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevC.79.035803) @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevC.70.065805) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1140/epja/i2003-10218-8) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevC.74.045804) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevC.75.062801) @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevC.79.032801) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevC.82.025807) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevC.82.045803) @noop [ () ]{} [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevC.85.045809) @noop [ () ]{} [****, ()](\doibase 10.1086/320364) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevC.83.065803) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevC.88.048801) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1016/S0168-583X(02)01895-5) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1016/j.nima.2009.05.100) [****, ()](\doibase http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2013.06.027) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1016/S0168-9002(01)00257-1) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1016/j.nima.2009.09.016) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevD.57.3873) @noop [****, ()](\doibase 10.1007/BF01325130) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1086/305244) @noop [****, ()]{}
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In order to allow the asymptotically flat, we consider Hořava-Lifshitz gravity theory with a soft violation of the detailed balance condition and obtain various solutions. In particular, we find that such theory coupled to a global monopole leads to a solution representing a space with deficit solid angle, which is well matched with genuine feature of GR.'
---
=.22in
[[**Solutions in IR modified Ho${\check {\bf r}}$ava-Lifshitz Gravity**]{}\
Taekyung Kim\
[*Department of Physics, BK21 Physics Research Division, and Institute of Basic Science,*]{}\
[*Sungkyunkwan University, Suwon 440-746, Korea*]{}\
[[email protected]]{}\
Chong Oh Lee\
[*Department of Physics and Astronomy,,*]{}\
[*University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, N2L 3G1, Canada*]{}\
[[email protected]]{}]{}
Introduction {#sec1}
============
The construction of the ultra-violet(UV) complete theory of gravity has been an intriguing subject of discussions for theoretical physics of the past fifty years. The discussion has been recently concentrated on the UV complete theory in space and time with an anisotropic scaling in a Lifshitz fixed point [@Lifshitz; @Horava:2008jf; @Horava:2008ih; @Horava:2009uw; @Horava:2009if]. In particular, this theory is very attractive since pertubative renormalizability is realized as well as Lorentz symmetry is recovered in low energy regime in spite of being broken the Lorentz symmetry in high energy.
Ho${\check {\bf r}}$ava-Lifshitz gravity (HL) has been studied in various directions, which are categorized into two. One is investigating and developing the properties of the HL theory itself [@Visser:2009fg]–[@Blas:2009ck]. The other is applying this theory to cosmological framework including the black hole solutions [@Lu:2009em]–[@Greenwald:2009kp] and their thermodynamic prosperities [@Myung:2009dc]–[@Majhi:2009xh].
The metric in the (3+1)-dimensional ADM decomposition can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
ds^{2}=-N^2dt^2+g_{ij}\left(dx^i+N^idt\right)\left(dx^j+N^jdt\right),
\label{met1}\end{aligned}$$ where $N(t,x^{i})$ denotes the lapse function, $g_{ij}(t,x^{i})$ is the spatial metric, and $N_{i}(t,x^{i})$ is the shift function. Then, the Einstein-Hilbert action can be expressed as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{EHa}
S_{\rm EH}=\frac{1}{16\pi G}\int d^{4}x\sqrt{g}N(K_{ij}K^{ij}-K^2+R-2\Lambda),\end{aligned}$$ where $G$ is Newton’s constant and the extrinsic curvature for a spacelike hypersurface with a fixed time is $$\begin{aligned}
K_{ij}\equiv
\frac{1}{2N}\left({\dot{g_{ij}}}-\nabla_iN_j-\nabla_jN_i\right).\end{aligned}$$ Here, a dot denotes a derivative with respect to $t$ and covariant derivatives defined with respect to the spatial metric $g_{ij}$.
The IR-modified HL action with asymptotically flat limit is given by [@Horava:2009uw; @Nastase:2009nk; @Kehagias:2009is] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ac1}
S_{{\rm HL}} =&\int dt\, d^{3}x\,\sqrt{g} N({\cal L}_{{\rm IR}}+{\cal
L}_{{\rm UV}}),\\
{\cal L}_{{\rm IR}}=&{2\over \kappa^2}(K_{ij}K^{ij}-\lambda K^2)
{+\frac{\kappa^2\mu^2 }{8(1-3\lambda)}
\left[\left(\Lambda-\omega \right)R-3\Lambda^2\right]},
\label{LIR}\\
{\cal L}_{{\rm UV}}=&-{\kappa^2\over 2\nu^4}\left(C_{ij}-\frac{\mu
\nu^{2}}{2}R_{ij}\right) \left(C^{ij}-\frac{\mu \nu^{2}}{2}R^{ij}\right)
+\frac{\kappa^2\mu^2(1-4\lambda)}{32(1-3\lambda)}R^2, \label{LUV}\end{aligned}$$ where $R$ and $R_{ij}$ are three-dimensional scalar curvature and Ricci tensor, and the Cotton tensor is given by $$\begin{aligned}
C^{ij}=
\frac{\epsilon^{ikl}}{\sqrt{g}}\nabla_k\left({R^j}_l-\frac{1}{4}R\delta^{j}_{\;l}\right).
\label{Co1}\end{aligned}$$ The action has parameters, $\kappa,\lambda,\nu,\mu,\Lambda,$ and $\omega$. In the limit of vanishing cosmological constant $\Lambda\rightarrow 0$, one compares the IR-modified action (\[ac1\]) with the (3+1)-dimensional Einstein-Hilbert action (\[EHa\]) and reads the parameter $\lambda$, the speed of light $c$, Newton’s constant $G$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda=1,\quad
c^2=\frac{\kappa^4\mu^2\omega}{32},\quad
G= \frac{\kappa^2}{32\pi c}.
\label{con1}\end{aligned}$$
Recently, HL gravity coupled to electrostatic field of a point charge is considered and an exact solution is found, describing a space with either a surplus or deficit solid angle is found [@Kim:2009dq]. The surplus angle due to an ordinary matter with positive energy density in [@Kim:2009dq] is not well matched with known result of GR in which it can usually be materialized by the source of negative mass or energy. However, from cosmological point of view, one finds the detailed balance condition leads to obstacles [@Nastase:2009nk; @Calcagni:2009qw]. Furthermore by introducing a soft violation of the detailed balance condition, they show that their results are consistent with them of GR [@Kehagias:2009is]. Thus one intriguing question is whether IR-modified HL theory coupled to matter field reproduces them of GR.
In this paper, we address this question. We consider IR-modified HL in presence of the global monopole, and find a spherically symmetric solution describing a space with deficit solid angle.
The paper is organized as follows. In section 2, vacuum solutions are discussed under spherical symmetry. In section 3, we obtain the deficit solid angle due to the solution of IR modified HL gravity with the global monopole. Finally, we give a conclusion.
Vacuum Solutions under Spherical Symmetry {#sec2}
=========================================
Let us investigate a spherically symmetric solution with the static metric ansatz $$ds^2=-{\cal F}(r)e^{2\rho(r)}dt^2+\frac{dr^2}{{\cal F}(r)}+r^2(d\theta^2+\sin^2\theta
d\varphi^2). \label{rmet}$$ Since all the components of Cotton tensor vanish under this metric, the action (\[ac1\]) reduces to $$\begin{aligned}
S_{{\rm HL}} =& 4\pi \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}dt\int_{0}^{\infty} dr
r^2 \,e^{\rho} \Bigg\{
-\frac{\kappa^2\mu^2}{8}\left[\left(\frac{{\cal F}'}{r}\right)^2
+\frac{2}{r^4}\left(1-{\cal F}-\frac{r{\cal F}'}{2}\right)^2\right]\nonumber\\
&\hspace{30mm}+\frac{\kappa^2\mu^2}{8(1-3\lambda)}
\left[\frac{1-4\lambda}{r^4}(1-{\cal F}-r{\cal F}')^2+{\frac{
2(\Lambda-\omega)}{r^2}(1-{\cal F}-r{\cal F}')}
-3\Lambda^2\right]\Bigg\}
\nonumber\\
=& \frac{\pi\kappa^2\mu^2}{2(3\lambda-1)} \int dt\int dr \,
e^{\rho}\times
\nonumber\\
&\Bigg\{ (1-3\lambda) \Bigg[{\tilde {\cal F}}'^2 +2\Big(\frac{\tilde {\cal F}}{r}
+\frac{{\tilde {\cal F}}'}{2}\Big)^2 \Bigg] -(1-4\lambda)\Big(\frac{{\tilde
{\cal F}}}{r}+{\tilde {\cal F}}'\Big)^2 {+2(\Lambda-\omega) r\Big(\frac{{\tilde
{\cal F}}}{r}+{\tilde {\cal F}}'\Big)}+3\Lambda^2r^2 \Bigg\}, \label{rac}\end{aligned}$$ where ${\tilde {\cal F}}={\cal F}-1$. Then, the equations of motion are obtained as $$\begin{aligned}
&~\Bigg[(\lambda-1){\tilde {\cal F}}'-\frac{2\lambda}{r}{\tilde {\cal F}}
{-2(\Lambda-\omega) r}\Bigg]\rho'+ (\lambda-1)\tilde {\cal F}'' -
\frac{2(\lambda-1)}{r^{2}}\tilde {\cal F}
=0,
\label{Beq}\\
&~ (1-3\lambda) \Bigg[ {\tilde {\cal F}}'^2+2\Big( \frac{\tilde {\cal F}}{r}
+\frac{\tilde {\cal F}'}{2} \Big)^2 \Bigg] -(1-4\lambda)\Big(\frac{\tilde
{\cal F}}{r}+{\tilde {\cal F}}'\Big)^2 {+2(\Lambda-\omega) r}
\Big(\frac{\tilde {\cal F}}{r}+{\tilde
{\cal F}}'\Big)+3\Lambda^2 r^{2}=0. \label{deleq}\end{aligned}$$
We start by giving a brief discussion of the asymptotic behaviors of the solutions to Eqs. (\[Beq\]) and (\[deleq\]). In the low energy regime, taking the $\lambda=1$ and neglecting the quadratic terms in the metric functions, the equations (\[Beq\])–(\[deleq\]) reduce to the Einstein equations, which reproduce Schwarzchild solution in the limit $\Lambda \rightarrow 0$ as we expect $$\begin{aligned}
r\frac{d\rho}{dr}=0, \quad\longrightarrow&\quad
\rho(r)=\rho_0=0,
\label{Beq2}\\
\frac{d}{dr}\left(r{\cal F}\right)=1,
\quad~\longrightarrow&\quad
{\cal F}(r)=1-\frac{M}{r}, \label{deleq2}\end{aligned}$$ where $M$ is an integration constant.
For sufficiently large $r$ at asymptotic region, it is assumed that the divergence of ${\cal F}(r)$ arises as a power behavior. A straightforward calculation with Eq. (\[deleq\]) leads to $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal F}(r)\approx \left\{
\begin{array}{cll}
({\rm I}) &(\omega-\Lambda)r^2-\sqrt{\omega(\omega-2\Lambda)}\,r^2
& \mbox{for~ arbitrary~~}\lambda \\
({\rm II}) & {\displaystyle {\cal F}_{\rm IR}r^{p}} &
\mbox{for~~}\displaystyle{\lambda>1}
\end{array}
\right. , \label{ccso}\end{aligned}$$ where the coefficient ${\cal F}_{\rm IR}$ is an undetermined constant and $$\begin{aligned}
p=\frac{2\lambda +\sqrt{2(3\lambda -1)}}{\lambda -1}\ .
\label{p}\end{aligned}$$ It is shown that the behavior of the long distance in (I) without a cosmological constant agrees with that of the leading IR behavior in (\[deleq\]). The long distance behavior in (II) seems to imply a new possible solution which comes from higher derivative terms.
For sufficiently small $r$ at the UV regime, assuming the divergence of $B(r)$ follows as power behavior $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal F}(r)\sim\frac{\beta}{r^{l}},\qquad (\beta={\rm constant},~l>0),\end{aligned}$$ the leading term in Eq. (\[deleq\]) is proportional to $1/r^{2l+2}$. The contribution to the correction term due to the soft violation of the detailed balance condition in Eq. (\[deleq\]) can be neglected since such contribution is proportional to $1/r^{l}$. Thus, the leading UV behavior in IR modified HL theory is exactly the same as that in HL theory. The allowed powers for various $\lambda$ are given as
$$\begin{aligned}
{\cal F}(r)\approx \left\{
\begin{array}{cll}
({\rm A}) & 1 & \mbox{for~ arbitrary~~}\lambda \\
({\rm B}) & b &
\mbox{for}~~\displaystyle{\lambda=\frac{1}{2}} \\
({\rm C}) & {\cal F}_{\rm UV+} r^{p}~~\mbox{or}~~{\cal F}_{\rm UV-}r^{q} &
\mbox{for}~~\displaystyle{\frac{1}{3}\le
\lambda<\frac{1}{2}} \\
({\rm D}) & {\cal F}_{\rm UV+} r^{p} &
\mbox{for}~~\displaystyle{\frac{1}{2}<\lambda<1}
\end{array}
\right. , \label{ccsi}\end{aligned}$$
where $b$ denotes an integration constant, $B_{\rm UV\pm}$ are undetermined constants, $p$ is given in , and $q$ is $$\begin{aligned}
q=\frac{2\lambda -\sqrt{2(3\lambda -1)}}{\lambda -1}\ .
\label{q}\end{aligned}$$
We show that we find new exact vacuum solutions and discuss how they connect two asymptotes with various value of $\lambda$. For arbitrary $\lambda$, a solution to the equations (\[Beq\])–(\[deleq\]) obtained as $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal F}=1+(\omega-\Lambda)r^2-\sqrt{\omega(\omega-2\Lambda)}\,r^2, \qquad \rho=\rho_0=0,
\label{vso3}\end{aligned}$$ which connects (I) and (A). For $\lambda=1/3$, another static exact solution is $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal F}=1+(\omega-\Lambda)r^2-\sqrt{\omega(\omega-2\Lambda)}\,r^2-\frac{M}{r},
\qquad \rho=\rho_0=0,
\label{vso2}\end{aligned}$$ which reproduces AdS Schwarzschild black hole solution with twice cosmological constant for $\omega=0$. This result in IR modified HL theory agrees with that in HL [@Lu:2009em; @Kim:2009dq]. For $\lambda=1$, the known exact solution is obtained by [@Park:2009zra] $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal F}=1+(\omega-\Lambda)r^2-\sqrt{\omega(\omega-2\Lambda)r^4+c\,r}, \qquad \rho=\rho_0=0,
\label{vso1}\end{aligned}$$ where $c$ is an integration constant. This solution also connects (I) and (A).
In contrast to the exact vacuum solutions in HL theory [@Lu:2009em; @Kim:2009dq], it is not clear how they have connection between (\[ccso\]) and (\[ccsi\]) since it seems that there are not other exact solutions in IR modified HL theory except previous exact solutions (\[vso3\])–(\[vso1\]), i.e., there do not exist exact solutions with covering all range of $\lambda$ for $\lambda\geq1/3$. It presumably implies that all the vacuum solutions in IR modified HL theory do not always follows as power behavior.
Horizons and singularities in HL gravity have been discussed in the previous work [@Kim:2009dq]. However, we do not deal with them since HL theory does not have full diffeomorphism invariance and both of the previous concepts are not easy to discern [@Kiritsis:2009rx].
Global Monopole Solution {#sec2}
========================
In the presence of matter field, it is described by action $$\begin{aligned}
\label{acma}
S_{\rm m}&=\int dtd^3x \sqrt{g}N~{\cal L}_{{\rm m}}(N,N_i,g_{ij})\\
&=4\pi \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}dt\int_{0}^{\infty} dr r^2
e^{\rho} {\cal L}_{\rm m}({\cal F},\rho).\end{aligned}$$ Then, the equations of motion are given by $$\begin{aligned}
&~\Bigg[(\lambda-1){\tilde {\cal F}}'-\frac{2\lambda}{r}{\tilde {\cal F}}
{-2(\Lambda-\omega) r}\Bigg]\rho'+ (\lambda-1)\tilde {\cal F}'' -
\frac{2(\lambda-1)}{r^{2}}\tilde {\cal F}
=\frac{8(1-3\lambda)r^2}{\kappa^2\mu^2}\frac{\partial {\cal L}_{\rm
M}}{\partial {\cal F}},
\label{Beq2}\\
&~ (1-3\lambda) \Bigg[ {\tilde {\cal F}}'^2+2\Big( \frac{\tilde {\cal F}}{r}
+\frac{\tilde {\cal F}'}{2} \Big)^2 \Bigg] -(1-4\lambda)\Big(\frac{\tilde
{\cal F}}{r}+{\tilde {\cal F}}'\Big)^2 {+2(\Lambda-\omega) r}
\Big(\frac{\tilde {\cal F}}{r}+{\tilde
{\cal F}}'\Big)+3\Lambda^2 r^{2}
\nonumber\\
&\hspace{85mm}=\frac{8(1-3\lambda)r^{2}}{\kappa^2\mu^2}\left({\cal
L}_{\rm m} +\frac{\partial {\cal L}_{\rm m}}{\partial
\rho}\right). \label{deleq2}\end{aligned}$$
When we consider a global monopole of O(3) linear sigma model and magnetic monopole of U(1) gauge theory in the HL type field theory, the long distance behavior of the Lagrangian density in IR regime must be proportional to $1/r^{n}$ irrespective of the value of $z$ (see Ref. [@Kim:2009dq] for more details) $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial {\cal L}_{\rm m}}{\partial {\cal F}}\approx 0,\qquad {\cal
L}_{\rm m}+\frac{\partial {\cal L}_{\rm m}}{\partial \rho} \approx
-\frac{\gamma}{r^{n}}, \qquad (n=0,1,2,...), \label{M4}\end{aligned}$$ where a constant $\gamma$ is determined by the explicit Lagrangian form and the monopole configurations of interest. Positive $\gamma$ can be read off from the energy momentum tensor of matter fields and $n$ must be a positive integer in order to get a finite energy. A straightforward calculation with Eqs. (\[Beq2\]) and (\[deleq2\]) leads to $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal F}&=1+\left[(\omega-\Lambda)\pm\sqrt{\omega(\omega-2\Lambda)}\right]r^2
+\frac{8(n-3)\gamma}{n^2\kappa^2\mu^2\sqrt{\omega(\omega-2\Lambda)}}r^{2-n},\\
\rho&=(2n-3)\ln (r/r_0)+\left(\frac{3}{n}-2\right)\ln
\left[\frac{8\gamma(n-3)^2}{\kappa^2\mu^2}-\omega(\omega-2\Lambda)n^3r^n\right],
\label{mso2}\end{aligned}$$ for $n\neq3$ and $\lambda={(n^2-4n+6)}/{n^2}$. In particular, in the case of $n=3$, there exists solution only by taking $\lambda=1/3$. Then, matter contributions vanish in and when $\lambda=1/3$. Therefore, such solution exactly goes back to the vacuum solution . One also finds special solution for $\lambda=1$, $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal F}&=1+(\omega-\Lambda)r^2\pm\sqrt{\omega(\omega-2\Lambda)r^4+f\,r
+\frac{16\gamma}{(3-n)\kappa^2\mu^2}r^{4-n}}, \qquad \rho=\rho_0=0, \qquad (n\neq3)\\
{\cal F}&=1+(\omega-\Lambda)r^2\pm\sqrt{\omega(\omega-2\Lambda)r^4+f\,r
+\frac{16\gamma}{\kappa^2\mu^2}r\ln r}, \qquad \rho=\rho_0=0, \qquad (n=3)
\label{mso1}\end{aligned}$$ with an integration constant $f$.
Let us study the details of the global monopole solution. The O(3) sigma model action is presumably taken as $$\begin{aligned}
S_{{\rm O(3)}}=\int d^{4}x\sqrt{-g_{4}}\left(-\frac{g^{00}}{2}
\partial_{0}\psi^{a}\partial_{0}\psi^{a} -V\right),
\label{Oir}\end{aligned}$$ where, $\psi^{a}$ $(a=1,2,3)$ denote a scalar fields and $g^{00}=1/N^{2}$. For simplicity, we assume an ordinary quadratic spatial derivatives and of a quartic order self-interactions, $$\begin{aligned}
V(\psi^{a},\partial_{i}\psi^{a},...)
=-\frac{g^{ij}}{2}\partial_{i}\psi^{a}\partial_{j}\psi^{a}
-\frac{\lambda_{{\rm m}}}{4}(\psi^{2}-v^{2})^{2},\qquad
\psi^{2}\equiv \psi^{a}\psi^{a},
\label{VIR}\end{aligned}$$ For anisotropic scaling $z=1$ $(n=2)$, the IR action (\[Oir\]) is $$\begin{aligned}
S_{\rm O(3)}=4\pi\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}dt\int_{0}^{\infty}dr r^2
e^{\rho}\left[-\frac{{\cal F}}{2}\psi'^{\,2}-\frac{\psi^2}{r^2}
-\frac{\lambda_{{\rm m}}}{4}(\psi^2-v^2)^2\right] ,\end{aligned}$$ and, under a hedgehog ansatz $$\begin{aligned}
\psi^{a}={\hat r}^{a}\psi(r)=(\sin\theta\cos\varphi,\,
\sin\theta\sin\varphi,\, \cos\theta) \psi(r),
\label{mnan}\end{aligned}$$ it leads to $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial {\cal L}_{\rm m}}{\partial {\cal F}}=&
-\frac{1}{2}\psi'^{\,2},
\label{mat1}\\
{\cal L}_{\rm m}+\frac{\partial {\cal L}_{\rm m}}{\partial \rho}=&
-\frac{{\cal F}}{2}\psi'^{\,2}-\frac{\psi^2}{r^2}-\frac{\lambda_{{\rm
m}}}{4}(\psi^2-v^2)^2. \label{mat2}\end{aligned}$$ Two boundary conditions of the above equations are imposed by requiring single-valuedness of the field at the monopole position and finite energy at spacial infinity $$\begin{aligned}
\psi(0)=0,\qquad \psi(\infty)=v. \label{scbc}\end{aligned}$$ From the boundary conditions, one can take the following configuration $$\begin{aligned}
\psi(r)=
\begin{cases}
0,&~ \mbox{for}~~ r\le \displaystyle \frac{1}{v\sqrt{\lambda_{{\rm m}}}},\\
v,&~ \mbox{for}~~ r>\displaystyle \frac{1}{v\sqrt{\lambda_{{\rm m}}}},
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ which means the scalar field $\psi(r)$ has vacuum expectation value zero in the region inside the monopole core and $v$ outside, respectively. Therefore, the field equations (\[mat1\])–(\[mat2\]) near the vacuum reduce to $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial {\cal L}_{\rm m}}{\partial {\cal F}}\approx 0, \qquad {\cal
L}_{\rm m}+\frac{\partial {\cal L}_{\rm m}}{\partial \rho}\approx
-\frac{v^{2}}{r^{2}}.
\label{mat4}\end{aligned}$$ In particular, $\gamma$ in (\[M4\]) is given as $v^2$ for $n=2$. Then, the metric function ${\cal F}(r)$ is obtained by $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal F}&=1+\left[(\omega-\Lambda)\pm\sqrt{\omega(\omega-2\Lambda)}\right]r^2
-\frac{2v^2}{\kappa^2\mu^2\sqrt{\omega(\omega-2\Lambda)}},\\
\rho&=\ln (r/r_0)-\frac{1}{2}\ln\left[\frac{v^2}{\kappa^2\mu^2}-\omega(\omega-2\Lambda)r^2\right],
\label{mso3}\end{aligned}$$ which leads to $$\begin{aligned}
ds^{2}=&-\frac{1+\left[(w-\Lambda)\pm\sqrt{w(w-2\Lambda)}\right]r^2}
{\frac{v^2}{\kappa^2\mu^2}+\left[-w(w-2\Lambda)+\frac{2v^2}{\kappa^2\mu^2}\sqrt{w(w-2\Lambda)}\right]r^2}dt^2
+\frac{dr^2}{1+\left[(w-\Lambda)\pm\sqrt{w(w-2\Lambda)}\right]r^2}\nonumber\\
&+r^{2}\left(1- \frac{2v^2}{\kappa^2\mu^2\sqrt{w(w-2\Lambda)}}\right) (d\theta^2+\sin^2\theta d\varphi^2),\label{met2}\end{aligned}$$ after rescaling the coordinates, $$\begin{aligned}
dt\rightarrow \left(1-\frac{2v^2}{\kappa^2\mu^2\sqrt{w(w-2\Lambda)}}\right)^{-1}r_0 dt, \qquad dr\rightarrow
\sqrt{1-\frac{2v^2}{\kappa^2\mu^2\sqrt{w(w-2\Lambda)}}}\, dr.\end{aligned}$$ The metric describes a space with a deficit solid angle [@Barriola:1989hx; @Kim:1996pa; @Kim:2009dq], $$\begin{aligned}
4\pi\Delta=\frac{8\pi v^2}{\kappa^2\mu^2\sqrt{w(w-2\Lambda)}},\qquad \mbox{for}~~ 0<\frac{2v^2}{\kappa^2\mu^2\sqrt{w(w-2\Lambda)}}<1.\end{aligned}$$ In a black hole horizon is formed at $$\begin{aligned}
r_{\rm H}=\frac{\frac{2v^2}{\kappa^2\mu^2\sqrt{w(w-2\Lambda)}}-1}{\sqrt{(w-\Lambda)\pm\sqrt{w(w-2\Lambda)}}}
\qquad \mbox{for}~~ \frac{2v^2}{\kappa^2\mu^2\sqrt{w(w-2\Lambda)}}\geq1.\end{aligned}$$ These results show two genuine features of GR; there does not exist a surplus but deficit solid angle and a source which gives rise to deficit angle is not an electric field but a scalar field.
In this section, we concentrate on investigating a solid angle in low energy limit. One can also examine other issues such as a potential in the UV action and energy configurations near the Lifishitz fixed point as in [@Kim:2009dq].
Conclusion {#sec5}
==========
We introduce HL gravity theory with a soft violation of the detailed balance condition with/without matter fields of power-law behaviors as $1/r^{n}$ and find various solutions. The IR-modified HL theory coupled to matter field for $n = 2$ is of particular interest since such theory has only the deficit solid angle and source giving rise to deficit angle is the scalar field, which agree with well known results of GR. It seems to imply the detailed balance condition should be violated if one applies HL theory as cosmological fame works and wants to obtain the realistic cosmological results in our universe.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We would like to thank R.B. Mann for useful discussions and Yoonbai Kim for helpful comments on the manuscript. This work was supported by the Korea Research Foundation Grant funded by the Korean Government (KRF-2008-357-C00018).
[100]{}
E.M. Lifshitz, “On the Theory of Second-Order Phase Transitions I & II", Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. [**11**]{}, 255 & 269 (1941).
P. Horava, arXiv:0811.2217 \[hep-th\].
P. Horava, JHEP [**0903**]{}, 020 (2009) \[arXiv:0812.4287 \[hep-th\]\].
P. Horava, Phys. Rev. D [**79**]{}, 084008 (2009) \[arXiv:0901.3775 \[hep-th\]\].
P. Horava, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**102**]{}, 161301 (2009) \[arXiv:0902.3657 \[hep-th\]\]. M. Visser, Phys. Rev. D [**80**]{}, 025011 (2009) \[arXiv:0902.0590 \[hep-th\]\].
R. G. Cai, Y. Liu and Y. W. Sun, JHEP [**0906**]{}, 010 (2009) \[arXiv:0904.4104 \[hep-th\]\].
G. E. Volovik, JETP Lett. [**89**]{}, 525 (2009) \[arXiv:0904.4113 \[gr-qc\]\].
B. Chen and Q. G. Huang, arXiv:0904.4565 \[hep-th\].
R. G. Cai, B. Hu and H. B. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D [**80**]{}, 041501 (2009) \[arXiv:0905.0255 \[hep-th\]\].
D. Orlando and S. Reffert, Class. Quant. Grav. [**26**]{}, 155021 (2009) \[arXiv:0905.0301 \[hep-th\]\].
T. Nishioka, Class. Quant. Grav. [**26**]{}, 242001 (2009) \[arXiv:0905.0473 \[hep-th\]\].
R. A. Konoplya, Phys. Lett. B [**679**]{}, 499 (2009) \[arXiv:0905.1523 \[hep-th\]\].
C. Charmousis, G. Niz, A. Padilla and P. M. Saffin, JHEP [**0908**]{}, 070 (2009) \[arXiv:0905.2579 \[hep-th\]\].
M. Li and Y. Pang, JHEP [**0908**]{}, 015 (2009) \[arXiv:0905.2751 \[hep-th\]\].
J. Chen and Y. Wang, arXiv:0905.2786 \[gr-qc\].
T. P. Sotiriou, M. Visser and S. Weinfurtner, JHEP [**0910**]{}, 033 (2009) \[arXiv:0905.2798 \[hep-th\]\].
M. i. Park, JHEP [**0909**]{}, 123 (2009) \[arXiv:0905.4480 \[hep-th\]\].
F. W. Shu and Y. S. Wu, arXiv:0906.1645 \[hep-th\].
C. Bogdanos and E. N. Saridakis, arXiv:0907.1636 \[hep-th\]. A. Wang and R. Maartens, Phys. Rev. D [**81**]{}, 024009 (2010) \[arXiv:0907.1748 \[hep-th\]\]. J. Kluson, JHEP [**0911**]{}, 078 (2009) \[arXiv:0907.3566 \[hep-th\]\].
N. Afshordi, Phys. Rev. D [**80**]{}, 081502 (2009) \[arXiv:0907.5201 \[hep-th\]\].
Y. S. Myung, Phys. Lett. B [**679**]{}, 491 (2009) \[arXiv:0907.5256 \[hep-th\]\]. A. Wang, D. Wands and R. Maartens, arXiv:0909.5167 \[hep-th\]. D. Capasso and A. P. Polychronakos, arXiv:0909.5405 \[hep-th\]. M. i. Park, arXiv:0910.1917 \[hep-th\]. J. Kluson, arXiv:0910.5852 \[hep-th\]. A. Papazoglou and T. P. Sotiriou, arXiv:0911.1299 \[hep-th\]. Q. Exirifard, arXiv:0911.4343 \[hep-th\]. W. Chao, arXiv:0911.4709 \[hep-th\].
R. G. Cai and H. Q. Zhang, arXiv:0911.4867 \[hep-th\].
A. Dhar, G. Mandal and P. Nag, arXiv:0911.5316 \[hep-th\].
G. Amelino-Camelia, L. Gualtieri and F. Mercati, arXiv:0911.5360 \[hep-th\].
M. Henneaux, A. Kleinschmidt and G. L. Gomez, arXiv:0912.0399 \[hep-th\].
D. Blas, O. Pujolas and S. Sibiryakov, arXiv:0912.0550 \[hep-th\].
R. G. Cai and A. Wang, arXiv:1001.0155 \[hep-th\].
H. Lu, J. Mei and C. N. Pope, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**103**]{}, 091301 (2009) \[arXiv:0904.1595 \[hep-th\]\].
H. Nastase, arXiv:0904.3604 \[hep-th\].
R. G. Cai, L. M. Cao and N. Ohta, Phys. Rev. D [**80**]{}, 024003 (2009) \[arXiv:0904.3670 \[hep-th\]\].
E. O. Colgain and H. Yavartanoo, JHEP [**0908**]{}, 021 (2009) \[arXiv:0904.4357 \[hep-th\]\].
A. Kehagias and K. Sfetsos, Phys. Lett. B [**678**]{}, 123 (2009) \[arXiv:0905.0477 \[hep-th\]\].
A. Ghodsi, arXiv:0905.0836 \[hep-th\]; A. Ghodsi and E. Hatefi, arXiv:0906.1237 \[hep-th\]. I. Cho and G. Kang, arXiv:0909.3065 \[hep-th\]. J. Z. Tang and B. Chen, arXiv:0909.4127 \[hep-th\]. E. Kiritsis and G. Kofinas, arXiv:0910.5487 \[hep-th\]. D. Capasso and A. P. Polychronakos, arXiv:0911.1535 \[hep-th\].
J. Greenwald, A. Papazoglou and A. Wang, arXiv:0912.0011 \[hep-th\].
Y. S. Myung and Y. W. Kim, arXiv:0905.0179 \[hep-th\].
R. G. Cai, L. M. Cao and N. Ohta, Phys. Lett. B [**679**]{}, 504 (2009) \[arXiv:0905.0751 \[hep-th\]\].
Y. S. Myung, Phys. Lett. B [**678**]{}, 127 (2009) \[arXiv:0905.0957 \[hep-th\]\];
A. Castillo and A. Larranaga, arXiv:0906.4380 \[gr-qc\];
J. J. Peng and S. Q. Wu, arXiv:0906.5121 \[hep-th\];
H. W. Lee, Y. W. Kim and Y. S. Myung, arXiv:0907.3568 \[hep-th\].
Y. S. Myung, arXiv:0908.4132 \[hep-th\]. R. G. Cai and N. Ohta, arXiv:0910.2307 \[hep-th\]. D. Y. Chen, H. Yang and X. T. Zu, Phys. Lett. B [**681**]{}, 463 (2009) \[arXiv:0910.4821 \[gr-qc\]\]. B. R. Majhi, arXiv:0911.3239 \[hep-th\].
S. S. Kim, T. Kim and Y. Kim, Phys. Rev. D [**80**]{}, 124002 (2009) \[arXiv:0907.3093 \[hep-th\]\].
G. Calcagni, arXiv:0905.3740 \[hep-th\].
M. Barriola and A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**63**]{}, 341 (1989); D. Harari and C. Lousto, Phys. Rev. D [**42**]{}, 2626 (1990). Y. Kim, K. Maeda and N. Sakai, Nucl. Phys. B [**481**]{}, 453 (1996) \[arXiv:gr-qc/9604030\].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- Liyi Gu
- 'A.J.J. Raassen'
- Junjie Mao
- Jelle de Plaa
- Chintan Shah
- Ciro Pinto
- Norbert Werner
- Aurora Simionescu
- François Mernier
- 'Jelle S. Kaastra'
bibliography:
- 'main.bib'
date: November 2018
title: 'X-ray spectra of the Fe-L complex'
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Great and persistent efforts have been spent on modeling the collisionally-ionized hot plasma for astrophysical diagnostics [@cox1969; @landini1972; @mewe1972; @ray1977; @smith2001]. Several computer codes have been developed in order to explain the observed X-ray emission and to understand the underlying physics of objects. Major improvements in the plasma modeling codes were driven by the ever-increasing sensitivity and spectral resolution of X-ray instruments. The early plasma models, including only the strongest emission lines from each ion, were sufficient to fit most of the spectra obtained with the proportional counters on the [*Einstein*]{}, [*EXOSAT*]{}, and [*ROSAT*]{} missions (spectral resolution $R < 10$, e.g., @jones1984). The X-ray CCDs on [*ASCA*]{}, [*Chandra*]{}, and [*XMM-Newton*]{} can better resolve the spectrum with $R$ of $10-60$, motivating the updates on the plasma codes to include better calculations of the detailed ionization balance and satellite line emission (e.g., @kaastra1992). These calculations were found still inadequate for explaining the fully-resolved spectra ($R = 50-1300$) obtained with the grating instruments onboard [*Chandra*]{} and [*XMM-Newton*]{}, and most recently, the micro-calorimeter experiment on the [*Hitomi*]{} satellite. Over time, previous calculations of collisional plasma have evolved into the three main codes: AtomDB/APEC [@smith2001; @foster2012], SPEX [@kaastra1996], and Chianti [@dere1997; @dz2015].
Plasma models are built on a substantial database of atomic structure and reaction rates, which can only be completed using theoretical calculations. Only a few key parameters have been verified against laboratory measurements. The unavoidable uncertainties in the theoretical results have propagated into a significant budget of errors in the astrophysical measurements, giving challenges to the scientific interpretation. As reported in @atomic2017, the [*Hitomi*]{} observation of the Perseus cluster provides a textbook example showing the challenges: the difference between the APEC and SPEX measurements of the Fe abundance is 16%, which is 17 times higher than the statistical uncertainty, and 8 times higher than the instrumental calibration error. The discrepancies between the two codes are mostly on detailed collisional excitation and dielectronic recombination rates of to ions. It becomes clear that high-resolution X-ray spectroscopy is now heavily relying on the plasma modeling and the underlying atomic data.
It should be noted that the [*Hitomi*]{} data can only test K-shell atomic data in the $2-10$ keV band due to the closed gate valve. The model uncertainties of the X-ray band beyond [*Hitomi*]{}’s spectral window, in particular for the Fe-L complex, remain mostly unknown. Substantial work is clearly needed to verify these bands before the launch of the next [*Hitomi*]{}-level mission.
The Fe-L emission from to is observed from astrophysical bodies as diverse as the solar flare/corona, interstellar medium, supernova remnants, and galaxy clusters. The Fe-L lines are often very bright, frequently used as diagnostics of electron temperature (e.g., @smith1985), electron density (e.g., @p1996), and chemical abundances [@werner2006; @dp2017]. The large oscillator strength of some Fe-L resonance lines, for instance, the $2p-3d$ transition at 15 [Å]{} and the $2p-3d$ transition at 14.2 [Å]{}, provide a unique opportunity for observing resonance scattering in stellar coronae and galaxy clusters [@gil1987; @xu2002]. The resonance scattering is one of the few available tools to determine the isotropic gas motion in the hot plasma [@churazov2010; @gu2018b].
The rich science of Fe-L motivated a number of theoretical efforts on the spectral modeling, in particular for . Based on the early distorted-wave scattering calculations, @smith1985 [@gold1989; @chen1989] reported that the indirect excitation, e.g., the resonant excitation, has a significant contribution to the some of the Fe-L lines. @feldman1995 pointed out that the innershell ionization of might be another channel to excite . However, even though various effects were taken into account in these models, they still showed significant discrepancies with observations. The spectrum of the solar corona, obtained with the Solar Maximum Mission flat crystal spectrometer, showed that the early models significantly overestimated the $2p-3d$ line at 15 [Å]{} [@p1996], and the intensity ratio of this line to its neighbour intercombination line at 15.26 [Å]{}, often labeled $I_{\rm 3C}/I_{\rm 3D}$, was consistently lower than the calculations. Ground experiments using the electron beam ion trap and other devices indicated a similar bias [@brown1998; @bernitt2012; @shah2019]. As a related issue, the [*Chandra*]{} and [*XMM-Newton*]{} grating observations of stellar coronae produced a range of $2p-3s$/$2p-3d$ ratios [@brinkman2000; @audard2001], which were not fully consistent with the values from early theoretical models. The same discrepancies were seen in elliptical galaxies [@xu2002] and supernova remnants [@behar2001].
The tension between the early theory and observation on the Fe-L has been partially lifted by the advent of follow-up calculations. Based on an improved distorted wave calculation, @gu2003 (hereafter G03) revisited the direct and indirect line formation processes of Fe-L. G03 also improved the collisional-radiative modeling, allowing a more accurate calculation of the cascading contribution to the main spectral line intensities. Fits using the G03 model to the [*XMM-Newton*]{} and [*Chandra*]{} grating spectra of Capella showed a reasonable agreement [@gu2006]. Recently, $R$-matrix scattering calculations have been performed for by @aggarwal2003, @chen2002, @loch2006, and @liang2010, as well as for other Fe-L species (@witt2006 for , @butler2008 for , @witt2007 for , @badnell2001 for , @liang2012 for , @fern2014 for , and @liang2011 for ). Benchmarks with observational/laboratory data using the $R$-matrix results showed significant improvements over the early distorted-wave models for individual ions [@del2005; @del2006; @del2006c; @del2011]. Both the G03 and $R$-matrix models are now commonly used in astrophysics, although it is found that some discrepancies might still exist between the two calculations [@butler2008; @brown2008; @liang2011; @del2011; @aggarwal2013].
In this paper, we present a new systematic calculation of the Fe-L spectrum for optically-thin collisionally-ionized plasma. The calculation is based on the atomic structure and distorted wave scattering calculation by the FAC atomic code, and the line formation calculation by the SPEX plasma code. We aim to perform a consistent large-scale calculation of the fundamental data for all the Fe-L species ( to ), focusing mainly on the dominant indirect excitation processes: the resonant excitation and dielectronic recombination. Compared to G03, our work adopts the updated FAC code, expands the intermediate states of the indirect processes, and calculates up to higher excited levels (see § \[sec:vg03\] for details). The new results are compared systematically to the previous theoretical calculations, and are tested using the observational data obtained with the [*XMM-Newton*]{} grating spectrometer.
A systematic (re-)calculation of the Fe-L complex is useful in the following two aspects. First, the comparison of models from the latest distorted wave code with those from the available $R$-matrix works will potentially allow us to identify problem areas where discrepancies still occur among the theories. Such information will be useful for experimentalists to set priority on the laboratory astrophysical measurements needed to benchmark the theoretical calculation. Second, fitting the astrophysical spectra with the new and the available calculations would show the variations of source parameters caused by the underlying atomic database. Potentially, one might take such variations into account as one of the systematic uncertainties on the measurements, which might affect the scientific interpretation of the observed data.
Structure of the paper is present as follows. Section \[sec:method\] describes the theoretical approach. Section \[sec:result\] presents the results and the comparison with other theoretical data. Section \[sec:apply\] discusses the impact of the new calculation on the existing high-resolution astrophysical measurements.
Theoretical method {#sec:method}
==================
Astrophysical plasmas in diffuse objects is often found in collisional ionization equilibrium (CIE), usually characterized by low density (e.g., $10^{-4}-10^{-1}$ cm$^{-3}$ in galaxy clusters). Albeit of low collisional frequency, the electron impact excitation, followed by radiative cascade, is often the key process to produce X-ray line emissions from ions. The direct electron-ion collision cross sections for highly charged ions can be calculated by common theoretical tools based on Coulomb-Born and distorted-wave approximations [@mewe19722]. However, these tools cannot tackle at once the indirect contributions, such as autoionizing resonances, dielectronic recombination and innershell ionization. We focus below a manual calculation of the indirect excitations, mainly for the ionic species producing the Fe-L lines. The rates coefficients of the direct excitation are also calculated for the relevant levels.
Resonant excitation
-------------------
Resonant excitation can be understood as a two-step process. First a free electron is captured by the target ion, with the accompanying excitation of a bound electron, giving a doubly excited level in the lower ionization state. The doubly excited level will then decay by radiation or Auger process. The Auger decay to an excited level of the initial ionization state will effectively contribute to the excitation of the target ion.
We calculate the resonant excitation from an initial state $i$ to the final state $f$, via a doubly excited state $d$. Both states $i$ and $f$ have ionic charge $q$, and the state $d$ has a charge $q-1$. Assuming a thermal plasma, the dielectronic recombination rates are calculated from the inverse process, autoionization, by the detailed balance, $$R^{DR}_{id} = n_{e} n_{q} \frac{g_{d}}{2g_{i}} A^{a}_{di} \left(\frac{h^{2}}{2 \pi mkT} \right)^{3/2} e^{- E_{x}/kT},$$ where $n_{e}$ and $n_{q}$ are the densities of electrons and the target ions, $g_{d}$ and $g_{i}$ are the statistical weights of the intermediate and initial states, $h$ is the Planck constant, $m$ is the mass of the charge, $T$ is the equilibrium temperature, and $A^{a}_{di}$ and $E_{x}$ are the rate and energy of the Auger transition, respectively. The chance of excitation to the final state $f$ is given by the branching ratio $$B^{RE}_{df} = \frac{A^{a}_{df}}{\Sigma (A^{r}_{d} + A^{a}_{d})},$$ where $A^{a}_{df}$ is the Auger rate from the intermediate state to the final state, and $A^{r}_{d}$ and $A^{a}_{d}$ are the radiative and Auger transitions pertaining to the state $d$, respectively. Hence, the resonant excitation rate can be calculated as $$R^{RE}_{if} = \Sigma_{d} R^{DR}_{id} B^{RE}_{df}.$$
The atomic structure of the initial, intermediate, and final states, as well as the related transitions, are all computed with FAC version 1.1.4 [@gu2008] in a fully relativistic way. The distorted-wave approximation is used for interaction with the continuum states. The relativistic electron-electron interactions (Coulomb + Breit form) in the atomic central potential are considered, while the higher-order electronic interactions, which are hard to be described by an analytic model, are approximated by the configuration mixing of the bound states.
For high density plasma, the excitation only from the ground state might not be sufficient. As shown in Appendix A, the low-lying metastable levels become significantly populated at density $> 10^{12}$ cm$^{-3}$, and the excitation and recombination from these levels are required to produce the model spectrum. For each ion, we include three lowest excited levels, as well as the ground, as the initial states $i$. The three levels are sufficient for modeling the coronal plasma ($< 10^{14}$ cm$^{-3}$), while for a higher density, more metastable levels at higher energies are then required [@badnell2006].
It is crucial to include a large set of configuration for the autoionizing intermediate state $d$, as leaving some states out would cause insufficient resonant excitation and incomplete configuration interaction [@badnell1994]. We maximize the configurations for each $n$ group, for instance, for excitation, the relevant states 2$s^2$2$p^5$3$lnl'$, 2$s$2$p^6$3$lnl'$ ($3 \leq n \leq 15$), 2$s^2$2$p^5$4$lnl'$, and 2$s$2$p^6$4$lnl'$ ($4 \leq n \leq 15$) are all included in the calculation. The singly excited levels, 2$s^2$2$p^6nl'$ ($3 \leq n \leq 15$) are also taken into account for determining the radiative transitions and branching ratios. A complete set of quantum numbers $l'$ is included. The atomic structure then contains $\sim 30000$ states. For each doubly excited state, the radiative cascade rates to the lower bound states and the autoionization rates back to states are computed to derive the detailed branching ratios. Radiative transitions of electric dipole (E1), electric quadrupole (E2), magnetic dipole (M1), and magnetic quadrupole (M2) types are considered for the cascades. The numbers of radiative transitions are $\sim 200000 - 300000$ for a typical group of $d$ states with the same principle quantum number for . The number increases to more than 500000 for $-$ .
The calculation considers the radiative cascades of the $d$ states followed by autoionization. For instance, the 2$s$2$p^6$3$lnl'$ might turn into 2$s^2$2$p^5$3$lnl'$ through a $2p-2s$ transition, and then autoionize to . This consists of a multi-step resonance. In principle, the radiative cascade should be traced down to the ground, while practically the strength of the resonance decays quickly by the branching ratio at each step, and the contribution can be ignored after two steps of cascades.
We include a sufficient amount of final states for the autoionization. For , the final configurations are 2$s^2$2$p^6$, 2$s^2$2$p^5$3$l$, 2$s$2$p^6$3$l$, and 2$s^2$2$p^5$4$l$. The Auger rates from all the $d$ states to the $f$ states are calculated. The numbers of Auger transitions vary from $\sim 1000 - 40000$ for different groups of $n-$resolved intermediate states. In some cases when the bound electron is highly excited after autoionization (e.g., for some of the 2$s$2$p^6$4$lnl'$ channels), we calculate the radiative cascades down to the selected final configurations.
The contributions from high Rydberg states are taken into account by extrapolation. In the case, the resonances via 2$s^2$2$p^5$3$lnl'$ and 2$s^2$2$p^5$4$lnl'$ ($16 \leq n \leq 100$) are calculated by a $n^{-3}$ scaling on the Auger rates based on the results from the lower states. As shown in §\[sec:res\_result\], the actual $n$-dependence appears to scatter around the assumed scaling, which would bring an uncertainties of $\leq 3$% to the total resonance strength.
Dielectronic recombination {#sec:method_dr}
--------------------------
Dielectronic recombination is one of the most dominant channels of indirect excitation. The DR itself is very similar to electron-impacting excitation, except that the final state of the impact electron is in a bound state rather than in the continuum. Many of the excitation channels via DR are already incorporated in the current SPEX database, version 3.04. However, a few of them are still missing. To update the atomic database, we carry out a new calculation for a complete set of DR capture channels using the FAC code.
We consider DR from an initial state $i$ to a final state $f$, via a doubly excited state $d$. While for the resonances states $i$ and $f$ have the same charge, here $f$ has a charge $q$ and $i$ has $q+1$. The DR rates can be obtained as $$R^{DR}_{if} = \frac{n_{q+1}}{n_{q}} R^{DR}_{id} B^{DR}_{df},
\label{eq:dr}$$ where $n_{q+1}/n_{q}$ is obtained from the ionization balance between ions $q+1$ and $q$, and $$B^{DR}_{df} = \frac{A^{r}_{df}}{\Sigma (A^{r}_{d} + A^{a}_{d})}.$$ We adopt the new ionization concentration presented in @u17, which updated the rate equations for the direct collisional ionization and excitation-autoionization.
The DR rates are calculated in a similar way as the resonant excitation process. We set the initial state to the ground, and include a large sets of intermediate states. For , the configurations 2$s^2$2$p^4$3$lnl'$, 2$s$2$p^5$3$lnl'$ ($3 \leq n \leq 7$, $l' \leq 5$), 2$s^2$2$p^4$4$lnl'$, and 2$s$2$p^5$4$lnl'$ ($4 \leq n \leq 7$, $l' \leq 5$) are included in the model. These levels contain a $n=2$ to $n=3$ and $n=4$ excitation of the core electron, associated with an electron captured to higher $n$. Although the DR rates for configurations with a $n=1$ to $n=2$, or $n=2$ to $n=2$ core excitation, such as 2$s$2$p^6nl'$ and 1$s$2$s^2$2$p^6nl'$ ($3 \leq n \leq 10$), are already incorporated in the current SPEX database, it is still necessary to include these levels in our model to build up a complete cascading network. The same holds for the singly excited levels 2$s$2$p^5nl'$ ($3 \leq n \leq 10$). Therefore the total levels add up to $\sim 25000$ for , and more than $30000$ for and .
Both the resonant excitation and DR calculations mainly focus on channels through 3$lnl'$ and 4$lnl'$ states. The 3$lnl'$ states are the dominant states producing both resonances and DR, depending on the branching ratios of radiative decay and autoionization. The 4$lnl'$ contributes significantly to the resonant excitation, but much less to the DR.
The stabilization of the doubly excited states by both autoionization and radiative transitions are calculated. The radiative cascade is apparently important for the DR calculation, as initially it populates doubly-excited states with large excitation energies. Practically, we include a small amount of final states of low excitation energies, and calculate the cascading contributions to these final states corrected for the autoionization loss. For , the selected final states are 2$s^2$2$p^6$, 2$s^2$2$p^5$3$l$, 2$s$2$p^6$3$l$, and 2$s^2$2$p^5$4$l$. A full cascading calculation is then done with about 1500000 radiative transitions, and about 60000 non-radiative transitions. The numbers of transitions increase by a factor of $\sim 5$ for $-$ . The further transitions among the final states, and the resulting line power, are calculated with the standard SPEX code. In this way we obtain the DR contribution to the main Fe-L lines, while the accompanying satellite lines from the cascade, which often have much longer wavelengths and do not affect the Fe-L spectrum, are ignored in this work.
Similar to the resonance calculation, we include the contributions from high Rydberg states (up to $n=100$) by a $n^{-3}$ scaling of the Auger rates. The extrapolation is done with the cascaded rates for all the selected final states. The scaling is restricted to the dominant DR channels, such as the 3$lnl'$ group in the case.
Innershell ionization {#sec:method_ii}
---------------------
The innershell collisional ionization of a core electron can enhance the population of excited states [@feldman1995]. It depends on two factors: the ionization rate coefficient through electron collisions, and the fractional abundance of the neighbour ion with a lower charge state. For , the effect of the innershell ionization is expected to be small, as the ionization rate is rather small at low temperatures, and the to ratio drops off at high temperatures. As reported in @doron2002 and @gu2003, the 2$p$ innershell ionization could affect the lines $2p-3s$ transition by $\sim 2 - 3$%.
To taken this minor process into account, we apply the innershell ionization rate coefficient data from @gu2003, which were calculated using the same FAC atomic tool. It includes the ionization of both $n=1$ and $n=2$ electrons from the ground. The fractional abundance is calculated based on the new ionization balance of @u17.
Results {#sec:result}
=======
Resonant excitation {#sec:res_result}
-------------------
The resonant electron-impact excitation rate coefficients are calculated for Fe ions from to . Fig. \[fig:totre\] shows the total resonant excitation rates of and as a function of . They are found to agree with the results from @gu2003 within 10%. As the theoretical approach of @gu2003 is essentially the same as this work, the small discrepancy on the total resonance of might be caused by the difference in the input levels and the branching ratios.
The current approach enables a level-resolved calculation. In Fig. \[fig:ndep\], we plot the $n-$dependent partial resonances for the different flavour of $d$ and $f$ states of excitation. The four lowest excited states, giving the $M2$ magnetic quadrupole forbidden line ($2s^22p^53s$ $^3$P$_{2}$), the $3G$ electronic dipole allowed line ($2s^22p^53s$ $^1$P$_{1}$), the $M1$ magnetic dipole forbidden line ($2s^22p^53s$ $^3$P$_{0}$), and the $3F$ spin-forbidden intercombination line ($2s^22p^53s$ $^3$P$_{1}$), are highlighted in the plot. The autoionization from 2$s^2$2$p^5$3$lnl'$ is the dominant channel to populate the excited states directly, while the contribution from 2$s$2$p^6$4$lnl'$ is nearly negligible. The low Rydberg states ($n \leq 5$) of the doubly excited 2$s^2$2$p^5$3$lnl'$ states can autoionize mostly to the ground of , the resonances to excited states thus show a sharp rise at $n=7$, and a mild decrease towards higher Rydberg states. For the other $d$ states, the resonances decrease monotonically as a function of $n$ except for a few minor peaks at high-$n$.
As described in Sect. \[sec:method\], the resonance decrease towards high-$n$ is treated by a $n^{-3}$ scaling on the Auger rates fitted to the low-$n$ data. Previous laboratory measurements of the high-$n$ satellite lines indicated that the actual $n$-dependence sometimes deviates from the theoretical scaling [@smith1996], as the radiative branching ratios would also evolve with the quantum numbers. To assess the uncertainty caused by the $n^{-3}$ assumption, we extend the calculation of $n-$resolved excitation rates from $n=15$ to $n=30$ for the resonances of . As shown in Fig. \[fig:nscaling\], the actual calculations of the resonance strengths into the four lowly-excited states are compared with the $n^{-3}$ scaling, which is obtained by fitting the excitation rates of $n \leq 15$. Combining the resonances from $n=16$ to $n=30$, the discrepancies between the data and the scaling are $\sim 1-9 \times 10^{-14}$ cm$^{3}$ s$^{-1}$ for the four states. This error appears to be negligible ($<3$%) as the total resonant excitation rates are often several $10^{-12}$ cm$^{3}$ s$^{-1}$ for these states.
In Appendix B, we present a systematic comparison of the new calculation with previous results on the excitation rate coefficients of Fe-L. The tests, in particular with those from recent $R$-matrix calculations, show agreement within typical errors of $\sim$20% on the main transitions, though the discrepancies on the weaker transitions are much larger. This result agrees with the previous reports (e.g., @fern2017). Similar conclusions can also be obtained by comparing directly the spectra using the two sets of collisional calculations (§ \[sec:felspectra\]).
Dielectronic recombination {#sec:dr_result}
--------------------------
As described in Section \[sec:method\_dr\], the state-selective dielectronic recombination rates are calculated for each isolated channel characterized by the intermediate doubly-excited level $d$. We focus on the $d$ states in which the core electron is excited from $n=2$ to $n=3$ and 4, and the free electron is captured up to $n = 7$. The 3$lnl'$ channels are much more important than the 4$lnl'$ ones for the DR. Before applying the data in the line formation calculation, we compare the current results with the state-of-the-art data published by @badnell2003, which was calculated using the Breit-Pauli intermediate coupling approach.
As shown in Fig. \[fig:totdr\], the two calculations broadly agree upon the total DR rates through 3$lnl'$ to better than 20%. The differences do not appear to be systematic in the energy range for comparison. The main discrepancies are seen in at $\sim 0.5$ keV and at $> 1$ keV, where our DR rates are higher than the Badnell results by $\sim 15$%.
\[\]
[{width="9cm"}]{}
Index Z$^{a}$ Ion$^{b}$ $n^{c}$ $L^{d}$ 2$S$+1$^{e}$ 2$J^{f}$ Configuration Energy (keV)$^{g}$
------- --------- ----------- --------- --------- -------------- ---------- --------------- -------------------- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
0 26 17 2 0 1 0 2s2.2p6 0
1 26 17 3 1 3 4 2s2.2p5.3s 7.2524E-01
2 26 17 3 1 1 2 2s2.2p5.3s 7.2714E-01
3 26 17 3 1 3 0 2s2.2p5.3s 7.3786E-01
4 26 17 3 1 3 2 2s2.2p5.3s 7.3905E-01
5 26 17 3 0 3 2 2s2.2p5.3p 7.5549E-01
6 26 17 3 2 3 4 2s2.2p5.3p 7.5899E-01
7 26 17 3 2 3 6 2s2.2p5.3p 7.6061E-01
8 26 17 3 1 1 2 2s2.2p5.3p 7.6174E-01
9 26 17 3 1 3 4 2s2.2p5.3p 7.6355E-01
10 26 17 3 1 3 0 2s2.2p5.3p 7.6898E-01
11 26 17 3 2 3 2 2s2.2p5.3p 7.7106E-01
12 26 17 3 1 3 2 2s2.2p5.3p 7.7431E-01
13 26 17 3 2 1 4 2s2.2p5.3p 7.7469E-01
14 26 17 3 0 1 0 2s2.2p5.3p 7.8772E-01
Note: full-data table can be found via the link to the machine-readable version.
Atomic number.
Isoelectronic sequence number.
Principle quantum number.
Angular momentum quantum number.
Spin quantum number.
Twice the total angular momentum quantum number.
Energies of excited states relative to ground.
Ion lev$^{a}$ kT$^{b}$ CE$^{c}$ RE$^{d}$ REc$^{e}$ RRc$^{f}$ DRc$^{g}$ CE+RE$_1^{h}$ CE+RE$_2^{i}$ CE+RE$_3^{j}$
----- ----------- ---------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- --------------- --------------- ---------------
17 1 0.1 8.960E-15 1.227E-13 2.548E-13 5.777E-17 1.927E-17 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
17 1 0.2 2.176E-13 1.829E-12 4.733E-12 1.947E-14 5.028E-15 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
17 1 0.4 8.176E-13 4.243E-12 1.296E-11 2.856E-13 3.140E-12 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
17 1 0.8 1.151E-12 3.855E-12 1.321E-11 1.260E-12 2.227E-11 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
17 1 1.6 9.435E-13 2.185E-12 8.039E-12 3.238E-12 5.340E-11 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
17 2 0.1 1.172E-14 1.155E-13 2.423E-13 2.695E-17 1.126E-17 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
17 2 0.2 3.532E-13 1.803E-12 4.542E-12 9.153E-15 2.943E-15 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
17 2 0.4 1.937E-12 4.298E-12 1.243E-11 1.355E-13 6.473E-13 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
17 2 0.8 4.742E-12 3.897E-12 1.234E-11 6.044E-13 9.377E-12 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
17 2 1.6 7.735E-12 2.100E-12 7.103E-12 1.571E-12 1.991E-11 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
17 3 0.1 1.598E-15 1.673E-14 4.488E-14 1.175E-18 2.620E-18 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
17 3 0.2 4.130E-14 2.716E-13 9.077E-13 3.294E-16 6.841E-16 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
17 3 0.4 1.600E-13 6.552E-13 2.614E-12 3.908E-15 3.143E-14 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
17 3 0.8 2.288E-13 6.062E-13 2.771E-12 1.380E-14 1.321E-12 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
17 3 1.6 1.888E-13 3.467E-13 1.755E-12 2.866E-14 2.700E-12 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
17 4 0.1 9.519E-15 9.987E-14 1.652E-13 3.821E-18 7.047E-18 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
17 4 0.2 3.010E-13 1.664E-12 3.200E-12 1.083E-15 1.847E-15 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
17 4 0.4 1.674E-12 4.103E-12 8.932E-12 1.312E-14 7.561E-14 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
17 4 0.8 4.101E-12 3.790E-12 8.889E-12 4.789E-14 4.173E-12 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
17 4 1.6 6.688E-12 2.063E-12 4.957E-12 1.036E-13 9.098E-12 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
17 5 0.1 1.847E-14 3.127E-14 3.764E-14 8.155E-18 3.337E-18 1.929E-09 1.814E-10 1.993E-10
17 5 0.2 5.173E-13 5.612E-13 7.604E-13 2.714E-15 8.774E-16 1.697E-09 1.460E-10 1.592E-10
17 5 0.4 2.080E-12 1.452E-12 2.218E-12 3.910E-14 1.955E-13 1.422E-09 1.146E-10 1.265E-10
17 5 0.8 3.026E-12 1.402E-12 2.387E-12 1.684E-13 1.998E-12 1.166E-09 9.029E-11 1.007E-10
17 5 1.6 2.522E-12 8.171E-13 1.525E-12 4.204E-13 4.891E-12 9.437E-10 7.147E-11 8.012E-11
Note: full-data table can be found via the link to the machine-readable version.
Level index as given in Table \[tab:levels\].
Energy in unit of keV.
Rate coefficient of direct collisional excitation from the ground without cascade.
Rate coefficient of resonant excitation from the ground without cascade.
Rate coefficient of resonant excitation from the ground including cascade.
Rate coefficient of radiative recombination including cascade.
Rate coefficient of dielectronic recombination including cascade.
Rate coefficient of direct+resonant excitation from level 1 without cascade.
Rate coefficient of direct+resonant excitation from level 2 without cascade.
Rate coefficient of direct+resonant excitation from level 3 without cascade.
Level population
----------------
Here we evaluate the relative contribution of the various atomic processes to the line formation for a low-density plasma. The level population is calculated using a built-in collisional-radiative program in SPEX, which solves the occupation for each level directly with a large coefficient matrix. To separate different atomic processes, we run the program several times, in each run we turn on only one of the five processes: direct collisional excitation, resonant excitation, dielectronic recombination, radiative recombination, and innershell ionization. The resonant excitation can be further divided into two components by the autoionizing doubly excited states. The rate coefficients of each process to populate the upper levels of the target lines are recorded independently. All the data used in the line formation are calculated in this work, except for the radiative recombination rates which are based on the calculation in @mao2016.
It is well-known that many relevant levels, in particular those form the forbidden and intercombination lines, are significantly populated by radiatve cascades from higher states [@atomic2017]. In Fig. \[fig:17apie\], we show the source compositions of the two lines at $\sim$17 [Å]{}. The cascade is clearly the most important component, while the direct contribution is $\sim 20$% of the total rates. Most of the cascades go through the $3s-3p$, $3s-3s$ ($^1$P$_{1}$ $-$ $^3$P$_{0}$), and $2s-2p$ transitions. It is therefore important to include the cascade component for each of the atomic processes. As shown in Fig. \[fig:17atot\], the cascade-included rate coefficients of each process, for the four 2$p^5$3$s$ levels of , are calculated as a function of equilibrium temperature. It can be seen that the direct collisional excitation from the ground state is the dominant process in $0.2-1.0$ keV, while the indirect excitation contributes $\sim 30$% of the $^3$P$_{2}$ population, and $\sim 10$% of the other three states at 0.8 keV. The direct excitation populates these states mainly through cascades from levels at higher energies. The fractional contribution of indirect excitation increases to $\sim 40-50$% at 0.2 keV, as the resonant channels become relatively more efficient at a lower energy.
The results of the line formation calculation are recorded in Tables \[tab:levels\] and \[tab:rate\]. The levels involved in the new calculation are listed in Table \[tab:levels\]. The notation is given in $LS$-coupling theme. Table \[tab:rate\] lists the temperature-dependent level-resolved rate coefficients for direct collisional excitation, resonant excitation, radiative recombination, and dielectronic recombination. For the excitation, we include the rate coefficients from the ground state, and those from three low-lying excited states. The printed version is truncated; tables with full data can be found as a machine-readable file in the electronic version.
Spectra of the Fe-L complex {#sec:felspectra}
---------------------------
The model spectrum for each Fe ion obtained from the current calculations is shown in Fig. \[fig:facspec\]. They are compared with the models based on recent $R$-matrix collision calculations: from @liang2010, from @witt2006, from @butler2008, from @witt2007, from @badnell2001, from @liang2012, from @fern2014, and from @liang2011. The spectra are smoothed to the resolution of the micro-calorimeter onboard [*Athena*]{} [@nandra2013]. The two sets of spectra are calculated using the same rate equation for solving the level population, and the input atomic data are the same except for the collisional excitation. Therefore, the differences can be interpreted as the representative atomic uncertainties due to the theoretical modeling of the collision processes.
As shown in Fig. \[fig:facspec\], the discrepancies between two codes, at temperatures of peak ion concentration in equilibrium, are mostly within 20% on the main Fe-L transitions. The $R$-matrix results give slightly higher emissivities for the line at 17 [Å]{} and the line at 12.8 [Å]{}, while the FAC calculation produces a higher transition at 14.2 [Å]{} and a higher line at 13.5 [Å]{}. The differences become significantly larger for the weaker transitions of , , and . Similar results can be found in @fern2017. As for to , the two calculations agree within a few percent for all the main lines, as well as for most of the weaker ones. This comparison would help us to identify and prioritize the areas where laboratory measurements are needed to distinguish the theoretical models.
Figure \[fig:facspec\_cas\] illustrates the contributions from different line-formation processes to the model spectrum obtained with the FAC calculation. This is achieved by a partial line formation calculation, including only a subset of atomic data for particular processes. The direct collisional excitation with cascade is found dominant, at the temperature of peak ion concentration, for most lines in the Fe-L band. This confirms the results shown in Fig. \[fig:17atot\]. The cascade from highly excited levels ($n \geq 4$) has a moderate contribution. It is especially relevant for several lines, e.g., the lines at 16.80 [Å]{}, 17.05 [Å]{} and 17.09 [Å]{}, the lines at 15.63 [Å]{}, 15.83 [Å]{}, and 16.07 [Å]{}, the lines at 14.67 [Å]{} and 15.08 [Å]{}, the line at 13.77 [Å]{}, the line at 13.25 [Å]{}, the line at 12.50 [Å]{}, the lines at 11.02 [Å]{} and 11.74 [Å]{}, and the lines at 10.62 [Å]{}, 11.03 [Å]{}, 11.17 [Å]{}, and 11.43 [Å]{}.
Comparing with G03 {#sec:vg03}
------------------
The distorted wave calculation of G03 with the FAC code provided the rate coefficients of direct excitation, resonant excitation, dielectronic recombination, radiative recombination, and innershell processes that populate the $n=2$ and $n=3$ states, for all the related L-shell species. Fits using the G03 data to the [*XMM-Newton*]{} and [*Chandra*]{} grating spectra of Capella yielded a reasonable agreement [@gu2006]. To justify the updates of our work from G03, here we present a systematic comparison of the two papers.
1. G03 calculated the collisional excitation only from the ground state. As shown in Appendix A and Table \[tab:rate\], we consider both the ground state and the low-lying excited states, as the latter is necessary for modeling intermediate-/high-density plasma.
2. Our calculation is done using the latest version of the FAC code, while G03 was based on an early version. In Fig. \[fig:vsg03\] (a), resonant excitation rates for two low-lying levels using the latest code (version 1.1.4) are compared with those calculated with the code version 1.0. The latest version gives lower resonant rates, by $\sim 5$% for the 3$s$ $^3$P$_{2}$ level and $\sim 30$% for the 3$s$ $^1$P$_{1}$ level, than the early version.
3. As already noted in §\[sec:intro\], G03 published the rate coefficients for a complete set of levels with $n=2$ and 3 in the paper. This contains the key transitions in the Fe-L complex, however, as shown in @brickhouse2000, the quantum number $n$ is still too low to sufficiently model the high-resolution spectra from bright X-ray coronal sources. The high-$n$ contributions are crucial for such sources. To allow the test with real observational data (§\[sec:apply\]), in this work we calculate all the processes populating the states up to $n=5$.
4. The configurations of the doubly excited states (states $d$ in § \[sec:method\]) are slightly different in two calculations. G03 limited their configurations up to $l' \leq 7$ for 3$lnl'$, and $l' \leq 4$ for 4$lnl'$, while we include all possible configurations for each $n$. Naively, the resonant excitation rate coefficients will increase by the additional doubly excited levels. For the two test levels shown in Fig. \[fig:vsg03\] (b), the resonant rates using the $l-$limited calculations are indeed lower, by $\sim 10-15$%, than those obtained in the complete calculation. As the $l-$limited rate coefficients shown in Fig. \[fig:vsg03\] (b) are obtained with FAC version 1.0, they could be compared directly with the G03 results. It appears that the two sets of rates still differ by $5-20$%, suggesting that there are other sources of discrepancy in the calculation.
5. According to Eq.\[eq:dr\], the different ionization balance used in the two calculations might introduce discrepancies to the dielectronic recombination rates. To quantify the effect, we apply the ionization balance from G03 and calculate the rates again for the test levels. As shown in Fig. \[fig:vsg03\] (c), the rates with G03 ionization balance are lower by $\sim 8$% than the rates with the balance from @u17. This is because the to ratios in the new ionization balance standard are slightly higher than those in G03.
6. G03 calculated the level populations in a hierarchical way. First, a large number of levels were grouped into super levels. The overall population of each super level was calculated. It was then partitioned into each level within the group. In our work, the populations of all levels are solved at once using a large coefficient matrix. As reported in @lucy2001, the super level method applying to a system with $\sim 1000$ levels can reach an accuracy of 0.1 with 6 iterations, and 0.01 with 20 iterations. Meanwhile, @poirier2007 showed that the super level method, as adopted in G03, might become less accurate when the rms deviation of transition rates inside one super level increases.
To summarize, we prove that the new theoretical calculation has become both more accurate and more complete than the pioneering G03 calculation.
Application to high-resolution X-ray grating data {#sec:apply}
=================================================
Here we test the new Fe-L calculations on high spectral resolution X-ray data of celestial objects. The targets are selected to be the intracluster medium (ICM) of bright nearby elliptical galaxies/galaxy clusters. They can be regarded as an ideal plasma in collisional ionization equilibrium thermalized to a balance temperature of $\sim 0.5-1.5$ keV, and enriched to near-Solar abundances [@mernier2017; @hitomi2017]. Although the X-ray fluxes of the ICM sources are substantially lower than those of the coronae of nearby stars (e.g., Capella), they are in general astrophysically simpler, as the temperature components mixed into the ICM emission model are apparently fewer than those of the stellar coronae.
The main purpose of the testing is to reveal the possible biases and systematic uncertainties on the key source parameters due to the change of the underlying atomic database. Three databases with different Fe-L calculations are established: the default data in SPEX version 3.04 are used as the first model (hereafter model 0), which include distorted wave calculations of the direct collisional excitation, and a limited set of dielectronic recombination rates for the Fe-L species (§\[sec:method\_dr\]). The second model, hereafter model 1, includes a complete set of the new calculations done in this work. We also construct the third model (hereafter model 2) by implementing the recent $R$-matrix calculations for the collisional excitation (see the list in §\[sec:felspectra\]). The atomic structure, radiative recombination, dielectronic recombination, and the innershell data of model 1 and model 2 are the same.
In principle, model 0 should be the least accurate among the three due to the incomplete resonance channels, though it is currently widely used in X-ray astronomy [@hitomi2017; @atomic2017; @anna2017; @mernier2016; @mer2016; @mernier2017; @mao2018]. Model 1 and model 2 should have similar quality, though they are still different in many places (Fig. \[fig:facspec\]). Comparing the astronomical measurements using model 0 with the other two will indicate the possible biases in the previous results reported in literature. The difference between the model 1 and model 2 results can be used as a rough estimate of the representative systematic uncertainties from atomic databases.
Note that we do not intend to verify the new calculation with the observed data. In fact, none of the current observational data allows a full validation of the atomic database. The astrophysical effects, such as the differential emission measure distribution and the resonant scattering, along with the common assumptions made in analysis (e.g., uniform abundances for all temperature components), might hamper an accurate benchmark of the atomic database. The data from controlled laboratory experiments [@brown2006] are clearly more suited for such a purpose.
\[\]
[{width="11cm"}]{}
[*XMM-Newton*]{} grating data {#sec:analysis}
------------------------------
Among the current X-ray observatories, the Reflection Grating Spectrometer (RGS, @jw2001) onboard [*XMM-Newton*]{} has the unique power to resolve the Fe-L emission from the ICM into individual lines. The RGS spectra have been used for measuring the chemical abundances of the ellipticals and galaxy clusters [@dp2017], determining the turbulence velocity [@dp2012; @pinto2015; @anna2017], and even probing weak non-thermal charge exchange emission lines [@gu2018; @gu2018b]. These measurements are all sensitive to the underlying atomic modeling. Here we apply our new calculation to a sample of RGS data of nearby elliptial galaxies and clusters.
All the testing objects are selected from the CHEmical Evolution RGS Sample (CHEERS), which is made up of 44 representative nearby X-ray bright galaxies and clusters [@dp2017]. In this work, we focus on objects showing strong lines in the spectra. The RGS study of @pinto2016 had the same research focus, leading them to select a subsample of 24 objects. For the 24 objects, we further remove those with data of poor spectral quality. Objects with very diffuse morphology, such as M87, are not included in the final sample, as their spectra suffer too much from the instrumental broadening. The final sample consists of 15 objects. The properties of the selected targets are listed in Table \[tab:sample\].
cluster Observation ID Total clean time (ks) $kT^{(a)}$ (keV) $z^{(a)}$ $N_{\rm H}^{(b)}$ (10$^{24}$ m$^{-2}$)
------------ ---------------------------------- ----------------------- ------------------ ----------- ---------------------------------------- -- -- -- -- -- --
Abell 3526 0046340101 0406200101 139.1 3.7 0.0103 8.43
Fornax 0012830101 0400620101 121.9 1.2 0.0046 2.56
HCG 62 0112270701 0504780501 0504780601 118.3 1.1 0.0140 4.81
M49 0200130101 58.5 1.0 0.0044 2.63
M86 0108260201 41.9 0.7 -0.0009 3.98
NGC 1316 0302780101 0502070201 121.5 0.6 0.0059 1.90
NGC 1404 0304940101 27.7 0.6 0.0065 1.57
NGC 3411 0146510301 15.6 0.8 0.0152 4.25
NGC 4325 0108860101 14.2 1.0 0.0259 3.54
NGC 4374 0673310101 69.3 0.6 0.0034 3.38
NGC 4636 0111190101/0201/0501/0701 80.8 0.8 0.0037 1.40
NGC 4649 0021540201 0502160101 86.4 0.8 0.0037 2.23
NGC 5044 0037950101 0554680101 110.5 1.1 0.0090 7.24
NGC 5813 0302460101 0554680201/0301/0401 129.7 0.5 0.0064 3.87
NGC 5846 0021540101/0501 0723800101/0201 131.0 0.8 0.0061 4.26
Temperatures and redshifts are taken from @dp2017.
Hydrogen column density are taken from @mernier2016.
We process the [*XMM-Newton*]{} RGS and MOS data, following the method described in @gu2018. The MOS data are used for screening soft proton flares and for deriving the spatial extent of the source along the dispersion direction of the RGS detector.
The Science Analysis System (SAS) v16.1.0 and the latest calibration files (March 2018) are used for data reduction. The time interval contaminated by soft protons are identified using the lightcurves of the RGS CCD9 and the MOS data. The flaring periods are filtered out by a 2$\sigma$ clipping. For each object, two source spectra are extracted from a $\sim 3.4$-arcmin-wide belt and a $\sim 0.8$-arcmin-wide belt centered on the emission peak. The modeled background spectra are used in the spectral analysis.
Since RGS is a spectrometer without a slit, the source spatial extent causes the spectral features to be broadened. To model the broadening, we extract the MOS1 image in detector coordinate in $7-30$ [Å]{}, and calculate the surface brightness profile in the RGS dispersion direction. The brightness profiles are convolved with the model spectrum using the SPEX model $lpro$.
Spectral modeling
-----------------
We analyze the first order RGS1 and RGS2 spectra in the $7-30$ [Å]{} band. The metal abundances are scaled to the proto-Solar standard of @lodders2009, and the Galactic absorption column densities are taken from @mernier2016. The new ionization balance calculation presented in @u17 is applied. The best-fit parameters are obtained by minimizing the C-statistics.
The dominant thermal component of the targets is first modeled with a [*cie*]{} component in SPEX. This is sometimes inadequate, as many of the targets show both hot and cool gas phases [@frank2013]. Therefore, we also fit the data with two [*cie*]{} models of different temperatures. Free parameters of the thermal components are the emission measure, the temperature, the abundances of N, O, Ne, Mg, Fe, and Ni, and the velocity of the micro turbulence. In the case of two-[*cie*]{}, the abundances and the turbulent velocities of the two gas phases are bound to each other. As shown in Fig. \[fig:cstat\], the two temperature fits are in general better than the single temperature one. For a few objects, such as NGC 1404 and NGC 3411, the C-statistics differences between the two temperature fits and the single temperature fits are small, as the second thermal component appears to be weak.
Biases and systematic uncertainties in the abundance measurement
----------------------------------------------------------------
We implement model 0, model 1, and model 2 to the SPEX software and create three different versions of [*cie*]{}. For each object, the RGS spectrum is fit independently using the three different [*cie*]{} versions. Fig. \[fig:5813\] plots two representative spectra of Abell 3526 and NGC 5813 fit with the three models. The two spectra reveal different ionization states, as the mean temperatures are 0.64 keV and 1.6 keV for NGC 5813 and Abell 3526, respectively. The two temperature structure is taken into account in the fits. It shows that model 1 and model 2 improve significantly relative to model 0 in the fits for NGC 5813. The lines at 17[Å]{} contribute significantly to the fit improvement, as they are clearly affected by the new resonant excitation and dielectronic recombination data (Fig. \[fig:17atot\]). The improvements on the fits of Abell 3526 are less apparent. The ratio plots show that the maximum discrepancies of the three models are about 10% on , , and lines for Abell 3526, and about 20% on lines for NGC 5813.
Fig. \[fig:cstat\] demonstrates that model 1 always gives better fits than model 0. On average, the C-statistic value of the 3.4-arcmin region is improved by 86 (single-temperature) and 64 (two-temperature) for mean degrees of freedom of 713. For the core 0.8-arcmin region, the mean statistics are improved by about 71 (single-temperature) and 44 (two-temperature) for the same degrees of freedom. The resulting $\Delta$C shows a weak dependency on the best-fit temperatures: the fits of the objects with $kT \sim 0.9-1.0$ keV are less affected by the atomic data update than those with lower or higher temperatures. Model 2 provides a similar improvement on the fit statistics: the average C-statistic values reduce by 84 (single-temperature) and 61 (two-temperature) from the model 0 fits for the 3.4-arcmin region. It is not possible to distinguish between model 1 and model 2 with the current fits.
Figs. \[fig:1tcom\] and \[fig:2tcom\] show a mild bias in temperature and abundance measurement due to the atomic data update. For the single-temperature modeling, the sample-average temperature increases by 2%, and the Fe abundance decreases by 9% by switching from model 0 to model 1. The ratio of O to Fe abundances would increase by a larger mean value of 13%, as the changes in temperature and Fe abundance would affect indirectly the O abundance (even though the atomic data for oxygen ions remain the same). The O/Fe ratio is a key parameter for quantifying the relative enrichment contribution from different types of supernovae to the interstellar and intracluster medium [@dp2017]. The biases on the abundances are larger at $\leq 0.8$ keV and potentially also significant at $\geq 1.3$ keV, while the best-fit values around $\sim 1$ keV obtained with the SPEX v3.04 code might require just a minor revision.
As for the two-temperature astrophysical modeling, the average Fe abundance decreases by 12% with model 1, and the mean O/Fe ratio increases by 16%, relative to that obtained with model 0. These differences are slightly larger than the single-temperature cases. As shown in Fig. \[fig:2tcom\], the changes on the Fe abundances show very weak dependence on the temperature. The O/Fe ratios still vary with temperature: a higher bias of $\sim 20$% is found at $\leq 0.8$ keV, while the bias at $\geq 1$ keV becomes slightly lower. Considering that the two-temperature is naturally a better recipe for the cool-core objects than the single-temperature one [@gu2012], the biases found in the two-temperature fits should be a better approximation to the reality.
As shown in Fig. \[fig:2tcom\], the Fe abundances measured with model 2 appear to deviate from the model 1 results. The observed discrepancies seem to change as a function of temperature: the mean Fe abundance with model 1 is higher by $\sim 10$% at 0.7 keV, but it becomes lower by $10$% at 1.5 keV, than the mean model 2 abundance. Current RGS data cannot decisively distinguish between model 1 and model 2 by the fit statistics, therefore, the 10% abundance differences can be treated as systematic uncertainties. Furthermore, taking into account the model 1 versus model 0 ratios (Fig. \[fig:2tcom\]), the Fe abundances with model 2 are lower than the model 0 values by $\sim 20$% at $\sim 0.7$ keV, while the difference becomes smaller as the temperature increases (or decreases), and largely diminishes at 1.5 keV. The mean O/Fe ratio measured with model 2 is 23% higher than the model 0 value below 1 keV, and the two values converge at 1.5 keV.
The bias in measuring O/Fe ratio could affect the fraction of type Ia supernovae contributing to the ICM enrichment (see the reviews of @boh2010 and @mernier2018). As shown in @simi2009, the increase of 23% in the O/Fe ratio might lead to a lower type Ia fraction by $\sim 5-15$%, depending on the supernova explosion mechanism. The improved abundance ratio measurement can, in principle, also better distinguish among the type II supernovae models with different level of pre-enrichment of the progenitors and with different initial-mass functions [@mer2016].
This experiment provides a general idea of the spectroscopic sensitivity on the new Fe-L atomic calculations, for RGS spectra of a limited sample of elliptical galaxies and cool clusters with temperatures of $0.6 - 1.5$ keV. To summarize, for the cool objects ($< 1$ keV), the Fe abundances measured with the new calculations (model 1 and model 2) are consistently lower, by 10% $-$ 20%, than those derived from the standard plasma code (model 0). The systematic uncertainties on the Fe abundances, determined by comparing the model 1 and model 2 fits, are up to $10$% for the current observations.
The test is far from complete, as the new calculations still need to be tested on further cooler ($< 0.6$ keV) or hotter ($> 1.5$ keV) objects in CIE, non-equilibrium ionization objects, as well as the objects affected by a strong photon field. On the other hand, the current RGS spectra resolve mostly the main transitions, while the satellite lines, which are strongly affected by the new atomic database, cannot be fully tested. We expect that the new high-resolution X-ray spectrometers on board the X-ray imaging and spectroscopy mission ([*XRISM*]{}, @tashiro2018) and [*Athena*]{} will be able to provide a sufficient test to these weak lines.
\[\]
[{width="11cm"}]{}
line ratios
------------
In addition to the fits with a global spectral model, astrophysical/laboratory spectroscopic analysis is sometimes done with a local fit. It models a segment of a highly-resolved spectrum approximately as a sum of a simple continuum plus a series of Gaussian lines, with physical parameters derived from positions, widths, and fluxes of the lines. This method is often used in the search for resonant scattering in ellipticals and clusters. The most studied lines are the main transition lines at 15.01 [Å]{} ($2s^{2}2p^{5}3d$ $^1$P$_{1}$ to the ground), 17.05 [Å]{} ($2s^{2}2p^{5}3s$ $^1$P$_1$ to the ground), and 17.09 [Å]{} ($2s^{2}2p^{5}3s$ $^3$P$_2$ to the ground), which are all well-detected lines in elliptical galaxies with RGS [@xu2002; @werner2009; @dp2012]. The 15.01 [Å]{} transition has the largest oscillator strength, while the 17.05 [Å]{} and 17.09 [Å]{} lines are much weaker, making the line ratio ($I_{17.05} + I_{17.09}$) / $I_{15.01}$ an excellent indicator for the resonant scattering. As shown in Fig. \[fig:17atot\], the 17.05 [Å]{} and 17.09 [Å]{} line intensities are strongly affected by the resonant excitation and dielectronic recombination. It is hence important to see how do the new atomic data revise the line ratio for the resonant scattering study, and how do they match with the observed data.
Here we carry out another fit to the RGS data, focusing on the lines. The spectra from the central 0.8-arcmin regions are used, as the line opacity should be largest in the innermost regions. The spectra are fit with a single-temperature model, except for Abell 3526 which clearly requires a second temperature component. The fit is run with model 1. The 15.01 [Å]{}, 17.05 [Å]{}, and 17.09 [Å]{} lines are omitted in the $cie$ model, replaced by three Gaussian components in the fits, all with fixed wavelengths. The lines are broadened instrumentally by the spatial profiles derived from the MOS1 data, and their intrinsic width are set free. The other lines are included in the $cie$ model. The new fit would allow an accurate measurement of the line ratio, largely independent of the spectral code. The observed line ratios as a function of the best-fit temperatures, as well as the theoretical values from model 0, model 1, model 2, and the latest AtomDB/APEC code, are plotted in Fig. \[fig:gausst\].
The new calculations (models 1 and 2) match within error with the tokamak laboratory measurement reported in @bei2004, which is believed to be free from resonant scattering. The standard SPEX v3.04 code (model 0) predicts a much lower line ratio than the new calculations, probably due to the insufficient atomic data for resonant excitation and dielectronic recombination in model 0. The discrepancies on the line ratios between model 1 and model 2 are 15% at 0.2 keV, and 8% at 1 keV.
As shown in Fig. \[fig:gausst\], the latest AtomDB/APEC and model 1 predict the same temperature dependence in the 17 [Å]{} to 15 [Å]{} line ratio, while APEC is systematically higher than our calculation by a near-constant of $\sim 12$%. The model 2 results agree well with AtomDB/APEC at low temperatures, and become lower than the latter by $\sim 5$% at $\sim 1$ keV. The AtomDB/APEC values are also consistent with the tokamak measurement within errors.
The better agreement between model 2 and AtomDB/APEC is expected, as both are based on collisional data from $R$-matrix calculations. The remaining small discrepancies might be caused by the slightly different atomic structures in AtomDB/APEC and SPEX. For instance, the transition probabilities in AtomDB/APEC, taken from @loch2006, are higher than the SPEX values by 11% and 6% for the transitions of $2s^{2}2p^{5}3s$ $^3$P$_2$ to the ground and $2s^{2}2p^{5}3s$ $^1$P$_1$ to the ground, respectively.
Line ratios measured from three RGS objects, NGC 5044, NGC 3411, and the Fornax cluster, are found below the AtomDB/APEC curve. These three data points are consistent with the model 1 curve within statistical errors. Physically, finding a line ratio below the theoretical curve is unlikely, as there is no valid mechanism that could increase the 15 [Å]{} or reduce the 17 [Å]{} for a low-density plasma in collisional ionization equilibrium. However, it is hard to conclude a significant preference among models 1, 2, and the AtomDB/APEC with the current RGS data.
The uncertainties in the optically thin line ratio would affect the random gas motion measured through the resonant scattering phenomenon. This can be estimated based on the radiative transfer model of elliptical galaxies presented in @anna2017. As the optically thin ratio increases by $\sim 12$% from model 1 to AtomDB/APEC, the scattered photon flux would decrease by the same amount, and the inferred random motion in the ICM would increase by a Mach number of $\geq 0.06$, or $\geq 12$% of the mean gas motion reported in @anna2017.
\*/
\*/
Ending remarks
==============
By carrying out a large-scale theoretical calculation of the electron impact on ions of to , we present a set of new atomic data for modeling the Fe-L complex. The calculation includes a large set of atomic levels for each ion, allowing full configuration interaction and all kinds of resonant processes. The resonant excitation and the dielectronic recombination are found to affect strongly a significant portion of the major transitions. We present a set of detailed comparisons of the new calculation with available $R$-matrix results, on both the collisional rates and the model spectra based on the line formation calculations. It shows that the two calculations agree within $20$% on most of the main transitions. The comparison will be fed into the prioritization of the future laboratory benchmarks on the Fe-L modeling.
The current SPEX code includes mostly non-resonant atomic calculations. The fact that many previous RGS results on elliptical galaxies and galaxy clusters are based on a non-resonant database is worrying. To assess the possible bias, we apply the new FAC calculation with complete resonances to a RGS sample of 15 cool-core ellipticals and clusters. We find that the Fe abundances measured with the current SPEX v3.04 code are on average biased high by 12%. The O/Fe abundance ratio, which is widely used for assessing the population of the enriching supernovae, is underestimated by a mean value of 16%. Furthermore, the Fe abundances measured with the $R$-matrix model show discrepancies of $\leq 10$% from the values with the FAC model. Current data cannot decisively distinguish between the FAC and the $R$-matrix models, therefore the 10% abundance difference has to be treated as systematic uncertainties.
To update the atomic database in a plasma code (such as SPEX), it is ideal to take the best from the $R$-matrix and the FAC calculations. In theory, the accuracy of $R$-matrix data might be considered superior to that of the FAC calculation. The $R$-matrix data should be implemented on the low-lying levels, which form the main X-ray transitions. For the high levels, as the $R$-matrix data gradually becomes sparse, the new FAC calculation with isolated resonances can be implemented as a valid approximation. This would form a recommended database used in most of the analysis. On the other hand, it might be desirable to keep a second database with the new FAC calculations for both the low and high levels. Since the $R$-matrix and FAC calculations might represent two ends of the theoretical space, comparing the fits with the recommended and the second databases might directly reflect the systematic atomic uncertainties on the source parameters.
The next step of the Fe-L work will be twofold. First, the test with astrophysical objects with existing observatories will be continued. As shown in the test with the RGS data, benchmarks using astrophysical objects require not only a compatible atomic database, but also a proper analysis technique for modeling out the astrophysical effects. Second, we will put forward a dedicated benchmark with ground-based laboratory experiments using electron beam ion trap devices, where plasma in a Maxwellian distribution can be simulated. By checking the consistency between the models and the astrophysical/experimental spectra for each visible Fe-L transition, we will identify the potential areas where the theoretical calculations can be further improved. Some iterations of such work will be needed to ensure that the atomic codes are ready for the future high resolution X-ray spectra obtained with [*XRISM*]{} and [*Athena*]{}.
L.G. is supported by the RIKEN Special Postdoctoral Researcher Program. SRON is supported financially by NWO, the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research. A. S. is supported by the Women In Science Excel (WISE) programme of the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO), and acknowledges the MEXT World Premier Research Center Initiative (WPI) and the Kavli IPMU for the continued hospitality.
Density effects {#sec:density}
===============
For a low-density plasma, excited levels are quickly depleted by spontaneous cascade, so that only the ground state is significantly populated. At a high electron density, the cascade might be interrupted by collision with electrons. Some of the low-lying levels become thus populated. As a result, the population of the ground state decreases, and the related spectral features, e.g., lines from ground excitation, become weaker. On the other side, the transitions from the excited states become substantially more important [@mao2017].
Figure \[fig:population\] illustrates the density-dependent population of several low-lying excited levels for the C-like, B-like, and Be-like Fe. The calculation is done with SPEX, which incorporates the new atomic data obtained in this work. For an electron density lower than $10^{10}$ cm$^{-3}$, the occupations of these levels are negligible, except for the metastable 2$s$2$p$ $^3$P$_{0}$ level, which is populated even at low density due to the narrow de-excitation channel. For the selected low-lying levels shown in the figure, the population rises as the density increases from $10^{12}$ cm$^{-3}$ to $10^{14}$ cm$^{-3}$. At a higher density, the relative level population evolves towards the standard Boltzman distribution, as the excited states would eventually be in a collisional local thermodynamic equilibrium (LTE).
The same exercise has been done for the other Fe-L species. For the astrophysical coronal/nebular ($< 10^{14}$ cm$^{-3}$) plasma, the density effect is most significant at the three low-lying excited levels for the Fe-L. For the three levels, we calculate the transition rates of direct excitation, resonant excitation, and dielectronic recombination, in a same way as those from the ground states (§ \[sec:method\]).
It should be noted that there could be more metastable levels above the three low-lying levels included in the current calculation. @badnell2006 included 6 low-lying excited levels for O-like Fe and Be-like Fe, 8 for N-like and B-like, and 12 for C-like, as the metastable parent levels used in the radiative recombination calculation. The extra metastable levels would become sensitive for the condition of higher density ($> 10^{14}$ cm$^{-3}$). We plan to include all the metastable levels in a follow-up calculation.
Figure \[fig:population\] shows the model spectra based on the above data, for the C-like, B-like, and Be-like Fe at a low density and an intermediate density of $10^{14}$ cm$^{-3}$. The temperature is set to the value of peak ion concentration in equilibrium. It can be seen that the dominant lines of these ions become weaker at high density, probably because these lines originate from the excitation of the ground states, which have a decreasing population at high density. Some of the satellite lines become stronger, as the low-lying levels contribute significantly to the formation of these lines.
Resonant excitation: consistency check with previous results {#sec:re_check}
============================================================
Following § \[sec:res\_result\], we compare the electron-impact collision data obtained from the current FAC calculation with those from previous distorted wave and $R$-matrix works.
----------------------------- ------------- ----------------------- ------------------------------ ----------------- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Final state calculation rate at 0.2 keV$^{a}$ rate at 0.4 keV$^{b}$ rate at 1.0 keV
$10^{-13}$ cm$^{3}$ s$^{-1}$
2$s^2$2$p^5$3$s$ $^3$P$_2$ @smith1985 50.0 $-$ $-$
@gold1989 13.0 29.9 $-$
@chen1989 12.2 30.2 22.8
this work 19.0 44.0 34.5
2$s^2$2$p^5$3$s$ $^1$P$_1$ @smith1985 48.0 $-$ $-$
@gold1989 16.1 37.6 $-$
@chen1989 14.4 36.9 27.9
this work 17.2 40.6 32.2
2$s^2$2$p^5$3$s$ $^3$P$_0$ @smith1985 11.0 $-$ $-$
@gold1989 2.5 6.0 $-$
@chen1989 1.9 5.0 3.8
this work 2.9 6.9 5.6
2$s^2$2$p^5$3$s$ $^3$P$_1$ @smith1985 38.0 $-$ $-$
@gold1989 15.1 36.7 $-$
@chen1989 14.2 37.1 28.5
@chen2002 22.7 $-$ $-$
this work 16.0 38.9 31.4
All 2$s^2$2$p^5$3$s$ states @smith1985 147.0 $-$ $-$
@gold1989 46.7 110.1 $-$
@chen1989 42.7 109.2 83.0
@chen2002 70.4 $-$ $-$
this work 55.1 130.4 103.7
----------------------------- ------------- ----------------------- ------------------------------ ----------------- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Values from @smith1985 are calculated at 217 eV.
Values from @chen1989 are calculated at 0.5 keV.
Comparing with classic resonance calculations
---------------------------------------------
In Table \[tab:partial\], the resonance rates of the ion from the present work are compared with the results in literature. The values from @smith1985, @gold1989, @chen1989, and @chen2002 are based on the semi-relativistic Hartree-Fock method, a relativistic parametric potential method, the multi-configuration Dirac-Fock approach, and a Breit-Pauli $R$-matrix method with a 89-level expansion, respectively. The rate coefficients reported in @smith1985 are apparently higher than the others. @chen1989 suggested that this is partially explained by the incomplete autoionization channels included in @smith1985. The present calculation gives higher rates than the those of @gold1989 and @chen1989 using a similar technique, but lower than the Breit-Pauli $R$-matrix results. The discrepancies between the @chen2002 values and our results at 0.2 keV are 42% on the partial rate to 2$s^2$2$p^5$3$s$ $^3$P$_1$, and 28% on the total rate.
Comparing with recent $R$-matrix results: main transitions {#sec:new_r_result}
----------------------------------------------------------
More recently, new $R$-matrix calculations of Ne-like species were performed by @loch2006 and @liang2010. The new calculations include more close-coupling expansions than the earlier Breit-Pauli work by @chen2002. For , the total atomic levels are 139 levels in @loch2006 and 209 levels in @liang2010. Here we further compare our calculation with the two new results for the four 3$s$ levels of . The effective collision strengths are taken from the OPEN-ADAS database[^1].
As shown in Fig. \[fig:rmatrix1\], the differences among the three datasets are reasonably small. Our calculation agrees with the $R$-matrix results within $\sim 5$% for the $^3$P$_2$ level in $0.1-1.0$ keV, and within $5-20$% for the $^3$P$_0$ level. For the $^1$P$_1$ and $^3$P$_1$ levels, our results are slightly lower, by $3-10$% than those of @liang2010 and $15-20$% than those of @loch2006. In general, the differences observed between the FAC and the recent $R$-matrix calculations are well within the uncertainties among different $R$-matrix results. The agreement on the Ne-like lines is even better than those on the H-like and He-like species as reported in @atomic2017.
The resonance and direct excitation of $n=3$ and 4 for was calculated by @witt2006, using $R$-matrix with 195 levels. As shown in Fig. \[fig:rmatrix2\], we compare the calculations of two 3$s$ levels which produce the strong 16 [Å]{} line. The FAC and $R$-matrix results again agree within $10$%, which might potentially be ascribed to the uncertainties of the atomic structure for this nine-electron system.
A similar $R$-matrix tool was used to calculate the electron collisional data for transitions among 342 levels of [@butler2008]. As shown in Fig. \[fig:rmatrix22\], we compare the calculations of four key excited levels with $n=3$. For the $3s$ level, the FAC value is higher than the $R$-matrix one by 20% at 0.2 keV, and by 13% at 1 keV. As for the $3p$ and $3d$ levels, the two theoretical models seem to agree within 10% in the temperature range of astrophysical interest.
The electron collision strengths for a total of 302 close-coupling levels of were reported in @witt2007, based on the $R$-matrix theory using an intermediate-coupling frame transformation method. Their results are compared with the FAC calculation, for four low-lying levels shown in Fig. \[fig:rmatrix23\]. The comparison on the $3s$ $^4$P$_{5/2}$ level reveals a maximum discrepancy of $\sim 20$% at 0.4 keV. For the other three levels, the difference between the two datasets are reasonably small.
A $R$-matrix calculation for C-like Fe excitation was reported by @badnell2001. It was carried out with the intermediate coupling frame transformation method for 200 close-coupling levels. In Fig. \[fig:rmatrix3\], we show collision strengths for four representative levels, which are among the upper levels that produce the brightest emission lines. Our calculation suggests that these levels are significantly contributing to the resonant excitation. The FAC and $R$-matrix results are in accord well within $< 10$% for $T_{\rm e} = 0.1-10$ keV.
We further test the electron-impact excitation of with the 204-level $R$-matrix results reported in @liang2012. As plotted in Fig. \[fig:rmatrix4\], detailed comparisons for the effective collision strengths are made for four representative levels, which are selected again based on the related line emissivities and the resonance contribution. For $2s^{2}2p$ $^2$P$_{3/2}$ and $2s^23s$ $^2$S$_{1/2}$, the two calculations in general agree for high temperatures, while the FAC values are lower than the $R$-matrix values by $\sim 20$% at $\leq 1$ keV. The two approaches converge well for the other two levels $2s2p^2$ $^2$P$_{1/2}$ and $2s^23d$ $^2$D$_{3/2}$.
The $R$-matrix calculation of electron-impact excitation of was made by @fern2014, based on 238 fine-structure levels in both the configuration interaction target and close-coupling collision expansions. We compare the collision strengths for four strong lines with their calculations, on which the resonance has a large effect. As shown in Fig. \[fig:rmatrix5\], the two data agree very well within a difference of $\leq 5$% for $T_{\rm e} = 0.1-10$ keV.
In Fig. \[fig:rmatrix6\] we compare our calculations of the total excitation of four main lines with the $R$-matrix results reported in @liang2011. The $R$-matrix work was done with the intermediate coupling frame transformation method for 195 levels, and the Auger- as well as radiation- damping effects were both taken into account. For $3s$ $^2$S$_{1/2}$, $3d$ $^2$D$_{3/2}$, and $3d$ $^2$D$_{5/2}$, the $R$-matrix and our data agree well with $\sim 5$%, while for $3p$ $^2$P$_{3/2}$, the difference between the two approaches become slightly larger, $\sim 10$%, for the collision strengths at energy of $\leq 1$ keV.
The illustrative comparison indicates that the difference between the modern large-scale isolated resonance calculation and the recent interacting $R$-matrix becomes now smaller than previously reported in @badnell1994. The two methods are well in line within $20$% for the direct transitions from the ground states to a few selected excited levels at $n=3$. As shown in Fig. \[fig:17atot\], some excited levels are heavily populated through cascade, indicating that the line intensities could actually be significantly affected by the excitation rate coefficients to higher states. In the following section, we will give an extensive comparison for all the relevant rates.
Comparing with recent $R$-matrix results: scatter plots {#sec:scatter_plot}
-------------------------------------------------------
The scatter plot in Fig. \[fig:scatter\] shows the comparison of the effective collision strengths from the current and $R$-matrix calculations, for all the excitations from the ground states. The $R$-matrix results are a collection of the works mentioned in § \[sec:new\_r\_result\]. The plot confirms that the two methods agree on the strongest transitions within uncertainties of $\sim 20$%. However, the discrepancies between the two methods on the weaker transitions are substantially larger, up to a factor of two for and , and one order of magnitude for the rest ions, at the lowest effective collision strengths. Note that orders of magnitude difference for weak transitions are also found among different R-matrix calculations (ICFT, DARC, BSR, @fern2017 and references therein). These weak transitions would affect the satellite lines directly, and might also influence the main spectral lines collectively through cascade. As shown in Fig. \[fig:facspec\], the differences on the main transitions and on the weak transitions are clearly reflected in the model spectra, indicating that both contribute systematic uncertainties that would significantly affect the astrophysical spectral measurements.
[^1]: http://open.adas.ac.uk, ADF04
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- |
M. Malheiro $^{1,2}$ [^1], A. Delfino $^{1}$ [^2] and C. T. Coelho$^{1}$\
\
$^{1}$ Instituto de Física, Universidade Federal Fluminense,\
24210-340, Niterói, R. J., Brasil\
${^2}$ Department of Physics, University of Maryland,\
College Park, Maryland 20742-4111, USA
title: '**[Phase Transition in Warm Nuclear Matter with Alternative Derivative Coupling Models]{}**'
---
=-1.5 true cm
.3cm
: An analysis is performed of the liquid-gas phase transition of nuclear matter obtained from different versions of scalar derivate coupling suggested by Zimanyi and Moszkowski (ZM) and the results are compared with those obtained from the Walecka model. We present the phase diagram for the models and one of them, the ZM3 model, has the lowest critical temperature $T_c=13.6$ MeV with the lowest critical density $\rho_c=0.037$ f$m^{-3}$ and pressure $p_c=0.157$ MeV f$m^{-3}$. These results are in accord with recent observations from energetic heavy-ion collisions, which suggest a small liquid-gas phase region.\
PACS \# 21.65.+f, 12.40.Yx, 25.75.+r
Introduction
=============
0.7cm
Nowadays, the study of the liquid-gas phase transition, which may occur in the warm and dilute matter produced in energetic heavy-ion collisions, is one of the interesting problems in nuclear physics [@li]. This idea of that nuclear systems may show up a critical behavior has initiated more than ten years ago with the observation by the Purdue-Fermilab group of asymptotic fragment charge distributions exhibiting a power law [@pur]. This interest increased recently with the attempt by the EOS Collaboration to extract critical exponents of fragmenting nuclear systems produced in the collision of 1 GeV/nucleon Au nuclei with a carbon target [@pur1], and with the extraction by ALADIN/LAND Collaboration of a caloric curve resulting from the fragmentation of the quasiprojectile formed in the collision Au + Au at 600 MeV/nucleon exhibiting a behavior expected for a first order liquid-gas phase transition [@jp].
At the time where the search for signals of liquid-gas nuclear phase transition are taking place, it is important to have ready the theoretical phase-transition predictions for a broad class of different hadronic models. The main ingredient in this analysis is the nuclear matter equation of state (EOS) at finite temperature. The success of relativistic mean-field theories describing cold nuclear matter and bulk nuclear properties throughout the periodic table, suggests the use of a relativistic mean-field EOS. Moreover, the mean-field approximation is known to be thermodinamicaly consistent: the relevant thermodynamic identities are all satisfied [@furs], [@mb].
Recently variants of Zimanyi and Moszkowski (ZM) model [@zm] were implemented and applied by us to dense and cold nuclear matter [@acm1], [@acm2]. The usual ZM model, also referred to in the literature as the Derivative Scalar Coupling model (DSC), consists of derivative coupling between nucleons and scalar mesons $\sigma$. The model has been extended to include a non-linear interaction between the nucleon and the vector meson $\omega$. Two types of this interaction were employed and the resulting models were denoted ZM2 and ZM3. These models were designed to cure the defects of the Walecka model [@sw], namely the low effective nucleon mass and the large incompressibility of nuclear matter. Each one of them is very simple since they have only two free parameters, the scalar (vector) coupling constants $C_{\sigma}^2$ $(C_{\omega}^2)$, adjusted to reproduce the binding energy ($E_b$) of the nuclear matter at $\rho = \rho_0$. The degrees of freedom are baryon fields ($\psi$), scalar meson fields ($\sigma$), and vector meson fields ($\omega$).
In all ZM models, there are non-linear interaction terms which in a approximate way incorporate the effect of many-body forces. After an appropriate rescaling of the Lagrangians, these models can be understood as generalizations of the Walecka Model where the scalar and vector meson couplings become effectively density-dependent [@acmbg]. This fact underlies the recent approach, known as relativistic density-dependent Hartree-Fock [@scm], [@lz], [@sg] which describes finite nuclei and nuclear matter saturation properties using coupling constants that are fitted, at each density value, to the relativistic Brueckner-Hartree-Fock self-energy terms. The good agreement obtained for the ground state properties of spherical nuclei lends support to such density-dependent coupling constants. Recently, it was shown that chiral symmetry restoration requires the meson-nucleon coupling to be density dependent [@addm].
The aim of this paper is to extend our study to include temperature effects, and to perform an analysis of the liquid-gas phase transition of the warm nuclear matter obtained on these three ZM models and compare to the linear Walecka (W) model [@inpc]. We present the effective nucleon mass, energy per nucleon, pressure, and entropy density as a function of the baryonic density at different temperatures. We show the isotherms, construct the phase diagram with the phase coexistence boundary, and present the critical and flash temperatures for the models. The usual ZM model has already been applied to investigate some thermodynamic properties of nuclear matter [@qss] and recently, the modified versions have been used in order to study the density and temperature dependence of hadron masses [@br].
The outline of the paper is as follows: in the next section we present the EOS at finite temperature. Section 3 includes our results and discussion of the thermodynamic properties of nuclear matter. Finally, we summarize.
The nuclear matter EOS at finite temperature
=============================================
Since the models we are dealing with were discussed in detail in references [@zm], [@acm1], [@acm2], here we will only present the Lagrangian obtained after rescaling the nucleon field as $\psi
\rightarrow {m^{\ast}}^{1/2}\psi$ for all ZM models and making the rescaling $\omega_{\mu} \rightarrow m^{\ast}\omega_{\mu}$ for ZM2 and ZM3 models: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{lu}
{\cal L}_{R} & = & \bar \psi i \gamma_{\mu} \partial^{\mu } \psi
+ \ m^{\ast^{\alpha}}\ \left( - g_{\omega}\bar \psi \gamma_{\mu }\psi
\omega^{\mu } - \frac{1}{4}F^{\mu \nu}F_{\mu \nu} + \frac{1}{2}
m^2_{\omega}\omega_{\mu}\omega^{\mu}\right) \nonumber\\
& - & \bar \psi( M - m^{\ast^{\beta}} g_{\sigma}\sigma ) \psi
+ \frac{1}{2}(\partial_{\mu }\sigma\partial^{\mu}\sigma - m^2_{\sigma}
\sigma^2), \end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha$ and $\beta$ have the following values for the different models, $ W: \alpha = 0 , \beta = 0 $; $ ZM: \alpha = 0 , \beta = 1 $; $ ZM2: \alpha = 1 , \beta = 1 $; $ ZM3: \alpha = 2 , \beta = 1 $; and $ m^{\ast} = (1 + g_{\sigma}\sigma/M)^{-1} $ in all three cases, M is the bare nucleon mass and $F_{\mu \nu} = \partial_{\mu}\omega_{\nu} - \partial_{\nu}\omega_{\mu}
$.
When the meson fields are replaced by the constant classical fields $\sigma_{o}$ and $\omega_{o}$ we arrive at the mean-field approximation, with the equation of motion for the nucleon: $$\label{cnu}
\ [i \gamma_{\mu} \partial ^{\mu} - ( M -
m^{\ast^{\beta}} g_{\sigma} {\sigma}) - m^{\ast^{\alpha}} g_{\omega}
\gamma_{\mu} \omega^{\mu} ] \psi = 0,$$ where the effective nucleon mass $M^{\ast}$ is given by $M^* = M - m^{*\beta}
g_\sigma \sigma $. In the case of ZM models where $ \beta = 1 $ we can identify $ m^{\ast} = M^{\ast}/M = (1 + g_{\sigma}\sigma/M)^{-1} $.
The expression for the energy density and pressure at a given temperature T can be found as usual by the average of the energy-momentum tensor, $$\label{enert}
{\cal E} = \frac{C_{\omega}^{2}}{2M^{2}}m^{\ast^{\alpha}}\rho^2+
\frac{M^{4}}{2C_{\sigma}^{2}}\left(\frac{1-m^{\ast}}{m^{\ast{\beta}}}\right)^2+
\frac{\gamma}{(2\pi)^{3}}\int d^{3}k\,E^{\ast}(k)(n_{k}+\bar n_{k}) ,$$ $$\label{prest}
p = \frac{C_{\omega}^{2}}{2M^{2}}m^{\ast^{\alpha}}\rho^2 -
\frac{M^{4}}{2C_{\sigma}^{2}}\left( \frac{1-m^{\ast}}{m^{\ast^{\beta}}}\right)^2 +
\frac{1}{3}\frac{\gamma}{(2\pi)^{3}}\int d^{3}k\,\frac{k^{2}}{E^{\ast}(k)}
(n_{k}+\bar n_{k}) .$$ Thus we obtain the entropy density: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{entrt}
s & = & \frac{1}{T} \left[ \frac{ C_\omega^2}{M^2} m^{*\alpha} \rho^2 + \frac{\gamma}
{(2\pi)^{3}}\int d^{3}k\,E^{\ast}(k)(n_k+\bar n_{k}) \right]
\nonumber\\ \nonumber\\
& + &\frac{1}{3T} \frac{\gamma}{(2\pi)^{3}}\int d^{3}k\,\frac{k^{2}}{E^{\ast}(k)}
(n_{k}+\bar n_{k}) - \frac{\mu \rho}{T},\end{aligned}$$ where $ \gamma$ is the degeneracy factor ( $\gamma = 4 $ for nuclear matter and $ \gamma = 2 $ for pure neutron matter ), $n_{k}$ and $\bar n_{k}$ stand for the Fermi-Dirac distribution for baryons and antibaryons respectively, with arguments $ (E^{\ast} - \nu)/T $ , $E^{\ast}(k)$ is given by $ E^{\ast}(k) = ( k^2 + M^{\ast 2} )^{\frac{1}{2}} $ . An effective chemical potential which preserves the number of baryons and antibaryons in the ensemble is defined by $ \nu=\mu - V $, with $\mu$ is the thermodynamical chemical potential. We have introduced $C_{\sigma}^2 = g_{\sigma}^2M^2/m_{\sigma}^2$ and $C_{\omega}^2 = g_{\omega}^2M^2/m_{\omega}^2$.
The effective mass is obtained explicitly through the minimization of ${\cal E }$ with respect to $m^{\ast}$ and must satisfied the self-consistent equation, $$\label{meft}
1 - m^{\ast} - \frac{\gamma C_\sigma^2}{2\pi^2} m^{\ast^{3\beta+1}}\int\,
\frac{x^2dx}{\sqrt{x^2+m^{\ast^2}}}(n_{x}+\bar n_{x})-\frac{\alpha}{2}
\frac{C_{\sigma}^2C_{\omega}^2}{M^6}m^{\ast^{\alpha+2\beta}}\rho^2=0$$ where we have used the dimensionless variable $ x=\frac{k}{M} $.
The energy density can be fitted to the nuclear matter ground state energy and saturation density $\rho_{o}$ at zero temperature to obtain the different coupling constants for the models. They are presented in table 1 together with the nuclear matter incompressibility that at $T=0$ is given by: $$\label{k}
K=9\rho_{o}^2\frac{\partial^2}{\partial\rho^2}(\frac{{\cal E}}{\rho})
\vert_{\rho = \rho_o}=9\rho_{o}\frac{\partial^2{\cal E}}{\partial\rho^2}
\vert_{\rho = \rho_o}.$$
To compute the thermodynamic functions, one first chooses T and $ \nu$. The self-consistency condition in eq.(\[meft\]) is then solved to determine $M^*$ ( note that there may be several solutions for fixed T and $ \nu$ ). These solutions specify the distribution functions $n_{k}$ and $\bar n_{k}$, and the remaining integrals in Eqs. (\[enert\]), (\[prest\]) and (\[entrt\]) can then be evaluated directly.
Results and Discussion
=======================
0.7cm
In Fig. 1 we show $M^{\ast}$ as a function of T at zero density. In this regime, the vector field proportional to $\rho$ vanishes, and so the three ZM models differ only in having different values of their scalar coupling constants $C_{\sigma}^2 $. The ZM and the Walecka model coincide in the lower temperature region $T \le
120$ MeV and ZM3 model stay together up to $T \sim 160$ MeV. However, at higher temperature the models separate quite clearly, with the effective nucleon mass in the ZM models dropping more slowly than that in the Walecka Model. This means that the sigma field (the source for the scalar density), increases more slowly with temperature in ZM models because of the inclusion of non linear interactions which are absent in the Walecka Model. As a result, the attraction is stronger in the Walecka model favouring the formation of nucleon-antinucleon pairs at high temperature. Moreover, none of the proposed ZM models is able to present a first order phase transition at $\rho$= 0 , $T\ne$0. This is in contrast to the Walecka model, which has such a phase transition at $T \sim 185$ MeV [@tsp].
In Fig. 2 we show the behavior of the effective nucleon mass with density at different temperatures for all the models. For low temperatures the results are not so different from those obtained at zero temperature, showing that in this regime the density dependence is more important than the temperature dependence. As temperature is raised, $M^*$ first increases and then decreases more slowly for ZM models than Walecka model at $T=200$ MeV. Within ZM models, this decrease is more pronounced in ZM3, but is even smaller compared to Walecka model where the effective mass goes down very fast. In short, the effect of the temperature on the effective nucleon mass in the ZM models is not so pronounced as in the case of Walecka Model, and can be seen only for densities below the normal density.
We present the energy per nucleon as a function of the density at various temperatures in Fig. 3 . As the temperature increases the nuclear matter becomes less bound and the the saturation curve around the equilibrium point in the ZM models is flatter than that in the Walecka model. This indicates that the nuclear matter EOS in ZM models is softer compared to the obtained in the Walecka Model, even at finite temperature. We can also conclude that the incompressibility of nuclear matter decreases when the temperature increases. This can be seen more clearly in Fig. 4 where we show the pressure-density isotherms of nuclear matter at different temperatures. Since the incompressibility K is related to ${\partial p}/{\partial\rho}$ (calculated at the equilibrium point where the pressure vanishes), we see directly that when the temperature increases K decreases, and among the ZM models, the ZM3 model always gives the softest EOS for a fixed temperature.
The isotherms exhibit a typical Van der Waals like interaction where a liquid and gaseous phases coexist, with an unphysical region in the midle of each isotherm that gets smaller as the temperature increases. For very small temperatures the isotherms manifest the following behavior: for very low density the pressure increases with temperature as for as a ideal gas, $ p \sim \rho k_b
T$. It decreases subsequently because of the attractive interaction of the sigma field, and finally increases as a consequence of the repulsion coming from the vector meson which dominates at high density. When temperature increases, the term $ \rho k_bT$ becomes more important and the local minimum in the pressure is less pronounced and disappears when the temperature is equal to the critical $T_c$. At this temperature, the unphysical region disappears and an inflection point appears in the isotherm, as we show in the Fig.4 for each model. The p-$\rho$ isotherms in the ZM models have a shallower and more even valley than the corresponding ones in the Walecka Model, and this is more noticeable in ZM3 model. In table 2 we list the critical temperature $T_c$, density $\rho_c$ and pressure $p_c$ given by the ZM and Walecka models. The ZM3 model presents the lowest $T_c=13.6$ MeV, density $\rho_c=0.037$ f$m^{-3}$ and pressure $p_c=0.157$ MeV f$m^{-3}$.
The phase coexistence boundary is determined by Gibbs’s criteria, namely, that the liquid and gas phases have equal temperatures (thermal equilibrium), chemical potentials (chemical equilibrium), and pressures (hydrostatic equilibrium). We present in Fig.5 the phase diagram Tx$\rho$ of the models. Below the coexistence curve of each one, the equilibrium state is a mixture of gas and liquid. This region is bigger in the Walecka model. In fact, if we include nonlinear terms in this model, this region becames smaller and the critical temperature goes down to $T_c=14.2$ MeV [@furs]. The ZM3 model, where the non-linearity of the coupling between the vector field to the nucleon is strongest, presents the smallest phase coexistence region comparing to the other models.
As we have already pointed out, the nuclear matter incompressibility K decreases when the temperature increases. So, we will have a temperature where the incompressibility K calculated at the equilibrium point vanishes. This temperature is known as the flash temperature $T=T_{f}$, $\frac{\partial p}{\partial\rho}\vert_{
T_f}\,=\,p(\rho_f,T_f)=0 $. It represents the highest temperature at which a self-bound system can exist in hydrostatic equilibrium ($p=0$). Above this temperature the warm nuclear matter is unbound and starts expanding. We present in Fig. 6 the pressure as a function of baryon density at the flash temperature for the models. This temperature in MeV is 14.1, 12.9, 12.2 and 11.0 for the Walecka, ZM, ZM2 and ZM3 models respectively. Again, the ZM3 model has the smallest flash temperature. As expected, all of these temperatures are lower than the critical ones, because, as Fig.4 shows, at the critical temperature the pressure is already positive and the system is expanding.
Finally, we present in Fig.7 the entropy density as a function of the density at different temperatures. For high temperatures ($T=200$ MeV), we see an increase in the entropy density with the density for all the models. This happens even at very low densities, and manifests what we have already pointed out when we have discussed the behavior of the effective nucleon mass with the temperature at zero density. This decrease of $M^*$ or increase of the entropy density with increasing temperature, which is more pronounced in the Walecka and ZM3 models, resembles a phase transition. At high temperature and low density the system becomes a dilute gas of baryons in a sea of baryons-antibaryons.
In summary, we have presented the thermodynamic properties of nuclear matter in three different versions of the ZM model. We have shown how the effective nucleon mass $M^{\ast}$, energy per nucleon, pressure, and entropy behaves as a function of the density for different temperatures. As in the zero temperature case, all the ZM models give a softer EOS of nuclear matter at finite temperature than the Walecka model. Among the three ZM models, ZM3 is the softest. Unlike the Walecka Model the ZM models do not exhibit a phase transition for finite temperature at zero density. We studied the liquid-gas phase transition, and concluded that the ZM3 model presents the smallest phase coexistence region with the lowest critical temperature, density and pressure. The incompressiblity decreases with the increasing temperature, and vanishes when $T=T_{flash}$. Again, the ZM3 model has the smallest flash temperature. The experimental results investigating this warm and dilute matter produced in energetic heavy-ion collisions suggest a small liquid-gas phase region and a low critical temperature [@jp], [@li]. This suggests that the good description of nuclear matter properties obtained in the ZM3 model at zero temperature remains, even at finite temperature, and makes the ZM3 model the most suitable of all models used.
One of us (MM) would like to thank Dr. D. R. Phillips for careful reading of the manuscript, the Maryland TQHN Group supported by the U.S. Depto. of Energy for their hospitality during his extended stay, and gratefully the CAPES of the Brazilian Governement for the financial support which made this visit possible.
T. Li et al, Phys. Rev [C49]{}, 1630 (1994) (Michigan National Superconducting Cyclotron Laboratory; They extracted a critical value for the slope parameter that converges for $T_c\,=\,13.1\pm 0.6$ MeV)
J. E. Finn et [*al*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**49**]{}, 1321 (1982); Phys. Lett. [**B118**]{}, 458 (1982); M. Mahi et [*al*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**60**]{}, 1936 (1988)
J. B. Elliot et [*al*]{}, Phys. Rev. [**C49**]{}, 3185 (1994); M. L. Gilkes et [*al*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett [**73**]{}, 1590 (1994)
J. Pochodzalla et [*al*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**75**]{}, 1040 (1995) from ALADIN/LAND Collaboration; International Nuclear Physics Conference [**(INPC’95)**]{}, Beijing-China, August 1995, (Book of Abstract, section Invited Talks, pg. I-16)
R. J. Furnstahl and B. D. Serot, Phys. Rev. [**C41**]{}, 262 (1990).
H. Muller and B. D. Serot, Phys. Rev. [**C52**]{}, 2072 (1995)
J. Zimanyi and S. A. Moszkowski, Phys. Rev. [**C42**]{}, 1416 (1990).
A. Delfino, C. T. Coelho and M. Malheiro, Phys. Lett. [**B345**]{}, 361 (1995).
A. Delfino, C. T. Coelho and M. Malheiro, Phys. Rev. [**C51**]{}, 2188 (1995).
B. D. Serot and J. D. Walecka, Adv. in Nucl. Phys. [**16**]{} (1986).
A. Delfino, M. Chiapparini, M. Malheiro, L. V. Belvedere and A. O. Gattone, Zeits. fur Phys.[**A**]{} (In press), nucl-th/9602004.
Hua-lin Shi, Bao-qiu Chen and Zhong-yu Ma, Phys. Rev. [**C52**]{}, 144 (1995).
G.Q. Li and Y.Z. Zhuo, Nucl. Phys. [**A568**]{}, 745 (1994).
S. Gmuca, Nucl. Phys. [**A547**]{}, 447 (1992).
A. Delfino, J. Dey, M. Dey and M. Malheiro, Phys. Lett. [**B363**]{}, 17 (1995); Zeits. fur Phys.[**C**]{} (In press), hep-ph/9603403 .
A. Delfino, C.T. Coelho and M. Malheiro, International Nuclear Physics Conference [**(INPC’95)**]{}, Beijing-China, August 1995, (Book of Abstract, section Mesons and Baryons in Nuclei, pg. 2-36).
Z. Qian, H. Song, and R. Su, Phys.Rev.[**[C48]{}**]{}, 154 (1993).
A. Bhattacharyya and S. Raha, Phys. Rev [**C**]{} (In press) and nucl-th/9603020.
J. Theis, H. Stocker and J. Polony Phys. Rev. [**D28**]{}, 2286 (1993).
Figures and Captions
=====================
Fig. 1: Baryon effective mass in nuclear matter as a function of the temperature at $\rho=0$.\
\
\
Fig. 2: Baryon effective mass $M^*$ as a function of the baryon density at different temperatures for the Walecka model (W) and Zimanyi-Moszkowski models (ZM, ZM2, ZM3).\
\
\
Fig. 3: Proper energy/baryon as a function of baryon density at different temperatures for the Walecka model (W) and Zimanyi-Moszkowski models (ZM, ZM2, ZM3).\
\
\
Fig. 4: Pressure as a function of baryon density at different temperatures for the Walecka model (W) and Zimanyi-Moszkowski models (ZM, ZM2, ZM3).\
\
\
Fig. 5: Temperature as a function of the baryon density (phase diagram) for the Walecka model (W) and Zimanyi-Moszkowski models (ZM, ZM2, ZM3).\
\
\
Fig. 6: Pressure as a function of baryon density at flash temperature ($T_f$) for the Walecka model (W) and Zimanyi-Moszkowski models (ZM, ZM2, ZM3).\
\
\
Fig. 7: Entropy density as a function of baryon density at different temperatures for the Walecka model (W) and Zimanyi-Moszkowski models (ZM, ZM2, ZM3).
models $C_\sigma^2$ $C_w^2$ $E_b$ $\rho_o$ $m^*$ $ K $
-------- -------------- --------- -------- ---------- ------- --------
W 357.4 273.8 -15.75 0.148 0.54 550.82
ZM 169.2 59.1 -15.90 0.160 0.85 224.71
ZM2 219.3 100.5 -15.77 0.152 0.82 198.32
ZM3 443.3 305.5 -15.76 0.149 0.72 155.74
: Coupling constants $ C_\sigma^2 $ and $ C_\omega^2 $; binding energy $ E_b $ (MeV) at equilibrium density $\rho_o (fm^{-3}) $, $ m^{\ast} $ and the incompressibility K for the indicated models.[]{data-label="models"}
Models $T_c$ $\rho_c$ $p_c$ $M_c^*$
--------- ------- ----------- -------- ---------
Walecka 18.3 0.0650 0.4300 760
ZM 16.5 0.0698 0.2570 861
ZM2 15.5 0.0364 0.2106 881
ZM3 13.6 0.0354 0.1571 831
: Values for the critical temperature $T_c$ and the effective mass $M^*_c$ in MeV, critical density $\rho_c$ in $fm^{-3}$ and pressure $p_c$ in MeV/ $fm^{3}$ for the indicated models.[]{data-label="tc"}
[^1]: Partially supported by CAPES of Brasil
[^2]: Partially supported by CNPq of Brasil
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We prove by an algebraic method that the embedding of the Teichmüller space in the space of geodesic currents is totally linearly independent. We prove a similar result for all negatively curved surfaces using an ergodic argument.'
author:
- Olivier Glorieux
title: The embedding of the space of negatively curved surfaces in geodesic currents
---
Introduction
============
Let $S$ be a closed connected oriented surface of genus $g\geq 2$. By the uniformization theorem, the Teichmüller space of $S$, $\Teich(S)$, identifies with the moduli space of marked hyperbolic structures. That is $\Teich(S) = \{ (X,f_X)\}/\sim$ where $X $ is an hyperbolic surface and $f_X \,: \,S \tv X $ is an orientation preserving homeomorphism. The equivalence relation is given by $(X,f_X) \sim (Y,f_Y)$ if and only if there exists an isometry $g \, : \, X \tv Y$ such that $g\circ f_X $ is isotopic to $f_Y$.
The universal cover $\tilde{X}$ of a hyperbolic surface identifies with the hyperbolic plane $\Hyp^2$, and the marking induces a representation of $(f_X)_* \, : \, \pi_1(S) \tv \pi_1(X) < \Isom^+(\Hyp^2) \simeq \PSL_2(\R)$, well defined up to a conjugacy by an isometry of $\Hyp^2$. This give an embedding of the Teichmüller space into the space of representations: $Rep:=\operatorname{Hom}(\pi_1(S) \tv \PSL_2(\R))/\PSL_2(\R).$ The Teichmüller space actually is one of the two connected components of $Rep$ which consists of only discrete and faithful representation. The other such component is $\Teich(\bar{S})$ the Teichmüller space of the surface with the opposite orientation.
Our work concerns another embedding of the Teichmüller space in a very large vector space, called the space of *geodesic currents* and denoted by $\cC(S)$. This embedding, say $L : \Teich(S)\tv \cC(S)$, has been introduced by F. Bonahon in [@bonahon1988geometry], and this article aims to understand the linear properties of this embedding. We prove that this embedding is as linearly independent as possible, namely:
\[th-main\] $\{L(S)\, |\, S \in \Teich(S)\}\subset \cC(S)$ is a linearly independent set of vectors.
The proof relies on algebraic arguments and decomposes into two parts. In Section \[sec-zariski\], we show that $n$ different surfaces induce via the direct sum representations of the holonomies, a Zariski dense subgroup of $\PSL_2(\R)^n$ and in Section \[sec-independance\] we use a famous theorem of Benoist to show the total linear independence of $L$.
This proof can surely be extended to the embedding of the Hitchin component as presented by Martone–Zhang [@martone2019positive], as soon as we know the different possible Zariski closures for these representations (it seems to be known and follows from a unpublished work of Guichard)
However for non symmetric negatively curved manifolds this algebraic argument does not hold. P. Haissinsky suggested to us a nice ergodic argument that solves the surfaces case. Let $M_{<0}(S)$ the space of negatively curved metrics on $S$ up to isotopy. In a similar fashion, one can associate to a metric $m$ its Liouville’s current $L(m)$. We get the following theorem:
\[th-main neg curv\] $\{L(m)\, |\, (S,m) \in M_{<0}(S)\}\subset \cC(S)$ is a linearly independent set of vectors.
Except from the ergodic argument, this non algebraic proof relies on the marked length spectrum rigidity Theorem of Otal. More precisely, it uses the fact that the map $m\mapsto L(m)$ is injective. This is only known in dimension $2$ and the argument cannot be extended to any dimension.
#### Remark
Even if Theorem \[th-main neg curv\] is more general than Theorem \[th-main\], we feel that the two approaches have their own interests and that is why we included the purely algebraic proof. For example, the side result on the Zariski closure of direct sum representations in the $\PSL_2(\R)^n$ can certainly be used and generalized in the study of discrete groups in higher rank symmetric spaces.
#### Organisation of the paper
In the next section, we present the space of geodesic currents, Bonahon’s embedding of the Teichmüller space and the intersection function. Then we study the Zariski closure of the direct sum representations of holonomies for $n$ Teichmüller representations and prove Theorem \[th-main\]. Finally, in the last section we prove Theorem \[th-main neg curv\].
#### Acknowledgements
This project received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (ERC starting grant DiGGeS, grant agreement No 715982.
I am very grateful to Peter Haissinsky for its interest and its contribution to Theorem \[th-main neg curv\] and I also want to thank Fanny Kassel and Jean-Philippe Burelle for fruitful discussions.
Geodesic currents
=================
Recall that $S$ is a closed connected oriented surface of genus $g\geq 2$. We denote by $\G:=\pi_1(S)$ its fundamental group and $\tilde{S}$ the universal cover of $S$. The group $\G$ is a hyperbolic group and we denote by $\partial \G$ its Gromov boundary. If $S$ is endowed with a negatively curved metric, then one can identify the boundary of $\tilde{S}$ with $\bS^1$, homeomorphic to the boundary of $\G$. In this case, the geodesics of $\tilde{S}$ identify, via their endpoints to $\partial^{(2)} \bS^1 := \left(\partial \bS^1 \times \partial \bS^1\setminus \Delta\right)/ \Z/2\Z$, where $\Delta$ is the diagonal of the product and the action of $\Z/2\Z$ is given by the exchange of the two factors.
The space of geodesic currents is the set of $\G$ invariant measures on $\partial^{(2)}\G \simeq\partial^{(2)}\bS^1 $. It will be denoted by $\cC(S)$.
This does not depend on the identification of $\partial \G$ with $\partial \bS^1 $.
For the purpose of this article, we will not need a precise description of geodesic currents and will instead focus on two major examples.
For the first example it will be more convenient to endow $S$ with a negatively curved metric. Then for any closed curve $c$ on $S$, there is a unique geodesic representative. It lifts to a $\G$ invariant subset of geodesic on $\tilde{S}$, that we see as a subset of $\partial^{(2)} \bS^1$. The Dirac measure on each of this lift give a $\G$ invariant measure, that is a geodesic current. In the same manner, we can also see a (positive) linear combination of different closed curve as a geodesic current. We will follow the usual slight abuse of notations, and will not make the difference between the curve $c$ and its associated current.
[@bonahon1988geometry]\[th-density\] The set of linear combinations of closed curved is dense in $\cC(S)$.
The second major example is the Liouville current. The Liouville measure $L$ is a $\PSL_2(\R)$ invariant measure on $\partial^{(2)} \bS^1$, absolutely continuous to the Lebesgue measure $d\alpha d\beta$, given by $$L = \frac{d\alpha d\beta}{|e^{i\alpha} - e^{i\beta} |^2}.$$
Now let $(S,m)$ be the surface $S$ endowed with a hyperbolic metric $m$. This gives an isometric diffeomorphism $\phi_m : \tilde{S} \tv \Hyp^2$, well defined up to composition by an isometry of $\Hyp^2$. This defines a boundary homeomorphism $ \partial \phi_m : \partial \tilde{S} \tv \partial \Hyp^2$, well defined up composition by an element of $\PSL_2(\R)$. Since the Liouville measure on $\Hyp^2$ is invariant by $\PSL_2(\R)$ we can pull back $L$ on $\partial^{(2)}\tilde{S}\simeq \partial^{(2)}\bS^1$. We denote it by $L_m$. We have the following:
[@bonahon1988geometry] The map $L: \Teich(S) \tv \cC(S)$ that sends $(S,m)$ to $L_m$ is a proper, continuous, embedding.
For any negatively curved metric $(S,m) \in M_{<0} (S)$ one can also pull back the Liouville measure and Otal showed:
[@otal1990spectre]\[Th-otal\] The map $L: M_{<0}(S) \tv \cC(S)$ that sends $(S,m)$ to $L_m$ is injective.
Bonahon also introduced a bilinear form on $\cC(S)$, the so called intersection function, denoted by $i(\cdot, \cdot) : \cC(S)\times \cC(S) \tv \R$. It generalizes the notion of geometric intersection between two closed curves. Although the definition is a bit technical, the only property we will need will be:
Let $L_m$ be a Liouville current associated to $(S,m)$, let $c$ be a closed curve on $S$. Then $$i(L_m,c) =\ell_m(c),$$ where $\ell_m(c)$ is the length on $(S,m)$ of the unique geodesic representative of $c$.
The embedding of the Teichmüller space
======================================
Zariski closure of diagonal representation {#sec-zariski}
------------------------------------------
We will need the following result, known as Goursat’s Lemma :
Let $G,G'$ be two groups. Let $ p_1 : H \tv G $, $p_2 : H \tv G'$ be two surjective homomorphisms. Identify $N'$ the kernel of $p_1$ with a normal subgroup of $G'$ and $N$, the kernel of $p_2$ with a normal subgroup of $G$. Then the image of $H$ in $G/N\times G'/N'$ is the graph of an isomorphism $G/N\simeq G'/N'$.
Recall that to a hyperbolic surface $(S,m)$, the holonomy map gives a discrete and faithful representation $\rho_m \, :\, \G \tv \PSL_2(\R)$, well defined up to conjugacy by $\PSL_2(\R)$. The outer automorphism $\tau$ of $\PSL_2(\R)$ is given by the conjugation with $\left(\begin{array}{cc} 1 & 0\\
0 & -1
\end{array}\right)$ and gives the corresponding hyperbolic structure on the surface with the opposite orientation.
Finally recall that any discrete and faithful representation of a compact surface fundamental group into $PSL_2(\R)$ is Zariski dense.
\[Th-Zariski density\] Let $S$ be a closed connected oriented surface of genus $g\geq 2$. Let $X_1, ... , X_n$ be $n$ hyperbolic surfaces and let $\rho_i$ be the corresponding holonomies. Let $\rho=(\rho_1, ..., \rho_n) :\G \tv \PSL_2(\R)^n$ be the direct sum representation. Then $\rho(\G)$ is Zariski dense if and only if all surfaces are different in $\Teich(S)$.
If two surfaces, say $X_1, X_2$, correspond to the same point in the Teichmuller space, then there exists $h\in \PSL_2(\R)$ such that their holonomies satisfy $\rho_1 =h \rho_2 h^{-1} $. Therefore the Zariski closure of $\rho$ is contained in $H \times \PSL_2(\R)^{n-2}$, where $H$ is the diagonal copy of $\PSL_2(\R)$ given by $H=\{(g, hgh^{-1})\, |\, g\in \PSL_2(\R)\}. $
We will prove the converse by induction. For $n=1$ the result is trivial. Suppose that the result is true for $n$ and consider $(n+1)$ non isometric hyperbolic structures on $S$ : $X_1, ..., X_{n+1}$. Let $\rho=(\rho_1, ... , \rho_{n+1})$ be the diagonal representation corresponding to their holonomies. Let $H$ be the Zariski closure of $\rho(\G)$. Consider the projection on the last factor $\pi_{n+1} : H \tv \{\Id\}^n\times \PSL_2(\R) $ and the one on the first $n$ factors: $p : H \tv \PSL_2(\R)^n \times \{ \Id\}$.
By induction the projection $p$ is surjective and by hypothesis $\pi_{n+1}$ also is. Since $\PSL_2(\R)$ is simple, the kernel of $p$ can either be $\PSL_2(\R)$ or $\{\Id\}$. In the first case, by Goursat’s lemma, the kernel of $\pi_{n+1}$, $N$, has to verify $\PSL_2(\R)^n/N \simeq \PSL_2(\R)/\PSL_2(\R)$ and therefore $H=\PSL_2(\R)^{n+1}$.
In the second case, the kernel of $\pi_{n+1}$, $N$, has to verify $\PSL_2(\R)^n/N \simeq \PSL_2(\R)$. Since $\PSL_2(\R)$ is simple, we claim that the only possibility for $N$ is $N=\PSL_2(\R)^{k} \times \{\Id\} \times \PSL_2(\R)^{n-k-1}$ for some $k\in \{0, ..., n-1\}$, see Lemma \[lem-simple\]. Then by Goursat’s Lemma, the projection of $H$ in $\PSL_2(\R)\times \Big(\PSL_2(\R)^n/N\Big) $ identifies with the graph of an isomorphism from $\PSL_2(\R)$ to $ \Big(\{ \Id\}^{k}\times \PSL_2(\R)\times \{\Id \} ^{n-k-1}\Big)\simeq \PSL_2(\R)$, and finally implies that $\theta(\rho_1) =\rho_k$ for an automorphism of $\PSL_2(\R)$.
Since the surface is oriented, $\theta$ has to be a inner automorphism, and therefore $\rho_1$ is conjugated to $\rho_k$. This is a contradiction.
We prove the claim from the second part of the proof
\[lem-simple\] Let $N$ be a normal subgroup of $\PSL_2(\R)^n$, such that $\PSL_2(\R)^n /N\simeq \PSL_2(\R)$. Then there exists $k\in \{0, ..., n-1\}$ such that $N=\PSL_2(\R)^{k} \times \{\Id\} \times \PSL_2(\R)^{n-k-1}$.
For the sake of clarity we will denote $G_i$ the $i$-th $\PSL_2(\R)$ factor in $\PSL_2(\R)^n$ and $G$ will designated any abstract $\PSL_2(\R)$. Consider $p_i : G^n \tv G_i$. Then $p_i(N)$ is a normal subgroup of $G_i$. By simplicity $p_i(N)$ is either trivial or the whole group $G_i$. Suppose that there exists $i\neq j$ such that $p_i(N) = p_j(N) = \{\Id\}$, and by symmetry with suppose that $(i,j)=(1,2)$ then $N \subset \{\Id\} \times \{\Id \} \times G^{n-2}$ and therefore $G^n/N \supset G^2 $ which is absurd. Consequently there is at most one projection such that the image of $N$ is trivial.
Consider two projections $p_i,p_j $ with non trivial image. Denote by $N_{ij} := N \cap (G_i\times G_j)$. Remark that $N_{ij}$ is normal in $G_i\times G_j$. Then applying Goursat lemma, one see that either $N_{ij} =G_i \times G_j$ or $N_{ij}$ is the graph of a homomorphism between $G_i$ and $G_j$. The latter cannot happen since it would not be a normal subgroup. Therefore $N_{ij}=G_i\times G_j$.
Applying this argument for all pairs with non trivial image, we see that $N = \Pi_{k} G_k$ where the product if taken over all $k$ such that $p_k(G)\neq \Id$. Since $G^n/N \simeq G$, there is at least one factor such that $p_k(G) \neq \Id$, and finally exactly one by the previous argument.
#### Remark:
This lemma generalizes to any non-abelian product of simple groups.
Total independance of Liouville’s current {#sec-independance}
-----------------------------------------
We are going to give Benoist’s theorem [@benoist1997proprietes] in the context of $\PSL_2(\R)^n$. Any hyperbolic element $g\in \PSL_2(\R)$ is conjugated to an element of the form $\left( \begin{array}{cc}
e^{\lambda(g)/2} & 0\\
0 & e^{-\lambda(g)/2}
\end{array}\right)$. The number $\lambda(g)\in \R^+$ is the translation length of $g$.
Let $g=(g_1, ..., g_n)\in \PSL_2(\R)^n$ be a loxodromic element, that is all $g_i$ are hyperbolic elements. The vector $\lambda(g):=(\lambda(g_1),..., \lambda(g_n) ) \in (\R^+)^n$ is called the Jordan projection of $g$
Let $H$ be a subgroup of $\PSL_2(\R)^n$. The limit cone of $H$ is defined by $$C(H) :=\overline{\cup_{h\in H_{lox}} \lambda(h) \R^+} \subset(\R^+)^n.$$
One of the striking properties of the limit cone is given by the following theorem of Y. Benoist:
[@benoist1997proprietes]\[Benoist\] If $H$ is Zariski dense in $\PSL_2(\R)^n$, then its limit cone has non-empty interior.
We are now going to show the main result of this section.
$\{L_m \, |\, (S,m)\in \Teich(S)\}$ is a linearly independent family of geodesic currents.
Let $(S_1, ..., S_n)$ a finite family of distinct hyperbolic surfaces, and denote by $L_k$ the corresponding Liouville currents. Suppose that there exists $(a_1, ... , a_n ) \in \R^n$ a family of real number such that $$\sum_{k=1}^n a_kL_k =0.$$ We have therefore, for all closed curve $c \in \C$: $$\label{eq-relation on length}
\sum_{k=1}^n a_ki (L_k , c) = \sum_{k=1}^n a_k\ell_{S_k}(c) =0.$$
Consider the holonomy representations $\rho_k : \pi_1(S) \tv \PSL_2(\R)$ and let $\rho = (\rho_1, ..., \rho_n)$ be the diagonal representation of $\G \tv \PSL_2(\R)^n$.
By Theorem \[Th-Zariski density\], since $(S_k)$ are $n$ distinct hyperbolic surfaces $\rho(\G)$ is Zariski dense. Therefore by Benoist’s Theorem \[Benoist\], the limit cone of $\rho(\G)$, $\cC(\rho(\G)) \subset \fa^+ $ is of non-empty interior
However, by Equation (\[eq-relation on length\]), it is also contained in the kernel of the linear form $\ell: \R^n \tv \R$, $\ell(x_1, ..., x_n) = \sum_k a_kx_k$. A proper vector subspace of $\R^n$ has empty interior. Therefore, the linear form $\ell$ is the zero map, and $(a_1, ..., a_n ) =(0,... , 0)$.
Embedding of negatively curved metric
=====================================
We prove in this section the more general result that the space of negatively curved metric on $S$ with volume $1$ embedded totally independently in the space of geodesic current via Liouville’s current.
The result follows from an ergodic argument which has been suggested to us by P. Haissinky.
Let $\mu$ be a geodesic current. Considering the measure $m = \mu \mathrm{d} t $ on $\mathbb{S}^{(2)} \times \R$ we get a measure on the unitary tangent bundle of $T^1\tilde{S}$ invariant by the geodesic flow and by $\G$. The set of geodesic currents identify by this procedure to the measure on $T^1 S$ invariant by the geodesic flow. From Liouville current we get the Liouville measure on the unitary tangent bundle of $S$.
A classical result due to Anosov tells us that in the case of negatively curved metric the Liouville measure is ergodic, see for example [@pesin Theorem 10.11].
Let $X$ be a compact metric space and $\phi_t$ an action on $X$. As a consequence of Birkhoff’s ergodic theorem, for any ergodic measure $\mu$ on $X$, there exists a set $\Omega_\mu$ of full $\mu$-measure, called the generic points of $\mu$, satisfying that for every continuous function $f$ on $X$ and every point $x\in \Omega_\mu$ one has $$\lim_{T \tv \infty} \frac{1}{T}\int_0^T f(\phi_t(x)) d t = \int_X f d\mu.$$ Therefore, if we have $n$ ergodic probability measures $(\mu_1, ..., \mu_n)$ on $X$, the set $\Omega_{\mu_i}$, for $i \in \{1,..., n\}$ are disjoint (in the measure theoretical sense).
In particular, if we consider $n$ distinct Liouville currents $(L_1, ...., L_n)$ that we see as invariant measure on $T^1S$, we can associate $n$ subset $\Omega_i $ on $T^1S$ such that $L_k(\Omega_l)=0$ for all $l\neq k$ and $L_k(\Omega_k) =1$.
From Otal’s Theorem \[Th-otal\], the map that associates the Liouville current to a negatively curved metric on $S$ is injective. Therefore if one has $n$ negatively curved metrics, one gets $n$ distinct Liouville currents.
Now the proof of Theorem \[th-main neg curv\] is straightforward. Let $a_1, ... , a_n\in \R^n$ be $n$ real numbers such that $\sum_k a_k L_k=0$, evaluate this equality on $\Omega_j$, this gives $a_j L_j(\Omega_j) = a_j =0$, and conclude the proof.
[Bon88]{}
Luis Barreira and Yakov Pesin. Introduction to smooth ergodic theory. 148, 2013
Yves Benoist. Propri[é]{}t[é]{}s asymptotiques des groupes lin[é]{}aires. , 7(1):1–47, 1997.
Thierry Barbot and Quentin M[é]{}rigot. Anosov ads representations are quasi-fuchsian. , 6(3):441–484, 2012.
Francis Bonahon. The geometry of [T]{}eichm[ü]{}ller space via geodesic currents. , 92(1):139–162, 1988.
Olivier Glorieux. Counting closed geodesics in globally hyperbolic maximal compact [AdS]{} 3-manifolds. , 188(1):63–101, 2017.
G Mess. Lorentz spacetimes of constant curvature," institut des hautes etudes scientifiques preprint ihes. Technical report, M/90/28, 1990.
Guiseppe Martone and Tengren Zhang Positively ratioed representations 94(2):273–345, 2019.
Jean-Pierre Otal. Le spectre marqu[é]{} des longueurs des surfaces [à]{} courbure n[é]{}gative. , 131(1):151–162, 1990.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We consider the house allocation problem, where $m$ houses are to be assigned to $n$ agents so that each agent gets exactly one house. We present a polynomial-time algorithm that determines whether an envy-free assignment exists, and if so, computes one such assignment. We also show that an envy-free assignment exists with high probability if the number of houses exceeds the number of agents by a logarithmic factor.'
author:
- Jiarui Gan
- Warut Suksompong
- 'Alexandros A. Voudouris'
bibliography:
- 'house\_allocation.bib'
title: '**Envy-Freeness in House Allocation Problems**'
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
In the *house allocation problem*, also known as the *assignment problem*, a set of $m$ houses are to be assigned to a set of $n$ agents with preferences over the houses, under the constraint that each agent is assigned exactly one house [@HyllandZe79; @Zhou90; @AbdulkadirogluSo98]. Some economic efficiency condition is often desired, for example that the assignment is *Pareto optimal*. This means that no other assignment makes some agent better off and no agent worse off in comparison to the current assignment [@AbrahamCeMa04; @Manlove13].
In this note, we investigate the issue of fairness in house allocation using the well-established fairness notion of *envy-freeness* [@Foley67; @Varian74]. An allocation is said to be *envy-free* if every agent likes her house at least as much as any other assigned house. If the number of agents is equal to the number of houses, then all houses must be assigned. In this case, it is easy to see that determining whether an envy-free assignment exists, and computing one if so, can be done in polynomial time. Indeed, we can simply construct a bipartite graph with the agents on one side and the houses on the other side, and add an edge between an agent and a house whenever the agent likes the house as least as much as any other house. An envy-free assignment exists if and only if the graph admits a perfect matching; it is well-known that the latter condition can be checked in polynomial time.
The purpose of our note is to study envy-freeness in the general house allocation problem where the number of houses can exceed the number of agents. Formally, there are $m$ houses $M=\{1,2,\dots, m\}$ and $n$ agents $N = \{1,2,\dots,n\}$, where $m\geq n$. Each agent has a ranking over the houses, where ties are permitted. Allowing the number of agents and the number of houses to be different makes the problem more complex, and we can no longer determine the existence of envy-free assignments solely by matching agents to their favorite houses. For example, if there are three houses and two agents with the rankings $1\succ 2\succ 3$ and $1\succ 3\succ 2$ over the houses, then even though both agents compete for the same top house, there is an envy-free assignment that assigns house 2 to agent 1 and house 3 to agent 2. Nevertheless, we present a polynomial-time algorithm that determines whether an envy-free assignment exists, and computes one if it does. We then show that if the number of houses exceeds the number of agents by a logarithmic factor, an envy-free assignment exists with high probability.
To the best of our knowledge, the only work before ours to have considered envy-freeness in house allocation is that of [@BeynierChGo18]. Their work focuses exclusively on the $m=n$ case but contains the extra feature that agents are placed on a network that describes the envy relation, and they showed algorithms and hardness results for different networks. Recently, [@Segalhalevi19] studied a concept called envy-free matchings on bipartite graphs, and provided conditions under which a non-empty envy-free matching exists along with algorithms to compute such matchings. Unlike in this note, his study is restricted to unweighted bipartite graphs and does not require every agent to be assigned to a house.
Our Results
===========
Denote by $G=(X,Y,E)$ a bipartite graph with bipartite vertex sets $X,Y$ and edge set $E$. For any set of vertices $V$, denote by $S(V)$ the set of vertices that are adjacent to at least one vertex in $V$. An *X-saturating* matching is a matching that covers every vertex in $X$. A set $Z\subseteq X$ is said to be a *Hall violator* if $|Z|>|S(Z)|$. It is said to be a *minimal Hall violator* if no $Z'\subset Z$ is a Hall violator. Recall that by Hall’s Theorem, an $X$-saturating matching exists if and only if $|Z|\leq |S(Z)|$ for all $Z\subseteq X$. In other words, there is an $X$-saturating matching exactly when no Hall violator is present.
As part of our algorithm, we will need to to find a minimal Hall violator in the case where no $X$-saturating matching exists. In particular, we show that if there is a Hall violator, it is possible to find a minimal one efficiently. Our approach is similar to that in Lemma 4.5 of [@AmanatidisMaNi17].
\[lem:hall-violator\] Given a bipartite graph $G=(X,Y,E)$ without an $X$-saturating matching, a minimal Hall violator can be found in polynomial time.
Let $B$ be a maximum matching of $G$, and let $X_m$ and $X_u$ be the set of vertices in $X$ that are matched and unmatched in $B$, respectively. Since $G$ does not admit an $X$-saturating matching, $|X_u|>0$. Let $z$ be an arbitrary vertex in $X_u$. Construct an auxiliary directed graph $G'$ with the same vertex set as $G$ as follows. For every edge $(x,y)\in E$ with $x\in X$ and $y\in Y$, add a directed edge from $x$ to $y$ in $G'$. In addition, for every edge $(x,y)\in B$ with $x\in X$ and $y\in Y$, add a directed edge from $y$ to $x$ in $G'$. Let $Z$ be the set of vertices reachable from $z$ in $G'$. We claim that $Z$ is a minimal Hall violator. Note that $Z$ can be computed efficiently using depth-first search.
First, we show that $Z$ is a Hall violator, i.e., $|Z|>|S(Z)|$. Every vertex in $S(Z)$ is reachable from $z$ in $G'$. If a vertex $v\in S(Z)$ is unmatched in $B$, then by construction, a path from $z$ to $v$ alternates between edges in $B$ and edges not in $B$, starting and ending with edges not in $B$. Since $z$ and $v$ are not matched in $B$, this path is an augmenting path, contradicting the maximality of $B$. So every vertex in $S(Z)$ is matched in $B$, implying the existence of an injection from $S(Z)$ to $Z$. Since $z\in X_u$, this injection is not a surjection. It follows that $|Z|>|S(Z)|$. Observe also that every vertex in $Z$ besides $z$ is matched in $B$ by construction, so in fact we have $|Z|=|S(Z)|+1$.
Next, we show that there is no $Z'\subset Z$ such that $|Z'|>|S(Z')|$. If $z\not\in Z'$, then since all vertices in $Z'$ are matched in $B$, we have $|Z'|\leq |S(Z')|$. Assume now that $z\in Z'$. Let $v\in Z\backslash Z'$. As in the previous paragraph, there is a path from $z$ to $v$ that alternates between edges in $B$ and edges not in $B$. Let $w$ be the first vertex from $X$ in the path that is not in $Z'$, and let $w'$ be its match in $B$. Since $w'$ can be reached directly from the vertex preceding it on the path, which belongs to $Z'$, we have $w'\in S(Z')$. This means that $S(Z')$ contains all vertices that are matched to $Z'\backslash\{z\}$ in $B$, along with $w'$. Hence $|S(Z')|\geq (|Z'|-1)+1 = |Z'|$.
With the subroutine to compute a minimal Hall violator efficiently, we are now ready to present our main algorithm.
$M' \leftarrow M$ Construct a bipartite graph $G=(N,M',E)$ where there is an edge from an agent to a house if and only if the house is among the most preferred houses in $M'$ for the agent. the corresponding assignment Find a minimal Hall violator $Z\subseteq N$. Remove all houses adjacent to $Z$ in $G$ from $M'$. null
\[thm:envy-free-decision\] Algorithm 1 is a polynomial-time algorithm that decides whether an envy-free assignment exists and, if so, computes one such assignment.
Finding a minimal Hall violator can be done in polynomial time using Lemma \[lem:hall-violator\], so each iteration of the while loop can be implemented efficiently. Since every iteration either returns an envy-free assignment or reduces the size of $M'$ by at least $1$, Algorithm 1 runs in polynomial time.
If the algorithm returns an assignment, every agent receives one of their most preferred houses among the assigned houses, so the assignment is envy-free. We will show that when the algorithm removes houses from $M'$, these houses cannot be part of any envy-free assignment. This will imply that if the algorithm returns null, there is indeed no envy-free assignment.
We proceed by induction on the number of rounds. Consider an arbitrary iteration of the while loop in which at least one house is removed. By the induction hypothesis, all houses removed in previous iterations cannot be part of an envy-free assignment. Let $Z$ be the minimal Hall violator that the algorithm selects in the current iteration. Assume for contradiction that a subset of houses $\emptyset\neq Y'\subseteq S(Z)$ is part of an envy-free assignment. Let $X'$ be the set of agents in $Z$ who only have edges to houses in $S(Z)\backslash Y'$ in $G$. Note that since $Y\neq\emptyset$, we have $X'\neq Z$. If $X'$ is nonempty, then since $Z$ is a minimal Hall violator, $|X'|\leq |S(X')|\leq |S(Z)\backslash Y'|$. If $X'$ is empty, $|X'|\leq|S(Z)\backslash Y'|$ holds trivially. Since $|Z|>|S(Z)|$, it follows that $|Z\backslash X'|>|Y'|$.
By definition of $X'$, every agent in $Z\backslash X'$ has at least one most preferred house in $Y'$; since the houses in $S(Z)\backslash Y'$ are unassigned, such an agent must be assigned to a house in $Y'$. However, there are fewer houses in $Y'$ than agents in $Z\backslash X'$, a contradiction.
Note that an assignment returned by Algorithm 1 is Pareto optimal among all envy-free assignments. Indeed, every agent receives one of their most preferred houses in the current iteration of the while loop, and all houses removed in previous iterations cannot be used in any envy-free assignment. However, envy-freeness and Pareto optimality are incompatible in general. To see this, consider an example with three houses and two agents such that the agents have rankings $1\succ 2\succ 3$ and $1\succ 3\succ 2$ over the houses. The unique envy-free assignment is to assign house 2 to agent 1 and house 3 to agent 2. On the other hand, assigning house 1 to agent 1 instead yields a Pareto improvement.
Next, we consider a random preference model. We assume that the agents have strict preferences over the houses, and the preference of each agent is chosen uniformly at random among all strict rankings over the houses, independently of other agents. This is equivalent to assuming that agents have cardinal utilities over the houses drawn independently from an arbitrary non-atomic distribution.[^1] Under this model, it is not hard to see that the probability that an envy-free assignment exists is low in the case $m=n$; indeed, an envy-free assignment exists in this case only if all agents have distinct favorite houses, a highly unlikely event. However, we show that as soon as the number of houses exceeds the number of agents by a logarithmic factor, an envy-free allocation is likely to exist.
Suppose that the agents’ preferences are drawn randomly as described above, and that $m\geq 3n\log n$. Then the probability that an envy-free assignment exists converges to $1$ as $n\rightarrow\infty$.
Assume without loss of generality that each agent has a cardinal utility for each house, and this utility is drawn uniformly at random from the interval $[0,1]$, independently of other pairs of agents and houses. For each house, if some agent values it at least $1-1/n$ while the remaining agents value it at most $1-1/n$, we assign it to the former agent provided that the agent has not received a house. If all agents receive a house, the resulting assignment is envy-free since all agents value their own house at least $1-1/n$ and other assigned houses at most $1-1/n$. Hence it remains to show that the probability that all agents receive a house converges to $1$.
Fix an agent. The probability that a particular house is assigned to the agent is $\frac{1}{n}\cdot\left(1-\frac{1}{n}\right)^{n-1}$. Since $\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\left(1-\frac{1}{n}\right)^{n-1}=\frac{1}{e}$, we have $\frac{1}{n}\cdot\left(1-\frac{1}{n}\right)^{n-1}\geq\frac{1}{2.8n}$ for large enough $n$. Hence the probability that the agent does not receive a house is at most $$\begin{aligned}
\left(1-\frac{1}{2.8n}\right)^m
\leq \left(1-\frac{1}{2.8n}\right)^{3n\log n}
\leq e^{-\frac{3n\log n}{2.8n}}
= n^{-1.05},\end{aligned}$$ where the second inequality follows from $1+x\leq e^x$, which holds for every real number $x$. By union bound, the probability that some agent does not receive a house is at most $n\cdot n^{-1.05} = n^{-0.05}$, which approaches $0$ for large $n$, completing the proof.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
---------------
This work has been supported by the European Research Council (ERC) under grant number 639945 (ACCORD)
[^1]: A distribution is said to be *non-atomic* if it does not put positive probability on any single point.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We present a method for Temporal Difference (<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">td</span>) learning that addresses several challenges faced by robots learning to navigate in a marine environment. For improved data efficiency, our method reduces <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">td</span> updates to Gaussian Process regression. To make predictions amenable to online settings, we introduce a sparse approximation with improved quality over current rejection-based methods. We derive the predictive value function posterior and use the moments to obtain a new algorithm for model-free policy evaluation, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">spgp-sarsa</span>. With simple changes, we show <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">spgp-sarsa</span> can be reduced to a model-based equivalent, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">spgp-td</span>. We perform comprehensive simulation studies and also conduct physical learning trials with an underwater robot. Our results show <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">spgp-sarsa</span> can outperform the state-of-the-art sparse method, replicate the prediction quality of its exact counterpart, and be applied to solve underwater navigation tasks.'
author:
- |
John Martin, Jinkun Wang, Brendan Englot\
Department of Mechanical Engineering\
Stevens Institute of Technology\
`{jmarti3, jwang92, benglot}@stevens.edu`\
bibliography:
- 'ref.bib'
title: Sparse Gaussian Process Temporal Difference Learning for Marine Robot Navigation
---
Introduction
============
Model-free Reinforcement Learning (<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">rl</span>) demands that robots produce lots of data to evaluate and improve their decision making policies. For marine robots, this can be challenging, since learning must be performed online, and their acoustics-based sensors produce data in low volumes. Here, we will present an algorithm that supports the learning of navigation policies with very little data.
Our algorithm belongs to the class of value estimation methods. Such methods are rooted in Bellman’s equation, which describes the value of taking action ${\mathbf{a}}$ in state ${\mathbf{s}}$ as a sum of the expected reward and the forecasted value over a random transition $({\mathbf{s}},{\mathbf{a}}) \rightarrow ({\mathbf{S}},{\mathbf{A}})$: $$\begin{aligned}
Q({\mathbf{s}}, {\mathbf{a}}) = {\mathbf{E}}[R({\mathbf{s}},{\mathbf{a}})] + \gamma {\mathbf{E}}[Q({\mathbf{S}},{\mathbf{A}})]. \end{aligned}$$ The contractive nature of Bellman’s equation motivates many standard algorithms, which apply the recursion to obtain better estimates of the true value [@rl:2010:szepesvari:algorithms_for_reinforcement_learning; @rl:1988:sutton:learning_to_predict_by_the_methods_of_temporal_differences; @rl:1994:rummery_niranjan:online_q_learning_using_connectionist_systems]. Our method chooses a less conventional approach, but one which is more data-efficient, reducing Bellman updates to Gaussian Process (<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">gp</span>) regression [@rl:2003:engel_mannor_meir:bayes_meets_bellman_the_gaussian_process_approach_to_temporal_difference_learning].
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">gp</span> regression is a flexible Bayesian method for learning unknown functions from data [@gp:rasmussen_williams-gaussian_processs_for_machine_learning]. It uses a kernel-based covariance structure to promote a high degree of data association, well suited for learning when data is scarce. The main drawback is the prediction complexity, which scales prohibitively as ${\mathcal{O}}(N^3)$, where $N$ is the number of data points [@gp:rasmussen_williams-gaussian_processs_for_machine_learning]. To address this issue, we appeal to a sparse approximation.
Sparse approximations have been proposed to reduce the complexity of exact predictions [@gp:2002:csato_sparseon:sparse_online_gaussian_processes; @rl:2003:engel_mannor_meir:bayes_meets_bellman_the_gaussian_process_approach_to_temporal_difference_learning; @rl:2005:engel_mannor_meir:reinforcement_learning_with_gaussian_processes; @rl:2011:jakab_csato:improving_gaussian_process_value_function_approximation_in_policy_gradient_algorithms]. Many methods use an information criterion as the basis for rejecting redundant data. For <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">gp-rl</span>, Engel [*et al.* ]{}employ the conditional covariance as a measure of relative error [@rl:2003:engel_mannor_meir:bayes_meets_bellman_the_gaussian_process_approach_to_temporal_difference_learning; @rl:2005:engel_mannor_meir:reinforcement_learning_with_gaussian_processes], and they discard points that contribute little error to predictions. By limiting the active set to $M \ll N$ points, their predictions never cost more than $NM^2$ operations.
Besides discarding potentially useful information, the most prevalent issue with rejection sparsification is how it interferes with model selection. It can cause sharp changes to appear in the marginal likelihood and complicate evidence maximization with common optimizers, such as <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">l-bfgs</span> [@rl:1989:liu_nocedal:limited_memory_bfgs]. In what follows, we will describe a new method for <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">gp</span> value estimation that induces sparsity without discarding data. We approximate the exact <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">td</span> regression framework of Engel [*et al.* ]{}[@rl:2003:engel_mannor_meir:bayes_meets_bellman_the_gaussian_process_approach_to_temporal_difference_learning] with a smaller active set containing $M$ adjustable support points. With this change, our method achieves the same prediction complexity as the state-of-the-art approximation, ${\mathcal{O}}(NM^2)$, while incurring less approximation error. Our method is based on the Sparse Pseudo-input Gaussian Process (<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">spgp</span>) [@gp:2006:snelson_ghahramani:sparse_gaussian_processes_using_pseudo_inputs]. Therefore, it inherits many of <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">spgp</span>’s favorable characteristics, all of which we show support the unique needs of robots learning to navigate in a marine environment.
TD Value Estimation as GP Regression {#sec:gptd}
====================================
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">td</span> algorithms recover the latent value function with data gathered in the standard <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">rl</span> fashion: at each step, the robot selects an action ${\mathbf{a}}\in{\mathcal{A}}$ based on its current state ${\mathbf{s}}\in{\mathcal{S}}$, after which it transitions to the next state ${\mathbf{s}}'$ and collects a reward $R\sim p_r(\cdot|{\mathbf{s}},{\mathbf{a}})$. The repeated interaction is described as a Markov Decision Process, $({\mathcal{S}},{\mathcal{A}},p_r,p_s,\gamma)$, associated with the transition distribution ${\mathbf{s}}'\sim p_s(\cdot|{\mathbf{s}},{\mathbf{a}})$, stationary policy ${\mathbf{a}}\sim\pi(\cdot|{\mathbf{s}})$, and discount factor $\gamma \in [0,1]$. As the name suggests, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">td</span> algorithms update a running estimate of the value function to minimize its difference from the Bellman estimate: $r + \gamma Q({\mathbf{s}}',{\mathbf{a}}') - Q({\mathbf{s}}, {\mathbf{a}})$; $r$ being the observed reward. Once the estimate converges, a robot can navigate by selecting actions from the greedy policy $\pi$, such that ${\mathbf{E}}_\pi[{\mathbf{A}}|{\mathbf{s}}] = \operatorname*{arg\,max}_{{\mathbf{a}}\in {\mathcal{A}}} Q({\mathbf{s}},{\mathbf{a}})$.
The Gaussian Process Temporal Difference (<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">gptd</span>) framework improves upon the data efficiency of frequentist <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">td</span> estimation by departing from the contractive nature of Bellman’s equation, in favor of a convergence driven by non-parametric Bayesian regression. The data model is based on the random return $Z({\mathbf{x}}) = \sum_{t=0}^\infty \gamma^tR({\mathbf{x}}_t)$, expressed as a sum of its mean, $Q({\mathbf{x}})$, and zero-mean residual, $\Delta Q({\mathbf{x}}) = Z({\mathbf{x}}) - Q({\mathbf{x}})$. Model inputs are state-action vectors ${\mathbf{x}}\in {\mathcal{X}}={\mathcal{S}}\times{\mathcal{A}}$, and value differences are used to describe the observation process: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:trans_likelihood}
R({\mathbf{x}}) &= Q({\mathbf{x}}) -\gamma Q({\mathbf{x}}') + [\Delta Q({\mathbf{x}})-\gamma\Delta Q({\mathbf{x}}')] = Q({\mathbf{x}}) -\gamma Q({\mathbf{x}}') + \varepsilon({\mathbf{x}},{\mathbf{x}}').\end{aligned}$$ Our work makes the simplifying assumption that noise levels, $\varepsilon({\mathbf{x}},{\mathbf{x}}')$, are i.i.d random variables with constant parameters, $\varepsilon \sim {\mathcal{N}}(0,\sigma^2)$. Under this assumption, transitions exhibit no serial correlation. Although it is straightforward to model serially-correlated noise [@rl:2005:engel_mannor_meir:reinforcement_learning_with_gaussian_processes], doing so would preclude application of our desired approximation. We elaborate on this point in Section \[sec:sgptd\].
Given a time-indexed sequence of transitions $({\mathbf{x}}_{t},R({\mathbf{x}}_{t}),{\mathbf{x}}_{t+1})_{t=0}^{N-1}$, we stack the model variables into vectors, resulting in the complete data model: ${\mathbf{r}}= {\mathbf{H}}{\mathbf{q}}({\mathbf{x}})+{\boldsymbol{\varepsilon}}$, where ${\mathbf{q}}\sim {\mathcal{N}}({\mathbf{0}},{\mathbf{K}}_{qq})$, and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:gptd_model}
\begin{pmatrix}
R({\mathbf{x}}_0)\\
R({\mathbf{x}}_1)\\
\vdots\\
R({\mathbf{x}}_{N-1})
\end{pmatrix} &=
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & -\gamma & 0 & \cdots & 0\\
0 & 1 & -\gamma & \cdots &0 \\
\vdots & & & & \vdots\\
0 & 0 &\cdots & 1 & -\gamma
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
Q({\mathbf{x}}_0)\\
Q({\mathbf{x}}_1)\\
\vdots\\
Q({\mathbf{x}}_N)
\end{pmatrix} +
\begin{pmatrix}
\varepsilon_0\\
\varepsilon_1\\
\vdots\\
\varepsilon_N
\end{pmatrix}.\end{aligned}$$ Notice the commonality Equation \[eq:gptd\_model\] has with a standard <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">gp</span> likelihood model, ${\mathbf{y}}= {\mathbf{f}}({\mathbf{x}}) + {\boldsymbol{\varepsilon}}$. Both models assume the outputs, ${\mathbf{r}}\sim {\mathbf{y}}$, are noisy observations of a latent function, ${\mathbf{q}}\sim {\mathbf{f}}$. What distingushes <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">td</span> estimation is the presence of value correlations, imposed from Bellman’s equation and encoded as temporal difference coefficients in ${\mathbf{H}}$. Used for exact <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">gp</span> regression, Equation \[eq:gptd\_model\] leads to the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">gp-sarsa</span> algorithm: a non-parametric Bayesian method for recovering latent values [@rl:2003:engel_mannor_meir:bayes_meets_bellman_the_gaussian_process_approach_to_temporal_difference_learning].
As a Bayesian method, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">gp-sarsa</span> computes a predictive posterior over the latent values by conditioning on observed rewards. The corresponding mean and variance are used for policy evaluation: $$\begin{aligned}
v({\mathbf{x}}_*) &= {\mathbf{k}}^\top_{r*}({\mathbf{K}}_{rr} + \sigma^2{\mathbf{I}})^{-1}{\mathbf{r}}, &
s({\mathbf{x}}_*) &= k({\mathbf{x}}_*,{\mathbf{x}}_*) -{\mathbf{k}}^\top_{r*}({\mathbf{K}}_{rr} + \sigma^2{\mathbf{I}})^{-1}{\mathbf{k}}_{r*}.
\label{eq:gptd_predmoms}\end{aligned}$$ Here, ${\mathbf{K}}_{qq}$ is the covariance matrix with elements $[{\mathbf{K}}_{qq}]_{ij} = k({\mathbf{x}}_i,{\mathbf{x}}_j)$, ${\mathbf{K}}_{rr} = {\mathbf{H}}{\mathbf{K}}_{qq}{\mathbf{H}}^\top$, and ${\mathbf{k}}_{r*} = {\mathbf{H}}{\mathbf{k}}_*$, where $[{\mathbf{k}}_*]_{i} = k({\mathbf{x}}_i,{\mathbf{x}}_*)$. Subscripts denote dimensionality, e.g. ${\mathbf{K}}_{qq} \in \mathbb{R}^{|{\mathbf{q}}|\times |{\mathbf{q}}|}$.
Sparse Pseudo-input Gaussian Process Temporal Difference Learning {#sec:sgptd}
=================================================================
{width="31.00000%"} {width="31.00000%"} {width="31.00000%"}
The <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">gp-sarsa</span> method requires an expensive $N\times N$ matrix inversion, costing ${\mathcal{O}}(N^3)$. Since robots must estimate values online to improve their navigation policies, we appeal to an approximate method which induces sparsity in the standard data model (Equation \[eq:gptd\_model\]). We expand the probability space with $M\ll N$ additional pseudo values, ${\mathbf{u}}$. Here, pseudo values serve a parametric role in a non-parametric setting; they are free variables that provide probability mass at support locations ${\mathbf{z}}\in{\mathbf{Z}}\subset {\mathcal{X}}$. The extra latent variables obey the same data model as ${\mathbf{q}}$, but are predetermined, and thus, exhibit no noise. By conditioning ${\mathbf{q}}$ upon ${\mathbf{u}}$ and ${\mathbf{Z}}$, we can collapse the predictive probability space such that all dense matrix inversions are of rank $M$. Finally, we optimize ${\mathbf{Z}}$ to maximize the likelihood and produce a high-quality fit. This strategy is called Sparse Pseudo-input <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">gp</span> regression [@gp:2006:snelson_ghahramani:sparse_gaussian_processes_using_pseudo_inputs] (Figure \[fig:posterior\_samples\]).
Although <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">spgp</span> regression is well-known, it has never been applied to <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">td</span> estimation, where latent variables exhibit serial correlation. Therefore, current results from the sparse <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">gp</span> literature do not apply. In what follows we apply the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">spgp</span> principles to derive a new method for <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">td</span> value estimation, which we call <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">spgp-sarsa</span>. The method is data-efficient and fast enough for online prediction.
Latent Value Likelihood Model
-----------------------------
Given an input location, ${\mathbf{x}}$, the likelihood of the latent value, $Q({\mathbf{x}})$, is the conditional probability $$\begin{aligned}
p(Q|{\mathbf{x}},{\mathbf{Z}},{\mathbf{u}}) &= {\mathcal{N}}(Q | {\mathbf{k}}_{u}^\top{\mathbf{K}}_{uu}^{-1}{\mathbf{u}}, k({\mathbf{x}},{\mathbf{x}}) - {\mathbf{k}}_{u}^\top{\mathbf{K}}_{uu}^{-1}{\mathbf{k}}_{u}),\end{aligned}$$ where $[{\mathbf{K}}_{uu}]_{ij} = k({\mathbf{z}}_i,{\mathbf{z}}_j)$, $[{\mathbf{k}}_u]_i = k({\mathbf{z}}_i,{\mathbf{x}})$. The complete data likelihood is obtained by stacking the $N$ independent single transition likelihoods $$\begin{aligned}
p({\mathbf{q}}| {\mathbf{X}},{\mathbf{Z}},{\mathbf{u}}) &= \prod_{t=1}^Np(Q_t|{\mathbf{x}}_t,{\mathbf{Z}},{\mathbf{u}}) = {\mathcal{N}}( {\mathbf{g}}, \widetilde{{\mathbf{K}}});\end{aligned}$$ where we defined ${\mathbf{g}}= {\mathbf{K}}_{qu}{\mathbf{K}}_{uu}^{-1}{\mathbf{u}}$, $\widetilde{{\mathbf{K}}} = \text{diag}({\mathbf{K}}_{qq} - {\mathbf{K}}_{qu}{\mathbf{K}}_{uu}^{-1}{\mathbf{K}}_{uq})$, with $[{\mathbf{K}}_{qu}]_{ij} = k({\mathbf{x}}_i,{\mathbf{z}}_j)$.
Conditioned Data Likelihood Model
---------------------------------
Here we derive the likelihood distribution of the observed rewards conditioned on the pseudo values $p({\mathbf{r}}|{\mathbf{X}},{\mathbf{Z}},{\mathbf{u}})$. Consider the transformed joint distribution over values, rewards, and pseudo values $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{pmatrix}
{\mathbf{q}}\\
{\mathbf{r}}\\
{\mathbf{u}}\end{pmatrix} \sim
{\mathcal{N}}\left(
\begin{pmatrix}
{\mathbf{0}}\\
{\mathbf{0}}\\
{\mathbf{0}}\end{pmatrix},
\begin{pmatrix}
{\mathbf{K}}_{qq} & {\mathbf{K}}_{qq}{\mathbf{H}}^\top & {\mathbf{K}}_{qu}\\
{\mathbf{H}}{\mathbf{K}}_{qq} & {\mathbf{H}}{\mathbf{K}}_{qq}{\mathbf{H}}^\top+\sigma^2{\mathbf{I}}& {\mathbf{H}}{\mathbf{K}}_{uq}\\
{\mathbf{K}}_{uq} & {\mathbf{K}}_{uq}{\mathbf{H}}^\top & {\mathbf{K}}_{uu}
\end{pmatrix}
\right).\end{aligned}$$ The likelihood is obtained by conditioning ${\mathbf{r}}$ on ${\mathbf{u}}$ and invoking transition independence: $$\begin{aligned}
p({\mathbf{r}}|{\mathbf{X}},{\mathbf{Z}},{\mathbf{u}}) &= {\mathcal{N}}({\mathbf{K}}_{ru}{\mathbf{K}}_{uu}^{-1}{\mathbf{u}},{\mathbf{Q}}+ \sigma^2{\mathbf{I}}),\label{eq:pru}&
{\mathbf{Q}}&= \text{diag}({\mathbf{K}}_{rr} - {\mathbf{K}}_{ru}{\mathbf{K}}_{uu}^{-1}{\mathbf{K}}_{ur}).\end{aligned}$$
Posterior of Pseudo Values
--------------------------
To obtain the posterior $p({\mathbf{u}}|{\mathbf{r}},{\mathbf{X}},{\mathbf{Z}})$, we use Bayes’ rule. Given the marginal $p({\mathbf{u}}|{\mathbf{Z}}) = {\mathcal{N}}({\mathbf{u}}|\mathbf{0}, {\mathbf{K}}_{uu})$ and the conditional for ${\mathbf{r}}$ given ${\mathbf{u}}$ (Equation \[eq:pru\]), the posterior for ${\mathbf{u}}$ given ${\mathbf{r}}$ is $$\begin{aligned}
p({\mathbf{u}}|{\mathbf{r}},{\mathbf{X}},{\mathbf{Z}}) &= {\mathcal{N}}({\mathbf{u}}|{\mathbf{L}}{\mathbf{K}}_{uu}^{-1}{\mathbf{K}}_{ur}({\mathbf{Q}}+ \sigma^2{\mathbf{I}})^{-1}{\mathbf{r}},{\mathbf{L}});\\
{\mathbf{L}}&= {\mathbf{K}}_{uu}({\mathbf{K}}_{uu} + {\mathbf{K}}_{ur}({\mathbf{Q}}+ \sigma^2{\mathbf{I}})^{-1}{\mathbf{K}}_{ru})^{-1}{\mathbf{K}}_{uu}.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
Latent Value Predictive Posterior
---------------------------------
The predictive posterior is obtained by marginalizing the pseudo values: $$\begin{aligned}
p(Q_*|{\mathbf{x}}_{*},{\mathbf{r}},{\mathbf{X}},{\mathbf{Z}}) &= \int p(Q_* | {\mathbf{x}}_*,{\mathbf{Z}},{\mathbf{u}})p({\mathbf{u}}|{\mathbf{r}},{\mathbf{X}},{\mathbf{Z}}) d{\mathbf{u}}.\end{aligned}$$ Let ${\mathbf{M}}= {\mathbf{K}}_{uu} + {\mathbf{K}}_{ur}({\mathbf{Q}}+ \sigma^2{\mathbf{I}})^{-1}{\mathbf{K}}_{ru}$. Our new predictive is Gaussian with mean and variance $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:predictive_mean}
\tilde{v}({\mathbf{x}}_*) &={\mathbf{k}}_{u*}^\top\underbrace{{\mathbf{M}}^{-1}{\mathbf{K}}_{ur}({\mathbf{Q}}+ \sigma^2{\mathbf{I}})^{-1}{\mathbf{r}}}_{{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}_\pi},&
\tilde{s}({\mathbf{x}}_*) &= k({\mathbf{x}}_*,{\mathbf{x}}_*) - {\mathbf{k}}_{u*}^\top\underbrace{({\mathbf{K}}_{uu}^{-1} - {\mathbf{M}}^{-1})}_{{\mathbf{\Lambda}}_\pi}{\mathbf{k}}_{u*}.\end{aligned}$$ Equation \[eq:predictive\_mean\] represents our main contribution. The parameters ${\boldsymbol{\alpha}}_\pi$ and ${\mathbf{\Lambda}}_\pi$ are independent of the input, and their expressions depend on two inverses. The first is the dense $M$-rank matrix, ${\mathbf{K}}_{uu}$. The second is the $N$-rank diagonal matrix $({\mathbf{Q}}+ \sigma^2{\mathbf{I}})$. When $M\ll N$, both matrices are easier to invert than a dense $N$-rank matrix. Thus, Equation \[eq:predictive\_mean\] provides motivation for estimating and predicting latent values efficiently.
Assumptions and Related Work
-----------------------------
There are several key assumptions underpinning our results. To guarantee the likelihood can be factored, we need to assume that transitions are uncorrelated. Had we modeled serial correlation in the noise process, ${\boldsymbol{\varepsilon}}$ would be distributed with a tridiagonal covariance [@rl:2005:engel_mannor_meir:reinforcement_learning_with_gaussian_processes], which cannot be factored directly. It is possible to obtain a factorable model by applying a whitening transform. However, this changes the observation process to Monte Carlo samples, which are known to be noisy [@rl:1998:sutton_barto:introduction_to_reinforcement_learning]. Under our simpler set of assumptions, we obtain an efficiently-computable, sparse representation of the value posterior that is amenable to smooth evidence maximization. Section \[sec:finding\_hypers\_and\_pseudos\] details how to select the hyperparameters and pseudo inputs with gradient-based optimization.
The most relevant methods to our work apply <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">gp</span> regression to estimate the latent value function in a <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">td</span> setting [@rl:2003:engel_mannor_meir:bayes_meets_bellman_the_gaussian_process_approach_to_temporal_difference_learning; @rl:2005:engel_mannor_meir:reinforcement_learning_with_gaussian_processes; @rl:2005:engel:algorithms_and_representations_for_reinforcement_learning; @rl:2005:engel_etal:learning_to_control_an_octopus_arm_with_gaussian_process_temporal_difference_methods]. This class of algorithms is distinct from those which apply <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">gp</span> regression in the absence of sequential correlation, with Monte Carlo sample returns [@rl:2010:deisenroth:efficient_reinforcement_learning_using_gaussian_processes:thesis], and methods whose convergence behavior is driven primarily by the Bellman contraction [@rl:2009:deisenroth_rasmussen_peters:gaussian_process_dynamic_programming; @rl:2004:rasmussen_kuss:gaussian_processes_in_reinforcement_learning]. As a <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">gp-td</span> algorithm, the policy update process (Algorithm \[alg:policyiter\]) depends only on <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">gp</span> regression. This convergence is known to be data efficient and asymptotically unbiased [@gp:rasmussen_williams-gaussian_processs_for_machine_learning]. We do not prove convergence for <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">gp-td</span> algorithms here; however, we mention the convergence behavior to underscore our method’s relevance to robots learning with limited volumes of data. We also note these methods have been scaled to high-dimensional systems with complex, continously-varying dynamics [@rl:2005:engel_etal:learning_to_control_an_octopus_arm_with_gaussian_process_temporal_difference_methods]. When it comes to other approximate <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">gp-td</span> methods, the state-of-the-art uses a low-rank approximation to the full covariance matrix [@rl:2005:engel_mannor_meir:reinforcement_learning_with_gaussian_processes]: ${\mathbf{K}}_{qq}\approx {\mathbf{A}}\tilde{{\mathbf{K}}}^{-1}{\mathbf{A}}^\top$, where ${\mathbf{A}}$ is a projection matrix. Before adding new data to the active set, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">lowrank-sarsa</span> checks if new data points increase the conditional covariance by a desired error threshold, $\nu$. In Section \[sec:approx\_quality\], we compare the approximation quality of <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">lowrank-sarsa</span> and <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">spgp-sarsa</span>.
New Algorithms for Robot Navigation
===================================
[2]{}
**input: ${\mathbf{x}}_0$, $\pi$, ${\boldsymbol{\theta}}$, ${\mathbf{Z}}$** ${\mathbf{x}}_{t-1}, r_{t-1}, {\mathbf{x}}_t$ ${\boldsymbol{\alpha}}_\pi \gets{\mathbf{M}}^{-1}{\mathbf{K}}_{ur}({\mathbf{Q}}+ \sigma^2{\mathbf{I}})^{-1}{\mathbf{r}}$ ${\mathbf{\Lambda}}_\pi \gets{\mathbf{K}}_{uu}^{-1} - {\mathbf{M}}^{-1}$ Maximize Eq. \[eq:likelihood\] for optimal ${\boldsymbol{\theta}}$, ${\mathbf{Z}}$ (Optional) **output:** ${\boldsymbol{\alpha}}_\pi,{\mathbf{\Lambda}}_\pi$
**input: ${\mathbf{x}}_0$, ${\boldsymbol{\theta}}$, ${\mathbf{Z}}$** $\pi\gets \pi_{\text{init}}$ **repeat:** ${\boldsymbol{\alpha}}_\pi,{\mathbf{\Lambda}}_\pi\gets$<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">spgp-sarsa</span>$({\mathbf{x}}_0,\pi,{\boldsymbol{\theta}},{\mathbf{Z}})$ $\pi\gets$<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">greedy-update</span>$({\boldsymbol{\alpha}}_\pi,{\mathbf{\Lambda}}_\pi)$ **until:** $\pi$ converges **output:** $\pi$
Navigation tasks are specified through the reward function. As a robot transitions through its operating space, it should assign the highest value to states and actions that bring it closer to the goal, and the lowest values around obstacles and other forbidden regions. We provide examples of such functions in Section \[sec:results\].
Given a suitable reward function, Algorithm \[alg:spgpsarsa\] implements <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">spgp-sarsa</span> regression, where the posterior value function parameters ${\boldsymbol{\alpha}}_\pi,{\mathbf{\Lambda}}_\pi$ are learned with sequentially-observed data. The policy is updated using standard policy iteration, described in Algorithm \[alg:policyiter\].
Finding the Hyper-parameters and Pseudo-inputs {#sec:finding_hypers_and_pseudos}
----------------------------------------------
[0.45]{} ![**Visualizing the effect of parameter changes on approximation quality:** Figure \[fig:sparse\_tests:likedisp\] shows how the inclusion of more pseudo-inputs improves approximation quality, and how optimizating their locations is additionally benificial. We fixed a synthetic dataset of 100 samples from the prior, ${\mathcal{N}}({\mathbf{0}},{\mathbf{K}}_{qq})$. As a reflection of quality, we uniformly sampled subsets of the data, computed the log likelihood with <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">spgp-sarsa</span>, both before and after optimization, and normalized it by the log likelihood of the full set. Boxplots were computed for 100 random subsets. Figure \[fig:sparse\_tests:rejstats\] shows how the low-rank method cannot always induce sparsity. We vary the error threshold, $\nu$, and plot the percentage of samples <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">lowrank-sarsa</span> retained from 100 random trajectories. Trajectories from the Mountain Car system (top), and prior, ${\mathcal{N}}({\mathbf{0}},{\mathbf{K}}_{qq})$ (bottom) are shown.[]{data-label="fig:sparse_tests"}](sgptd-group_boxplot "fig:"){width="\columnwidth"}
[0.45]{} ![**Visualizing the effect of parameter changes on approximation quality:** Figure \[fig:sparse\_tests:likedisp\] shows how the inclusion of more pseudo-inputs improves approximation quality, and how optimizating their locations is additionally benificial. We fixed a synthetic dataset of 100 samples from the prior, ${\mathcal{N}}({\mathbf{0}},{\mathbf{K}}_{qq})$. As a reflection of quality, we uniformly sampled subsets of the data, computed the log likelihood with <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">spgp-sarsa</span>, both before and after optimization, and normalized it by the log likelihood of the full set. Boxplots were computed for 100 random subsets. Figure \[fig:sparse\_tests:rejstats\] shows how the low-rank method cannot always induce sparsity. We vary the error threshold, $\nu$, and plot the percentage of samples <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">lowrank-sarsa</span> retained from 100 random trajectories. Trajectories from the Mountain Car system (top), and prior, ${\mathcal{N}}({\mathbf{0}},{\mathbf{K}}_{qq})$ (bottom) are shown.[]{data-label="fig:sparse_tests"}](error_trace "fig:"){width="0.55\columnwidth"}
We use the marginal likelihood to fit the hyper-parameters ${\mathbf{\Theta}}=\{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}, \sigma^2\}$ and pseudo inputs ${\mathbf{Z}}$ to the observed data, ${\mathbf{r}},{\mathbf{X}}$. Unlike rejection-based sparsification, our method has the benefit of being continuous in nature. This allows for the variables to be tuned precisely to achieve a high-quality fit. The marginal likelihood is a Gaussian, given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:likelihood}
p({\mathbf{r}}|{\mathbf{X}}, {\mathbf{Z}}) &= \int p({\mathbf{r}}|{\mathbf{X}},{\mathbf{Z}},{\mathbf{u}})p({\mathbf{u}}|{\mathbf{Z}}) d{\mathbf{u}}= {\mathcal{N}}( {\mathbf{r}}| {\mathbf{0}}, {\mathbf{Q}}+ \sigma^2{\mathbf{I}}+ {\mathbf{K}}_{ru}{\mathbf{K}}_{uu}^{-1}{\mathbf{K}}_{ur}).\end{aligned}$$ Instead of optimizing Equation \[eq:likelihood\] directly, we maximize its logarithm, ${\mathcal{L}}= \log p({\mathbf{r}}|{\mathbf{X}},{\mathbf{Z}})$. Given the gradient of ${\mathcal{L}}$, we can use an iterative method, such as <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">l-bfgs</span>, to find the optimal parameters. Full details of the gradient computation are provided in the supplement.
Training Considerations
-----------------------
The frequency with which model parameters are optimized can greatly influence the runtime of Algorithm \[alg:spgpsarsa\]. For $D$-dimensional inputs, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">spgp-sarsa</span> must fit $DM + |{\mathbf{\Theta}}|$ variables; whereas, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">gp-sarsa</span> must fit only $|{\mathbf{\Theta}}|$. Although it is not strictly necessary to refit model parameters at each time step, the frequency which updates are needed will depend on how well ${\mathbf{X}}$ and ${\mathbf{Z}}$ reflect the support of the operating space. As new regions are explored, the model will need to be refit.
Even with a strategy to fit model parameters, we must still choose the number of pseudo inputs, $M$. In Figure \[fig:sparse\_tests\], we examine the tradeoff between efficiency and accuracy in relation to $M$. As $M$ increases, ${\mathbf{Z}}$ begins to coincide with ${\mathbf{X}}$, and prediction efficiency reduces, but the approximation improves to match the exact predictive posterior.
Another consideration, when training <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">gp</span> models, is preventing overfitting. Overfitting occurs when the predictive variance collapses around the training data. It can be prevented by adding a regularization term to the log of Equation \[eq:likelihood\], penalizing the magnitude of covariance parameters and pseudo inputs.
SPGP TD Learning
----------------
To reduce <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">spgp-sarsa</span> to its model-based equivalent, we let ${\mathcal{X}}={\mathcal{S}}$ and swap the state-action transition process for the associated state transition process (Table \[tab:alg\_map\]); the analysis from Section \[sec:gptd\] and \[sec:sgptd\] follows directly. The new input variable, ${\mathbf{x}}={\mathbf{s}}$, simply reduces the latent function space to one over $\text{dim}({\mathbf{s}})$ variables. Equation \[eq:predictive\_mean\] describes the state value posterior moments, analogous to frequentist <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">td</span> [@rl:1998:sutton_barto:introduction_to_reinforcement_learning] and standard <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">gp-td</span> [@rl:2003:engel_mannor_meir:bayes_meets_bellman_the_gaussian_process_approach_to_temporal_difference_learning; @rl:2005:engel:algorithms_and_representations_for_reinforcement_learning]. We call the resulting algorithm <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">spgp-td</span>.
Target value $\tilde{v}({\mathbf{x}})$ Input space ${\mathcal{X}}$ Transition Dist. $p_\pi({\mathbf{x}}_t|{\mathbf{x}}_{t-1})$
---------------------------------------- ------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$V({\mathbf{s}})$ ${\mathcal{S}}$ $\int_{{\mathcal{A}}}p({\mathbf{s}}_t|{\mathbf{s}}_{t-1},{\mathbf{a}}_{t-1})\pi({\mathbf{a}}_{t-1}|{\mathbf{s}}_{t-1}) d{\mathbf{a}}$
$Q({\mathbf{s}},{\mathbf{a}})$ ${\mathcal{S}}\times {\mathcal{A}}$ $p({\mathbf{s}}_t|{\mathbf{s}}_{t-1},{\mathbf{a}}_{t-1})\pi({\mathbf{a}}_t|{\mathbf{s}}_t)$
: **Mapping from SARSA to TD:** Our method can estimate values under two processes.[]{data-label="tab:alg_map"}
Experimental Results {#sec:results}
====================
{width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"}
[0.3]{} {width="\columnwidth"}
[0.3]{} {width="\columnwidth"}
[0.3]{} {width="\textwidth"}
We presented <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">spgp-sarsa</span> as a method for value estimation and explained how it applies to learning navigation policies. Now, we empirically verify several prior assertions: <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">spgp-sarsa</span> is data efficient; it provides a more flexible and accurate approximation to <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">gp-sarsa</span> than <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">lowrank-sarsa</span>; it is suitable for online applications to marine robots. Evidence to support these claims is provided with several targeted simulation studies and a physical experiment using a BlueROV underwater robot.
All experiments use the same covariance function: $k({\mathbf{x}},{\mathbf{x}}') = \sigma_f\exp{[-0.5(\Delta{\mathbf{x}}^\top{\boldsymbol{\ell}}\Delta {\mathbf{x}}) ]}$, where $\Delta{\mathbf{x}}= ({\mathbf{x}}-{\mathbf{x}}')$, and ${\boldsymbol{\ell}}$ is a diagonal matrix of length scales.
Comparing Approximation Quality {#sec:approx_quality}
-------------------------------
To facilitate comparison between the approximation quality of <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">spgp-sarsa</span> and <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">lowrank-sarsa</span>, we analyzed a measure of evidence maximization: the ratio of sparse-to-complete log-likelihood, ${\mathcal{L}}_{\textsc{sparse}}/{\mathcal{L}}_{\textsc{gptd}}$. We found the low-rank approximation causes sharp changes in the likelihood, and its magnitude often varied around $10^3$. Although this precluded visual comparisons, we are still able to show <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">spgp-sarsa</span> provides a tight approximation. The ratio varies smoothly in relation to different levels of sparsity and improves further as pseudo inputs are optimized (Figure \[fig:sparse\_tests:likedisp\]).
In a second study, we examined the range of <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">lowrank-sarsa</span>’s adjustability. In principle, the error threshold $\nu$ can be tuned to any positive number. However, results show the available range can be limited and result in extreme amounts of data retention or rejection (Figure \[fig:sparse\_tests:rejstats\]).
As marine robots require learning algorithms that are simultaneously data-efficient and online-viable, it can be problematic if one quality is missing. Retaining an excessive amount of data reduces the computational benefit of the low-rank approximation. Conversely, rejecting too much data is counterproductive when very little arrives. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">spgp-sarsa</span> offers a good middle ground, because it retains all observations while still achieving fast predictions at any level of sparsity.
Simulated Navigation Tasks
--------------------------
For this experiment, we solve the complete <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">rl</span> problem. Employing Algorithm \[alg:policyiter\], we compare performance of each value estimator, $\{$<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">gp, spgp, lowrank</span>$\}$<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">-sarsa</span>, as they inform policy updates on simulated navigation tasks. The purpose is to understand each algorithm’s learning performance.
From the data (Figure \[fig:policy\_improvement\]), it is clear that all algorithms converge quickly: in around fifty episodes. These results are consistent with prior work by Engel [*et al.* ]{}[@rl:2005:engel_etal:learning_to_control_an_octopus_arm_with_gaussian_process_temporal_difference_methods], where <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">gp-sarsa</span> was applied to control a high dimensional octopus arm having 88 continuous state variables and 6 action variables. Performance differences between the two approximate methods are due to their approximation quality (Figure \[fig:sparse\_tests\]). As expected, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">spgp-sarsa</span> is able to learn on par with the exact method, because it can replicate the predictive posterior better than <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">lowrank-sarsa</span>.
In each experiment, robots learn over 100 episodes and select actions with unique $\epsilon$-greedy policies. The number of pseudo inputs, $M$, was selected for a fair comparison. Specifically, after finding a $\nu$ that induced approximately 50% sparsity, we choose $M$ so both methods converged with active sets of the same size. All pseudo inputs were initialized randomly.
First, we considered a canonical <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">rl</span> navigation problem, the Mountain Car [@rl:1998:sutton_barto:introduction_to_reinforcement_learning]. With limited power, the robot must learn to exploit its dynamics to reach the crest of a hill. The state is given by ${\mathbf{s}}= (s,\dot{s})$, where $s\in[-1.2,0.6]$, and $\dot{s}\in[-0.07,0.07]$. Rewards are $R = \varepsilon - s$, with $\varepsilon\sim{\mathcal{N}}(0,0.001)$, until the goal is reached, where $R=1$. Episodes start at ${\mathbf{s}}_0 = (-0.5,0.0)$, and the goal is $s_{\text{goal}} = 0.6$. We let $M=5$, $\nu=0.1$, and learning evolve over $50$ transitions. One action, $a\in [-1,1]$ controls the robot’s motion (Figure \[fig:mountain\_car\_results\]) . Our second system is a planar Unmanned Surface Vehicle (<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">usv</span>), which has been considered in prior learning experiments [@rl:ghavamzadeh_engel_valko-bayesian_policy_gradient_and_actor_critic_algorithm; @rl:2017:martin:heteroscedastic]. The robot must navigate within $10\text{m}$ of ${\mathbf{x}}_{\text{goal}}=(50 \text{m},50\text{m})$ using $100$ transitions. States ${\mathbf{s}}=(x,y,\theta,\dot{\theta})$ contain position, $x,y$, heading. $\theta$, and heading rate $\dot{\theta}$. The speed is held constant at $V = 3$ m/s, and the angular rate $\omega\in[-15^\circ/\text{s},15^\circ/\text{s}]$ controls the robot through $$\begin{aligned}
x_{t+1} &= x_t +\Delta V\cos{\theta_t}, & y_{t+1} &= y_t +\Delta V\sin{\theta_t},\\
\theta_{t+1} &= \theta_t +\Delta \dot{\theta}_t, & \dot{\theta}_t &= \dot{\theta}_t +\frac{\Delta}{T}(\omega_t - \dot{\theta}_t). \end{aligned}$$ We use time steps of $\Delta = 1.0$s, and a $T = 3$ step time delay for the command $\omega$ to be realized. The delay models resistance of surface currents and actuator limitations. Rewards are assigned with $R = R_{\text{min}} - ( R_{\text{goal}} - R_{\text{min}} ) \exp( -d / \delta ) + \varepsilon$, where $R_{\text{min}}=-1.0$, $R_{\text{goal}}=10.0$, $\varepsilon$ as before, $d = ||{\mathbf{x}}_{\text{goal}}-{\mathbf{x}}||$, and $\delta =10$. We chose a linear policy, $\omega = K_\omega e_\theta$, where $e_\theta = \arctan{[(50-y)/(50-x)]} - \theta$. $K_\omega$ was updated with a line search, to maximize the first moment of the value posterior. We selected $\nu=0.1$ and $M=50$.
For the third system we consider a common Unmanned Underwater Vehicle (<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">uuv</span>) design, with differential control. The robot commands forward acceleration, $v$, and turn rate, $\omega$, through port, $a_{\text{port}}$, and starboard, $a_{\text{star}}$, actions. The dynamics are an extension of the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">usv</span> with the additional dimension, $V_{t+1} = V_t +\Delta v_t$. The policy uses Fourier basis functions, with $e_\theta$ defined as before, and $e_r = || {\mathbf{x}}_{\text{goal}}-{\mathbf{x}}||$: $$\begin{aligned}
v&=K_r e_r\cos( e_\theta ), &\omega &= K_r\cos( e_\theta )\sin( e_\theta ) + K_\theta e_\theta.
\vspace{-2em}\end{aligned}$$ These map to actions through $v_t = K_v(a_{\text{port},t}+a_{\text{star},t})$ and $\omega_t =K_w(a_{\text{port},t}- a_{\text{star},t})$, where we let $K_v= K_w=1$. Policy updates select parameters $K_r$ and $K_\theta$ to maximize the value posterior mean - found through a $100\times100$ grid search. Learning occurs over 100 episodes of 200 transitions, with $\nu=5$ and $M=50$.
Learning to Navigate with a BlueROV
-----------------------------------
{width="30.00000%"} {width="65.00000%"}
Solving the complete <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">rl</span> problem with a BlueROV (Figure \[fig:bluerov\_results\]) presented a unique set of challenges. States ${\mathbf{s}}=(x,y,\theta)$ derived from a Doppler velocity log, with estimates that drifted on the order of 1m every 1-2 min; this ultimately bounded the number of transitions per episode. While initiating the learning process at depth, disturbances from the data tether introduced uncertainty in the initial position and heading. The robot’s speed is also constrained to facilitate accurate localization. To move, the robot can yaw and translate back and forth for a variable length of time.
With numerous limitations imposed on the learning process, we evaluated what could be learned from a single demonstration of only eight transitions. In practice, learning from demonstrations can reduce trial and error [@rl:2009:argall_chernova_veloso_browning:a_survey_of_robot_learning_from_demonstration; @rl:2013:kober_bagnell_peters:reinforcement_learning_in_robotics_a_survey]. Results show, even with minimal information, that <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">spgp-sarsa</span> was able to recover a near-optimal value function and policy (Figure \[fig:bluerov\_results\]). The experiment was repeated twenty times and the average policy update time took $0.013\pm7\cdot10^{-4}$s with a 2.8GHz i7 processor. We achieve only a modest improvement in prediction time, since $N=8$, and we use $M=2$ pseudo inputs. Despite this fact, our results confirm <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">spgp-sarsa</span> can support efficient robot learning.
Conclusion
==========
This paper presented an algorithm that supports learning navigation policies with very little data. We argued for the use of <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">gp-td</span> algorithms to replace standard Bellman recursion, because non-parametric regression can be more data-efficient for learning value functions. We derived <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">spgp-sarsa</span> as a sparse approximation to <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">gp-sarsa</span> and showed it is more flexible and its predictions are more accurate than the state-of-the-art low-rank method. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">spgp-sarsa</span> was applied to a physical marine robot and learned a near-optimal value function from a single demonstration. In closing, we believe our results highlight the efficiency of <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">gp-td</span> algorithms and the utility of <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">spgp-sarsa</span> as a marine robot learning method.
Supplement
==========
Model Parameter Optimization
----------------------------
Most optimization packages require an objective function and its gradient to optimize. In the full paper, we described the object function as the log likelihood of the value posterior. Below, we provide the full details of the corresponding gradient computation.
Objective Gradient
------------------
Let ${\mathbf{K}}_r = {\mathbf{Q}}+ \sigma^2{\mathbf{I}}+ {\mathbf{K}}_{ru}{\mathbf{K}}_{uu}^{-1}{\mathbf{K}}_{ur}$ and $\xi_j$ be the $j$-th optimization variable. The gradient with respect to $\xi_j$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:likelihood_deriv}
\frac{\partial {\mathcal{L}}}{\partial \xi_j} &= -\frac{1}{2}{\text{tr}}({\mathbf{K}}_r^{-1}{\mathbf{J}}_r) + \frac{1}{2}{\mathbf{r}}^\top{\mathbf{K}}_r^{-1}{\mathbf{J}}_r{\mathbf{K}}_r^{-1}{\mathbf{r}}.\end{aligned}$$ Here, ${\mathbf{J}}_r$ is the tangent matrix of ${\mathbf{K}}_r$ with respect to $\xi_j$. The full equations for computing ${\mathbf{J}}_r$ are described in the next section.
Likelihood Covariance Tangent Matrix
------------------------------------
Denote $\xi_j$ to be a generic optimization variable. Then the matrix ${\mathbf{J}}_r$ used in Equation \[eq:likelihood\_deriv\] is given by $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbf{J}}_r = \frac{\partial {\mathbf{Q}}}{\partial \xi_j} + \frac{\partial}{\partial \xi_j}\sigma^2{\mathbf{I}}+ {\mathbf{K}}_{ru}\frac{\partial }{\partial \xi_j}({\mathbf{K}}_{uu}^{-1}{\mathbf{K}}_{ur}) + {\mathbf{J}}_{ru}({\mathbf{K}}_{uu}^{-1}{\mathbf{K}}_{ur}),\\
\frac{\partial {\mathbf{Q}}}{\partial \xi_j} = \text{diag}\bigl( {\mathbf{J}}_{rr} - {\mathbf{K}}_{ru}\frac{\partial }{\partial \xi_j}({\mathbf{K}}_{uu}^{-1}{\mathbf{K}}_{ur}) - {\mathbf{J}}_{ru}({\mathbf{K}}_{uu}^{-1}{\mathbf{K}}_{ur}) \bigr),\\
\frac{\partial }{\partial \xi_j}({\mathbf{K}}_{uu}^{-1}{\mathbf{K}}_{ur}) = {\mathbf{K}}_{uu}^{-1}{\mathbf{J}}_{ur} + \frac{\partial {\mathbf{K}}_{uu}^{-1}}{\partial \xi_j}{\mathbf{K}}_{ur},\\
\frac{\partial {\mathbf{K}}_{uu}^{-1}}{\partial \xi_j} = -{\mathbf{K}}_{uu}^{-1}{\mathbf{J}}_u{\mathbf{K}}_{uu}^{-1}.\end{aligned}$$
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: '[ There is a considerable interest in understanding the dependence of one-nucleon removal cross sections on the asymmetry of the neutron $S_n$ and proton $S_p$ separation energies, following a large amount of experimental data and theoretical analyses in a framework of sudden and eikonal approximations of the reaction dynamics. These theoretical calculations involve both the single-particle cross section and the shell-model description of the projectile initial state and final states of the reaction residues. The configuration mixing in shell-model description of nuclear states depends on the proximity of one-nucleon decay threshold but does it depend sensitively on $S_n - S_p$? To answer this question, we use the shell model embedded in the continuum to investigate the dependence of one-nucleon spectroscopic factors on the asymmetry of $S_n$ and $S_p$ for mirror nuclei $^{24}$Si, $^{24}$Ne and $^{28}$S, $^{28}$Mg and for a series of neon isotopes ($20 \leq A \leq 28$). ]{}'
author:
- 'J. Oko[ł]{}owicz'
- 'Y.H. Lam'
- 'M. P[ł]{}oszajczak'
- 'A.O. Macchiavelli'
- 'N.A. Smirnova'
title: 'Consistent analysis of one-nucleon spectroscopic factors involving weakly- and strongly-bound nucleons '
---
*Introduction*.— \[sec0\] Single-nucleon removal reactions at intermediate energies provide a basic tool to produce exotic nuclei with large cross-sections. The interpretation of these reactions as effective direct reactions follows from the theoretical modelling which uses an approximate description of the reaction dynamics (sudden and eikonal approximations) [@theory_tost] and a standard shell model description of the structure of the initial state of the projectile, the final states of the $(A-1)$-nucleon reaction residues, and the relevant overlap functions. In a series of papers [@Gade1; @Gade2], it was found that the ratio $R_{\sigma}=\sigma_{\rm exp}/\sigma_{\rm th}$ of the experimental and theoretical inclusive one-nucleon removal cross section for a large number of projectiles shows a striking dependence on the asymmetry of the neutron and proton separation energies. Is this dependence telling us something important about the correlations in the projectile initial state and/or final states of reaction residues, or could it be an artefact of the theoretical modelling used?
A possible drawback of the theoretical modelling of the one-nucleon removal reactions is that the description of reaction dynamics and shell model ingredients in this description are not consistently related one to another. Therefore, there is no [*a priori*]{} certainty that these reactions can be considered as effective direct reactions. A comprehensive theoretical description in a unified framework of the continuum shell model (CSM) [@mahaux69_b16; @barz77_82; @bennaceur00_44] or the coupled-channel Gamow shell model [@Jag14] is much too complicated to be considered as a realistic proposition in the near future. On the other hand, single-nucleon removal reactions as experimental tools to study exotic nuclei are too important to abandon further discussion of $R_{\sigma}(\Delta S)$-dependence found, where $\Delta S$ equals $S_n-S_p$ for one-neutron removal and $S_p-S_n$ for one-proton removal reactions. Recently, spectroscopic factors for proton knockout in closed-shell $^{14,16,22,24,28}$O were calculated using the coupled cluster formalism [@Hagen] and found to depend strongly on $\Delta S$, in line with the observations in [@Gade1; @Gade2]. In contrast, the experimental results in Ref. [@Flavigny] using transfer reactions in Oxygen isotopes show, at best, a weak dependence on $\Delta S$. Moreover, the study in Ref. [@Obertelli] points to some limitations of the eikonal approximation. Here we would like to address the question of whether the deduced ratio of the experimental and theoretical one-nucleon removal cross-sections is related in any way to the $\Delta S$-dependence of the CSM spectroscopic factors? Hence, is this ratio probing the configuration mixing in SM states involved in the single-nucleon removal reactions at intermediate energies or should it be considered as an empirical normalization factor of the theoretical cross-section when determining spectroscopic factors of exotic nuclei? Of course, one should keep in mind that the spectroscopic factors are not observables [*per se*]{} and as such are not invariant under the unitary transformation of the Hamiltonian. However, in a given model, the spectroscopic factors are important theoretical quantities and an investigation of the $\Delta S$-dependence of the spectroscopic factors in a consistent theoretical framework provided by the CSM may shed light on our understanding of the one-nucleon removal reactions at intermediate energies.
The $\Delta S$-dependence of spectroscopic factors is examined in $^{24}$Si and $^{28}$S, and their mirror partners $^{24}$Ne and $^{28}$Mg using the shell model embedded in the continuum (SMEC) [@bennaceur00_44] which is a modern version of the CSM. The ratio $R_{\sigma}$, which was reported for $^{24}$Si and $^{28}$S both for neutron and proton removal reactions [@Gade2], will serve as a reference in this analysis. We investigate also the $\Delta S$-dependence of the ratio of SMEC and SM spectroscopic factors $R_{SF}=S_{\rm SMEC}/S_{\rm SM}$ for a chain of neon isotopes at the experimental separation energies $S_n$ and $S_p$.
*The model*.— In the present studies, the scattering environment is provided by one-nucleon decay channels. The Hilbert space is divided into two orthogonal subspaces ${\cal Q}_{0}$ and ${\cal Q}_{1}$ containing 0 and 1 particle in the scattering continuum, respectively. An open quantum system description of ${\cal Q}_0$ space includes couplings to the environment of decay channels through the energy-dependent effective Hamiltonian [@bennaceur00_44; @Oko1]: $${\cal H}(E)=H_{{\cal Q}_0{\cal Q}_0}+W_{{\cal Q}_0{\cal Q}_0}(E),
\label{eq21}$$ where $H_{{\cal Q}_0{\cal Q}_0}$ denotes the standard SM Hamiltonian describing the internal dynamics in the closed quantum system approximation, and $W_{{\cal Q}_0{\cal Q}_0}(E)$: $$W_{{\cal Q}_0{\cal Q}_0}(E)=H_{{\cal Q}_0{\cal Q}_1}G_{{\cal Q}_1}^{(+)}(E)H_{{\cal Q}_1{\cal Q}_0},
\label{eqop4}$$ is the energy-dependent continuum coupling term, where $G_{{\cal Q}_1}^{(+)}(E)$ is the one-nucleon Green’s function and ${H}_{{Q}_0,{Q}_1}$, ${H}_{{Q}_1{Q}_0}$ are the coupling terms between orthogonal subspaces ${\cal Q}_{0}$ and ${\cal Q}_{1}$ [@Oko1]. $E$ in the above equations stands for a scattering energy. The energy scale is settled by the lowest one-nucleon emission threshold. The channel state in nucleus $A$ is defined by the coupling of one nucleon (proton or neutron) in the continuum to nucleus $(A-1)$ in a given SM state. In the SMEC calculation, we include 18 lowest decay channels in the nucleus $A$: 9 for protons and 9 for neutrons. The coupling to these channels gives rise to the mixing of all SM states of the same total angular momentum and parity in the nucleus $A$ and, hence changes the ground state (g.s.) spectroscopic factor with respect to its SM value.
The SMEC solutions are found by solving the eigenproblem for the Hamiltonian Eq.(\[eq21\]) in the biorthogonal basis. The SMEC eigenvectors $\Psi_{\alpha}$ are related to the eigenstates $\Phi_j$ of the SM Hamiltonian $H_{{\cal Q}_0{\cal Q}_0}$ by a linear orthogonal transformation: $\Psi_{\alpha}=\sum_jb_{\alpha j}\Phi_j$. The expectation value of any operator ${\hat O}$ can be calculated as: $\langle{\hat O}\rangle=\langle{\Psi}_{{\bar \alpha}}|{\hat O}|{\Psi}_{\alpha}\rangle$. In case of the spectroscopic factor one has: ${\hat O}=a^{\dagger}|t\rangle\langle t|a$, where $|t\rangle$ is the target state of the $(A-1)$-system. $a$ and $a^{\dagger}$ are annihilation and creation operators of a nucleon in a given single-particle (s.p.) state.
*The Hamiltonian*.— For the isospin-symmetric part of the SM Hamiltonian $H_{{\cal Q}_0{\cal Q}_0}$ in the $sd$ shell model space, we take the USD interaction [@Brown]. The charge-dependent terms in the Hamiltonian comprise the two-body Coulomb interaction, acting between valence protons, and isovector single-particle energies [@Ormand] which account for the Coulomb effects in the core. Both these terms are scaled proportionally to $\sqrt{\hbar\omega_A}$ [@Ormand], with $\hbar\omega_A$ being parameterized as $$\hbar \omega_A = 45 \, A^{-1/3} - 25 \, A^{-2/3} ~ \textnormal{MeV} \, .$$
The terms ${H}_{{Q}_0,{Q}_1}$, ${H}_{{Q}_1{Q}_0}$ in the continuum-coupling term Eq.(\[eqop4\]) are generated using the Wigner-Bartlett (WB) interaction: $$V_{12}=V_0\left[\alpha+ \beta P_{12}^{\sigma}\right]\delta\left({\bf r_1}-{\bf r_2}\right),
\label{WB}$$ where $\alpha + \beta = 1$ and $P_{12}^{\sigma}$ is the spin exchange operator. Although the product $V_0(\alpha - \beta)$= 414 MeV$\cdot$fm$^3$ is kept constant in all calculations, the magnitude of the continuum coupling varies depending on specific values of $V_0$, $\alpha $, the structure of the target wave function, and the separation energies $S_p$, $S_n$.
The radial s.p. wave functions in ${\cal Q}_0$ and the scattering wave functions in ${\cal Q}_1$ are generated using a Woods-Saxon (WS) potential which includes spin-orbit and Coulomb parts. The radius and diffuseness of the WS potential are $R_0=1.27 A^{1/3}$ fm and $a=0.67$ fm respectively. The spin-orbit potential is $V_{\rm SO}=6.1$ MeV, and the Coulomb part is calculated for a uniformly charged sphere with radius $R_0$. The depth of the central part for protons (neutrons) is adjusted to yield the energy of the s.p. state involved in the lowest one-proton (one-neutron) decay channel equal to the one-proton (one-neutron) separation energy in the g.s. of the nucleus $A$. The continuum-coupling term Eq.(\[eqop4\]) breaks the isospin conservation due to different radial wave functions for protons and neutrons, and different separation energies $S_p$, $S_n$.
![(Color online) The ratio of SMEC and SM $d_{5/2}$ spectroscopic factors in mirror nuclei $^{24}$Si and $^{24}$Ne is plotted as a function of the asymmetry $\Delta S$ of the neutron and proton separation energies. Proton (neutron) spectroscopic factors are shown by solid (dashed) lines. $\Delta S$ equals $S_p-S_n$ ($S_n-S_p$) for the proton (neutron) spectroscopic factors. Circles denote the ratios $R_{SF}$ at the experimental value of the asymmetry parameter $\Delta S$. (a) $R_{SF}(\Delta S)$ for the g.s. of $^{24}$Si for $\alpha =1$; (b) $R_{SF}(\Delta S)$ for the g.s. of $^{24}$Si for $\alpha=0.73$; (c) $R_{SF}(\Delta S)$ for the g.s. of $^{24}$Ne for $\alpha =0.73$. For more details, see the description in the text.[]{data-label="fig_1"}](fig1a.eps "fig:"){width="0.80\linewidth"} -1.11truecm ![(Color online) The ratio of SMEC and SM $d_{5/2}$ spectroscopic factors in mirror nuclei $^{24}$Si and $^{24}$Ne is plotted as a function of the asymmetry $\Delta S$ of the neutron and proton separation energies. Proton (neutron) spectroscopic factors are shown by solid (dashed) lines. $\Delta S$ equals $S_p-S_n$ ($S_n-S_p$) for the proton (neutron) spectroscopic factors. Circles denote the ratios $R_{SF}$ at the experimental value of the asymmetry parameter $\Delta S$. (a) $R_{SF}(\Delta S)$ for the g.s. of $^{24}$Si for $\alpha =1$; (b) $R_{SF}(\Delta S)$ for the g.s. of $^{24}$Si for $\alpha=0.73$; (c) $R_{SF}(\Delta S)$ for the g.s. of $^{24}$Ne for $\alpha =0.73$. For more details, see the description in the text.[]{data-label="fig_1"}](fig1b.eps "fig:"){width="0.80\linewidth"} -1.11truecm ![(Color online) The ratio of SMEC and SM $d_{5/2}$ spectroscopic factors in mirror nuclei $^{24}$Si and $^{24}$Ne is plotted as a function of the asymmetry $\Delta S$ of the neutron and proton separation energies. Proton (neutron) spectroscopic factors are shown by solid (dashed) lines. $\Delta S$ equals $S_p-S_n$ ($S_n-S_p$) for the proton (neutron) spectroscopic factors. Circles denote the ratios $R_{SF}$ at the experimental value of the asymmetry parameter $\Delta S$. (a) $R_{SF}(\Delta S)$ for the g.s. of $^{24}$Si for $\alpha =1$; (b) $R_{SF}(\Delta S)$ for the g.s. of $^{24}$Si for $\alpha=0.73$; (c) $R_{SF}(\Delta S)$ for the g.s. of $^{24}$Ne for $\alpha =0.73$. For more details, see the description in the text.[]{data-label="fig_1"}](fig1c.eps "fig:"){width="0.80\linewidth"}
![(Color online) The ratio of SMEC and SM proton (neutron) $s_{1/2}$ spectroscopic factors and neutron (proton) $d_{5/2}$ spectroscopic factors in mirror nuclei $^{28}$S ($^{28}$Mg) is plotted as a function of the asymmetry $\Delta S$ of the neutron and proton separation energies. (a) $R_{SF}(\Delta S)$ for the g.s. of $^{28}$S for $\alpha =1$; (b) $R_{SF}(\Delta S)$ for the g.s. of $^{28}$Si for $\alpha =0.73$; (c) $R_{SF}(\Delta S)$ for the g.s. of $^{28}$Mg for $\alpha =0.73$. For more information, see the caption of Fig. \[fig\_1\] and the description in the text.[]{data-label="fig_2"}](fig2a.eps "fig:"){width="0.8\linewidth"} -1.11truecm ![(Color online) The ratio of SMEC and SM proton (neutron) $s_{1/2}$ spectroscopic factors and neutron (proton) $d_{5/2}$ spectroscopic factors in mirror nuclei $^{28}$S ($^{28}$Mg) is plotted as a function of the asymmetry $\Delta S$ of the neutron and proton separation energies. (a) $R_{SF}(\Delta S)$ for the g.s. of $^{28}$S for $\alpha =1$; (b) $R_{SF}(\Delta S)$ for the g.s. of $^{28}$Si for $\alpha =0.73$; (c) $R_{SF}(\Delta S)$ for the g.s. of $^{28}$Mg for $\alpha =0.73$. For more information, see the caption of Fig. \[fig\_1\] and the description in the text.[]{data-label="fig_2"}](fig2b.eps "fig:"){width="0.8\linewidth"} -1.11truecm ![(Color online) The ratio of SMEC and SM proton (neutron) $s_{1/2}$ spectroscopic factors and neutron (proton) $d_{5/2}$ spectroscopic factors in mirror nuclei $^{28}$S ($^{28}$Mg) is plotted as a function of the asymmetry $\Delta S$ of the neutron and proton separation energies. (a) $R_{SF}(\Delta S)$ for the g.s. of $^{28}$S for $\alpha =1$; (b) $R_{SF}(\Delta S)$ for the g.s. of $^{28}$Si for $\alpha =0.73$; (c) $R_{SF}(\Delta S)$ for the g.s. of $^{28}$Mg for $\alpha =0.73$. For more information, see the caption of Fig. \[fig\_1\] and the description in the text.[]{data-label="fig_2"}](fig2c.eps "fig:"){width="0.8\linewidth"}
[*The results*.—]{} We shall discuss now the dependence of the spectroscopic factors on the asymmetry of neutron and proton separation energies and on the strength of the spin-exchange term which influences the strength of the $T=0$ proton-neutron continuum coupling. Fig. \[fig\_1\] shows the $\Delta S$ dependence of the ratio of $d_{5/2}$ spectroscopic factors in SMEC and SM for the g.s. of mirror nuclei: $^{24}$Si and $^{24}$Ne. The curves $R_{SF}(\Delta S)$ for proton (neutron) spectroscopic factors are shown with the solid (dashed) lines as a function of $S_p-S_n$ ($S_n-S_p$) on a $(S_p,S_n)$-lattice. The values of $R_{SF}$ at the experimental separation energies $S_p$ and $S_n$ are denoted by open circles. Along each curve for the proton (neutron) spectroscopic factor, $S_p$ ($S_n$) changes and $S_n$ ($S_p$) remains constant.
Quantitative effects of the continuum coupling on spectroscopic factors depend on the distribution of the spectroscopic strength in the considered SM states [@OMNP12]. For $\alpha= 1$, the rearrangement of spectroscopic factors is small if the spectroscopic strength is concentrated in a single SM state. This is the case in both $^{24}$Si and $^{24}$Ne. For example, 92.7$\%$ (91.9$\%$) of the proton (neutron) $d_{5/2}$ SM spectroscopic strength in $^{24}$Si is in the g.s. and hence, the ratio $R_{SF}$ both for proton and neutron g.s. spectroscopic factors is almost independent of $\Delta S$ (see Fig. 1a). The slight breaking of the isospin symmetry by both the continuum coupling and the Coulomb term in the SM interaction leads in this case to a weak dependence of $R_{SF}$ for the neutron spectroscopic factor in the limit of small $S_n$.
This is not true anymore if the continuum-coupling interaction includes the spin-exchange term, which modifies the $T=0$ proton-neutron continuum coupling component. In this case, the additional correlations induced via the coupling to decay channels may modify the ratio of spectroscopic factors. Figs. 1b and 1c show a rearrangement of the $d_{5/2}$ neutron (proton) spectroscopic strength in the g.s. of $^{24}$Si ($^{24}$Ne) for $\alpha =0.73$. The $\Delta S$-variation of the ratio $R_{SF}$ in this case remains however relatively small and does not exceed 10$\%$. One should notice also a significant breaking of mirror symmetry by comparing $R_{SF}(\Delta S)$ curves for neutron spectroscopic factors at small $S_n$ in $^{24}$Si and proton spectroscopic factors at small $S_p$ in $^{24}$Ne.
The ratio $R_{\sigma}=\sigma_{\rm exp}/\sigma_{\rm th}$ of cross-sections for one proton (neutron) removal from $^{24}$Si is $\sim 0.8 \pm 0.04$ ($\sim 0.39 \pm 0.04$) [@Gade1]. The corresponding ratio of SMEC and SM proton (neutron) spectroscopic factors is however almost constant and equals 0.987 (0.981) for $\alpha = 1$, and 0.974 (0.957) for $\alpha = 0.73$.
Fig. \[fig\_2\] shows the $\Delta S$ dependence of the ratio of SMEC and SM g.s. spectroscopic factors for mirror nuclei: $^{28}$S and $^{28}$Mg. In these nuclei, the distribution of SM spectroscopic strength is different from that in $^{24}$Si and $^{24}$Ne. Only 44$\%$ of the proton $s_{1/2}$ spectroscopic strength is in the g.s. of $^{28}$S. On the contrary, 97.6$\%$ of the neutron $d_{5/2}$ spectroscopic strength is concentrated in the g.s. of $^{28}$S. Consequently, even in the absence of the $T=0$ component in the continuum coupling interaction ($\alpha =1$), the ratio $R_{SF}$ of the proton $s_{1/2}$ spectroscopic strengths depends on $S_p - S_n$. This dependence is further enhanced for $\alpha \neq 1$ (see Fig. 2b). One should also notice strong breaking of the mirror symmetry by comparing the ratio of proton $s_{1/2}$ spectroscopic strength at small $S_p$ in $^{28}$S (Fig. 2b) and the ratio of neutron $s_{1/2}$ spectroscopic strength at small $S_n$ in $^{28}$Mg (Fig. 2c). This effect is due to an important dependence of the $s$-wave continuum coupling on the Coulomb interaction.
In $^{28}$S, the ratio $R_{\sigma}$ of proton (neutron) removal cross-sections is $\sim 0.92 \pm 0.07$ ($\sim 0.31 \pm 0.025$) [@Gade1]. Again, the corresponding ratio of SMEC and SM proton (neutron) spectroscopic factors is almost constant and equals 1.026 (1.0) for $\alpha = 1$ and 0.848 (0.975) for $\alpha = 0.73$.
![The ratio of SMEC and SM g.s. spectroscopic factors in the chain of Ne isotopes ($20\leq A\leq 28$) is plotted as a function of the asymmetry $\Delta S$ of their experimental neutron and proton separation energies for $\alpha=0.73$. The ratios of proton (neutron) spectroscopic factors are depicted with squares (triangles). In agreement with the experimental angular momentum and parity of the nucleus $(A-1)$, the g.s. proton spectroscopic factors are $d_{5/2}$ for all considered isotopes, and neutron spectroscopic factors are (i) $s_{1/2}$ in $^{20,26}$Ne, (ii) $d_{3/2}$ in $^{22,28}$Ne, and (iii) $d_{5/2}$ in $^{24}$Ne. For more details, see the description in the text.[]{data-label="fig_3"}](fig3.eps){width="0.83\linewidth"}
Systematics of the ratio $R_{SF}$ for even-$N$ Ne-isotopes is plotted in Fig. \[fig\_3\]. $R_{SF}$ for proton (neutron) spectroscopic factors are shown with squares (triangles) as a function of $S_p-S_n$ ($S_n-S_p$). One can see that the ratio of SMEC and SM spectroscopic factors does not exhibit any systematic tendency as a function of $\Delta S$. The fluctuations of $R_{SF}$ are small except for the neutron spectroscopic factor in $^{22}$Ne. This nucleus is however an exception in the Ne-chain because the g.s. SM spectroscopic factor is much smaller than the spectroscopic factor in the first excited state and therefore even a small spin (isospin) dependence of the proton-neutron continuum coupling and/or a small isospin-symmetry breaking term in the Hamiltonian and the continuum coupling, produce significant change of the spectroscopic factor.
In conclusion, we have consistently evaluated the fraction of single-particle spectroscopic strength which is shifted to higher excitations as a result of the coupling to the proton and neutron decay channels. We have shown that the one-nucleon spectroscopic factors in SMEC are weakly correlated with the asymmetry of neutron $S_n$ and proton $S_p$ separation energies. Strong mirror symmetry breaking, found in the ratio of SMEC and SM spectroscopic factors, appears mainly for small one-nucleon separation energies suggesting the threshold nature of this effect. Whatever the precise reasons for a strong dependence of the ratio of experimental and theoretical one-nucleon removal cross sections on the asymmetry of neutron and proton separation energies are, the explanation of this dependence does not reside in the behavior of the one-nucleon spectroscopic factors as a function of $\Delta S$.
This work was supported in part by the FUSTIPEN (French-U.S. Theory Institute for Physics with Exotic Nuclei) under U.S. DOE grant No. DE-FG02-10ER41700, by the COPIN and COPIGAL French-Polish scientific exchange programs, by the U.S. DOE contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231 (LBNL), and by PHC Xu GuanQi 2015 under project number 34457VA. Y.H.L. gratefully acknowledges the financial supports from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos. U1232208, U1432125), Ministry of Science and Technology of China (Talented Young Scientist Program) and from the China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (2014M562481). N.A.S. acknowledges the funding of CFT (IN2P3/CNRS, France), AP théorie 2014.
P.G. Hansen and J.A. Tostevin, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. [**53**]{}, 219 (2003);\
J.A. Tostevin, Nucl. Phys. [**A682**]{}, 320c (2001). A. Gade et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. [**93**]{}, 042501 (2004). A. Gade et al., Phys. Rev. C [**77**]{}, 044306 (2008). C. Mahaux and H.A. Weidenmüller, [*Shell Model Approach to Nuclear Reactions*]{} (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1969). H.W. Barz, I. Rotter and J. Höhn, Nucl. Phys. [**A 275**]{}, 111(1977);\
R.J. Philpott, Fizika [**9**]{}, 109 (1977). K. Bennaceur, F. Nowacki, J. Oko[ł]{}owicz and M. P[ł]{}oszajczak, Nucl. Phys. [**A671**]{}, 203 (2000). Y. Jaganathen, N. Michel and M. P[ł]{}oszajczak, Phys. Rev. C [**89**]{}, 034624 (2014). . Jensen, G. Hagen, M.Hjorth-Jensen, B.A. Brown, and A. Gade, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**107**]{}, 032501 (2011). F. Flavigny, et al., Phys Rev. Lett. [**110**]{}, 122503 (2013). C. Louchart, A. Obertelli, A. Boudart, and F. Flavigny, Phys. Rev. [**83**]{} 011601 R (2011). J. Oko[ł]{}owicz, M. P[ł]{}oszajczak and I. Rotter, Phys. Rep. [**374**]{}, 271 (2003). B.H. Wildenthal, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics, ed. D.H. Wilkinson (Pergamon, Oxford, q1984) vol. II, p. 5. B.A. Brown and B.H. Wildenthal, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. [**38**]{}, 29 (1988). W.E. Ormand and B.A. Brown, Nucl. Phys. [**A440**]{}, 274 (1985). J. Oko[ł]{}owicz, N. Michel, W. Nazarewicz and M. P[ł]{}oszajczak, Phys. Rev. C [**85**]{}, 064320 (2012).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'One of the most promising candidate ground states for the quantum antiferromagnetic Heisenberg model on the Kagome lattice is the valence bond solid (VBS) with a 36-site unit cell. We present a theory of triplet excitation spectra about this ground state using bond operator formalism. In particular we obtain dispersions of all 18 triplet modes in the reduced Brillouin zone. In the bond operator mean-field theory, it is found that a large number of triplet modes are non-dispersive. In particular, the lowest triplet excitation is non-dispersive and degenerate with a dispersive mode at the zone center. Away from the zone center, the lowest triplet is separated from two other flat modes by a small energy gap. Quantum fluctuations are considered by taking into account scattering processes of two triplets and their bound state formation, which leads to a downward renormalization of the lowest spin triplet gap. The dispersion of the lowest triplet excitation in the VBS state is compared with the dispersive lower bound of the triplet continuum expected in competing spin liquid phases. Implications to future neutron scattering experiments are discussed.'
author:
- 'Bohm-Jung'
- Yong Baek
- Jaejun
- Kwon
title: Spin Triplet Excitations for a Valence Bond Solid on the Kagome Lattice
---
\[sec:intro\] Introduction
==========================
The quantum antiferromagnetic Heisenberg model on the Kagome lattice is a quintessential example of frustrated quantum magnets and therefore has been a subject of intense research activities [@Zeng; @Marston; @sachdev2; @Huse_old; @Leung; @Mila; @Sindzingre_old; @Hastings; @Nikolic; @Ran; @Huse; @Huse2]. The ground state of this model, however, has been highly controversial generating a number of competing proposals. Recent proposals include a gapless spin liquid with Dirac fermionic spinons [@Hastings; @Ran], a gapped spin liquid with bosonic spinons [@sachdev2], and the valence bond solid (VBS) with a 36-site unit cell structure [@Marston; @Huse; @Huse2].
The identification of the ground state may be important to explain a series of recent experiments on herbertsmithites ZnCu$_3$(OH)$_6$Cl$_{2}$ [@kagome_exp1; @kagome_exp2; @kagome_exp3; @kagome_exp4; @kagome_exp5], where spin-1/2 moments reside on the ideal Kagome-lattice structure and interact with each other antiferromagnetically. It was found that the material remains paramagnetic down to 50 mK while the Curie-Weiss temperature is about 300 K [@kagome_exp1; @kagome_exp2; @kagome_exp3; @kagome_exp4; @kagome_exp5]. While this discovery is consistent with nonmagnetic ground states, the precise nature of the ground state still needs to be clarified by future experiments.
Recent theoretical studies reveal that the energy difference between various competing ground states is extremely small [@Hastings; @Nikolic; @Ran; @Huse; @Huse2], which makes it quite difficult to theoretically determine the true ground state. At the same time, this implies that even a small perturbation to the ideal nearest-neighbor Heisenberg model on the Kagome lattice may result in completely different ground states. Given that small perturbations such as the Dzyaloshinski-Moriya interaction and impurities are indeed likely to be present in herbertsmithites [@rigol], the identification of the true ground state in this material becomes a complex issue. In this context, it is crucial to make testable experimental predictions for various proposed ground states, which then can be used to determine the true nature of the nonmagnetic state discovered in herbertsmithites [@kagome_exp1; @kagome_exp2; @kagome_exp3; @kagome_exp4; @kagome_exp5].
![(Color online) Dimer covering pattern for the valence bond solid phase with a 36-site unit cell. The unit cell with 36 sites (or 18 dimers) is indicated by the enclosing dotted line. Thick solid bars denote singlet dimers. We use numbers between 1 and 9 to represent surrounding dimers (light-blue bars) while core dimers (dark-blue bars) are denoted by numbers between 10 and 18. Red circles indicate the locations of perfect hexagons. Note that perfect hexagons are made of three neighboring dimers, $(1, 4, 7)$ or $(3, 6, 9)$. The dimers 2, 5, and 8 become bridges connecting perfect hexagons.[]{data-label="fig:VBSpattern"}](fig1.eps){width="6.5cm"}
In this paper, we focus on the valence bond solid ground state with a 36-site unit cell (shown in Fig. \[fig:VBSpattern\]) and compute spin-triplet excitation spectra by using bond opertor formalism. The triplet excitation spectra can be directly measured in future neutron scattering experiments when single crystals become available. The eighteen dimers in a 36-site unit cell can be categorized into two groups: “core" dimers (numbered $10-18$ in Fig. \[fig:VBSpattern\]) including a “pin-wheel" structure at the center and “surrounding" dimers (numbered $1-9$ in Fig. \[fig:VBSpattern\]) including the honeycomb-lattice structure of “perfect hexagons". As shown later, triplet excitations in the core dimers are highly localized and have flat dispersions. On the other hand, triplet excitations in the surrounding dimers can develop a dispersion by hopping around perfect hexagons.
Triplet excitation spectra are obtained by using the fully self-consistent mean-field theory in the bond operator representation. As shown later (see Fig.\[fig:DispersionQuad\] and Fig.\[fig:DispersionQuartic\]), the main feature of the triplet excitation spectra is that a large number of triplet modes are non-dispersive. The lowest triplet excitation is non-dispersive and degenerate with a dispersive mode at the zone center. Away from the zone center, the lowest triplet is separated from two other flat modes by a small energy gap. It is expected that the triplet excitation energies at high symmetric points such as $\Gamma$ and $X$ may be useful for comparison to future neutron scattering experiments on single crystals.
The mean-field energy of the ground state is $-0.427 J$ which is not too bad for a näive mean-field theory when compared to $-0.438 J$ obtained from exact diagonalization of a 36-site cluster [@Leung]. On the other hand, the lowest spin-triplet gap is rather high, namely $0.795 J$, which is expected to be significantly reduced once quantum fluctuations are properly taken into account. It is shown later that the formation of two-triplet bound state can renormalize the lowest spin-triplet gap from $0.795 J$ to $0.622 J$. While it is still larger than $0.164 J$ obtained from exact diagonalization of a 36-site cluster [@Sindzingre], it is certainly in the right direction. Possible origins for the discrepancy are discussed later.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In section \[sec:bondoperator\], physical motivations for studying the VBS state with a 36-site unit cell are provided. In this section, the bond operator representation is explained. In section \[sec:hamiltonian\], the bond operator mean-field theory is developed. Results for the spin-triplet excitation spectra and quantum fluctuation effects are presented in section \[sec:results\]. Finally, in section \[sec:conclusion\] we conclude by making a direct comparison between the lowest spin-triplet excitation obtained from our theory and those from the spin liquid theories. In the spin liquid states, triplet excitations form a continuum. The lower bound of such continuum, or the threshold energy, is given by the convolution of spinon-antispinon excitation spectra. Detailed measurement of the triplet spectra would be a key to the identification of the true ground state.
\[sec:bondoperator\] Motivation for Valence Bond Solid
======================================================
In this section we discuss physical motivations for the valence bond solid (VBS) state with a 36-site unit cell structure. The VBS state with a 36-site unit cell was initially proposed by Marston and Zeng [@Marston] who envisioned the Kagome lattice as a honeycomb-lattice arrangement of perfect hexagons composed of resonant spin singlets. Some time later, Nikolic and Senthil [@Nikolic] provided an argument for the general validity of the 36-site VBS state in the Kagome-lattice antiferromagnet by a duality mapping. The main idea of this work is that the original Kagome-lattice antiferromagnetic model can be mapped to the fully frustrated Ising model on the dual dice lattice with transverse fields. Using a reasonable assumption about the magnitude of the transverse fields relative to the Ising coupling parameter, it is shown that the honeycomb structure of perfect hexagons is likely to be the ground state. Meanwhile, in a series expansion study by Singh and Huse [@Huse], it has been shown that the ground state energy is minimized when perfect hexagons are connected to their neighbors through empty triangles sharing a singlet dimer bond which in turn implies the same honeycomb structure of perfect hexagons as discussed in earlier works.
Here we provide an alternative viewpoint on the origin of the valence bond solid state. We begin by asking what state may be the most stable dimer covering configuration on the Kagome lattice. We argue that the most stable configuration is the dimer covering which maximizes the number of “topologically perpendicular" spin-singlet dimers. This argument is motivated by the exact ground state of the antiferromagnetic Heisenberg model on the Shastry-Sutherland lattice, where all dimers are mutually perpendicular to each other [@ss1]. We use the word “topologically perpendicular" since two neighboring dimers have the identical spin exchange energy as those obtained in the Shastry-Sutherland lattice when a spin belonging to a given dimer shares a triangle with its neighboring dimer.
It can be shown that the pinwheel structure at the core of the unit cell in Fig. \[fig:VBSpattern\] is the configuration maximizing the number of “topologically perpendicular" dimers. The rest of the dimer covering falls into the honeycomb array of perfect hexagons. While the final conclusion is exactly the same as before, there is an additional advantage over the previous arguments. Our point of view naturally leads to the fact that core dimers are decoupled from surrounding dimers. To see this, it is convenient to use a mathematical formalism which uses the spin-singlet degree of freedom as a natural building block of the VBS phase. The bond operator representation is such a formalism [@sachdev; @Gopalan; @kpark].
Let us consider two neighboring $S=\frac{1}{2}$ spins, ${\bf S}_R$ and ${\bf S}_L$. The Hilbert space is spanned by four states which can be decomposed into a singlet state, $|s\rangle$, and three triplet state, $|t_{x}\rangle$, $|t_{y}\rangle$ and $|t_{z}\rangle$. Then, singlet and triplet boson operators are introduced such that each of the above states can be created from the vacuum $|0\rangle$ as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
|s\rangle &=s^{\dagger} |0\rangle =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}
(|\uparrow\downarrow\rangle-|\downarrow\uparrow\rangle ),
\nonumber\\
|t_{x}\rangle &=t_{x}^{\dagger} |0\rangle =-\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}
(|\uparrow\uparrow\rangle-|\downarrow\downarrow\rangle ),
\nonumber\\
|t_{y}\rangle &=t_{y}^{\dagger} |0\rangle =\frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}
(|\uparrow\uparrow\rangle+|\downarrow\downarrow\rangle ),
\nonumber\\
|t_{z}\rangle &=t_{z}^{\dagger} |0\rangle =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}
(|\uparrow\downarrow\rangle+|\downarrow\uparrow\rangle ).\end{aligned}$$ To eliminate unphysical states from the enlarged Hilbert space, the following constraint needs to be imposed on the bond-particle Hilbert space: $$\label{eq:constraint}
s^{\dagger}s +t_{\alpha}^{\dagger}t_{\alpha} = 1,$$ where $\alpha=x,y,$ and $z$, and we adopt the summation convention for the repeated index hereafter unless mentioned otherwise.
Constrained by this equation, the exact expressions for the spin operators can be written in terms of the bond operators. $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:bond-ops}
S_{R\alpha}&=\frac{1}{2}(s^{\dag}t_{\alpha} +t_{\alpha}^{\dag}s
-i\varepsilon_{\alpha\beta\gamma}t_{\beta}^{\dag}t_{\gamma}),
\nonumber\\
S_{L\alpha}&=\frac{1}{2}(-s^{\dag}t_{\alpha} -t_{\alpha}^{\dag}s
-i\varepsilon_{\alpha\beta\gamma}t_{\beta}^{\dag}t_{\gamma}),\end{aligned}$$ where $\varepsilon_{\alpha\beta\gamma}$ is the third rank antisymmetric tensor with $\varepsilon_{xyz}=1$.
When neighboring dimers are “topologically perpendicular", spin-singlet contributions from both of the constituent spins of the neighboring dimer exactly cancel out. This cancellation can be seen in the bond operator representation of spin operators in Eq. (\[eq:bond-ops\]) where it is shown that a pair of the spin operators within the same dimer have the opposite sign in the parts containing spin singlets. This results in the Hamiltonian with no dispersive quadratic part for core triplets, which eventually gives rise to nine-fold degenerate flat bands plotted in Fig. \[fig:DispersionQuad\] and \[fig:DispersionQuartic\] in Sec. \[sec:results\]. This fact is completely consistent with conclusions from the series expansion studies [@Huse2; @Huse].
In conclusion, the honeycomb lattice of perfect hexagons is a stable dimer covering maximizing the number of “topologically perpendicular" dimers, which in turn naturally suggests decoupling of core dimers from surrounding ones. Since the bond operator representation is a perfect theoretical framework for such situation, we use it to analyze the Kagome-lattice antiferromagnetic Heisenberg model.
Since we expect qualitatively different behaviors between core and surrounding dimers, we introduce a different set of parameters for their singlet condensate densities, $\langle s_{{\bf i},n}\rangle$ = $\bar{s}_{n}$ and chemical potentials, $\mu_{{\bf i},n}$. Here ${\bf i}$ denotes the position of the unit cell located at ${\bf i}$ and $n$ indicates the dimer index inside the unit cell. Furthermore, it is expected that the dynamics is different for the dimers within perfect hexagons (the dimers 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 9 in Fig. \[fig:VBSpattern\]) and those bridging perfect hexagons (the dimers 2, 5, 8 in Fig. \[fig:VBSpattern\]). Therefore, we introduce $\bar{s}_{C}$, $\mu_{C}$ for nine core dimers, $\bar{s}_{H}$, $\mu_{H}$ for six surrounding dimers of perfect hexagons, and $\bar{s}_{Br}$, $\mu_{Br}$ for three bridging dimers connecting perfect hexagons. Technical details of the bond operator analysis are provided in the next section. Readers who are only interested in the results may directly go to Sec. \[sec:results\].
\[sec:hamiltonian\] Hamiltonian and the Mean Field Theory
=========================================================
We consider the following Hamiltonian for the Heisenberg model: $$\begin{aligned}
H_J = \sum_{\langle {\bf r},{\bf r}' \rangle} J_{{\bf r},{\bf r}'}
{\bf S}({\bf r}) \cdot {\bf S}({\bf r}')\end{aligned}$$ where ${\bf r}$ indicates the original coordinate of the lattice, $J_{{\bf r},{\bf r}'}=J$ within dimers, and $J_{{\bf r},{\bf
r}'}=\lambda J$ between neighboring sites belonging to different dimers. Utilizing the bond operator representation of spin operators, the Hamiltonian can be rewritten solely in terms of bond particle operators. At this point the hard-core constraint among bond particle operators is imposed via the Lagrange multiplier method; $$\begin{aligned}
H_\mu = -\sum_{{\bf i},n} \mu_{{\bf i},n} (\bar{s}^2_{
n}+t^{\dagger}_{{\bf i},n\alpha}t_{{\bf i},n\alpha}-1),\end{aligned}$$ where $({\bf i},n)$ denotes the position of the $n$-th dimer in the unit cell located at ${\bf i}$. The chemical potential, $\mu_{{\bf i},n}$, is set to be $\mu_C$ for core dimers, $\mu_H$ for perfect hexagon dimers, and $\mu_{Br}$ for bridge dimers. Similarly, the spin-singlet condensate density, $\bar{s}_{n}$, is set to be $\bar{s}_C$ for core dimers, $\bar{s}_H$ for perfect hexagon dimers, and $\bar{s}_{Br}$ for bridge dimers.
The total Hamiltonian, $H=H_J+H_\mu$, can be written as follows: $$H=N\epsilon_{0} +H_\textrm{Quad, Core}+H_\textrm{Quad,
Surrounding}+H_\textrm{Quartic} , \label{H_total}$$ where $H_\textrm{Quad, Core}$ denotes the quadratic part of the Hamiltonian for core triplets while $H_\textrm{Quad, Surrounding}$ represents for surrounding triplets. In the above, $N$ is the number of unit cells and $$\begin{aligned}
\epsilon_{0}
&=9\left[\mu_{C}(1-{\bar{s}_{C}}^{2})-\frac{3}{4}J{\bar{s}_{C}}^{2}\right]\nonumber\\
&+6\left[\mu_{H}(1-{\bar{s}_{H}}^{2})-\frac{3}{4}J{\bar{s}_{H}}^{2}\right]\nonumber\\
&+3\left[\mu_{Br}(1-{\bar{s}_{Br}}^{2})-\frac{3}{4}J{\bar{s}_{Br}}^{2}\right].\end{aligned}$$ It is important to note that the Hamiltonian does not have the coupling between core and surrounding triplets at the quadratic level. As shown in Sec. \[sec:results\], the absence of quadratic coupling is crucial for a complete decoupling between core and surrounding triplets.
The quadratic Hamiltonian for core dimers is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{H_core} H_\textrm{Quad, Core}
&=\left(\frac{J}{4}-\mu_{C}\right)\sum_{\textbf{k}}\sum_{n=10}^{18}
t^{\dag}_{n\alpha}(\textbf{k})t_{n\alpha}(\textbf{k}),\end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha=x,y,$ and $z$. Also, the quadratic Hamiltonian for surrounding dimers is given by $$\begin{aligned}
H_\textrm{Quad, Surrounding} &=
H_\textrm{Quad,0}+H_\textrm{Quad,A}
+H_\textrm{Quad,B}+H_\textrm{Quad,C} \label{H_surrounding}\end{aligned}$$ where $H_\textrm{Quad,0}$ denotes the quadratic Hamiltonian of triplet operators within a unit cell. $H_\textrm{Quad,A}$, $H_\textrm{Quad,B}$, and $H_\textrm{Quad,C}$ describe quadratic coupling between a given unit cell and neighboring unit cells separated by displacement vectors, ${\bf r}_A$, ${\bf r}_B$, and ${\bf r}_C$, respectively. These displacement vectors are defined as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
{\bf r}_{A}&=4\sqrt{3}a\hat{x}, \nonumber \\
{\bf r}_{B}&=2\sqrt{3}a\hat{x}-6a\hat{y}, \nonumber \\
{\bf r}_{C}&=\textbf{${\bf r}_{B}$}-\textbf{${\bf
r}_{A}$}=-2\sqrt{3}a\hat{x}-6a\hat{y} ,\end{aligned}$$ where $a$ is the distance between nearest neighbor spins. More explicitly, we get $$\begin{aligned}
&H_\textrm{Quad,0}=\left(\frac{J}{4}-\mu_{H}\right)\sum_{\textbf{k}}\sum_{n
\in g_{H}} t^{\dag}_{n\alpha}(\textbf{k})t_{n\alpha}(\textbf{k})
\nonumber\\
&\qquad+\left(\frac{J}{4}-\mu_{Br}\right)\sum_{\textbf{k}}\sum_{n
\in g_{Br}} t^{\dag}_{n\alpha}(\textbf{k})t_{n\alpha}(\textbf{k})
\nonumber\\
&+\frac{{\bar{s}_{H}\bar{s}_{Br}}\lambda J}{4}\sum_{(m,n)\in
G_{s}}\sum_{\textbf{k}} \Big\{ [
t^{\dag}_{m\alpha}(\textbf{k})t_{n\alpha}(\textbf{k})+\textrm{H.
c.}]
\nonumber\\
&\qquad\qquad\qquad+[
t^{\dag}_{m\alpha}(\textbf{k})t^{\dag}_{n\alpha}(-\textbf{k})+\textrm{H.
c.}] \Big\}\end{aligned}$$ with $g_{H} = \{1,4,7,3,6,9 \}$, $g_{Br} = \{2,5,8 \}$, and $
G_{S}=\{(1,2),(2,3),(4,5),(5,6),(7,8),(8,9)\}$. Furthermore, $$\begin{aligned}
&H_\textrm{Quad,A}=
\nonumber\\
&-\frac{{\bar{s}_{H}}^{2}\lambda J}{4}\sum_{(m,n)\in
G_{A,H}}\sum_{\textbf{k}} \Big\{ [e^{i {\bf k}\cdot{\bf r}_{A}}
t^{\dag}_{m\alpha}(\textbf{k})t_{n\alpha}(\textbf{k})+\textrm{H.
c.}]
\nonumber\\
&\qquad\qquad\qquad+[ e^{i{\bf k}\cdot{\bf
r}_{A}}t^{\dag}_{m\alpha}(\textbf{k})t^{\dag}_{n\alpha}(-\textbf{k})+\textrm{H.
c.}]
\Big\} \nonumber\\
&-\frac{{\bar{s}_{H}\bar{s}_{Br}}\lambda J}{4}\sum_{(m,n)\in
G_{A,Br}}\sum_{\textbf{k}} \Big\{ [e^{i{\bf k}\cdot{\bf r}_{A}}
t^{\dag}_{m\alpha}(\textbf{k})t_{n\alpha}(\textbf{k})+\textrm{H.
c.}]
\nonumber\\
&\qquad\qquad\qquad+[ e^{i{\bf k}\cdot{\bf
r}_{A}}t^{\dag}_{m\alpha}(\textbf{k})t^{\dag}_{n\alpha}(-\textbf{k})+\textrm{H.
c.}] \Big\},\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
G_{A,H}=\{(1,4),(9,6)\} ,\quad G_{A,Br}=\{(1,5),(9,5)\}.\end{aligned}$$ $H_\textrm{Quad,B}$ and $H_\textrm{Quad,C}$ can be obtained from $H_\textrm{Quad,A}$ by replacing (i) ${\bf r}_A$ by ${\bf
r}_B$ and ${\bf r}_C$ and (ii) $(G_{A,H}, G_{A,Br})$ by $(G_{B,H},
G_{B,Br})$ and $(G_{C,H}, G_{C,Br})$, respectively. Here, $$\begin{aligned}
G_{B,H}&=\{(9,3),(7,4) \},\quad G_{B,Br}=\{(8,3),(8,4) \}, \nonumber\\
G_{C,H}&=\{(7,1),(6,3) \},\quad G_{C,Br}=\{(7,2),(6,2) \}.\end{aligned}$$
The quartic interaction part of the Hamiltonian is analyzed in the Hartree-Fock mean-field theory via quadratic decoupling. The resulting mean-field Hamiltonian is written as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
H_\textrm{Quartic} &=H_\textrm{Quartic,0}+H_\textrm{Quartic,A}
+H_\textrm{Quartic,B}+H_\textrm{Quartic,C}\end{aligned}$$ where, similar to the quadratic counterparts, $H_\textrm{Quartic,0}$ denotes the quartic Hamiltonian of triplet operators within a unit cell. $H_\textrm{Quartic,A}$, $H_\textrm{Quartic,B}$, and $H_\textrm{Quartic,C}$ describe quartic coupling between a given unit cell and neighboring unit cells separated by displacement vectors, ${\bf r}_A$, ${\bf r}_B$, and ${\bf r}_C$, respectively. More explicitly, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
&H_\textrm{Quartic,0}=\frac{9}{2}\lambda J(Q_{C}^{2}-P_{C}^{2}+Q_{CS}^{2}-P_{CS}^{2})
\nonumber\\
&+\frac{3}{2}\lambda J(Q_{H}^{2}-P_{H}^{2})+\frac{3}{2}\lambda
J(Q_{Br1}^{2}-P_{Br1}^{2}+Q_{Br2}^{2}-P_{Br2}^{2})
\nonumber\\
&+\frac{\lambda J}{4}\sum_{(m,n)\in G_{S}}\sum_{\textbf{k}} \Big\{
[P_{Br1}
t^{\dag}_{m\alpha}(\textbf{k})t_{n\alpha}(\textbf{k})+\textrm{H.
c.}]
\nonumber\\
&\qquad\qquad\qquad-[Q_{Br1}
t^{\dag}_{m\alpha}(\textbf{k})t^{\dag}_{n\alpha}(-\textbf{k})+\textrm{H.
c.}]
\Big\} \nonumber\\
&+\frac{\lambda J}{2}\sum_{(m,n)\in G_{C}}\sum_{\textbf{k}} \Big\{
[P_{C}
t^{\dag}_{m\alpha}(\textbf{k})t_{n\alpha}(\textbf{k})+\textrm{H.
c.}]
\nonumber\\
&\qquad\qquad\qquad-[Q_{C}
t^{\dag}_{m\alpha}(\textbf{k})t^{\dag}_{n\alpha}(-\textbf{k})+\textrm{H.
c.}]
\Big\} \nonumber\\
&+\frac{\lambda J}{2}\sum_{(m,n)\in G_{CS}}\sum_{\textbf{k}}
\Big\{ [P_{CS}
t^{\dag}_{m\alpha}(\textbf{k})t_{n\alpha}(\textbf{k})+\textrm{H.
c.}]
\nonumber\\
&\qquad\qquad\qquad-[Q_{CS}
t^{\dag}_{m\alpha}(\textbf{k})t^{\dag}_{n\alpha}(-\textbf{k})+\textrm{H.
c.}] \Big\}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
G_{C}&=\{(10,11),(11,12),(12,13),(13,14),(14,15),\nonumber\\
&\qquad(15,10),(10,16),(12,17),(14,18) \}, \nonumber\\
G_{CS}&=\{(16,1),(16,9),(17,4),(17,3),(18,7),(18,6),\nonumber\\
&\qquad(11,2),(13,5),(15,8) \}.\end{aligned}$$ One also gets $$\begin{aligned}
&H_\textrm{Quartic,A} \nonumber\\
&=\frac{\lambda
J}{4}\sum_{(m,n)\in G_{A,H}}\sum_{\textbf{k}} \Big\{ [P_{H}e^{i
{\bf k}\cdot{\bf r}_{A}}
t^{\dag}_{m\alpha}(\textbf{k})t_{n\alpha}(\textbf{k})+\textrm{H.
c.}]
\nonumber\\
&\qquad\qquad\qquad-[Q_{H} e^{i {\bf k}\cdot{\bf
r}_{A}}t^{\dag}_{m\alpha}(\textbf{k})t^{\dag}_{n\alpha}(-\textbf{k})+\textrm{H.
c.}]
\Big\} \nonumber\\
&+\frac{\lambda J}{4}\sum_{(m,n)\in G_{A,Br}}\sum_{\textbf{k}}
\Big\{ [P_{Br2}e^{i {\bf k}\cdot{\bf r}_{A}}
t^{\dag}_{m\alpha}(\textbf{k})t_{n\alpha}(\textbf{k})+\textrm{H.
c.}]
\nonumber\\
&\qquad\qquad\qquad-[Q_{Br2} e^{i {\bf k}\cdot{\bf
r}_{A}}t^{\dag}_{m\alpha}(\textbf{k})t^{\dag}_{n\alpha}(-\textbf{k})+\textrm{H.
c.}] \Big\},\end{aligned}$$ Similar to the quadratic case, $H_\textrm{Quartic,B}$ and $H_\textrm{Quartic,C}$ can be obtained from $H_\textrm{Quartic,A}$ by replacing (i) ${\bf r}_A$ by ${\bf r}_B$ and ${\bf r}_C$ and (ii) $(G_{A,H}, G_{A,Br})$ by $(G_{B,H}, G_{B,Br})$ and $(G_{C,H},
G_{C,Br})$, respectively.
The above mean-field order parameters, $P_{H}$, $Q_{H}$, $P_{Br1}$, $Q_{Br1}$, $P_{Br2}$, $Q_{Br2}$, $P_{C}$, $Q_{C}$, $P_{CS}$, and $Q_{CS}$, are determined by solving a coupled set of ten self-consistency equations. In other words, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:orderparameter}
P_{\gamma} &\equiv \langle t^{\dag}_{{\bf i}, n\alpha} t_{{\bf j},
m \alpha} \rangle, \;\; Q_{\gamma} \equiv \langle t_{{\bf i}, n
\alpha} t_{{\bf j}, m \alpha} \rangle
\nonumber\\\end{aligned}$$ where $({\bf i},{\bf j})$ indicates the positions of the neighboring unit cells and $\gamma \in (C, H, Br1, Br2, CS)$, both of which are related to the dimer index pair, $(n,m)$. To be specific, if $(n,m) \in G_C$, $\gamma=C$ and ${\bf j}={\bf i}$. If $(n,m) \in G_S$, $\gamma=Br1$ and ${\bf j}={\bf i}$. On the other hand, if $(n,m) \in G_{A,H}$, $\gamma=H$ and ${\bf j}-{\bf i}=
{\bf r}_A$. Those for $G_{B,H}$ and $G_{C,H}$ are defined similarly. Also, if $(n,m) \in G_{A,Br}$, $\gamma=Br2$ and ${\bf
j}-{\bf i}= {\bf r}_A$. Those for $G_{B,Br}$ and $G_{C,Br}$ are defined similarly. Finally, if $(n,m) \in G_{CS}$, $\gamma=CS$ and ${\bf j}={\bf i}$.
In physical terms, $P_{C}$ and $Q_{C}$ describe the diagonal and off-diagonal triplet correlations between core dimers, respectively. In the case of surrounding dimers, six order parameters are introduced. First, $P_{H}$ and $Q_{H}$ denote correlations between dimers within perfect hexagons. The other four order parameters, $(P_{Br1},
Q_{Br1})$ and $(P_{Br2}, Q_{Br2})$, represent correlations between a bridge dimer and two neighboring dimers belonging to the nearby perfect hexagons. In particular, $(P_{Br1}, Q_{Br1})$ describes the correlations between a given bridge dimer and the dimer lying inside the nearby perfect hexagon in its parallel direction. $(P_{Br2}, Q_{Br2})$ denotes the other correlations. A schematic diagram showing the definition of these order parameters is provided in the top panel of Fig.\[fig:OrderParameter\]. Finally, $P_{CS}$ and $Q_{CS}$ indicate the correlations between core and surrounding dimers.
![(Color online) Mean-field order parameters, $P$ and $Q$, as a function of $\lambda$. The top figure depicts dimer covering of the valence bond solid state in the vicinity of a perfect hexagon, which also shows how various $Q$’s are defined. Note that each $Q$ describes an off-diagonal correlation between two dimers connected by corresponding arrows. Diagonal correlations, $P_{H}$, $P_{Br1}$, and $P_{Br2}$, are defined in the same way. It is interesting to note that $Q_{Br1}$ $(P_{Br1})$ and $Q_{Br2}$ $(P_{Br2})$ have opposite signs. []{data-label="fig:OrderParameter"}](fig2.eps){width="8cm"}
In order to determine the ten mean-field order parameters defined above, one needs to compute yet another six unknown parameters which are three spin-singlet condensate densities, $\bar{s}_{C}$, $\bar{s}_{H}$, and $\bar{s}_{Br}$, and three chemical potentials, $\mu_{C}$, $\mu_{H}$, and $\mu_{Br}$. The hard-core constraints for bond operators provide three equations: $$\begin{aligned}
&\bar{s}_{C}^{2}=1-\frac{1}{9 N}\sum_{n=10}^{18}\sum_{\textbf{k}}
\langle
t^{\dag}_{n\alpha}(\textbf{k})t_{n\alpha}(\textbf{k})\rangle,
\nonumber\\
&\bar{s}_{H}^{2}=1-\frac{1}{6 N}\sum_{n \in
g_{H}}\sum_{\textbf{k}} \langle
t^{\dag}_{n\alpha}(\textbf{k})t_{n\alpha}(\textbf{k})\rangle,
\nonumber\\
&\bar{s}_{Br}^{2}=1-\frac{1}{3 N}\sum_{n \in
g_{Br}}\sum_{\textbf{k}} \langle
t^{\dag}_{n\alpha}(\textbf{k})t_{n\alpha}(\textbf{k})\rangle.\end{aligned}$$ On the other hand, the energy minimization with respect to spin-singlet condensate densities generate the other three necessary equations: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial \varepsilon_{gr}}{\partial \bar{s}_{C}}=0, \quad
\frac{\partial \varepsilon_{gr}}{\partial \bar{s}_{H}}=0, \quad
\frac{\partial \varepsilon_{gr}}{\partial \bar{s}_{Br}}=0.\end{aligned}$$
Now the ground state energy and excitation spectra can be obtained as follows. For this purpose, the mean-field Hamiltonian is rewritten in the following compact fashion: $$\begin{aligned}
H=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{\textbf{k}} {\bf \Lambda}_{\alpha}^{\dag} {\bf M}
{\bf \Lambda}_{\alpha} -\frac{3}{4} \textrm{Tr} {\bf M},\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
{\bf \Lambda}_{\alpha}^{\dagger}(\textbf{k}) &\equiv \left[ t^{\dag}_{1
\alpha}(\textbf{k}), \ldots, t^{\dag}_{18 \alpha}(\textbf{k}),
t_{1 \alpha}(-\textbf{k}), \ldots, t_{18 \alpha}(-\textbf{k})
\right]\end{aligned}$$ and the matrix, ${\bf M}$, is determined by simply reorganizing the mean-field Hamiltonian.
It is important to note that our Hamiltonian describes dynamics of boson operators, in which case obtaining normal modes of the Hamiltonian is not equivalent to diagonalizing the matrix ${\bf
M}$ in the above. Instead, we need to consider the following eigenvalue problem [@Blaizot]: $$\begin{aligned}
{\bf I}_{B}{\bf M} {\bf \Psi} = \omega {\bf \Psi}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
{\bf I}_{B}= \left( \begin{array}{ccc}
{\bf I} & {\bf 0} \\
{\bf 0} & -{\bf I} \\
\end{array} \right)\end{aligned}$$ with ${\bf I}$ being the $18 \times 18$ identity matrix and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:eigenvector}
{\bf \Psi} = \left( \begin{array}{ccc}
{\bf \eta} \\
{\bf \xi} \\
\end{array} \right)\end{aligned}$$ with ${\bf \eta}^t=(\eta_{1},\ldots ,\eta_{18})$ and ${\bf
\xi}^t=(\xi_{1},\ldots ,\xi_{18})$. This difference between fermionic and bosonic problems fundamentally originates from the difference in their operator commutation relations.
\[sec:results\] Results
=======================
Ground state energy
-------------------
The ground state energy per unit cell is obtained by solving the eigenvalue equation described in the preceding section. In other words, $$\begin{aligned}
\varepsilon_{gr} &=\epsilon_{0}+\frac{9}{2}\lambda J
(Q_{C}^{2}-P_{C}^{2}+Q_{CS}^{2}-P_{CS}^{2})
\nonumber\\
&\qquad+\frac{3}{2}\lambda J (Q_{H}^{2}-P_{H}^{2})
\nonumber \\
&\qquad+\frac{3}{2} \lambda J
(Q_{Br1}^{2}-P_{Br1}^{2}+Q_{Br2}^{2}-P_{Br2}^{2})
\nonumber \\
&\qquad+\frac{3}{2}\frac{1}{N}\sum_{\textbf{k}}\sum_{n=1}^{18}
\omega_{n}(\textbf{k})-\frac{18}{2}\Big(\frac{J}{4}-\mu_{H}\Big)
\nonumber \\
&\qquad-\frac{9}{2}\Big(\frac{J}{4}-\mu_{Br}\Big)
-\frac{27}{2}\Big(\frac{J}{4}-\mu_{C}\Big),\end{aligned}$$ where $\omega_n$ $(n=1,\dots,18)$ are triplet eigenenergies obtained from diagonalization. As mentioned previously, the ground state energy is minimized with respect to spin-singlet condensate densities. Note that the minimization process is performed simultaneously satisfying the ten self-consistency conditions and three hard-core constraints.
Now let us discuss numerical results. When quartic interactions are completely ignored, the ground state energy per site is found to be $-0.414 J$ at $\lambda = 1$. The inclusion of quartic interactions lowers the ground state energy to $-0.427 J$ per site, which can be favorably compared with $-0.438 J$ from exact diagonalization [@Leung]. This result is quite encouraging given that it is obtained from a naive mean-field theory. This perhaps indicates the robustness of the VBS state.
Triplet dispersions without quartic interactions
------------------------------------------------
We now discuss the energy dispersion of triplet excitations. In this section quartic interaction terms are ignored. The analysis of quartic interaction effects is relegated to the next section. One of the reasons why we first focus on the quadratic part of the Hamiltonian is that the overall structure of the dispersion is well captured even at the quadratic level. The inclusion of quartic interaction terms modifies the dispersion only quantitatively.
As seen in Eq. (\[H\_core\]), core triplets have no dispersions. In this situation the ground-state energy minimization condition immediately leads to the conclusion that $\bar{s}_{C} = 1$ and $\mu_{C} = -0.75 J$, which implies that in the core part of the unit cell triplet fluctuations are entirely absent and triplet excitations are completely localized. As mentioned previously, the reason for this complete localization has to do with the dimer covering structure of the valence bond solid phase. The key fact is that every core dimer is “topologically perpendicular" to its neighboring dimers in the sense that each spin belonging to a core dimer shares a triangle with its neighboring dimer. This results in the Hamiltonian with no dispersive quadratic part for core triplets, which gives rise to nine-fold degenerate flat bands plotted as a dotted line in Fig. \[fig:DispersionQuad\].
![(Color online) Energy dispersion of the triplet excitations when quartic interaction effects are ignored. The dotted line describes the nine-fold degenerate triplet states from core dimers. The solid lines denote the nine triplet states from surrounding dimers. []{data-label="fig:DispersionQuad"}](fig3.eps){width="6.5cm"}
Now let us turn to the remaining nine triplets in the surrounding dimers. After diagonalizing the corresponding bosonic Hamiltonian via the method described in the preceding section, mean-field parameters, $\bar{s}_{H}$,$\bar{s}_{Br}$, $\mu_{H}$, and $\mu_{Br}$, are self-consistently determined. Fig. \[fig:DispersionQuad\] shows the resulting dispersion of nine triplet excitations at the isotropic exchange limit of $\lambda=1$. It is convenient at this point to classify characteristics of these eigenmodes using group theory. Since the unit cell possesses the $C_{3}$ point group symmetry, the states at the $\Gamma$ point can be decomposed with respect to irreducible representations of the $C_{3}$ point group. A representation, $R$, can be decomposed in the basis containing nine triplets localized at each dimer as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:group}
R=3 A \bigoplus 3 E\end{aligned}$$ where $A$ is an one-dimensional representation and $E$ is a two-dimensional one. (See Ref. for standard conventions and notations.)
The lowest flat mode belonging to the E irreducible representation is degenerate with a dispersive mode at the $\Gamma$ point ($E_{1}$ mode in Fig.\[fig:DispersionQuad\]). There are two other flat modes ($A_{1}$ and $A_{2}$) which are separated from the lowest flat mode by a small gap. These states have $A$ characters and are completely localized within perfect hexagons. The fifth dispersive mode ($A_{3}$) is another $A$ mode. The remaining four modes belong to the E irreducible representation and make two doubly degenerate states at the $\Gamma$ point ($E_{2}$ and $E_{3}$). Real space representations of the five flat mode eigenvectors are shown in Fig. \[fig:Amode\] and \[fig:Emode\]. Details of these eigenvectors for non-dispersive modes are further analyzed in the next section where their explicit forms are also presented. In the next section we study quartic interaction effects via the self-consistent mean-field theory.
![(Color online) Real space representation of the eigenvectors of the flat A mode at the $\Gamma$ point. The size of ovals and the sign inside indicate relative weights and phases of the amplitude at each dimer, respectively. (a) One of the flat $A$ modes with the energy eigenvalue $\Omega_{A}$. Triplets around each perfect hexagon have the same phases and weights. Two different flat $A$ modes are distinguished by relative phases between neighboring perfect hexagons. (b) Local geometry around a perfect hexagon. Here red dots indicate the position of R-spins within a dimer. See Eq. (\[eq:bond-ops\]) for the definition of the R-spin.[]{data-label="fig:Amode"}](fig4.eps){width="7cm"}
![(Color online) Real space representation of the eigenvectors of the flat E modes. To avoid degeneracy eigenvectors are computed slightly away from the $\Gamma$ point to the direction of the K point, for (a) $E_1$ mode, (b) $E_2$ mode, and (c) $E_3$ mode. Note that the size of ovals and the sign indicate relative weights and phases of the amplitude at each dimer, respectively. []{data-label="fig:Emode"}](fig5.eps){height="7cm"}
Triplet dispersions with quartic interactions
---------------------------------------------
In this section we solve the total Hamiltonian containing contributions from all eighteen dimers in the unit cell. The fully self-consistent calculation, however, shows that core dimers are still completely decoupled from surrounding dimers and remain flat in energy. In other words, $$\begin{aligned}
P_{C}=Q_{C}=P_{CS}=Q_{CS}=0, \quad \bar{s}_{C}=1, \quad
\mu_{C}=-0.75 J.\end{aligned}$$
On the other hand, surrounding dimers experience band renormalization due to finite triplet correlations, $P$ and $Q$. Order parameters for the triplet correlations are plotted as a function of $\lambda$ in Fig.\[fig:OrderParameter\]. The order parameters are shown to have the largest value inside perfect hexagons which in turn implies that vacuum fluctuation is strongest at this location. Triplet correlations between bridge and perfect hexagon dimers are also quite large, about $86 \%$ of those between perfect hexagon dimers. It is interesting to note that $Q_{Br1}$ $(P_{Br1})$ and $Q_{Br2}$ $(P_{Br2})$ are the same in magnitude but are the opposite in sign. In Fig.\[fig:DispersionQuartic\] we plot the triplet dispersions obtained from fully self-consistent parameters at $\lambda=1$. The overall structure is identical to that obtained by ignoring quartic interaction terms.
![(Color online) Energy dispersion of the triplet excitations when quartic interaction effects are included in the self-consistent mean-field theory. Away from the zone center, the lowest flat mode is separated from doubly-degenerate flat $A$ modes by a small gap, $\Delta_{0}$ $\cong$ 0.069 J. Eigenenergies of the flat modes are shown on the right hand side of the plot, where subscripts indicate the irreducible representation of each state at the $\Gamma$ point. []{data-label="fig:DispersionQuartic"}](fig6.eps){width="7cm"}
One of the most interesting characteristics of the triplet dispersion is the existence of a large number of flat bands. Among the nine modes coming from surrounding dimers, five states have no dispersion. (If one includes the flat modes originating from core dimers, fourteen states out of eighteen are flat in energy.) These five flat modes are categorized in terms of the $C_3$ point group symmetry at the $\Gamma$ point. In the right hand side of Fig.\[fig:DispersionQuartic\], each mode is indicated by $\Omega_{A_1}$, $\Omega_{A_2}$, $\Omega_{E_{1}}$, $\Omega_{E_{2}}$, and $\Omega_{E_{3}}$, respectively (these are also energy eigenvalues). Note that $\Omega_{A}$ = $\Omega_{A_{1}}$ = $\Omega_{A_{2}}$ and $\Omega_{E_{1}}$ $<$ $\Omega_{E_{2}}$ $<$ $\Omega_{E_{3}}$. In the above notations subscripts denote irreducible representations to which each flat mode belongs.
It is interesting to note that the eigenvalue equation can be solved exactly for the flat modes. The precise analytic expressions for the flat mode eigenvalues are given as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:eigenvalues}
\Omega_{A_{1}} &=\Omega_{A_{2}} =\sqrt{(a_{H} - 2 b_{H})^{2} - 4 q_{H}^{2}}, \nonumber\\
\Omega_{E_{2}} &=\sqrt{(a_{H} + b_{H})^{2} - q_{H}^{2}}, \nonumber\\
\Omega_{E_{1}} &=\Omega_{-}, \quad \Omega_{E_{3}} =\Omega_{+},\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\Omega_{\pm}^{2} =\frac{1}{2} \left[
a_{Br}^{2}+(a_{H}+b_{H})^{2}-q_{H}^{2}-12(q_{Br}^{2}-b_{Br}^{2})\pm
\sqrt{D} \right],\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
D &= \left[ a_{Br}^{2}-(a_{H}+b_{H})^{2}+q_{H}^{2}\right]^{2} \nonumber\\
&-24 (q_{Br}^{2}-b_{Br}^{2}) \left[ a_{Br}^{2}+(a_{H}+b_{H})^{2}-q_{H}^{2} \right]\nonumber\\
&+24 a_{Br}\Big[(q_{Br}+b_{Br})^{2}(a_{H}+b_{H}-q_{H}) \nonumber\\
&+(q_{Br}-b_{Br})^{2}(a_{H}+b_{H}+q_{H})\Big],\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
a_{H}&=\frac{J}{4}-\mu_{H}, \quad a_{Br}=\frac{J}{4}-\mu_{Br}, \nonumber\\
b_{H}&=\frac{\lambda J}{4}(\bar{s}_{H}^{2}-P_{H}),\quad b_{Br}=\frac{\lambda J}{4}(\bar{s}_{H}\bar{s}_{Br}-P_{Br2}), \nonumber\\
q_{H}&=\frac{\lambda J}{4}(\bar{s}_{H}^{2}+Q_{H}),\quad
q_{Br}=\frac{\lambda J}{4}(\bar{s}_{H}\bar{s}_{Br}+Q_{Br2}).\end{aligned}$$
It is important to notice that the eigenvalues, $\Omega_{A_{1}}$, $\Omega_{A_{2}}$, and $\Omega_{E_{2}}$, are completely determined by the parameters defined inside perfect hexagons. In fact, the same energy eigenvalues are obtained by applying the bond operator theory to a single isolated perfect hexagon using the mean-field order parameters, $\mu_{H}$, $\bar{s}_{H}$, $P_{H}$, and $Q_{H}$. This means that for the flat $A$ and $E_2$ modes a simple product of perfect-hexagon eigenstates becomes that of the full Kagome lattice, at least in the self-consistent mean-field theory.
As mentioned in the previous section, the flat $A$ modes are completely localized within perfect hexagons, [*i. e. *]{}, there is no weight for the bridge dimers. Here triplets around each perfect hexagon have the same weight and phase while the $A_1$ and $A_2$ modes are distinguished by a relative phase difference in neighboring perfect hexagons. The $E_2$ mode is also localized within perfect hexagons. The difference between the flat $A$ and $E_2$ modes originates from the fact that they represent different eigenstates of the isolated perfect-hexagon. Schematic diagrams for the real space representation of these flat modes are provided in Fig. \[fig:Amode\] and \[fig:Emode\], which show the relative weight and sign of the eigenvector amplitudes at each real space dimer location.
To understand the flat nature of the $A$ modes, one needs to examine the local geometry around a perfect hexagon which is plotted in Fig. \[fig:Amode\](b). As seen in Eq. (\[eq:bond-ops\]), two constituent spins, the $R$ and $L$ spins, within the same dimer are distinguished by the sign difference in the part containing spin singlet operators. This is basically due to the odd parity of the spin singlet under the inversion with respect to the center of the dimer. The $R$-spins are denoted by red dots in Fig. \[fig:Amode\](b). Because of the three-fold rotational symmetry, every spin from bridge dimers is simultaneously connected to both $R$ and $L$ spins of the perfect hexagon dimers. Due to the above-mentioned sign difference, hopping amplitudes between perfect hexagon and bridge dimers cancel, leading to the complete localization within perfect hexagons. The flat $E_2$ mode can be understood similarly.
We now present precise analytic expressions for the eigenvectors of all five flat modes in Table \[table:fulleigenvector\]. The prefactors, $\tau_M$, in Table \[table:fulleigenvector\] denote the relative magnitudes of the hole (particle) component in the Bogoliubov quasiparticles (quasiholes), which are given as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\tau_{A_{1}} &= \tau_{A_{2}} =\frac{a_{H} - 2 b_{H} -
\Omega_{H}}{2 q_{H}}, \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\tau_{E_{2}} &= \frac{\Omega_{E_{2}}-a_{H} -
b_{H}}{q_{H}},\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\tau_{E_{1}} &= \frac{(\Omega_{E_{1}}^{2}-a_{Br}^{2})(\Omega_{E_{1}}-a_{H}-b_{H})}{q_{H}(\Omega_{E_{1}}^{2}-a_{Br}^{2}) + 12 a_{Br}b_{Br}q_{Br}}\nonumber\\
&-\frac{ \Big\{6 \Omega_{E_{1}}(b_{Br}^{2}-q_{Br}^{2})+ 6
a_{Br}(b_{Br}^{2}+q_{Br}^{2}) \Big \} }
{q_{H}(\Omega_{E_{1}}^{2}-a_{Br}^{2}) + 12 a_{Br}b_{Br}q_{Br}},
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\tau_{E_{3}} &= \frac{(\Omega_{E_{3}}^{2}-a_{Br}^{2})(\Omega_{E_{3}}-a_{H}-b_{H})}{q_{H}(\Omega_{E_{3}}^{2}-a_{Br}^{2}) + 12 a_{Br}b_{Br}q_{Br}}\nonumber\\
&-\frac{ \Big\{6 \Omega_{E_{3}}(b_{Br}^{2}-q_{Br}^{2})+ 6
a_{Br}(b_{Br}^{2}+q_{Br}^{2}) \Big \} }
{q_{H}(\Omega_{E_{3}}^{2}-a_{Br}^{2}) + 12 a_{Br}b_{Br}q_{Br}}.\end{aligned}$$ Note that $\tau_{A_1}$, $\tau_{A_2}$ and $\tau_{E_2}$ depend only on the perfect hexagon parameters. The coefficients, $c_{1}$ $(d_1)$ and $c_{3}$ $(d_{3})$ indicate the relative magnitude of coupling between perfect hexagon and bridge dimers in the $E_{1}$ and $E_{3}$ modes, respectively. More explicitly, one obtains $$\begin{aligned}
c_{1} &=\frac{\Omega_{E_{1}}-a_{Br}}{b_{Br}+\tau_{E_{1}}q_{Br}},
\quad
d_{1}=\frac{-\Omega_{E_{1}}-a_{Br}}{b_{Br}+q_{Br}/\tau_{E_{1}}}, \nonumber\\
c_{3} &=\frac{\Omega_{E_{3}}-a_{Br}}{b_{Br}+\tau_{E_{3}}q_{Br}},
\quad
d_{3}=\frac{-\Omega_{E_{3}}-a_{Br}}{b_{Br}+q_{Br}/\tau_{E_{3}}}.\end{aligned}$$ Note that the eigenvector amplitudes in bridge dimers, [*i. e. *]{}, $(\eta_2,\eta_5,\eta_8)$ and $(\xi_2,\xi_5,\xi_8)$, are zero for the flat $A_1$, $A_2$ and $E_2$ modes, which confirms that they are completely localized within perfect hexagons.
$A_{1}$ $A_{2}$ $E_{1}$ $E_{2}$ $E_{3}$
-------------------- ------------------ ------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------
$\eta_{1}$ $z_{1}^{*}z_{2}$ $z_{1}^{*}z_{2}$ $2-z_{1}^{*}-z_{1}^{*}z_{2}$ $2-z_{1}^{*}-z_{1}^{*}z_{2}$ $2-z_{1}^{*}-z_{1}^{*}z_{2}$
$\eta_{4}$ $z_{2}$ $z_{2}$ $2-z_{1}-z_{2}$ $2-z_{1}-z_{2}$ $2-z_{1}-z_{2}$
$\eta_{7}$ $ 1 $ $1$ $2-z_{2}^{*}-z_{2}^{*}z_{1}$ $2-z_{2}^{*}-z_{2}^{*}z_{1}$ $2-z_{2}^{*}-z_{2}^{*}z_{1}$
$\eta_{2}$ $ 0 $ $0$ $c_{1}(1-z_{2}z_{1}^{*})$ $0$ $c_{3}(1-z_{2}z_{1}^{*})$
$\eta_{5}$ $ 0 $ $0$ $c_{1}(1-z_{1})$ $0$ $c_{3}(1-z_{1})$
$\eta_{8}$ $ 0 $ $0$ $c_{1}(1-z_{2}^{*})$ $0$ $c_{3}(1-z_{2}^{*})$
$\eta_{3}$ $r_{1}z_{2}$ $r_{2}z_{2}$ $2-z_{2}-z_{1}^{*}z_{2}$ $z_{2}+z_{1}^{*}z_{2}-2$ $2-z_{2}-z_{1}^{*}z_{2}$
$\eta_{6}$ $r_{1}z_{1}$ $r_{2}z_{1}$ $2-z_{1}-z_{2}^{*}z_{1}$ $z_{1}+z_{2}^{*}z_{1}-2$ $2-z_{1}-z_{2}^{*}z_{1}$
$\eta_{9}$ $r_{1} $ $r_{2}$ $2-z_{1}^{*}-z_{2}^{*}$ $z_{1}^{*}+z_{2}^{*}-2$ $2-z_{1}^{*}-z_{2}^{*}$
$\xi_{1}/\tau_{M}$ $z_{1}^{*}z_{2}$ $z_{1}^{*}z_{2}$ $2-z_{1}^{*}-z_{1}^{*}z_{2}$ $2-z_{1}^{*}-z_{1}^{*}z_{2}$ $2-z_{1}^{*}-z_{1}^{*}z_{2}$
$\xi_{4}/\tau_{M}$ $z_{2}$ $z_{2}$ $2-z_{1}-z_{2}$ $2-z_{1}-z_{2}$ $2-z_{1}-z_{2}$
$\xi_{7}/\tau_{M}$ $ 1 $ $1$ $2-z_{2}^{*}-z_{2}^{*}z_{1}$ $2-z_{2}^{*}-z_{2}^{*}z_{1}$ $2-z_{2}^{*}-z_{2}^{*}z_{1}$
$\xi_{2}/\tau_{M}$ $ 0 $ $0$ $d_{1}(1-z_{2}z_{1}^{*})$ $0$ $d_{3}(1-z_{2}z_{1}^{*})$
$\xi_{5}/\tau_{M}$ $ 0 $ $0$ $d_{1}(1-z_{1})$ $0$ $d_{3}(1-z_{1})$
$\xi_{8}/\tau_{M}$ $ 0 $ $0$ $d_{1}(1-z_{2}^{*})$ $0$ $d_{3}(1-z_{2}^{*})$
$\xi_{3}/\tau_{M}$ $r_{1}z_{2}$ $r_{2}z_{2}$ $2-z_{2}-z_{1}^{*}z_{2}$ $z_{2}+z_{1}^{*}z_{2}-2$ $2-z_{2}-z_{1}^{*}z_{2}$
$\xi_{6}/\tau_{M}$ $r_{1}z_{1}$ $r_{2}z_{1}$ $2-z_{1}-z_{2}^{*}z_{1}$ $z_{1}+z_{2}^{*}z_{1}-2$ $2-z_{1}-z_{2}^{*}z_{1}$
$\xi_{9}/\tau_{M}$ $r_{1} $ $r_{2}$ $2-z_{1}^{*}-z_{2}^{*}$ $z_{1}^{*}+z_{2}^{*}-2$ $2-z_{1}^{*}-z_{2}^{*}$
: Eigenvectors of the five flat modes. Among the 36 components of the full eigenvector, ${\bf \Psi}^t =
(\eta_1,\ldots,\eta_{18},\xi_1,\ldots,\xi_{18})$, only the components for surrounding dimers are shown. Note that core dimers are decoupled from surrounding ones. In the above, $z_1=\exp{(-i{\bf k}\cdot{\bf r}_A)}$, $z_2=\exp{(-i{\bf
k}\cdot{\bf r}_B)}$, and $(r_1,r_2)$ represents any pair of two complex numbers satisfying $r_{1}^{*}r_{2} = -1$. The prefactor, $\tau_M$, depends on the mode index, $M \in A_1, A_2, E_1, E_2,$ and $E_3$. Explicit expressions for $\tau_M$ as well as $c_1,
c_3, d_1,$ and $d_3$ are provided in the text. []{data-label="table:fulleigenvector"}
While the amplitudes in bridge dimers do not vanish, the nature of the $E_{1}$ and $E_{3}$ modes is rather similar to that of the $E_2$ mode. As one can see from Table \[table:fulleigenvector\], the amplitudes inside perfect hexagons for the $E_1$ and $E_3$ modes are precisely identical to those for the $E_2$ mode. This identity is fundamentally due to (i) the odd parity of the singlet operator and (ii) the three-fold rotational symmetry of the lattice. Coupling to bridge dimers splits triple degeneracy by lowering the energy for the $E_1$ mode and increasing it for the $E_3$ mode. The difference from the $E_2$ mode case is that hopping amplitudes between perfect hexagon and bridge dimers do not cancel, but instead they add.
It is interesting to note that our $E_1$ mode is fully consistent with the lowest triplet excitation obtained in the series expansion study by Singh and Huse [@Huse2]. In fact, after properly redefining the unit cell convention, it can be shown that our $E_1$ mode becomes precisely equivalent to the lowest energy eigenstate obtained in first order of $\lambda$ under the conditions that (i) all off-diagonal coupling terms are ignored, (ii) all quartic interaction terms are ignored, and (iii) perfect hexagon and bridge dimers are physically identical, i. e., $\bar{s}_H = \bar{s}_{Br}$ and $\mu_H = \mu_{Br}$. Considering that our $E_1$ mode does not change abruptly upon relaxing these conditions or restoring the full self-consistency, one may expect that our $E_1$ mode is indeed adiabatically connected to the lowest energy eigenvector obtained in the previous series expansion study [@Huse2] and perhaps the corresponding eigenvector in yet-to-be-studied higher order series expansion.
Quantum fluctuations {#sec:fluctuations}
--------------------
Up to now, triplet interactions are treated within the self-consistent mean-field theory. To investigate effects of quantum fluctuations, we need to go beyond the mean field theory. There are three classes of order parameters in the mean-field theory, which can be affected by quantum fluctuations. These are chemical potentials, $\mu$, diagonal correlation parameters, $P$, and off-diagonal correlation parameters, $Q$. Spin-singlet condensate densities, $\bar{s}$, which are the remaining variational parameters, can be determined by minimizing the ground state energy after quantum fluctuation effects are incorporated for the above-mentioned order parameters. Below we check how each of these order parameters is affected by quantum fluctuations.
The chemical potential is the Lagrange multiplier for the hard-core constraint. In the usual weak-coupling limit where the singlet nature of the ground state is robust, the dominant contribution comes from the hard-core constraint, Eq. (\[eq:constraint\]), which can be conveniently implemented by an infinite on-site repulsion between triplets [@Kotov1]. When the triplet density is low, this hard-core constraint can be treated by summing ladder diagrams for the scattering vertex. The complete ladder diagram summation for the full lattice is rather complicated. Fortunately, however, in our system the most important aspect of the lowest excitation is determined by the nature of eigenstates inside a single perfect hexagon. Therefore, we expect that the dynamics inside a single perfect hexagon is a good indicator for the full lattice as far as the lowest excitation is concerned. It is shown that there is little difference between the chemical potential obtained from the mean-field theory and that from the ladder diagram summation using a single perfect hexagon. For this reason, we ignore the effects of quantum fluctuations on the chemical potential.
Next, we consider the effects of quantum fluctuations on the diagonal correlation order parameters, $P$, and the off-diagonal correlation order parameters, $Q$. From our mean-field analysis, it is shown that the shear size of the diagonal correlation parameters is almost one order of magnitude smaller than that of the off-diagonal counterparts (See Fig. \[fig:OrderParameter\]). It is thus expected that, while $P$ is to be certainly renormalized by quantum fluctuations, the overall size of its renormalization should be much smaller than that of $Q$. Thus we focus on $Q$ below while ignoring fluctuation effects on $P$.
Off-diagonal correlations are enhanced when there are strong fluctuations toward the formation of two-triplet bound states, which is caused by the attractive interaction between nearest neighbor triplets [@Kotov2; @Kotov3]. Effects of these fluctuations on the singlet/triplet spectrum can be captured by considering successive particle-particle scattering processes which renormalize the triplet pair emission/absorption amplitudes, [*i. e. *]{}, the coefficients of $t^{\dagger}t^{\dagger}+\textrm{H. c.}$ terms [@Kotov4]. To be concrete we describe below how the corrections in these coefficients are computed.
In the self-consistent mean field calculation as described in the Sec. \[sec:hamiltonian\], the bare pair emission/absoprtion amplitude, $B^0$, is renormalized to $B^{MF}$ where $$\begin{aligned}
B^0_\gamma = \Big\{ \begin{array}{lll}
\bar{s}^2_H & \textrm{if $\gamma = H$},\\
\bar{s}_H \bar{s}_{Br} & \textrm{if $\gamma = Br1$ or $Br2$}, \\
\end{array}\end{aligned}$$ and $B^{MF}_\gamma = B^0_\gamma +Q_\gamma$. To go beyond the mean-field theory, we consider scattering of two triplets: $\alpha + \beta \rightarrow \mu + \nu$ where triplet spin indices, $\alpha, \beta, \mu,$ and $\nu$, belong to $\{ x, y, z \}$. From the quartic interaction terms, one can get the following bare scattering amplitude: $$\begin{aligned}
V_{\alpha \beta, \mu \nu}=-\frac{J}{4}(\delta_{\alpha
\beta}\delta_{\mu \nu}-\delta_{\alpha \nu}\delta_{\beta
\mu}),\end{aligned}$$ which shows that in the singlet $S=0$ channel the scattering amplitude is given by $V^{(S=0)}=\frac{1}{3}\delta_{\alpha \beta}\delta_{\mu
\nu}V_{\alpha \beta, \mu \nu}=-\frac{J}{2}$.
![Renormalization of the triplet pair emission (or absorption) amplitude by quantum fluctuations. Vertices come from the singlet $S=0$ scattering channels of two triplets. []{data-label="fig:fluctuation"}](fig7.eps){width="7cm"}
We now evaluate the ladder series for scattering processes in Fig. \[fig:fluctuation\], which renormalize $B^{MF}_\gamma$ as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
B^{MF}_\gamma \quad \rightarrow \quad B_\gamma=B^{MF}_\gamma+\Delta B_\gamma,\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:fluctuation}
\Delta B_\gamma &= -\frac{B^{MF}_\gamma V^{(S=0)} \Pi_\gamma}{1+V^{(S=0)}\Pi_\gamma},\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\Pi_\gamma &= \sum_{\bf k}\int\frac{d\omega}{2 \pi i} G^{MF}_{nn}({\bf k},\omega)G^{MF}_{mm}(-{\bf k},-\omega).\end{aligned}$$ In the above $G^{MF}_{nn}$ and $G^{MF}_{mm}$ are the mean-field Green’s function for triplets in the $n$- and $m$-th dimer location in the unit cell. Conventions for the relationship between $\gamma$ and $(n,m)$ are the same as those for $P$ and $Q$ in Eq. (\[eq:orderparameter\]).
The inclusion of the above quantum fluctuation corrections modifies the triplet Hamiltonian matrix which, after diagonalization, leads to a reduction of the lowest spin gap from $0.795 J$ to $0.622 J$. Our prediction for the lowest spin gap is still larger than $0.164 J$ obtained from exact diagonalization of a 36-site cluster [@Sindzingre] or $0.08 \pm 0.02 J$ from a recent 7th order series expansion result (Note that the value from series expansion becomes $0.2 J$ in the same finite 36-site cluster) [@Huse2]. This may suggest that quantum fluctuations beyond what we have considered may be necessary to reach quantitative agreement. At the same time, finite-size effects also need to be examined very carefully.
\[sec:conclusion\] Discussion
=============================
The Kagome-lattice antiferromagnetic Heisenberg model has been generally regarded as one of the most geometrically frustrated spin systems in two dimension. Because of this, the Kagome lattice has been considered as a promising candidate system for realizing exotic quantum spin liquid ground states. In particular, there are two spin liquid states that have received much attention lately: (i) the U(1) Dirac spin liquid state suggested in a projected wave function study by Ran [*et al.*]{} [@Ran] and (ii) the $Z_2$ spin liquid state obtained in a bosonic large-$N$ Sp$(N)$ approach by Sachdev [@sachdev2].
![(Color online) Spin-triplet excitation spectra for three candidate ground states of the Kagome-lattice Heisenberg antiferromagnet: (i) the valence bond solid (VBS) with a 36-site unit cell, (ii) the U(1) Dirac spin liquid and (iii) the $Z_{2}$ spin liquid. In the case of the VBS state we plot the renormalized spectrum of the lowest triplet mode including quantum fluctuation effects as described in Sec. \[sec:fluctuations\]. For these two spin liquid states we plot the lower bound of the two-spinon continuum. The first Brillouin zone for the spin liquid states which has a 3-site triangular unit cell is depicted on the right hand side. The small dotted hexagon shows the first Brillouin zone for the VBS state with a 36-site unit cell. Two red dots lying in the $y$-axis indicate the positions (gauge-dependent) of the Dirac nodes for the U(1) Dirac spin liquid state.[]{data-label="fig:Comparison"}](fig8.eps){width="8cm"}
To explicitly compare the lowest spin-triplet excitation energy of the VBS state with those of the above-mentioned spin liquid states, we compute the lower bound of the two-spinon continuum in spin liquid phases. The lower bound (or the bottom of the continuum) is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\omega({\bf k}) = \textrm{Min}_{\bf p} [ \epsilon({\bf k}/2+{\bf
p}/2) +\epsilon({\bf k}/2-{\bf p}/2) ],\end{aligned}$$ where $\epsilon({\bf q})$ is the single spinon excitation energy with momentum ${\bf q}$. An assumption behind this calculation is that spinons themselves are weakly interacting.
For the U(1) Dirac spin liquid state we use the tight-binding spinon Hamiltonian with the mean-field order parameter for spinon hopping $\chi=0.221$ [@Hastings; @Ran]. In the case of the $Z_{2}$ spin liquid state we solve the full saddle point equations for $\kappa=0.35$ and $\kappa=0.5$. Here $\kappa$ is a parameter measuring the strength of quantum fluctuations. In the large-$N$ Sp$(N)$theory the Kagome-lattice system shows magnetic ordering when $\kappa$ is larger than $0.53$ [@sachdev2]. Results for the lower bound of the two-spinon continuum are plotted in Fig. \[fig:Comparison\].
Owing to gapless fermionic spinons at nodal points, the U(1)-Dirac spin liquid state exhibits gapless spin-triplet excitations at the zero momentum point, $\Gamma$, and those momenta connecting two Dirac nodes, $\widetilde{X}$. The lower bound of the two-spinon continuum has variations in energy approximately given by $\chi
J$. Gapped bosonic spinons of the $Z_{2}$ spin liquid state make the two-spinon spectrum also gapped with relatively large variations for the lower bound. On the other hand, the lowest spin-triplet excitation is completely non-dispersive in our valence bond solid theory. Since the flat dispersion of the lowest spin-triplet excitation is a distinct characteristic of the valence bond solid state, it may be used to distinguish our predictions from those of other spin liquid scenarios.
**Acknowledgments**
This work was supported by the NSERC, CRC, CIAR, KRF-2005-070-C00044 (YBK) and by the KOSEF through CSCMR SRC (BJY and JY). YBK thanks Brad Marston for careful explanation of his past works and acknowledges the Aspen Center for Physics where some part of this work was initiated. BJY thanks to Choong H. Kim for his valuable comments regarding numerics. Also, two of the authors (BJY, KP) would like to thank Asia Pacific Center for Theoretical Physics (APCTP) for its hospitality.
[99]{}
C. Zeng and V. Elser, Phys. Rev. B [**42**]{}, 8436 (1990).
J. B. Marston and C. Zeng, J. Appl. Phys. [**69**]{}, 5962 (1991).
S. Sachdev, Phys. Rev. B [**45**]{}, 12377 (1992).
R. R. P. Singh and D. A. Huse, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**68**]{}, 1766 (1992).
P. W. Leung and V. Elser, Phys. Rev. B [**47**]{}, 5459 (1993).
F. Mila, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**81**]{}, 2356 (1998).
P. Sindzingre, G. Misguich, C. Lhuillier, B. Bernu, L. Pierre, Ch. Waldtmann and H.-U. Everts , Phys. Rev. Lett. [**84**]{}, 2953 (2000).
M. B. Hastings, Phys. Rev. B [**63**]{}, 014413 (2000).
P. Nikolic and T. Senthil, Phys. Rev. B [**68**]{}, 214415 (2003).
Y. Ran, M. Hermele, P. A. Lee, and X. G. Wen, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**98**]{}, 117205 (2007).
R. R. P. Singh and D. A. Huse, Phys. Rev. B [**76**]{}, 180407(R) (2007).
R. R. P. Singh and D. A. Huse, arXiv:0801.2735.
J. S. Helton, K. Matan, M. P. Shores, E. A. Nytko, B. M. Bartlett, Y. Yoshida, Y. Takano, A. Suslov, Y. Qiu, J.-H. Chung, D. G. Nocera, and Y. S. Lee, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**98**]{}, 107204 (2007).
P. Mendels, F. Bert, M. A. de Vries, A. Olariu, A. Harrison, F. Duc, J. C. Trombe, J. S. Lord, A. Amato, and C. Baines , Phys. Rev. Lett. [**98**]{}, 077204 (2007);
O. Ofer, A. Keren, E. A. Nytko, M. P. Shores, B. M. Bartlett, D. G. Nocera, C. Baines, and A. Amato, cond-mat/0610540.
T. Imai, E. A. Nytko, B. M. Bartlett, M. P. Shores, and D. G. Nocera, cond-mat/0703141.
M. A. de Vries, K. V. Kamenev, W. A. Kockelmann, J. Sanchez-Benitez, and A. Harrison, arXiv:0705.0654.
M. Rigol and R. R. P. Singh, Phys. Rev. B [**76**]{}, 184403 (2007); G. Misguich and P. Sindzingre, Eur. Phys. J. B [**59**]{}, 305 (2007).
Unpublished work by P. Sindzingre and C. Lhuillier as quoted by Singh and Huse [@Huse2].
B. S. Shastry and B. Sutherland, Physica B [**108**]{}, 1069 (1981).
S. Sachdev and R. N. Bhatt, Phys. Rev. B [**41**]{}, 9323 (1990).
S. Gopalan, T. M. Rice and M. Sigrist, Phys. Rev. B [**49**]{}, 8901 (1994).
K. Park and S. Sachdev, Phys. Rev. B [**64**]{}, 184510 (2001).
J. P. Blaizot and G. Ripka, Quantum Theory of Finite Systems, (The MIT Press, 1986).
M. Tinkham, Group Theory and Quantum Mechancies, (McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1964).
V. N. Kotov, O. Sushkov, Zheng Weihong, and J. Oitmaa, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**80**]{}, 5790 (1998).
O. P. Sushkov and V. N. Kotov, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**81**]{}, 1941 (1998).
V. N. Kotov, O. P. Sushkov, and R. Eder, Phys. Rev. B. [**59**]{}, 6266 (1999).
V. N. Kotov, D. X. Yao, A. H. Castro Neto, and D. K. Campbell, arXiv:0704.0114.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We present a new way to detect basepair mismatches in DNA leading to different epigenetic disorder by the method of nanopore sequencing. Based on a tight-binding formulation of graphene based nanopore device, using Green’s function approach we study the changes in the electronic transport properties of the device as we translocate a double-stranded DNA through the nanopore embedded in a zigzag graphene nanoribbon. In the present work we are not only successful to detect the usual AT and GC pairs, but also a set of possible mismatches in the complementary base-pairing.'
address:
- 'Condensed Matter Physics Division, Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics, 1/AF, Bidhannagar, Kolkata 700 064, India'
- 'Condensed Matter Physics Division, Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics, 1/AF, Bidhannagar, Kolkata 700 064, India'
author:
- Sourav Kundu
- 'S. N. Karmakar'
title: Detection of basepair mismatches in DNA using graphene based nanopore device
---
[*Keywords*]{}: DNA sequencing, Graphene nanopore, Basepair mismatch.
Introduction:
=============
Basepair mismatches in DNA is one of the major reason behind several mutagenic disorders which may lead to different genomic instabilities, development of cancer [@loft] and other degenerative diseases. Mismatch in DNA bases occurs mainly due to misincorporation of nitrogen bases during DNA replication, oxidative or chemical damages and ionizing radiations. Inspite of dramatic advancements in medical science, many crucial issues, such that how DNA detect and repair damages, individual mismatches or what is the most accurate observable physical parameter to detect basepair mismatch is still remain clouded. Apart from traditional fluorescence-based sequencing technique [@sanger], several other methods also applied to detect mismatches. Some examples are magnetic signatures [@tapash1], longitudinal electronic transport [@tapash2; @tapash3] thermodynamic properties of basepair mismatches [@tapash4] and study of stretched DNA using AFM [@zhang], but no conclusive results appear. Whereas with the advent of nanopore-based sequencing [@bayley; @branton; @kasiano; @deamer; @lagerq; @sigalov] a new pathway is opened for marker-free gene testing. In early days of nanopore sequencing people mostly used biological nanopores ($\alpha$-Haemolysin), detect the changes in ionic current as a single-stranded DNA (ss-DNA) passes through the pore [@bayley; @branton; @kasiano; @deamer]. With time, usage of nanopore materials also evolves from biological to solid state nanopores. The latter one overcomes many drawbacks of biological nanopores [*e.g.*]{}, poor mechanical strength [@striemer], problems of integration with on-chip electronics [@rosen]. Solid state nanopores also provides some other advantages like multiplex detection [@kim] and different detectable physical parameters other than ionic current [@lagerq; @zwolak; @gracheva; @sigalov; @mcnally; @huang; @tsutsui; @xie]. Though it provides so many advantages but it lacks in an important case, the average thickness of synthetic membranes used for molecular detection is of the order of 10 nm, which will occupy several nucleobases at a time (distance between two consecutive nitrogen bases in a DNA chain is 0.34 nm), jeopardizing single molecule base-specific detection. Graphene, single layer of graphite [@novo1], provides a solution to this problem. As the single layer thickness is of the order of the distance between two consecutive bases in DNA and with various advantageous properties [@rocha] it is the ideal candidate for sequencing applications (recently other 2-D material, such as silicene also has been studied for the purpose of DNA sequencing [@ralph1]). Graphene also provides several ways of sequential detection [*e.g.*]{}, nanoribbon conductance [@nelson; @min; @saha], transverse tunnelling [@postma; @prasong]. Readers can consult some review articles [@fyta; @ralph; @rashid; @ventra1] for a detailed description of nanopore based sequencing techniques.
In this work we present a theoretical study to detect basepair mismatches in DNA using the method of nanopore sequencing. Though several studies on ss-DNA sequencing already exists in literature [@postma; @saha; @nelson; @he; @pathak], there is no such report on double-stranded DNA (ds-DNA). We use a graphene nanopore based sequencing device which is created on single layer zigzag graphene nanoribbon (zgnr) following Ref. [@saha]. Using Landauer-B[ü]{}ttiker formalism we study the changes in electronic transport properties of the device as a ds-DNA (which also contains basepair mismatches) translocates through the nanopore. Distinct features have been observed in transmission probability and to some extent in I-V response also for the canonical Watson-Crick pairs and for four different types of possible mismatches. Study of local density states (LDOS) also provide applicable insight. Our results open a new pathway for reliable detection of basepair mismatches in DNA, a highly important diagnosis for genetic disorder.
Theoretical Formulation:
========================
To perform numerical study on the sequential determination of basepair mismatches in DNA we use zigzag graphene nanoribbon, with a pore created at the centre of it. We preserve the two-sublattice symmetry of graphene while creating the nanopore [@sourav]. The whole zgnr system can be presented by an effective Hamiltonian (see Fig. \[fig1\])
$$\begin{aligned}
& H_{zgnr}&= \sum\limits_{i=1}^N\left(\epsilon
c^\dagger_{i}c_{i}+t c^\dagger_{i}c_{i+1}+\mbox{H.c.} \right)\end{aligned}$$
![(Color online). Schematic view of the ZGNR nanopore device with a ds-DNA passing through the nanopore. Current is lateral through the zgnr [*i.e.*]{}, in the trnasverse direction.[]{data-label="fig1"}](ds_dna.eps){width="65mm" height="50mm"}
where $\epsilon$ is the site-energy of each carbon atom in ZGNR, and $t$ is the nearest neighbour hopping amplitude. $c_i$ and $c^\dagger_{i}$ creates or annihilates an electron at the ith site respectively. For calculation of transport properties we also use semi-infinite zgnr as electrodes [@saha]. Thus the total Hamiltonian of the system can be written as $ H_{tot}=H_{zgnr}+ H_{leads}+H_{tun}~,$ where $H_{tun}$ represents tunneling Hamiltonian between the nanopore device and electrodes. In our calculations we scale energy in terms of t [*i.e.*]{}, we set t=1.0 eV. Hamiltonian of a ds-DNA can be expressed as
$$\begin{aligned}
& H_{DNA}&= \sum\limits_{i=1}^N\sum\limits_{j=I,II}\left(\epsilon_{ij}
c^\dagger_{ij}c_{ij}
+t_{ij}c^\dagger_{ij}c_{i+1j}+\mbox{H.c.} \right)\nonumber \\
&&~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+ \sum_{i=1}^N v \left(c^\dagger_{iI}c_{i II}+
\mbox{H.c.} \right)~\end{aligned}$$
where $c_{ij}^\dagger$ and $c_{ij}$ are the electron creation and annihilation operators at the [*i*]{}th nucleotide of the jth strand, $t_{ij}=$ nearest neighbour hopping amplitude between nucleotides along the jth strand, $\epsilon_{ij}=$ on-site energy of the nucleotides, $v=$ interstrand hopping between the nucleobases.
Green’s function formalism is used for both the LDOS and transport properties calculations. Transmission probability of an electron with an energy E is given by $T(E)={\mbox {\rm Tr}} [\Gamma_L G^r \Gamma_R G^a]$ [@datta1], where $G^r=[G^a]^\dagger$ and $\Gamma_{L(R)}=i[\Sigma^r_{L(R)}-\Sigma^a_{L(R)}]$. $G^r=[E- H_{zgnr}-\Sigma^r_L-\Sigma^r_R+i\eta]^{-1}$ is the single-particle retarded Green’s function for the entire system at an energy E, where $\Sigma^{r(a)}_{L(R)}=H^\dagger_{\mbox{tun}} G^{r(a)}_{L(R)} H_{\mbox{tun}}$ represents retarded (advanced) self energies of the left (right) zgnr electrodes which is calculated following recursive Green’s function technique [@nardelli; @lopez]. $G^{r(a)}_{L(R)}$ is the retarded (advanced) Green’s function of the left (right) lead. At absolute zero temperature, using Landauer formula, current through the nanopore device for an applied voltage V is given by $I(V)=\frac{2e}{h} \int^{E_F+eV/2}_{E_F-eV/2} T(E)dE~$ where $E_F$ being the Fermi energy. Here we assume that there is no charge accumulation within the system. The LDOS profiles of the basepairs trapped inside the nanopore are given by $\rho(E,i) = - \frac{1}{\pi} {\rm Im[G_{ii}(E)]}$ where, $G(E)= (E-H+i\eta)^{-1}$ is the Green’s function for the zgnr system including the basepairs with electron energy E as $\eta\rightarrow0^+$, $H=$ Hamiltonian of the zgnr-nanopore, and, ${\rm Im}$ represents imaginary part of $G_{ii}(E)$. $G_{ii}(E)$ is the diagonal matrix element $(< i|G(E)|i >)$ of the Green’s function, $|i >$ being the Wannier state associated with the trapped nucleotide.
Results:
========
For the purpose of numerical investigation we use ionization potentials of the nitrogen bases as their site energies which are extracted from the [*ab-initio*]{} calculations [@senth]: $\epsilon_G$= 8.178, $\epsilon_A$= 8.631, $\epsilon_C$= 9.722,and $\epsilon_T$= 9.464, all units are in eV. Then we shift the reference point of energy to the average of the ionization potentials of the nucleobases which is 8.995 eV, and with respect to this new origin of energy the on-site energies for the bases G, A, C, and T become -0.82 eV, -0.37 eV, 0.72 eV, and 0.47 eV respectively. This is valid for model calculations as it won’t do any qualitative damage to the results. Similar methods have previously been employed where the average of ionization potential is set as the backbone site-energy [@paez].
![(Color online). LDOS of the four nucleotides trapped at the nanopore. There are four distinct peaks of different heights representing different bases close to their characteristic site-energy.[]{data-label="fig2"}](ds_ldos.eps){width="65mm" height="45mm"}
In Fig. \[fig2\] we show the LDOS profiles for the four different nitrogen bases. We study this LDOS response of the bases as a part of the Watson-Crick basepairs not as individual [*i.e.*]{}, we trap the AT and GC pairs inside the nanopore and study the LDOS profile of the respective bases. The position of different peaks in the LDOS are different, close to the characteristic site energies of the different nucleotides and the peak values are also different. These relative differences in LDOS patterns present a chance to detect the basepairs using ARPES technique by trapping them inside the nanopore. As the LDOS behaviour is mostly dominated by the nitrogen bases not by the backbones [@he] this also provides a new way of biomolecular detection.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![(Color online). Transmission probability T(E) as a function of energy for different cases. a) Comparison between a bare nanopore and GC-nanopore. b) Comparison between two Watson-Crick pairs AT and GC. c) Characteristic features of four different mismatched basepairs trapped inside the nanopore. d) Enlarged view of the plot (c) for clear visualization.[]{data-label="fig3"}](ds_trans_1.eps "fig:"){width="45mm" height="34mm"} ![(Color online). Transmission probability T(E) as a function of energy for different cases. a) Comparison between a bare nanopore and GC-nanopore. b) Comparison between two Watson-Crick pairs AT and GC. c) Characteristic features of four different mismatched basepairs trapped inside the nanopore. d) Enlarged view of the plot (c) for clear visualization.[]{data-label="fig3"}](ds_trans_2.eps "fig:"){width="45mm" height="34mm"}
![(Color online). Transmission probability T(E) as a function of energy for different cases. a) Comparison between a bare nanopore and GC-nanopore. b) Comparison between two Watson-Crick pairs AT and GC. c) Characteristic features of four different mismatched basepairs trapped inside the nanopore. d) Enlarged view of the plot (c) for clear visualization.[]{data-label="fig3"}](ds_trans_3.eps "fig:"){width="45mm" height="34mm"} ![(Color online). Transmission probability T(E) as a function of energy for different cases. a) Comparison between a bare nanopore and GC-nanopore. b) Comparison between two Watson-Crick pairs AT and GC. c) Characteristic features of four different mismatched basepairs trapped inside the nanopore. d) Enlarged view of the plot (c) for clear visualization.[]{data-label="fig3"}](ds_trans_4.eps "fig:"){width="45mm" height="34mm"}
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Fig. \[fig3\] we plot the variation in transmission probability for different cases. The coupling parameter between the boundary sites of the zgnr-nanopore and DNA base is set to 0.2 eV. Intrastrand hopping parameter between identical bases in the DNA chain is taken as $t_{ij}$=0.35 eV and for different bases $t_{ij}$=0.17 eV. Whereas interstrand hopping between nucleobases is taken as v=0.035 eV, one order of magnitude less than the intrastrand hopping. These values are consistent with previous reports [@paez; @klosta; @sourav1; @sourav2; @sourav3]. Fig. \[3a\] shows the comparison between a bare nanopore and a DNA basepair ( GC pair ) trapped into the nanopore. The changes in transmission spectra are clearly distinguishable. There are characteristic peaks in the profile both at the +ve and -ve energy range. Both the curves for bare nanopore and GC-nanopore are symmetric with respect to zero of energy, as the two-sublattice symmetry of the graphene nanopore is preserved in both the cases. It was violated in case of ss-DNA sequencing [@sourav]. Fig. \[3b\] shows the difference between the characteristic features of two Watson-Crick pairs AT and GC. Distinct peaks are present in the transmission profile at and around the characteristic site energies of the respective nucleobases. In Fig. \[3c\] we show the relative changes in the transmission profile for four different types of basepair mismatches. Each of the mismatches has distinct response at and around their respective site energies. Variations are quite similar in +ve and -ve energy range. They are clearly distinguishable at low energy, and the characteristic features die down as we move towards higher energy values. It is due to the fact that as we go to higher energy we are moving away from the characteristic site energies of the nucleobases. In Fig. \[3d\] we zoom in a small energy window of Fig. \[3c\] for better visualization. TC mismatch has distinct peak around 0.3 eV. GT and AC mismatches become clearly distinguishable between 0.4 to 0.45 eV and 0.6 to 0.65 eV respectively. Whereas AG becomes visibly distinct in the energy range 0.8 to 0.9 eV.
[cc]{}
![(Color online). Current - Voltage response of the active nanopore device for different cases. a) Comparison of the current responses between a bare nanopore and GC-nanopore. b) Difference between characteristic current amplitudes of two Watson-Crick basepairs AT and GC. c) Attributes of four different mismatches (AG, AC, GT, TC). Insets show selective voltage ranges for better visualization. $E_F$=0 eV represents Fermi energy.[]{data-label="fig4"}](ds_iv_3.eps){width="45mm" height="34mm"}
![(Color online). Current - Voltage response of the active nanopore device for different cases. a) Comparison of the current responses between a bare nanopore and GC-nanopore. b) Difference between characteristic current amplitudes of two Watson-Crick basepairs AT and GC. c) Attributes of four different mismatches (AG, AC, GT, TC). Insets show selective voltage ranges for better visualization. $E_F$=0 eV represents Fermi energy.[]{data-label="fig4"}](ds_iv_6.eps "fig:"){width="45mm" height="33.65mm"}\
![(Color online). Current - Voltage response of the active nanopore device for different cases. a) Comparison of the current responses between a bare nanopore and GC-nanopore. b) Difference between characteristic current amplitudes of two Watson-Crick basepairs AT and GC. c) Attributes of four different mismatches (AG, AC, GT, TC). Insets show selective voltage ranges for better visualization. $E_F$=0 eV represents Fermi energy.[]{data-label="fig4"}](ds_iv_9.eps "fig:"){width="60mm" height="38mm"}
In Fig. \[4a\] we show changes in the I-V characteristics for a bare nanopore and a GC-nanopore. Effect of the basepair inside the nanopore becomes prominent at considerable bias, inset shows a specific high voltage range of the curves where they are clearly distinguishable. Fig. \[4b\] shows the variation in the current response between two Watson-Crick pairs AT and GC. They also become differentiable at high voltage range between 1.7 to 2.0 Volt. AT pair produces higher current than GC pair, which reflects their different electronic structure, as this current response depends on how the local charge density profile modified due to the insertion of the DNA bases [@nelson]. Fig. \[4c\] shows the relative differences between four possible mismatches of basepairs. At low bias differences between them is very faint, they gradually become differentiable as we increase the bias. Insets of the Fig. \[4b\] and Fig. \[4c\] show specific voltage windows within which the mutual separation between the basepairs is larger than elsewhere.
[cc]{}
![(Color online). Left panel shows the stop and go translocation of a Random ATGC ds-DNA chain through the nanopore, while bias across the device is fixed to a specific value which gives maximum separation in current response for different basepairs. We record the characteristic current output for the bases as they translocate through the nanopore. The respective basepairs and mismatches are indicated in the figure with their usual symbols (AT, GC etc.). Right panel shows the same variation for a ds-DNA chain with no basepair mismatch for better understanding of the left panel figure. Though the current is presented in arb. unit as we report a model calculation, but if we put the exact numerical values of different constants like h, e and $\hbar$, it turns out of the order of 10 $\mu$A.[]{data-label="fig5"}](ds_stop_go.eps){width="49.5mm" height="40mm"}
![(Color online). Left panel shows the stop and go translocation of a Random ATGC ds-DNA chain through the nanopore, while bias across the device is fixed to a specific value which gives maximum separation in current response for different basepairs. We record the characteristic current output for the bases as they translocate through the nanopore. The respective basepairs and mismatches are indicated in the figure with their usual symbols (AT, GC etc.). Right panel shows the same variation for a ds-DNA chain with no basepair mismatch for better understanding of the left panel figure. Though the current is presented in arb. unit as we report a model calculation, but if we put the exact numerical values of different constants like h, e and $\hbar$, it turns out of the order of 10 $\mu$A.[]{data-label="fig5"}](ds_stop_go_atgc.eps){width="49.5mm" height="40mm"}
In Fig. \[fig5\] we finally show the sequencing application to detect basepair mismatches along with the two canonical pairs AT and GC. We take a 30-basepair long Random ATGC chain, translocate it through the nanopore and record the characteristic current signals corresponding to the different basepairs including the mismatches. During this translocation bias is kept at 1.72 Volt, this voltage gives maximum possible relative separation between the characteristic currents of different basepairs (see insets of Fig.\[4b\] and Fig.\[4c\]). Separation between a Canonical pair GC and a mismatch TC is maximum whereas that between AT and AC is minimum. The reason behind this is G and T are from different group, G is from purine group and T is from pyrimidine, electronic structure of them are also quite different. So when the pairing changes from GC to TC, the corresponding change in current response is also big. While for AT and AC, both T and C are from the same pyrimidine group, hence the relative changes in the response is also quite smaller. These relative changes in the current response represent the difference in their electronic structure. If we define a new quantity to measure the sensitivity of this type of sequencing devices [*e.g.*]{}, percentage separation =$(I_{max}-I_{min})/I_{min}$, it turns out to be that maximum and minimum values of percentage separation achieved are 17.30$\%$ and 3.23$\%$ which implies that the current signals for the respective basepairs can be detected with much more reliability. We also plot a separate figure (see right panel of Fig. \[5\]) for a normal ds-DNA chain without any mismatches, for better understanding of the effect of mismatches on the current response of the device. It is also important to mention that though we have presented current in arbitrary unit, but if we put numerical values of various constants [*e.g.*]{}, h, e and $\hbar$, it turns out that the currents are of the order of 10 $\mu$A which is much higher than previous reports on ss-DNA sequencing as well as much greater than the noise level of this type of devices which is of the order of nA [@saha]. Very recently a report by Feliciano [*et al.*]{} [@ralph] on dynamical effects of environment on operation of graphene based sequencing devices shows that fluctuations of the nucleotides inside the nanopore may change the conductance of the devices relying on tunneling mechanism, though they conclude that these effects would not be very important for the devices which relies on transverse conductance with larger transmission probability. As our proposed device relies on transverse conductance and produces greater current output, effect of these type of noises will be much lesser. Whereas another study by Krems [*et al.*]{} [@krems] in 2009 dealing with different types of noises which may occur in actual sequencing experiments showed that these environmental effects do not strongly influence the current distributions and working efficiency of these devices. Though based upon these results we can say that the overall sensitivity of our device won’t be hampered too much but there will always be sources of noise in actual experimental condition due to environmental fluctuations, presence of water and counterions which can affect the device operation. It is also important to note that it is one of the early attempt to detect basepair mismatches by means of nanopore sequencing and the results given in this work is open to improvement in different ways. One example is, by functionalization of the edge atoms of the nanopore which can significantly enhance nucleobase-pore interaction, thus reducing the structural noise by enhancing the graphene-nucleobase electronic coupling [@he1; @garaj]. Different types of groups can be used for functionalization (e.g., hydroxide [@jeong], amine or nitrogen [@saha]) to provide custom made solution to overcome noise in electrical DNA sequencing techniques. It is also true for the devices relying on transverse conductance that most of the current passes through the edges of the nanoribbon which is one of the reason of poor sensitivity of these type of devices, but this can be controlled with accurate engineering of the nanopore device dimension. See Appendix section for more details on this.
Conclusion:
===========
In summary we present an effective and reliable technique to detect basepair mismatches in a given DNA sample. We analyze different properties from LDOS to I-V response in connection with sequential determination and found distinguishable signatures in most of the cases. Most of the earlier results on DNA sequencing use ss-DNA which neglect the basic problem of basepair mismatch leading to different neuro-degenerative diseases. As the different genetic diseases occur due to mismatch of base-pair [*i.e.*]{}, when a nitrogen base in a DNA double-helix paired up with another base which is not the complementary pair of it, sequencing of ss-DNA can’t provide this information. On the other hand previous attempts to detect basepair mismatches do not provide any decisive results. With time both medical science and genetic research progress, the reasons behind different genetic disorder including neuro-degenerative ones (like Perkinsons, Alzheimer etc) are becoming more and more transparent. With this progress the need for low cost and reliable DNA sequencing also increases which should also provide the necessary technique for proper medical applications. In this circumstances we present a reliable tight-binding scheme to detect basepair mismatches in DNA with much better accuracy than previous studies [@tapash5]. At the same time, we also understand that proposed technique needs more improvements for actual application in real environment and hope it will soon be tested with further modifications.
Appendix:
=========
In this section we provide some additional information on basepair detection of DNA. In Fig. \[6\] we plot the variation in the current response of our proposed device for AT and TA basepairs, both are being Watson-Crick pair. Now for the previous calculation we preserve the two-sublattice symmetry of graphene by symmetrically connecting the nucleotides with edge atoms, in this configuration it is hard to distinguish AT and TA separately. For better detectability we destroy the two-sublattice symmetry and find distinct responses. The same also has been done for detection between GC and CG. We want to mention that we checked all our results with broken sublattice symmetry, but find no significant changes for the results presented in the earlier sections. The percentage seaparation between AT and TA (GC and CG) is relatively small (1.5$\%$) which implies that the proposed device is not effective in the same way as it is for basepair mismatches.
[cc]{}
![(Color online). Current - Voltage response of the active nanopore device for two Watson-Crick pairs in opposite orientation. Figure on the left side shows comparison of the current responses between a AT-nanopore and TA-nanopore. Right panel shows the same for GC-nanopore and CG-nanopore.[]{data-label="fig6"}](ds_stop_go_atta.eps){width="47mm" height="40mm"}
![(Color online). Current - Voltage response of the active nanopore device for two Watson-Crick pairs in opposite orientation. Figure on the left side shows comparison of the current responses between a AT-nanopore and TA-nanopore. Right panel shows the same for GC-nanopore and CG-nanopore.[]{data-label="fig6"}](ds_stop_go_gccg.eps "fig:"){width="47mm" height="38.5mm"}\
![(Color online). Stop and go translocation of a Random ATGC ds-DNA chain through the nanopore, while bias across the device is fixed. The zgnr used for this case has double width than that is used for Fig.\[5\]. We record the characteristic current output for the bases as they translocate through the nanopore. Current output is greater than Fig. \[5\] but the variation in the responses for different basepairs including mismatches decreased slightly.[]{data-label="fig7"}](ds_stop_go_ny_24_1.72.eps){width="63mm" height="45mm"}
We also check the sensitivity of the device on the nanoribbon width. To investigate this we make the zgnr width double than previous results but keep the pore size fixed. In Fig. \[7\] we plot the sequential determination [*i.e.*]{}, stop and go translocation of a ds-DNA chain containing mismatches through the zgnr-nanopore with increased width. With increasing width current output increases, which is trivial as the width increases conductance of the device will also increase and so the current. But the sensitivity decreases to some extent. As we keep the pore size fixed, the fraction of the current passing around the pore will decrease and signature of the basepair will die out with increasing width as the presence of the basepairs modify this current only which is detected by the device. For the previous case (Fig. \[5\]) the range of current variation is 0.09 (arb. unit) for different basepairs which reduces to 0.06 (arb. unit) as we doubled the width of the zgnr.
Following the above results (Fig. \[7\]) we can say that there are several issues compete in the sequential detection technique. First thing is that to get higher current output from the device one has to increase the ribbon width, but it will also hamper device sensitivity to some extent. In order to maintain the desired accuracy one has to increase the nanopore dimension with increasing ribbon width. Increasing the pore size will increase the fraction of current passing around pore and the effect of the basepairs will also become more vivid. Because only the changes in the current passing around the nanopore due to the presence of the basepair is detected by the device. And to reduce the fluctuations of the basepairs inside the nanopore during translocation the edge atoms of the nanopore has to be functionalized with different groups [@saha; @jeong; @ralph] as discussed in the earlier section. Thus, in case of sequential determination process of DNA or biomolecules there are several parameters which have to be optimized accordingly for accurate and precise measurement.
References:
===========
[99]{}
S. Loft and H. E. Poulsen, J. Mol. Med. **74**, 297 (1996).
F. Sanger, S. Nicklen, and A. R. Coulson, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA **74**, 5463, (1977).
V. Apalkov, J. Berashevich, and T. Chakraborty, J. Chem. Phys. **132**, 085102 (2010).
X-F Wang, T. Chakraborty, and J. Berashevich, Nanotech. **21**, 485101 (2010).
N. Edirisinghe, V. Apalkov, J. Berashevich, and T. Chakraborty, Nanotech. **21**, 245101 (2010).
J. Berashevich and T. Chakraborty J. Chem. Phys. **130**, 015101 (2009).
Y. Zhang, Y. Lu, J. Hu, X. Kong, B. Li, G. Zhao, and M Li, Biosens. Bioelctron. **21**, 888 (2005).
H. Bayley, Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. **10**, 628 (2006).
D. Branton, et al. Nat. Biotechnol. **26**, 1146 (2008).
J. J. Kasianowicz, E. Brandin, D. Branton, and D. W. Deamer, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA **93**, 13770 (1996).
D. W. Deamer and D. Branton, Acc. Chem. Res. **35**, 817 (2002).
J. Lagerqvist, M. Zwolak, and M. Di Ventra, Nano Lett. **6**, 779 (2006).
G. Sigalov, J. Comer, G. Timp, and A. Aksimentiev, Nano Lett. **8**, 56 (2012).
C. C. Striemer, T. R. Gaborski, J. L. McGrath, and P. M. Fauchet, Nature **445**, 749 (2007).
J. Rosenstein, M. Wanunu, C. Merchant, M. Drndic, and K. Shepard, Nat. Meth. **9**, 487 (2012).
M. J. Kim, M. Wanunu, C. Bell, and A. Meller, Adv. Mater. **18**, 3149 (2006).
M. Zwolak and M. Di Ventra, Rev. Mod. Phys. **80**, 141 (2008).
M. E. Gracheva, A. Xiong, A. Aksimentiev, and K. Schulten, G. Timp, J-P Leburton, Nanotech. **17**, 622 (2006).
B. McNally, A. Singer, Z. Yu, Y. Sun, Z. Weng, and A. Meller, Nano Lett. **10**, 10, 2237 (2010).
S. Huang, J. He, S. Chang, P. Zhang, F. Liang, S. Li, M. Tuchband, A. Fuhrmann, R. Ros, and S. Lindsay, Nat. Nanotechnol. **5**, 868 (2010).
M. Tsutsui, M. Taniguchi, K. Yokota, and T. Kawai, Nat. Nanotechnol. **5**, 286-290 (2010).
P. Xie, Q. Xiong, Y. Fang, Q. Qing, and C. M. Lieber, Nat. Nanotechnol. **116**, 119 (2012).
K. S. Novoselov, [*et. al.*]{} Science **306**, 666 (2004); K. S. Novoselov, [*et. al.*]{} Nature **438**, 197 (2005).
C. G. Rocha, M. H. R[ü]{}mmeli, I. Ibrahim, H. Sevincli, F. B[ö]{}rrnert, J. Kunstmann, A. Bachmatiuk, M. P[ö]{}tschke, W. Li, S. A. M. Makharza, S. Roche, B. B[ü]{}chner, and G. Cuniberti, in [*Graphene: Synthesis and Applications*]{}. Edited by W. Choi and J.-W. Lee, CRC Press. Taylor and Francis Group, Boca Raton (2011).
R. G. Amorim and R. H. Scheicher, Nanotech. **26**, 154002 (2015).
T. Nelson, B. Zhang, and O. V. Prezhdo, Nano Lett. **10**, 3237 (2010).
S. Min, W. Kim, Y. Cho, and K. Kim, Nat. Nanotechnol. **6**, 162 (2011).
K. Saha, M. Drndi[ć]{}, and B. Nikoli[ć]{}, Nano Lett. **12**, 50 (2012).
H. W. C. Postma, Nano Lett. **10**, 420 (2010).
J. Prasongkit, A. Grigoriev, B. Pathak, R. Ahuja, and R. Scheicher, Nano Lett. **11**, 1941 (2011).
M. Fyta, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter **27**, 273101 (2015).
R. H. Scheicher, A. Grigoriev, and R. Ahuja, J. Mater. Sci. **47**, 7439, (2012).
B. M. Venkatesan and R. Bashir, Nat. Nanotech. **6**, 615 (2011).
M. Di Ventra, Nanotech. **24**, 342501 (2013).
Y. He, L. Shao, R. H. Scheicher, A. Grigoriev, R. Ahuja, S. Long, Z. Ji, Z. Yu, and M. Liu, Appl. Phys. Lett. **97**, 043701, (2010).
B. Pathak, H. L[ó]{}f[ó]{}s, J. Prasongkit, A. Grigoriev, R. Ahuja, and R. H. Scheicher, Appl. Phys. Lett. **100**, 023701, (2012).
S. Kundu and S. N. Karmakar, arXiv 1506.07361 (2015).
S. Datta, [*Electronic transport in mesoscopic systems*]{}, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1995).
M. B. Nardelli, Phys. Rev. B. **60**, 7828, (1999).
M. P. Lopez-Sancho, J. M. Lopez-Sancho, and J. Rubio, J. Phys. F **14**, 1205, (1984).
K. Senthilkumar, F. C. Grozema, C. F. Guerra, F. M. Bickelhaupt, F. D. Lewis, Y. A. Berlin, M. A. Ratner, and L. D. A. Siebbeles, J. Am. Chem. Soc. **127**, 14894, (2005).
C. J. Páez, P. A. Schulz, N. R. Wilson, and R. A. Römer, New. J. Phys. **14**, 093049, (2012).
D. Klotsa, R. A. Römer, and M. S. Turner, Biophys. J. **89**, 2187 (2005).
S. Kundu and S. N. Karmakar, Phys. Rev. E **89**, 032719 (2014).
S. Kundu and S. N. Karmakar, Phys. Lett. A **379**, 1377 (2015).
S. Kundu and S. N. Karmakar, AIP Advances **5**, 107122 (2015).
G. T. Feliciano, C. Sanz-Navarro, M. D. Coutinho-Neto, P. Ordej[ó]{}n, R. H. Scheicher, and A. R. Rocha, Phys. Rev. Applied. **3**, 034003 (2015).
M. Krems, M. Zwolak, Y. V. Pershin, and M. Di Ventra, Biophys. J. **97**, 1990 (2009).
Y. He, R. H. Scheicher, A. Grigoriev, R. Ahuja, S. Long, Z. L. Huo, and M. Liu, Adv. Funct. Mater. **21**, 2674 (2011).
S. Garaj, S. Liu, J. A. Golovchenko, and D. Branton, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. **110**, 12192 (2013).
H. Jeong, H. S. Kim, S-H Lee, D. Lee, Y. H. Kim, and N. Huh, Appl. Phys. Lett. **103**, 023701 (2013).
V. M. Apalkov and T. Chakraborty J. Phys.: Condens. Matter **26**, 475302, (2014).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
Refractive optics in astronomical instruments are potentially sensitive to temperature gradients and temperature transients. This sensitivity arises from thermally dependent refractive indices, lens spacings, and lens dimensions. In addition, thermal gradients in the instrument structure can cause undesirable image shifts at the detector that degrade instrument calibration. We have therefore undertaken a detailed thermal analysis of Binospec, a wide-field optical spectrograph under development for the converted MMT. Our goals are to predict the temperature gradients that will be present in the Binospec optics and structure under realistic operating conditions and to determine how design choices affect these gradients. We begin our analysis by deriving thermal time constants for instrument subassemblies to estimate the magnitude of temperature gradients in the instrument and to determine where detailed thermal models are required. We then generate a low-resolution finite difference model of the entire instrument and high-resolution models of sensitive subassemblies. This approach to thermal analysis is applicable to a variety of other instruments.
We use measurements of the ambient temperature in the converted MMT’s dome to model Binospec’s thermal environment. In moderate conditions the external temperature changes by up to 8 $^{\circ}$C over 48 hours, while in extreme conditions the external temperature changes by up to 17 $^{\circ}$C in 24 hours. During moderate conditions we find that the Binospec lens groups develop $\sim$0.14 $^\circ$C axial and radial temperature gradients and that lens groups of different mass develop $\sim$0.5 $^\circ$C temperature differences; these numbers are doubled for the extreme conditions. Internal heat sources do not significantly affect these results; heat flow from the environment dominates. The instrument must be periodically opened to insert new aperture masks, but we find that the resulting temperature gradients and thermal stresses in the optics are small. Image shifts at the detector caused by thermal deflections of the Binospec optical bench structure are $\sim$0.1 pixel hr$^{-1}$. We conclude that the proposed Binospec design has acceptable thermal properties, and briefly discuss design changes to further reduce temperature gradients.
author:
- 'Warren R. Brown, Daniel G. Fabricant, and David A. Boyd'
bibliography:
- 'References.bib'
title: A Detailed Thermal Analysis of the Binospec Spectrograph
---
INTRODUCTION
============
The refractive optics used in modern astronomical instruments, including multi-object spectrographs and wide-field focal reducers, must typically be designed to operate over a wide range of temperatures. Refractive indices, lens spacings and lens dimensions are all temperature dependent, and athermal designs are necessary to compensate for changes in these quantities. However, it is difficult or impossible for the optical designer to compensate for the temperature gradients arising from temperature transients.
In this paper we study the time dependent thermal behavior of Binospec, a wide-field, multi-aperture spectrograph being developed for the 6.5 m converted MMT. The mechanical layout of the Binospec spectrograph is shown in Figures \[fig:binotop\] and \[fig:binobot\]. Binospec uses an ambitious refractive focal reducer (collimator and camera) [@fabricant98; @epps98] to image two adjacent 8$\arcmin$ by 15$\arcmin$ fields. Binospec operates at the wide-field f/5 focus of the converted MMT [@fata93].
The collimators (see Figure \[fig:binocol\]) each contain nine elements in three groups and produce a 200 mm diameter collimated beam. The cameras (see Figure \[fig:binocam\]) each contain ten elements in four groups that image onto a 4K by 4K CCD array. These elements are mounted in aluminum bezels with athermal, annular room-temperature vulcanized (RTV) rubber bonds [@fata98]. The bezels have mounting bases that are attached to Binospec’s optical bench.
The optics are athermalized using a new technique described in [@epps02]. Briefly, the weak lenses formed in the fluid used to couple the multiplets exploit the thermally sensitive refractive index of the coupling fluid to compensate for thermally dependent lens properties: refractive indices, spacings, and dimensions. However, our concern that nonequilibrium conditions might degrade the performance of these optics motivates the present thermal analysis.
Our thermal analysis focuses on calculating the temperature gradients in the optics and the time scale of temperature changes in the instrument due to temperature transients arising from: (1) external conditions in the telescope dome, (2) the intermittent powering of internal heat sources (motors or other actuators) and (3) opening the instrument to change aperture masks, filters, or gratings. We also calculate the thermal stresses in the optics and the thermal deflection of the instrument optical bench. Our primary goals are to verify that Binospec will maintain its specified image quality, stability, and lateral scale under realistic operating conditions and to determine what design modifications would be beneficial.
{width="3.25in"}
Thermal analyses usually follow one of two general approaches. One approach is to find a closed form analytical solution for the heat transfer equations. Binospec is too complex for this approach. The second approach is to create a detailed thermal model of the entire instrument. We find that a complete, highly detailed model is not required to understand Binospec’s thermal properties. Our approach to thermal analysis relies on a mixture of coarse and detailed models, and we believe that this approach is applicable to a variety of other instruments.
Our paper is organized to follow the steps in the analysis. We begin in §2 by laying out the basic issues of heat transfer, and in §3 summarize the quantities needed for the heat transfer calculations. In §4, we begin the thermal analysis with calculations of thermal time constants and thermal capacitances. These analytic calculations help us to understand how quickly various Binospec components respond to temperature changes, allowing us to identify the components that dominate the heat transfer. We make detailed models of these components and coarser models of less sensitive components. The analytic calculations also provide an important check of our final thermal models. In §5 we create thermal finite difference models of the instrument and its subassemblies to calculate heat flows and temperature gradients. We use a low-resolution model of the entire spectrograph to provide boundary conditions for high-resolution models of the subassemblies. We model in detail the thermally sensitive components, such as the collimator and camera optics, the optical bench, and the filter changer. In §6 we discuss the results from these models. We conclude in §7.
{width="3.25in"}
{width="3.25in"}
{width="3.25in"}
HEAT TRANSFER
=============
Heat transfer is driven by temperature differences. There are three modes of heat transfer: conduction, convection, and radiation, all of which are important for Binospec. The heat transfer rates, $Q$, for these three modes are: $$\begin{aligned}
Q_{conduction} =& k A_x (T_1 - T_2) / L \label{condeqn} \\
Q_{convection} =& h A (T_{air} - T_{surface})\\
Q_{radiation} =& \epsilon \sigma A (T^4_{env} - T^4_{surface}),
\label{radeqn}
\end{aligned}$$ where the variables are defined in Table \[tab:symbols\].
Heat transfer is governed by the conservation of energy. In a given interval of time the heat flow into a point plus the heat generated at that point minus the heat flow out equals the net energy gained or lost, $q_{net}$. The net energy will cause a change in temperature scaled by the thermal capacitance, $mC$: $$q_{net} = m C (T_{final} - T_{initial}).
\label{eqn:mcdt}$$
Thermal finite difference models divide a complicated system, such as the Binospec spectrograph, into a number of lump masses that are connected by the three modes of heat transfer. Discrete time steps are used to numerically solve the time dependent network of heat transfer equations. The time derivative of the temperature is approximated by: $$\label{time}
\frac{dT}{dt} \approx \frac{T(t+\Delta t) - T(t)}{\Delta t}.$$ Temperatures are calculated at times incremented by $\Delta t$, so that $t = n \Delta t$. The time step must be smaller than the shortest time constant in the model; our time steps are typically a few seconds. We refer the reader to a heat transfer text, such as @incropera, for more details.
PREPARATION FOR THE THERMAL ANALYSIS
====================================
The first step in the heat transfer analysis is to gather information on the instrument’s optical and mechanical designs, the materials it uses, the environment in which it operates, and its intended operational modes. We need to determine the mass, dimensions, cross-sectional area, surface area, and surface emittance for each instrument component. The required level of detail depends on the desired resolution of the results. Temperature gradients in a shutter, for example, will usually not affect the optical performance of the spectrograph and so the shutter may be treated as a lump mass with a single cross-sectional area and surface area. Conversely, temperature gradients in the optical bench are likely to be important, and so its properties should be carefully detailed. In addition we need to determine the density, conductivity, specific heat, and coefficient of thermal expansion for each material used in the instrument. The conductivities of steel and aluminum are orders of magnitude larger than the conductivities of glass, leading to the general result that instrument structures will equilibrate faster than the optics they support.
The environment serves as the boundary condition for the thermal model, and so we need to know the time dependence of the temperature in the instrument operating environment. We must also determine if the instrument’s surface is directly exposed to the night sky or to a nearby heat source. In addition, the air flow speed affects the convection coefficient for the instrument’s exterior surface. The amplitude and time scale of environmental temperature variations turn out to be the dominant factors in determining the heat flow and temperature gradients in Binospec.
The typical and extreme operating modes of an instrument should be identified to determine the location, power output, and duty cycle of internal heat sources. Important internal heat sources include motors, electronics boxes, and calibration lamps.
{width="3.25in"}
FIRST-ORDER CALCULATIONS
========================
We begin the heat transfer analysis with analytic calculations of thermal capacitances and time constants. We use these first-order calculations to determine the level of detail needed in our models and to check our finite difference calculations.
Measurements of the Thermal Environment
---------------------------------------
Figure \[fig:temphist\] shows MMT dome temperatures recorded between 27 April and 6 June 2001. We use the time periods between the dotted lines in the upper and lower panels to represent extreme and moderate environmental conditions, respectively. In what follows, we discuss the results appropriate for the moderate thermal environment (ambient temperature changes by up to 8 $^{\circ}$C over 48 hours). We have also examined the results for the extreme thermal environment (ambient temperature changes by up to 17 $^{\circ}$C in 24 hours); the gradients and thermal offsets almost exactly double in this case. The large temperature changes in the extreme case are usually associated with unsettled weather, so that a closed dome will likely be the dominant concern. In any case, it is easy to scale the results we present for the extreme thermal environment.
Thermal Capacitances
--------------------
The thermal capacitance is the energy stored in an object per unit temperature, and is the product of the mass and the specific heat of the object, $mC$. The temperature change $\Delta T$ produced by a heat input $q$ is: $\Delta T = {q \over {mC}} $ (see Equation \[eqn:mcdt\]). The thermal capacitance is therefore a useful tool for understanding the relative thermal properties of instrument components. Table \[tab:mc\] lists the thermal capacitances of the Binospec lens groups and their lens barrels. We can immediately draw two conclusions. First, because the aluminum lens barrels have much smaller thermal capacitances than the lens groups, they will experience greater temperature changes than the lens groups for a given heat input. The lens barrels will therefore enforce radial temperature gradients in the lenses. We will need to model a lens group with a number of radial slices (e.g. Figure \[fig:lensgrp\]). Second, the second lens groups of both the collimator and camera have approximately twice the thermal capacitance of the neighboring lens groups and for a fixed heat input they will experience smaller temperature changes than their neighbors. We will need to model the large lens groups with a number of axial slices (see Figure \[fig:lensgrp\]) to look for axial temperature gradients.
Thermal Time Constants {#sec:timeconstant}
----------------------
Thermal time constants are useful characterizations of instrument components. An object out of thermal equilibrium with its environment will have a temperature difference that exponentially decays to zero. We calculate the thermal time constant associated with the exponential decay assuming that the object is isothermal, and that the environment has infinite thermal capacitance. The thermal time constants for conduction, convection, and radiation are: $$\begin{aligned}
\tau_{cond} = & mC L / k A_x\label{eqn:taucond}\\
\tau_{conv} = & mC / h A\\
\tau_{rad} = & mC / h_r A\label{eqn:taurad}
\end{aligned}$$
{width="3.25in"}
where $h_r = \epsilon \sigma (T + T_{env})(T^2
+ T_{env}^2) \simeq 4 \epsilon \sigma T_{av}^3$. We use $h=2$ W m$^{-2}$ K$^{-1}$ for still air in an enclosed cavity, and $h_r=5$ W m$^{-2}$ K$^{-1}$ for temperatures near 0 $^\circ$C.
We model an idealized Binospec lens barrel, shown in Figure \[fig:example2\], to illustrate thermal time constant calculations. Our goal is to calculate how quickly heat conducts around a lens barrel from a motor attached to the base of the barrel. We evaluate the time constants in Equations \[eqn:taucond\] - \[eqn:taurad\] for a aluminum barrel ($k=164$ W m$^{-1}$ K$^{-1}$, $C=962$ J kg$^{-1}$ K$^{-1}$) with radius , cross-section , and surface area . The time constant for heat to conduct halfway around the lens barrel is $\tau_{cond}=2.6$ hours.
We now consider the effects of convection and radiation on the idealized lens barrel. If its outer surface is exposed to the environment, the lens barrel will equilibrate to the environment with $\tau_{conv}=7$ hours and $\tau_{rad}=3$ hours. Convective and radiative heat transfer occur in parallel, and the summed radiative and convective time constant is 2 hours.
{width="3.25in"}
If the interior of the lens barrel is filled with glass lenses ($k\simeq0.95$ W m$^{-1}$ K$^{-1}$, $C\simeq650$ J kg$^{-1}$ K$^{-1}$), the time constant for heat to conduct through the surface area to the lens center, , is $\tau_{cond}=18$ hours. Thus, the lens barrel time constant is $\sim$10 times shorter than the lenses it supports. The difference in time constants means that the lens barrel will act as an approximately uniform temperature boundary condition for the lenses; this allows us to use the lens barrel temperatures from our low-resolution model as boundary conditions for our high resolution models of the lens groups. We use the detailed models, considering exactly how the Binospec lenses are attached to the lens barrels, to calculate the temperature gradients in the optics.
FINITE DIFFERENCE THERMAL MODELS
================================
We create finite difference thermal models of the instrument. Each piece of the instrument, such as a lens or lens barrel, is broken into isothermal lump mass elements. Finite difference models for a complicated system like the Binospec spectrograph and its components require hundreds of nodes, with each node connected conductively, convectively, and radiatively to dozens of other nodes. Writing out the heat transfer equations for such a complicated system is difficult. We use the Thermal Analysis Kit III (TAK3), a professional thermal analysis package written by K&K Associates, to calculate the large array of heat transfer equations. TAK3 has been previously used by engineers at the Center for Astrophysics to thermally model the Chandra X-ray Observatory.
The heart of the TAK3 software is a general purpose finite differencing thermal analyzer. The masses, dimensions, surface areas, and emittances of the elements, and the conductive, convective, and radiative pathways between them are determined by the user and typed into ASCII input files. TAK3 allows the user to easily modify the model assumptions and boundary conditions and to reanalyze the system.
Binospec Models
---------------
The lens barrels, mounts, and support struts are modeled with single elements in the low-resolution model of the Binospec spectrograph. Figure \[fig:ccnode\] shows that each lens group in the low-resolution model is modeled with a total of four elements, dividing the group radially and axially. This level of resolution is sufficient to estimate center-to-edge radial gradients and front-to-back axial temperature gradients in the lens groups.
Radiation exchange is relatively difficult to handle unless a complex instrument is modeled at low resolution. View factors must be calculated for every pair of elements that exchange radiation. Convection is easier to handle because each compartment in the model is assigned an air node that convectively couples the elements. We assume a convection coefficient of 2 W m$^{-2}$ K$^{-1}$ for still air inside the instrument. We use the average wind speed at the MMT, $6\pm3$ [@milone99], to calculate the convection coefficient exterior to the spectrograph. Sequences of temperature measurements recorded at the MMT are used as the model’s boundary condition.
The high-resolution models of the collimator and camera optics, by comparison, divide each lens group into multiple axial, radial, and angular slices. Figure \[fig:campic\] illustrates the
{width="3.25in"}
{width="3.25in"}
lens group 3 portion of the detailed camera model. Spaces between the lenses, and the RTV layers connecting the lenses to the aluminum bezels, are exaggerated for clarity. The coupling fluid that we use in the Binospec lens groups, Cargille Laser Liquid 5610, is an excellent insulator ($k=0.147$ W m$^{-1}$ K$^{-1}$; B. Sutin 2002, private communication) and so we model the coupling fluid layers with multiple slices as well (see Figure \[fig:campic\]).
We find that the axial and radial temperature gradients calculated for the lens groups generally agree to better than $0.02$ $^\circ$C between the low and high-resolution models. However, the high-resolution models reveal a new result: a diametral gradient in the lens groups because the lens barrels are mounted to the optical bench along one side. The amplitude of the diametral gradient is approximately 25% of the radial gradient.
FINITE DIFFERENCE THERMAL MODEL RESULTS
=======================================
The thermal models allow us to calculate heat flows, temperature gradients, and thermal time constants. Our basic picture of heat transfer in Binospec comes from understanding how the instrument responds to the telescope dome environment. Because we are interested in maintaining image quality in the spectrograph, our main emphasis is on the collimator and camera lens groups and the optical bench to which they are mounted. In addition, we wish to determine the thermal consequences of operating
{width="3.25in"}
motors, as well as inserting new aperture masks, filters, and gratings. We are interested in how much insulation surrounding the spectrograph is necessary. We will use coefficients of thermal expansion to calculate thermal deformations of the instrument structure and to estimate the rate of thermally induced image drift on the detector caused by thermal deflections of the optical bench.
Heat Flow
---------
Heat flow is the driving force in the thermal models. The greatest source of heat flow will dominate the thermal effects in the instrument. Because the average heat flow with the environment must be zero in the absence of internal heat sources, we consider [*peak*]{} heat flows. Here we compare the peak heat flow from the environment with the peak heat flow from operating motors, using the low-resolution thermal model of Binospec.
The peak heat exchange between the MMT telescope environment and Binospec is $\sim$30 W. Approximately 60% of the heat flow passes through the large surface area of the instrument; 40% passes through the mounting flange and the spectrograph entrance window. Figure \[fig:qq\] plots the temperatures and heat flows through the exterior insulation, mounting flange struts, and the entrance window for a representative 100 hours of MMT operating conditions. This result assumes 75 mm thick urethane foam insulation surrounding the spectrograph and moderate MMT dome temperatures that vary by up to 8 $^\circ$C over 48 hours. Because the MMT primary mirror is actively controlled to the ambient temperature with a forced air system, we consider the telescope mounting flange to be at ambient temperatures at all times. Table \[tab:qflow\] summarizes the peak heat flows.
The Binospec optical bench is attached to the mounting flange with graphite epoxy struts (see Figure \[fig:binotop\]). If the conductivity (and heat flow) of the graphite epoxy struts were to increase by a factor of three, then the time constant of the optical bench is reduced from 37 to 27 hours and the temperature gradients in the optics are increased by 10%. If the graphite epoxy struts were thermally insulated on 1 cm thick Delrin pads, the heat flow is reduced by a factor of four compared to the baseline model and the time constant of the optical bench increases from 37 to 45 hours.
The peak heat flow from internal motors when Binospec is used for spectroscopy (changing an aperture mask, rotating the gratings, and moving the guide probes every hour) or imaging (assuming a filter change every 5 minutes) is $\sim$3 W, $\sim$10% of the peak heat flow from the environment. This heat flow calculation assumes that the motors are powered only when they are required to supply torque. However, we must still look for local temperature gradients. For example, when imaging, the casings of filter motors may rise a few $^\circ$C above the ambient temperature and induce temperature gradients in collimator lens group 1. We explore these issues in subsection \[sec:heatsource\].
Temperatures and Temperature Gradients
--------------------------------------
One of our primary concerns is that temperature gradients may degrade the optical performance of the instrument. Conveniently, the primary output of the thermal models is temperatures for each element as a function of time. Here, we describe temperature variations in the Binospec optics.
Figure \[fig:colplot\] illustrates the collimator lens group temperatures from the low-resolution Binospec model. The upper panel shows the cores of the three collimator lens groups responding to the moderate external temperature fluctuations. Lens group 2 has approximately twice the thermal capacitance of the other two lens groups and lags them by six hours; the resulting worst-case temperature differences of $\sim$0.5 $^\circ$C are shown in the lower panel. Figure \[fig:camplot\] shows the comparable results for the camera lens groups.
Figure \[fig:colplot2\] plots the worst case radial temperature gradient in the Binospec optics, located in collimator lens
{width="3.25in"}
{width="3.25in"}
group 2. The detailed collimator model shows that this radial temperature gradient peaks at 0.11 $^\circ$C under moderate conditions. Similarly, Figure \[fig:camplot2\] shows the worst case axial temperature gradient, located in camera lens group 3. The detailed camera model shows that this axial gradient peaks at 0.14 $^\circ$C. [@epps02] have shown that 0.2 $^\circ$C gradients negligibly affect image quality and image scale.
We have created additional models using different environmental boundary conditions and different designs. We have compared the results with the baseline case shown
{width="3.25in"}
{width="3.25in"}
in Figures \[fig:colplot\] - \[fig:camplot2\]. For example, we find that removing the spectrograph entrance window will result in $\sim$0.2 $^\circ$C ($\sim$100% larger) temperature gradients in the optics and a 26 hour (30% shorter) optical bench thermal time constant.
Internal Heat Sources {#sec:heatsource}
---------------------
Internal heat sources generate heat flow that cause temperature gradients and temperature transients. Binospec uses motors to move guide probes, and to change aperture masks, filters, and gratings. The motors used to change filters may be operated frequently when Binospec is used for imaging. The Binospec filter changer sits directly above collimator lens group 1 (see Figure \[fig:binotop\]) and uses four motors, each of which may generate 16 W for 10 s during a filter change. If the filter changer is operated once every five minutes for ten hours, Equation \[eqn:mcdt\] tells us the entire spectrograph will be heated by $\sim$0.05 $^\circ$C. Though this is a small temperature change, we must consider the effect of larger local temperature gradients.
{width="3.25in"}
Figure \[fig:filmotor\] plots the time dependent temperatures of a filter changer motor and the top and bottom of collimator lens group 1. The motor temperature rises 6 $^\circ$C with a time constant of $\sim$1 hour. After a few hours of operation, the heat flow from the motors causes a 0.03 $^\circ$C top-to-bottom axial gradient in collimator lens group 1. Collimator lens group 2, on the other hand, experiences an uniform rise in temperature with no temperature gradient. We conclude that using the Binospec filter motors every five minutes for a few hours will cause [*local*]{} temperature gradients in the optics smaller than those introduced by the telescope environment (e.g. Figure \[fig:colplot2\]).
Time Constants
--------------
Binospec’s internal temperature gradients would be minimized if all of its internal parts could be designed to have short time constants. Unfortunately, the large thermal capacitances of the optical elements makes this
{width="3.25in"}
impractical. The best we can do is to heavily insulate Binospec from the environment to slow heat exchange.
The thermal time constants presented here are analogous to those in Equations \[eqn:taucond\] to \[eqn:taurad\]. The thermal time constants quantify the response time of components in the thermal model, and are calculated by starting the thermal model at an uniform temperature 10 $^\circ$C above the environment and finding the $e$-folding equilibration time for each component. Large differences between time constants of adjacent components are undesirable because they lead to large temperature gradients.
Thermal time constants for the Binospec collimator lens group 2, for example, are summarized in Table \[tab:binotau\]. The collimator lens group 2 has an $\sim48$ hour thermal time constant in the well insulated Binospec design. There is a small difference in time constant from the center to the edge of the collimator lens group and a corresponding $\sim$0.2 $^\circ$C temperature gradient for a 10 $^\circ$C temperature change (Figure \[fig:tauplot\]). The lens barrel, however, has a 10% shorter time constant than the lens group and a corresponding $\sim$0.7 $^\circ$C temperature gradient between the barrel and the lens group. This difference in thermal time constant is in agreement with the time constant calculations in section \[sec:timeconstant\].
Inserting Aperture Masks and Filters
------------------------------------
Changing aperture masks in a multiobject spectrograph like Binospec is a daily task. Opening the instrument to change aperture masks, filters, or gratings may expose the instrument to a troublesome thermal shock. New components placed in the instrument will most likely be at a different temperature than the well insulated instrument and will generate heat flows and temperature gradients inside the instrument.
The aperture masks and filters are located in a compartment that includes the first collimator lens group and the top side of the optical bench (see Figure \[fig:binotop\]). We assume that a set of ten 0.5 kg aperture masks or a set of twelve
{width="3.25in"}
1.2 kg filters will be changed at a time, and that the masks and filters, as well as the air introduced into the compartment are an extreme 10 $^\circ$C hotter than the instrument. Figure \[fig:optbpap\] shows the resulting temperature changes and axial temperature gradients in the optical bench, where temperature gradients may cause significant thermal deflection. These temperature changes and gradients add to the underlying temperature changes and gradients in the baseline model.
For the case of inserting new aperture masks, the optical bench is heated 0.05 $^\circ$C and experiences a 0.01 $^\circ$C axial gradient with a time constant of three hours. For the case of inserting new filters, the optical bench is heated 0.1 $^\circ$C and experiences a peak 0.1 $^\circ$C axial gradient with a time constant of four hours. The first collimator lens group, on the other hand, experiences a nearly uniform $\sim$0.1 $^\circ$C rise with a time constant of four hours. These temperature changes scale with the initial 10 $^\circ$C temperature difference. We conclude that the temperature gradients induced by inserting aperture masks or filters are small and will equilibrate with an acceptable time constant.
The six diffraction gratings have ten times the thermal capacitance of the aperture masks and filters, and so changing gratings is more of an issue. The six 9 kg gratings plus their 7 kg grating holders will heat the entire instrument by 0.5 $^\circ$C. Secondly, the gratings have a poor conduction path to the rest of the instrument, and their equilibration time constant is long. Finally, the gratings directly view the collimator and camera lens groups. For an initial 10 $^\circ$C temperature difference, the gratings will induce a 0.1 $^\circ$C axial gradient through collimator lens group 3 and camera lens group 1.
Thermal Stress
--------------
Temperature gradients cause thermal stress in the optical elements. In this section we estimate the thermal stresses in a simplified Binospec lens. We approximate a lens by a cylindrical disk, and use the following stress equations from @roark. The total stress caused by an uniform axial temperature gradient, $\Delta T_z$, in a disk clamped around its edge is given by: $$S = 1/2 ~\alpha E \Delta T_z /(1-\nu),$$ where $S$ is the stress, $\alpha$ is the coefficient of thermal expansion, $E$ is the Young’s modulus, and $\nu$ is the Poisson’s ratio of the material. The thermal stress caused by a 0.1 $^\circ$C axial gradient in a typical glass lens ($\alpha \simeq 8\times10^{-6}$ $^\circ {\rm C}^{-1},~E \simeq70\times10^9~{\rm Pa},~\nu \simeq 0.24$) is 5 psi. The thermal stress caused by a 0.1 $^\circ$C axial gradient in a CaF$_2$ lens ($\alpha=19\times10^{-6}$ $^\circ {\rm C}^{-1},~E
=76\times10^9~{\rm Pa},~\nu=0.26$) is 14 psi.
The stress in a disk caused by an uniform radial temperature gradient, $\Delta T_r$, is given by: $$\begin{aligned}
S_r = 1/3~\alpha E \Delta T_r (r_o -r)/r_o{\rm ~and}\\
S_t = 1/3~\alpha E \Delta T_r (r_o -2r)/r_o,
\end{aligned}$$ where $S_r$ and $S_t$ are the stresses in the radial and tangential directions, respectively, and $r_o$ is the outer radius. Note that both the radial and tangential stresses peak in the lens center ($r=0$). If we sum the radial and tangential stress in the lens center, the total stress caused by a 0.1 $^\circ$C radial gradient is 5 psi for a typical glass lens and 14 psi for CaF$_2$. These stress levels are insignificant.
Thermal Deflections
-------------------
One of our design goals is to minimize image drift at the detector. Image drift degrades image quality and the wavelength calibration during a long spectroscopic exposure. The thermal stability of the Binospec optical bench is a key issue in understanding image drifts. We can simply estimate the thermal deflection of the Binospec optical bench by modeling the bench as an unconstrained circular disk. The disk geometry is a good description of the Binospec optical bench and the formulas can be taken directly from @roark. The radius of curvature $R$ of a disk with a uniform, top-to-bottom temperature difference $\Delta T_z$ is: $$R =\frac{t}{\alpha \Delta T_z},$$ where $\alpha$ is the coefficient of thermal expansion and $t$ is the thickness of the disk. The thermal deflection $\theta$ caused by the axial temperature difference is: $$\label{theta}
% \theta = \arctan \left(\frac{r/R}{\sqrt{1-(r/R)^2}} \right).
\tan \theta =\frac{r/R}{\sqrt{1-(r/R)^2}}.$$
Binospec has a cylindrical aluminum optical bench that is 2.14 m in diameter and 0.15 m thick. In our thermal models, the optical bench experiences up to $\pm0.1$ $^\circ$C axial temperature gradients. The resulting tilt at the edge of the optical bench is $\pm3.5$ arcsec. We calculate the same tilt when we make a detailed finite element model of the optical bench. The optical bench responds to external temperatures that vary with a time scale of twelve hours, so the rate of deflection at the edge of the optical bench
{width="3.25in"}
is $3.5 / 12 = 0.3$ arcsec hr$^{-1}$. If we insert new filters into Binospec, the time constant is four hours and the rate of deflection at the edge of the optical bench is 0.9 arcsec hr$^{-1}$.
We use the ZEMAX optical design software (published by Focus Software, Inc.) to estimate image shifts at the detector due to deflection of various optical elements mounted on the optical bench. The grating is by far the most sensitive optical element: a 4 arcsec deflection of the grating leads to a 1 pixel shift on the detector. The grating experiences 2/3 of the total optical bench deflection, so that the image drift due to external temperature changes is an acceptable 0.05 pixel hr$^{-1}$. We conclude that thermal deflection of the optical bench by external temperature changes will not significantly degrade an hour long spectroscopic observation. The corresponding result for image drifts following the insertion of new filters is 0.15 pixel hr$^{-1}$, so we will want to minimize filter changes.
More extreme temperature gradients may be created by internal heat sources, such as a hot motor mounted on the optical bench. We turn to mechanical finite element modeling to assess the deflection caused by a hot spot on the optical bench. We find that a 0.1 $^\circ$C hot spot, with a time constant of 1.5 hours, will cause a local 0.2 arcsec deflection of the Binospec optical bench. A 16 W motor mounted to the optical bench on 6 mm thick Delrin standoffs will produce a 0.1 $^\circ$C hotspot if powered with a 3% duty cycle. Figure \[fig:spot\] shows the deflection as a function of distance from the spot. If the grating mount were located next to this hot spot, the resulting image drift rate would be 0.03 pixel hr$^{-1}$. This is similar to the drift rate caused by the 0.1 $^\circ$C gradient across the optical bench from external temperature changes, and suggests that we want to be careful how we mount motors near the grating. Thermal standoffs are effective in reducing the magnitude of hot spots.
CONCLUSIONS
===========
We have presented the thermal analysis techniques that we have used to study the thermal behavior of Binospec, a wide-field, multiobject optical spectrograph that uses high performance refractive optics. We begin our analysis by calculating thermal time constants and thermal capacitances to understand the scale of temperature variations in the instrument and to determine what areas of the instrument require detailed modeling. We then generate a low-resolution finite difference thermal model of the entire spectrograph, and high-resolution models of the collimator and camera optics, optical bench, and filter changer. We use temperature data recorded at the MMT to set the boundary conditions for the models. Conduction, convection, and radiation are all important modes of heat transfer in the instrument.
In normal operation, we find that the Binospec lens groups will experience up to $\sim$0.14 $^\circ$C axial and radial temperature gradients and that lens groups of different mass will have temperatures that differ by $\sim$0.5 $^\circ$C. These temperature gradients are driven by heat exchange with the environment; internal heat sources are a minor contribution to the total heat flow. Under extreme conditions at the MMT, we find that these gradients and offsets double. [@epps02] have shown that these temperature gradients and temperature offsets in the optics have a negligible effect on image quality and image scale, even under the extreme conditions.
If the spectrograph is exposed to an environment at a 10 $^\circ$C different temperature in the process of changing aperture masks or filters, we find the optics will experience $<0.1$ $^\circ$C temperature gradients, comparable to those experienced in normal operation without opening the spectrograph. The thermal stresses associated with these gradients are negligible.
Our calculations show that the optical bench will experience a peak 0.1 $^\circ$C axial gradient in normal operation from external temperature changes, and an additional 0.1 $^\circ$C axial gradient when the spectrograph is opened to change filters. The time constants for these gradients are twelve hours and four hours, respectively. The resulting time dependent deformations of the optical bench will tilt the grating mount and cause an 0.05 and 0.15 pixel hr$^{-1}$ image drifts at the detector, respectively. Overall, we conclude that the current Binospec design has acceptable thermal properties.
Further thermal modeling will be helpful as we proceed to the detailed design of Binospec. Thermally isolating the optical bench from the telescope mounting flange will reduce the conductive heat flow into the spectrograph and reduce the temperature gradients in the optical bench. Providing (passive) ventilation around the optical bench will allow convection to equilibrate the temperature of the spectrograph interior. Mounting motors on thermal stand-offs will prevent local hot spots in the structure and allow radiation and convection to distribute heat around the spectrograph. Radiation shields on the motors may also be helpful to prevent motors from directly affecting sensitive optical surfaces. The spectrograph electronics will be mounted in a temperature controlled enclosure that is insulated from the spectrograph interior.
We thank Bob Fata and Jack Barberis for their important contributions to this project and Henry Bergner for providing the finite element model of the optical bench. We thank Brian Sutin for pointing out that the lens coupling fluid may significantly affect temperature gradients and time constants in the lens groups. Steve West kindly supplied the MMT dome temperature data.
[clc]{} $q$ & heat & J\
$Q$ & heat transfer rate & W\
$T$ & temperature & K\
$k$ & conductivity & W m$^{-1}$ K$^{-1}$\
$h$ & convection coefficient & W m$^{-2}$ K$^{-1}$\
$\sigma$ & Stefan-Boltzmann constant & W m$^{-2}$ K$^{-4}$\
$L$ & length & m\
$A$ & surface area & m$^2$\
$A_x$ & cross-sectional area & m$^2$\
$m$ & mass & kg\
$C$ & specific heat (at constant pressure) & J kg$^{-1}$ K$^{-1}$\
$\alpha$ & coefficient of thermal expansion & m m$^{-1}$ K$^{-1}$\
$S$ & stress & Pa\
$E$ & Young’s modulus & Pa\
$\nu$ & Poisson’s ratio &\
$\epsilon$ & emittance &\
$F_{ij}$ & view factor &\
[rcc]{} Collimator & &\
lens group 1 & 15700 & 5900\
lens group 2 & 26100 & 16200\
lens group 3 & 12400 & 6600\
Camera & &\
lens group 1 & 20800 & 3200\
lens group 2 & 47000 & 7600\
lens group 3 & 13000 & 4100\
[lc]{} Exterior insulation & 18\
Mounting flange struts & 8\
Entrance window & 4\
& ==\
Total: & 30\
[cc]{} barrel & 43\
edge & 47\
core & 48\
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Jet-quenching and photon production at high transverse momentum are studied at RHIC energies, together with the correlation between jets and photons. The energy loss of hard partons traversing the hot QGP is evaluated in the AMY formalism, consistently taking into account both induced gluon emission and elastic collisions. The production of high $p_T$ photons in Au+Au collisions is calculated, incorporating a complete set of photon-production channels. Putting all these ingredients together with a (3+1)-dimensional ideal relativistic hydrodynamical description of the thermal medium, we achieve a good description of the current experimental data. Our results illustrate that the interaction between hard jets and the soft medium is important for a complete understanding of jet quenching, photon production, and photon-hadron correlations in relativistic nuclear collisions.'
address:
- 'Department of Physics, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, 43210, USA'
- 'Department of Physics, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, H3A 2T8, Canada'
author:
- 'G.-Y. Qin$^{a}$, C. Gale$^b$, S. Jeon$^b$, G. D. Moore$^b$, J. Ruppert$^b$'
title: 'Jet energy loss and high $p_T$ photon production in hot quark-gluon plasma'
---
Introduction
============
Jet-quenching is one of the most important discoveries of the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) at Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) [@Adcox:2001jp; @Adler:2002xw]. Owing to the strong interaction with the hot quark-gluon plasma (QGP) created in these collisions, high transverse momentum ($p_T$) partons produced from early hard scatterings suffer energy loss in the medium, leading to significant suppression of high-$p_T$ hadrons in central A+A collisions in comparison with those from binary-scaled p+p collisions [@Gyulassy:1993hr]. There has been a lot of effort devoted to understanding the energy loss experienced by hard jets in excited hadronic matter (e. g., see Ref. [@Bass:2008rv]).
In addition to single-particle observables, more insight may be gained through correlation studies, i.e., measuring high-$p_T$ hadron production associated with a high-$p_{T}$trigger. One motivation is that correlation measurements put tighter constraints on the initial momentum distribution of the partons that fragment into the observed hadrons. In this context, high $p_T$ photons have been considered as promising trigger particles [@Wang:1996yh] as they are mostly produced from early hard binary scatterings. Triggering on such photons should fix the transverse momentum of the away-side parton [@Renk:2006qg; @Arleo:2007qw; @Zhang:2009rn]. However, it should be noted that other photon sources, such as those involving jet-plasma interactions, may contribute to photon-hadron correlations. We present a study [@Qin:2009bk] of photon-hadron correlations at RHIC which includes relevant high-$p_T$ photon-production channels. The formalism developed in Ref. [@Qin:2007rn] is employed to account consistently for collisional and radiative energy loss of hard partons in the Arnold-Moore-Yaffe (AMY) approach [@Arnold:2001ms; @Arnold:2001ba; @Arnold:2002ja]. The thermalized medium produced in Au+Au collisions is modeled by (3+1)-dimensional hydrodynamics [@Nonaka:2006yn].
Calculation
===========
The evolution of the jet distributions $P(E,t) = {dN(E,t)}/{dE}$ in the medium is described by a set of coupled Fokker-Planck type equations [@Jeon:2003gi; @Turbide:2005fk]: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{FP-eq}
\frac{dP_j(E,t)}{dt} \!&=&\! \sum_{ab} \int d\omega
\left[P_a(E+\omega,t) \frac{d\Gamma_{a\to
j}(E+\omega,\omega)}{d\omega dt} - P_j(E,t)\frac{d\Gamma_{j\to
b}(E,\omega)}{d\omega dt}\right]. \ \ \ \ \ \\end{aligned}$$ Here $d{\Gamma_{j\to a}(E,\omega)}/{d\omega dt}$ is the transition rate, with $E$ the initial jet energy and $\omega$ the lost energy. The radiative and collisional parts of the transition rates have been discussed in Ref. [@Qin:2007zz; @Qin:2007rn].
To obtain high-$p_T$ hadrons produced in A+A collisions, the medium-modified fragmentation function $\tilde{D}_{h/j}(z,\vec{r}_\bot, \phi)$ is defined to take into account the energy loss of jets in the medium: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{mmff} \tilde{D}_{h/j}(z,\vec{r}_\bot, \phi) \!&=&\!\!
\sum_{j'} \!\int\! dp_{j'} \frac{z'}{z} D_{h/j'}(z')
P(p_{j'}|p_j,\vec{r}_\bot, \phi). \ \ \ \\end{aligned}$$ Here $z = p_h / p_{j}$ and $z' = p_h / p_{j'}$, with $p_h$ the hadron momentum and $p_{j}$($p_{j'}$) the initial (final) jet momentum. $P(p_{j'}|p_j,\vec{r}_\bot, \phi)$ represents the probability of obtaining a jet $j'$ with momentum $p_{j'}$ from a given jet $j$ with momentum $p_j$ and is obtained by solving Eq. (\[FP-eq\]). As the energy loss depends on the local medium profiles along the jet path, one needs to convolve over the distribution of jet production position $\vec{r}_\bot$ and propagation direction $\phi$.
To calculate the spectrum of high-$p_T$ non-decay photons produced in relativistic nuclear collisions, one needs to take into account all the important sources: early hard direct photons, fragmentation photons, and jet-medium photons. Prompt direct photons are mostly produced from early hard collisions between partons from two initial nuclei, through quark-anti-quark annihilation and quark-gluon Compton scattering. Fragmentation photons are produced by the surviving high energy jets escaping the medium. As in high-$p_T$ hadron production, one may define a medium-modified photon fragmentation function $\tilde{D}_{\gamma/j}(z,\vec{r}_\bot, \phi)$. Jet-medium photons are produced during the passage of high energy jets through the nuclear medium via induced photon bremsstrahlung and jet-photon conversions. This defines an photon evolution equation solved with the jet evolution, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{photon_evolve} \frac{dP^{\rm JM}_\gamma(E,t)}{dt} \!&=&\!
\int d\omega P_{q\bar{q}}(E{+}\omega,t) \frac{d\Gamma^{\rm
JM}_{q\to \gamma}(E{+}\omega,\omega)}{d\omega dt}. \ \ \ \ \ \\end{aligned}$$ Here ${d\Gamma^{\rm JM}_{q\to \gamma}}/{d\omega dt} =
{d\Gamma^{\rm brem}_{q\to \gamma}}/{d\omega dt} + {d\Gamma^{\rm
conv}_{q\to \gamma}}/{d\omega dt}$. The transition rates $d\Gamma^{\rm brem}_{q\to \gamma}/d\omega dt$ for photon bremsstrahlung processes are discussed in Ref. [@Arnold:2001ms; @Arnold:2001ba; @Arnold:2002ja] , and jet-photon conversion rates $d\Gamma^{\rm conv}_{q\to
\gamma}/d\omega dt$ may be inferred from the photon emission rates for those processes.
For photon-hadron correlations, one defines a yield per-trigger, representing the momentum distribution of away-side hadrons given a trigger photon in the near side with momentum $p_T^\gamma$: $$\begin{aligned}
P(p_T^h|p_T^\gamma) = {P(p_T^h,p_T^\gamma)}/{P(p_T^\gamma)}.\end{aligned}$$ Note that $P(p_T^\gamma)$ is the single-particle $p_T$ distribution and $P(p_T^\gamma, p_T^{h})$ is the $\gamma$-$h$ pair $p_T$ distribution. Often, a photon-triggered fragmentation function is defined, $$\begin{aligned}
D_{AA}(z_T,p_T^\gamma) = p_T^\gamma P_{AA}(p_T^h|p_T^\gamma),\end{aligned}$$ with $z_T = p_T^h/p_T^\gamma$. The effect of the nuclear medium on photon-hadron correlations may be quantified by the nuclear modification factor $I_{AA}$ defined as, $$\begin{aligned}
I_{AA}(z_T,p_T^\gamma) =
{D_{AA}(z_T,p_T^\gamma)}/{D_{pp}(z_T,p_T^\gamma)}.\end{aligned}$$
Results
=======
![(Color online) Left: Neutral pion $R_{AA}$ in central and mid-central Au+Au collisions at RHIC (from Ref. [@Qin:2007rn], see text for explanation). Right: The contributions from different channels to photon production in most central Au+Au collisions at RHIC [@Qin:2009bk]. []{data-label="raa"}](raa_radiative_vs_collisional.eps "fig:"){width="0.44\linewidth"} ![(Color online) Left: Neutral pion $R_{AA}$ in central and mid-central Au+Au collisions at RHIC (from Ref. [@Qin:2007rn], see text for explanation). Right: The contributions from different channels to photon production in most central Au+Au collisions at RHIC [@Qin:2009bk]. []{data-label="raa"}](photon_yield_3d_0_10.eps "fig:"){width="0.46\linewidth"}
The results for jet-quenching and photon production in Au+Au collisions at RHIC are shown in Fig. \[raa\]. The left panel shows neutral pion $R_{AA}$ measured at mid-rapidity for the most central and mid-central collisions [@Qin:2007rn]. We also compare the relative contributions of induced gluon radiations (dashed) and elastic collisions (dash-dotted) to the final $R_{AA}$ (solid). One finds that the overall magnitude of $R_{AA}$ is sensitive to both radiative and collisional energy loss. The only free parameter, $\alpha_s$, – the strong coupling constant – is chosen such that the experimental measurement of $R_{AA}$ in the most central collisions is described. The same value $\alpha_s=0.27$ is then used throughout. In the right panel, we show the relative contributions from different channels to high-$p_T$ photon production in central collisions [@Qin:2009bk], and compare with PHENIX measurements [@Isobe:2007ku]. While photons in the high-$p_T$ regime are predominantly from early hard partonic collisions, the presence of jet-medium interaction is nevertheless important to understand the net photon production in Au+Au collisions at RHIC.
![(Color online) Photon-triggered fragmentation functions and nuclear modification factor $I_{AA}$ as a function of $z_T$ in Au+Au collisions compared to STAR (left) and PHENIX (right) measurements. Figures are taken from Ref. [@Qin:2009bk].[]{data-label="daa_iaa"}](star_aa_vs_zt.eps "fig:"){width="0.45\linewidth"} ![(Color online) Photon-triggered fragmentation functions and nuclear modification factor $I_{AA}$ as a function of $z_T$ in Au+Au collisions compared to STAR (left) and PHENIX (right) measurements. Figures are taken from Ref. [@Qin:2009bk].[]{data-label="daa_iaa"}](phenix_iaa_vs_zt_new2.eps "fig:"){width="0.45\linewidth"}
In Fig. \[daa\_iaa\], we show our results [@Qin:2009bk] for photon-hadron correlations at high $p_T$ in Au+Au collisions at RHIC. The left panel shows the photon-triggered fragmentation function $D_{AA}(z_T)$ compared with STAR measurements [@Hamed:2008yz]. The theoretical photon-triggered fragmentation function $D_{AA}(z_T)$ in central Au+Au collisions agrees well with experimental data. Also the STAR measurements for peripheral Au+Au collisions are consistent with p+p calculations. In the right panel, we show the nuclear modification factor $I_{AA}$ for photon-triggered hadron production compared with PHENIX measurements [@Collaboration:2009vd]. While the fall of $I_{AA}$ at low but increasing $z_T$ is due to the dominance of direct photons, the flattening $I_{AA}$ predicted at higher values of $z_T$ owes to the increasing influence of jet-medium photons and of fragmentation photons. Also note that several bins of hadron momenta are shown for comparison.
Summary
=======
We have presented a study of jet energy loss, photon production and photon-hadron correlations at high $p_T$ within a consistent theoretical framework. Both induced gluon radiation and elastic collisions are incorporated to calculate the energy loss of hard jets traversing the hot and dense medium. A complete set of photon-production channels is included in the computation of high $p_T$ photon spectra. A fully (3+1)-dimensional hydrodynamical evolution is employed to model the thermalized medium created at RHIC. Our results have been shown to provide a good description of the experimental measurements. This implies that jet-medium interaction is important for jet-quenching, photon production, and photon-hadron measurements at RHIC; the study of these correlations will in turn provide insight on the detailed structure of the excited medium created in high-energy nuclear collisions.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
This work was supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy under grant DE-FG02-01ER41190, and in part by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. G.-Y.Q. acknowledges the support from the organizers of the Quark Matter 2009 conference.
[00]{} PHENIX, K. Adcox [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**88**]{}, 022301 (2002), arXiv:nucl-ex/0109003. STAR, C. Adler [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**89**]{}, 202301 (2002), arXiv:nucl-ex/0206011. M. Gyulassy and X. nian Wang, Nucl. Phys. [**B420**]{}, 583 (1994), arXiv:nucl-th/9306003. S. A. Bass [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. [**C79**]{}, 024901 (2009), arXiv:0808.0908. X.-N. Wang, Z. Huang, and I. Sarcevic, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**77**]{}, 231 (1996), arXiv:hep-ph/9605213. T. Renk, Phys. Rev. [**C74**]{}, 034906 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0607166. F. Arleo, J. Phys. [**G34**]{}, S1037 (2007), arXiv:hep-ph/0701207. H. Zhang, J. F. Owens, E. Wang, and X.-N. Wang, (2009), arXiv:0902.4000. G.-Y. Qin, J. Ruppert, C. Gale, S. Jeon, and G. D. Moore, (2009), arXiv:0906.3280. G.-Y. Qin [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**100**]{}, 072301 (2008), arXiv:0710.0605. P. Arnold, G. D. Moore, and L. G. Yaffe, JHEP [**12**]{}, 009 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0111107. P. Arnold, G. D. Moore, and L. G. Yaffe, JHEP [**11**]{}, 057 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0109064. P. Arnold, G. D. Moore, and L. G. Yaffe, JHEP [**06**]{}, 030 (2002), arXiv:hep-ph/0204343. C. Nonaka and S. A. Bass, Phys. Rev. [**C75**]{}, 014902 (2007), arXiv:nucl-th/0607018. S. Jeon and G. D. Moore, Phys. Rev. [**C71**]{}, 034901 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0309332. S. Turbide, C. Gale, S. Jeon, and G. D. Moore, Phys. Rev. [**C72**]{}, 014906 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0502248. G.-Y. Qin [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. [**C76**]{}, 064907 (2007), arXiv:0705.2575. PHENIX, T. Isobe, J. Phys. [**G34**]{}, S1015 (2007), arXiv:nucl-ex/0701040. STAR, A. M. Hamed, J. Phys. [**G35**]{}, 104120 (2008), arXiv:0806.2190. PHENIX, A. Adare [*et al.*]{}, (2009), arXiv:0903.3399.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We use the Aharonov-Bohm effect in a four-terminal ring based on a Ga\[Al\]As heterostructure for the measurement of the relative transmission phase. In each of the two interfering paths we induce a quantum dot. The number of electrons in the two dots can be controlled independently. The transmission phase is measured as electrons are added to or taken away from the individual quantum dots.'
author:
- 'M. Sigrist,$^1$,A. Fuhrer,$^1$ T. Ihn,$^1$ K. Ensslin,$^1$ W. Wegscheider,$^2$ M. Bichler$^3$'
bibliography:
- 'ab\_phase.bib'
title: 'Transmission Phase Through Two Quantum Dots Embedded in a Four-Terminal Quantum Ring'
---
Two-terminal interference measurements in nanostructures do not allow the determination of the relative transmission phase due to the generalized Onsager relations [@86Bbuttiker]. In a series of recent experiments it has been demonstrated [@97schuster; @98buks; @00ji; @02ji] that in a multi-terminal geometry the relative transmission phase can be directly observed. In the quantum rings used in these experiments, two spatially separate transmission channels interfere and the phase difference of the corresponding transmission amplitudes can be detected by measuring Aharonov-Bohm (AB) oscillations. By using one of the two interfering paths as a reference the phase evolution in the other path can be studied, e.g. when a Coulomb blockaded quantum dot is embedded there [@97schuster]. It was found that the transmission phase changes by about $\pi$ across a typical Coulomb blockade resonance and regularly exhibits so-called phase lapses between resonances. Similar experiments were carried out on a Kondo-correlated system in Refs. [@00ji] and [@02ji]. A large number of theoretical papers (for a review see [@01hackenbroich]) has addressed the issue of the phase lapses.
Here we investigate the phase evolution of a system of two quantum dots with negligible electrostatic interaction embedded in two arms of a four-terminal AB ring. Both arms of the ring including the two dots can be tuned individually. As a single electron is added to either of the two quantum dots by increasing the corresponding plunger gate voltage, the observed average phase shift is about $\pi$ but smaller shifts are also observed. In such a measurement one dot is kept on a conductance resonance while the phase evolution induced by tuning the other dot through a resonance is monitored. In contrast, if a single electron is added to each of the quantum dots simultaneously, the observed phase shift is close to zero, since the relative phase change in each arm is roughly the same.
![\[fig1\] (a) AFM micrograph of the ring structure. The oxide lines (bright lines) fabricated by AFM lithography lead to insulating barriers in the two-dimensional electron gas. The areas marked pg1-pg4 are used as lateral gates to tune the conductance of the four arms of the ring and act as plunger gates for the dots. The four terminals of the ring are labeled A through D. (b) Schematic plot of the parameter space defined by $V_{pg1}$ and $V_{pg2}$. The dashed lines mark the conductance maximum positions. AB-oscillations were measured along the arrows. N(M) denotes the electron occupation in dot 1(2) respectively.](fig0.eps){width="7.5cm"}
The sample is a Ga\[Al\]As heterostructure containing a two-dimensional electron gas 37 nm below the surface. The lateral pattern was fabricated with the biased tip of an atomic force microscope which locally oxidizes the GaAs surface. Details of this fabrication technique are described in Ref. [@02fuhrer]. Figure \[fig1\](a) shows an AFM micrograph of the oxidized pattern. Lateral gate electrodes labeled pg1 through pg4 are used to tune the conductance in each of the four segments of the ring. All measurements were carried out at 100mK in a dilution refrigerator.
![\[fig11\] (a) AB-Oscillations in a local measurement setup (see inset). (b+c) Two different non-local setups. The measurement setup shown in the inset of (c) turned out to show the largest AB-Oscillations and was therefore used for the phase sensitive measurements.](fig1.eps){width="7cm"}
The ring was characterized in the open regime where each segment supports 2-4 lateral modes. Figure \[fig11\](a) shows a pronounced AB effect in a local measurement setup in which the current and voltage contacts are the same two terminals of the ring \[inset Fig. \[fig11\](a)\]. The period $\Delta B=\Phi_0 /A\approx4.8$ mT is in agreement with the area $A=0.85$ $\mu$m$^2$ enclosed by the ring.
The non-local resistance was measured by passing a current through arm 2 and measuring the voltage drop across arm 4. This is shown in Fig. \[fig11\](b). In this case the AB-oscillations constitute only 2% of the total signal. In order to maximize the AB signal we therefore chose a different arrangement \[inset Fig. \[fig11\](c)\] similar to the one used in Ref. [@97schuster]. Here a bias voltage $V_\mathrm{b}$ was applied to terminal A. The lower and upper contacts (B and D) were grounded via current-voltage converters measuring the currents $I_{\mbox{\tiny B}}$ and $I_{\mbox{\tiny D}}$. The non-local voltage $V_\mathrm{nl}$ was measured at terminal C. The amplitude of the AB-oscillations in $V_\mathrm{nl}$ \[Fig. \[fig11\](c)\] was found to be about 25% of the total signal.
We also characterized the four arms of the ring in the closed regime. To this end we measured the two-terminal conductance of each segment as a function of gate voltage when the arm on the opposite side was pinched-off by applying a strongly negative voltage to the corresponding plunger gate. In Fig. \[fig2\] the resulting conductance sweeps are shown. For low enough gate voltages clear Coulomb blockade oscillations are observed indicating the formation of a quantum dot in the arm tuned.
The location of the quantum dots can be estimated from the respective lever arms to each of the gates pg1 to pg4 which reveals that the dots form within the segments and not at the openings to the contacts. The lever arm for the gate closest to the corresponding dot is found to be $\alpha_{\mathrm{G}}\approx0.16$, for the two adjacent gates the lever arm is about a factor of seven smaller and for the gate opposite the dot the lever arm is fourteen times smaller. From Coulomb blockade diamond measurements we find a typical Coulomb charging energy of 1 meV, which corresponds roughly to the area of a single segment in a disc-capacitor model.
![\[fig2\] Coulomb blockade oscillations in the conductance through each arm of the ring measured in a two-terminal configuration. For each measured arm the opposite arm was pinched off by applying a strongly negative voltage to the corresponding gate. The schematic at the top left in each figure depicts the measurement setup where the line marks the arm which is pinched off and the black dot indicates the arm which is tuned.](fig2.eps){width="7.5cm"}
![\[fig3\] Currents $I_{\mathrm B}$ and $I_{\mathrm D}$ and AB-oscillations in the non-local voltage $V_\mathrm{nl}$ as a function of plunger gate voltages tuned along traces s2 (a), s1 (b) and d1 (c). The AB-oscillations are taken at the gate values indicated by the dashed lines. The thin vertical lines are shown only as a guide to the eye in order to visualize the phase shift more clearly.](fig3.eps){width="7.5cm"}
In the following experiments we choose a regime where arm 1 and 2 are in the Coulomb blockade regime while the other two arms are left open and contain several lateral modes. We study a region in the plane defined by $V_{\mathrm{pg1}}$ and $V_{\mathrm{pg2}}$ close to a setting where both dots are tuned to a conductance maximum. This is shown schematically in Fig. \[fig1\](b) where the dashed lines mark the Coulomb peak positions. The numbers in brackets indicate the electron occupation of the two dots. In our measurements we first keep one dot on a conductance maximum while stepping through a conductance peak in the other dot (traces s1 and s2 indicated by the arrows). At the same time we detect the AB-oscillations in the non-local voltage for each value of the gate voltage. Figure \[fig3\](a) shows an example where dot 2 is tuned along trace s2. The current signals on the left of the figure show a peak in the current $I_{\mbox{\tiny B}}$, i.e. the current in the terminal closer to the tuned dot. The current $I_{\mbox{\tiny D}}$ shows a weak monotonous dependence on pg2, as expected. In the main part of the figure on the right, AB-oscillations in the non-local voltage as a function of magnetic field are shown for selected gate voltages (dashed lines in the left part of the figure). We find that for very small magnetic fields the amplitude of the AB-oscillations is suppressed and it is difficult to make a statement about a phase change between the curves. The numbered thin vertical lines are a guide to the eye and connect maxima in the uppermost trace with minima in the lowest trace. This indicates a phase shift by about $\pi$ as expected for the phase accumulation over a single isolated resonance [@97schuster; @01hackenbroich]. While the shift is continuous and positive (from top to bottom) for line 1 we find a slightly smaller shift for line 2 over the whole range of sweeps. A shift by $\pi$ takes place over the middle three curves. A change in phase or frequency for different values of the magnetic field could mean that in a semiclassical picture different paths around the ring contribute to the interference signal as the magnetic field is tuned. This illustrates that from our data a magnetic field independent AB-phase cannot be unambiguously defined.
Along trace s1 \[Fig. \[fig3\](b)\] dot 1 is tuned while dot 2 is kept on a conductance resonance. Here, current $I_{\mathrm B}$ shows the expected flat behavior, but we observe a double peak structure in current $I_{\mathrm D}$. The phase change has the opposite sign compared to trace s2. For the vertical line 3 we find almost the expected phase change of $\pi$. For lines 1 and 2 the phase change is, however, smaller. While the magnetic field dependence of the phase needs further investigation we do find that the relative change of the transmission phase in both dots is the same as an electron is added to them. This means that the interference patterns are shifted in opposite directions. In order to verify this we show the results for a sweep along the diagonal trace d1 where two electrons are added simultaneously to both dots \[Fig \[fig3\](c)\]. For magnetic fields above 50 mT we find that the phase change over the conductance resonance is indeed $0=\pi-\pi$ as expected (see vertical line 1). However, we again find that deviations from this behavior occur for small magnetic fields where we find a small shift of the phase (vertical line 2).
The design and fabrication process of our samples is different from the experiment by Schuster et al. [@97schuster]. In contrast to their experiment we have a second dot in the reference arm of the interferometer which gives us additional control of the relative phase change. Our findings indicate that the shift of the transmission phase of both dots has the same sign when they are tuned over a conductance resonance and the electron occupation is increased. In agreement with our expectation, we find a negligible shift for trace d1 where the phase difference between the arms of the ring remains constant.
In conclusion, we have demonstrated that the phase evolution can be measured with individual control over the electron occupancy in each dot. While the general features are understood qualitatively, further work is needed to explain magnetic field dependent deviations from the theoretically expected phase changes.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- |
L. Herrera$^1$[^1]\
[$^1$Instituto Universitario de Física Fundamental y Matemáticas]{},\
[Universidad de Salamanca, Salamanca 37007, Spain]{}
title: 'Gravitational radiation, vorticity and super–energy: A conspicuous threesome'
---
Introduction
============
The detection of gravitational radiation by means of laser interferometers represents a major breakthrough in the development of the theory of gravitation [@1]. However, the apparatus involved in such experiments is extremely expensive and requires the participation of large number of researchers, as a consequence of which this observational approach is accessible only to huge collaboration groups endowed with very large budgets. Therefore it is clearly alluring the idea to detect gravitational radiation by means of experiments based on effects, different from those involved in laser interferometers, that could be carried out by means of a cheaper technology and thereby affordable to a larger number of groups of research all around the world.
Our purpose in this paper is twofold. On the one hand we shall present a comprehensive discussion about the link between gravitational radiation, vorticity and a flux of super–energy on the plane orthogonal to the vorticity. On the other hand we would like to call the attention to the potential observational application of this effect on the detection of gravitational radiation.
The relationship between gravitational radiation and vorticity was put forward for the first time in Reference [@2], using the Bondi approach [@3; @4]. It was subsequently discussed by many researchers (see for example References [@5; @6; @7; @8; @9; @10; @11] and references therein). Short afterwards, it was established that the link between gravitational radiation and vorticity becomes intelligible if we introduce another element into the discussion, namely a flux of super–energy on the plane orthogonal to the vorticity vector [@8; @10].
The idea to relate the vorticity to a flow of super–energy, put forward in Reference [@8], stems from an intriguing fact related to the space–time generated by a magnetic dipole plus a central charge. The point is that such space–time appears to be stationary (non–static), that is, there is a vorticity in the congruence of observers at rest with respect to the source. In order to explain this strange situation, Bonnor [@8N] invokes a curious result of classical electrodynamics concerning the Poynting vector of a charged magnetic dipole (see Reference [@N9]). Indeed, it appears that for a charged magnetic dipole there is a non–vanishing flow of electromagnetic energy (as described by the Poynting vector), in spite of the fact that the system is time–independent. Thus, Bonnor explains the appearance of vorticity in such a system, as produced by the circular flow of electromagnetic energy (later on it was established that this is the explanation for the appearance of vorticity in any stationary electrovacuum solution to the Einstein equations [@N10]). In Reference [@8] we have just extended the Bonnor’s idea by replacing the electromagnetic energy by super–energy, in order to explain the appearance of vorticity associated to the emission of gravitational radiation.
All the discussion above concerns the vorticity of the congruence of observers in the vacuum (outside the source). However a similar link exists between gravitational radiation and the vorticity of the congruence of the fluid elements forming the source. The combined discussion from the point of view of observers, both, outside and inside the source, provides a deeper insight into the problem and poses new questions which eventually could be answered by experimental observation.
Before entering into the core of the discussion it would be convenient to specify in some detail the three essential ingredients of our proposal.
Vorticity, Gravitational Radiation and Super–Poynting Vector
============================================================
Let us start with the concept of vorticity of a congruence. As is well known the vorticity vector [${\bf \Omega}$]{} defining the vorticity of a congruence, describes the rate of rotation (the proper angular velocity) with respect to proper time at any reference particle at rest in the rotating frame, relative to the local compass of inertia. This compass of inertia is physically realized by three gyroscopes spinning about three orthogonal axes. It is then obvious that [$-{\bf \Omega}$]{} describes the rotation of the compass of inertia (gyroscope) with respect to reference particles. From these comments the suitability of gyroscopes to detect rotations becomes evident. Two very important relativistic effects can be identified and measured by means of gyroscopes. One is the well known Fokker–de Sitter effect, which refers to the precession of a gyroscope following a closed orbit around a spherically symmetric mass distribution (a version of Thomas precession in the Schwarzschild spacetime). This effect can be verified with a great degree of accuracy by observing the rotation of the earth–moon system around the sun [@12]. The other effect is the Lense–Thirring–Shiff precession, which is much more difficult to observe and refers to the generation of vorticity in the congruence of observers due to the rotation of the source (the so called frame dragging effect, see Reference [@13] for a detailed discussion on this issue). The Gravity Probe B experiment not only confirmed the reality of the Lense–Thirring–Shiff precession [@14; @15] but also put in evidence the high degree of development achieved so far in the gyroscope technology.
Next, let us say few words about super–energy and super–Poynting vector.
In any classical field theory, energy is a quantity defined in terms of potentials and their first derivatives. Accordingly, in general relativity a definition of energy through a tensor variable is impossible since, as is well known, we cannot form a tensor with the metric and its first derivatives alone. In other words, a local description of gravitational energy in terms of true invariants (tensors of any rank) is not possible within the context of the theory. This situation has lead researchers to look for non–local definitions of energy or to describe it by means of pseudo–tensors or to resort to a succedaneous definition of energy.
Super–energy is an example of this last alternative. It may be defined from the Bel or the Bel–Robinson tensor [@16; @17; @18] (they both coincide in vacuum) and has been shown to be very useful when it comes to explaining a number of phenomena in the context of general relativity.
The Bel and the Bel–Robinson tensors are obtained from the Riemann and the Weyl tensor (as well as their dual) respectively, by analogy with the form in which the energy–momentum tensor of the electromagnetic field depends on the Maxwell tensor (and its dual). Obviously they coincide in vacuum but differ within the source. Also, by analogy with electromagnetism, a super–Poynting vector describing the flux of super–energy can be defined. This quantity is particularly relevant for our discussion since in the theory of the super–Poynting vector, a state of gravitational radiation is associated to a non–vanishing component of the latter (see References [@16; @17; @18]). This is in agreement with the established link between the super–Poynting vector and the news functions [@8], in the context of the Bondi–Sachs approach [@3; @4] (see below).
Finally, we shall provide a summarized description of gravitational radiation. This will be done for, both, the space–time outside the source, which we consider bounded in order for the spacetime to be asymptotically flat, as well as for the space–time within the source.The following two subsections are devoted to these issues.
Gravitational Radiation in An Asymptotically Flat Vacuum Space–Time: The Bondi Approach.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bondi formalism [@3] is centered around the general form of an axially and reflection symmetric asymptotically flat metric given by (for the general case see Reference [@4]) $$\begin{array}{cll}
ds^2 & = & \left(\frac{V}{r} e^{2\beta} - U^2 r^2 e^{2\gamma}\right) du^2
+ 2 e^{2\beta} du dr \\
& + & 2 U r^2 e^{2\gamma} du d\theta
- r^2 \left(e^{2 \gamma} d\theta^2 + e^{-2\gamma} \sin^2{\theta}
d\phi^2\right),
\label{Bm}
\end{array}$$ where $V, \beta, U$ and $\gamma$ are functions of $u, r$ and $\theta$.
The coordinates are numbered $x^{0,1,2,3} = u, r, \theta, \phi$, respectively. $u$ is a timelike coordinate ($g_{uu}>0$ ) and the hypersurfaces [$u=constant$]{} define null surfaces (their normal vectors are null vectors), which in the null infinity ($r\rightarrow \infty$) coincide with the Minkowski null light cone open to the future. $r$ is a null coordinate ($g_{rr}=0$) and $\theta$ and $\phi$ are two angle coordinates (see Reference [@3] for details). Regularity conditions in the neighborhood of the polar axis ($\sin{\theta}=0$), imply that as $\sin{\theta} \rightarrow 0$ $$V, \beta, U/\sin{\theta}, \gamma/\sin^2{\theta},
\label{regularity}$$ each equals a function of $\cos{\theta}$ regular on the polar axis.
Expanding the metric functions in series of $1/r$, and using the field equations one gets
$$\gamma = c r^{-1} + \left(C - \frac{1}{6} c^3\right) r^{-3}
+ {\mathcal{O}}(r^{-n})\quad n\geq 4,\nonumber
\label{ga}$$
$$U = - \left(c_\theta + 2 c \cot{\theta}\right) r^{-2} + \left[2
N+3cc_{\theta}+4c^2 \cot{\theta}\right]r^{-3}+ {\mathcal{O}}(r^{-n}) \quad n\geq 4,
\label{U}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
V = r - 2 M
- \left( N_\theta + N \cot{\theta} -
c_{\theta}^{2} - 4 c c_{\theta} \cot{\theta} -
\frac{1}{2} c^2 (1 + 8 \cot^2{\theta})\right) r^{-1} + {\mathcal{O}}(r^{-n})\quad n\geq 2,\nonumber
\label{V}\end{aligned}$$
$$\beta = - \frac{1}{4} c^2 r^{-2} + {\mathcal{O}}(r^{-n})\quad n\geq 3,\nonumber
\label{be}$$
where letters as subscripts denote derivatives and $c$, $C$, $N$ and $M$ are functions of $u$ and $\theta$ satisfying the constraint $$4C_u = 2 c^2 c_u + 2 c M + N \cot{\theta} - N_\theta.
\label{C}$$
The three functions $c, M$ and $N$ are further constrained by the supplementary conditions $$M_u = - c_u^2 + \frac{1}{2}
\left(c_{\theta\theta} + 3 c_{\theta} \cot{\theta} - 2 c\right)_u,
\label{Mass}$$ $$- 3 N_u = M_\theta + 3 c c_{u\theta} + 4 c c_u \cot{\theta} + c_u c_\theta.
\label{N}$$
In the static case $M$ is related to the mass of the system and was called by Bondi the “mass aspect”, whereas $N$ and $C$ are closely related to the dipole and quadrupole moment respectively.
Using the mass aspect, Bondi defines the mass $m(u)$ of the system as $$m(u) = \frac{1}{2} \int_0^\pi{M \sin{\theta} d\theta},
\label{m}$$ which, using (\[Mass\]) and (\[regularity\]) produces $$m_u = - \frac{1}{2} \int_0^\pi{c_u^2 \sin{\theta} d\theta}.
\label{muI}$$
We may now summarize the more relevant results emerging from the Bondi approach:
- If $\gamma, M$ and $N$ are known on some null hypersurface $u=a $(constant) and $c_u$ (the news function) is known for all $u$ in the interval $a \leq u \leq b$, then the system is fully determined in that interval. This implies that whatever happens at the source, leading to changes in the field, it can only do so by affecting $c_u$ and viceversa. This result establishes in an unmistakable way the relationship between news function and the occurrence of radiation.
- As it follows from (\[muI\]), the mass of a system is constant if and only if there are no news.
Now, for an observer at rest in the frame of (\[Bm\]), the four-velocity vector has components $$V^{\alpha} = \left(\frac{1}{A}, 0, 0, 0\right),
\label{fvct}$$ with $$A \equiv \left(\frac{V}{r} e^{2\beta} - U^2 r^2 e^{2\gamma}\right)^{1/2}.
\label{A}$$
For the observer defined by (\[fvct\]) the vorticity vector may be written as (see Reference [@2] for details) $$\omega^\alpha = \left(0, 0, 0, \omega^{\phi}\right),
\label{oma}$$ while for its absolute value we obtain $$\begin{array}{cll}
\Omega &\equiv & \left(- \omega_\alpha \omega^\alpha\right)^{1/2} = -\frac{1}{2r} ( c_{u \theta}+2 c_u \cot \theta) \\ &+&\frac 1{r^2} \left[ M_{\theta}-M (c_{u \theta}+2 c_u \cot
\theta)-c c_{u
\theta}+6 c c_u \cot \theta+2 c_u c_{\theta} \right] +{\mathcal{O}}(r^{-n})\quad n\geq 3.
\label{Om2}
\end{array}$$
The first term on the right hand side of (\[Om2\]) describes the contribution of gravitational radiation to vorticity, it vanishes if and only if there are no news, that is, if there is no gravitational radiation. Instead, the second term survives even if $c_u=0$. In this latter case the vorticity has to be related to the tail of the wave associated to the $M_\theta$ term. We shall discuss further on this issue in the last section.
Finally, we shall need an expression for the super–Poynting vector. The super–Poynting vector based on the Bel–Robinson tensor is defined as (see Reference [@8] for details) $$P_{\alpha}=\eta_{\alpha \beta \gamma
\delta}E^{\beta}_{\rho}H^{\gamma
\rho}u^{\delta},
\label{p1}$$ where $\eta_{\alpha \beta \gamma
\delta}$ is the permutation symbol and $E_{\mu\nu}$ and $H_{\mu\nu}$, are the electric and magnetic parts of Weyl tensor, respectively. They are defined from the Weyl tensor $C_{\alpha
\beta \gamma
\delta}$ and its dual $\tilde C_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta}$ by contraction with the four velocity vector, as $$E_{\alpha \beta}=C_{\alpha \gamma \beta
\delta}V^{\gamma}V^{\delta},
\label{electric}$$ $$H_{\alpha \beta}=\tilde C_{\alpha \gamma \beta
\delta}u^{\gamma}u^{\delta}=
\frac{1}{2}\eta_{\alpha \gamma \epsilon
\delta} C^{\epsilon
\delta}_{\quad \beta \rho}
V^{\gamma}
V^{\rho}.
\label{magnetic}$$
For the Bondi metric we obtain $$P_\mu=(0,P_r,P_\theta, 0),$$ where the leading terms of each component are $$P_r=-\frac{2c_{uu}^2}{r^2} + \mathcal{O}(r^{-n})\quad n\geq 3,
\label{point1}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
P_\theta =-\frac{2}{r^2 \sin\theta}\left[
(2c_{uu}^2c
+c_{uu}c_{u})\cos\theta +\left(c_{uu}c_{\theta
u}+c_{uu}^2c_{\theta}\right)\sin\theta \right]+ {\mathcal{O}}(r^{-n})\quad n\geq 3
.\label{p2}\end{aligned}$$
Thus, we have a radial component describing the propagation of super–energy along the generators of the null hypersurface $u=constant$ and a “meridional” component which is the one related to the vorticity (see References [@8; @10] for details). A striking confirmation of the link between vorticity and and a flow of super–energy on the the plane orthogonal to the vorticity vector is provided by analyzing the Einstein–Rosen metric. In this case there is a radial component of the Super–Poynting vector related to the propagation of the gravitational wave, whereas the absence of vorticity is explained by the fact that there is no flow of super–energy in any plane of the 3-space (see References [@10] for details).The vanishing of the $\phi$-component is due to the reflection symmetry of the Bondi metric.
We shall next provide a brief description of the the source of the gravitational radiation.
Gravitational Radiation within the Source
-----------------------------------------
The Bondi approach sketched in the previous subsection is very powerful to analyze the radiative space–time outside the source but fails as we approach the source, due to the appearance of caustics, and of course is not suitable for describing the situation within the source. Accordingly in order to describe the situation within the fluid distribution we shall resort to a different framework, developed in Reference [@19] and based on the $1+3$ approach [@20; @21; @22; @23], whose main characteristics are described below (for details see Reference [@19]).
Thus, let us consider, axially (and reflection) symmetric sources, for which the most general line element may be written as: $$ds^2=-A^2 dt^2 + B^2 \left(dr^2
+r^2d\theta^2\right)+C^2d\phi^2+2Gd\theta dt, \label{1b}$$ where $A, B, C, G$ are positive functions of $t$, $r$ and $\theta$. We number the coordinates $x^0=t, x^1=r, x^2= \theta, x^3=\phi$.
The source is filled with an anisotropic and dissipative fluid, therefore the energy momentum tensor may be written in the “canonical” form, as $${T}_{\alpha\beta}= (\mu+P) V_\alpha V_\beta+P g _{\alpha \beta} +\Pi_{\alpha \beta}+q_\alpha V_\beta+q_\beta V_\alpha,
\label{6bis}$$ where $\mu$ is the energy density, $q_\alpha$ is the heat flux, whereas $P$ is the isotropic pressure and $\Pi_{\alpha \beta}$ is the anisotropic tensor. We are considering an Eckart frame where fluid elements are at rest.
For the line element (\[1b\]), it can be shown that the heat flux vector is determined by two scalar functions, whereas three scalar functions describe the anisotropic tensor. Also, there is a vorticity vector, with a single component along the $\phi$ direction, defined in terms of a single scalar function $\Omega$ given by $$\Omega =\frac{G(\frac{G_{,r}}{G}-\frac{2A_{,r}}{A})}{2B\sqrt{A^2B^2r^2+G^2}}.
\label{no}$$
Regularity conditions at the centre imply that: $G=0\Leftrightarrow \Omega=0$.
Finally we shall need to consider the super–Poynting vector $P^\mu$ within the source. As we know from Reference [@8], there is always a non-vanishing component of $P^\mu$, on the plane orthogonal to a unit vector along which there is a non-vanishing component of vorticity (the $\theta-r$ plane). Instead, $P^\mu$ vanishes along the $\phi$-direction since there are no motions along this latter direction, because of the reflection symmetry.
Explicit expressions for the components of the super–Poynting vector may be found in Reference [@19]. Suffice is to say at this point that we can identify three different contributions in the super–Poynting vector. On the one hand we have contributions from the heat transport process. These are in principle independent of the magnetic part of the Weyl tensor, which explains why (some of them ) remain in the spherically symmetric limit. On the other hand we have contributions from the magnetic part of the Weyl tensor. These are of two kinds. On the one hand, contributions associated with the propagation of gravitational radiation within the fluid and on the other hand, contributions of the flow of super–energy associated with the vorticity on the plane orthogonal to the direction of propagation of the radiation, this is the effect relevant for our discussion here. Both contributions are intertwined and it appears to be impossible to disentangle them through two independent scalars.
Before concluding this section, the following remarks are in order:
- The gravitational radiation being a dissipative process, we should expect that an entropy generator factor be present in the source of radiation. This has been discussed with some detail in Reference [@24].
- As a consequence of the previous point, the exterior of a gravitationally radiating source is necessarily filled with a null fluid, produced by the dissipative processes inherent to the emission of gravitational radiation. In other words the assumption of vacuum in the Bondi approach has to be regarded as an approximation, see Reference [@25] for a discussion on this issue.
- It is important to keep in mind the difference between the steady vorticity of the stationary case (e.g., the one of the Kerr metric) and the vorticity considered here. In the former case there is no gravitational radiation, although the vorticity is also related to a flux of super–energy on the plane orthogonal to the vorticity vector (see Reference [@27] for details).
- It is important to stress that we are dealing here, exclusively, with sources of gravitational radiation represented by a fluid distribution. In other words the emission of gravitational radiation is entirely due to changes in their relativistic multipole moments. Accordingly, we are excluding gravitational radiation of the “synchrotron” type produced by accelerated massive particles or the two body problem.
We have now available all elements we need for our discussion.
Discussion
==========
The main point to retain from the preceding sections is that whenever gravitational radiation is emitted we should expect the appearance of vorticity in the congruence of the world lines of observers. Accordingly, any experimental device intended to measure rotations could be a potential detector of gravitational radiation as well. Of course, extremely high sensitivities have to be reached, for these detectors to be operational. However, even if the present technology might not be up to the required sensitivities, the intense activity deployed in recent years in this field, invoking ring lasers, atom interferometers, atom lasers, anomalous spin–precession, trapped atoms and quantum interference (see References [@28; @29; @30; @31; @32; @34; @35; @36; @37; @38; @39; @40] and references therein), besides the incredible sensitivities obtained so far in gyroscope technology and exhibited in the Gravity Probe B experiment [@14; @15], make us confident in that this kind of detectors may be operating in the foreseeable future.
As already mentioned in the Introduction, the association of gravitational radiation and vorticity was first put in evidence from the study of the space–time outside the source. However, and this is perhaps one of our main points in this work, the information provided by the inclusion of the physical properties of the source into the whole picture, leads to new fundamental questions which could be answered by the observational evidence.
Indeed, in Reference [@26] an exhaustive analysis of axially symmetric fluid distributions just after its departure from equilibrium, has been carried out at the smallest time scale at which we can detect signs of dynamical evolution. It was then obtained that the departure from equilibrium and the ensuing evolution of all variables, is controlled by a single function—called the fluid news function—in analogy with the Bondi’s news function. Such a function is related to the time derivative of the vorticity vector, putting in evidence the link between vorticity and radiation within the source.
However, the most relevant result obtained from this study, concerning the present discussion, is the fact that both the magnetic part of the Weyl tensor and $\Omega$ vanish at the time scale under consideration, whereas their first time derivatives are non–vanishing at that same time scale, thereby suggesting that both phenomena (radiation and vorticity), as well as the non–vanishing component of the super–Poynting vector on the plane orthogonal to the vorticity, occur essentially simultaneously. This is at variance with the point of view assumed in Reference [@8] where it was assumed that radiation precedes the appearance of vorticity. Although this point deserves further discussion from the theoretical point of view, we hope that it could eventually be elucidated by experimental observation.
Another important issue appearing from the study of the physical properties of the source, concerns the tail of the gravitational wave. Indeed, as it is apparent from (\[Om2\]), the vorticity related to gravitational radiation combines two different type of contributions. On the one hand we have the term of order ${\mathcal{O}}(r^{-1})$ which is directly related to the non–vanishing of the news function, that is, it is the vorticity associated to the emission of gravitational radiation. On the other hand, the term of ${\mathcal{O}}(r^{-2})$ does not vanish after the emission of gravitational radiation stops ($c_u=0$) and therefore has to be related to the tail of the wave, appearing as consequence of the violation of the Huygens’s principle in curved space–times. Therefore the transition from a radiating regime to the static one seems to be forbidden and may happen only asymptotically in time. However, when we take into account the source of the gravitational radiation, it appears that the above conclusion is not evident. Let us analyze this issue more closely.
The appearance of tails after the emission of gravitational radiation has been established in studies considering exclusively the space–time outside the source and as a matter of fact far from the source (see References [@41; @42; @43; @44; @45; @46; @47] and references therein). However, a recent study on the transition of a gravitationally radiating fluid source to equilibrium [@48], shows that such a transition may take place at time scale of the order of thermal relaxation time, thermal adjustment time or hydrostatic time (whichever is larger). The explanation for such disagreement might be found in the fact that in the studies carried on in the vacuum, some physical phenomena describing the interaction of the field with the source might have been overlooked. This result strengthens further the importance to analyze the problem, from both the outside and the inside of the source. At any rate it is clear that observational detection of the ${\mathcal{O}}(r^{-2}) $ term in the vorticity, would help to clarify this point.
Finally, the following remark is in order: The presented discussion was carried out in the context of general relativity, however, as is known, due to several astronomical observations at different scales, which pose some problems of interpretation within the context of the “classical” Einstein theory, some researchers have found it useful to modified the general relativity in order to accommodate the above mentioned observational data. The interest on such alternative theories is therefore fully justified and the obvious question arises: how would the presented results change if, instead of using GR, we use any of the alternative theories? Although a thorough answer to the above question is out of the scope of this work, it seems very likely that the additional terms corresponding to these theories should appear in the expression for the vorticity and therefore the observational evidence could help to discriminate between different alternatives.
[999]{}
Abbott, B.P.; Abbott, R.; Abbott, T.D.; Abernathy, M.R.; Acernese, F.; Ackley, K.; Adams, C.; Adams, T.; Addesso, P.; Adhikari, R.X.; et al. Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Black Hole Merger. [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**2016**]{}, [*116*]{}, 061102. Herrera, L.; Hernández-Pastora, J.L. On the influence of gravitational radiation on a gyroscope. [*Class. Quantum Grav.*]{} [**2000**]{}, [*17*]{}, 3617–3625. Bondi, H.; van der Burg, M.G.J.; Metzner, A.W.K. Gravitational waves in general relativity VII. Waves from axi–symmetric isolated systems. [*Proc. Roy. Soc. A*]{} [**1962**]{}, [*269*]{}, 21–52. Sachs, R. Gravitational waves in general relativity VIII. Waves in asymptotically flat space–time. [*Proc. Roy. Soc. A*]{} [**1962**]{}, [*270*]{}, 103–125.
Sorge, F.; Bini, D.; de Felice, F. Gravitational waves, gyroscopes and frame dragging. [*Class. Quantum Grav.*]{} [**2001**]{}, [*18*]{}, 2945–2958. Valiente, J. Can one detect a non–smooth null infinity? [*Class. Quantum Grav.*]{} [**2001**]{}, [*18*]{}, 4311–4316. Herrera, L.; Santos, N.O.; Carot, J. Gravitational radiation, vorticity and the electric and magnetic part of Weyl tensor. [*J. Math. Phys*]{} [**2006**]{}, [*47*]{}, 052502. Herrera, L.; Barreto, W.; Carot, J.; di Prisco, A. Why does gravitational radiation produces vorticity? [*Class. Quantum Grav.*]{} [**2007**]{}, [*24*]{}, 2645–2651. Bicak, J.; Katz, J.; Lynden–Bell, D. Gravitational waves and dragging effects. [*Class. Quantum Grav.*]{} [**2008**]{}, [*25*]{}, 165017. Herrera, L. Radiation and vorticity: The missing link. [*Gen. Relativ. Gravit.*]{} [**2014**]{}, [*46*]{}, 1654–1657. Bini, A.D. Geralico and W. Plastino. Cylindrical gravitational waves: C–energy, super-energy and associated dynamical effects. [*Class. Quantum Grav.*]{} [**2019**]{}, [*36*]{}, 095012. Bonnor, W.B. Dragging of inertial frames by a charged magnetic dipole. [*Phys. Lett. A*]{} [**1991**]{}, [*158*]{}, 23–26. Feynman, R.P.; Leighton, R.B.; Sand, M. [*Lectures on Physics II*]{}; Addison–Wesley: Reading, PA, USA, 1964; pp. 27, 28. Herrera, L.; González, G.A.; Pachón, L.A.; Rueda, J.A. Frame dragging, vorticity and electromagnetic fields in axially symmetric stationary spacetimes. [*Class. Quantum Grav.* ]{} [**2006**]{}, [*23*]{}, 2395–2408. Shapiro, I.I.; Reasenberg, R.D.; Chandler, J.F.; Babcock, R.W. Measurement of the de Sitter precession of the Moon: A relativistic three-body effect. [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**1988**]{}, [*61*]{}, 2643. Rindler, W.; Perlick, V. Rotating coordinates as tools for calculating circular geodesics and gyroscopic precession. [*Gen. Rel. Grav.*]{} [**1990**]{}, [*22*]{}, 1067–1081.
Everitt, C.W.F.; DeBra, D.B.; Parkinson, B.W.; Turneaure, J.P.; Conklin, J.W.; Heifetz, M.I.; Keiser, G.M.; Silbergleit, A.S.; Holmes, T.; Kolodziejczak, J.; et al. Gravity Probe B: Final Results of a Space Experiment to Test General Relativity. [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**2011**]{}, [*106*]{}, 221101. Ciufolini, I.; Pavlis, E. A confirmation of the general relativistic prediction of the Lense–Thirring effect. [*Nature*]{} [**2004**]{}, [*431*]{}, 958–960. Bel, L. Sur la radiation gravitationelle. [*C. R. Acad. Sci.*]{} [**1958**]{}, [*247*]{}, 1094–1096. Bel, L. Radiation states and the problem of energy in general relativity. [*Cah. Phys.*]{} [**1962**]{}, [*16*]{}, 59–80; [*Gen. Rel. Grav.*]{} [**2000**]{}, [*32*]{}, 2047–2078. Bel, L. Introduction d’un tenseur du quatrieme order. [*C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris*]{} [**1959**]{}, [*248*]{}, 1297–1300. Herrera, L.; Di Prisco, A.; Ibáñez, J.; Ospino, J. Dissipative collapse of axially symmetric, general relativistic, sources: A general framework and some applications. [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**2014**]{}, [*89*]{}, 084034. Ellis, G.F.R. Relativistic Cosmology. In [*Proceedings of the International School of Physics “Enrico Fermi”, Course 47: General Relativity and Cosmology*]{}; Sachs, R.K., Ed.; Academic Press: New York, NY, USA, 1971. Ellis, G.F.R.; van Elst, H. Cosmological models (Cargese lectures 1998). [*arXiv*]{} [**1998**]{}, arXiv: gr–qc/9812046v4. Ellis, G.F.R. Republication of: Relativistic cosmology. [*Gen. Rel. Grav.*]{} [**2009**]{}, [*41*]{}, 581–660. Ellis, G.F.R.; Maartens, R.; MacCallum, M.A.H. [*Relativistic Cosmology*]{}; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2012. Herrera, L.; di Prisco, A.; Ospino, J.; Carot, J. Shearing and geodesic axially symmetric perfect fluids that do not produce gravitational radiation. [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**2015**]{}, [*91*]{}, 024010. Herrera, L.; di Prisco, A.; Ospino, J. The spacetime outside a source of gravitational radiation: The axially symmetric null fluid. [*Eur. Phys. J. C*]{} [**2016**]{}, [*94*]{}, 603–609. Herrera, L.; di Prisco, A.; Carot, J. Frame dragging and super–energy. [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**2007**]{}, [*76*]{}, 044012. Scully, M.O.; Zubairy, M.S.; Haugan, M.P. Proposed optical test of metric gravitation theories. [*Phys. Rev. A*]{} [**1981**]{}, [*24*]{}, 2009. Lenef, A.; Hammond, T.D.; Smith, E.T.; Chapman, M.S.; Rubenstein, R.A.; Pritchard, D.E. Rotation Sensing with an Atom Interferometer. [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**1997**]{}, [*78*]{}, 760. Gustavson, T.L.; Bouyer, P.; Kasevich, M.A. Precision Rotation Measurements with an Atom Interferometer Gyroscope. [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**1997**]{}, [*78*]{}, 2046. Stedman, G.E.; Schreiber, K.U.; Bilger, H.R. On the detectability of the Lense–Thirring field from rotating laboratory masses using ring laser gyroscope interferometers. [*Class. Quantum Grav.*]{} [**2003**]{}, [*20*]{}, 2527–2540. Stedman, G.E.; Hurst, R.B.; Schreiber, K.U. On the potential of large ring lasers. [*Opt. Commun.*]{} [**2007**]{}, [*279*]{}, 124–129.
di Virgilio, A.; Schreiber, K.U.; Gebauer, A.; Wells, J.-P.R.; Tartaglia, A.; Belfi, J.; Beverini, N.; Ortolan, A. A laser gyroscope system to detect the gravitomagnetic effect on earth. [*Int. J. Mod. Phys. D*]{} [**2010**]{}, [*19*]{}, 2331–2343. Bosi, F.; Cella, G.; di Virgilio, A.; Ortolan, A.; Porzic, A.; Solimenof, S.; Cerdonio, M.; Zendri, J.P.; Allegrini, M.; Bel, J.; et al. Measuring gravito-magnetic efects by multiring–laser gyroscope. [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**2011**]{}, [*84*]{}, 122002. Robins, N.P.; Altin, P.A.; Debs, J.E.; Close, J.D. Atom lasers: Production, properties and prospects for precision inertial measurement. [*arXiv*]{} [**2012**]{}, arXiv:1209.2172v1. Campbell, W.C.; Hamilton, P. Rotation sensing with trapped ions. [*arXiv*]{} [**2016**]{}, arXiv:1609.00659v1. Tartaglia, A.; di Virgilio, A.; Belf, J.; Beverini, N.; Ruggiero, M.L. Testing general relativity by means of ringlasers. [*Eur. Phys. J. Plus*]{} [**2016**]{}, [*132*]{}, 73. di Virgilio, A.; Beverini, N.; Carelli, G.; Ciampini, D.; Fuso, F.; Maccioni, E. Analysis of ring lasers gyroscopes including laser dynamics. [*arXiv*]{} [**2019**]{}, arXiv:1904.02533v1. Bonder, Y.; Herrera–Flores, J.E. Measuring Relativistic Dragging with Quantum Interference. [*arXiv*]{} [**2019**]{}, arXiv:1905.02275v1. Herrera, L.; di Prisco, A.; Ospino, J.; Carot, J. Earliest stages of the nonequilibrium in axially symmetric, self–gravitating, dissipative fluids. [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**2016**]{}, [*94*]{}, 064072. DeWitt, B.S.; Brehme, R. Radiation damping in a gravitational field. [*Ann. Phys.*]{} [**1960**]{}, [*9*]{}, 220–259. Kundt, W.; Newman, E.T. Hyperbolic Differential Equations in Two Dimensions. [*J. Math. Phys.*]{} [**1968**]{}, [*9*]{}, 2193–2210 . Bonnor, W.B. Approximate methods and gravitational radiation. In [*Proceedings of the Meeting on General Relativity*]{}; G. Barbera, Ed.; [publisher:]{} [Florence, Italy]{}, 1965; pp. 119–142. Couch, W.; Torrence, R.; Janis, A.; Newman, E.T. Tail of a Gravitational Wave. [*J. Math. Phys.*]{} [**1968**]{}, [*9*]{}, 484. Bonnor, W.B. Gravitational wave tails. In [*Gravitational Waves and Radiations, Proceedings of the International Conference, Paris, France, 18–22 June 1973*]{}; Transactions. (A75-26747 11-90); Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique: Paris, France, 1974; pp. 73–81.
Blanchet, L.; Shafer, G. Gravitational wave tails and binary star systems. [*Class. Quantum Grav.*]{} [**1993**]{}, [*10*]{}, 2699–2722. Marchand, T.; Blanchet, L.; Faye, G. Gravitational-wave tail effects to quartic non-linear order. [*Class. Quantum Grav.*]{} [**2016**]{}, [*33*]{}, 244003.
Herrera, L.; di Prisco, A.; Ospino, J. The transition of a gravitationally radiating, dissipative fluid, to equilibrium. [*Can. J. Phys.*]{} [**2018**]{}, [*96*]{}, 1010–1015.
[^1]: e-mail: [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- Duff Neill
bibliography:
- 'ngl\_factorization.bib'
title: 'The Edge of Jets and Subleading Non-Global Logs'
---
Introduction
============
Non-global logarithms (NGLs) pose an fascinating problem for resummation [@Dasgupta:2001sh], and can have a large phenomenological impact [@Banfi:2010pa; @Dasgupta:2012hg]. These are logarithms associated with soft radiation which splits and lands into different angular phase space regions, with an energy hierarchy between the soft daughters. Physically one pictures as an initial condition multiple hard jets at wide fixed angles in the event, whose masses are all much smaller than the initial hard collision. However, the masses themselves exhibit a hierarchy of scales. The resummation is difficult, since the soft radiation is sensitive to the pattern of previous soft emissions. This is in contrast to global logarithms, the logarithms of the jet mass to the hard scale, which are associated with virtual corrections of QCD amplitudes. For the global corrections, no parton becomes a physical state between the hard interaction scale, and the jet mass scale, so that while the cancellation of IR divergences between real and virtual corrections still occurs, a large log is left over. The exponentiation of these global logarithms is now a standard technique, whether using factorization theorems [@Kidonakis:1997gm; @Kidonakis:1998bk; @Berger:2003iw; @Fleming:2007qr; @Fleming:2007xt; @Schwartz:2007ib; @Bauer:2008dt; @Hornig:2009vb; @Ellis:2010rwa], or QCD coherence arguments [@Catani:1990rr; @Catani:1991bd; @Catani:1992ua; @Dokshitzer:1998kz; @Banfi:2004yd], to the point that it can be essentially automated [@guido_talk; @Banfi:2014sua; @Gerwick:2014gya; @Farhi:2015jca] in both approaches. Moreover, the exponentiation is truly an explicit exponentiation, at least in an appropriate conjugate space for additive observables. However, the fixed order pattern of NGLs as calculated in [@Schwartz:2014wha] and [@Khelifa-Kerfa:2015mma] do not exhibit any such straightforward pattern.
Dealing with the resummation of NGLs, four approaches have appeared in the literature: avoiding them entirely with clever observables [@Dasgupta:2013via; @Dasgupta:2013ihk; @Larkoski:2014wba], a large-$N_c$ Monte Carlo technique [@Dasgupta:2001sh], non-linear evolution equations[^1] [@Banfi:2002hw; @Weigert:2003mm; @Marchesini:2003nh; @Marchesini:2004ne; @Hatta:2008st; @Avsar:2009yb; @Hatta:2013iba; @Hagiwara:2015bia][^2], and an expansion in soft sub-jets [@Forshaw:2006fk; @Forshaw:2008cq; @Forshaw:2009fz; @DuranDelgado:2011tp; @Larkoski:2015zka]. This last approach can be grounded in the structure of factorization theorems, as derived in the framework of soft collinear effective field theory (SCET) [@Bauer:2000yr; @Bauer:2001ct; @Bauer:2001yt], promising a straightforward way to calculate to higher orders in $\alpha_s$ for the anomalous dimensions in the resummation. Perhaps even more importantly, organized the phase space of emissions into parametrically separated regions where distinct (now global) resummations apply. This is accomplished by using a complete set of infra-red and collinear safe observables, for example see , to define multi-differential cross-sections with sufficient number of observables to distinguish the soft and collinear limits of multiple pronged jet structures [@Bauer:2011uc; @Larkoski:2014tva; @Larkoski:2014gra; @Larkoski:2014zma; @Procura:2014cba]. Resumming these cross-sections, and expressing the more inclusive cross-sections as a marginalization over the more exclusive ones, the perturbation series is re-organized as summing over jets (resummed partons), rather than fixed order partons. Interesting emergent behavior, like the buffer region [@Dasgupta:2002bw], manifests itself for these dressed emissions. Since the observables are complete up-to a resolution scale (which terminates the number of jets included in the calculation), one can also check whether all phase space regions are accounted for by examining all possible relative scalings of the observables. This has important implications for the subleading NGLs, since the fixed order NGLs at $\alpha_s^2$ in QCD are sensitive to a distinct phase space region, where a soft subjet is collinearly splitting along the jet boundary. This was already noted in . Here I shall worked out the soft jet factorization in this region, and its implications for resumming NGLs.
The organization of this paper is as follows: I set out the phase space region for a soft subjet collinearly splitting at the jet boundary. Or more concisely, I consider edge of jet sub-jets. Having worked out the phase space region, I then give the appropriate factorization theorem for it. I then calculate to one-loop the objects found in the factorization theorem, finding both double logarithms of collinear origin, as well as a DGLAP style splitting process [@Gribov:1972ri; @Dokshitzer:1977sg; @Altarelli:1977zs]. Having these tools in hand, I show how the single dressed gluon with these collinear effects can be included to resum NGLs of more inclusive observables, following the procedure of [@Larkoski:2015zka]. I then compare to the NLO BMS equation derived in [@Caron-Huot:2015bja]. I find that this evolution equation naively misses the fixed order $\alpha_s^2$ subleading NGLs, which would be corrected with the appropriate NLO calculation for the trace of the density matrix. I find this to be connected with the lack of collinear evolution in the leading order BMS equation. Going back to the original BMS equation, and using the soft jet factorization theorem to calculate soft jet production at large-$N_c$, I show how one can collinearly improve the equation to include these collinear double logarithms. Then I discuss whether one can find any other IR structure beyond out of jet fragmentation. Then I argue that the soft jet expansion gives a systematic view of calculating the resummed decay rates used in these universal IR evolution equations, highlighting its physically observable features. Finally, having started at the beginning, I then conclude at the end with speculations on small-$x$ physics.
Phase Space Region
==================
For the purpose of understanding the collinear effects in subleading NGLs, I consider $e^+e^-\rightarrow hadrons$ with the hard scale $Q^2$, and wish to isolate the region of phase space associated with a soft subjet with two hard jets. In particular, I suppose two hard jet regions, the “out-of-fat-jet” region where an inclusive jet shape measurement has been made, and a fat jet region containing (most) of the soft subjet. The two hard jet regions are back to back, with associated light cone vectors: $$\begin{aligned}
&\text{Fat Jet Axis: } n=(1,\hat{n}),\\
&\text{Recoiling Jet Axis: }{{\bar n}}=(1,-\hat{n}),\\
&n\cdot{{\bar n}}=2,\qquad n^2={{\bar n}}^2=0\,.\end{aligned}$$ The soft subjet enjoys its own light-cone direction ${n_{sj}}=(1,\hat{n}_{sj})$ with conjugate ${\bar{n}_{sj}}=(1,-\hat{n}_{sj})$.
The phase space region for collinear splittings along the jet boundary exists strictly only for cone algorithms. A recombination algorithm will necessarily deform the jet boundary if a soft jet is present, though this effect can by mitigated with the anti-k$_t$ algorithm [@Cacciari:2008gp], where the factorization of [@Larkoski:2015zka] also applies. Here I suppose that the jet axis is defined using the broadening [@Larkoski:2014uqa] or thrust axis [@Stewart:2010tn] of the event, and a fixed cone of radius $R$ is drawn about the jet (this is similar to the set up in ). For multi-jet events, an ideal cone algorithm for this factorization theorem is the XCone algorithm of .
Within the fat jet, I measure the energy correlation functions ${e_{2}^{(\alpha)}}, {e_{2}^{(\beta)}},$ and ${e_{3}^{(\beta)}}$ [@Larkoski:2013eya] to isolate the appropriate region of phase space[^3], whose definitions are summarized in . In this cross-section, some out-of-fat-jet measurement has been made, ${\tau}$. I shall for definiteness focus on the out-of-jet thrust measurement, with its action on a state $|X\rangle$ given by: $$\begin{aligned}
\Theta_{\overline{FJ}}\mathbf{{\tau}}|X\rangle &=\sum_{i\in X}{{\bar n}}\cdot p_i\theta_{\overline{FJ}}(p_i)|X\rangle\end{aligned}$$ The jet algorithm constraints on a single particle state are: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:fat_jet_constraint}
\Theta_{FJ}|p\rangle&=\theta_{FJ}(p)|p\rangle=\theta\Big(\text{tan}^2\frac{R}{2}-\frac{n\cdot p}{{{\bar n}}\cdot p}\Big)|p\rangle\nonumber\\
\Theta_{\overline{FJ}}|p\rangle&=\theta_{\overline{FJ}}(p)|p\rangle=\theta\Big(-\text{tan}^2\frac{R}{2}+\frac{n\cdot p}{{{\bar n}}\cdot p}\Big)|p\rangle\end{aligned}$$
The specific power counting I adopt to isolate the one soft jet region of phase space at the edge of the jet is: $$\begin{aligned}
{\tau}&\sim Q{e_{2}^{(\alpha)}}\sim Q{e_{2}^{(\beta)}}\\
\label{eq:subjet_region}{e_{3}^{(\alpha)}}&\ll\Big({e_{2}^{(\alpha)}}\Big)^3\\
\label{eq:boundary_condition}(\Delta{\theta_{sj}})^\alpha&\sim \frac{{e_{3}^{(\alpha)}}}{({e_{2}^{(\alpha)}})^2}\ll 1\end{aligned}$$ $\Delta{\theta_{sj}}=R-{\theta_{sj}}$ is the difference between the jet radius $R$ and the angle of the soft jet axis $\hat{n}_{sj}$ to the fat jet axis $\hat{n}$, denoted ${\theta_{sj}}$. This necessitates the soft jet to collinearly split into and out of the fat jet, pictorially represented in . Specifically, this implies the collinear modes of the soft jet in the soft jet factorization theorem of [@Larkoski:2015zka], and the boundary soft modes, cannot be factorized, since the two obey the same scalings: $$\begin{aligned}
p_{sj} &\sim E_J\, {e_{2}^{(\alpha)}}\left ( \left ( \frac{{e_{3}^{(\alpha)}}}{ \left ({e_{2}^{(\alpha)}}\right)^2 } \right)^{2/\alpha},1,\left ( \frac{{e_{3}^{(\alpha)}}}{ \left ({e_{2}^{(\alpha)}}\right )^2 } \right)^{1/\alpha} \right )_{{n_{sj}}{\bar{n}_{sj}}} \,,\\
\label{eq:boundary_soft_scaling}
p_{bs} &\sim E_J\frac{ {e_{3}^{(\alpha)}}}{ {e_{2}^{(\alpha)}}\left(\Delta {\theta_{sj}}\right)^\alpha } \left ( \left(\Delta {\theta_{sj}}\right)^2,1,\Delta {\theta_{sj}}\right )_{{n_{sj}}{\bar{n}_{sj}}} \,, \end{aligned}$$ where I have adopted the light cone coordinates of the soft subjet, $({n_{sj}}\cdot p,{\bar{n}_{sj}}\cdot p, p_{\perp{n_{sj}}})$, and $E_J\sim Q$ is the energy scale of the fat jet.
![A soft jet at the edge of a jet. The dotted lines correspond to the jet boundary. []{data-label="fig:in_and_out"}](collinear_split.pdf){width="6cm"}
Factorization Theorem
=====================
The factorization theorem takes the form: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:collinear_splitting_fact}
\frac{d\sigma}{d{e_{2}^{(\alpha)}}\,d{e_{2}^{(\beta)}}\,d{e_{3}^{(\alpha)}}d{\tau}}&=\sigma_0 H(Q^2)H_{n\bar{n}}^{sj}\Big({e_{2}^{(\alpha)}},{e_{2}^{(\beta)}},{\tau}\Big)S_{n{{\bar n}}{n_{sj}}}\Big({e_{3}^{(\alpha)}};R\Big)\nonumber\\
&\qquad\otimes\,\mathcal{E}_{{n_{sj}}}\Big({e_{3}^{(\alpha)}};{\tau};Q_{sj};R\Big)\otimes J_{n}({e_{3}^{(\alpha)}})\otimes J_{{{\bar n}}}({\tau})\otimes S_{n{{\bar n}}}\Big({e_{3}^{(\alpha)}};{\tau};R\Big)\end{aligned}$$ Where for conciseness, I have adopted the convention that any repeated argument is convolved with all other functions sharing that argument (excepting the jet radius $R$): $$\begin{aligned}
F_1(x)\otimes F_2(x)...\otimes F_N(x)&=\int \prod_{i=1}^Ndx_i\delta\Big(x-\sum_{i=1}^Nx_i\Big)F_1(x_1)F_2(x_2)....F_N(x_N)\end{aligned}$$ A new feature of the edge of jet factorization theorem is the edge of jet function $\mathcal{E}_{{n_{sj}}}$. This is a novel jet function describing the fragmentation of partons into and out of the jet boundary. Though containing these fragmentation effects, the function is IR finite and calculable in perturbation theory, given the jet boundary cuts off the collinear divergence of the fragmentation.
I have also explicitly indicated the dependence on the soft subjet large momentum fraction $Q_{sj}$. Implicitly, this is a function of Q, ${e_{2}^{(\alpha)}}$, and ${e_{2}^{(\beta)}}$. The proof of this factorization theorem, like that for PDFs or fragmentation functions [@Bauer:2002nz], takes place at the level of the cross-section or squared amplitude, not the amplitude itself, as in previous subjet factorizations. This is since the hard matching for $H_{n\bar{n}}^{sj}$ has both real and virtual corrections contributing to it. One constructs a complete basis of gauge invariant IR functions corresponding to all momentum regions. Since each sector has a unique leading power function according to the power counting, after including appropriate subtractions to remove overlaps, one is led to .
Definitions of Factorized Functions
-----------------------------------
I now give the operator definitions of the factorized low scale functions appearing in . Each measurement function should be expanded in the power counting of the factorization theorem. The expanded versions can be found in .
- [**Tri-pole soft function:**]{} $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:tripole_softs}
S_{n{{\bar n}}{n_{sj}}}\Big({e_{3}^{(\alpha)}};R\Big)&=\int_{-i\infty+c}^{i\infty+c}d{\tilde e_{3}^{(\alpha)}}e^{{\tilde e_{3}^{(\alpha)}}{e_{3}^{(\alpha)}}}\frac{\text{tr}\langle 0|T\{S_{{n_{sj}}} S_{n} S_{\bar{n}}\}e^{-{\tilde e_{3}^{(\alpha)}}\Theta_{FJ}{\mathbf{E_{3}}^{(\alpha)}}\big|_{S}}\bar{T}\{S_{{n_{sj}}} S_{n} S_{\bar{n}}\} |0\rangle}{S_{n{{\bar n}}}\Big({\tilde e_{3}^{(\alpha)}};R\Big)S_{{n_{sj}}{\bar{n}_{sj}}}\Big({\tilde e_{3}^{(\alpha)}};R\Big)}\\
S_{n{{\bar n}}}\Big({\tilde e_{3}^{(\alpha)}};R\Big)&=\text{tr}\langle 0|T\{S_{n} S_{\bar{n}}\}e^{-{\tilde e_{3}^{(\alpha)}}\Theta_{FJ}{\mathbf{E_{3}}^{(\alpha)}}\big|_{S}}\bar{T}\{S_{n} S_{\bar{n}}\} |0\rangle\\
S_{{n_{sj}}{\bar{n}_{sj}}}\Big({\tilde e_{3}^{(\alpha)}};R\Big)&=\text{tr}\langle 0|T\{S_{{n_{sj}}} S_{{\bar{n}_{sj}}}\}e^{-{\tilde e_{3}^{(\alpha)}}\Theta_{FJ}{\mathbf{E_{3}}^{(\alpha)}}\big|_{BS}}\bar{T}\{S_{{n_{sj}}} S_{{\bar{n}_{sj}}}\} |0\rangle\end{aligned}$$ To avoid convolutions between the necessary subtractions to the naive function, I give the definitions in laplace space. I have explicitly given the appropriate soft subtractions that must be performed on the tri-pole soft function. One removes both the boundary soft radiation associated with the soft subjet, and the soft radiation from the original $n$-${{\bar n}}$ dipole.
- [**Edge-of-Jet Function:**]{} [$$\begin{aligned}
&\mathcal{E}_{{n_{sj}}}\Big({e_{3}^{(\alpha)}};{\tau};Q_{sj};R\Big)=\\
& \hspace{.25cm}
\frac{(2\pi)^3}{C_A}\text{tr}\langle 0|\mathcal{B}_{\perp_{{n_{sj}}}}^{\mu}(0)\delta({\tau}-\Theta_{\overline{FJ}}\mathbf{{\tau}})\delta(Q_{SJ}-\Theta_{FJ}{\bar{n}_{sj}}\cdot{\mathcal P})\delta^{(2)}(\vec{{\mathcal P}}_{\perp_{SJ}})\delta\Big({e_{3}^{(\alpha)}}-\Theta_{FJ}{\mathbf{E_{3}}^{(\alpha)}}\big|_{SJ}\Big)\,\mathcal{B}_{\perp_{{n_{sj}}}\mu}(0)|0\rangle \nonumber\end{aligned}$$]{} The jet region constraints $\Theta_{FJ}$ and $\Theta_{\overline{FJ}}$ restrictions project the state according to whether the momenta is inside the resolved fat jet, or the inclusive out-of-jet region, respectively, according to . The field operators are gauge invariant collinear gauge field strengths, whose definition can be found in .
- [**Dipole soft function:**]{} $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:dipole_soft_function}
S_{n{{\bar n}}}\Big({\tilde e_{3}^{(\alpha)}};{\tau};R\Big)&=\text{tr}\langle 0|T\{S_{n} S_{\bar{n}}\}\delta\Big({e_{3}^{(\alpha)}}-\Theta_{FJ}{\mathbf{E_{3}}^{(\alpha)}}\big|_{S}\Big)\delta({\tau}-\Theta_{\overline{FJ}}\mathbf{{\tau}})\bar{T}\{S_{n} S_{\bar{n}}\} |0\rangle\end{aligned}$$ Note that this function generates soft contributions to both ${\tau}$ and ${e_{3}^{(\alpha)}}$.
The jet functions $J_n$ and $J_{{{\bar n}}}$ are standard for the given jet shape, see for instance .
Matching for Soft Jet Production
================================
![An example soft diagram that contributes to the soft jet production matching. []{data-label="fig:soft_diagram"}](soft_diagram.pdf){width="4cm"}
Here I detail the one-loop matching procedure for the edge-of-jet factorization theorem[^4]. The soft emissions within the fat jet are strongly ordered with respect to the soft subjet, thus the calculations are identical to those of [@Larkoski:2015zka]. The virtual corrections can be extracted from [@Catani:2000pi]. However, the “in-out” configuration exhibits new terms, since ${\tau}\sim Q{e_{2}^{(\alpha)}}\sim Q{e_{2}^{(\beta)}}$. Therefore, the double real emission diagrams of full QCD are not expanded in a strongly ordered limit, but only in the soft limit compared to the hard scale $Q^2$. The integrand $S_{n\bar{n}}(p,q)$ for the double soft real emission is given in [@Catani:1999ss]. This corresponds to two soft gluon exchanges between the wilson lines in the $n$ and ${{\bar n}}$ directions, with giving an example diagram. I can write the two real emission contribution to the fixed order cross-section as: $$\begin{aligned}
d\sigma^{(2R)}&=N\int [d^dp]_+ [d^dq]_+\Big\{\Phi^{\text{in-in}}({e_{2}^{(\alpha)}},{e_{2}^{(\beta)}},{e_{3}^{(\alpha)}})S_{n\bar{n}}(p,q)\Big|_{S.O.}+\Phi^{\text{in-out}}({e_{2}^{(\alpha)}},{e_{2}^{(\beta)}},{\tau})S_{n\bar{n}}(p,q)\Big\}\\
[d^dp]_+&=\frac{d^dp}{(2\pi)^{d-1}}\delta(p^2)\theta(p^0)\end{aligned}$$ Where $\Phi^{\text{in-in}}$ and $\Phi^{\text{in-out}}$ are the phase space constraints for when both emissions are inside the fat jet, and when one is inside the fat jet and the other out. “S.O.” denotes strong ordering. One emission will always be identified with the soft subjet, and to this end it is more convenient to trade the energy-energy correlation functions for the light-cone momentum fractions in the $n$-${{\bar n}}$ coordinate system: $$\begin{aligned}
u&=n\cdot p_{sj}, &v&=\bar{n}\cdot p_{sj},\\
Q{e_{2}^{(\alpha)}}&=(u+v)\Big(2\frac{u}{u+v}\Big)^{\frac{\alpha}{2}}, &Q{e_{2}^{(\beta)}}&=(u+v)\Big(2\frac{u}{u+v}\Big)^{\frac{\beta}{2}} \end{aligned}$$ With an identified soft subjet, this is always possible up to power corrections, with a simple jacobian factor.
The matching itself will be determined by the difference between the full theory matrix elements and the effective theory. That is, the one-loop matching to $H_{n{{\bar n}}}^{sj}$ is fixed by demanding: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d\sigma}{du dv d{e_{3}^{(\alpha)}} d{\tau}}=&H_{n{{\bar n}}}^{sj (T)}(u,v)\delta({\tau})\delta({e_{3}^{(\alpha)}})+H_{n{{\bar n}}}^{sj (T)}(u,v)\sum_{r}M_r^{(1)}\nonumber\\
&\qquad+H_{n{{\bar n}}}^{sj (1)}(u,v;{\tau})\delta({e_{3}^{(\alpha)}})+O(\alpha_s^3)...\end{aligned}$$ with the tree-level matching being: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:tree-soft-jet}
H_{n{{\bar n}}}^{sj(T)}(u,v)&=\frac{\alpha_s C_F\mu^{2\epsilon}e^{\epsilon\gamma_E}}{\pi (uv)^{1+\epsilon}\Gamma(1-\epsilon)}=\frac{\alpha_s C_F}{2^{1+\epsilon}\pi\Gamma(1-\epsilon)}\Bigg(\frac{n\cdot {{\bar n}}}{n\cdot p_{sj}\,p_{sj}\cdot {{\bar n}}}\Bigg)^{1+\epsilon}\end{aligned}$$ The sum $\sum_{r}M_r^{(1)}$ denotes the sum over one-loop matrix elements given by the infra-red functions of the factorization theorem . The one-loop hard matching I split into three contributions, in-in, in-out, and in-virtual: $$\begin{aligned}
H_{n{{\bar n}}}^{sj (1)}(u,v;{\tau})&=H_{n{{\bar n}}}^{sj (1)}(u,v)\delta({\tau})\Big|_{\text{in-in}}+H_{n{{\bar n}}}^{sj (1)}(u,v;{\tau})\Big|_{\text{in-out}}+H_{n{{\bar n}}}^{sj (1)}(u,v)\delta({\tau})\Big|_{\text{in-virt}}\end{aligned}$$ One emission must always be in the fat jet, since the soft subjet has been observed.
In-In
-----
Restricting to the in-in configuration, in the strongly ordered expansion, the two real emission contribution is exactly reproduced by the factorization theorem contributions, so: $$\begin{aligned}
H_{n{{\bar n}}}^{sj (1)}(u,v)\Big|_{\text{in-in}}&=0\end{aligned}$$ This reflects the fact that the matching can be performed at the level of the amplitude, using only the IR finite terms of soft currents [@Larkoski:2015zka].
In-Virtual
----------
The real-virtual contribution is non-trivial. The infra-red divergent contributions are canceled by the virtual loops of the effective theory matrix elements, so that this contribution is completely determined by the finite parts of the soft-virtual contributions of the full theory. These are equivalent to the one-loop soft current, giving: $$\begin{aligned}
H_{n{{\bar n}}}^{sj (1)}(u,v;\mu)\Big|_{\text{in-virt}}&=\frac{\alpha_s^2 C_F C_A}{\pi^2}(u\,v)^{-1}\Bigg(-\frac{1}{4}\text{ln}^2\Big(\frac{4\mu^2}{uv}\Big)+\frac{5}{24}\pi^2\Bigg)\end{aligned}$$
In-Out
------
Here the full theory contribution is not fully reproduced by the effective theory, so that the difference between the effective theory and full gives a non-trivial contribution. I split the integrand into abelian and non-abelian components. The abelian contribution will be reproduced by the tree-level soft jet matching and the out-of-fat-jet one-loop contribution from the dipole soft function : $$\begin{aligned}
d\sigma^{\text{in-out, ab.}}&=\Big(H_{n\bar{n}}^{sj (T)}(u,v)\Big)\Big(S_{n\bar{n}}^{(1)}({\tau})\Big|_{\text{out}}\Big)\end{aligned}$$ The non-abelian piece has a more subtle matching contribution. I write: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:in-out_matching_eqn}
d\sigma^{\text{in-out, n.ab.}}&=\Big(H_{n\bar{n}}^{sj (T)}(u,v)\Big)\Big({\mathcal E}_{{n_{sj}}}^{(1)}(u+v;{\tau};R)\Big|_{\text{in-out}}\Big)+H_{n\bar{n}}^{sj (1)}(u,v;{\tau})\Big|_{\text{in-out}}\,.\end{aligned}$$ Where I note that the soft jet large momentum fraction is given by $u+v=2Q_{sj}$. Next I explicitly calculate the full theory. This is simply the integral: $$\begin{aligned}
d\sigma^{\text{in-out, n.ab.}}&=N\int [d^dp]_+ [d^dq]_+ \theta\Big(\frac{n\cdot q}{\bar{n}\cdot q}-\text{tan}^2\frac{R}{2}\Big)\delta\Big({\tau}-\bar{n}\cdot q\Big)\nonumber\\
&\qquad\theta\Big(\text{tan}^2\frac{R}{2}-\frac{n\cdot p}{{{\bar n}}\cdot p}\Big)\delta(u-n\cdot p)\delta(v-{{\bar n}}\cdot p) S_{n\bar{n}}(p,q)\\
N=G^4C_F C_A(\mu e^{\gamma_E} 4\pi)^\epsilon\end{aligned}$$ We are using the $\overline{MS}$ renormalization scheme, and $\gamma_E$ is Euler’s gamma number. The integral measure can be written in terms of the relative angle between the transverse momenta components of $p$ and $q$, the other angle being trivial. Using the on-shell conditions to fix the magnitude of the transverse momentum integrals in terms of the light cone fractions, I then have for integral measure: $$\begin{aligned}
&\int [d^dp]_+ [d^dq]_+\theta\Big(\frac{n\cdot q}{\bar{n}\cdot q}-\text{tan}^2\frac{R}{2}\Big)\delta\Big({\tau}-\bar{n}\cdot q\Big)\theta\Big(\text{tan}^2\frac{R}{2}-\frac{n\cdot p}{{{\bar n}}\cdot p}\Big)\delta(u-n\cdot p)\delta(v-{{\bar n}}\cdot p)\nonumber\\
&\qquad=\Omega_{\epsilon}(u v)^{-\epsilon}\int_0^{\infty}\frac{dx}{x^\epsilon}\int_0^{\infty}\frac{dy}{y^{\epsilon}}\theta\Big(\frac{x}{y}-\text{tan}^2\frac{R}{2}\Big)\int_0^{\pi}d\theta\,\text{sin}^{-2\epsilon}\theta\delta\Big({\tau}-y\Big)\,,\\
&\Omega_{\epsilon}=\frac{2^{-4+2\epsilon}\pi^{-\frac{9}{2}}}{\Gamma(1-\epsilon)\Gamma(\frac{1}{2}-\epsilon)}\,.\end{aligned}$$ I have labeled the out-of-jet emission’s light-cone momentum fractions as $x=n\cdot q$, and $y={{\bar n}}\cdot q$. I now perform a further change of variables: $$\begin{aligned}
x\rightarrow u x & & y\rightarrow v x y\end{aligned}$$ Then with the further variable change, $x\rightarrow x(vy)^{-1}$, I can evaluate the $x,y$, and $\phi$ integrals as a series in $\epsilon$. Further, it is expedient to divide the in-out contribution into two pieces, isolating the collinear splitting scale $1-\frac{u}{v}\text{cot}^2\frac{R}{2}$ that will be removed by the effective theory subtractions. The final result is, dropping all terms that vanish as $\epsilon\rightarrow 0$: $$\begin{aligned}
d\sigma^{\text{in-out, n.ab.}}&=d\sigma^{\text{in-out, n.ab.}}_{\text{split}}+d\sigma^{\text{in-out, n.ab.}}_{\text{no-split}}\\ \label{eq:FT_In_Out_split}
d\sigma^{\text{in-out, n.ab.}}_{\text{split}}&=H_{n{{\bar n}}}^{sj(T)}(u,v)\frac{\alpha_s C_A}{\pi {\tau}}\Big(\frac{\mu^2 e^{\gamma_E}}{{\tau}^2}\frac{u}{v}\Big)^{\epsilon}\Bigg\{P_{}(v,{\tau})\text{ln}\Big(1-\frac{u}{v}\text{cot}^2\frac{R}{2}\Big)\nonumber\\
&-\text{ln}\Big(1-\frac{u}{v}\text{cot}^2\frac{R}{2}\Big)+ \epsilon\text{ln}\Big(1-\frac{u}{v}\text{cot}^2\frac{R}{2}\Big)\text{ln}\Big(\frac{v}{u}\text{tan}^2\frac{R}{2}-1\Big)\Bigg\}+O\Big(\epsilon\Big)\\ \label{eq:FT_In_Out_no_split}
d\sigma^{\text{in-out, n.ab.}}_{\text{no-split}}&=H_{n{{\bar n}}}^{sj(T)}(u,v)\frac{\alpha_s C_A}{\pi {\tau}}\Big(\frac{\mu^2 e^{\gamma_E}}{{\tau}^2}\frac{u}{v}\Big)^{\epsilon}\Bigg\{P_{}(v,{\tau})\text{ln}\Big(\frac{{\tau}}{{\tau}+u\,\text{cot}^2\frac{R}{2}}\Big)\nonumber\\
&+\frac{ u v {\tau}(v-{\tau})\text{cot}^2\frac{R}{2}}{(v+{\tau})^3({\tau}+u \text{cot}^2\frac{R}{2})}\Big(1-2\frac{T_fn_f}{C_A}\Big)-\frac{{\tau}}{2(v+{\tau})}\text{ln}\Big(\frac{{\tau}}{{\tau}+u\,\text{cot}^2\frac{R}{2}}\Big)\Bigg\}+O\Big(\epsilon\Big)\end{aligned}$$ I have explicitly factored out the all-orders in $\epsilon$ tree-level hard matching. Where $P(v,{\tau})$ is given by: $$\begin{aligned}
P(v,{\tau})=-\frac{(v^2+v{\tau}+{\tau}^2)^2}{(v+{\tau})^4}-\frac{T_fn_f}{C_A}\frac{v{\tau}(v^2+{\tau}^2)}{(v+{\tau})^4}+1\end{aligned}$$ Note that $P(v,{\tau})$ is finite as ${\tau}\rightarrow 0$, and the no-split contribution has no soft divergence as ${\tau}\rightarrow 0$. It is the gluon’s $1\rightarrow 2$ splitting function with soft support removed. One can explicitly check taking the laplace/fourier transforms of $u,{\tau}$, and integrating over the allowed $v$, these terms with $R=\frac{\pi}{2}$ are sufficient to reproduce the hemisphere NGLs of , and both the split and no-split terms contribute.
To make the divergent behavior of this contribution to the cross-section transparent, I take the laplace transform of out of jet variable ${\tau}$ in , whose conjugate variable I denote by ${\tilde \tau}$. Then I can simply expand in $\epsilon$, without making use of plus distributions[^5]. $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:FT_In_Out_split_II}
d\tilde\sigma^{\text{in-out, n.ab.}}_{\text{split}}&=\int_0^{\infty}d{\tau}\,e^{-{\tau}{\tilde \tau}}d\sigma^{\text{in-out, n.ab.}}_{\text{split}}\\
&=H_{n{{\bar n}}}^{sj(T)}(u,v)\frac{\alpha_s C_A}{\pi}\text{ln}\Big(1-\frac{u}{v}\text{cot}^2\frac{R}{2}\Big)\Bigg\{\frac{1}{2\epsilon}+\frac{1}{2}\text{ln}\Bigg(\frac{e^{2\gamma_E}\mu^2{\tilde \tau}^2}{\text{tan}^2\frac{R}{2}-\frac{u}{v}}\Bigg)+\tilde P\Big(v{\tilde \tau}\Big)\Bigg\}+O(\epsilon)\\
\tilde P\Big(v{\tilde \tau}\Big)&=\int_0^{\infty}\frac{d{\tau}}{{\tau}}\, e^{-{\tau}{\tilde \tau}}P(v,{\tau})\end{aligned}$$ One can work out the exact analytic expression for $\tilde P$ in terms of incomplete gamma functions and exponentials, but the form is relatively unenlightening, other than it is a function of the product $v {\tilde \tau}$ only. To complete the matching calculation, I need the edge-of-jet jet function, which is taken up in the next section.
Edge-of-Jet Function
====================
I start this section with a general discussion of the phase space for the edge of jet function. Then I focus on the calculation for the contribution relevant for the matching and the resummation of NGLs, the in-out configuration. The in-in configuration is relegated to an appendix.
Tree Level and One-Loop Phase Space for Edge-of-Jet Function
------------------------------------------------------------
The tree level Edge-of-Jet function is calculated to be: $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal E}_{{n_{sj}}}^{(T)}\Big({e_{3}^{(\alpha)}};{\tau};Q_{sj};R\Big)&=\delta({e_{3}^{(\alpha)}})\delta({\tau})(2\pi)^3\int [d^4p]_+\delta^{(2)}(p_\perp)\delta(Q_{sj}-{\bar{n}_{sj}}\cdot p)\nonumber\\
&=\delta({e_{3}^{(\alpha)}})\delta({\tau})\,.\end{aligned}$$ The transverse momentum constraint localizes the tree-level result to align with the observed soft jet axis, so that no contribution is given to ${\tau}$ at tree-level. Moving to one loop, I have: $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal E}_{{n_{sj}}}^{(1)}\Big({e_{3}^{(\alpha)}};{\tau};Q_{sj};R\Big)&=g^2C_A\Big(2\pi\Big)^{d-1}\int [d^dk_1]_+ [d^dk_2]_+ \Big(\Phi^{\text{in-in}}({e_{3}^{(\alpha)}},Q_{sj},R,k_1,k_2)\delta({\tau})\nonumber\\
&\qquad+\Phi^{\text{in-out}}({\tau},Q_{sj},R,k_1,k_2)\delta({e_{3}^{(\alpha)}})\Big)\frac{ P_{g}({\bar{n}_{sj}}\cdot k_1,{\bar{n}_{sj}}\cdot k_2)}{k_1\cdot k_2}\end{aligned}$$ where the splitting function for an off-shell gluon into two partons with momenta $k_{1}, k_{2}$ is given as: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{ P_{g}({\bar{n}_{sj}}\cdot k_1,{\bar{n}_{sj}}\cdot k_2)}{k_1\cdot k_2}&=-2\frac{\big(({\bar{n}_{sj}}\cdot k_1)^2+{\bar{n}_{sj}}\cdot k_1{\bar{n}_{sj}}\cdot k_2+({\bar{n}_{sj}}\cdot k_2)^2\big)^2}{{\bar{n}_{sj}}\cdot k_1\,{\bar{n}_{sj}}\cdot k_2({\bar{n}_{sj}}\cdot k_1+{\bar{n}_{sj}}\cdot k_2)^2\,k_1\cdot k_2}\nonumber\\
&\qquad\qquad+ \frac{T_fn_f}{C_A}\frac{2{\bar{n}_{sj}}\cdot k_1{\bar{n}_{sj}}\cdot k_2-(1-\epsilon)({\bar{n}_{sj}}\cdot k_1+{\bar{n}_{sj}}\cdot k_2)^2}{(1-\epsilon)({\bar{n}_{sj}}\cdot k_1+{\bar{n}_{sj}}\cdot k_2)^2k_1\cdot k_2}\end{aligned}$$ The two phase space restrictions break down as:[$$\begin{aligned}
\Phi^{\text{in-in}}({e_{3}^{(\alpha)}},Q_{sj},R,k_1,k_2)&=\delta(Q_{sj}-{\bar{n}_{sj}}\cdot k_1-{\bar{n}_{sj}}\cdot k_2)\delta\Bigg({e_{3}^{(\alpha)}}-N\frac{{\bar{n}_{sj}}\cdot k_1}{Q}\frac{{\bar{n}_{sj}}\cdot k_1}{Q}\Big(\frac{2 k_1\cdot k_2}{{\bar{n}_{sj}}\cdot k_1{\bar{n}_{sj}}\cdot k_2}\Big)^{\frac{\alpha}{2}}\Bigg)\nonumber\\
&\qquad\delta^{(d-2)}(k_{1\perp}+k_{2\perp})\theta\Big(\Delta\theta_{sj}+\frac{4n_{\perp}\cdot k_{1\perp}}{{\bar{n}_{sj}}\cdot k_1 ({{\bar n}}\cdot{n_{sj}})^2}\Big)\theta\Big(\Delta\theta_{sj}+\frac{4n_{\perp}\cdot k_{2\perp}}{{\bar{n}_{sj}}\cdot k_2 ({{\bar n}}\cdot{n_{sj}})^2}\Big)\\
\Phi^{\text{in-out}}({\tau},Q_{sj},R,k_1,k_2)&=\delta(Q_{sj}-{\bar{n}_{sj}}\cdot k_1)\delta\Big({\tau}-\frac{\bar{n}\cdot{n_{sj}}}{2}{\bar{n}_{sj}}\cdot k_2 \Big)\delta^{(d-2)}(k_{1\perp}+k_{2\perp})\nonumber\\
&\qquad\theta\Big(\Delta\theta_{sj}+\frac{4n_{\perp}\cdot k_{1\perp}}{{\bar{n}_{sj}}\cdot k_1 ({{\bar n}}\cdot{n_{sj}})^2}\Big)\theta\Big(\Delta\theta_{sj}-\frac{4n_{\perp}\cdot k_{2\perp}}{{\bar{n}_{sj}}\cdot k_2 ({{\bar n}}\cdot{n_{sj}})^2}\Big)\end{aligned}$$]{} All transverse projections $\perp$ are with respect to the local soft jet light-cone coordinates defined by ${n_{sj}}$ and ${\bar{n}_{sj}}$. I have introduced the angle to the jet boundary $\Delta\theta_{sj}$: $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta\theta_{sj}=\text{tan}^2\frac{R}{2}-\frac{n\cdot{n_{sj}}}{{{\bar n}}\cdot{n_{sj}}}\end{aligned}$$ The $\theta$-function constraints come from expanding the fat jet constraint , in the coordinate frame of the soft subjet when it is pressed against the boundary: $$\begin{aligned}
\theta\Big(\text{tan}^2\frac{R}{2}-\frac{n\cdot k}{{{\bar n}}\cdot k}\Big)&=\theta\Big(\Delta\theta_{sj}+\frac{4n_{\perp}\cdot k_{2\perp}}{{\bar{n}_{sj}}\cdot k_2 ({{\bar n}}\cdot{n_{sj}})^2}\Big)+...\end{aligned}$$ To avoid expansions in plus-distributions, I will henceforth work with the laplace transform of ${e_{3}^{(\alpha)}}$, ${\tilde e_{3}^{(\alpha)}}$.
In-Out Contribution
-------------------
The bare contribution is given by: $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal E}_{{n_{sj}}}^{(1)}\Big({\tau};u,v;R\Big)\Bigg|_{\text{in-out}}&=\frac{\alpha_sC_A}{4^{1-\epsilon}\epsilon}\frac{\text{sec }\pi\epsilon}{\pi^{1/2}\Gamma(\frac{1}{2}-\epsilon)}\frac{v}{(v+{\tau})^2}\Big(\frac{\mu^2 e^{\gamma_E}}{{\tau}^2(\text{tan}^2\frac{R}{2}-\frac{u}{v})}\frac{u}{v}\Big)^{\epsilon}P_{g}\Big(v,{\tau}\Big)\end{aligned}$$ Again, I want to take the laplace transform to extract the divergences. To do so I first isolate the soft contribution, by writing: $$\begin{aligned}
P_{g}\Big(v,{\tau}\Big)&=2\frac{(v+{\tau})^2}{v{\tau}}\Big(-1+P(v,{\tau})\Big)\end{aligned}$$ So: $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal E}_{{n_{sj}}}^{(1)}\Big({\tau};u,v;R\Big)\Bigg|_{\text{in-out}}&=-\frac{\alpha_sC_A}{2^{1-2\epsilon}\epsilon}\frac{\text{sec }\pi\epsilon}{\pi^{1/2}\Gamma(\frac{1}{2}-\epsilon)}\frac{1}{{\tau}}\Big(\frac{\mu^2 e^{\gamma_E}}{{\tau}^2(\text{tan}^2\frac{R}{2}-\frac{u}{v})}\frac{u}{v}\Big)^{\epsilon}\nonumber\\
&\qquad+\frac{\alpha_sC_A}{2^{1-2\epsilon}\epsilon}\frac{\text{sec }\pi\epsilon}{\pi^{1/2}\Gamma(\frac{1}{2}-\epsilon)}\frac{1}{{\tau}}\Big(\frac{\mu^2 e^{\gamma_E}}{{\tau}^2(\text{tan}^2\frac{R}{2}-\frac{u}{v})}\frac{u}{v}\Big)^{\epsilon}P(v,{\tau})\,.\end{aligned}$$ Now I take the laplace transform, and expand in $\epsilon$, to achieve: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Edge_Of_Jet_div_in_out}
{\mathcal E}_{{n_{sj}}}^{(1)}\Big({\tilde \tau};u,v;R\Big)\Big|_{\text{in-out}}^{div}&=-\frac{C_A\alpha_s}{\pi}\Bigg\{\frac{1}{4\epsilon^2}+\frac{1}{2\epsilon}\text{ln}\Big(\frac{e^{\gamma_E}\mu{\tilde \tau}}{\text{tan}^2\frac{R}{2}-\frac{u}{v}}\sqrt{\frac{u}{v}}\Big)+\frac{1}{2\epsilon}\tilde P(v{\tilde \tau})\Bigg\}\\
\label{eq:Edge_Of_Jet_fin_in_out}{\mathcal E}_{{n_{sj}}}^{(1)}\Big({\tilde \tau};u,v;R\Big)\Big|_{\text{in-out}}^{fin}&=-\frac{\alpha_sC_A}{\pi}\Bigg\{\tilde P(v{\tilde \tau})\text{ln}\Bigg(\frac{\mu}{v(\text{tan}^2\frac{R}{2}-\frac{u}{v})}\sqrt{\frac{u}{v}}\Bigg)-\tilde P^{\text{ln}}(v{\tilde \tau})\nonumber\\
&\qquad+\frac{1}{2}\text{ln}^2\Big(\frac{e^{\gamma_E}\mu{\tilde \tau}}{\text{tan}^2\frac{R}{2}-\frac{u}{v}}\sqrt{\frac{u}{v}}\Big)+\frac{7\pi^2}{48}+I_{n_f}(v,{\tilde \tau})\Bigg\}\\
\tilde P^{\text{ln}}(v{\tilde \tau})&=\int_0^{\infty}\frac{d{\tau}}{{\tau}}\,e^{-{\tau}{\tilde \tau}}P(v,{\tau})\text{ln}\frac{{\tau}}{v}\\
I_{n_f}(v{\tilde \tau})&=\frac{T_fn_f}{C_A}\int_0^{\infty}\frac{d{\tau}}{{\tau}}\,e^{-{\tau}{\tilde \tau}}\frac{v^2{\tau}^2}{(v+{\tau})^4}\end{aligned}$$ The finite terms in momentum space are: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Edge_Of_Jet_fin_in_out_momentum_space}{\mathcal E}_{{n_{sj}}}^{(1)}\Big({\tau};u,v;R\Big)\Big|_{\text{in-out}}^{fin}&=-\frac{\alpha_sC_A}{\pi}\Bigg\{\frac{P(v,{\tau})}{{\tau}}\text{ln}\Bigg(\frac{\mu}{{\tau}(\text{tan}^2\frac{R}{2}-\frac{u}{v})}\sqrt{\frac{u}{v}}\Bigg)\nonumber\\
&\qquad+{\mathcal L}^1\Big(\frac{\mu}{\text{tan}^2\frac{R}{2}-\frac{u}{v}}\sqrt{\frac{u}{v}},{\tau}\Big)+\frac{\pi^2}{16}\delta({\tau})+\frac{T_fn_f}{C_A}\frac{v^2{\tau}}{(v+{\tau})^4}\Bigg\}\end{aligned}$$ The in-out contribution to the edge-of-jet function has several noteworthy features. Aside from containing double logarithmic divergences, it also features a single logarithmic divergence corresponding to the non-soft terms of DGLAP splitting function. At higher orders one can expect departures from DGLAP evolution. The appearance of DGLAP is not suprising, since essentially at this order in perturbation theory, the measurements imposed give the probability for a jet close to the boundary to fragment a parton out of the fat jet boundary. The IR divergence associated with this fragmentation is cut off by the angular distance of the soft jet to the fat jet boundary, so though the function will have an evolution similar to a fragmentation function, it is IR-finite and calculable in perturbation theory.
It is natural that the double logarithmic divergences, here being related to the soft limit of the splitting functions, are controlled by an anomalous dimension proportional to the cusp to all orders in perturbation theory [@Polyakov:1980ca; @Brandt:1981kf; @Korchemsky:1987wg; @Korchemsky:1992xv].
Edge-of-Jet Function Matching {#sec:matching_edge_of_jet_function}
-----------------------------
The edge-of-jet function admits an OPE onto the boundary soft function and a standard jet function, of the form: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{matching_edge_of_jet_function}
{\mathcal E}_{{n_{sj}}}\Big({e_{3}^{(\alpha)}};{\tau};Q_{sj};R\Big)&=C_{{n_{sj}}}({\tau},R)S_{{n_{sj}}{\bar{n}_{sj}}}({e_{3}^{(\alpha)}},R)J_{{n_{sj}}}({e_{3}^{(\alpha)}},Q_{sj})+O\Bigg(Q{e_{3}^{(\alpha)}}\Big(1-\frac{u}{v}\text{cot}^2\frac{R}{2}\Big)\Bigg)\end{aligned}$$ The tree-level matching is: $$\begin{aligned}
C_{{n_{sj}}}^{(T)}({\tau},R)&=\delta({\tau})\,.\end{aligned}$$ Since the boundary softs and standard jet function calculations reproduce eqns. to , the divergent and finite contributions in laplace space to the matching coefficient to one-loop accuracy is then given by and : $$\begin{aligned}
C_{{n_{sj}}}^{(1)}({\tilde \tau},R)\Big|^{\text{div}}&={\mathcal E}_{{n_{sj}}}^{(1)}\Big({\tilde \tau};u,v;R\Big)\Big|_{\text{in-out}}^{\text{div}}\\
C_{{n_{sj}}}^{(1)}({\tilde \tau},R)\Big|^{\text{fin}}&={\mathcal E}_{{n_{sj}}}^{(1)}\Big({\tilde \tau};u,v;R\Big)\Big|_{\text{in-out}}^{\text{fin}}\label{edge_of_jet_matching_JET_FUNCTION}\end{aligned}$$ The renomalization group equation satisfied by this renormalized matching coefficient is to one loop: $$\begin{aligned}
\mu\frac{d}{d\mu}\text{ln}C_{{n_{sj}}}({\tilde \tau},R)&=-\frac{\alpha_s(\mu)C_A}{\pi}\Bigg\{\text{ln}\Big(\frac{e^{\gamma_E}\mu{\tilde \tau}}{\text{tan}^2\frac{R}{2}-\frac{u}{v}}\sqrt{\frac{u}{v}}\Big)+\tilde P(v{\tilde \tau})\Bigg\}\end{aligned}$$ The anomalous dimensions of the other functions in are given in , and one can construct the full RG equation of ${\mathcal E}_{{n_{sj}}}$ from those results.
Edge-of-Jet Matching
====================
I now have all the ingredients to finish the matching in . I use , , and to compute: $$\begin{aligned}
H^{sj(1)}_{n{{\bar n}}}(u,v,{\tilde \tau})\Big|_{\text{in-out}}^{\text{div}}&=H_{n{{\bar n}}}^{sj(T)}(u,v)\frac{\alpha_sC_A}{\pi}\Bigg\{\frac{1}{4\epsilon^2}+\frac{1}{2\epsilon}\text{ln}\Big(\frac{\mu{\tilde \tau}e^{\gamma_E}}{\text{tan}^2\frac{R}{2}}\sqrt{\frac{u}{v}}\Big)+\frac{1}{2\epsilon}\tilde P(v{\tilde \tau})\Bigg\}\\
\label{eq:in_out_matching_coef}H^{sj(1)}_{n{{\bar n}}}(u,v,{\tilde \tau})\Big|_{\text{in-out}}^{\text{fin}}&=H_{n{{\bar n}}}^{sj(T)}(u,v)\frac{\alpha_sC_A}{\pi}\Bigg\{+\frac{1}{2}\text{ln}^2\Big(\frac{\mu{\tilde \tau}e^{\gamma_E}}{\text{tan}^2\frac{R}{2}}\sqrt{\frac{u}{v}}\Big)\nonumber\\
&\qquad-\text{ln}\Big(\frac{u}{v\text{tan}^2\frac{R}{2}}\Big)\text{ln}\Big(1-\frac{u}{v\text{tan}^2\frac{R}{2}}\Big)+\frac{7\pi^2}{48}\nonumber\\
&\qquad+\tilde P(v{\tilde \tau})\text{ln}\Bigg(\frac{\mu}{v\text{tan}^2\frac{R}{2}}\sqrt{\frac{u}{v}}\Bigg)-\tilde P^{\text{ln}}(v{\tilde \tau})-I_{n_f}(v{\tilde \tau})\nonumber\\
&\qquad+\text{no split}\Bigg\}\,.\end{aligned}$$ I also give the finite contribution in momentum space in terms of plus distributions. This allows us to show the structure of the “no-split” terms more transparently: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:in_out_matching_coef_momentum}H^{sj(1)}_{n{{\bar n}}}(u,v,{\tau})\Big|_{\text{in-out}}^{\text{fin}}&=H_{n{{\bar n}}}^{sj(T)}(u,v)\frac{\alpha_sC_A}{\pi}\Bigg\{\delta({\tau})\Big(-\text{ln}\Big(\frac{u}{v\text{tan}^2\frac{R}{2}}\Big)\text{ln}\Big(1-\frac{u}{v\text{tan}^2\frac{R}{2}}\Big)+\frac{\pi^2}{16}\Big)\nonumber\\
&+{\mathcal L}^{1}\Big(\mu\,\text{cot}^2\frac{R}{2}\sqrt{\frac{u}{v}},{\tau}\Big)+\frac{1}{{\tau}}P(v,{\tau})\text{ln}\Bigg(\Big(\frac{\mu}{{\tau}\text{tan}^2\frac{R}{2}}\sqrt{\frac{u}{v}}\Big)\Big(\frac{{\tau}}{{\tau}+u\text{ cot}^2\frac{R}{2}}\Big)\Bigg)\nonumber\\
&-\frac{{\tau}}{2(v+{\tau})}\text{ln}\Big(\frac{{\tau}}{{\tau}+u\,\text{cot}^2\frac{R}{2}}\Big)\nonumber\\
&+\frac{ u v {\tau}(v-{\tau})\text{cot}^2\frac{R}{2}}{(v+{\tau})^3({\tau}+u \text{cot}^2\frac{R}{2})}\Big(1-2\frac{T_fn_f}{C_A}\Big)+T_fn_f\frac{v^2{\tau}}{(v+{\tau})^4}\Bigg\}\end{aligned}$$ The plus distributions are defined in . Importantly, this contribution to the matching coefficient is manifestly finite as $u\rightarrow v\text{tan}^2\frac{R}{2}$. That is, all sensitivity to the IR scales associated with the collinear splitting at the edge of the jet have been removed.
One Soft Jet Contribution to NGLs with Collinear Effects
========================================================
Fixed Order Non-Global Logarithms
---------------------------------
For reference, I quote the fixed order result at $\alpha_s^2$ for hemisphere NGLs, see . Dividing out the global contribution to the cross-section, the hemisphere NGL contribution for an initial dipole in the fundamental representation is: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:FO_hemi_NGLS}
\sigma^{NGL}\Big(\frac{u^c}{{\tau}^c}\Big)\Big|_{u^c\gg {\tau}^c}&=\frac{\alpha_s^2}{\pi^2}C_F\Bigg(-\frac{\pi^2}{12}C_A\text{ln}^2\frac{u^c}{{\tau}^c}+\text{ln}\frac{u^c}{{\tau}^c}\Big(C_A\frac{11\pi^2-3-18\zeta_3}{36}+T_Rn_f\frac{6-4\pi^2}{36}\Big)\Bigg)\end{aligned}$$ One can check by explicit calculation that the result for $N=4$ SYM is simply the leading terms in transcendentality. The leading NGL at $\alpha_s^2$ for non-hemispherical jets were obtained for a variety of algorithms in , and both leading and subleading were obtained for cone algorithms, similar to the ones considered in this paper, in .
It is important to note that the $\zeta_3$ subleading log is directly tied to the collinear double logarithms of the edge of jet function found in . In particularly, it arises in the full theory calculation of the NGLs integrating over the double logarithm at order $\epsilon$ in the second line of . This fact will play an important role in the collinear evolution of the BMS kernel later.
Dressing Gluons
---------------
To elucidate the collinear splitting contributions to the NGLs, I following the procedure outlined in [@Larkoski:2015zka]. I re-associate functions in the factorization theorem to obtain anomalous dimensions that allows me to resum the NGLs for a single soft jet emitted off of the $n$-$\bar{n}$ dipole. I define: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:defining_W_func}
W_{n\bar{n}}(p_{sj};{\tau};R)&=\lim_{{\tilde e_{3}^{(\alpha)}}\rightarrow 0} H^{sj}_{n{{\bar n}}}\Big(p_{sj};{\tau};R\Big){\mathcal E}_{{n_{sj}}}\Big({\tilde e_{3}^{(\alpha)}}\Big)S_{{n_{sj}}{\bar{n}_{sj}}}\Big({\tilde e_{3}^{(\alpha)}};R\Big)S_{n{{\bar n}}{n_{sj}}}\Big({\tilde e_{3}^{(\alpha)}};R\Big)\\
\label{eq:defining_G_func}G_{n{{\bar n}}{n_{sj}}}({\tau};R)&=C_{{n_{sj}}}({\tilde \tau},R)\end{aligned}$$ These functions differ from those used in the original soft jet factorization to resum NGLs. Because of the modified power counting, both $W$ and $G$ can depend on the out of jet scale, since formally I have assumed no hierarchy. The RG equations satisfied by these functions are given by: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:RG_W_func}\mu\frac{d}{d\mu}\text{ln}W_{n\bar{n}}(p_{sj};{\tilde \tau};R)&=\frac{\alpha_s(\mu)C_A}{\pi}\Bigg\{\text{ln}\Big(\frac{\mu{\tilde \tau}e^{\gamma_E}}{\big(\text{tan}^2\frac{R}{2}-\frac{u}{v}\big)}\sqrt{\frac{u}{v}}\Big)+\tilde P(v{\tilde \tau})\Bigg\}\\
\label{eq:RG_G_func}\mu\frac{d}{d\mu}\text{ln}G_{n{{\bar n}}{n_{sj}}}({\tilde \tau};R)&=-\frac{\alpha_s(\mu)C_A}{\pi}\Bigg\{\text{ln}\Big(\frac{\mu{\tilde \tau}e^{\gamma_E}}{\big(\text{tan}^2\frac{R}{2}-\frac{u}{v}\big)}\sqrt{\frac{u}{v}}\Big)+\tilde P(v{\tilde \tau})\Bigg\}\end{aligned}$$ I can see how the RG-improvement of the $WG$ product resums the collinear splittings: $$\begin{gathered}
W_{n\bar{n}}(p_{sj};{\tilde \tau};R;\mu)G_{n{{\bar n}}{n_{sj}}}({\tilde \tau};R;\mu)=W_{n\bar{n}}(p_{sj};{\tilde \tau};R,\mu)G_{n{{\bar n}}{n_{sj}}}({\tilde \tau};R;\mu_i)\tilde U(\mu,\mu_i,;{\tilde \tau})\\\end{gathered}$$ It is convenient to split the resummation factor into a double and single logarithmic contributions as: $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde U(\mu,\mu_i;{\tilde \tau})&=\tilde U_{\text{ln}^2}(\mu,\mu_i;{\tilde \tau})\tilde U_{\text{ln}}(\mu,\mu_i;{\tilde \tau})\\
\tilde U_{\text{ln}^2}(\mu,\mu_i;{\tilde \tau})&=\text{Exp}\Bigg[-\int_{\mu_i}^{\mu}\frac{d\mu'}{\mu'}\frac{\alpha_s(\mu')C_A}{\pi}\text{ln}\Big(\frac{\mu}{\mu_i}\Big)\nonumber\\
&\qquad-\text{ln}\Big(\frac{\mu_i{\tilde \tau}e^{\gamma_E}}{\big(\text{tan}^2\frac{R}{2}-\frac{u}{v}\big)}\sqrt{\frac{u}{v}}\Big)\int_{\mu_i}^{\mu}\frac{d\mu'}{\mu'}\frac{\alpha_s(\mu')C_A}{\pi}\Big)\Bigg]\\
\tilde U_{\text{ln}}(\mu,\mu_i;{\tilde \tau})&=\text{Exp}\Bigg[-\tilde P(v{\tilde \tau})\int_{\mu_i}^{\mu}\frac{d\mu'}{\mu'}\frac{\alpha_s(\mu')C_A}{\pi}\Bigg]\end{aligned}$$ I can then write the cumulant momentum space resummed distribution as a convolution between the single and double logarithmic functions: $$\begin{aligned}
U^c(\mu,\mu_i;{\tau})&=\int_0^{\infty}d{\tau}'\,U_{\text{ln}^2}^c(\mu,\mu_i;{\tau}^c-{\tau}')U_{\text{ln}}(\mu,\mu_i;{\tau}')\end{aligned}$$ I cannot obtain $U_{\text{ln}}(\mu,\mu_i;{\tau})$ in analytic form, but I can solve for $U_{\text{ln}^2}^c(\mu,\mu_i;{\tau}^c)$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:dl_cumulant_evo}U_{\text{ln}^2}^c(\mu,\mu_i;{\tau}^c)&=\theta({\tau}^c)\Big(\frac{{\tau}^c}{\mu}\Big)^{-\omega(\mu,\mu_i)}\frac{\text{Exp}\Big[-K(\mu,\mu_i)\Big]}{\Gamma(1-\omega(\mu,\mu_i))}\\
\omega(\mu,\mu_i)&=\int_{\mu_i}^{\mu}\frac{d\mu'}{\mu'}\frac{\alpha_s(\mu')C_A}{\pi}\nonumber\\
&\sim\frac{\alpha_s C_A}{\pi}\text{ln}\frac{\mu}{\mu_i}\\
K(\mu,\mu_i)&=\text{ln}\Big(\frac{\mu_ie^{\gamma_E}}{\mu\big(\text{tan}^2\frac{R}{2}-\frac{u}{v}\big)}\sqrt{\frac{u}{v}}\Big)\int_{\mu_i}^{\mu}\frac{d\mu'}{\mu'}\frac{\alpha_s(\mu')C_A}{\pi}\nonumber\\
&\sim\frac{\alpha_s C_A}{\pi}\text{ln}\Big(\frac{\mu}{\mu_i}\Big)\text{ln}\Big(\frac{\mu_ie^{\gamma_E}}{\mu\big(\text{tan}^2\frac{R}{2}-\frac{u}{v}\big)}\sqrt{\frac{u}{v}}\Big)\end{aligned}$$ The single soft jet contribution to the cumulative non-global logarithms then takes in resummed form: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:collinear_splitting_ngls}
\sigma^{\text{NGL}}\Big(\frac{u^c}{{\tau}^c}\Big)=\int_{{\tau}^c}^{u^c}du\int_u^\infty dv\int_{u-{\tau}^c}^{{\tau}^c}d{\tau}\Big\{&W_{n{{\bar n}}}(u,v;{\tau};\mu)\otimes G(u,v;{\tau};\mu_i)\nonumber\\
&\otimes U_{\text{ln}^2}^c(\mu,\mu_i;{\tau})\otimes U_{\text{ln}}(\mu,\mu_i;{\tau})-\text{c-bin}\Big\}\end{aligned}$$ The limits of integration are determine as follows. The variable $v$ is just integrated over all allowed angles of the fat jet, while $u, {\tau}$ are bounded as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
{\tau}^c>{\tau}& & u^c>u \\
{\tau}+u>{\tau}^c & &u>{\tau}^c\end{aligned}$$ The conditions of the first line are just the definition of the cumulative values of the measurement. The second line is more important. It states that the parent gluon that splits in and out of the jet is above the IR scale of the problem. Thus the edge of jet resummation can be applied without interfering with the global and IR divergences. Below the IR scale, and the gluon contributes to the global divergence, and no resummation should be applied. This also guarantees that all IR divergences cancel between the $in-in$, $in-out$, and $out-out$ regions for the hemisphere soft function [@Hornig:2011iu].
To see whether the dressed gluon will reproduce the $\alpha_s^2$ NGLs, I must expand each of these functions to first nontrivial order, and evaluate the integrals. Note that the collinear bin is the expansion in the limit that $u\ll v,{\tau}$ before the integrals are evaluated [@Manohar:2006nz]. This removes any overlap with a collinear subjet factorization. To this order (mixed leading-logarithmic prime, since we are incorporating matching contributions, and $\alpha_s$ running, but ignoring the two-loop cusp contribution), the collinear-bin insures that the limit of is well defined. Any part of the one-loop matrix elements contributing to the resolution variable ${e_{3}^{(\alpha)}}$ will cancel against the same contribution with the collinear-bin expansion performed, up to corrections that are beyond the logarithmic order I am working.
### Matrix Element Contributions to NGLs
Due to the collinear bin, the only contribution to the NGLs that can arise from the matrix elements of the effective theory are those of either the in-out contribution to the soft jet production coefficient in , or the edge-of-jet matching coefficient of . Thus we have to order $\alpha_s$ in each of the low scale functions: $$\begin{aligned}
W_{n{{\bar n}}}(u,v;{\tau};\mu)G_{n{{\bar n}}{n_{sj}}}({\tau};R;\mu_i)&=H_{n\bar{n}}^{sj(T)}(u,v)\delta({\tau})+H_{n\bar{n}}^{sj(1)}(u,v,{\tau};\mu)\Big|_{\text{in-out}}\nonumber\\
&\qquad+H_{n\bar{n}}^{sj(T)}(u,v)C_{{n_{sj}}}^{(1)}({\tau};R;\mu_i)+O(\alpha_s^2)\end{aligned}$$ Examining the matrix element in , one can choose the low scale to be: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:low_scale_choice_canonical}
\mu_i\sim {\tau}^c\Big(\text{tan}^2\frac{R}{2}-\frac{u}{v}\Big)\sqrt{\frac{v}{u}}\end{aligned}$$ This will minimize all logs in the edge-of-jet function that can contribute to the NGLs. After the collinear bin, no terms from the edge-of-jet function will contribute to the $\alpha_s^2$ NLGs. Examining the soft jet production matching coefficient, taking: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:high_scale_choice_canonical}
\mu\sim {\tau}^c\sqrt{\frac{v}{u}}\,\text{tan}^2\frac{R}{2}\,,\end{aligned}$$ will minimize the logarithms in . However, with this choice, there are still terms left over that can contribute to the NGLs even after the collinear bin: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:matrix_element_for_ngls}
H_{n\bar{n}}^{sj(1)}(u,v,{\tau};\mu)\Big|_{\text{in-out}}-\text{c-bin}=\frac{\alpha_s^2}{\pi^2}&\frac{C_FC_A}{u v}\Bigg(+\frac{1}{{\tau}}P(v,{\tau})\text{ln}\Big(\frac{{\tau}}{{\tau}+u\text{ cot}^2\frac{R}{2}}\Big)\nonumber\\
&-\delta({\tau})\text{ln}\Big(\frac{u}{v\text{tan}^2\frac{R}{2}}\Big)\text{ln}\Big(1-\frac{u}{v\text{tan}^2\frac{R}{2}}\Big)\nonumber\\
&-\frac{{\tau}}{2(v+{\tau})}\text{ln}\Big(\frac{{\tau}}{{\tau}+u\,\text{cot}^2\frac{R}{2}}\Big)\nonumber\\
&+\frac{ u v {\tau}(v-{\tau})\text{cot}^2\frac{R}{2}}{(v+{\tau})^3({\tau}+u \text{cot}^2\frac{R}{2})}\Big(1-2\frac{T_fn_f}{C_A}\Big)\Bigg)\end{aligned}$$ In the hemisphere case, setting $R=\pi/2$, I evaluate the resulting integrals to get: $$\begin{aligned}
&\int_{{\tau}^c}^{u^c}\frac{du}{u}\int_u^\infty \frac{dv}{v}\int_{u-{\tau}^c}^{{\tau}^c}\frac{d{\tau}}{{\tau}}\,\text{ln}\Big(\frac{{\tau}}{u+{\tau}}\Big)P\Big(v,{\tau}\Big)=
\label{eq:NGL_Other_Split_Terms}\Big(\frac{22\pi^2+9+6\text{ ln}2+132\text{ ln}^22}{144}
\nonumber\\ &\qquad\qquad\qquad-\frac{n_fT_R}{C_A}\frac{4\pi^2+9+6\text{ ln}2+24\text{ ln}^22}{72}\Big)\text{ln}\frac{u^c}{{\tau}^c}+...\\
\label{eq:NGL_Zeta3_Terms}&\int_{{\tau}^c}^{u^c}\frac{du}{u}\int_u^\infty \frac{dv}{v}\int_{u-{\tau}^c}^{{\tau}^c}\frac{d{\tau}}{{\tau}}\,\frac{-{\tau}}{2({\tau}+v)}\text{ln}\Big(\frac{{\tau}}{u+{\tau}}\Big)=-\frac{\zeta_3}{2}\text{ln}\frac{u^c}{{\tau}^c}+...\\
\label{eq:NGL_Rational_Terms}&\int_{{\tau}^c}^{u^c}\frac{du}{u}\int_u^\infty \frac{dv}{v}\int_{u-{\tau}^c}^{{\tau}^c}\frac{d{\tau}}{{\tau}}\,\frac{v-{\tau}}{2(u+{\tau})({\tau}+v)^3}\Big(1-2\frac{n_fT_R}{C_A}\Big)=-\frac{3}{16}\Big(1-2\frac{n_fT_R}{C_A}\Big)\text{ln}\frac{u^c}{{\tau}^c}+...\end{aligned}$$ Where we have dropped terms that are finite as $\frac{u^c}{{\tau}^c}\rightarrow \infty$. Note that the large logarithms can be found simply by setting: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:dropping_subleading_terms}
\int_{u-{\tau}^c}^{{\tau}^c}d{\tau}\rightarrow -\int_0^ud{\tau}+...\end{aligned}$$ Then the finite terms are automatically dropped. This naturally coincides with an ordering of emissions $u>{\tau}$ found in the evolution equation approach.
### Evolution Factors Contribution to NGLs
Next I must expand the cumulant resummed distribution with scale choices given by . I also take the collinear-bin and subtract. I find the following integrals to evaluate: $$\begin{aligned}
&\text{Expanding }U_{\text{ln}^2}^c(\mu,\mu_i;{\tau}_c)-U_{\text{ln}^2}^c(\mu,\mu_i;u-{\tau}_c)-\text{c-bin}:\nonumber\\
\label{eq:NGL_DoubleL_Terms}&\int_{{\tau}^c}^{u^c}\frac{du}{u}\int_u^\infty \frac{dv}{v}\text{ln}\Big(1-\frac{u}{v}\Big)\text{ln}\Big(\frac{u-{\tau}^c}{{\tau}^c}\Big)=-\frac{\pi^2}{12}\text{ln}^2\frac{u^c}{{\tau}^c}+...\\
\nonumber\\
&\text{Expanding }U_{\text{ln}}(\mu,\mu_i;{\tau})-\text{c-bin}:\nonumber\\
\label{eq:NGL_Split_Terms}&\int_{{\tau}^c}^{u^c}\frac{du}{u}\int_u^\infty \frac{dv}{v}\int_{u-{\tau}^c}^{{\tau}^c}\frac{d{\tau}}{{\tau}}\,\text{ln}\Big(1-\frac{u}{v}\Big)P\Big(v,{\tau}\Big)=\Big(\frac{11\pi^2+3-3\text{ ln}2-66\text{ ln}^22}{72}
\nonumber\\ &\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad-\frac{n_fT_R}{C_A}\frac{4\pi^2+6-6\text{ ln}2-24\text{ ln}^22}{72}\Big)\text{ln}\frac{u^c}{{\tau}^c}+...
$$ Again we have dropped terms that are finite as $\frac{u^c}{{\tau}^c}\rightarrow \infty$. Upon summing Eqs. through , and restoring the color factors and coupling, we reproduce .
Alternative Resummation Schemes
-------------------------------
One can attempt to exponentiate more terms than is done with the canonical choice of factorization scale . In particular, one is tempted to set: $$\begin{aligned}
\mu\sim {\tau}^c+u\,\end{aligned}$$ This choice formally exponentiates all terms that can be connected to the splitting function, moving into the single log resummation factor. However, the terms connected with the rational terms would still not be exponentiated. Given that the logarithm associated with these terms is effectively a ratio of soft energy scales, ${\tau}$ to ${\tau}+u$, a more systematic route to the resummation of these terms would be to calculate and resum the subleading power corrections to the soft jet factorization of [@Larkoski:2015zka], along the lines of [@Larkoski:2014bxa; @Laenen:2008gt; @Laenen:2008ux; @Laenen:2010uz; @Bonocore:2015esa].
NLO BMS
=======
The comparison to the recently derived NLO BMS equation found in [@Caron-Huot:2015bja] is straightforward[^6]. Within this approach, one seeks to define an equation of motion for the reduced density matrix that results from integrating out the hard emissions. One does this time step by time step, where each previous step the mode that resulted from a decay into the IR now becomes a hard eikonal current, freely radiating. This results in a Markovian process at leading lo, and departures from leading log can be understood as corrections to the Markovian picture. The “time” evolution of the reduced density matrix is governed by a hamiltonian, and one can simply examine the action of the two loop hamiltonian generating the evolution on the initial dipole, perform the requisite IR averaging, and drop any terms that occur at order greater than $\alpha_s^2$.
For simplicity, we restrict to $N=4$ SYM, where the hamiltonian is simplest. If $$\begin{aligned}
K&=\frac{\alpha_s}{4\pi}K^{(1)}+\frac{\alpha_s^2}{16\pi^2}K^{(2)}+...\end{aligned}$$ is the hamiltonian generating the soft evolution, I have for this hamiltonian acting on an initial dipole in $N=4$ SYM: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Caron-Huot_NLO_kernel}
K^{(2)}\text{Tr}[U_1U_2^\dagger]&=2\int\frac{d^2\Omega_0}{4\pi}\frac{d^2\Omega_{0'}}{4\pi}K_{12;00'}^{(2)N=4,l}\Big(2U_{0}^{aa'}U_{0'}^{aa'}-U_{0'}^{aa'}U_{0'}^{aa'}-U_{0}^{aa'}U_{0}^{aa'}\Big)\nonumber\\
&\qquad\times\Big(\text{Tr}\Big[[T^a,T^b]U_1T^{a'}T^{b'}U_2^\dagger\Big]+\text{Tr}\Big[T^{a}T^{b}U_1[T^{a'},T^{b'}]U_2^\dagger\Big]\Big)\nonumber\\
&+\frac{4\pi^2 C_A}{3}\int\frac{d^2\Omega_0}{4\pi}\frac{\alpha_{12}}{\alpha_{10}\alpha_{02}}\Big(\text{Tr}[T^{a'}U_1T^aU^\dagger_2]U_0^{aa'}-C_A\text{Tr}[U_1U_2^\dagger]\Big)\end{aligned}$$ Where I have: $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha_{a b}&=-\frac{\beta_a\cdot \beta_b}{2}\\
\beta_a&=(1,\hat{b}_a),\qquad 1=\hat{b}_a^2\\
K_{n{{\bar n}};00'}^{(2)N=4,l}&=\frac{\alpha_{n{{\bar n}}}}{\alpha_{0n}\alpha_{00'}\alpha_{0'{{\bar n}}}}\Bigg(2\text{ln}\Big(\frac{\alpha_{n{{\bar n}}}\alpha_{00'}}{\alpha_{0{{\bar n}}}\alpha_{0'n}}\Big)+\Big[1+\frac{\alpha_{n{{\bar n}}}\alpha_{00'}}{\alpha_{0n}\alpha_{0'{{\bar n}}}-\alpha_{0'n}\alpha_{0{{\bar n}}}}\Big]\text{ln}\Big(\frac{\alpha_{0n}\alpha_{0'{{\bar n}}}}{\alpha_{0'n}\alpha_{0{{\bar n}}}}\Big)\Bigg)\end{aligned}$$ That is, all integrals are over null rays on the celestial sphere. I have gone ahead and set the initial dipole to be the back to back jets. The first term corresponds to multiple soft emissions generating new wilson lines $U_0, U_{0'}$, while the second term corresponds to the cusp contribution. The IR averaging is accomplished by: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Caron-Huot_strong_ordering}
U_i^{a b}\rightarrow \delta^{ab}\Bigg(\theta\Big(\frac{p_i^z}{p_i^0}\Big)+\theta\Big(\text{cos}R-\frac{p_i^z}{p_i^0}\Big)\Bigg)\end{aligned}$$ I focus on the multiple soft emission term, since this will naturally produce the single logarithmic contributions. Noting that one can drop the small cone about the other hemisphere, the integrations become with the IR averaging constraints: $$\begin{aligned}
2\int\frac{d^2\Omega_0}{4\pi}\frac{d^2\Omega_{0'}}{4\pi}\rightarrow_{\text{IR ave.}}\int_0^{1}dx\int_0^{1}dy\int_{0}^{2\pi}\frac{d\phi}{4\pi}\Bigg(\theta\Big(\frac{1}{2}-x\Big)\theta\Big(y-\frac{1}{2}\Big)+\theta\Big(x-\frac{1}{2}\Big)\theta\Big(\frac{1}{2}-y\Big)\Bigg)\end{aligned}$$ Here, $x,y$ are related to the polar angles of the soft emissions. The NGL distribution is generated by acting Exp$[-L_{NGL}\hat{K}]$ on the initial hard configuration, so expanding the exponential and using the results in [@Caron-Huot:2015bja] for the kernel, we get: [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Simon_LO_ave_Nis4}
-\frac{\alpha_s^2}{16\pi^2C_A}\Bigg\langle K^{(2)N=4}\text{Tr}[U_1U_2^\dagger]\Bigg\rangle_{IR}\text{ln}\frac{u^c}{{\tau}^c} &=\frac{\alpha_s^2C_AC_F}{2\pi^2}\zeta_3\text{ln}\frac{u^c}{{\tau}^c}\end{aligned}$$]{}When calculating with a hamiltonian germane to QCD, one obtains almost , except for the $\zeta_3$ term above, which has the wrong sign. In the full BMS equation, there is also the contribution coming from iteration of the leading order hamiltonian, however, this simply generates the leading log NGL at two loops. Then to get the $\zeta_3$ logarithm correct, one must supplement the LO IR averaging procedure with an NLO averaging correction. However, we will see that collinearly improving the BMS equation to contain the leading double collinear logs results in a contribution that when added to the above, gives the correct $\zeta_3$, allowing us to forgo the NLO averaging procedure[^7]. This is not unexpected: under the assumption that the LO and NLO BMS kernels fully capture all soft coherence in the IR evolution, the only remaining corrections in the IR that can be obtained are incoherent emissions off of the wilson lines.
Collinear Improvement of the BMS Equation {#sec:collinear_BMS}
=========================================
It is beyond the scope of this paper to firmly establish how one might collinearly-improve the NLO BMS equation, however, noting the correspondence between the soft jet expansion in [@Larkoski:2015zka] and the leading order BMS equation, one can derive an expression that will hopefully capture all double collinear logs, at least in the large $N_c$ limit[^8][^9]. The purely non-global version of BMS is given as: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:BMS}
\mu\frac{d}{d\mu} g_{a b}&=\frac{\alpha_s C_A}{\pi}\int_{FJ}\frac{d\Omega_{j}}{4\pi}W_{ab}(j)\Big\{U_{abj}\,g_{aj}g_{jb}-g_{ab}\Big\}\,,\\
W_{ab}(j)&=\frac{a\cdot b}{a\cdot n_j\,n_j\cdot b}\,.\end{aligned}$$ Where $a,b$, and $n_j$ are null vectors. The integration is over the angular region of the fat jet. The RG equations of the soft jet factorization could be used to generate the $U_{abj}$ factor: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:BMS_anom_dim_ab}
\mu\frac{d}{d\mu}\text{ln}U_{abj}&=-\frac{\alpha_sC_A}{\pi}\int_{\overline{FJ}}\frac{d\Omega_{i}}{4\pi}\Big\{W_{aj}(i)+W_{jb}(i)-W_{ab}(i)\Big\}&=-\frac{\alpha_s C_A}{\pi}S_{ab}(j)\,.\end{aligned}$$ Where the integration is over the angular region of out of jet region. From , the function $S_{ab}(j)$ always contains the term ln$\Big(1-\frac{u}{v}\Big)$. Indeed, examining and noting that for the case of $a=n, b={{\bar n}}$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:BMS_anom_dim_nnbar}
\int_{\overline{FJ}}\frac{d\Omega_{i}}{4\pi}\Big\{W_{nj}(i)+W_{jn}(i)-W_{n{{\bar n}}}(i)\Big\}&=-\text{ln}\Big(1-\frac{u}{v}\Big)\\
\frac{u}{v}=\frac{n\cdot n_j}{{{\bar n}}\cdot n_j}\end{aligned}$$ I will show how to collinearly improve the BMS equation, assuming that the effective theories correctly calculate the resummed production rate of soft jets modulo global effects. This resummation of the collinear double logs maintains the conformal invariance of the BMS equation, up to the boundary condition of the jet radius. I construct the resummed weight in the BMS equation through a sequence of effective theories under the assumption: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:collinear_regime}{\tau}^c(1-\frac{u}{v})\ll {\tau}^c\,,\\
\label{eq:standard_BMS_regime}{\tau}^c \ll \mu\,.\end{aligned}$$ I evolve between the scales of using the evolution the logarithmic terms of , then I evolve between the scales of using . This sequence of evolutions can be codified into a limit of the factorization theorem in [@Larkoski:2015zka], where one essentially takes the threshold limit of the collinear splittings at the jet boundary, which is given in . Then we have for the resummation in the BMS equation: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:collinear_improved_U_factor}
U_{n{{\bar n}}j}^{\text{c.i.}}&=\text{Exp}\Bigg[\frac{\alpha_s C_A}{\pi}\text{ln}\Big(1-\frac{u}{v}\Big)\text{ln}\Big(\frac{u}{{\tau}^c}\Big)-\frac{\alpha_s C_A}{2\pi}\text{ln}^2\Big(1-\frac{u}{v}\Big)\Bigg]\end{aligned}$$ Then the collinearly improved BMS equation for the $n-{{\bar n}}$ dipole is: $$\begin{aligned}
\mu\frac{d}{d\mu} g_{n {{\bar n}}}&=\frac{\alpha_s C_A}{\pi}\int_{FJ}\frac{d\omega_{j}}{4\pi}W_{n{{\bar n}}}(j)\Big\{U_{n {{\bar n}}j}^{\text{c.i.}}\,g_{nj}g_{j{{\bar n}}}-g_{n{{\bar n}}}\Big\}\,.\end{aligned}$$ Finally, one would like to collinearly improve the BMS equation for an arbitrary dipole with directions $a,b$, derived in : $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:collinear_improved_U_factor_arb_dipole}
U_{ab j}^{\text{c.i.}}&=\text{Exp}\Big[-\frac{\alpha_s C_A}{\pi}S_{ab}(j)\text{ln}\Big(\frac{\mu}{{\tau}^c}\Big)+\frac{\alpha_s C_A}{\pi}S_{ab}(j)\text{ln}\Big(1-\frac{u}{v}\Big)+\frac{\alpha_s C_A}{2\pi}S_{ab}^2(j)\Big]\end{aligned}$$ One can check from the explicit expressions for $S_{ab}(j)$ (see ) this scheme also exponentiates the same double collinear log. Expanding out this scheme to find the predicted logs, one finds it over-estimates the $\zeta_3$ NGL by a factor of two. Namely, expanding out the collinear improved BMS equation and integrating, we find the NGL contribution: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\alpha_sC_A}{2\pi}\int_{{\tau}^c}^{u^c}\frac{du}{u}\int_u^{\infty}\frac{dv}{v}\Big(\frac{\alpha_s C_A}{\pi}\text{ln}\Big(1-\frac{u}{v}\Big)\text{ln}\Big(\frac{\mu}{{\tau}^c}\Big)-\frac{\alpha_s C_A}{2\pi}\text{ln}^2\Big(1-\frac{u}{v}\Big)\Big)\nonumber\\
=\frac{\alpha_s^2C_A^2}{2\pi^2}\Big(-\frac{\pi^2}{12}\text{ln}^2\frac{u^c}{{\tau}^c}-\zeta_3\text{ln}\frac{u^c}{{\tau}^c}\Big)\end{aligned}$$ Correcting for the large $N_c$ limit by swapping $C_A^2\rightarrow 2C_F C_A$, and adding this to , I find that the leading in transcendantality terms of (the $N=4$ SYM result) are reproduced. The specific to QCD contributions are already captured in the formalism of [@Caron-Huot:2015bja]. Thus the collinear improvement of the BMS equation removes the need to supplement the NLL resummation of NGLs with IR averaging corrections, that is, no large log still resides in the IR after evolution has taken place. The scheme dependence of the IR averaging has been completely shuffled into a redefinition of the BMS kernels, though there will now exist a scheme dependence between the collinear evolution, and the fixed order expression for the BMS kernels. The collinear resummation scales chosen here (the natural ones from the point of view of the factorization theorem) correspond to the “Lorentz” scheme evolution kernel $K^{(2)}$.
Here we have only used the leading singular pieces of the splitting function for the collinear improvement, however, other than having to solve a more complicated evolution equation, the full edge of jet function contains all the ingredients necessary to also capture these effects. Careful attention should be paid to the resulting changes in the $K^{(2)}$ kernel if further subleading collinear resummation is performed.
Collinear Matching for Deep versus Edge Subjets, and Finding the Buffer Region
==============================================================================
I seek to argue that the collinear corrections to the BMS equation for jets deep in the fat jet are irrelavant, exactly so in a conformal theory like $N=4$ SYM. Every wilson line generate by the BMS evolution naturally comes with its own jet function, if for no other reason than to absorb and cancel collinear divergences. The question then is whether these jet functions at all have a natural IR scale beyond that of the fat jet’s mass (which sets their energy scale), or are the“inclusive-unobserved” jet functions of . Given no natural IR scale, any loop integral in these jet functions will be scaleless, and in dimension regularization, they will be zero. In the calculation of the BMS kernel, they will appear as at most collinear corrections that cancel divergences in “hard” virtual corrections of these kernels. In QCD, there will always be the IR scale of $\Lambda_{QCD}$, so though the collinear integrals will be scaleless in perturbation theory, running to non-perturbative scales is still necessary. Angles of subjets with respect to each other are always bounded by the jet radius, with no enhancing singularity, thus never give a meaningful scale. As subjets approach each other, they are simply combined, and collinear divergences cancel with no left over large logarithm. Then only close to the fat jet boundary does a new IR scale arises: the angle to this boundary that cuts off fragmentation into or out of the jet. This now gives the collinear corrections a non-trivial structure, even in a conformal theory, and one can conjecture that all scheme dependence of the IR averaging will arise from corrections having to do with edge of jet physics, since that is the only large scale left in the problem. Thus with the appropriate collinear resummation of the BMS kernel, one could render the IR averaging procedure trivial, in the sense that it is always given by the leading order procedure, or the leading order procedure times a kinematically trivial series in $\alpha_s$. Moreover, these corrections are universally predicted from a single jet function calculation. From an effective theory viewpoint, this is pleasing, since one would like to obtain all large logs from evolution, with no surprises in the IR trace of the reduced density matrix.
Finally, it is important to quantify how big the edge of the jet is. Other than the potential confinement scale, only the size of the NGL can matter. So we have the different angular regimes: $$\begin{aligned}
1-\frac{u}{v}\ll \frac{{\tau}^c}{\mu} \text{ or } 1-\frac{u}{v}\gg \frac{{\tau}^c}{\mu}\end{aligned}$$ In the first, the second term of dominates the exponent, while in the latter the standard term dominates. Thus the size of the non-global log effectively sets the size of the boundary layer containing the collinear theory. The larger the NGL, the less the collinear resummation contributes to the improved equation. This is just the statement that the leading logs are genuinely leading. However, at small to moderate values of the NGL, the collinear effects could be expected to be substantial. One can get a feel for this competition by plotting out the size of the buffer region. This is defined to be the rapidity of the soft jet at which the resummation factor $U$ in attains its half maximum, given the size of the NGL. This is plotted in .
![The rapidity of the soft jet at which the resummation factor in reaches half its maximum value. Plotted are both the original BMS resummation, and the collinear improvement for the $n$-${{\bar n}}$ dipole. Note: $\frac{\alpha_s C_A}{\pi}\sim .11$. []{data-label="fig:Buffer"}](Buffer_Region_CI.pdf)
The Lindblad Equation and the Expansion in Soft Jets {#sec:Lindblad}
====================================================
These non-linear IR/RG evolution equations found in jet/small-x physics all fit a very general pattern (see also [@Nagy:2007ty; @Waalewijn:2012sv; @Dasgupta:2014yra]). Namely, since the underlying physics is that of a Markov process at leading log, the equations are examples of the Lindblad equation . These evolution equations for the reduced density matrix in the presence of an energetic enviroment decaying into the IR take a universal form, and in a field theory context have recently been discussed in . If one takes a generic unitary quantum system with some initial energetic state with density matrix $\hat{\rho}$, and begins to integrate out the energetic modes of the matrix, giving a reduced density matrix $\hat{\rho}_R$, then evolution in the “time” $t$ (or whatever observable the reduced density matrix is to be ordered in) satisfies: $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_t \hat{\rho}_R&= [i\hat{H},\hat{\rho}_R]+\sum_{ij} \Gamma_{ij}(t)\Big\{2\hat{L}_{i}\hat{\rho}_R\hat{L}_{j}^{\dagger}-\hat{L}_{j}^{\dagger}\hat{L}_{i}\hat{\rho}_R-\hat{\rho}_R\hat{L}_{j}^{\dagger}\hat{L}_{i}\Big\}\,\end{aligned}$$ if and only if the system is Markovian, and the evolution satisfies a semi-group composition rule while preserving the positivity of the reduced density matrix. $\hat{H}$ is a hermitian operator, and the evolution is non-unitary (the flow is diffusive and potentially irreversible, thus the *semi-group* composition rule of the evolution.), and this is in contrast to traditional RG equations found in factorization theorems where one can flow in either direction through RG consistency. The $\Gamma_{ij}$ are the decay rates of the energetic enviroment into the IR, and $\hat{L}_i$ create/annihilate the asymptotic IR states. The sum over $i,j$ is over the kinematically allowed phase space for the decay, assuming a mode can be created at each point. In LO BMS, the creation and annihilation operators map to wilson lines, while the eikonal factor corresponds to the decay rates from high energy modes to softer modes. The difficult part though is not finding the form of the equation, but demonstrating factorization, that is, the system is Markovian to leading log. Effective field theory and in particular the soft jet expansion of give a systematic way to calculate the *resummed* decay rates of the Lindblad equation for jet physics (the BMS equation) and its subleading logarithmic extensions such that the sum over the allowed phase space for the decays is well-behaved in all corners.
For jet physics, the leading log factorization was accomplished long ago with the “jet calculus” of [@Marchesini:1983bm; @Bassetto:1984ik; @Marchesini:1987cf], however, instead of writing evolution equations for the reduced density matrix[^10], the authors sparked the now well-established tradition of Monte-Carlo simultation of jets that properly accounts for soft coherence. These Monte-Carlos solve these evolution equations [@Nagy:2007ty], at least approximately, ultimately the more important endeavor.
Conclusions
===========
I have presented a factorization theorem that can be exploited to resum terms contributing to subleading NGLs in jet cross-sections. Moreover the factorization theorem itself will be helpful in understanding the boundary structure of cone algorithms, and have useful applications in jet substrucutre studies. The resummation is distinctly collinear, and captures the fragmentation effects of soft jets at the jet boundary. Using the factorization theorem to calculate soft jet production, I gave a simple extension of the BMS equation that would include the leading collinear effects, but is still not single log accurate. Interestingly, it captures logarithmic contributions that are naively missed by the NLO BMS kernel, but would be corrected when calculating the IR trace of the reduced density matrix as generated by BMS evolution at NLO order. Taken together, the NLO kernel and the collinear resummation, they form a complete NLL exponentiation of the subleading NGLs, with a trivial structure in the IR matrix element. The soft jet expansion then, which can be systematic up to the number of jets included, provides an important check on what effects are captured in these evolution equations, and can be used to resum the evolution kernels thesmelves.
With regards to phenomenology, it is plausible that the bulk of these collinear effects at large-$N_c$ are already captured by antennae-dipole showers, like [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Vincia</span>]{} [@Giele:2007di; @Giele:2011cb] or [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Ariadne</span>]{} [@Lonnblad:1992tz]. Given these showers capture leading log soft coherence and parton splitting at each splitting/emission, for all phase space points, they would naturally incorporate many of the subleading logarithms, especially the double collinear logs. However, some terms present in QCD, like the subleading NGLs with rational coefficients, would only be included once the parton shower was matched to a fixed order calculation with sufficient number of loops, or if the shower was constructed around a $2\rightarrow 4$ splitting scheme. Indeed, this suggests that the appropriate construction of NLO BMS equation should be around antennae-multipoles instead of soft currents [@Kosower:1997zr; @Kosower:2003bh], to control the decay rates into IR physics. These naturally include both soft coherence and collinear splittings. Then one would be constructing the shower equation [@Nagy:2007ty; @KOSSAKOWSKI1972247; @Lindblad:1975ef; @Gorini:1976cm] for a full scale NLL parton shower.
Perhaps more important is the implications for the B-JIMWLK hierarchy [@Mueller:1993rr; @Mueller:1994jq; @Balitsky:1995ub; @Balitsky:1998kc; @Balitsky:1998ya; @JalilianMarian:1996xn; @JalilianMarian:1997gr; @Kovchegov:1999yj; @Kovner:1999bj; @Iancu:2000hn; @Iancu:2001ad; @Blaizot:2002np][^11]. NGLs and small-x physics are known to be related via a conformal mapping [@Hatta:2008st; @Avsar:2009yb], including the NLO corrections to B-JIMWLK, [@Caron-Huot:2015bja], whose conformal properties are more delicate [@Kovner:2014xia]. This relationship is so-far exact in $N=4$ SYM, and departures from it are directly related to the beta function of QCD. However, both the BFKL [@Kuraev:1977fs; @Balitsky:1978ic] and the B-JIMWLK hierarchy resummations are noticeably improved at NLO with the inclusion of at least a partial collinear resummation of the evolution kernels [@Salam:1998tj; @Iancu:2015vea; @Iancu:2015joa]. It would be pleasing to exhibit a conformal mapping between the collinear resummation applied here, and the small-$x$ regime, at least for $N=4$ SYM. For the NGL case, the jet radius provided a natural collinear cut-off for these subleading logarithms. Under the stereographic projection that relates the jet physics to small-x, the jet boundary is mapped to a circle in the impact parameter plane. Thus the concern would be collinear splittings between large and small transverse momentum scales (small and large values of the impact parameter). However, in the B-JIMWLK case there is no emergent IR cutoff like that from the jet boundary. In a conformal theory, all subjets produces by B-JIMWLK are then deep in the “fat jet”, and the collinear improvement seems pointless since there is no IR scale to run to. In QCD, one must worry about $\Lambda_{QCD}$ giving the IR cutoff to the impact parameter space. Given the importance of these collinear improvements, this suggests complete quantification of all participating momentum regions in the high-energy forward scattering regime is lacking.
Finally, given recent work on resumming all leading logs at finite-$N_c$ in the hemisphere case [@Hagiwara:2015bia], the stage seems set to numerically assess the impact of the NLL NGLs, at least out to moderate values of the non-global logs $\frac{\alpha_s C_A}{\pi}$ln$\frac{m_L}{m_R}\sim 2$. It would be relatively straightforward to work to NLL with two soft subjet contributions, including collinear resummations, and comparing against the collinearly improved LO+NLO BMS, which seems to be adaptable to the methods of [@Hagiwara:2015bia]. Like in the small-x case where the collinear improvement allowed the NLO BK evolution to maintain positivy, , it would be interesting to see if the same obtains in the jet case.
I wish to especially thank Ian Moult and Andrew Larkoski for colloboration on these and related topics, and many fruitful discussions about NGLs. I also wish to thank Iain Stewart, Richard Holman, and Simon Caron-Huot for helpful discussions. This work is supported by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) under grant Contract Numbers DE-SC00012567 and DE-SC0011090, as well as an MIT Pappalardo Fellowship.
Plus Distributions {#Plus_Distros}
==================
I briefly summarize the properties of the plus distributions found in the renormalized momentum space functions. I follow the definition given in [@Ligeti:2008ac]. Let $q(x)$ be a function less singular than $1/x^2$ at the origin, then the rgularized plus distribution with boundary point $x_0$ is given by: $$\begin{aligned}
\Big[q(x)\Big]_+^{[x_0]}&=\lim_{\delta\rightarrow 0}\frac{d}{dx}\Big[\theta(x-\delta)Q(x,x_0)\Big]\\
Q(x,x_0)&=\int_{x_0}^xdx' q(x')\end{aligned}$$ Integrating against a function $f(x)$, the above plus distribution yields: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:int_plus}
\int_0^{x_{max}}dx'f(x')\Big[q(x')\Big]_+^{[x_0]}=\int_0^{x_{max}}dx' q(x')[f(x')-f(0)]+f(0)Q(x_{max},x_0)\end{aligned}$$ If $x_0=1$, then I adopt the convention: $$\begin{aligned}
\Big[q(x)\Big]_+=\Big[q(x)\Big]_+^{[1]}\end{aligned}$$ Now I can define the distributions: $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal L}^a(x)&=\Big[\frac{1}{x^{1-a}}\Big]_+\\
{\mathcal L}_n(x)&=\frac{d^n}{da^n}{\mathcal L}^a(x)\Big|_{a=0}=\Big[\frac{1}{x}\text{ln}^n x\Big]_+\\
{\mathcal L}_a(\lambda,x)&=\frac{1}{\lambda}{\mathcal L}_a\Big(\frac{x}{\lambda}\Big)\\
{\mathcal L}_n(\lambda,x)&=\frac{1}{\lambda}{\mathcal L}_n\Big(\frac{x}{\lambda}\Big)\end{aligned}$$ These last distributions satisfy the rescaling identity: $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal L}^a(\lambda,x)&=\lambda^{-a}{\mathcal L}^a(x)+\delta(x)\frac{\lambda^{-a}-1}{a}\\
{\mathcal L}_n(\lambda,x)&=\sum_{k=0}^n \,_nC_k \text{ln}^k\Big(\lambda^{-1}\Big) {\mathcal L}_{n-k}(x)+\delta(x)\frac{\text{ln}^{n+1}\Big(\lambda^{-1}\Big)}{n+1}\end{aligned}$$ This allows us to take the logarithmic derivative: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d}{d\text{ln}\lambda}{\mathcal L}_n(\lambda,x)&=\sum_{k=1}^n -k\,_nC_k \text{ln}^{k-1}\Big(\lambda^{-1}\Big) {\mathcal L}_{n-k}(x)-\delta(x)\text{ln}^{n}\Big(\lambda^{-1}\Big)\\
\frac{d}{d\text{ln}\lambda}{\mathcal L}_0(\lambda,x)&=-\delta(x)\\
\frac{d}{d\text{ln}\lambda}{\mathcal L}_1(\lambda,x)&=\delta(x)\text{ln}\lambda-{\mathcal L}_0(\lambda,x)\end{aligned}$$ Finally, the plus distributions encountered in this paper have the following laplace transforms: $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{0}^{\infty} dx {\mathcal L}^a(\lambda,x) e^{-x\,\tau}&=\int_{0}^{\infty} dx\frac{\lambda^{-a}}{x^{1-a}}\Big(e^{-x\,\tilde\tau}-1\Big)+\int_{1}^{\infty} dx\frac{\lambda^{-a}}{x^{1-a}}+\frac{\lambda^{-a}-1}{a}\nonumber\\
&=\big(\lambda\tau\big)^a\,\Gamma(a)-\frac{1}{a}\\
\int_{0}^{\infty} dx {\mathcal L}_0(\lambda,x) e^{-x\,\tau}&=-\text{ln}\Big(\tau\lambda e^{\gamma_E}\Big)\\
\int_{0}^{\infty} dx {\mathcal L}_1(\lambda,x) e^{-x\,\tau}&=\frac{1}{2}\text{ln}^2\Big(\tau\lambda e^{\gamma_E}\Big)+\frac{\pi^2}{12}\end{aligned}$$
Energy Correlation Functions {#app:ecfs}
============================
The energy correlation functions are defined as: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:ecf_def}
{e_{2}^{(\alpha)}}&= \frac{1}{E_J^2} \sum_{i<j\in J} E_i E_j \left(
\frac{2p_i \cdot p_j}{E_i E_j}
\right)^{\alpha/2} \,, \\
{e_{3}^{(\alpha)}}&= \frac{1}{E_J^3} \sum_{i<j<k\in J} E_i E_j E_k \left(
\frac{2p_i \cdot p_j}{E_i E_j}
\frac{2p_i \cdot p_k}{E_i E_k}
\frac{2p_j \cdot p_k}{E_j E_k}
\right)^{\alpha/2} \,. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Here $J$ denotes the jet, $p_i$ and are the four momentum and energy of particle $i$ in the jet.
Out of Jet Anomalous Dimensions For BMS {#Out_Of_Jet_Anom}
=======================================
I give the explicit forms in the hemisphere case of the out-of-jet anomalous dimension of , as calculated in [@Schwartz:2014wha]. If $a,b$ are light-like vectors within the fat jet, we have: $$\begin{aligned}
S_{ab}(j)&=-\text{ln}\Big(\text{cos }\theta_j\Big)-\frac{1}{2}\text{ln}\Big(\frac{[ab]}{2[aj][jb]}\Big)\\
&=-\text{ln}\Big(1-\text{tan}^2\frac{\theta_j}{2}\Big)-\text{ln}\Big(\frac{1+\text{cos }\theta_j}{2}\Big)-\frac{1}{2}\text{ln}\Big(\frac{[ab]}{2[aj][jb]}\Big)\end{aligned}$$ When $b={{\bar n}}$, we have: $$\begin{aligned}
S_{a{{\bar n}}}(j)&=-\text{ln}\Big(\text{cos }\theta_j\Big)-\frac{1}{2}\text{ln}\Big(\frac{(a{{\bar n}})}{2[aj](j{{\bar n}})}\Big)\\
&=-\text{ln}\Big(1-\text{tan}^2\frac{\theta_j}{2}\Big)-\text{ln}\Big(\frac{1+\text{cos }\theta_j}{2}\Big)-\frac{1}{2}\text{ln}\Big(\frac{[ab]}{2[aj][jb]}\Big)\end{aligned}$$ Note: $\text{tan}^2\frac{\theta_j}{2}=\frac{n\cdot n_j}{\bar\cdot n_j}\equiv\frac{u}{v}$. I define the angular products: $$\begin{aligned}
(ab)&=1-\text{cos}\theta_{ab}=1-\text{cos}\theta_a\text{cos}\theta_b-\text{cos}(\phi_a-\phi_b)\text{sin}\theta_a\text{sin}\theta_a\\
[ab]&=(\bar {a} b)=1+\text{cos}\theta_a\text{cos}\theta_b-\text{cos}(\phi_a-\phi_b)\text{sin}\theta_a\text{sin}\theta_a\end{aligned}$$ $\theta_{ab}$ is the angle between the null vectors, and $\bar{a}$ is the reflection of the spatial components of $a$ into the other hemisphere. We have given the explicit forms in the spherical coordinates defined by the fat jet axis $\hat{n}$.
Joint Resummation of Soft Jets {#app:threshold_soft_jet}
===============================
To incorporate the collinear double logs into the BMS equation (), we need to combine the factorization of this paper, with that of . Thus we want a power counting scheme: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Joint_resum_phase_space}
u\gg {\tau}\gg {\tau}\Big(1-\frac{u}{v}\text{cot}^2\frac{R}{2}\Big)\,.\end{aligned}$$ First we recall the factorization of : $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:SJ_fact}
\frac{d\sigma}{d{e_{2}^{(\alpha)}}\,d{e_{2}^{(\beta)}}\,d{e_{3}^{(\alpha)}}d{\tau}}&=\sigma_0 H(Q^2)H_{n\bar{n}}^{sj}\Big({e_{2}^{(\alpha)}},{e_{2}^{(\beta)}},{\tau}\Big)S_{n{{\bar n}}{n_{sj}}}\Big({e_{3}^{(\alpha)}};{\tau};R\Big)\otimes S_{{n_{sj}}{\bar{n}_{sj}}}({e_{3}^{(\alpha)}},R)\nonumber\\
&\qquad\otimes\, J_{{n_{sj}}}({e_{3}^{(\alpha)}},Q_{sj})\otimes J_{n}({e_{3}^{(\alpha)}})\otimes J_{{{\bar n}}}({\tau})\end{aligned}$$ In the region of of phase space, the soft jet factorization theorem takes the form: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Threshold_fact}
\frac{d\sigma}{d{e_{2}^{(\alpha)}}\,d{e_{2}^{(\beta)}}\,d{e_{3}^{(\alpha)}}d{\tau}}&=\sigma_0 H(Q^2)H_{n\bar{n}}^{sj}\Big({e_{2}^{(\alpha)}},{e_{2}^{(\beta)}},{\tau}\Big)H_{n{{\bar n}}{n_{sj}}}\Big({e_{3}^{(\alpha)}};{\tau};R\Big)C_{{n_{sj}}}^{\text{thr}}({\tau},R)\nonumber\\
&\qquad\otimes S_{{n_{sj}}{\bar{n}_{sj}}}({e_{3}^{(\alpha)}},R)\otimes\, {\mathcal E}_{{n_{sj}}}({e_{3}^{(\alpha)}},Q_{sj})\otimes J_{n}({e_{3}^{(\alpha)}})\otimes J_{{{\bar n}}}({\tau})\otimes S_{n{{\bar n}}}\Big({e_{3}^{(\alpha)}};{\tau};R\Big)\end{aligned}$$ The matching coefficient $C_{{n_{sj}}}^{\text{thr}}({\tau},R)$ is related to that of with the added expansion $v\gg {\tau}$. This up to constants drops all terms but the double logs in . We have converted the soft function into a hard function $S_{n{{\bar n}}{n_{sj}}}$ by subtracting the contribution of $C_{{n_{sj}}}^{\text{thr}}({\tau},R)$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Soft_Function_matching_for_threshold}
S_{n{{\bar n}}{n_{sj}}}\Big({e_{3}^{(\alpha)}};{\tau};R\Big)&=H_{n{{\bar n}}{n_{sj}}}\Big({e_{3}^{(\alpha)}};{\tau};R\Big)C_{{n_{sj}}}^{\text{thr}}({\tau},R)\otimes S_{n{{\bar n}}}\Big({e_{3}^{(\alpha)}};{\tau};R\Big)+...\end{aligned}$$ This localizes the scale $1-\frac{u}{v}\text{cot}^2\frac{R}{2}$ into the function $C_{{n_{sj}}}^{\text{thr}}$, and the scale ${\tau}$ into the hard matching coefficent. The new three wilson line soft function is equivalent that found in . To get the resummation of the double collinear logs, we evolve $C_{{n_{sj}}}^{\text{thr}}$ between the scales: $$\begin{aligned}
{\tau}^c\Big(1-\frac{u}{v}\text{cot}^2\frac{R}{2}\Big) \rightarrow {\tau}^c\,.\end{aligned}$$ To leading log in the double collinear logs, we can simply exponentiate the logs, but at next-to-leading log and beyond, a more complicated resummation factor like may be necessary in general. However, in a conformal theory, performing the resummation in laplace space with canonical scale setting, the dependence on the out-of-jet scale vanishes completely in the resummation, so that the exponentiated form of the double logs would hold to all orders, with only corrections to the anomalous dimension. To finish the resummation, we run $H_{n{{\bar n}}{n_{sj}}}$ and $C_{{n_{sj}}}^{\text{thr}}$ together to the scale $\mu$ from ${\tau}^c$. From the matching equation , and appropriately reassociating the functions of the factorization theorem to cancel global effects, this is just the running of the $G_{n{{\bar n}}{n_{sj}}}$ factor of . Together, these resummations give the form .
Explicitly, the evolution proceeds as follows. First I take the matching for arbitrary dipole $a, b$ radiating a soft jet: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Soft_Function_matching_for_threshold_arb}
S_{ab {n_{sj}}}\Big({e_{3}^{(\alpha)}};{\tau};R\Big)&=H_{ab {n_{sj}}}\Big({e_{3}^{(\alpha)}};{\tau};R\Big)C_{{n_{sj}}}^{\text{thr}}({\tau},R)\otimes S_{ab}\Big({e_{3}^{(\alpha)}};{\tau};R\Big)+...\end{aligned}$$ Take the edge of jet anomalous dimension at threshold: $$\begin{aligned}
\mu\frac{d}{d\mu}\text{ln}C_{{n_{sj}}}^{\text{thr}}({\tilde \tau},R)S_{n{{\bar n}}{n_{sj}}}&=-\frac{\alpha_s(\mu) C_A}{\pi}\Big(\text{ln}(\mu{\tilde \tau}e^{\gamma_E})-\text{ln}\Big(1-\frac{n\cdot\,{n_{sj}}}{n\cdot\,{\bar{n}_{sj}}}\text{cot}^2\frac{R}{2}\Big)\Big)\end{aligned}$$ I evolve between the scales: $$\begin{aligned}
{\tau}^c\Big(1-\frac{n\cdot\,{n_{sj}}}{n\cdot\,{\bar{n}_{sj}}}\text{cot}^2\frac{R}{2}\Big)\rightarrow {\tau}^c\Big(1-\frac{n\cdot\,{n_{sj}}}{n\cdot\,{\bar{n}_{sj}}}\text{cot}^2\frac{R}{2}\Big)e^{S_{ab}({n_{sj}})}\end{aligned}$$ Though awkward, from the explicit expressions for the out of jet anomalous dimensions, $S_{ab}({n_{sj}})$ in , this last scale does not actually depend on the angle to the jet boundary. This intermediate scale is chosen as the scale where the out-of-jet component of the anomalous dimension of $H_{a b{n_{sj}}}$ vanishes in , so the matching logs are minimized. I then evolve using the standard dressed gluon anomalous dimension between the scales: $$\begin{aligned}
{\tau}^c\Big(1-\frac{n\cdot\,{n_{sj}}}{n\cdot\,{\bar{n}_{sj}}}\text{cot}^2\frac{R}{2}\Big)e^{S_{ab}({n_{sj}})}\rightarrow \mu\end{aligned}$$ I, up to running coupling effects that are easily included, obtain . The appearance of ${\tau}^c\Big(1-\frac{n\cdot\,{n_{sj}}}{n\cdot\,{\bar{n}_{sj}}}\text{cot}^2\frac{R}{2}\Big)e^{S_{ab}({n_{sj}})}$ in the intermediate scale is just a consequence of the function $H_{a b{n_{sj}}}$ in being sensitive to positions of the directions $a,b$ within the fat jet.
In-In Contribution To Edge-of-Jet Function
==========================================
The in-in contribution can be written in terms of a standard jet function contribution with no jet boundary contributions, and the jet boundary contributions: $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal E}_{{n_{sj}}}^{(1)}\Big({\tilde e_{3}^{(\alpha)}};{\tau};Q_{sj};R\Big)\Bigg|_{\text{in-in}}&=\delta({\tau})\Big({\mathcal E}_{{n_{sj}}}^{(1)}\Big({\tilde e_{3}^{(\alpha)}};Q_{sj}\Big)\Big|_{\text{stnd.}}+\delta {\mathcal E}_{{n_{sj}}}^{(1)}\Big({\tilde e_{3}^{(\alpha)}};Q_{sj};R\Big)\Big)\end{aligned}$$ The standard contribution is given by: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:edge_of_jet_in_in_stnd_start}
{\mathcal E}_{{n_{sj}}}^{(1)div}\Big({\tilde e_{3}^{(\alpha)}};Q_{sj}\Big)&=\frac{\alpha_sC_A}{\pi}\Bigg\{\frac{\alpha}{2(1-\alpha)\epsilon^2}+\frac{\beta_0}{\epsilon}+\frac{\alpha}{(1-\alpha)\epsilon}\text{ln}\Bigg(F\Bigg(\frac{\mu}{Q_{sj}}{\tilde e_{3}^{(\alpha)}},\frac{Q_{sj}}{Q};N\Bigg)\Bigg)\Bigg\}\\
{\mathcal E}_{{n_{sj}}}^{(1)fin}\Big({\tilde e_{3}^{(\alpha)}};Q_{sj}\Big)&=\frac{\alpha_sC_A}{\pi}\Bigg\{C^{(1)}+\text{ln}\Bigg(F\Bigg(\frac{\mu}{Q_{sj}}{\tilde e_{3}^{(\alpha)}},\frac{Q_{sj}}{Q};N\Bigg)\Bigg)\nonumber\\
&\qquad\qquad\Bigg(\frac{\beta_0}{C_A}+\frac{\alpha}{1-\alpha}\text{ln}\Bigg(F\Bigg(\frac{\mu}{Q_{sj}}{\tilde e_{3}^{(\alpha)}},\frac{Q_{sj}}{Q};N\Bigg)\Bigg)\Bigg)\Bigg\}\\
C^{(1)}&=\frac{67(1-\alpha)}{18\alpha}-\frac{\pi^2}{24}\frac{9\alpha^2-16\alpha+4}{(1-\alpha)\alpha}+n_fT_f\frac{23\alpha-26}{36 C_A \alpha}\\
F\Bigg(\frac{\mu}{Q_{sj}}{\tilde e_{3}^{(\alpha)}},\frac{Q_{sj}}{Q};N\Bigg)&=e^{\gamma_E/\alpha}N^{\frac{1}{\alpha}}\Big(\frac{Q_{sj}}{Q}\Big)^{\frac{2}{\alpha}}\frac{\mu}{Q_{sj}}\Big({\tilde e_{3}^{(\alpha)}}\Big)^{\frac{1}{\alpha}}\end{aligned}$$ The boundary dependent pieces are given as: $$\begin{aligned}
\delta {\mathcal E}_{{n_{sj}}}^{(1)div}\Big({\tilde e_{3}^{(\alpha)}};Q_{sj};R\Big)&=-\frac{C_A\alpha_s}{\pi}\Bigg(\frac{1}{2\epsilon^2(1-\alpha)}+\frac{1}{\epsilon(1-\alpha)}\text{ln}\Bigg(G\Big({\tilde e_{3}^{(\alpha)}};Q_{sj};{n_{sj}};R\Big)\Bigg)\\
\delta {\mathcal E}_{{n_{sj}}}^{(1)fin}\Big({\tilde e_{3}^{(\alpha)}};Q_{sj};R\Big)&=\frac{C_A\alpha_s}{\pi}\Bigg\{-\frac{1}{2(1-\alpha)}\text{ln}^2\Bigg(G\Big({\tilde e_{3}^{(\alpha)}};Q_{sj};{n_{sj}};R\Big)\Bigg)\nonumber\\
&\qquad\qquad-\frac{\pi^2(2\alpha^2-6\alpha+7)}{12(1-\alpha)}\Bigg\}\\
G\Big({\tilde e_{3}^{(\alpha)}};Q_{sj};{n_{sj}};R\Big)&=2^{1-\alpha}e^{\gamma_E}N\frac{\mu}{Q}\frac{ Q_{sj}}{Q}{\tilde e_{3}^{(\alpha)}}\Big(\text{tan}^2\frac{R}{2}-\frac{n\cdot{n_{sj}}}{{{\bar n}}\cdot{n_{sj}}}\Big)^{\alpha-1}\Big(\frac{n\cdot{n_{sj}}}{{{\bar n}}\cdot {n_{sj}}}\Big)^{\frac{1-\alpha}{2}}({{\bar n}}\cdot{n_{sj}})^{\alpha-1}\label{eq:edge_of_jet_in_in_bsoft_fin}\end{aligned}$$ These boundary dependent pieces have finite corrections that vanish as ${e_{3}^{(\alpha)}}\rightarrow 0$. The leading terms given here of the boundary dependent contribution can be factored into a boundary soft function.
[^1]: For NGLs, this evolution equation is called the BMS equation after its inventors, Banfi, Marchesini, and Smye. However, it fits into a universality class of quantum master equations, see for a discussion on the universality of IR evolution equations.
[^2]: For progress towards an EFT interpretation of these evolution equations, see , which incorporates an object akin to the trace of the post-evolution reduced density matrix of into their jet factorization theorem.
[^3]: For a complete and detailed discussion of the $1\rightarrow 2$ phase space for QCD radiation, and the impact the different regions have on the form of factorization, please see [@Larkoski:2015kga].
[^4]: Throughout these calculations, I have made use of the Mathematica package HypExp [@Huber:2005yg; @Huber:2007dx].
[^5]: I factor out the all-orders in $\epsilon$ tree level matching. The higher orders in $\epsilon$ do not contribute to the matching, even though they naively give $O(\epsilon^0)$ terms when multiplied against the $\epsilon^{-1}$ terms of the one-loop correction. However, since all $\epsilon$ divergences cancel when I sum over sectors, and the higher order terms in epsilon from the tree-level matching multiple all sectors identically, these spurious finite terms cancel out in the total cross-section.
[^6]: I thank Simon Caron-Huot for correspondence about the NLO procedure for BMS, as well as providing notes on the calculations.
[^7]: One must be careful here since there is a great deal of scheme dependence as to where one puts the corrections for the NLLs, between the $K^{(1)}, K^{(2)}$ evolution hamiltonians, versus the IR calculation of the observable after evolution. Only the sum of the three are scheme invariant, and expected to give the full answer.
[^8]: Since the collinear evolution is derived from color singlet objets, jet functions, this implies the collinear evolution does not care about the planar limit. However, the exact matching scale can be sensitive to the directions of the soft wilson lines the soft jet is entangled with.
[^9]: The above NLO equation is for full color evolution, however, for checking the two loop NGLs, this is immaterial.
[^10]: But there was a consideration for time-evolution of the wavefunction [@Catani:1985xt].
[^11]: For a detailed discussion of the assumptions behind B-JIMWLK, see [@Caron-Huot:2013fea], and for the NLO corrections, see [@Balitsky:2008zza; @Balitsky:2009xg; @Kovner:2013ona].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The measurement of the ionization produced by particles in a medium presents a great interest in several fields from metrology to particule physics and cosmology. The ionization quenching factor is defined as the fraction of energy released by ionisation by a recoil in a medium compared with its kinetic energy. At low energy, in the range of a few keV, the ionization falls rapidly and systematic measurement are needed. We have developped an experimental setup devoted to the measurement of low energy (keV) ionization quenching factor for the MIMAC project. The ionization produced in the gas has been measured with a Micromegas detector filled with Helium gas mixture.'
address:
- '$^1$ LPSC, Université Joseph Fourier Grenoble 1, CNRS/IN2P3, Institut Polytechnique de Grenoble, 53 avenue des Martyrs, 38026 Grenoble, France'
- '$^2$ IRFU/DSM/CEA, CE Saclay, 91191 Gif-sur-Yvette cedex, France'
author:
- 'O. Guillaudin$^1$, F. Mayet$^1$, C. Grignon$^1$, C. Koumeir$^1$, D. Santos$^1$, P. Colas$^2$, I. Giomataris$^2$'
title: 'Low energy measurements with Helium Micromegas $\mu$TPC'
---
\#1\#2\#3\#4[[\#1]{} [**\#2**]{}, \#3 (\#4)]{} \#1\#2\#3[[Nucl. Instr. and Meth.]{} [**[A\#1]{}**]{} (\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[[Nucl. Instr. and Meth.]{} [**[\#1]{}**]{} (\#2) \#3]{}
\#1\#2\#3[[Phys. Rev.]{} [**[A\#1]{}**]{} (\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[[Phys. Rev.]{} [**[B\#1]{}**]{} (\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[[Phys. Rev.]{} [**[C\#1]{}**]{} (\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[[Phys. Rev.]{} [**[D\#1]{}**]{} (\#2) \#3]{}
\#1\#2\#3[[JHEP]{} [**[\#1]{}**]{} (\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[[Phys. Rev. Lett.]{} [**[\#1]{}**]{} (\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[[Phys. Lett.]{} [**[B\#1]{}**]{} (\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[[Astropart. Phys.]{} [**[B\#1]{}**]{} (\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[[Astrophys. J.]{} [**[\#1]{}**]{} (\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[[Astrophys. J. Suppl.]{} [**[\#1]{}**]{} (\#2) \#3]{} Å\#1\#2\#3[[Astron. & Astrophys.]{} [**[\#1]{}**]{} (\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[[JCAP]{} [**[\#1]{}**]{} (\#2) \#3]{}
Introduction
============
A nuclear recoil moving at very low energies can be used to detect rare events such as neutrino coherent interactions or non-baryonic dark matter signatures. The direct detection of these non-baryonic particules is based on the detection of nuclear recoils coming from elastic colisions on different targets. Ionization is one of the most important channel to detect such nuclear recoils. The ionization quenching factor is defined as the fraction of the kinetic energy released through ionization by a recoil in a medium. In the last decades, an important effort has been made to measure the IQF in different materials : gases [@H], solids [@Ge; @Si] and liquids [@Xe], using different techniques. However, in the low energy range, the measurements are rare or absent for many targets due to ionization threshold of detectors and experiment contraints.\
We have developped an experimental setup devoted to the measurement of low energy (a few keV) ionization quenching factor for the MIMAC project [@mayet-susy; @moulin].
The measurements reported in this work have been done with a micromegas detector filled with a gas mixture of 95% of [$^4$He ]{}and 5% of isobutane ([C$_4$H$_{10}$]{}) at different pressures. The Micromegas detector was calibrated using X-rays produced by fluorescence on different targets. To produce nucleus moving with a controlled energy in the detection volume, we have developped calibrated Electron Cyclotron Resonance Ion Source (ECRIS) [@geller] which produced ions with energy from a fraction of one keV up to 50 keV. The ECRIS source was coupled to a Micromegas detector [@mayetparis].
Experimental setup and detector calibration
===========================================
The micromegas used in this work was a standard Bulk Micromegas [@bulk], in which the mesh and the anode are built and integrated with a fixed 128 $\mu m$ gap. The gap between the copper anode and stainless steel mesh is maintained by cylindrical pilars every 3 mm. This gap is well adapted for working gas pressure between 350 and 1300 mbar. The drift distance between the cathode and the mesh was 3 cm, large enough to include the tracks of nuclei of energies up to 50 keV at 350 mbar. The active area was $\rm 100 \times 100 \ mm^2$.
We used an individual power supply for each electrode (mesh and anode) with cathode drift to the ground, allowing to independently vary the different fields. The NIM High Voltage module (ISEG 223M) presents a high stability and high precision of the output voltage setting and measurement (about 10 mV). The setting parameters, the voltage and the current controle are performed by remote control via a LabView interface. Typical applied field were $\rm 100 \ V/cm$ for the drift and a voltage of 450 V for the avalanche. With these values, an optimum collection efficiency is achieved and the electron drift velocity is comparatively low.
The electronic system is composed of a dedicated charge pre-amplifier and of a commercial spectrocopy amplifier. Due to the low drift velocity of electron in such a low drift field ($\rm 100 \ V/cm$), the integration time constant of this pre-amplifier should be large enough to assure a total colection charge and an output proportionnal to the total energy of the event. The calibration constant for the preamplifier is measured by applying test pulse on a test capacity. A PCI-bus multichannel analyzers with internal 8k ADC is used to convert incoming signals.
For each measurement, the gas vessel is previously pumped using a turbomolecular pump and a dry primary vacuum pump. Then the detector is filled with gas mixture at the working pressure and operates with a circulating and controlled flux. To correct this low gain variation, a calibration is performed just before each energy measurement with the ion source.
![Response of [$^4$He ]{}+ 5% [C$_4$H$_{10}$ ]{}Micromegas to Aluminium (1.486 keV) and Iron (6.4 keV) fluorescence X-rays at 1000 mbar, with a resolution (FWHM) of 29,4 % and 15,3 % respectively.[]{data-label="fg.calibration"}](Al-Fe_Spectrum.eps)
Due to the high transparency of [$^4$He ]{}gas for X-rays energy above 2 keV, the detector shows a very low efficiency to X-ray from a [$^{55}$Fe ]{}source used for calibration purpose, especially at low pressure. So, to avoid using high intensity radioactive source and to calibrate in a realistic time, we have developped a high intensity multi energies X-ray system based on the production of fluoresence photons on different high purity targets. The system used a pulsed miniature X-rays generator inside the gas vessel with maximum flux equivalent to a 2 mCi radioactive source and the following targets with the corresponding X-ray energies : Aluminium (1.486 keV), Titanium (4.504 keV), Iron (6.4 keV), Copper (8.1 keV). Figure \[fg.calibration\] shows a typical spectrum for Aluminium (1.486 keV) and Iron (6.4 keV) targets with a resolution (FWHM) of 29,4 % and 15,3 % respectively. The energy threshold is close to 300 eV.
The ion source
==============
The ECRI ion source is a plasma device designed and built by the LPSC SSI team to provide charged ions at low velocities from a fraction of a keV to 50 keV. One of the important features of this facility is the availability of very low and stable currents of a few picoamp. In the present configuration, the beam is adapted to the 45 degree spectrometer by an Einzel lens which has been tuned with the faraday cup. A micrometer aperture ($1 \ \mu m $ in diameter) selects a part of this beam which is injected in the Micromegas detector and produced about 25 ions per second. According to the gas injected is the plasma chamber, the source is able to produce many type of beams : proton, $^3$He, $^4$He, $^{19}$F.\
To calibrate the ion source, a 50 nm thick Silicon Nitride membrane (Si$_3$N$_4$) was used as interface between the ion source and the gas chamber. A time of flight measurement has been performed under vacuum, using two channeltrons. One of them detecting the low energy electrons extracted from the Si$_3$N$_4$ menbrane by the ions and the other one detecting the ions for 6 different known positions. This setup allows to measure the energies of the ions just after the foil. With this configuration a first energy measurement with micromegas was performed. In such a way, we could verify that the energy measured by TOF were the same as those indicated by the extraction potentiel values in kV for the 1+ charge state ions with the $1 \ \mu m $ diameter aperture interface.
Low energy ion measurements
===========================
![Energy resolution for X-rays and [$^4$He ]{}ions in a [$^4$He ]{}+ 5% [C$_4$H$_{10}$ ]{}Micromegas detector at 700 mbar.[]{data-label="fg.resol"}](Resol.eps)
Using the photoelectron produced by fluorescence X-rays as calibration, we can measure ionization energies produced by the recoils. The ionization quenching factor of a recoil will be the ratio between this energy and its kinetic energy. The measurement reported [@prl] have been focused on the low energy [$^4$He ]{}IQF [@mayetparis].\
At the same time, it was possible to extract the Micromegas energy resolution for a wide range of incoming ion energies. Ionization energies have measured for ions with kinetic energy down to 1 keV. Figure \[fg.resol\] presents the evolution of the resolution (FWHM) at 700 mbar for measured ionization energies of [$^4$He ]{}ions from 300 eV to 35 keV. We can note that the resolution is slightly better for X-rays. At low energy, down to 1 keV, the energy resolution is about 50%, but this does not affect the number of expected events for Dark Matter search [@mayetparis].\
Using the possibility to produce recoils of different states of charge (0,+1,+2 for [$^4$He ]{}) with the same kinetic energy, it is also possible to confirm that the ionization energy does not depend of the state of charge of the recoil. This was clearly demonstrated with [$^4$He ]{}recoil with 50 keV of kinetic energy. Measurement with neutral recoils have been obtained with the Si$_3$N$_4$ window because ions are neutralized when passing through the membrane. Moreover, this experimental setup allow to measure the quenching factor for other different recoils wich could be used for dark matter search such as : $^3$He in $^3$He or $^{19}$F in CF$_4$.\
Concerning $^3$He, which is a rather expensive gas, a clean close loop gas system is under construction to allow gas recovery and storage after the measurements.
Conclusion
==========
In summary, we have demonstrated the possibility to measure ionization energy for [$^4$He ]{}recoils down to 1 keV with a compatible energy resolution for Dark Matter search. For the next step, this measurement will be extended to low gas pressure and to different recoil such as $^3$He of $^{19}$F. This measurement is particularly important to better understand the ionization response of gas detectors.
References
==========
[99]{}
Verbinski V V & Giovannini R, Jones K W & Kraner H W, Gerbier G [*et al.*]{},
Aprile E [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**97**]{} (2006) 081302
Mayet F [*et al.*]{}, Moulin E [*et al.*]{},
Geller R, Electron Cyclotron Resonance Ion Sources and ECR plasmas, Bristol and Philadelphia : Institute of Physics Publishing, 1996
Mayet F, Guillaudin O, Grignon C [*et al.*]{}, Proc. of the 4th symposium on large TPCs for low energy rare event detection, Paris, Dec. 2008, Journal of Physics: Conference Series
Giomataris Y [*et al.*]{}, Santos D, Mayet F, Guillaudin O [*et al.*]{}, arXiv:0810.1137
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Using the APEX sub-millimeter telescope we have investigated the 32 emission in five face-on nearby barred spiral galaxies, where three of them are high surface brightness galaxies (HSBs) lying at the Freeman limit, and two are low surface brightness galaxies (LSBs). We have positive detections for two of three HSB spirals and non-detections for the LSBs. For the galaxies with positive detection (NGC0521 and PGC070519), the emission is confined to their bulges, with velocity dispersions of $\sim 90$ and $\sim 73$ km s$^{-1}$ and integrated intensities of 1.20 and 0.76 K km s$^{-1}$, respectively. For the non-detections, the estimated upper limit for the integrated intensity is $\sim 0.54$ K km s$^{-1}$. With these figures we estimate the H$_2$ masses as well as the atomic-to-molecular mass ratios. Although all the galaxies are barred, we observe 32 emission only for galaxies with prominent bars. We speculate that bars could dynamically favor the 32 emission, as a second parameter after surface brightness. Therefore, secular evolution could play a major role in boosting collisional transitions of molecular gas, such as 32, especially in LSBs.'
author:
- 'Gaspar Galaz, Paulo Cortés, Leonardo Bronfman , and Monica Rubio'
title: '32 Emission in Spiral Galaxies: Warm Molecular Gas in Action?'
---
32[$^{12}$CO(3$-$2)]{} 0co[$^{12}$CO(1$-$0)]{} 1co[$^{12}$CO(2$-$1)]{}
Introduction
============
Low surface brightness galaxies (LSBs) remain among the most intriguing galaxies. Defined as galaxies having disk central surface brightness fainter than ($B$) 22.0[^1] mag arcsec$^{-2}$, they are a product of low stellar density. LSBs typically have (1) large amounts of atomic gas in the form of HI [@vanderhulst1993] and (2) low star formation rates (SFRs). In general they have sub-solar metallicity, in agreement with the low SFRs [@deblok1998] and consequently the weak production of metals. Also, LSBs have usually large mass to light ratios, indicating that disk dynamics is dominated by significant amounts of dark matter halos. This is consistent with their flat rotation curves, which in many cases extend to several times the optical radii.
A key questions about LSBs is what physical conditions prevent the gas from forming stars. Is this due solely to the fact that the gas is not dense enough to trigger gravitational collapse and form stars? Is the amount of molecular gas too low to ensure significant stellar formation episodes? How different is the CO-to-H$_2$ conversion factor X = \[N(H$_2$)/W(CO)\] in LSBs compared to the value derived for high surface brightness galaxies (HSBs) in preventing their H$_2$ from being discovered using CO as a tracer? Several studies indicate that $X$ is a function of metallicity [@israel1997], and thus it should not be a surprise that in LSBs the conversion factor reaches higher values than those obtained for HSBs. The only way to estimate the amount of molecular gas (H$_2$) in galaxies is to trace the CO emission. Only a small number of detections of 0co and 1co in LSBs have been achieved [@oneil2000b; @matthews2001; @oneil2003; @matthews2005]. However, a different tracer such as 32 emitted usually by warm CO, is necessary to better constrain the gas temperature and density [@dumke2001; @muraoka2006]. Here we report on the detection of 32 in two HSB spirals at the Freeman limit[^2] from @galaz2002 [@galaz2006], and the nondetection of the same transition in another HSB and two LSBs.
The weak 0co emission in LSBs galaxies (see references above) suggests that we search for other $^{12}$CO lines better suited for warmer environments. The 32 transition may be more easily detected, since it is excited in warm gas (E/k=33.2 K, @meier2001), which is probably present in LSBs due to the lower metallicity and lack of dust which normally shield the UV radiation preventing the excitation of lower CO transitions (10-30 K). The caveat is whether the UV radiation destroys completely the CO or allows higher energy transitions such as 32. Because of its higher characteristic temperature and critical density ($n_{cr} \sim 2 \times 10^3$ cm$^{-3}$), the 32 transition may be more sensitive to warm and/or dense gas involved in stellar formation, a key insight that could explain why most LSBs have small M$_{H_2}$/M$_{HI}$ ratios.
The sample
==========
We have observed five spirals from the sample of [@galaz2002; @galaz2006]. All of them are face-on spirals, and therefore the APEX beam (of about 18$\prime\prime$) samples their bulges. Two of the five galaxies are [*bonna fide*]{} LSBs, with disk surface brightnesses fainter than 22.0 mag arcsec$^{-2}$ (UGC02921 and UGC02081), and three are HSB spirals (NGC0521, PGC070519, and NGC7589: see below for details). Four of the selected galaxies have measurable near-IR emission, and therefore they have a significant population of low-mass and/or evolved stellar populations. The criteria to choose galaxies were the following:
1. [*face-on orientation*]{}.- This minimizes the extinction for optical observations, allowing us to identify directly the sub-mm line width with the pure gas velocity dispersion. It also minimizes the inclination bias on the estimated disk surface brightness.
2. [*The HI mass*]{}.- With the aim of accounting for the atomic gas content as an additional variable, we have selected galaxies with different HI masses. The HI masses vary between $7 \times 10^8$ and $51 \times 10^8$ M$_\odot$.
Some information worth mentioning about the selected galaxies follows.
- [*UGC02081*]{}.- Included in the @impey1996 catalogue of LSBs and studied by @galaz2002 [@galaz2006] (LSB100), it is also in the HIPASS Catalogue [@meyer2004]. It is at $cz_{hel} = 2616$ km s$^{-1}$ and has a diameter of 23 kpc. It also exhibits a tiny bar in the central region. It has been studied in many optical and near-IR bands, but was not detected by [*IRAS*]{}. It is not a very massive galaxy in terms of its atomic gas mass [@galaz2002]. Its disk central surface brightness ($B$) of 22.4 mag arcsec$^{-2}$ locates this galaxy at the LSB regime. It has a small bulge of about 190 pc scale length, with colors $B-R = 1.11$ [@galaz2006]. The near-IR color of the bulge is the same as for the total galaxy, meaning that the bulge stellar populations share their properties with those of the disk.
- [*NGC7589*]{}.- Classified as an Sa by @impey1996 \[LSB473 in Galaz et al. (2002, 2006)\], it has $\mu_0(B) = 21.51$ mag arcsec$^{-2}$ and is therefore an HSB galaxy. Located at $cz_{helio} = 8938$ km s$^{-1}$, it has a diameter of 36.12 kpc and has traces of a disk bar. The difference between its bulge color ($B-R = 2.0$) and the disk color ($B-R =
1.47$) shows that this galaxy has a metal-rich bulge compared to the bulge of other spirals [@galaz2006]. Its near-IR bulge color ($J-K_s = 0.81$) suggests that the bulge is more metallic than other bulges in spirals [@galaz2002] and larger in size, with a scale length of 900 pc ($B$ band). Its HI mass of $51.29 \times
10^8 M_\odot$ makes it $\sim 7$ times more massive than UGC02081. In spite of its absolute magnitude ($M_B = -19.87$ mag), the galaxy is not detected by [*IRAS*]{}.
- [*PGC070519*]{}.- LSB 463 in @galaz2002 [@galaz2006]. This SBc galaxy ($cz = 5244$ km s$^{-1}$) is about 19 kpc diameter. It has a disk central SB $\mu_0(B) = 21.7$ mag arcsec$^{-2}$ and therefore is also an HSB galaxy. This galaxy has an absolute magnitude $M_B = -18.63$ and a color $B-R = 1.0$ in the bulge and $B-R = 0.84$ in the overall galaxy. This implies a bulge with larger metallicity compared to that of the disk [@galaz2002], for a galaxy with also a large HI mass ($37.15
\times 10^8 M_\odot$) considering its size. It is not detected by [*IRAS*]{}. We note that it also presents a noticeable bar which appears to be clearly “melted” with the bulge.
- [*NGC0521*]{}.- This is the largest and brightest spiral in our sample ($M_B = -20.11$). Classified as an SBsc(r) ($cz = 5018$ km s$^{-1}$), has a diameter of $\sim 65$ kpc, twice that of the Milky Way. Its central disk surface brightness is $\mu_0(B) = 21.7$ mag arcsec$^{-2}$, so it is an HSB galaxy. It has visible spiral arms and a prominent bulge with a scale length of 720 pc in the $R$ band. The bulge is quite red ($B-R = 1.64$), with almost no difference in color with the overall galaxy (LSB059 in Galaz et al. 2006). The near-IR color $J-K_s = 0.74$ suggests a metallic bulge. It has a large amount of HI ($43.7 \times
10^8 M_\odot$). However, as discussed below, this is not a large amount considering the remarkable size of the galaxy. It is detected by [*IRAS*]{} in 60 and 100 $\mu$m, with fluxes of about 0.65 and 3.16 Jy, respectively. It has a noticeable nuclear bar which does not however extend too far through the disk.
- [*UGC02921*]{}.- An SAB(s)dm galaxy in @impey1996 ($\mu_0(B) = 23.6$ mag arcsec$^{-2}$), located at $cz_{helio} = 3544$ km s$^{-1}$), it is an LSB galaxy. It has a diameter of 21 kpc and a large HI mass ($21.88 \times 10^8 M_\odot$). It present a tiny bar from which two spiral arms are developed.
Observations with APEX
======================
For APEX observations we use the heterodyne receiver APEX-2A (345 GHz), tunable in the frequency range $279 - 381$ GHz. The receiver noise temperature (about 60-70 K) is fairly constant over the entire tuning range. The telescope beam size at 345 GHz is $\sim 18$ arcsec. We observed the five galaxies between 2006 July and 2007 January, using the chopper wheel calibration technique [@kutner1981], which provides main-beam brightness temperature $T_{MB}$, after dividing by the main beam efficiency $\eta_{MB} = 0.73$. The typical noise system temperature during the observation was $T_{sys} \sim 150 - 180$ K. The total on source integration time was 2 hr on average, with a velocity resolution per channel of 0.11 km s$^{-1}$. We tuned the receiver to the corresponding redshifted 32 line. Data reduction was done with the GILDAS-CLASS package (http://www.iram.fr/IRAMFR/GILDAS); for each galaxy all spectra were added and a linear baseline subtracted. The final spectrum for each galaxy was smoothed to obtain a velocity resolution of $\sim 16$ km s$^{-1}$ and an rms noise temperature $T_{rms} = 5$ mK. Therefore, the typical noise temperature [*per channel*]{} is about $5 \times \sqrt{16/0.11} \sim 60$ mK.
Figure 1 shows final smoothed and summed spectra. Only for galaxies NGC0521 and PGC070519 we detected 32 emission. A Gaussian fit was applied to each spectrum and the parameters of the fit are summarized in Table \[values\]. Detections are defined for signals above 3$\sigma$, where $\sigma \sim 5$ mK is the rms noise temperature. Galaxies NGC7589, UGC02081, and UGC02921 do not present 32 emissions larger than the detection threshold.
Analysis and discussion
=======================
Driven by the uncertainty in the CO-to-H$_2$ conversion factor for spirals in general, we use an approach similar to that of @oneil2000a to compute the H$_2$ masses for NGC0521 and PGC070519 and the corresponding upper limits for NGC7589, UGC02081, and UGC02921. Therefore, we assume a 0co to 32 ratio of 1. This is a reasonable approach considering, for example, the ratio of about 1.2 obtained, on average, by @meier2001 for a sample of dwarf galaxies. @dumke2001 obtained similar figures, with a (3-2)/(1-0) $\sim 1.3$ for the centers of spirals.
CO velocity dispersions are $\sim 89$ km s$^{-1}$ for NGC0521 and 73 km s$^{-1}$ for PGC070519. Since these galaxies are face-on, the velocity width would correspond to the intrinsic velocity dispersion of the 32 emission. In both cases, and given the similar sizes of the corresponding bulges and the antenna beam, the velocity dispersions would simply correspond to that of the CO embedded in the respective bulges. Note that the velocity dispersions are $\sim 5 - 10$ times larger than those typically observed for HI in the central regions of spirals [@vanderkruit1982]. We suspect that this large width is due to velocity fields induced by the bars observed in NGC0521 and PGC070519 (see Figure 1). Such behavior was also observed by @dumke2001, who obtained similar values for $\Delta
V$. In Table \[values\] we indicate the 32 line velocity width and also the HI velocity dispersion. We note the high value also for W(HI) in NGC0521, strongly indicating the presence of a strong velocity field. Note that all the other galaxies present large velocity dispersions in HI, suggesting therefore a likely large value for the velocity dispersion of their molecular gas.
From the Gaussian fits we determine the integrated intensity I$_{CO}=\int{T_{MB}} dv$, and the intensity at the peak of the emission (in mK, see Table \[values\]). Using the method of @bregman1988 and the formula of @sanders1986 $$M_T(H_2) = 5.82[\pi/4]d_b^2I_{CO},$$ where $d_b$(pc) is the telescope beam diameter at the distance of the source and $I_{CO}$ is the total CO line integrated intensity (K km s$^{-1}$), we estimate the H$_2$ mass for galaxies with positive 32 detections (NGC0521 and PGC070519). For galaxies with negative detections (UGC02081, UGC02921 and NGC7589) we estimate upper limits using $$I_{CO} \le 3 T_{MB} \Delta v_{HI}/\sqrt{n},$$ in K km s$^{-1}$. We assume that $\Delta V_{HI} \sim
<\Delta V_{^{12}CO(J=3-2)}>$, the average velocity dispersion between NGC0521 and PGC070519, that is, 80 km s$^{-1}$. We think this value is more realistic than just using an arbitrarily smaller value, since UGC02081, UGC02921, and NGC7589 also present bars. Thus $\sqrt{n}
= \sqrt{80/16}=\sqrt{5}$, the number of channels used in the smoothed spectra. Therefore $$I_{CO} \le \frac{3}{\sqrt{5}} T_{MB} \Delta v_{CO}.$$ For non-detections (UGC02921, UGC02081 and NGC7589), we use $T_{MB} = \sigma_{rms} \sim
5$ mK for all the corresponding spectra. Thus, $I_{CO} < 0.54$ K km s$^{-1}$. Using the corresponding beam diameter in pc for all galaxies, as seen at the distance of each galaxy, we obtain estimated H$_2$ masses for NGC0521 and PGC070519, and upper limits for UGC02921, UGC02081, and NGC7589 (see eq. \[1\] and Table \[values\]). It is worth noting that we do detect 32 for NGC0521 and PGC070519, but do not detect it for NGC7589, which is 0.2 mag arcsec$^{-2}$ [*brighter*]{} than these two galaxies, suggesting that factors other than surface brightness must play a key role in the 32 emission.
Table \[values\] presents $H_2$ masses. Note that these values are computed assuming that molecular gas is uniformly distributed through galaxies, which we know is not the case, and in all galaxies, the beam was pointed to the bulge. As shown in Table \[values\], H$_2$ masses derived from detections are $\sim 10^8$ M$_\odot$. The estimated upper limit for the molecular mass in the beam size of galaxies with no detections is $\sim 3-28 \times 10^7$ M$_\odot$. With these values we are able to compute the molecular-to-atomic gas mass fractions for each galaxy (again, only upper limit estimates for galaxies with no detections). The results agree with the picture that LSBs lack significant amounts of molecular gas and, in general, with small molecular-to-atomic mass ratios (below 0.08). For one case (NGC0521) the molecular-to-atomic gas fraction appear as large as 0.9. Although surprising, this result could be anticipated given its small HI mass considering its large size. In other terms, the molecular gas content for NGC0521 is comparable to its atomic one. Note that we do not detect 32 for three but instead for two HSBs and do not detect any CO for both of the LSBs. How could one explain this puzzling picture? Although the central disk SB of these galaxies seems to play a role in the CO emission, we suspect that other factors are key in allowing such an emission. Looking in detail at the structure of the galaxies, we note that NGC0521 and PGC070519 have much more prominent bars really competing with the bulge emission, compared to the other three galaxies (see Fig. 1 and also figures in Galaz et al. 2006), including NGC7589, which is 0.3 mag arcsec$^{-2}$ [*brighter*]{} than NGC0521 and PGC070519. We suggest that strong velocity fields could be responsible for the molecular emission in LSBs.
Conclusions
===========
We detect 32 in 2 of 5 nearby spirals, using the APEX submillimeter telescope. The emission is detected for NGC0521 and PGC070519, both HSB galaxies lying at the Freeman limit. The other galaxies, with no detections, share similar morphology and orientation, but two are LSBs (UGC02921 and UGC02081) and one an HSB (NGC7589). All of them are face-on, making the internal extinction negligible. The measured main-beam temperature CO fluxes are 1.20 K km s$^{-1}$ for NGC0521 and 0.76 K km s$^{-1}$ for PGC070519. The remaining galaxies have fluxes below 3$\sigma$, and thus we are able only to [*estimate*]{} upper limits for their 32 fluxes ($< 0.54$ K km s$^{-1}$).
Measured velocity dispersions for NGC0521 and PGC070519 are 89 and 73 km s$^{-1}$, respectively, $\sim 5 - 10$ times typical values obtained by other authors for bulges in spirals [@vanderkruit1982; @dumke2001]. We suspect that in these cases the gas velocity field is dominated by the bar kinematics [@dumke2001]. Bars are observed actually in all five galaxies, but those of NGC0521 and PGC070519 appear as the more prominent ones.
We compute the total H$_2$ mass in the main beam, obtaining $2 \times
10^8 M_\odot$ and $1.4 \times 10^8 M_\odot$ for NGC0521 and PGC070519, respectively. The corresponding molecular-to-atomic gas fraction is about 0.9 and 0.08. The high value for NGC0521 is probably due to its low HI density, and to the assumption that the HI is uniformly distributed over the whole galaxy optical size. In fact, in spirals one expects that the HI is mostly distributed along the disk.
Overall, we have shown that 32 emission could be intense for some galaxies at the SB “Freeman limit.” Moreover, such an emission could be “dynamically boosted” by bars, helping to warm the CO and allowing the 32 transition at 33 K above the ground level. Although we have no detections of 32 for the LSBs in this sample, we speculate that many LSBs could present 32 emission given some dynamical conditions that warm the gas (or make it denser). We speculate that many LSBs with no 0co or 1co emission could have instead 32 emission thanks to the poor UV shielding favored by the low metallicity and low dust content, allowing a higher gas temperature. This emission, which in principle could be small, may be largely amplified by secular processes which warm the gas.
G.G. acknowledges support from FONDECYT 1040359. P.C. was funded by the CONICYT-ALMA Fund, project 31050003. L.B. and M.R. acknowledge support from the Center for Astrophysics FONDAP 15010003. We are grateful to the anonymous referee for helping to improve this Letter.
[99]{} Bregman, J., & Hogg, D. 1988, AJ, 96, 455 de Blok, W., & van der Hulst, J. 1998, A&A, 335, 421 Dumke, M., Nieten, Ch., Thuma, G., Wielebinski, R., and Walsh, W. 2001, A&A, 373, 853 Freeman, K. 1970, ApJ, 160, 811 Galaz, G., Villalobos, A., Infante, L., & Donzelli, C. 2006, AJ, 131, 2035 Galaz, G., Dalcanton, J., Infante, L., & Treister, E. 2002, AJ, 124, 1360 Impey, C. & Bothun, G. 1997, ARA&A, 35, 267 Impey, C., Sprayberry, D., Irwin, M., & Bothun, G. 1996, ApJS, 105, 209 Israel, F. P. 1997, A&A, 328, 471 Matthews, L., Gao, Y., Uson, J. & Combes, F. 2005, AJ, 129, 1849 Matthews, L. & Gao, Y. 2001, ApJ, 549, L194 O’Neil, K., Schinnerer, E. & Hofner, P. 2003, ApJ, 588, 230 O’Neil, K., Hofner, P. & Schinnerer, E. 2000, ApJ, 545, L99 O’Neil, K., Bothun, G. & Schombert, J. 2000, AJ, 119, 136 Kutner, M. & Ulich, B. 1981, ApJ, 250, 341 Meier, D., Turner, J., & Crosthwaite, L. 2001, AJ, 121, 740 Meyer, M. et al. 2004, MNRAS, 350, 1195 Muraoka, K. & Kohno, K. 2006, IAUS, 237, 173 Paturel, G., Theureau, G., Bottinelli, L., Gouguenheim, Coudreau-Durand, N., Hallet, N., Petit, C. 2003, A&A, 412, 57 Sanders, D., Scoville, N., Young, J., Soifer, B., Schloerb, F., Rice, W., & Danielson, G. 1986, ApJ, 305, L45 van der Hulst, J., Skillman, E., Smith, T., Bothun, G., McGaugh, S. & de Blok, W. 1993, AJ, 106, 548 van der Kruit, P., & Shostak, G. 1982, A&A, 105, 351
----------- ---------- ---------------- ------------------ -------------------------- ---------------------- -------------------------- -------------------- --------------- --------------- --
Name $T_{MB}$ $\sigma_{rms}$ $\int T_{MB} dv$ M$_{HI}$ M$_{H_2}$(18 arcsec) M$_{H_I}$(18 arcsec) M$_{H_2}$/M$_{HI}$ Width W(HI)
(mK) (mK) (K km s$^{-1}$) ($\times 10^8$M$_\odot$) ($\times ($\times 10^8$M$_\odot$) (km s$^{-1}$) (km s$^{-1}$)
10^8$M$_\odot$)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)
NGC0521 12.7 2.9 1.20 $\pm 0.10$ 43.7 2.01 2.2 0.91 88.7 244
PGC070519 9.8 2.5 0.76 $\pm 0.09$ 37.1 1.39 16.5 0.08 72.8 64
NGC7589 $< 5$ $\sim 5$ $< 0.54$ 51.3 $< 2.77$ 26.6 $< $\sim 80$ 183
0.10$
UGC02081 $< 5$ $\sim 5$ $< 0.54$ 7.76 $< 0.25$ 1.1 $< $\sim 80$ 179
0.23$
UGC02921 $< 5$ $\sim 5$ $< 0.54$ 21.8 $< 0.45$ 13.4 $< $\sim 80$ 168
0.03$
----------- ---------- ---------------- ------------------ -------------------------- ---------------------- -------------------------- -------------------- --------------- --------------- --
: Gaussian fit parameters for 32 emission in NGC0521 and PGC070519, and upper limits for non-detections.
\
[: (1) From @galaz2002 [@galaz2006] and the NED. (2) Calibrated peak main-beam brightness temperature. (3) The rms estimates are from the smoothed data with 16 km s$^{-1}$ resolution. (4) Integrated intensity. (5) HI mass from @galaz2002 and the NED. (6) Estimated H$_2$ mass enclosed by the APEX main-beam of 18 arcsec. Values for last 3 galaxies are upper limits. (7) HI mass interpolated to the APEX main-beam. (8) H$_2$ to HI mass ratio. (9) Velocity width of the line. For the last 3 galaxies the velocity width is estimated as the average value obtained for NGC0521 and PGC070519. (10) Velocity width for the HI line, obtained from HIPASS [@meyer2004] and HYPERLEDA [@paturel2003], clipped at 20% peak flux density. For PGC070519, and NGC7589 the indicated value correspond to the mean homogenized maximum rotation velocity uncorrected for inclination.]{} \[values\]
[^1]: Some authors define the limit as 23.0 mag arcsec$^{-2}$, for example @impey1997.
[^2]: Defined as $\mu_0(B) = 21.65 \pm 0.3$ mag arcsec$^{-1}$ [@freeman1970].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
address: 'Iowa State University, For the DØ and CDF Collaborations'
author:
- John Krane
title: Latest Jet Results From the Tevatron
---
\#1\#2\#3\#4[[\#1]{} [**\#2**]{}, \#3 (\#4)]{}
Introduction
============
I have broken my talk into three parts. First come the experimental details that apply at least generally to all the analyses I will discuss. Second, I have a section describing jet quantities and event quantities observed at the two experiments. Finally, I will present a number of cross section results.
Before I begin, I want to outline what I see as a number of shifting paradigms in QCD; that is to say, there are shared traditions in our subfield that must now change. I believe there are four such trends, in both the experimental and theoretical sectors of QCD.
On the theoretical side, a great deal of recent work has focussed on putting error estimates into the parton distribution functions (PDFs). Currently an experimenter performs a data-to-theory comparison many times with different PDF sets. This is certainly not a valid measure of the uncertainty of the predictions. Additionally, there has been some recent progress toward next-to-next-to-leading order calculations (NNLO) of jet cross sections [@glover]. On the experimental side, CDF and DØ have endeavored to provide a meaningful estimate of systematic uncertainty, generally in the form of a covariance matrix. By quanitfying the correlations of any uncertainty with, for example, jet energy, it is possible to make $\chi ^{2}$ comparisons between data and predictions, and actually quantify the level of agreement or disagreement. Finally, in the future, studies will benefit from much more consistent jet definitions. There is some hope of better underlying event treatment in data and in Monte Carlo simulations. Also, there is an ongoing Jet Algorithms Workshop [@jet_algo] with the two collaborations trying to eliminate small inconsistencies in their jet algorithms.
All these changes are not iterative so much as transformational. I mention all of this now, not because these four themes will play a central role in the remainder of my talk, but because they are the background over which I paint these experimental results.
Experimental Details
====================
Most analyses use a simple cone definition of jets, with a radius $\sqrt{\left(\Delta \phi\right) + \left(\Delta \eta\right)}=0.7$. There is a merging and splitting decision, where two jets are merged into a single jet if they share more than a certain fraction of their jet energies. Theoretical predictions require an additional parameter, called $R_{\rm sep}$, to allow parton-level cones to mimic the merging behavior observed at the calorimeter level.
A second algorithm has only recently taken root at Fermilab. This $k_{T}$ definition of jets [@ellis_soper] has the benefit of simultaneous validity at the calorimeter level, particle level, and parton level. The $k_{T}$ is the momentum of one object, projected onto the plane that is perpendicular to the other object. In essence, the algorithm combines energy clusters into a single entity if their relative $k_{T}$ is smaller than some scaling parameter $D$, where $D=1.0$ or $0.5$ in the present work. One may also define subjets by rerunning the algorithm on each jet individually with a resolution parameter, $Y_{\rm cut}$, which prevents clusters with relatively large separation (but still within $D$) from being merged.
Jet selection criteria at both experiments are largely the same, without regard to algorithm. Without becoming entangled in specifics, suffice it to say that it is relatively easy to separate jets from electrons, photons, and noise. The cuts are at least $97\%$ efficient, with a purity so high that we cannot measure any contamination (estimated at less than $0.5\%$).
The jet energy correction has three major parts. First, the offset correction removes from a jet any noise or energy contributions from the underlying event. Second, the calorimeter response correction restores the average energy losses due to cracks in the calorimeters and the losses due to the non-linear energy deposition of low momentum particles. Lastly, the showering correction removes a subtle effect at the cone boundary, where particles that lie inside the $R=0.7$ cone prior to hitting the calorimeter, deposit some of their energy outside the cone solely because of interactions in the material of the calorimeter. Collectively, these three corrections are called the jet energy scale, and further discussion may be found in DØ[@escale] and CDF[@escaleCDF] references.
In the case of jet cross sections, or any rapidly-changing distribution, fluctuations in jet energy result in a large smearing effect. The correction is estimated using either the balancing of $p_{T}$ in dijet events or through Monte Carlo simulation.
SubJets and Event Quantities
============================
DØ uses the $k_{T}$ algorithm to identify subjets in data collected at its two center-of-mass energies of 630 and 1800 GeV. Hypothesizing that the multiplicity of subjets for quark parents differs from that of gluon parents, the expected subjet multiplicity $M$ can be expressed as $$\left\langle M\right\rangle =f_{g}M_{g}+(1-f_{g})M_{Q}$$ where $f_{g}$ is the fraction of gluons in the final state provided by PDFs and Monte Carlo simulation. Using jets of like energy in both data sets, and the assumption that $M_{g}$ and $M_{Q}$ depend only on jet energy (not center-of-mass energy), one extracts the multiplicities characteristic of the two partons. Taking the ratio, DØ finds $$R=\frac{\left\langle M_{g}\right\rangle -1}{\left\langle M_{Q}\right\rangle
-1}=1.91\pm 0.04 \rm{ (stat) }\pm
\begin{array}{l}
0.23 \\
0.19
\end{array}
\rm{ (sys)}$$ The prediction from Herwig is $R=1.86\pm 0.08 \rm{ (stat)}$. Figure \[subjet\] provides the spectrum of multiplicities. Although there has not yet been any attempt to create a “gluon likelihood” function based on these results, one could imagine significant background reduction in future analyses if jet parents could be tentatively identified on an individual basis.
At CDF, the central tracker provides a count of charged particles as a function of $p_{T}$ and as a function of position relative to the leading jet. Within broad sectors, toward, away from, and transverse to the leading jet, the Monte Carlo generators predict the numbers of particles, with varying degrees of success. The simulations are each subdivided into three contributions, which are reweighted to yield the closest possible agreement with the data. Figure \[pue\] displays the data (points) and the reweighted predictions (lines) in the three geometric sectors. The information in this figure is densely packed, exhibiting comparisons to all three Monte Carlo generators simultaneously. The results of this analysis can significantly improve the modeling of the underlying event and of low $p_{T}$ physics.
At high transverse energies, NLO QCD is generally in good agreement with collider data. At low $E_{T}$ however, QCD underpredicts the number of 3-jet and 4-jet events observed by DØ. The results, shown in Figure \[multijet\], debut here at Moriond. Simple DGLAP treatments suppress events with large numbers of jets, suggesting a higher order or BFKL-augmented prediction might provide better agreement. Ongoing studies of the angular distributions of these multijet events should provide an additional handle on the reason for the underprediction of NLO QCD.
Cross Sections
==============
At Moriond, I promised and delivered a host of cross section results in this section. During the talk, I showcased several recently published and recently submitted analyses, but have space to only mention them here. From DØ, there were three new PRL’s: the so-called R32 analysis, [@r32] the ratio of dimensionless cross sections, [@jet630] and the inclusive jet cross section in DØ’s full pseudorapidity range. [@forward_jet] Just submitted to PRD were CDF’s central ($0.1< \left| \eta \right| <0.7$) inclusive jet cross section [@escaleCDF] and DØ’s tour-de-force of four jet analyses and a full description of their covariance matrix techniques. [@d0_jet_prd] All of these analyses benefit from a rigorous treatment of experimental errors that makes possible meaningful $\chi ^{2}$ comparisons.
Finally, I present the inclusive $k_{T}$ jet cross section. This analysis also makes its debut here at Moriond. The preliminary results differ from the cone-jet analogue by 20% or more, with some $p_{T}$ dependence. DØ has an error matrix and expects to make $\chi ^{2}$ numbers available in the near future. There are no “significant” deviations between data and theory (Figure \[kt\]), but credibility demands further qualification: the entire distribution exhibits better than, say, $2\sigma$ agreement, with most deviations occuring at low $p_{T}$. DØ is exploring several possible reasons for the behavior at the low end of the spectrum, which include the treatment of underlying event and the effect of final-state hadronization on reconstructed energy.
5.0cm
Summary
=======
The Tevatron stopped running in 1996, but there are still several interesting analyses in the queue. I have presented the latest results on jet substructure, underlying event structure, multijet topology, and numerous cross section measurements. I emphasize the underlying themes of these results, which are an increased consistency between the jet algorithms of different experiments, the extended use of error matrices to quantify results, and continuing work on improving the corrections applied to the jet data. I hope you agree that these changes, and similar advances in the theoretical sector, are not merely incremental improvements; instead, I believe that the study of QCD is turning into something quite different than it was, and within a very short time we will all be talking about the latest [*precision*]{} studies in QCD.
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
[99]{} See talk and paper from Nigel Glover, same Moriond session. The homepage may be found at [*http://niuhep.physics.niu.edu/ blazey/jet\_alg/jet\_alg.html*]{}. The $k_{T}$ algorithm. Ellis, Soper, Phys. Rev. D48:3160-3166,1993. The DØ energy scale. Nucl.Inst.Meth. A424 (1999) 352-394. CDF energy scale and Run 1b jet results, submitted to Phys.Rev.D, hep-ph/0102074. The ratio, R32. Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 1955 (2001). Dimensionless cross section ratio. Phys. Rev. Lett. jet ratio 630/1800. Rapidity-dependence of the incl. jet cross section. Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 1707 (2001). Multiple DØ jet results, accepted by Phys.Rev.D, hep-ex/0012046.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
[**Weakly infinitely divisible measures**]{}\
[**on some locally compact Abelian groups**]{}\
[**Mátyás $\text{Barczy}^{*,\diamond}$**]{} [and]{} [**Gyula $\text{Pap}^*$**]{}
0.5cm
\* Faculty of Informatics, University of Debrecen, Pf. 12, H–4010 Debrecen, Hungary;\
E–mail: [email protected] (M. Barczy); [email protected] (G. Pap).
$\diamond$ Corresponding author.
[**Abstract.** On the torus group, on the group of $p$–adic integers and on the $p$–adic solenoid we give a construction of an arbitrary weakly infinitely divisible probability measure using a random element with values in a product of (possibly infinitely many) subgroups of ${\mathbb{R}}.$ As a special case of our results, we have a new construction of the Haar measure on the $p$–adic solenoid.]{}
\
\
Introduction
============
Weakly infinitely divisible probability measures play a very important role in limit theorems of probability theory, see for example, the books of Parthasarathy [@PAR], Heyer [@HEY], the papers of Bingham [@BIN], Yasuda [@YAS], Barczy, Bendikov and Pap [@BARBENPAP], and the Ph.D. theses of Gaiser [@GAI], Telöken [@TEL], Barczy [@BAR]. They naturally arise as possible limits of triangular arrays described as follows.
Let $G$ be a locally compact Abelian topological group having a countable basis of its topology. We also suppose that $G$ has the $T_0$–property, that is, $\bigcap_{U\in{\mathcal{N}}_{e}}U=\{e\},$ where $e$ denotes the identity element of $G$ and ${\mathcal{N}}_e$ is the collection of all Borel neighbourhoods of $e.$ (By a Borel neighbourhood $U$ of $e$ we mean a Borel subset of $G$ for which there exists an open subset $\widetilde U$ of $G$ such that $e\in \widetilde U\subset U.$) Let us consider a probability measure $\mu$ on $G$ and let $\{X_{n,k}:n\in{\mathbb{N}},\,k=1,\dots,K_n\}$ be an array of rowwise independent random elements with values in $G$ satisfying the infinitesimality condition $$\lim_{n\to\infty}\max_{1{\mbox{\ssmsa\hspace*{0.1mm}\symbol{54}\hspace*{0.1mm}}}k{\mbox{\ssmsa\hspace*{0.1mm}\symbol{54}\hspace*{0.1mm}}}K_n}{\mathrm{P}}(X_{n,k}\in G\setminus U)=0,
\qquad \forall\; U\in{\mathcal{N}}_e.$$ If the row sums $\sum_{k=1}^{K_n}X_{n,k}$ of such an array converge in distribution to $\mu$ then $\mu$ is necessarily weakly infinitely divisible, see, e.g., Parthasarathy [@PAR Chapter IV, Theorem 5.2]. Moreover, Parthasarathy [@PAR Chapter IV, Corollary 7.1] gives a representation of an arbitrary weakly infinitely divisible measure on $G$ in terms of a Haar measure, a Dirac measure, a Gauss measure and a Poisson measure on $G$.
In this paper we consider the torus group, the group of $p$–adic integers and the $p$–adic solenoid. For these groups, we give a construction of an arbitrary weakly infinitely divisible measure using real random variables. For each of these three groups, the construction consists in:
1. finding a group, say $G_0,$ which is a product of (possibly infinitely many) subgroups of ${\mathbb{R}}.$ (We furnish $G_0$ with the product topology. Note that $G_0$ is not necessarily locally compact.)
2. finding a continuous homomorphism $\varphi: G_0\to G$ such that for each weakly infinitely divisible measure $\mu$ on $G,$ there is a probability measure $\mu_0$ on $G_0$ with the property $\mu_0(\varphi^{-1}(B))=\mu(B)$ for all Borel subsets $B$ of $G.$ (The probability measure $\mu_0$ on $G_0$ will be given as the distribution of an appropriate random element with values in $G_0.$)
Since $\varphi$ is a homomorphism, the building blocks of $\mu$ (Haar measure, Dirac measure, Gauss measure and Poisson measure) can be handled separately.
We note that, as a special case of our results, we have a new construction of the Haar measure on the $p$-adic integers and the $p$-adic solenoid. Another kind of description of the Haar measure on the $p$-adic integers can also be found in Hewitt and Ross [@HR p. 220]. One can find a construction of the Haar measure on the $p$-adic solenoid in Chistyakov [@CHI Section 3]. It is based on Hausdorff measures and rather sophisticated, while our simpler construction (Theorem \[TwidS\]) is based on a probabilistic method and reflects the structure of the $p$-adic solenoid.
Parametrization of weakly infinitely divisible measures {#par}
=======================================================
Let ${\mathbb{N}}$ and ${\mathbb{Z}}_+$ denote the sets of positive and of nonnegative integers, respectively. The expression “a measure $\mu$ on $G$” means a measure $\mu$ on the $\sigma$–algebra of Borel subsets of $G$. The Dirac measure at a point $x\in G$ will be denoted by $\delta_x$.
A probability measure $\mu$ on $G$ is called *infinitely divisible* if for all $n\in{\mathbb{N}},$ there exist a probability measure $\mu_n$ on $G$ such that $\mu=\mu_n^{*n}$. The collection of all infinitely divisible measures on $G$ will be denoted by $\mathcal{I}(G)$. A probability measure $\mu$ on $G$ is called *weakly infinitely divisible* if for all $n\in{\mathbb{N}},$ there exist a probability measure $\mu_n$ on $G$ and an element $x_n\in G$ such that $\mu=\mu_n^{*n}*\delta_{x_n}$. The collection of all weakly infinitely divisible measures on $G$ will be denoted by $\mathcal{I}_{{\mathrm{w}}}(G)$.
Note that $\mathcal{I}(G)\subset\mathcal{I}_{{\mathrm{w}}}(G),$ but in general $\mathcal{I}(G)\ne\mathcal{I}_{{\mathrm{w}}}(G).$ Clearly, $\mathcal{I}(G)=\mathcal{I}_{{\mathrm{w}}}(G)$ if all the Dirac measures on $G$ are infinitely divisible. In case of the torus and the $p$–adic solenoid, $\mathcal{I}(G)=\mathcal{I}_{{\mathrm{w}}}(G),$ see Sections \[widT\] and \[widS\]; and in case of the $p$–adic integers, $\mathcal{I}(G)\ne\mathcal{I}_{{\mathrm{w}}}(G),$ see the example in Section \[widD\]. We also remark that Parthasarathy [@PAR] and Yasuda [@YAS] call weakly infinitely divisible measures on $G$ infinitely divisible measures.
We recall the building blocks of weakly infinitely divisible measures. The main tool for their description is Fourier transformation. A function $\chi:G\to{\mathbb{T}}$ is said to be a character of $G$ if it is a continuous homomorphism, where ${\mathbb{T}}$ is the topological group of complex numbers $\{{\mathrm{e}}^{ix}:-\pi{\mbox{\msa\hspace*{0.9mm}\symbol{54}\hspace*{0.9mm}}}x<\pi\}$ under multiplication (for more details on ${\mathbb{T}},$ see Section \[widT\]). The group of all characters of $G$ is called the character group of $G$ and is denoted by ${\widehat{G}}$. The character group ${\widehat{G}}$ of $G$ is also a locally compact Abelian $T_0$–topological group having a countable basis of its topology (see, e.g., Theorems 23.15 and 24.14 in Hewitt and Ross [@HR]). For every bounded measure $\mu$ on $G$, let ${\widehat{\mu}}:{\widehat{G}}\to{\mathbb{C}}$ be defined by $${\widehat{\mu}}(\chi):=\int_G\chi\,{\mathrm{d}}\mu,
\qquad \chi\in{\widehat{G}}.$$ This function ${\widehat{\mu}}$ is called the *Fourier transform* of $\mu$. The usual properties of the Fourier transformation can be found, e.g., in Heyer [@HEY Theorem 1.3.8, Theorem 1.4.2], in Hewitt and Ross [@HR Theorem 23.10] and in Parthasarathy [@PAR Chapter IV, Theorem 3.3].
If $H$ is a compact subgroup of $G$ then $\omega_H$ will denote the Haar measure on $H$ (considered as a measure on $G$) normalized by the requirement $\omega_H(H)=1$. The normalized Haar measures of compact subgroups of $G$ are the only idempotents in the semigroup of probability measures on $G$ (see, e.g., Wendel [@WEN Theorem 1]). For all $\chi\in{\widehat{G}}$, $$\label{homega}
{\widehat{\omega}}_H(\chi)
=\begin{cases}
1 & \text{if \ $\chi(x)=1$ \ for all \ $x\in H$,}\\
0 & \text{otherwise,}
\end{cases}$$ i.e., ${\widehat{\omega}}_H={\mathbbm{1}}_{H^\perp},$ where $$H^\perp:=\big\{\chi\in{\widehat{G}}:\text{$\chi(x)=1$ \ for all \ $x\in H$}\big\}$$ is the annihilator of $H$. Clearly $\omega_H\in{\mathcal{I}}_{\mathrm{w}}(G)$, since $\omega_H*\omega_H=\omega_H$.
Obviously $\delta_x\in{\mathcal{I}}_{\mathrm{w}}(G)$ for all $x\in G$.
A *quadratic form* on ${\widehat{G}}$ is a nonnegative continuous function $\psi:{\widehat{G}}\to{\mathbb{R}}_+$ such that $$\psi(\chi_1\chi_2)+\psi(\chi_1\chi_2^{-1})=2(\psi(\chi_1)+\psi(\chi_2))
\qquad\text{for all \ $\chi_1,\chi_2\in{\widehat{G}}$.}$$ The set of all quadratic forms on ${\widehat{G}}$ will be denoted by ${\mathrm{q}}_+({\widehat{G}})$. For a quadratic form $\psi\in{\mathrm{q}}_+({\widehat{G}})$, there exists a unique probability measure $\gamma_\psi$ on $G$ determined by $${\widehat{\gamma}}_\psi(\chi)={\mathrm{e}}^{-\psi(\chi)/2}\qquad\text{for all \ $\chi\in{\widehat{G}}$},$$ which is a symmetric Gauss measure (see, e.g., Theorem 5.2.8 in Heyer [@HEY]). Obviously $\gamma_\psi\in{\mathcal{I}}_{\mathrm{w}}(G)$, since $\gamma_\psi=\gamma_{\psi/n}^{*n}$ for all $n\in{\mathbb{N}}$.
For a bounded measure $\eta$ on $G$, the *compound Poisson measure* ${\mathrm{e}}(\eta)$ is the probability measure on $G$ defined by $${\mathrm{e}}(\eta)
:={\mathrm{e}}^{-\eta(G)}
\left(\delta_e+\eta+\frac{\eta*\eta}{2!}+\frac{\eta*\eta*\eta}{3!}
+\cdots\right),$$ where $e$ is the identity element of $G.$ The Fourier transform of a compound Poisson measure ${\mathrm{e}}(\eta)$ is $$\label{cP}
({\mathrm{e}}(\eta))\:\widehat{}\:(\chi)
=\exp\left\{\int_G(\chi(x)-1)\,{\mathrm{d}}\eta(x)\right\},
\qquad\chi\in{\widehat{G}}.$$ Obviously ${\mathrm{e}}(\eta)\in{\mathcal{I}}_{\mathrm{w}}(G)$, since ${\mathrm{e}}(\eta)=\big({\mathrm{e}}(\eta/n)\big)^{*n}$ for all $n\in{\mathbb{N}}$.
In order to introduce generalized Poisson measures, we recall the notions of a local inner product and a Lévy measure.
\[lip\] A continuous function $g:G\times{\widehat{G}}\to{\mathbb{R}}$ is called a *local inner product* for $G$ if
1. for every compact subset $C$ of ${\widehat{G}}$, there exists $U\in{\mathcal{N}}_e$ such that $$\chi(x)={\mathrm{e}}^{ig(x,\chi)}\qquad
\text{for all \ $x\in U$,\quad$\chi\in C$,}$$
2. for all $x\in G$ and $\chi,\chi_1,\chi_2\in{\widehat{G}}$, $$g(x,\chi_1\chi_2)=g(x,\chi_1)+g(x,\chi_2),\qquad
g(-x,\chi)=-g(x,\chi),$$
3. for every compact subset $C$ of ${\widehat{G}}$, $$\sup\limits_{x\in G}\sup\limits_{\chi\in C}|g(x,\chi)|<\infty,
\qquad
\lim\limits_{x\to e}\sup\limits_{\chi\in C}\vert g(x,\chi)\vert=0.$$
Parthasarathy [@PAR Chapter IV, Lemma 5.3] proved the existence of a local inner product for an arbitrary locally compact Abelian $T_0$–topological group having a countable basis of its topology.
A measure $\eta$ on $G$ with values in $[0,+\infty]$ is said to be a *Lévy measure* if $\eta(\{e\})=0$, $\eta(G\setminus U)<\infty$ for all $U\in{\mathcal{N}}_e$, and $\int_G(1-{\mathrm{Re}\,}\chi(x))\,{\mathrm{d}}\eta(x)<\infty$ for all $\chi\in{\widehat{G}}$. The set of all Lévy measures on $G$ will be denoted by $\mathbb{L}(G)$.
We note that for all $\chi\in{\widehat{G}}$ there exists $U\in{\mathcal{N}}_e$ such that $$\label{compare}
\frac{1}{4}g(x,\chi)^2{\mbox{\msa\hspace*{0.9mm}\symbol{54}\hspace*{0.9mm}}}1-{\mathrm{Re}\,}\chi(x){\mbox{\msa\hspace*{0.9mm}\symbol{54}\hspace*{0.9mm}}}\frac{1}{2}g(x,\chi)^2,
\qquad x\in U.$$ Thus the requirement $\int_G(1-{\mathrm{Re}\,}\chi(x))\,{\mathrm{d}}\eta(x)<\infty$ can be replaced by the requirement that $\int_G g(x,\chi)^2\,{\mathrm{d}}\eta(x)<\infty$ for some (and then necessarily for any) local inner product $g$.
For a Lévy measure $\eta\in{\mathbb{L}}(G)$ and for a local inner product $g$ for $G$, the *generalized Poisson measure* $\pi_{\eta,\,g}$ is the probability measure on $G$ defined by $${\widehat{\pi}}_{\eta,\,g}(\chi)
=\exp\left\{\int_G\big(\chi(x)-1-ig(x,\chi)\big)\,{\mathrm{d}}\eta(x)\right\}\qquad
\text{for all \ $\chi\in{\widehat{G}}$}$$ (see, e.g., Chapter IV, Theorem 7.1 in Parthasarathy [@PAR]). Obviously $\pi_{\eta,\,g}\in{\mathcal{I}}_{\mathrm{w}}(G)$, since $\pi_{\eta,\,g}=\pi_{\eta/n,\,g}^{*n}$ for all $n\in{\mathbb{N}}$. Note that for a bounded measure $\eta$ on $G$ with $\eta(\{e\})=0$ we have $\eta\in{\mathbb{L}}(G)$ and ${\mathrm{e}}(\eta)=\pi_{\eta,\,g}*\delta_{m_g(\eta)}$, where the element $m_g(\eta)\in G$, called the *local mean* of $\eta$ with respect to the local inner product $g$, is uniquely defined by $$\chi(m_g(\eta))=\exp\left\{i\int_G g(x,\chi)\,{\mathrm{d}}\eta(x)\right\}\qquad
\text{for all \ $\chi\in{\widehat{G}}$.}$$ (The existence of a unique local mean is guaranteed by Pontryagin’s duality theorem.)
Let ${\mathcal{P}}(G)$ be the set of quadruplets $(H,a,\psi,\eta)$, where $H$ is a compact subgroup of $G$, $a\in G$, $\psi\in{\mathrm{q}}_+({\widehat{G}})$ and $\eta\in{\mathbb{L}}(G)$. Parthasarathy [@PAR Chapter IV, Corollary 7.1] proved the following parametrization for weakly infinitely divisible measures on $G$.
\[LCA1\] Let $g$ be a fixed local inner product for $G$. If $\mu\in{\mathcal{I}}_{\mathrm{w}}(G)$ then there exists a quadruplet $(H,a,\psi,\eta)\in{\mathcal{P}}(G)$ such that $$\label{LH}
\mu=\omega_H*\delta_a*\gamma_\psi*\pi_{\eta,\,g}.$$ Conversely, if $(H,a,\psi,\eta)\in{\mathcal{P}}(G)$ then $\omega_H*\delta_a*\gamma_\psi*\pi_{\eta,\,g}\in{\mathcal{I}}_{\mathrm{w}}(G)$.
In general, this parametrization is not one–to–one (see Parthasarathy [@PAR p.112, Remark 3]).
We say that $\mu\in\mathcal{I}_{{\mathrm{w}}}(G)$ has a non-degenerate idempotent factor if $\mu=\mu'*\nu$ for some probability measures $\mu'$ and $\nu$ such that $\nu$ is idempotent and $\nu\ne\delta_e.$ Yasuda [@YAS Proposition 1] proved the following characterization of weakly infinitely divisible measures on $G$ without non-degenerate idempotent factors, i.e., weakly infinitely divisible measures on $G$ for which in the representation the compact subgroup $H$ is $\{e\}.$
\[THM\_YASUDA\] A probability measure $\mu$ on $G$ is weakly infinitely divisible without non-degenerate idempotent factors if and only if there exist an element $a\in G$ and a triangular array $\{\mu_{n,k}:n\in{\mathbb{N}},k=1,\ldots,K_n\}$ of probability measures on $G$ such that
1. for every compact subset $C$ of ${\widehat{G}},$ $$\lim_{n\to\infty}\max_{1{\mbox{\ssmsa\hspace*{0.1mm}\symbol{54}\hspace*{0.1mm}}}k{\mbox{\ssmsa\hspace*{0.1mm}\symbol{54}\hspace*{0.1mm}}}K_n}\sup_{\chi\in C}\vert{\widehat{\mu}}_{n,k}(\chi)-1\vert=0,$$
2. for all $\chi\in{\widehat{G}},$ $$\sup_{n\in{\mathbb{N}}}\sum_{k=1}^{K_n}(1-\vert{\widehat{\mu}}_{n,k}(\chi)\vert)<+\infty,$$
3. $\delta_a*{\raise-7mm\hbox{\hcmr*} ^{\hspace*{-5.3mm}\raise2.8mm\hbox{$\scriptstyle K_n$}} _{\hspace*{-6.1mm}\raise2.5mm\hbox{$\scriptstyle k=1$}}}\mu_{n,k}\stackrel{\mathrm{w}}{\longrightarrow}\mu$ as $n\to\infty,$ where $\stackrel{\mathrm{w}}{\longrightarrow}$ means weak convergence and ${\raise-7mm\hbox{\hcmr*} ^{\hspace*{-5.3mm}\raise2.8mm\hbox{$\scriptstyle K_n$}} _{\hspace*{-6.1mm}\raise2.5mm\hbox{$\scriptstyle k=1$}}}\mu_{n,k}$ denotes the convolution of $\mu_{n,k},$ $k=1,\ldots,K_n.$
We note that condition (i) of Theorem \[THM\_YASUDA\] is equivalent to the infinitesimality of the triangular array $\{\mu_{n,k}:n\in{\mathbb{N}},k=1,\ldots,K_n\},$ see, e.g., 5.1.12 in Heyer [@HEY].
Weakly infinitely divisible measures on the torus {#widT}
=================================================
Consider the set ${\mathbb{T}}:=\{{\mathrm{e}}^{ix}:-\pi{\mbox{\msa\hspace*{0.9mm}\symbol{54}\hspace*{0.9mm}}}x<\pi\}$ of complex numbers under multiplication. This is a compact Abelian $T_0$–topological group having a countable basis of its topology, and it is called the 1–dimensional torus group. For elementary facts about ${\mathbb{T}}$ we refer to the monographs Hewitt and Ross [@HR], Heyer [@HEY] and Hofmann and Morris [@HOFMOR]. The character group of ${\mathbb{T}}$ is ${\widehat{{\mathbb{T}}}}=\{\chi_\ell:\ell\in{\mathbb{Z}}\}$, where $$\chi_\ell(y):=y^\ell,\qquad y\in{\mathbb{T}},\quad\ell\in{\mathbb{Z}}.$$ Hence ${\widehat{{\mathbb{T}}}}\cong{\mathbb{Z}}$ (i.e., ${\widehat{{\mathbb{T}}}}$ and ${\mathbb{Z}}$ are topologically isomorphic). The compact subgroups of ${\mathbb{T}}$ are $$H_r:=\{{\mathrm{e}}^{2\pi ij/r}:j=0,1,\dots,r-1\},\qquad r\in{\mathbb{N}},$$ and ${\mathbb{T}}$ itself.
The set of all quadratic forms on ${\widehat{{\mathbb{T}}}}\cong{\mathbb{Z}}$ is ${\mathrm{q}}_+\big({\widehat{{\mathbb{T}}}}\big)=\{\psi_b:b\in{\mathbb{R}}_+\}$, where $$\psi_b(\chi_\ell):=b\ell^2,\qquad\ell\in{\mathbb{Z}},\quad b\in{\mathbb{R}}_+.$$ Let us define the functions $\arg:{\mathbb{T}}\to[-\pi,\pi[$ and $h:{\mathbb{R}}\to{\mathbb{R}}$ by $$\begin{aligned}
\arg({\mathrm{e}}^{ix})&:=x,\qquad-\pi{\mbox{\msa\hspace*{0.9mm}\symbol{54}\hspace*{0.9mm}}}x<\pi,\\
h(x)&:=\begin{cases}
0 & \text{if \ $x<-\pi$ \ or \ $x{\mbox{\msa\hspace*{0.9mm}\symbol{62}\hspace*{0.9mm}}}\pi$,}\\
-x-\pi & \text{if \ $-\pi{\mbox{\msa\hspace*{0.9mm}\symbol{54}\hspace*{0.9mm}}}x<-\pi/2$,}\\
x & \text{if \ $-\pi/2{\mbox{\msa\hspace*{0.9mm}\symbol{54}\hspace*{0.9mm}}}x<\pi/2$,}\\
-x+\pi & \text{if \ $\pi/2{\mbox{\msa\hspace*{0.9mm}\symbol{54}\hspace*{0.9mm}}}x<\pi$.}\\
\end{cases}
\end{aligned}$$ A measure $\eta$ on ${\mathbb{T}}$ with values in $[0,+\infty]$ is a Lévy measure if and only if $\eta(\{e\})=0$ and $\int_{\mathbb{T}}(\arg y)^2\,{\mathrm{d}}\eta(y)<\infty$. The function $g_{\mathbb{T}}:{\mathbb{T}}\times{\widehat{{\mathbb{T}}}}\to{\mathbb{R}}$, $$g_{\mathbb{T}}(y,\chi_\ell):=\ell h(\arg y),\qquad y\in{\mathbb{T}},\quad\ell\in{\mathbb{Z}},$$ is a local inner product for ${\mathbb{T}}$. Note that $\mathcal{I}({\mathbb{T}})=\mathcal{I}_{{\mathrm{w}}}({\mathbb{T}}),$ since $({\mathrm{e}}^{ix/n})^n={\mathrm{e}}^{ix},$ $x\in[-\pi,\pi),$ $n\in{\mathbb{N}}.$ Our aim is to show that for a weakly infinitely divisible measure $\mu$ on ${\mathbb{T}}$ there exist independent real random variables $U$ and $Z$ such that $U$ is uniformly distributed on a suitable subset of ${\mathbb{R}}$, $Z$ has an infinitely divisible distribution on ${\mathbb{R}}$, and ${\mathrm{e}}^{i(U+Z)}{\stackrel{{{{\scriptstyle}\mathcal{D}}}}{=}}\mu$. We note that ${\mathbb{R}}$ is a locally compact Abelian $T_0$–topological group, its character group is ${\widehat{{\mathbb{R}}}}=\{\chi_y:y\in{\mathbb{R}}\}$, where $\chi_y(x):={\mathrm{e}}^{iyx}$. The function $g_{\mathbb{R}}:{\mathbb{R}}\times{\widehat{{\mathbb{R}}}}\to{\mathbb{R}}$, defined by $g_{\mathbb{R}}(x,\chi_y):=yh(x)$, is a local inner product for ${\mathbb{R}}$.
If $(H,a,\psi_b,\eta)\in{\mathcal{P}}({\mathbb{T}})$ then $${\mathrm{e}}^{i(U+\arg a+X+Y)}
{\stackrel{{{{\scriptstyle}\mathcal{D}}}}{=}}\omega_H*\delta_a*\gamma_{\psi_b}*\pi_{\eta,\,g_{\mathbb{T}}},$$ where $U$, $X$ and $Y$ are independent real random variables such that $U$ is uniformly distributed on $[0,2\pi]$ if $H={\mathbb{T}}$, $U$ is uniformly distributed on $\{2\pi j/r:j=0,1,\dots,r-1\}$ if $H=H_r$, $X$ has a normal distribution on ${\mathbb{R}}$ with zero mean and variance $b$, and the distribution of $Y$ is the generalized Poisson measure $\pi_{\arg\!\circ\eta,\,g_{\mathbb{R}}}$ on ${\mathbb{R}}$, where the measure $\arg\!\circ\eta$ on ${\mathbb{R}}$ is defined by $(\arg\!\circ\eta)(B):=\eta\big(\{x\in{\mathbb{T}}:\arg(x)\in B\}\big)$ for all Borel subsets $B$ of ${\mathbb{R}}$.
[**Proof.**]{} Let $U$ be a real random variable which is uniformly distributed on $[0,2\pi]$. Then for all $\chi_\ell\in{\widehat{{\mathbb{T}}}}$, $\ell\in{\mathbb{Z}}$, $\ell\not=0$, $${\mathrm{E}}\,\chi_\ell({\mathrm{e}}^{iU})
={\mathrm{E}}\,{\mathrm{e}}^{i\ell U}
=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_0^{2\pi}{\mathrm{e}}^{i\ell x}\,{\mathrm{d}}x
=0.$$ Hence ${\mathrm{E}}\,\chi_\ell({\mathrm{e}}^{iU})={\widehat{\omega}}_{\mathbb{T}}(\chi_\ell)$ for all $\chi_\ell\in{\widehat{{\mathbb{T}}}}$, $\ell\in{\mathbb{Z}}$, and we obtain ${\mathrm{e}}^{iU}{\stackrel{{{{\scriptstyle}\mathcal{D}}}}{=}}\omega_{\mathbb{T}}$.
Now let $U$ be a real random variable which is uniformly distributed on $\{2\pi j/r:j=0,1,\dots,r-1\}$ with some $r\in{\mathbb{N}}$. Then for all $\chi_\ell\in{\widehat{{\mathbb{T}}}}$, $\ell\in{\mathbb{Z}}$, $${\mathrm{E}}\,\chi_\ell({\mathrm{e}}^{iU})
={\mathrm{E}}\,{\mathrm{e}}^{i\ell U}
=\frac{1}{r}\sum_{j=0}^{r-1}{\mathrm{e}}^{2\pi i\ell j/r}
=\begin{cases}
1 & \text{if \ $r|\ell$,}\\
0 & \text{otherwise.}
\end{cases}$$ Hence ${\mathrm{E}}\,\chi_\ell({\mathrm{e}}^{iU})={\widehat{\omega}}_{H_r}(\chi_\ell)$ for all $\chi_\ell\in{\widehat{{\mathbb{T}}}}$, $\ell\in{\mathbb{Z}}$, and we obtain ${\mathrm{e}}^{iU}{\stackrel{{{{\scriptstyle}\mathcal{D}}}}{=}}\omega_{H_r}$.
For $a\in{\mathbb{T}}$, we have $a={\mathrm{e}}^{i\arg a}$, hence ${\mathrm{e}}^{i\arg a}{\stackrel{{{{\scriptstyle}\mathcal{D}}}}{=}}\delta_a$.
For $b\in{\mathbb{R}}_+$, the Fourier transform of the Gauss measure $\gamma_{\psi_b}$ has the form $${\widehat{\gamma}}_{\psi_b}(\chi_\ell)={\mathrm{e}}^{-b\ell^2/2},\qquad
\chi_\ell\in{\widehat{{\mathbb{T}}}},\quad\ell\in{\mathbb{Z}}.$$ For all $\chi_\ell\in{\widehat{{\mathbb{T}}}}$, $\ell\in{\mathbb{Z}}$, $${\mathrm{E}}\,\chi_\ell({\mathrm{e}}^{iX})
={\mathrm{E}}\,{\mathrm{e}}^{i\ell X}
={\mathrm{e}}^{-b\ell^2/2}.$$ Hence ${\mathrm{E}}\,\chi_\ell({\mathrm{e}}^{iX})=\gamma_{\psi_b}(\chi_\ell)$ for all $\chi_\ell\in{\widehat{{\mathbb{T}}}}$, $\ell\in{\mathbb{Z}}$, and we obtain ${\mathrm{e}}^{iX}{\stackrel{{{{\scriptstyle}\mathcal{D}}}}{=}}\gamma_{\psi_b}$.
For a Lévy measure $\eta\in{\mathbb{L}}({\mathbb{T}})$, the Fourier transform of the generalized Poisson measure $\pi_{\eta,\,g_{\mathbb{T}}}$ has the form $${\widehat{\pi}}_{\eta,\,g_{\mathbb{T}}}(\chi_\ell)
=\exp\left\{\int_{\mathbb{T}}\big(y^\ell-1-i\ell h(\arg y)\big){\mathrm{d}}\eta(y)\right\},
\qquad\chi_\ell\in{\widehat{{\mathbb{T}}}},\quad\ell\in{\mathbb{Z}}.$$ A measure $\widetilde{\eta}$ on ${\mathbb{R}}$ with values in $[0,+\infty]$ is a Lévy measure if and only if $\widetilde{\eta}(\{0\})=0$ and $\int_{\mathbb{R}}\min\{1,x^2\}\,{\mathrm{d}}\widetilde{\eta}(x)<\infty$. Consequently, $\arg\!\circ\eta$ is a Lévy measure on ${\mathbb{R}}$, and for all $\chi_\ell\in{\widehat{{\mathbb{T}}}}$, $\ell\in{\mathbb{Z}}$, $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathrm{E}}\,\chi_\ell({\mathrm{e}}^{iY})
={\mathrm{E}}\,{\mathrm{e}}^{i\ell Y}
&=\exp\left\{\int_{\mathbb{R}}\big({\mathrm{e}}^{i\ell x}-1-i\ell h(x)\big)
\,{\mathrm{d}}(\arg\!\circ\eta)(x)\right\}\\[2mm]
&=\exp\left\{\int_{\mathbb{T}}\big(y^\ell-1-i\ell h(\arg y)\big)\,{\mathrm{d}}\eta(y)\right\}.
\end{aligned}$$ Hence ${\mathrm{E}}\,\chi_\ell({\mathrm{e}}^{iY})={\widehat{\pi}}_{\eta,\,g_{\mathbb{T}}}(\chi_\ell)$ for all $\chi_\ell\in{\widehat{{\mathbb{T}}}}$, $\ell\in{\mathbb{Z}}$, and we obtain ${\mathrm{e}}^{iY}{\stackrel{{{{\scriptstyle}\mathcal{D}}}}{=}}\pi_{\eta,\,g_{\mathbb{T}}}$.
Finally, independence of $U$, $X$ and $Y$ implies $$\begin{aligned}
&{\mathrm{E}}\,\chi({\mathrm{e}}^{i(U+\arg a+X+Y)})
={\mathrm{E}}\,\chi({\mathrm{e}}^{iU})\cdot\chi({\mathrm{e}}^{i\arg a})\cdot{\mathrm{E}}\,\chi({\mathrm{e}}^{iX})
\cdot{\mathrm{E}}\,\chi({\mathrm{e}}^{iY})\\
&={\widehat{\omega}}_H(\chi)\,{\widehat{\delta}}_a(\chi)\,{\widehat{\gamma}}_{\psi_b}(\chi)\,
{\widehat{\pi}}_{\eta,\,g_{\mathbb{T}}}(\chi)
=(\omega_H*\delta_a*\gamma_{\psi_b}*\pi_{\eta,\,g_{\mathbb{T}}})\:\widehat{}\:(\chi)
\end{aligned}$$ for all $\chi\in{\widehat{{\mathbb{T}}}}$, hence we obtain the statement.
Weakly infinitely divisible measures on the group of $p$–adic integers {#widD}
=======================================================================
Let $p$ be a prime. The group of $p$–adic integers is $$\Delta_p
:=\big\{(x_0,x_1,\dots)
:\text{$x_j\in\{0,1,\dots,p-1\}$ \ for all \ $j\in{\mathbb{Z}}_+$}\big\},$$ where the sum $z:=x+y\in\Delta_p$ for $x,y\in\Delta_p$ is uniquely determined by the relationships $$\sum_{j=0}^dz_jp^j\equiv\sum_{j=0}^d(x_j+y_j)p^j\quad\mod p^{d+1}
\qquad\text{for all \ $d\in{\mathbb{Z}}_+$.}$$ For each $r\in{\mathbb{Z}}_+$, let $$\Lambda_r:=\{x\in\Delta_p:\text{$x_j=0$ \ for all \ $j{\mbox{\msa\hspace*{0.9mm}\symbol{54}\hspace*{0.9mm}}}r-1$}\}.$$ The family of sets $\{x+\Lambda_r:x\in\Delta_p,\,r\in{\mathbb{Z}}_+\}$ is an open subbasis for a topology on $\Delta_p$ under which $\Delta_p$ is a compact, totally disconnected Abelian $T_0$–topological group having a countable basis of its topology. For elementary facts about $\Delta_p$ we refer to the monographs Hewitt and Ross [@HR], Heyer [@HEY] and Hofmann and Morris [@HOFMOR]. The character group of $\Delta_p$ is ${\widehat{\Delta}}_p=\{\chi_{d,\ell}:d\in{\mathbb{Z}}_+,\,\ell=0,1,\dots,p^{d+1}-1\}$, where $$\chi_{d,\ell}(x):={\mathrm{e}}^{2\pi i\ell(x_0+px_1+\cdots+p^dx_d)/p^{d+1}},\quad
x\in\Delta_p,\quad d\in{\mathbb{Z}}_+,\;\ell=0,1,\dots,p^{d+1}-1.$$ The compact subgroups of $\Delta_p$ are $\Lambda_r$, $r\in{\mathbb{Z}}_+$ (see Hewitt and Ross [@HR Example 10.16 (a)]).
A measure $\eta$ on $\Delta_p$ with values in $[0,+\infty]$ is a Lévy measure if and only if $\eta(\{e\})=0$ and $\eta(\Delta_p\setminus\Lambda_r)<\infty$ for all $r\in{\mathbb{Z}}_+$.
Since the group $\Delta_p$ is totally disconnected, the only quadratic form on ${\widehat{\Delta}}_p$ is $\psi=0$, and thus there is no nontrivial Gauss measure on $\Delta_p.$ Moreover, the function $g_{\Delta_p}:\Delta_p\times{\widehat{\Delta}}_p\to{\mathbb{R}}$, $g_{\Delta_p}=0$ is a local inner product for $\Delta_p$.
Now we prove that $\mathcal{I}(\Delta_p)\ne\mathcal{I}_{{\mathrm{w}}}(\Delta_p)$ by showing that there exists an element $x\in\Delta_p$ such that $\delta_x\not\in\mathcal{I}(\Delta_p).$ Indeed, the Dirac measure at the element $(1,0,\dots)\in\Delta_p$ is not infinitely divisible, since for each element $y\in\Delta_p,$ the sum $py$ has the form $(0,z_1,z_2,\ldots)\in\Delta_p$ with some $z_i\in\{0,1,\ldots,p-1\},$ $i\in{\mathbb{N}}.$
Our aim is to show that for a weakly infinitely divisible measure $\mu$ on $\Delta_p$ there exist integer–valued random variables $U_0,U_1,\dots$ and $Z_0,Z_1,\dots$ such that $U_0,U_1,\dots$ are independent of each other and of the sequence $Z_0,Z_1,\dots$, moreover $U_0,U_1,\dots$ are uniformly distributed on a suitable subset of ${\mathbb{Z}}$, $(Z_0,\dots,Z_n)$ has a weakly infinitely divisible distribution on ${\mathbb{Z}}^{n+1}$ for all $n\in{\mathbb{Z}}_+$, and $\varphi(U_0+Z_0,\,U_1+Z_1,\dots){\stackrel{{{{\scriptstyle}\mathcal{D}}}}{=}}\mu$, where the mapping $\varphi:{\mathbb{Z}}^\infty\to\Delta_p$, uniquely defined by the relationships $$\label{cong}
\sum_{j=0}^dy_jp^j\equiv\sum_{j=0}^d\varphi(y)_jp^j\quad\mod p^{d+1}
\qquad\text{for all \ $d\in{\mathbb{Z}}_+$,}$$ is a continuous homomorphism from the Abelian topological group ${\mathbb{Z}}^\infty$ (furnished with the product topology) onto $\Delta_p$. (Note that ${\mathbb{Z}}^\infty$ is not locally compact.) Continuity of $\varphi$ follows from the definition of the product topology and the fact that $$\varphi^{-1}(x+\Lambda_r)
=\{y\in{\mathbb{Z}}^\infty:(y_0,y_1,\dots,y_{r-1})\in F_{x,r}\}$$ for all $x\in\Delta_p$, $r\in{\mathbb{Z}}_+$, where $F_{x,r}$ is a suitable (open) subset of ${\mathbb{Z}}^r$.
\[repD\] If $(\Lambda_r,a,0,\eta)\in{\mathcal{P}}(\Delta_p)$ then $$\varphi(U_0+a_0+Y_0,\,U_1+a_1+Y_1,\dots)
{\stackrel{{{{\scriptstyle}\mathcal{D}}}}{=}}\omega_{\Lambda_r}*\delta_a*\pi_{\eta,\,g_{\Delta_p}},$$ where $U_0$, $U_1$, … and $Y_0$, $Y_1$, … are integer–valued random variables such that $U_0$, $U_1$, … are independent of each other and of the sequence $Y_0$, $Y_1$, …, moreover $U_0=\dots=U_{r-1}=0$ and $U_r$, $U_{r+1}$, … are uniformly distributed on $\{0,1,\dots,p-1\}$, and the distribution of $(Y_0,\dots,Y_n)$ is the compound Poisson measure ${\mathrm{e}}(\eta_{n+1})$ for all $n\in{\mathbb{Z}}_+$, where the measure $\eta_{n+1}$ on ${\mathbb{Z}}^{n+1}$ is defined by $\eta_{n+1}(\{0\}):=0$ and $\eta_{n+1}(\ell):=\eta(\{x\in\Delta_p:(x_0,x_1,\dots,x_n)=\ell\})$ for all $\ell\in{\mathbb{Z}}^{n+1}\setminus\{0\}$.
[**Proof.**]{} Since $U_0$, $U_1$, … and $Y_0$, $Y_1$, … are integer–valued random variables and the mapping $\varphi:{\mathbb{Z}}^\infty\to\Delta_p$ is continuous, we obtain that $\varphi(U_0+a_0+Y_0,\,U_1+a_1+Y_1,\dots)$ is a random element with values in $\Delta_p$.
First we show $\varphi(U){\stackrel{{{{\scriptstyle}\mathcal{D}}}}{=}}\omega_{\Lambda_r}$, where $U:=(U_0,U_1,\dots)$. By we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
&{\mathrm{E}}\,\chi_{d,\ell}(\varphi(U))
={\mathrm{E}}\,{\mathrm{e}}^{2\pi i\ell
(\varphi(U)_0+p\varphi(U)_1+\cdots+p^d\varphi(U)_d)/p^{d+1}}
={\mathrm{E}}\,{\mathrm{e}}^{2\pi i\ell(U_0+pU_1+\cdots+p^dU_d)/p^{d+1}}\\[2mm]
&=\begin{cases}
{\displaystyle}\frac{1}{p^{d-r+1}}
\sum_{j_r=0}^{p-1}\ldots\sum_{j_d=0}^{p-1}
{\mathrm{e}}^{2\pi i\ell(p^rj_r+\cdots+p^dj_d)/p^{d+1}}
=0 & \text{if \ $d{\mbox{\msa\hspace*{0.9mm}\symbol{62}\hspace*{0.9mm}}}r$ \ and \ $p^{d+1-r}\not|\ell$,}\\
1 & \text{otherwise}\\
\end{cases}
\end{aligned}$$ for all $d\in{\mathbb{Z}}_+$ and $\ell=0,1,\dots,p^{d+1}-1$. Hence ${\mathrm{E}}\,\chi_{d,\ell}(\varphi(U))={\widehat{\omega}}_{\Lambda_r}(\chi_{d,\ell})$ for all $d\in{\mathbb{Z}}_+$ and $\ell=0,1,\dots,p^{d+1}-1$, and we obtain $\varphi(U){\stackrel{{{{\scriptstyle}\mathcal{D}}}}{=}}\omega_{\Lambda_r}$.
For $a\in\Delta_p$, we have $a=\varphi(a_0,a_1,\dots)$, hence $\varphi(a_0,a_1,\dots){\stackrel{{{{\scriptstyle}\mathcal{D}}}}{=}}\delta_a$.
For a Lévy measure $\eta\in{\mathbb{L}}(\Delta_p)$, the Fourier transform of the generalized Poisson measure $\pi_{\eta,\,g_{\Delta_p}}$ has the form $${\widehat{\pi}}_{\eta,\,g_{\Delta_p}}(\chi_{d,\ell})
=\exp\left\{\int_{\Delta_p}
\big({\mathrm{e}}^{2\pi i\ell(x_0+px_1+\cdots+p^dx_d)/p^{d+1}}-1\big)
{\mathrm{d}}\eta(x)\right\}$$ for all $d\in{\mathbb{Z}}_+$ and $\ell=0,1,\dots,p^{d+1}-1$. We have $\eta_{n+1}({\mathbb{Z}}^{n+1})=\eta(\Delta_p\setminus\Lambda_{n+1})<\infty$, hence $\eta_{n+1}$ is a bounded measure on ${\mathbb{Z}}^{n+1}$, and the compound Poisson measure ${\mathrm{e}}(\eta_{n+1})$ on ${\mathbb{Z}}^{n+1}$ is defined. The character group of ${\mathbb{Z}}^{n+1}$ is $({\mathbb{Z}}^{n+1})\;\widehat{}\:
=\{\chi_{z_0,z_1,\dots,z_n}:z_0,z_1,\dots,z_n\in{\mathbb{T}}\}$, where $\chi_{z_0,z_1,\dots,z_n}(\ell_0,\ell_1,\dots,\ell_n)
:=z_0^{\ell_0}z_1^{\ell_1}\cdots z_n^{\ell_n}$ for all $(\ell_0,\ell_1,\dots,\ell_n)\in{\mathbb{Z}}^{n+1}$. The family of measures $\{{\mathrm{e}}(\eta_{n+1}):n\in{\mathbb{Z}}_+\}$ is compatible, since ${\mathrm{e}}(\eta_{n+2})(\{\ell\}\times{\mathbb{Z}})={\mathrm{e}}(\eta_{n+1})(\{\ell\})$ for all $\ell\in{\mathbb{Z}}^{n+1}$ and $n\in{\mathbb{Z}}_+$. Indeed, this is a consequence of $$({\mathrm{e}}(\eta_{n+2}))\:\widehat{}\:(\chi_{z_0,z_1,\dots,z_n,1})
=({\mathrm{e}}(\eta_{n+1}))\:\widehat{}\:(\chi_{z_0,z_1,\dots,z_n})$$ for all $z_0,z_1,\dots,z_n\in{\mathbb{T}}$, which follows from $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{{\mathbb{Z}}^{n+2}}
(z_0^{\ell_0}z_1^{\ell_1}\cdots z_n^{\ell_n}-1)\,
&{\mathrm{d}}\eta_{n+2}(\ell_0,\ell_1,\dots,\ell_n,\ell_{n+1})\\
&=\int_{{\mathbb{Z}}^{n+1}}
(z_0^{\ell_0}z_1^{\ell_1}\cdots z_n^{\ell_n}-1)\,
{\mathrm{d}}\eta_{n+1}(\ell_0,\ell_1,\dots,\ell_n)
\end{aligned}$$ for all $z_0,z_1,\dots,z_n\in{\mathbb{T}}$, where both sides are equal to $\int_{\Delta_p}(z_0^{x_0}z_1^{x_1}\cdots z_n^{x_n}-1)\,{\mathrm{d}}\eta(x).$ This integral is finite, since $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{\Delta_p}|z_0^{x_0}z_1^{x_1}\cdots z_n^{x_n}-1|\,{\mathrm{d}}\eta(x)
&=\int_{\Delta_p\setminus\Lambda_{n+1}}
|z_0^{x_0}z_1^{x_1}\cdots z_n^{x_n}-1|\,{\mathrm{d}}\eta(x)\\
&{\mbox{\msa\hspace*{0.9mm}\symbol{54}\hspace*{0.9mm}}}2\eta(\Delta_p\setminus\Lambda_{n+1})
<\infty.
\end{aligned}$$ By Kolmogorov’s Consistency Theorem, there exists a sequence $Y_0$, $Y_1$, … of integer–valued random variables such that the distribution of $(Y_0,\dots,Y_n)$ is the compound Poisson measure ${\mathrm{e}}(\eta_{n+1})$ for all $n\in{\mathbb{Z}}_+$. For all $d\in{\mathbb{Z}}_+$ and $\ell=0,1,\dots,p^{d+1}-1$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathrm{E}}\,\chi_{d,\ell}&(\varphi(Y_0,Y_1,\dots))
={\mathrm{E}}\,{\mathrm{e}}^{2\pi i\ell(Y_0+pY_1+\cdots+p^dY_d)/p^{d+1}}\\[2mm]
&=\exp\left\{\int_{{\mathbb{Z}}^{d+1}}
\big({\mathrm{e}}^{2\pi i\ell(\ell_0+p\ell_1+\cdots+p^d\ell_d)/p^{d+1}}-1\big)\,
{\mathrm{d}}\eta_{d+1}(\ell_0,\ell_1,\dots,\ell_d)\right\}\\[2mm]
&=\exp\left\{\int_{\Delta_p}
\big({\mathrm{e}}^{2\pi i\ell(x_0+px_1+\cdots+p^dx_d)/p^{d+1}}-1\big)\,
{\mathrm{d}}\eta(x)\right\}.
\end{aligned}$$ Hence ${\mathrm{E}}\,\chi_{d,\ell}(\varphi(Y_0,Y_1,\dots))
={\widehat{\pi}}_{\eta,\,g_{\Delta_p}}(\chi_{d,\ell})$ for all $d\in{\mathbb{Z}}_+$ and $\ell=0,1,\dots,p^{d+1}-1$, and we obtain $\varphi(Y_0,Y_1,\dots){\stackrel{{{{\scriptstyle}\mathcal{D}}}}{=}}\pi_{\eta,\,g_{\Delta_p}}$.
Since the sequences $U_0,U_1,\dots$ and $Y_0,Y_1,\dots$ are independent and the mapping $\varphi:{\mathbb{Z}}^\infty\to\Delta_p$ is a homomorphism, we have $$\begin{aligned}
&{\mathrm{E}}\,\chi(\varphi(U_0+a_0+Y_0,\,U_1+a_1+Y_1,\dots))\\
&={\mathrm{E}}\,\chi(\varphi(U_0,U_1,\dots))\cdot
\chi(\varphi(a_0,a_1,\dots))
\cdot{\mathrm{E}}\,\chi(\varphi(Y_0,Y_1,\dots))\\
&={\widehat{\omega}}_{\Lambda_r}(\chi)\,{\widehat{\delta}}_a(\chi)\,
{\widehat{\pi}}_{\eta,\,g_{\Delta_p}}(\chi)
=(\omega_{\Lambda_r}*\delta_a*\pi_{\eta,\,g_{\Delta_p}})\:\widehat{}\:(\chi)
\end{aligned}$$ for all $\chi\in{\widehat{\Delta}}_p$, and we obtain the statement.
Weakly infinitely divisible measures on the $p$–adic solenoid {#widS}
==============================================================
Let $p$ be a prime. The $p$–adic solenoid is a subgroup of ${\mathbb{T}}^\infty$, namely, $$S_p=\big\{(y_0,y_1,\dots)\in{\mathbb{T}}^\infty:
\text{$y_j=y_{j+1}^p$ \ for all \ $j\in{\mathbb{Z}}_+$}\big\}.$$ This is a compact Abelian $T_0$–topological group having a countable basis of its topology. For elementary facts about $S_p$ we refer to the monographs Hewitt and Ross [@HR], Heyer [@HEY] and Hofmann and Morris [@HOFMOR]. The character group $S_p$ is ${\widehat{S}}_p=\{\chi_{d,\ell}:d\in{\mathbb{Z}}_+,\,\ell\in{\mathbb{Z}}\}$, where $$\chi_{d,\ell}(y):=y_d^\ell,\qquad
y\in S_p,\quad d\in{\mathbb{Z}}_+,\quad\ell\in{\mathbb{Z}}.$$ The set of all quadratic forms on ${\widehat{S}}_p$ is ${\mathrm{q}}_+\big({\widehat{S}}_p\big)=\{\psi_b:b\in{\mathbb{R}}_+\}$, where $$\psi_b(\chi_{d,\ell}):=\frac{b\ell^2}{p^{2d}},\qquad
d\in{\mathbb{Z}}_+,\quad\ell\in{\mathbb{Z}},\quad b\in{\mathbb{R}}_+.$$ A measure $\eta$ on $S_p$ with values in $[0,+\infty]$ is a Lévy measure if and only if $\eta(\{e\})=0$ and $\int_{S_p}(\arg y_0)^2\,{\mathrm{d}}\eta(y)<\infty$. The function $g_{S_p}:S_p\times{\widehat{S}}_p\to{\mathbb{R}}$, $$g_{S_p}(y,\chi_{d,\ell}):=\frac{\ell h(\arg y_0)}{p^d},\qquad
y\in S_p,\quad d\in{\mathbb{Z}}_+,\quad\ell\in{\mathbb{Z}},$$ is a local inner product for $S_p$.
Using a result of Carnal [@CAR], Becker-Kern [@BEC] showed that all the Dirac measures on $S_p$ are infinitely divisible, which implies $\mathcal{I}(S_p)=\mathcal{I}_{{\mathrm{w}}}(S_p).$ Our aim is to show that for a weakly infinitely divisible measure $\mu$ on $S_p$ without an idempotent factor there exist real random variables $Z_0,Z_1,\dots$ such that $(Z_0,\dots,Z_n)$ has a weakly infinitely divisible distribution on ${\mathbb{R}}\times{\mathbb{Z}}^n$ for all $n\in{\mathbb{Z}}_+$, and $\varphi(Z_0,\,Z_1,\dots){\stackrel{{{{\scriptstyle}\mathcal{D}}}}{=}}\mu$, where the mapping $\varphi:{\mathbb{R}}\times{\mathbb{Z}}^\infty\to S_p$, defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\varphi&(y_0,y_1,y_2,\dots)\\
&:=\big({\mathrm{e}}^{iy_0},\,{\mathrm{e}}^{i(y_0+2\pi y_1)/p},\,
{\mathrm{e}}^{i(y_0+2\pi y_1+2\pi y_2p)/p^2},\,
{\mathrm{e}}^{i(y_0+2\pi y_1+2\pi y_2p+2\pi y_3p^2)/p^3},\dots\big)
\end{aligned}$$ for $(y_0,y_1,y_2,\dots)\in{\mathbb{R}}\times{\mathbb{Z}}^\infty$, is a continuous homomorphism from the Abelian topological group ${\mathbb{R}}\times{\mathbb{Z}}^\infty$ (furnished with the product topology) onto $S_p$. Continuity of $\varphi$ follows from the fact that $S_p$ as a subspace of ${\mathbb{T}}^\infty$ is furnished with the relative topology. Note that ${\mathbb{R}}\times{\mathbb{Z}}^\infty$ is not locally compact, but ${\mathbb{R}}\times{\mathbb{Z}}^n$ is a locally compact Abelian $T_0$–topological group having a countable basis of its topology for all $n\in{\mathbb{Z}}_+$. The character group of ${\mathbb{R}}\times{\mathbb{Z}}^n$ is $({\mathbb{R}}\times{\mathbb{Z}}^n)\:\widehat{}\:=\{\chi_{y,z}:y\in{\mathbb{R}},\,z\in{\mathbb{T}}^n\}$, where $\chi_{y,z}(x,\ell):={\mathrm{e}}^{iyx}z_1^{\ell_1}\cdots z_n^{\ell_n}$ for all $x,y\in{\mathbb{R}}$, $z=(z_1,\dots,z_n)\in{\mathbb{T}}^n$ and $\ell=(\ell_1,\dots,\ell_n)\in{\mathbb{Z}}^n$. The function $g_{{\mathbb{R}}\times{\mathbb{Z}}^n}\big((x,\ell),\chi_{y,z}\big):=yh(x)$ is a local inner product for ${\mathbb{R}}\times{\mathbb{Z}}^n$.
We also find independent real random variables $U_0,U_1,\dots$ such that $U_0,U_1,\dots$ are uniformly distributed on suitable subsets of ${\mathbb{R}}$ and $\varphi(U_0,\,U_1,\dots){\stackrel{{{{\scriptstyle}\mathcal{D}}}}{=}}\omega_{S_p}$.
\[TwidS\] If $(\{e\},a,\psi_b,\eta)\in{\mathcal{P}}(S_p)$ then $$\begin{aligned}
&\varphi(\tau(a)_0+X_0+Y_0,\,\tau(a)_1+Y_1,\,\tau(a)_2+Y_2,\dots)\\
&=\Big(a_0{\mathrm{e}}^{i(X_0+Y_0)},\,a_1{\mathrm{e}}^{i(X_0+Y_0+2\pi Y_1)/p},\,
a_2{\mathrm{e}}^{i(X_0+Y_0+2\pi Y_1+2\pi Y_2p)/p^2},\dots\Big)\\
&{\stackrel{{{{\scriptstyle}\mathcal{D}}}}{=}}\delta_a*\gamma_{\psi_b}*\pi_{\eta,\,g_{S_p}},
\end{aligned}$$ where the mapping $\tau:S_p\to{\mathbb{R}}\times{\mathbb{Z}}^\infty$ is defined by $$\tau(x)
:=\left(\arg x_0,\,\frac{p\arg x_1-\arg x_0}{2\pi},\,
\frac{p\arg x_2-\arg x_1}{2\pi},\dots\right)$$ for $x=(x_0,x_1,\dots)\in S_p.$ Here $X_0$, $Y_0$ are real random variables and $Y_1,Y_2,\dots$ are integer–valued random variables such that $X_0$ is independent of the sequence $Y_0,Y_1,\dots$, the variable $X_0$ has a normal distribution with zero mean and variance $b$, and the distribution of $(Y_0,\dots,Y_n)$ is the generalized Poisson measure $\pi_{\eta_{n+1},\,g_{{\mathbb{R}}\times{\mathbb{Z}}^n}}$ for all $n\in{\mathbb{Z}}_+$, where the measure $\eta_{n+1}$ on ${\mathbb{R}}\times{\mathbb{Z}}^n$ is defined by $\eta_{n+1}(\{0\}):=0$ and $$\eta_{n+1}(B\times\{\ell\})
:=\eta\big(\big\{x\in S_p
:\tau(x)_0\in B,\,
(\tau(x)_1,\dots,\tau(x)_n)=\ell\big\}\big)$$ for all Borel subsets $B$ of ${\mathbb{R}}$ and for all $\ell\in{\mathbb{Z}}^n$ with $0\not\in B\times\{\ell\}$.
Moreover, $$\varphi(U_0,\,U_1,\dots)
{\stackrel{{{{\scriptstyle}\mathcal{D}}}}{=}}\omega_{S_p},$$ where $U_0,U_1,\dots$ are independent real random variables such that $U_0$ is uniformly distributed on $[0,2\pi]$ and $U_1,U_2,\dots$ are uniformly distributed on $\{0,1,\dots,p-1\}$.
[**Proof.**]{} Since $X_0$, $Y_0$ and $U_0,U_1,\dots$ are real random variables and $Y_1,Y_2,\dots$ are integer–valued random variables and the mapping $\varphi:{\mathbb{R}}\times{\mathbb{Z}}^\infty\to S_p$ is continuous, we obtain that $\varphi(\tau(a)_0+X_0+Y_0,\,\tau(a)_1+Y_1,\,\tau(a)_2+Y_2,\dots)$ and $\varphi(U_0,\,U_1,\dots)$ are random elements with values in $S_p$.
For $a\in S_p$, we have $a=\varphi(\tau(a))$, hence $\varphi(\tau(a)){\stackrel{{{{\scriptstyle}\mathcal{D}}}}{=}}\delta_a$.
For $b\in{\mathbb{R}}_+$, the Fourier transform of the Gauss measure $\gamma_{\psi_b}$ has the form $${\widehat{\gamma}}_{\psi_b}(\chi_{d,\ell})
=\exp\left\{-\frac{b\ell^2}{2p^{2d}}\right\},\qquad
d\in{\mathbb{Z}}_+,\quad\ell\in{\mathbb{Z}}.$$ For all $d\in{\mathbb{Z}}_+$ and $\ell\in{\mathbb{Z}}$, $${\mathrm{E}}\,\chi_{d,\ell}(\varphi(X_0,0,0,\dots))
={\mathrm{E}}\,{\mathrm{e}}^{i\ell X_0/p^d}
=\exp\left\{-\frac{b\ell^2}{2p^{2d}}\right\}.$$ Hence ${\mathrm{E}}\,\chi_{d,\ell}(\varphi(X_0,0,0,\dots))={\widehat{\gamma}}_{\psi_b}(\chi_{d,\ell})$ for all $d\in{\mathbb{Z}}_+$ and $\ell\in{\mathbb{Z}}$, and we obtain that $\varphi(X_0,0,0,\dots){\stackrel{{{{\scriptstyle}\mathcal{D}}}}{=}}\gamma_{\psi_b}$.
For a Lévy measure $\eta\in{\mathbb{L}}(S_p)$, the Fourier transform of the generalized Poisson measure $\pi_{\eta,\,g_{S_p}}$ has the form $${\widehat{\pi}}_{\eta,\,g_{S_p}}(\chi_{d,\ell})
=\exp\left\{\int_{S_p}
\big(y_d^\ell-1-i\ell h(\arg y_0)/p^d\big)\,{\mathrm{d}}\eta(y)\right\}$$ for all $d\in{\mathbb{Z}}_+$ and $\ell\in{\mathbb{Z}}$. A measure $\widetilde{\eta}$ on ${\mathbb{R}}\times{\mathbb{Z}}^n$ with values in $[0,+\infty]$ is a Lévy measure if and only if $\widetilde{\eta}(\{0\})=0$, $\widetilde{\eta}(\{(x,\ell)\in{\mathbb{R}}\times{\mathbb{Z}}^n
:\text{$|x|{\mbox{\msa\hspace*{0.9mm}\symbol{62}\hspace*{0.9mm}}}{\varepsilon}$ or $\ell\not=0$}\})<\infty$ for all ${\varepsilon}>0$, and $\int_{{\mathbb{R}}\times{\mathbb{Z}}^n}h(x)^2\,{\mathrm{d}}\widetilde{\eta}(x,\ell)<\infty$. We have $$\begin{aligned}
&\eta_{n+1}(\{(x,\ell)\in{\mathbb{R}}\times{\mathbb{Z}}^n
:\text{$|x|{\mbox{\msa\hspace*{0.9mm}\symbol{62}\hspace*{0.9mm}}}{\varepsilon}$ or $\ell\not=0$}\})\\
&=\eta(\{y\in S_p
:\text{$|\arg y_0|{\mbox{\msa\hspace*{0.9mm}\symbol{62}\hspace*{0.9mm}}}{\varepsilon}$ or
$(\tau(y)_1,\dots,\tau(y)_n)\not=0$}\})
=\eta(S_p\setminus N_{{\varepsilon},n})
<\infty
\end{aligned}$$ for all ${\varepsilon}\in(0,\pi)$, where $$N_{{\varepsilon},n}
:=\{y\in S_p
:|\arg y_0|<{\varepsilon},\,|\arg y_1|<{\varepsilon}/p,\dots,|\arg y_n|<{\varepsilon}/p^n\}.$$ Moreover, $\int_{{\mathbb{R}}\times{\mathbb{Z}}^n}h(x)^2\,{\mathrm{d}}\eta_{n+1}(x,\ell)
=\int_{S_p}h(\arg y_0)^2\,{\mathrm{d}}\eta(y)<\infty$, since $\eta$ is a Lévy measure on $S_p$. Consequently, $\eta_{n+1}$ is a Lévy measure on ${\mathbb{R}}\times{\mathbb{Z}}^n$. The family of measures $\{\pi_{\eta_{n+1},\,g_{{\mathbb{R}}\times{\mathbb{Z}}^n}}:n\in{\mathbb{Z}}_+\}$ is compatible, since $\pi_{\eta_{n+2},\,g_{{\mathbb{R}}\times{\mathbb{Z}}^{n+1}}}(\{x\}\times{\mathbb{Z}})
=\pi_{\eta_{n+1},\,g_{{\mathbb{R}}\times{\mathbb{Z}}^n}}(\{x\})$ for all $x\in{\mathbb{R}}\times{\mathbb{Z}}^{n+1}$ and $n\in{\mathbb{Z}}_+$. Indeed, this is a consequence of $$(\pi_{\eta_{n+2},\,g_{{\mathbb{R}}\times{\mathbb{Z}}^{n+1}}})\:\widehat{}\:
(\chi_{y,z_1,\dots,z_n,1})
=(\pi_{\eta_{n+1},\,g_{{\mathbb{R}}\times{\mathbb{Z}}^n}})\:\widehat{}\:
(\chi_{y,z_1,\dots,z_n})$$ for all $y\in{\mathbb{R}}$, $z_1,\dots,z_n\in{\mathbb{T}}$, which follows from $$\begin{aligned}
&\int_{{\mathbb{R}}\times{\mathbb{Z}}^{n+1}}
\big({\mathrm{e}}^{iyx}z_1^{\ell_1}\cdots z_n^{\ell_n}-1-iyh(x)\big)\,
{\mathrm{d}}\eta_{n+2}(x,\ell_1,\dots,\ell_n,\ell_{n+1})\\[2mm]
&=\int_{{\mathbb{R}}\times{\mathbb{Z}}^n}
\big({\mathrm{e}}^{iyx}z_1^{\ell_1}\cdots z_n^{\ell_n}-1-iyh(x)\big)\,
{\mathrm{d}}\eta_{n+1}(x,\ell_1,\dots,\ell_n)
\end{aligned}$$ for all $y\in{\mathbb{R}}$, $z_1,\dots,z_n\in{\mathbb{T}}$, where both sides are equal to $$\begin{aligned}
I:=\int_{S_p}
\big(&{\mathrm{e}}^{iy\arg x_0}z_1^{(p\arg x_1-\arg x_0)/(2\pi)}\cdots
z_n^{(p\arg x_n-\arg x_{n-1})/(2\pi)}\\
&-1-iyh(\arg x_0)\big)\,{\mathrm{d}}\eta(x).
\end{aligned}$$ This integral is finite. Indeed, for all $x\in N_{{\varepsilon},n}$ and $0<{\varepsilon}<\pi/2$ we have $p\arg x_k=\arg x_{k-1}$ for each $k=1,\dots,n$, hence $$\begin{aligned}
|I|&{\mbox{\msa\hspace*{0.9mm}\symbol{54}\hspace*{0.9mm}}}(2+\pi|y|)\,\eta(S_p\setminus N_{{\varepsilon},n})
+\int_{N_{{\varepsilon},n}}|{\mathrm{e}}^{iy\arg x_0}-1-iy\arg x_0|\,{\mathrm{d}}\eta(x)\\[2mm]
&{\mbox{\msa\hspace*{0.9mm}\symbol{54}\hspace*{0.9mm}}}(2+\pi|y|)\,\eta(S_p\setminus N_{{\varepsilon},n})
+\frac{1}{2}\int_{N_{{\varepsilon},n}}(\arg x_0)^2\,{\mathrm{d}}\eta(x)
<\infty,
\end{aligned}$$ since $\eta$ is a Lévy measure on $S_p$. By Kolmogorov’s Consistency Theorem, there exist a real random variable $Y_0$ and a sequence $Y_1$, $Y_2$, … of integer–valued random variables such that the distribution of $(Y_0,\dots,Y_n)$ is the generalized Poisson measure $\pi_{\eta_{n+1},\,g_{{\mathbb{R}}\times{\mathbb{Z}}^n}}$ for all $n\in{\mathbb{Z}}_+$. For all $d\in{\mathbb{Z}}_+$ and $\ell\in{\mathbb{Z}},$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
&{\mathrm{E}}\,\chi_{d,\ell}(\varphi(Y_0,Y_1,\dots))
={\mathrm{E}}\,{\mathrm{e}}^{i\ell(Y_0+2\pi Y_1+\cdots+2\pi Y_dp^{d-1})/p^d}\\[2mm]
&=\exp\left\{\int_{{\mathbb{R}}\times{\mathbb{Z}}^d}
\big({\mathrm{e}}^{i\ell(x+2\pi\ell_1+\cdots+2\pi\ell_dp^{d-1})/p^d}
-1-i\ell h(x)/p^d\big)\,
{\mathrm{d}}\eta_{d+1}(x,\ell_1,\dots,\ell_d)\right\} \\[2mm]
&=\exp\left\{\int_{S_p}
\big(y_d^\ell-1-i\ell h(\arg y_0)/p^d\big)\,{\mathrm{d}}\eta(y)\right\}.
\end{aligned}$$ Hence ${\mathrm{E}}\,\chi_{d,\ell}(\varphi(Y_0,Y_1,\dots))
={\widehat{\pi}}_{\eta,\,g_{S_p}}(\chi_{d,\ell})$ for all $d\in{\mathbb{Z}}_+$ and $\ell\in{\mathbb{Z}}$, and we obtain $\varphi(Y_0,Y_1,\dots){\stackrel{{{{\scriptstyle}\mathcal{D}}}}{=}}\pi_{\eta,\,g_{S_p}}$.
Since the sequence $Y_0,Y_1,\dots$ and the random variable $X_0$ are independent and the mapping $\varphi:{\mathbb{R}}\times{\mathbb{Z}}^\infty\to S_p$ is a homomorphism, we get $$\begin{aligned}
&{\mathrm{E}}\,\chi(\varphi(\tau(a)_0+X_0+Y_0,\,\tau(a)_1+Y_1,\,
\tau(a)_2+Y_2,\dots))\\
&=\chi(\varphi(\tau(a)_0,\tau(a)_1,\dots))
\cdot{\mathrm{E}}\,\chi(\varphi(X_0,0,0,\dots))
\cdot{\mathrm{E}}\,\chi(\varphi(Y_0,Y_1,\dots))\\
&={\widehat{\delta}}_a(\chi)\,{\widehat{\gamma}}_{\psi_b}(\chi)\,{\widehat{\pi}}_{\eta,\,g_{S_p}}(\chi)
=(\delta_a*\gamma_{\psi_b}*\pi_{\eta,\,g_{S_p}})\:\widehat{}\:(\chi)
\end{aligned}$$ for all $\chi\in{\widehat{S}}_p$, and we obtain the first statement.
For all $d\in{\mathbb{Z}}_+$ and $\ell\in{\mathbb{Z}}\setminus\{0\}$, $$\begin{aligned}
&{\mathrm{E}}\,\chi_{d,\ell}(\varphi(U_0,U_1,\dots))
={\mathrm{E}}\,{\mathrm{e}}^{i\ell(U_0+2\pi U_1+\cdots+2\pi U_dp^{d-1})/p^d}\\[2mm]
&=\frac{1}{2\pi p^d}\int_0^{2\pi}{\mathrm{e}}^{i\ell x/p^d}\,{\mathrm{d}}x
\sum_{j_0=0}^{p-1}\ldots\sum_{j_{d-1}=0}^{p-1}
{\mathrm{e}}^{2\pi i\ell(j_0+j_1p+\cdots+j_{d-1}p^{d-1})/p^d}
=0.
\end{aligned}$$ Hence ${\mathrm{E}}\,\chi_{d,\ell}(\varphi(U_0,U_1,\dots))={\widehat{\omega}}_{S_p}(\chi_{d,\ell})$ for all $d\in{\mathbb{Z}}_+$ and $\ell\in{\mathbb{Z}}$, and we obtain $\varphi(U_0,U_1,\dots){\stackrel{{{{\scriptstyle}\mathcal{D}}}}{=}}\omega_{S_p}$.
0.2cm
[**Acknowledgments.**]{} The authors have been supported by the Hungarian Scientific Research Fund under Grant No.OTKA–T048544/2005. The first author has been also supported by the Hungarian Scientific Research Fund under Grant No.OTKA–F046061/2004.
[00]{}
M. Barczy, Some questions of probability theory on special topological groups. [*Ph.D. Thesis*]{}, University of Debrecen, Hungary (2006), http://www.inf.unideb.hu/valseg/dolgozok/barczy/phdthesis\_barczy.pdf
M. Barczy, A. Bendikov and G. Pap, Limit theorems on locally compact Abelian groups, to appear in [*Mathematische Nachrichten.*]{} See also, arXiv: math/0702078v1 (2007).
P. Becker-Kern, Explicit representation of roots on $p$–adic solenoids and non-uniqueness of embeddability into rational one-parameter subgroups, [*Proceedings of the Indian Academy of Sciences (Mathematical Sciences)*]{} [**117**]{}(4) (2007), 443-455.
M. S. Bingham, Central limit theory on locally compact abelian groups, [*In: Probability measures on groups and related structures, XI. Proceedings Oberwolfach, 1994, pp. 14–37*]{}, (World Sci. Publishing, NJ) (1995).
H. Carnal, Unendlich oft teilbare Wahrscheinlichkeitsverteilungen auf kompakten Gruppen, [*Mathematische Annalen*]{} [**153**]{} (1964), 351-383.
D. V. Chistyakov, Fractal geometry for images of continuous map of $p$-adic numbers and $p$-adic solenoids into Euclidean spaces, [*arXiv: math/0202089v1* ]{} (2002).
J. Gaiser, Konvergenz stochastischer prozesse mit werten in einer lokalkompakten Abelschen gruppe. [*Ph.D. Thesis*]{}, Universität Tübingen, Germany (1994).
E. Hewitt and K. A. Ross, Abstract Harmonic Analysis (Berlin, Göttingen, Heidelberg: Springer–Verlag) (1963).
H. Heyer, Probability Measures on Locally Compact Groups (Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer–Verlag) (1977).
K. H. Hofmann and S. A. Morris, The sructure of compact groups, 2nd Revised edition (Walter de Gruyter) (2006).
K. R. Parthasarathy, Probability measures on metric spaces (New York and London: Academic Press) (1967).
K. Telöken, Grenzwertsätze für wahrscheinlichkeitsmasse auf total unzusammenhängenden gruppen. [*Ph.D. Thesis*]{}, Universität Dortmund, Germany (1995).
J. G. Wendel, Haar measure and the semigroup of measures on a compact group, [*Proc. Amer. Math. Soc.*]{} [**5**]{} (1954), 923–929.
K. Yasuda, On infinitely divisible distributions on locally compact Abelian groups, [*Journal of Theoretical Probability*]{} [**13**]{}(3) (2000), 635-657.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
[*J. Ambjørn*]{}$\,^{a,b}$, [*Z. Drogosz*]{}$\,^{c}$, [*J. Gizbert-Studnicki*]{}$\,^{c}$, [*A. Görlich*]{}$\,^{c}$, [*J. Jurkiewicz*]{}$\,^{c}$
[**Abstract**]{}
Causal Dynamical Triangulations is a non-perturbative quantum gravity model, defined with a lattice cut-off. The model can be viewed as defined with a proper time but with no reference to any three-dimensional spatial background geometry. It has four phases, depending on the parameters (the coupling constants) of the model. The particularly interesting behavior is observed in the so-called de Sitter phase, where the spatial three-volume distribution as a function of proper time has a semi-classical behavior which can be obtained from an effective mini-superspace action. In the case of the three-sphere spatial topology, it has been difficult to extend the effective semi-classical description in terms of proper time and spatial three-volume to include genuine spatial coordinates, partially because of the background independence inherent in the model. However, if the spatial topology is that of a three-torus, it is possible to define a number of new observables that might serve as spatial coordinates as well as new observables related to the winding numbers of the three-dimensional torus. The present paper outlines how to define the observables, and how they can be used in numerical simulations of the model.
[*Keywords:*]{} Causal Dynamical Triangulations; Quantum Gravity
Introduction
============
The model of Causal Dynamical Triangulations (CDT) in four dimensions was originally formulated for systems where the spatial topology of the Universe was assumed to be spherical ($S^3$). In most cases the (Euclidean) proper time was assumed to be periodic with some period $T$. The spherical topology of the spatial part of the Universe gives a number of advantages, among which the main one is its relative simplicity. Unfortunately it also has disadvantages. In the original model the path integral includes a summation over all spatial simplicial geometries corresponding to abstract triangulations of $S^3$. This background independence makes it almost impossible to define reference points, except in the time direction. Another problem is caused by the numerical algorithm used in the computer simulations, which made the most interesting range in the coupling constants, i.e., the one where the phase transition lines meet, practically inaccessible. These two deficiencies may be overcome using a different choice of the spatial topology, namely the toroidal topology ($T^3$). In this case, the path integral defining the model will include a summation over abstract triangulations of $T^3$.
CDT with a toroidal spatial topology was shown to have a phase structure similar to that observed when the spatial topology was spherical [@torus1]. We have a system with four distinct phases, where the phase transition lines are approximately the same as in the spherical case[^1]. The most interesting range in the coupling constants space is now, surprisingly, fully accessible[^2] and shows that the phase structure is more complicated than that conjectured earlier. Instead of a quadruple point[^3] we seem to observe two triple points, connected by a phase transition line.
A finite system with a toroidal $T^3$ geometry can be viewed as an infinite system, where a finite elementary cell is periodically repeated infinitely many times in three directions. The resulting copies of the elementary cell may be numbered by the winding numbers. The boundary of the elementary cell is not uniquely defined. However, as we will show below, it is possible to introduce additional constraints that can make such a definition unique.
In this article we will discuss the possibility of using the set of boundaries as a reference frame that allows us to define a set of pseudo-Cartesian coordinates in the elementary cell. The spatial volume distribution associated with these coordinates can be interpreted as a distribution of $\sqrt{g(x,y,z,t)}$, which potentially permits measuring the effective action parametrized not only by a time variable but also by spatial variables. We will also define a set of new observables related to the topologically closed geodesic loops with non-trivial winding numbers.
Toroidal topology
=================
Details of a formulation of the CDT model were discussed earlier in a number of articles (for a review see e.g. [@report]). Let us mention here a few essential points. The basic idea is to consider the analogue of the Feynman path integral for the amplitude between two spatial states with initial and final three-geometries. It is assumed that trajectories satisfy a condition of [*causality*]{}, which means that the considered spacetimes are globally hyperbolic (permitting a global time foliation) and that the spatial topology is fixed on all leaves of the foliation. We use the Regge-type discretization of the spacetime [@regge]. The spacetime is constructed from elementary building blocks – four-dimensional simplices – with a unique length of spatial edges and a unique length of time edges. Each vertex in the system has a uniquely defined integer time parameter. As a consequence, we have two types of four-simplices: the $\{4,1\}$-simplices (with four vertices at time $t$ and one at $t\pm 1$) and $\{3,2\}$-simplices (with three vertices at time $t$ and two at $t\pm 1$). The simplices are glued together along three-dimensional [*tetrahedral faces*]{} to form a [*simplicial manifold*]{} with additional regularity constraints imposed (all simplices and sub-simplices with a particular set of vertex labels appear at most once). The existence of a global foliation means that each configuration can be analytically continued between the Lorentzian and Euclidean geometry. The Wick rotation can be interpreted as analytic continuation of the length of time links. In the Euclidean formulation the memory of the time orientation is preserved. In most cases studied the systems are assumed to be periodic in the (Euclidean) time, which means that we do not need to specify initial and final spatial geometric configurations.
For every configuration of the system we may define a dual lattice, where each simplex becomes a dual vertex and each face becomes a dual link, etc. On a dual lattice, from each vertex emerge exactly five links, corresponding to exactly five neighbors of a simplex on a direct lattice. For simplicity, we will assume that all links on a dual lattice have the same length. The basic observable to be used will be the length of a geodesic line between two simplices, i.e., the minimal number of steps (links on the dual lattice) necessary to connect the two simplices. The geodesic line is usually not unique, but the minimal distance between simplices is always well defined.
A spacetime trajectory $\cal{T}$ appearing in the path integral is weighted by the exponential of (minus) the Hilbert-Einstein action, which in Euclidean formulation becomes real and can be interpreted as a probability $${\cal{P}}({\cal T}) \propto \ e^{-S_{{{\rm H\! -\!E}}}({\cal T})}.$$ For a system with a finite number of simplices the action $S_{{{\rm H\! -\!E}}}({\cal T})$ takes a particularly simple form[^4] $$S_{{{\rm H\! -\!E}}}({\cal T}) = -(K_0+6\Delta) N_0 + K_4 \left( N^{\{4,1\}}+ N^{\{3,2\}}\right)+\Delta N^{\{4,1\}}.
\label{Sdisc}$$ In (\[Sdisc\]) the global numbers $N_0$, $N^{\{4,1\}}$ and $N^{\{3,2\}}$ denote correspondingly the number of vertices and the numbers of simplices of each of the two types in a triangulation ${\cal T}$. The dimensionless coupling constants are $K_0$ – related to the inverse of the gravitational constant, the cosmological constant $K_4$ and $\Delta$ – a function of the ratio between the time and spatial length of edges. Typically in a configuration $N_0 \propto
N_4= N^{\{4,1\}}+ N^{\{3,2\}}$. Different triangulations correspond in general to different piecewise linear geometries, and the effective number of triangulations parametrized by the same set of global numbers $N^{\{4,1\}}$ and $N^{\{3,2\}}$ at $K_0,~\Delta$ (i.e., with the same action) grows in the leading order as $${\cal{N}}(N_4;K_0,\Delta)\approx e^{K_4^{crit}(K_0,\Delta) N_4}.$$ As a consequence, the amplitude is defined only for $K_4 > K_4^{crit}(K_0,\Delta)$ and the limit $K_4 \to K_4^{crit}(K_0,\Delta)$ is the large-volume limit where the average number of simplices becomes large and where we may try to define a continuum limit. One can define similar models in 1+1 dimensions and 2+1 dimensions. Only in 1+1 dimensions can the model be solved analytically [@two-d]. In 2+1 dimensions there exist partial analytic results [@three-d], but to achieve a reliable understanding of the phase structure one has to rely on Monte Carlo simulations. In 3+1 dimensions Monte Carlo simulations are the only tool available [@four-d]. In all the simulations of a 3+1 system we use a set of 7 local [*moves*]{}, which preserve topology and foliation and which are ergodic in the class of triangulations we use (see [@report] for details). The Monte Carlo evolution is performed at a given set of bare couplings $K_0$ and $\Delta$. The limit $K_4 \to K_4^{crit}$ is studied by considering a growing sequence of systems with volumes $\bar{N}^{\{4,1\}}$, where the volume $N^{\{4,1\}}$ is forced to fluctuate around $\bar{N}^{\{4,1\}}$. The initial configuration with a prescribed spatial topology $\Sigma$ and the time extent $T$ fixes the topology of the studied system to be $\Sigma\times T^1$. The computer program works for arbitrary spatial topology $\Sigma$ and arbitrary $T$, so the correct choice of the initial configuration with the desired spatial topology $\Sigma$ is a very important element of each simulation, although different choices with the same topology give equivalent results.
The choice of an initial toroidal spatial geometry $\Sigma = T^3$ was discussed in our earlier paper [@torus2]. The initial configuration used to start a Monte Carlo simulation is not a minimal configuration (in the sense discussed in [@torus2]), but it is a very convenient choice from the point of view of the present article. The configuration is based on a triangulation of a four-dimensional hypercube [@cube]. The topological hypercube is divided into 16 four-simplices, out of which 10 are of the $\{4,1\}$ type and 6 of the $\{3,2\}$ type. To build a configuration with a $T^3\times T^1$ topology, one needs a number of hypercubes that is even and greater or equal to four. The last restriction comes from the manifold conditions: the two vertices of a link must be different. The smallest such configuration, assuming that the time period is $T=4$, has $N_4=16\cdot 4^4=4096$ simplices. If $\Sigma$ has the topology of $S^3$ one can use a much smaller starting configuration.
A system with $T^3$ spatial topology can be viewed as an infinite system, where a finite size [*elementary cell*]{} is periodically repeated in all spatial directions (for periodic b.c. this is also the case in the time direction). The starting configuration described above corresponds to a system composed of periodically repeated triangulated four-cubes with $N_4$ simplices each. The definition of an elementary cell is not unique. We may additionally request that the boundary between the neighboring cells has a minimal three-volume. This condition, for a starting configuration, does not lead to a unique choice: in fact, in every spatial direction we may choose the [*initial*]{} position of a boundary in four equivalent ways, which translates into $4^3$ equivalent spatial boundaries. This is a result of the relatively high symmetry of the initial configuration, which is invariant under time and spatial shifts by one unit. The exact shape of each boundary may be locally modified in such a way that it remains simply connected. This, in general, changes the three-volume of the boundary. To control the position of boundaries, we introduce in the coding of the geometry an additional information for each interface between neighboring simplices (i.e., for each dual link). In the four-dimensional case each simplex has five neighbors, as explained above. For each dual link we introduce the integer-valued spatial vector $\vec{v}$, with entries having values $\pm 1,~0$ in each spatial direction. Value 0 corresponds to the case where both the simplex and a particular neighbor are in the same elementary cell. Values $\pm 1$ mean that crossing the interface we enter the neighboring elementary cell in the positive or the negative direction. For the initial configuration choice we assign values to the vector field $\vec{v}$ for all interfaces between neighboring simplices. In any given configuration, we may form a sum of vector fields along any loop joining the simplices on a dual lattice. For a trivial closed loop the sum must be a zero vector. For a non-trivial closed loop (closed by periodic b.c.) the sum gives topological information about the loop’s winding number.
In the numerical simulations the standard algorithm is using a finite set of local [*moves*]{}. Each move affects only a finite part of the configuration (i.e., of the triangulation), keeping the rest unchanged. Since Hilbert-Einstein action (\[Sdisc\]) does not depend on the position of the boundaries, the decision to accept (or reject) the move does not depend on a position of the boundaries. The position of the boundaries will however play an important role in the construction proposed in this paper. Therefore, before the move is performed we check if the boundaries between elementary cells pass through the affected region of the configuration. If this is not the case, the move is performed using the standard Monte Carlo algorithm. If, however, a boundary between two cells crosses the part of the triangulation where the geometry of connections between simplices is to be changed, then we modify locally the position of the boundary. The modification is done in such a way that the boundary remains connected, but is deformed so as to lay wholly outside of the region of the triangulation that is going to be affected by the move. Such a modification can always be done and does not change the action, but in general it will increase the size of the boundary. The move can now be performed in a standard way. After the move, we check if a simple local modification of the boundary can reduce its size (its three-volume). If this is the case, the modification of the position of the boundary is made. From time to time,we perform an additional check, independent of the moves, whether a local modification of any part of the boundaries can minimize their volumes. If so, then such a modification is always accepted.
All measurements described in this article were performed for the toroidal spatial topology in the de Sitter phase (the so-called C phase) at a special point in the parameter space $K_0=2.2$ and $\Delta=0.6$ for systems with $T=4$ and a sequence of volumes $N^{\{4,1\}}$. The same point in the parameter space was earlier analyzed in simulations of systems where the configurations had spherical spatial topology [@four-d], as well as in systems with configurations of toroidal spatial topology [@torus2].
Pseudo-Cartesian coordinates
============================
A given set of boundaries can be used to define what we will denote as the [*pseudo-Cartesian coordinates*]{}. The procedure is as follows:
- We start from a boundary[^5], say, orthogonal to the direction ${\bf x}$, and we mark all simplices adjacent to the boundary in the direction we define to be [*positive*]{} as having the coordinate ${\bf x} = 1$.
- We move (on the dual lattice) in the positive direction to the second layer of simplices at a unit distance from the first layer. We mark these simplices as having a coordinate ${\bf x}=2$.
- We continue the same process until all simplices in the system are marked, and a maximal extent in the $x$ direction is reached.
- The same procedure can be started from the layer of simplices adjacent to a boundary in the [*negative*]{} direction. The simplices in that layer are marked as having a coordinate ${\bf x'}=1$.
- We continue the process as before.
- This way each simplex is assigned the values of the coordinates ${\bf x}$ and ${\bf x'}$.
- Exactly the same method can be used to define the coordinates ${\bf y}$, ${\bf y'}$, ${\bf z}$ and ${\bf z'}$.
[For a (two-dimensional) visualization of the procedure please refer to Figure \[fig:visualize\].]{}
One should note that although each three-dimensional boundary is simply connected, this does not need to be the case for three-dimensional surfaces separating ${\bf x}$ and ${\bf x} +1$ layers. The set of numbers $\{{\bf x},~{\bf x'}\}$ represents the distance of a simplex to a boundary, i.e., the number of links on the dual lattice, in negative and positive directions.
The first question one may ask is if the definition of a boundary between elementary cells, as implemented by the minimization procedure, is unique. For the simple initial configuration described above this is definitely not the case. As already explained, in each spatial direction we may choose the initial position of a boundary between the copies of the elementary cell in four equivalent ways, giving rise to $4^3$ equivalent (minimal) boundaries. Since the updates of geometry do not “feel” the position of the boundaries, we can run a parallel simulation, where the evolution of geometry is exactly the same, but the initial choice of a position of a boundary is different. In this way, during the thermalization process, each simplex can be assigned its coordinates using the two different positions of a boundary. Comparing the two coordinates, say ${\bf x}$ and ${\bf \tilde{x}}$, we define the difference between the two alternative definitions by measuring the ratio $M$ of the number of simplices for which ${\bf x}={\bf \tilde{x}}$ to the total number of simplices. This quantity is initially zero. A value $M=1$ means that two definitions become equivalent, or in other words, that the two boundaries fully overlap. Analogous quantities can be defined in ${\bf y}$ and ${\bf z}$ directions. In the figure \[fig:merg\] we present the evolution of the parameter $M$ for three directions in a system with $N^{\{4,1\}}=$160k. The initial position of boundaries was chosen as the most distant permitted by the symmetry of the starting configuration. Similar experiments were repeated for other initial choices of boundaries and other system sizes. In all cases the result was the same, indicating that the algorithm used is powerful enough to find a global minimum of the boundary size in all directions. It is a non-trivial result, because naïvely one may expect the existence of a complicated landscape of local minima. This also means that we do not have to worry about the initial choice of the position of boundaries.
[![[The (two dimensional) visualization of a triangulation (colored triangles) with toroidal topology. The (smallest) boundary orthogonal to the ${\bf x}$ direction is plotted as a red solid line, and the boundary orthogonal to the other direction as a red dashed line (the red solid lines, as well as the red dashed lines, are identified). Different colors mark different ${\bf x}$ coordinates. All triangles of the same color and texture form single [*slices*]{} (see Section \[sec:4\] for description): for ${\bf x}= 1, 2, 3, 5$ one has only a single slice for each ${\bf x}$ coordinate, but for ${\bf x}=4$ one can distinguish three separate slices. All triangles, but the dark red one, belong to the [*trunk*]{}, and the dark red triangle belongs to the [*branch*]{} (see Section \[sec:4\] for description). Alternatively (see Section \[sec:5\]), one can treat the toroidal triangulation as an elementary cell which periodically repeats in each direction (blank triangles). For each triangle one can find (one or more) minimal loops with a nontrivial winding number: all triangles whose centers are marked by a solid zigzag arrow belong to the same $\{1,0\}$ loop (green arrow), and also to the same $\{-1,0\}$ loop (blue arrow), the length of these loops is $4$. One can construct similar loops for all other triangles and measure their length. One can also construct the minimal loops with other winding numbers in all directions.]{} []{data-label="fig:visualize"}](visualize.pdf "fig:"){width="11cm"}]{}
[![The example of the evolution in computer time of the boundary merging ratio $M$ in all three directions (${\bf x}$ â red line, ${\bf y}$ â green line, ${\bf z}$ â blue line) for a system with a volume $N^{\{4,1\}}=$160k. The two initial choices of the position of boundaries are the most distant in each direction.[]{data-label="fig:merg"}](d-160k.pdf "fig:"){width="12cm"}]{}
Since the considered systems are periodic in (Euclidean) time with a period $T$, each simplex can be assigned a coordinate ${\bf t}$. The layer with ${\bf t}=1$ is chosen as the set of $\{4,1\}$-simplices with four vertices at $t=1$. We follow the same prescription as before, for instance ${\bf t}=2$ is composed of a set of $\{3,2\}$-simplices at a unit distance from the ${\bf t}=1$ in the [*positive*]{} time direction. We continue until we reach the layer ${\bf t}=4T$ formed from $\{1,4\}$ simplices. We could define coordinates ${\bf t'}$ similarly as before, but for the time direction for each system we have a trivial relation ${\bf t}+{\bf t'}=4T+1$, resulting from the trivial periodicity by construction in the time direction.
In the spatial directions a similar relation is not satisfied and the distribution of values for, say, ${\bf x}$ and ${\bf x'}$ is non-trivial. Below, in the figure \[xxprim\], we present the probability distribution $P({\bf x},{\bf x'})$ to find a simplex with given values of coordinates ${\bf x}$ and ${\bf x'}$ in a system with $N^{\{4,1\}}=$160k. The distribution is constructed by averaging over 800 statistically independent configurations and summed over all simplices in the system.
[![The distribution $P({\bf x},{\bf x'})$ for a system with $N^{\{4,1\}}=$160k. []{data-label="xxprim"}](newxxprim.png "fig:"){width="12cm"}]{}
Distributions of this type contain interesting information about geometric properties of the system in spatial directions. We should remember that simplices with coordinates ${\bf x}=1$ and ${\bf x'}=1$ lie on a [*minimal*]{} boundary between elementary cells. Such a boundary separates regions where gravitational fluctuations produce volume concentrations. Qualitatively, in the small ${\bf x}$ and ${\bf x'}$ regions the volume of the system is suppressed. A special role is played by the distribution $p(L_x)$ of the quantity $L_x = {\bf x}+{\bf x'}$ (and similar quantities $L_y$ and $L_z$). Although for the initial configuration the shape of the elementary cell is symmetric with respect to the exchange of directions ${\bf x}$, ${\bf y}$ and ${\bf z}$, during the thermalization process the shape of the elementary cell may be deformed. In fact, we expect that the distributions $p(L_x)$, $p(L_y)$ and $p(L_z)$ should overlap, up to a finite shift in $L_i$. This is indeed the case. In the figure \[shifts\] we show the distributions $p({\bf x}+{\bf x'})$, $p({\bf y}+{\bf y'})$ and $p({\bf z}+{\bf z'})$ for systems with $N^{\{4,1\}}=80k$ and $N^{\{4,1\}}=$160k. In both cases a complete overlap is achieved by applying shifts of order one.
[![Distributions of $p({\bf x}+{\bf x'})$ (blue), $p({\bf y}+{\bf y'})$ (green) and $p({\bf z}+{\bf z'})$ (orange) for systems with $N^{\{4,1\}}=80k$ (left) and $N^{\{4,1\}}=$160k (right). []{data-label="shifts"}](xplusxprim80.pdf "fig:"){width="7cm"}]{} [![Distributions of $p({\bf x}+{\bf x'})$ (blue), $p({\bf y}+{\bf y'})$ (green) and $p({\bf z}+{\bf z'})$ (orange) for systems with $N^{\{4,1\}}=80k$ (left) and $N^{\{4,1\}}=$160k (right). []{data-label="shifts"}](xplusxprim160.pdf "fig:"){width="7cm"}]{}
Comparing the two plots we realize that the shape of distributions seems to be the same, up to a scaling, depending on the total volume. In the figure \[scaling\] we compare the two volumes ($N^{\{4,1\}}=$80k and 160k), applying a scaling factor $1/2^{1/4}$ to the distribution for a larger system. This agrees with the expected scaling, if we assume that the Hausdorff dimension in de Sitter phase is $d_H=4$.
[![The scaling of a distribution $p({\bf x}+{\bf x'})$ for two system sizes ($N^{\{4,1\}}=$80k and 160k, colored blue and orange, respectively). For the larger system the distribution is rescaled by a factor $1/2^{1/4}$.[]{data-label="scaling"}](scaling.pdf "fig:"){width="10cm"}]{}
Another important information about the shape of the volume distribution in spatial directions is hidden in the distribution $p({\bf x}-{\bf x'})$ of the difference between ${\bf x}$ and ${\bf x'}$. For a toroidal topology one expects this distribution to be approximately constant, as was already observed in [@torus2] for a similar distribution in time $t$. While the periodicity in time was exact, the period in the spatial directions, say the ${\bf x}$ direction, will vary, depending on $L_x = {\bf x}+{\bf x'}$. As a consequence, we break the spatial translational symmetry and force the system to have the smallest volume at the small ${\bf x}$ limit. In the central range of the plot, where ${\bf x}\approx {\bf x'}$ we expect the distributions to be approximately flat, constant in the infinite volume limit. Below, in the figure \[middle\], we show the amplified dependence of the volume distribution $P({\bf x},{\bf x'})$ as a function of the re-scaled variable ${\frac{1}{2}}({\bf x}-{\bf x'})/({\bf x}+{\bf x'})$ for a range of values of $15\leq {\bf x}+{\bf x'}\leq 30$ for a system with $N^{\{4,1\}}=$160k.
[![Central part of the distribution $P({\bf x},{\bf x'})$ as a function of the re-scaled variable ${\frac{1}{2}}({\bf x}-{\bf x'})/({\bf x}+{\bf x'})$. The curves correspond to the increasing values of ${\bf x}+{\bf x'}$ in a sequence of colors: blue, orange, green etc.[]{data-label="middle"}](middle.pdf "fig:"){width="10cm"}]{}
We see that the distributions are indeed approximately flat in the central range. The large volume limit can be extrapolated by comparing distributions of $p({\bf x}- {\bf x'})$ for systems with volumes 80k and 160k. We see that for a larger system the distribution gets wider (Figure \[middlescale\]).
[![The integrated distribution $p({\bf x}-{\bf x'})$ as a function of ${\bf x}-{\bf x'}$ for volumes $N^{\{4,1\}}=$80k (blue) and 160k (orange).[]{data-label="middlescale"}](middlescale.pdf "fig:"){width="10cm"}]{}
The fractal structure of equal ${\bf x}$ layers {#sec:4}
===============================================
As explained above, the constant ${\bf x}$ layer is by construction connected for ${\bf x} = 1$. We will study the geometric structure of layers with higher values of ${\bf x}$. To do this we define the concept of a [*slice*]{}. The idea is very similar to that used in 2d Euclidean Dynamical Triangulations. The construction is based on following the front of a diffusion wave on the dual lattice. We start at a randomly chosen simplex with spatial coordinate ${\bf x}$ and constrain the diffusion process to take place in the subset of simplices with spatial coordinate ${\bf \tilde x} \geq {\bf x}$, i.e., in the bounded part of the given triangulation lying in between the set of simplices with coordinate ${\bf x}-1$ and the boundary of the elementary cell. In each diffusion step we mark simplices we meet on the way. The marked simplices form a new limiting layer for the next step.
If the geometry of the manifold were trivial, in such a process we could reach all simplices in the bounded region of the configuration described above. The fractal nature of geometry means that, in general, only a part of the bounded region is reached. Completing the process we find a set of simplices with the same coordinate ${\bf x}$ as the initial simplex. The set of these simplices forms a [*slice*]{}. All simplices belonging to the slice can be joined by at least one path lying in the bounded region. Repeating the same process starting at a different simplex with a coordinate ${\bf x}$, we either end with the same slice or produce a different slice, disconnected from the previous one. The set of simplices reached from the set belonging to a common slice has a tree-like structure, where the slice plays a role of the root.
The procedure is performed repeatedly, assigning in this way a slice index to all simplices of the configuration:
- The first slice consists of all simplices with ${\bf x}=1$.
- In the layer with ${\bf x}=2$ we find all simplices that can be connected by a path that does not cross the elementary cell boundary and never goes below ${\bf x}=2$.
- We find all separate slices for ${\bf x}=2$.
- We repeat the same procedure for ${\bf x}=3$. In this case, we restrict the class of paths not to go below ${\bf x}=3$.
- We continue until all slices are found.
[For a (two-dimensional) visualization of the procedure please refer to Figure \[fig:visualize\].]{}
By construction, each slice (except the first one) has exactly one parent slice, and it may have a larger number of children (or no children at all). Following the sequence of connected slices with an increasing value of ${\bf x}$, we may either reach the boundary or end in a blind alley. In the first case we say that the sequence belongs to the [*trunk*]{}, in the second case it belongs to a [*branch*]{}. The structure looks like a tree, with the trunk connecting the lower and upper boundaries. The trunk may split into several outgrowths. The branches emerge from the trunk slices and, by definition, never reach the boundary of the elementary cell. We would like to interpret the branches as the effect of quantum fluctuations and the trunk as a semi-classical background.
Below we illustrate the properties of the trunk-branch construction for one particular well-thermalized configuration in the de Sitter phase. The configuration was obtained for a system with $K_0=2.2$, $\Delta=0.6$, $T=4$ and the total number of simplices $N_4=370~724$. At each value of the coordinate ${\bf x}$ we split the volume into the part belonging to the trunk and the part belonging to branches. In the figure \[tree\] we show the fraction (percent) of volume in the trunk, relative to the total volume at a coordinate ${\bf x}$, and the fraction of volume of the largest slice, relative to the trunk volume at the same coordinate ${\bf x}$. In the same plot (in red) we show the total volume distribution as a function of ${\bf x}$. The distribution is normalized to reach $100\%$ at its maximum. The distribution in the plot (as compared to that in the figure \[xxprim\]) can be viewed as a projection of volume on the ${\bf x}$ axis. In the plot all distributions are averaged over directions ${\bf x}$, ${\bf x'}$, ${\bf y}$, ${\bf y'}$, ${\bf z}$ and ${\bf z'}$.
[![The fraction of the trunk volume in the total volume (left) and of the largest slice volume in the trunk volume (right). The (normalized) total volume distribution is drawn in red.[]{data-label="tree"}](trunk.pdf "fig:"){width="7cm"}]{} [![The fraction of the trunk volume in the total volume (left) and of the largest slice volume in the trunk volume (right). The (normalized) total volume distribution is drawn in red.[]{data-label="tree"}](largeintrunk.pdf "fig:"){width="7cm"}]{}
As can be seen, for a configuration in the de Sitter phase, the trunk contains the biggest part of volume and the largest slice captures almost all trunk volume up to the value of ${\bf x}$ where the volume is maximal (recall that by construction the volume as a function of ${\bf x}$ is small near the boundaries).
In the next plot, figure \[branches\], we show the average number of branches at a distance ${\bf x}$ and the average volume per branch. As can be seen, the number of branch slices grows together with volume, but the average volume per branch slice is relatively small. The maximal length of a branch, defined as a number of steps between the consecutive slices along the branch necessary to reach the trunk slice from a branch slice, is six, which means that branches are rather short.
[![The number of branches at a distance ${\bf x}$ (left) and the average branch volume (right). []{data-label="branches"}](branches.pdf "fig:"){width="7cm"}]{} [![The number of branches at a distance ${\bf x}$ (left) and the average branch volume (right). []{data-label="branches"}](branch_volume.pdf "fig:"){width="7cm"}]{}
The tree structure representing the branching of slices with the increasing value of a coordinate ${\bf x}$ is presented in the figure \[tree1\]. For clarity the plot contains only the slices belonging to the trunk. The volume of slices is shown as the horizontal length of the line.
[![The tree structure of the branching for the increasing value of a coordinate ${\bf x}$. For clarity each slice is represented as a line with the length proportional to its volume. The red lines connect the centers of the consecutive slices.[]{data-label="tree1"}](tree.pdf "fig:"){width="14cm"}]{}
Loops with a non-trivial winding number {#sec:5}
=======================================
In the former section we analyzed the fractal structure of an elementary cell, parametrized by what we denoted as pseudo-Cartesian coordinates. Using the same elementary cell and its periodic extensions to neighboring cells, we will now introduce a set of new topological observables, which measure the geodesic distance between a simplex and its copy in the neighboring cells in different spatial directions. Like before, the measurement is performed by following paths defined by the front of a diffusion wave, starting from a given simplex, but in this case we consider the torus as an infinite system where simplices reached after $r$ diffusion steps are labeled by the (unique) index in the elementary cell and also by the number of times a path crossed the boundaries. If one finds a simplex with the same cell index and nontrivial number of crossings, say, $\{m_1,~m_2,~m_3,~m_4\}$, it means that there exists at least one topologically closed geodesic line characterized by these winding numbers, namely the shortest such path[^6]. In general there are many paths with the same length, but for a particular simplex and particular values $\{m_1,~m_2,~m_3,~m_4\}$ there is always the shortest distance, characterizing these two copies of a simplex. In a $4D$ system the number of elementary cells at a large distance $R$ is expected to grow as $R^3$. As a consequence, measuring the complete distribution of paths up to some length $R$ is computationally very time-consuming, therefore we decided to perform measurements for a single well-thermalized configuration with $N^{\{4,1\}}=$160k (the total number of simplices in this configuration is $N_4 = 370~724$) and the time periodicity $T=4$ (in fact this is the same configuration we used in the preceding section). For this configuration we measured loops in all spatial and time directions, restricting the length to be below 55 (in this way we could measure the distribution of loop geodesics to the nearest copies in all directions and additionally some geodesics with more complicated winding characteristics). Although the analysis is based only on one configuration, we expect that distributions will self-average to produce a reasonable estimate for a whole ensemble.
We expect the distributions of lengths of all loops connecting the neighboring cells in $x$, $y$ and $z$ directions to be approximately the same, up to a possible small shift in the length $r$. This is indeed what is observed. The figure \[wind\] shows the length distributions of the $\{1,~0,~0,~0\}$, $\{0,~1,~0,~0\}$ and $\{0,~0,~1,~0\}$ loops superimposed using a shift of order smaller than 1. The match is not perfect, but we should remember that we are using just a single configuration. The need of making small finite shifts reflects the fact that during the thermalization process the shape of the elementary cell is deformed from the regular symmetric shape it had in the initial hypercube.
Comparing the loop distance in two different directions (Figure \[wind\]), we find that not only is the shape of the distributions similar. In fact loop distances for [*all simplices*]{} are highly correlated, which can be seen in the figure \[loop13\], which presents the correlation between the loop distance in the $\{1,~0,~0,~0\}$ and $\{0,~0,~1,~0\}$ directions.
[![Distributions of loop distances for loops with winding numbers $\{1,~0,~0,~0\}$ (blue), $\{0,~1,~0,~0\}$ (orange) and $\{0,~0,~1,~0\}$ (green) shifted in $r$ by a shift of order 1.[]{data-label="wind"}](wind.pdf "fig:"){width="10cm"}]{}
[![Correlation between loop distances for loops with winding numbers $\{1,~0,~0,~0\}$ and $\{0,~0,~1,~0\}$.[]{data-label="loop13"}](newloop13.png "fig:"){width="10cm"}]{}
For all simplices in the configuration we assigned a set of numbers measuring distances to their copies in the neighboring cells. These numbers contain interesting information about the internal geometry of the manifold.
- In each direction we find a finite number of loops with the minimal length $r_{min}$. The minimal loops follow the deepest [*valleys*]{} being surrounded by [*mountains*]{} which we can view as large volume fluctuations. In some sense, the minimal loops are dual to the minimal boundaries discussed in previous sections.
- The simplices located on the [*mountains*]{} (i.e., inside the large volume fluctuations) are characterized by longer loop distances to the neighboring cells. Given a simplex, we can compare its loop distance in each direction with the loop distances of its five neighbors. For all simplices with the same loop distance $r$, we find that the neighboring simplices are characterized by loop distances in the range $r$, $r\pm 1$ and $r\pm 2$.
- Only for the few shortest loops can we follow a simple path connecting the simplex to its copy that would go through a sequence of neighboring simplices characterized by the [*same*]{} value of the loop distance $r$.
- For longer loops all paths to a copy pass through fragments of loops with smaller loop distances.
- We deduce that the difference between the loop distance $r$ for a particular simplex and the minimal distance $r_{min}$ indicates how far a given simplex is from the minimal loop.
Finally, we will compare the distribution of loop distances for simplices in the fundamental cell in, say, the $\{0,~0,~1,~0\}$ direction to the distribution of the quantity $L_z={\bf z}+{\bf z'}$ discussed earlier. We recall that this quantity is the sum of the distances from a simplex to the two cell boundaries [*orthogonal*]{} to the ${\bf z}$ direction. We find that the two distributions are highly correlated. An example of this correlation can be seen on the contour plot shown in the figure \[zvs001\].
[![Correlation of a distribution of $L_z$ (horizontal axis) with a loop distance in $\{0,~0,~1,~0\}$ direction.[]{data-label="zvs001"}](newzvs001.png "fig:"){width="10cm"}]{}
Loop distances in other directions
==================================
The universality of the loop distance distribution can be extended to include loops with higher non-trivial winding numbers. The interpretation is that the blob-like structure (valleys and mountains) reflects the fractal structure of the fluctuations of geometry in the model and therefore can be expected to be independent of the direction in which we measure the loop distance distribution. For different directions we expect different minimal loop lengths, and as a consequence of comparing distributions with different argument range we may have to adjust this range to obtain a proper overlap when we compare the distributions. In Figure \[collected\] we show the comparison of distributions for loop distances in directions $\{1,~0,~0,~0\}$ (blue), $\{1,~-1,~0,~0\}$ (red), $\{1,~-1,~1,~0\}$ (green) and $\{1,~1,~1,~0\}$ (orange). The last one is seen only as a fragment of a distribution, as it requires a shift of 15 units, and is not contained fully in the region $R<55$ we analyzed. The universality of the distributions, independent of directions, strongly suggests that the distribution of volume fluctuations is spherically symmetric. At the same time, the difference in the minimal loop distance in different directions most likely reflects that the shape of the elementary cell of our thermalized configuration is non-trivial.
[![Distributions of (shifted) loop distances in directions $\{1,~0,~0,~0\}$ (blue), $\{1,~-1,~0,~0\}$ (red), $\{1,~-1,~1,~0\}$ (green) and $\{1,~1,~1,~0\}$ (orange) showing the universal blob structure.[]{data-label="collected"}](collected.pdf "fig:"){width="12cm"}]{}
The thermalized configuration discussed here has the four-dimensional topology of $T^4$. In the time direction there is a foliation, which is absent in spatial directions. Although the periodicity in the time direction is trivial, this does not necessarily mean that the distribution of the loop distances in the time direction $\{0,~0,~0,~1\}$ will be a Dirac delta function. In fact, due to the large spatial volume fluctuations, it has a shape very similar to that in spatial directions. Below, in the figure \[loopt\], we show the distribution of the loop distances in the time direction ($\{0,~0,~0,~1\}$) (blue) as compared to a shifted and rescaled distribution in the $\{1,~0,~0,~0\}$ direction (orange). The scaling factor used was 1.19.
This result indicates that although we have a foliation in time, the information encoded in the loop distance in spatial and time directions is very similar. The average length of the loop distance in the time direction is expected to depend on the time period $T$.
[![The loop distance distribution in the time direction, compared to that in the ${\bf x}$ direction.[]{data-label="loopt"}](loopt.pdf "fig:"){width="12cm"}]{}
Conclusion
==========
CDT is a non-perturbative quantum gravity model. It is a model with a build-in cut-off, the length $a$ of the links in the triangulations. In order to prove that it is an interesting model of quantum gravity one has to be able to remove the cut-off in a controlled way and show that the resulting theory satisfies the criteria suitable for a theory of quantum gravity[^7]. Two such criteria often mentioned are background independence and diffeomorphism invariance. CDT partially satisfies these criteria already at the regularized level when the cut-off $a$ is non-zero. It is background independent in the sense that it is defined as a sum over a certain class of piecewise linear geometries, and each geometry is given the same weight, except for the weight associated with the Hilbert-Einstein action. However, more remarkable is the fact that the path integral is carried out explicitly as a sum over geometries. The analogy in a gauge theory would be performing the path integral directly over the set of gauge equivalent field configurations. This possibility comes about because we regularize our path integral by using a certain class of piecewise linear geometries, and, as emphasized by Regge [@regge], one does not need coordinates in order to describe the geometry of piecewise linear geometries. In this sense, not having coordinates is very good and in some sense consistent with a central point in general relativity, where physics is invariant under coordinate transformations. However, coordinates can be very useful, in particular the [*right*]{} coordinates, for the description of a certain physical phenomenon. In [@four-d] we showed that using a proper-time coordinate the “quantum universe” observed in the computer simulations where space had the topology of $S^3$ could be described by a semi-classical effective action. However, we also encountered the problem that it was difficult to extend the effective action to include space coordinates. Our representation was simply too “diffeomorphism invariant”. If the topology of space is that of $T^3$, the situation is somewhat better. As we have described above, one has the possibility to use the periodic nature of $T^3$ to construct a kind of pseudo-Cartesian spatial coordinate system. Its status is however somewhat different from the way a coordinate system usually appears in a quantum gravity calculation where the geometry is described in terms of $g_{\mu \nu}(x,y,z,t)$, with $x,y,z,t$ referring to a given coordinate system, the same for any $g_{\mu \nu}(x,y,z,t)$ which appear in the path integral. In our case, we are in principle adjusting our coordinate system to the geometry. The usefulness of such a construction will depend on the nature of the quantum system. If the quantum system is dominated by one kind of configurations, on top of which there are “not-too-wild” quantum fluctuations, this construction can be very useful, in particular if the dominating configuration is not a simple classical or semiclassical configuration. This is seemingly the situation we meet in the de Sitter phase of our quantum gravity model. Certain aspects of the dominating configurations have a semiclassical interpretation in the sense that their features can be described by a suitable time coordinate and an [*effective*]{} action depending on the time coordinate. But this action is far from any $\hbar$ expansion used in the path integral and thus far from an expansion related to solutions of the classical action. For such an [*effective*]{} action it is [*a priori*]{} not clear how to choose a good coordinate system. For this reason we have chosen the “dynamical” approach described above, where the fundamental cell of $T^3$ is chosen to be as regular as possible for a given configuration. In terms of the “pseudo-Cartesian” coordinates associated with the chosen cell, we observe an interesting spatial structure: a “trunk” of connected four-simplices for each spatial direction, decorated by quantum outgrowths. This suggests a ”semiclassical” interpretation even of a spatial section of the four-dimensional universe, which is not so different from the situation in two-dimensional Euclidean quantum gravity, where a typical configuration, when sliced appropriately (choosing the appropriate coordinates for the configuration in question), can be viewed as a main universe dressed with quantum outgrowths (baby universes) [@kawai]. In the case of two-dimensional Euclidean quantum gravity, this slicing and its associated fractal structure determines most aspects of two-dimensional Euclidean quantum gravity. Our preliminary analysis (only based on one large configuration) suggests that the fractal structure of the three-dimensional configurations is less fractal (i.e., more “semiclassical”) than in the two-dimensional case, in the sense that there are fewer outgrowths, and they carry less volume than in two-dimensional quantum gravity. Clearly, the precise determination of the fractal structure of the three-dimensional quantum space, such as the determination of critical exponents associated with this structure, requires considerably longer Monte Carlo simulations. However, the less fractal structure also increases the hope that in this way one can obtain a more complete semiclassical effective action expressed in terms of the proper time and these new spatial coordinates.
The use of toroidal topology also allowed us to use loops with non-trivial winding numbers to extract information about the fractal structure of our spatial geometries. This has been done successfully in two-dimensional Euclidean quantum gravity [@ab], and also here in the four-dimensional case it provides us with a lot of information. In some sense, the shortest non-contractible loops can be considered as dual to the minimal cell boundaries and, like in the two-dimensional case, the shortest loops lie in narrow “valleys”, where the surrounding “hills” look like (topologically) spherical outgrowths. Again, further computer simulations should allow one to determine the fractal structure related to “valleys” and “hills”, much in the spirit of two-dimensional Euclidean quantum gravity.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
JA wishes to acknowledge support from the Danish Research Council grant “Quantum Geometry”. JGS wishes to acknowledge support of the grant UMO-2016/23/D/ST2/00289 from the National Science Centre, Poland. ZD acknowledges a support of the PhD project “Kartezjusz”. AG acknowledges support by the National Science Centre, Poland under grant 2015/17/D/ST2/03479.
[99]{}
J. Ambjorn, J. Gizbert-Studnicki, A. Görlich, J. Jurkiewicz, D. Németh, [*The phase structure of Causal Dynamical Triangulations with toroidal spatial topology*]{}, JHEP 1806 (2018) 111, arXiv:1802.10434\[hp-th\];
J. Ambjorn, A. Görlich, J. Jurkiewicz, R.Loll, [*Nonperturbative Quantum Gravity*]{}, Phys.Rept. 519 (2012) 127-210, arXiv:1203.3591\[hep-th\];
T. Regge, [*General relativity without coordinates,*]{} Nuovo Cim. [**19**]{} (1961) 558.
J. Ambjorn and R. Loll, [*Nonperturbative Lorentzian quantum gravity, causality and topology change,*]{} Nucl. Phys. B [**536**]{} (1998) 407, arXiv: \[hep-th/9805108\].\
J. Ambjorn, R. Loll, W. Westra and S. Zohren, [*Putting a cap on causality violations in CDT,*]{} JHEP [**0712**]{} (2007) 017, arXiv: \[arXiv:0709.2784 \[gr-qc\]\].\
J. Ambjorn, R. Loll, Y. Watabiki, W. Westra and S. Zohren, [*A String Field Theory based on Causal Dynamical Triangulations,*]{} JHEP [**0805**]{} (2008) 032, arXiv: \[arXiv:0802.0719 \[hep-th\]\].
J. Ambjorn, J. Jurkiewicz, R. Loll and G. Vernizzi, [*Lorentzian 3-D gravity with wormholes via matrix models,*]{} JHEP [**0109**]{} (2001) 022, arXiv: \[hep-th/0106082\]; [*3-D Lorentzian quantum gravity from the asymmetric ABAB matrix model,*]{}, Acta Phys. Polon. B [**34**]{} (2003) 4667, arXiv: \[hep-th/0311072\].\
J. Ambjorn, J. Jurkiewicz and R. Loll, [*Renormalization of 3-d quantum gravity from matrix models,*]{} Phys. Lett. B [**581**]{} (2004) 255, arXiv: \[hep-th/0307263\].
J. Ambjorn, J. Jurkiewicz and R. Loll, [*Emergence of a 4-D world from causal quantum gravity,*]{} Phys. Rev. Lett. [**93**]{} (2004) 131301, arXiv: \[hep-th/0404156\]; [*Reconstructing the universe,*]{} Phys. Rev. D [**72**]{} (2005) 064014, arXiv: \[hep-th/0505154\].\
J. Ambjorn, A. Gorlich, J. Jurkiewicz and R. Loll, [*Planckian Birth of the Quantum de Sitter Universe,*]{} Phys. Rev. Lett. [**100**]{} (2008) 091304, arXiv: \[arXiv:0712.2485 \[hep-th\]\]; Phys. Rev. D [**78**]{} (2008) 063544, arXiv: \[arXiv:0807.4481 \[hep-th\]\]. J. Ambjorn, Z. Drogosz, J. Gizbert-Studnicki, A. Görlich, J. Jurkiewicz, D. Németh, [*Impact of topology in causal dynamical triangulations quantum gravity*]{}, Phys.Rev. D94 (2016) 044010, arXiv:1604.08786\[hep-th\];\
J. Ambjorn, J. Gizbert-Studnicki, A. Görlich, K. Grosvenor, J. Jurkiewicz, [*Four-dimensional CDT with toroidal topology*]{}, Nucl.Phys. B922 (2017) 226-246, arXiv:1705.07653\[hep-th\];
P.S. Mara. [*Triangulations for the Cube*]{}, Journal of Combinatorial Theory (A)20:170-177, 1976;
J. Ambjorn, A. Görlich, J. Jurkiewicz, A. Kreienbuehl and R. Loll, [*Renormalization Group Flow in CDT,*]{} Class. Quant. Grav. [**31**]{} (2014) 165003, arXiv:1405.4585 \[hep-th\]. H. Kawai, N. Kawamoto, T. Mogami and Y. Watabiki, [*Transfer matrix formalism for two-dimensional quantum gravity and fractal structures of space-time,*]{} Phys. Lett. B [**306**]{} (1993) 19, arXiv: \[hep-th/9302133\].
J. Ambjørn and T. Budd, [*The toroidal Hausdorff dimension of 2d Euclidean quantum gravity,*]{} Phys. Lett. B [**724**]{} (2013) 328, arXiv: \[arXiv:1305.3674 \[hep-th\]\]; [*Semi-classical Dynamical Triangulations,*]{}, Phys. Lett. B [**718**]{} (2012) 200, arXiv: 1209.6031 \[hep-th\]\].\
J. Ambjorn, J. Barkley and T. G. Budd, [*Roaming moduli space using dynamical triangulations,*]{} Nucl. Phys. B [**858**]{} (2012) 267, arXiv: 1110.4649 \[hep-th\]\].\
J. Ambjorn, J. Barkley, T. Budd and R. Loll, [*Baby Universes Revisited,*]{} Phys. Lett. B [**706**]{} (2011) 86, arXiv: 1110.3998 \[hep-th\].
[^1]: Some differences may be attributed to relatively large finite size effects.
[^2]: The detailed analysis of this range will be the subject of an independent publication.
[^3]: It should be emphasized that the existence of a quadruple point was only a conjecture in the spherical case since it was located in the region of coupling constant space that was inaccessible to computer simulations.
[^4]: For a piecewise linear four-dimensional geometry, defined by a four-dimensional triangulation, Regge [@regge] provided a simple geometric expression for the Hilbert-Einstein action, expressed in terms of link lengths and deficit angles of triangles in the triangulation. In our case, this expression simplifies further since our link lengths take only two values, corresponding to spacelike and timelike links. The end result is that the action can be expressed entirely in terms of the number of vertices $N_0$, the number of four-simplices $N^{\{4,1\}}$ and $N^{\{3,2\}}$, and the ratio between the length of spacelike and timelike links. See [@report] for details.
[^5]: The boundaries are labeled $x,y$ and $z$, based on their positions in the initial configuration, which is related to the hypercube.
[^6]: The “shortest” is meant in a graph-theoretical sense: we follow a link path (on the dual lattice) and the length is the number of links. This is not necessarily the shortest path if we consider our triangulation as a piecewise linear manifold. However, we do not expect this difference to be important when we discuss generic fractal properties, like the Hausdorff dimension of a generic triangulation in the limit of infinitely large triangulations. By an abuse of language we still call the shortest link path a geodesic.
[^7]: A discussion of how the CDT cut-off can in principle be removed while physics is kept constant can be found in [@rge].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
[**High-dimensional regular Reissner-Nordström black holes associated with linear electrodynamics**]{}
[Yu-Mei Wu${}^{1,}$[^1] and Yan-Gang Miao${}^{2,3,}$[^2]]{}\
${}^{1}$[*College of Arts and Sciences, Fuzhou Institute of Technology, Fuzhou 350506, China*]{}
${}^{2}$[*School of Physics, Nankai University, Tianjin 300071, China*]{}
${}^{3}$[*Bethe Center for Theoretical Physics and Institute of Physics, University of Bonn,\
Nussallee 12, 53115 Bonn, Germany*]{}
[**[Abstract]{}**]{}
Following the new interpretation of matter source, i.e. the energy-momentum tensor of anisotropic fluid is dealt with effectively as that of perfect fluid and linear (Maxwell) electromagnetic field, we obtain the regular high-dimensional Reissner-Nordström (Tangherlini-RN) solution by starting with the noncommutative geometry inspired Schwarzschild solution. Using the boundary conditions that connect the noncommutative Schwarzschild solution in the interior of the perfect fluid charged sphere to the Tangherlini-RN solution in the exterior of the sphere, we find that the interior structure can be reflected by the exterior parameter, the charge-to-mass ratio. Moreover, we investigate the stability of the boundary under mass perturbation and indicate that the new interpretation imposes a rigid restriction upon the charge-to-mass ratio. This restriction, in turn, permits a stable noncommutative black hole only in the 4-dimensional spacetime.
[**PACS Number(s)**]{}: 04.20.Cv, 04.40.Nr, 04.50.Gh
[**Keywords**]{}: Regular black hole in high dimensions, linear electrodynamics, stability
Introduction
============
The singularity puzzle appeared just after the general relativity was born, where the singularities of spacetime are most bewildering at the end of stars’ collapsing and at the beginning of universe. It was believed that the singularities were the result of high symmetry, for instance, the collapsing stars’ singularity due to the spherical symmetry. On the other hand, the Hawking-Penrose singularity theorem proved [@singularity; @theorem] that the spacetime where gravity is strong enough would result in singularities under the causality condition and energy condition regardless of the local non-uniformity. Though the theorem is fabulous and convincing as well, it might not be the final answer to the puzzle. First of all, quantum theories are indispensable for space at microscales where the singularity lies, and a complete quantum theory of gravity is still lacking which may depict a different picture. Second of all, though the causality condition must be obeyed, the ways to avoid singularities have been found in different energy conditions.
The singularity could be replaced [@sakharov; @gliner] by a de Sitter core when the matter with high density would make a phase transition into some false vacuum state in the late time of collapsing. One further advance was the first construction of a nonsingular black hole (regular black hole or black hole with singularities free) by Bardeen [@bardeen]. This model is asymptotically approaching a de Sitter phase at the origin and asymptotically flat at infinity, and its energy-momentum tensor satisfies the weak energy condition (WEC) rather than the strong energy condition (SEC). Since then a great deal of research has been carried out on this issue, among which one of the valuable attempts is the interpretation of matter source. That is to say, the source originates [@BNEI] from either anisotropic fluids or nonlinear magnetic monopoles in the Bardeen’s model. For those models [@dymnikova; @hayward; @1609.01629] based on anisotropic fluids, the noncommutative geometry inspired Schwarzschild black hole [@0510112; @0807.1939] is of particular interest, where the anisotropic fluid appears naturally when the Gaussian distribution is taken as the black hole mass density due to the noncommutativity of spacetime. In this way, its metric resembles that of the Schwarzschild black hole but has a regular center. As to nonsingularity realized by coupling gravitational field with nonlinear electrodynamic field, the solutions have been found [@1408.0306; @1709.09473] satisfying the WEC and behaving asymptotically as the Reissner-Nordström (RN) black hole. In addition, the other regular black hole solutions have also been obtained [@Frolov; @Balbinot; @Barrabes] in terms of boundary soldering of two spacetimes. Along this way, the de Sitter spacetime was connected [@1104.4790] with the RN spacetime through a charged spherical shell inside the RN inner horizon, and this junction technique was further developed [@1209.3567] to form a massive thin layer.
Recently, a new interpretation of matter source was suggested [@1706.03454] for constructing the regular RN black hole solution, where the linear electrodynamics instead of nonlinear one was adopted. To be specific, the regular solution can be interpreted as an exact solution of the Einstein equation coupled to linear electrodynamics if the components of the energy-momentum tensor satisfy the dominant energy condition (DEC). In other words, the energy-momentum tensor of anisotropic fluids can be dealt with effectively as that of the perfect fluid and linear electromagnetic field. As an application, the nonsingular RN black hole solution was constructed in the 4-dimensional spacetime [@1706.03454], where the singularity at the RN center was replaced by a perfect fluid charged sphere[^3] located inside the RN inner horizon when a fixed range of charge-to-mass ratio was taken.
Moreover, the high-dimensional spacetimes have particular interest to physicists due to some specific reasons:
- String theory [@polkin], the candidate to unify all fundamental interactions, is established in high-dimensional spacetimes.
- The AdS/CFT correspondence [@9905111] relates quantum gravity theories in the $n$-dimensional spacetime to gauge field theories in the $(n-1)$-dimensional spacetime, which is the most successful realization of the holographic principle.
- Large extra dimensions might provide [@0210296] a possibility to detect non-perturbative gravitational objects such as black holes and branes in TeV scale in the future colliders.
The combination of the new interpretation [@1706.03454] and high dimensions leads to our motivation, i.e., our idea is to extend this interpretation related to linear electrodynamics to high-dimensional spacetimes. It is of interest to study whether high dimensions impose specific constraints upon the charge-to-mass ratio for the formation of a black hole and to analyze the stability of the formed black hole from the hole’s shell that connects two spacetimes. The model we begin with is the noncommutative geometry inspired Schwarzschild black hole with the Gaussian source in high-dimensional spacetimes. The main reason to choose it as a sample is that the noncommutative black holes are a remaining candidate to be expected to test [@1801.05023] TeV-scale gravity at the LHC.
The present paper is organized as follows. In section 2, we decompose the energy-momentum tensor of a general high-dimensional metric of anisotropic fluids into that of the perfect fluid and linear electromagnetic field and derive the boundary conditions that relate the parameters of exterior solutions with the interior source distribution. In section 3, we construct the regular Tangherlini-RN solution in the exterior of the perfect fluid charged sphere by choosing the noncommutative geometry inspired Schwarzschild solution in the interior of the sphere, find out constraints on the charge-to-mass ratio under the hoop conjecture, and then discuss the stability of the boundary. Finally, we give a brief summary in section 4.
We adopt the following units throughout the paper: $c=1$ and $\mu_0=1/\epsilon_0=4\pi$, where $c$, $\mu_0$ and $\epsilon_0$ are the speed of light, the permeability of vacuum and the permittivity of vacuum, respectively.
General formulation
===================
General high-dimensional nonsingular metrics
--------------------------------------------
The most general static and spherically symmetric metric in $n$ dimensions $(n\geq4)$ reads $$\begin{aligned}
\mathrm{d}s^2=-f(r)\mathrm{d}t^2+\frac{1}{f(r)}\mathrm{d}r^2+r^2\,\mathrm{d}\Omega_{n-2}^2,
\label{metric}\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathrm{d}\Omega_{n-2}$ is the line element of an $(n-2)$-dimensional unit sphere. The nonsingularity requires that the invariants associated with the Riemann curvature tensor are regular everywhere. Under this metric, these invariants can be expressed as follows, $$\begin{aligned}
&R=-f''(r)-\frac{(n-2)f'(r)}{r}+\frac{n-2}{r^2}\left[(n-3)-(n-3)f(r)-rf'(r)\right], \notag \\
&R_{\mu\nu}R^{\mu\nu}=\frac{1}{2}\left[f''(r)+\frac{(n-2)f'(r)}{r}\right]^2+\frac{n-2}{r^4}\left[(n-3)-(n-3)f(r)-rf'(r)\right]^2, \notag \\
&R_{\mu\nu\gamma\delta}R^{\mu\nu\gamma\delta}=\left[f''(r)\right]^2+2(n-2)\frac{\left[f'(r)\right]^2}{r^2}+\frac{2(n-2)(n-3)}{r^4}\left[1-f(r)\right]^2.\label{scalars}\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, the energy-momentum tensor that depicts the matter source with the spherical symmetry can be written as $$T_\mu^\mu={\rm diag}(-\rho, p_r, \underbrace{p_\bot, p_\bot, \cdots, p_\bot}_{n-2}),
\label{EMT}$$ where $\rho$ is the density, $p_r$ the radial pressure, and $p_\bot$ the angular pressure. Such a source is usually regarded as an anisotropic fluid. By solving the Einstein equation, $$\begin{aligned}
G_{\mu \nu}=R_{\mu \nu}-\frac{1}{2} g_{\mu \nu}R=\kappa_n T_{\mu \nu},\end{aligned}$$ where $\kappa_n$ is Einstein’s constant in the $n$-dimensional spacetime, we obtain the components of the energy-momentum tensor, $$\begin{aligned}
\rho&=\frac{n-2}{2\kappa_n r^2}\left[(n-3)-(n-3)f(r)-r f'(r)\right], \label{rho} \\
p_r&=-\frac{n-2}{2\kappa_n r^2}\left[(n-3)-(n-3)f(r)-r f'(r)\right], \label{p_r} \\
p_\bot&=\frac{1}{2\kappa_n r^2}\left\{r^2f''(r)+(n-2)rf'(r)-(n-4)\left[(n-3)-(n-3)f(r)-rf'(r)\right]\right\},
\label{p_bot}\end{aligned}$$ and further find the relations between the components, $$\begin{aligned}
\rho&=-p_r, \label{rhop} \\
p_\bot&=-\rho -\frac{r\rho'}{n-2}=p_r +\frac{r p_r'}{n-2},\label{pbot}\end{aligned}$$ where a prime denotes the derivative with respect to $r$. We note that $\mathrm{({\romannumeral 1})}$ the components are regular everywhere due to the regularity of the metric, see eqs. (\[metric\]) and (\[scalars\]); $\mathrm{({\romannumeral 2})}$ $p_r\neq p_\bot$ (except at $r=0$), which gives [@1501.07044] the reason for the “anisotropic fluid" interpretation, and $\rho=-p_r\simeq -p_\bot$ near the origin, indicating that the source is exactly in a de Sitter vacuum state; $\mathrm{({\romannumeral 3})}$ $\rho>0$ and $\rho'\leq 0$, as most of the regular black hole models meet, lead to the satisfaction of WEC but usually local violation of SEC.[^4]
New interpretation of matter source associated with linear electrodynamics
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The energy-momentum tensor (eq. (\[EMT\])) that is compatible with the nonsingular metric (eqs. (\[metric\]) and (\[scalars\])) in a charged black hole model was usually interpreted [@1408.0306; @1709.09473] by nonlinear electromagnetic field. Nonetheless, it can also be obtained [@1706.03454] within the linear electrodynamic framework in the 4-dimensional spacetime based on the multicomponent fluid combination [@1501.07044]. The key point is the decomposition of eq. (\[EMT\]) into the energy-momentum tensor of the perfect fluid and Maxwell electromagnetic field. Under such a decomposition, the boundary of source forms, on which the density of the perfect fluid charged sphere vanishes, and thus it naturally connects the interior spacetime to the exterior one. Next we follow the procedure suggested in ref. [@1706.03454] and develop it to the high-dimensional case.
We begin with decomposing the energy-momentum tensor (eq. (\[EMT\])) into two parts, $$\begin{aligned}
T_{\mu\nu}=\tau_{\mu\nu}+\varepsilon_{\mu\nu}
\label{EMT2}\end{aligned}$$ where $\tau_{\mu\nu}$ is the energy-momentum tensor of the perfect fluid and $\varepsilon_{\mu\nu}$ the electromagnetic tensor. The two tensors can be written as follows under our specific units mentioned at the end of section 1, $$\begin{aligned}
\tau_{\mu\nu}&=(\rho_m+p)u_\mu u_\nu+p g_{\mu\nu},\\
\varepsilon_{\mu\nu}&=\frac{1}{4\pi}\left(F_{\mu\lambda}F_{\nu\sigma}g^{\lambda\sigma}-\frac{1}{4}g_{\mu\nu}F_{\lambda\sigma}F^{\lambda\sigma}\right),\end{aligned}$$ where $u_\mu$, $\rho_m$ and $p$ represent the velocity, density and isotropic pressure of the perfect fluid, respectively, and $F_{\mu\nu}$ is the electromagnetic field strength defined via the electromagnetic potential $A_\mu$, $$\begin{aligned}
F_{\mu\nu}=\nabla_\mu A_\nu-\nabla_\nu A_\mu.\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, the field strength satisfies the Maxwell equation, $$\begin{aligned}
\nabla^\mu F_{\mu\nu}=-4\pi J_\nu,
\label{ME}\end{aligned}$$ where $J_\mu$ is the current density defined with the electric charge density $\rho_e$ as follows, $$\begin{aligned}
J_\mu :=\rho_e u_\mu.\end{aligned}$$
For a comoving observer, the velocity takes a simpler form, $$\begin{aligned}
u_\mu=-\sqrt{f(r)}\delta^t_\mu,\end{aligned}$$ where $\delta$ is the Kronecker symbol, and $A_\mu$ takes the following form, $$\begin{aligned}
A=A_\mu \mathrm{d}x^\mu=-\phi(r)\mathrm{d}t.\end{aligned}$$ Namely, there exists only the electrostatic field $\phi(r)$ but no magnetic field. As a result, we obtain the nonvanishing components of $F_{\mu\nu}$ and $\varepsilon_{\mu\nu}$ as follows, $$\begin{aligned}
F_{10}&=-F_{01}=-\phi'(r)=E,\\
\varepsilon_{00}&=\frac{E^2f(r)}{8\pi},\qquad \varepsilon_{11}=-\frac{E^2}{8\pi f(r)}, \qquad \varepsilon_{ii}=\frac{E^2r^2}{8\pi}, \qquad i=2,3,\cdots, n,\end{aligned}$$ and further reduce the energy-momentum tensor of eq. (\[EMT2\]) to a concise form, $$\begin{aligned}
T_\mu^\mu={\rm diag}(-\rho_m-W, p-W, \underbrace{p+W, p+W, \cdots, p+W}_{n-2}),
\label{EMT3}\end{aligned}$$ where $W=E^2/(8\pi)$ is the energy density of the electrostatic field. This quantity is also called the effective energy-momentum tensor, i.e., a kind of effectively treated formulations from eq. (\[EMT\]).
Now the energy-momentum tensor presents two different formulations, one from the viewpoint of anisotropic fluid, see eq. (\[EMT\]), and the other from the viewpoint of perfect fluid and Maxwell electromagnetic field, see eq. (\[EMT3\]). By combining the two formulations, we establish the relation between the two different points of view, that is, the components of the energy-momentum tensor based on the latter viewpoint can be written in terms of that based on the former one, $$\begin{aligned}
& \rho_m=-p=\frac{1}{2}(\rho-p_\bot),\label{rhom}\\
& W=\frac{1}{2}(\rho+p_\bot).
\label{BC}\end{aligned}$$ Because the perfect fluid and the electromagnetic field satisfy the weak energy condition separately, we deduce $\rho-p_\bot\geq0$ and $\rho+p_\bot\geq0$. That is, the energy-momentum tensor (eq. (\[EMT\])) naturally meets the dominant energy condition (DEC).[^5] It is notable that the radius at $\rho=p_\bot$ marks the boundary of the perfect fluid charged sphere, since the density and pressure of the perfect fluid vanish there, cf. eq. (\[rhom\]). Therefore, under the new interpretation of matter source that was proposed in four dimensions [@1706.03454], we can obtain the general nonsingular metric eq. (\[metric\]) by solving the Einstein equation coupled to linear electrodynamics in $n$ dimensions, and then express the mass density, the isotropic pressure, and the energy density of the charged perfect fluid in terms of the metric function $f(r)$ as follows, $$\begin{aligned}
& \rho_m=-p=\frac{1}{4\kappa_n r^2}\left[2(n-3)^2-2(n-3)^2f(r)-(3n-8)r f'(r)-r^2 f''(r)\right],
\label{rho_m}\\
& W=\frac{1}{4\kappa_n r^2}\left[2(n-3)-2(n-3)f(r)+(n-4)r f'(r)+r^2 f''(r)\right].
\label{EME}\end{aligned}$$ Further, we give the charge through solving eq. (\[ME\]), $$\begin{aligned}
q(r)\equiv A_{n-2}\int_0^r \frac{\rho_e}{\sqrt{f(r)}}r^{n-2}\mathrm{d}r=A_{n-2}\frac{Er^{n-2}}{4\pi},
\label{charge}\end{aligned}$$ where $A_{n-2}$ stands for the volume of an $(n-2)$-dimensional unit sphere. In addition, we reduce the conservation equation $\nabla_\nu T^{\mu\nu}=0$ to $$\begin{aligned}
2p'+\frac{f'(r)}{f(r)}(\rho_m+p)=2\frac{E \rho_e}{\sqrt{f(r)}},\end{aligned}$$ or more explicitly to $p'=\frac{E \rho_e}{\sqrt{f(r)}}$ by considering $\rho_m+p=0$, manifesting that the gradient of pressure is balanced by the electrostatic force as pointed out in the 4-dimensional spacetime [@1706.03454].
Boundary conditions
-------------------
As mentioned above, we have $\rho_m(r_s)=-p(r_s)=0$ at the boundary $r=r_s$, where $r_s$ can be solved from eq. (\[rho\_m\]) for a specific distribution $f(r)$. The boundary connects the internal spacetime of the perfect fluid charged sphere to the external one, where the internal solution is the Schwarzschild’s with the Gaussian distribution of matter source and the external solution is the Tangherlini-RN form. For the convenience in the next section, we give the boundary conditions.
The Tangherlini-RN metric reads $$\begin{aligned}
\mathrm{d}s^2=-f_{RN}(r)\mathrm{d}t^2+\frac{1}{f_{RN}(r)}\mathrm{d}r^2+r^2\,\mathrm{d}\Omega_{n-2}^2,\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
f_{RN}(r)=1-\frac{2\kappa_n}{(n-2)A_{n-2}}\frac{M}{r^{n-3}}+\frac{4\pi \kappa_n}{(n-2)(n-3)A_{n-2}^2}\frac{Q^2}{r^{2(n-3)}},
\label{f_rn}\end{aligned}$$ where $M$ and $Q$, the total mass and charge, respectively, are determined by the matter inside the perfect fluid charged sphere. Specifically, two connecting conditions are required at the boundary $r_s$ in order to fix $M$ and $Q$, that is, both the metric function and the electric field need to be continuous at $r_s$, $$\begin{aligned}
f(r_s)=f_{RN}(r_s)=f_s, \qquad E(r_s)=E_{RN}(r_s)=E_s.
\label{bcs}\end{aligned}$$ Using eqs. (\[EME\]) and (\[f\_rn\]), we work out $$\begin{aligned}
& f_s=1-\frac{2\kappa_n}{(n-2)A_{n-2}}\frac{M}{r_s^{n-3}}+\frac{4\pi \kappa_n}{(n-2)(n-3)A_{n-2}^2}\frac{Q^2}{r_s^{2(n-3)}},\label{f_s}\\
& \frac{2\pi}{\kappa_n r^2}\left[2(n-3)-2(n-3)f_s+(n-4)r f'(r_s)+r^2 f''(r_s)\right]=\frac{16\pi^2}{A_{n-2}^2}\frac{Q^2}{r_s^{2(n-2)}}\label{f'_s}.\end{aligned}$$ Again considering the equation of boundary position $r_s$, i.e. $\rho_m(r_s)=0$, cf. eq. (\[rho\_m\]), we simplify eq. (\[f’\_s\]) to the continuity of the first-order derivative of the metric function at the boundary, $f'(r_s)=f_{RN}'(r_s)=f'_s$. As a result, the parameters $M$ and $Q$ can be expressed in terms of $f_s$ and $f'_s$ as follows, $$\begin{aligned}
M&=\frac{(n-2)A_{n-2}r_s^{n-3}}{\kappa_n}\left[1-f_s-\frac{r_s f'_s}{2(n-3)}\right]\label{M}, \\
Q^2&=\frac{(n-2)(n-3)A_{n-2}^2r_s^{2(n-3)}}{4\pi\kappa_n}\left(1-f_s-\frac{r_s f^{\prime}_s}{n-3}\right)\label{Q}.\end{aligned}$$
Regular Tangherlini-RN black holes under the new interpretation of matter source
================================================================================
The noncommutative geometry inspired Schwarzschild black hole [@0510112; @0807.1939] with the Gaussian-distributed density is singularity free at the origin and asymptotically Schwarzschild like at large distances ($r \gg \sqrt{\theta}$, see eq. (\[nssf\_r\])). However, from the point of view of the casual structure and thermodynamics, it has two horizons and a maximum temperature, behaving more like a Reissner-Nordström black hole [@1212.5044; @0802.1757]. In this section, we construct the regular Tangherlini-RN black hole under the new interpretation of matter source. By starting with the noncommutative geometry inspired Schwarzschild solution in $n$ dimensions, we find that the energy-momentum tensor with the Gaussian distribution can also be regarded as the linear combination of the perfect fluid’s and electromagnetic field’s energy-momentum tensors when the charge-to-mass ratio takes a special range in order to guarantee the formation of Tangherlini-RN black holes. In addition, we investigate the stability of the boundary under mass perturbation and indicate that the new interpretation imposes a rigid restriction upon the charge-to-mass ratio. In particular, we observe that such a constraint leads to an interesting corollary that noncommutative black holes are only stable in the 4-dimensional spacetime.
Tangherlini-RN solutions with electromagnetic field
---------------------------------------------------
For the noncommutative Schwarzschild black hole in the $n$-dimensional spacetime, the metric function of eq. (\[metric\]) takes the following form, $$\begin{aligned}
f(r)=1-\frac{2k_nm}{(n-2)A_{n-2}\Gamma\left(\frac{n-1}{2}\right)}\frac{\gamma\left(\frac{n-1}{2},\frac{r^2}{4\theta}\right)}{r^{n-3}},
\label{nssf_r}\end{aligned}$$ where $\gamma(s,x)=\int_0^x t^{s-1}e^{-t}dt$ is the lower incomplete gamma function; $\sqrt{\theta}$ is the scale parameter which represents a minimal length, and $m$ the mass parameter.[^6] From the interpretation of the anisotropic fluid, we deduce the density and pressure from eqs. (\[rho\])-(\[pbot\]), $$\begin{aligned}
\rho&=-p_r=\frac{m}{2^{n-2}\theta^{\frac{n-1}{2}}A_{n-2}\Gamma(\frac{n-1}{2})}\exp\left(-\frac{r^2}{4\theta}\right),\label{schrho}\\
p_\bot&=-\rho-\frac{r\rho'}{n-2}=\left[-1+\frac{r^2}{2(n-2)\theta}\right]\rho.\end{aligned}$$ In accordance with the new interpretation of matter source demonstrated in section 2, i.e. effectively from the interpretation of perfect fluid plus electromagnetic field, we compute the mass density, the isotropic pressure and the energy density of electrostatic field from eqs. (\[rho\_m\]) and (\[EME\]), $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_m&=-p=\frac{4(n-2)\theta-r^2}{4(n-2)\theta}\rho,\\
W&=\frac{r^2}{4(n-2)\theta}\rho,\end{aligned}$$ which reveals that the DEC holds within the perfect fluid charged sphere. Moreover, the boundary of the charged sphere that satisfies $\rho_m=0$ is located at $$\begin{aligned}
r_s=\sqrt{4\theta(n-2)},
\label{nssr_s}\end{aligned}$$ which is of the same order as the scale parameter and grows large when the dimension increases.
Outside the perfect fluid charged sphere, the metric of the electromagnetic vacuum takes the Reissner-Nordström form, see eq. (\[f\_rn\]), where the total mass $M$ and charge $Q$ can be calculated from eqs. (\[M\]) and (\[Q\]), $$\begin{aligned}
M&=\frac{m\left[2(n-2)^{\frac{n}{2}}e^{2-n}+(n-3)(n-2)^{\frac{1}{2}}\gamma\left(\frac{n-1}{2},n-2\right)\right]}{(n-3)(n-2)^{\frac{1}{2}}\Gamma\left(\frac{n-1}{2}\right)},\label{M_m}\\
Q^2&=\frac{2^{n-3}(n-2)^{n-2}m A_{n-2}}{\pi e^{n-2} \Gamma\left(\frac{n-1}{2}\right)}\theta^{\frac{n-3}{2}}\label{q^2}.\end{aligned}$$
Eqs. (\[M\_m\]) and (\[q\^2\]) show that the exterior parameters $M$ and $Q$ are expressed by the interior parameters $m$ and $\theta$ through the boundary. As a result, the boundary $r_s$ that links the internal spacetime with the external, can reciprocally be expressed by $M$ and $Q$, or $M$ and the charge-to-mass ratio, $\alpha \equiv Q/M$, as follows, $$\begin{aligned}
r_s^{n-3}=\alpha^2 M\frac{\pi\left[2(n-2)^{\frac{n}{2}}+(n-3)(n-2)^{\frac{1}{2}}e^{n-2}\gamma\left(\frac{n-1}{2},n-2\right)\right]}{(n-3)(n-2)^{\frac{n}{2}}A_{n-2}}.
\label{r_s^n-3}\end{aligned}$$ Further using eq. (\[r\_s\^n-3\]) together with eqs. (\[M\_m\]) and (\[q\^2\]), we reduce the interior metric eq. (\[nssf\_r\]) and the exterior metric eq. (\[f\_rn\]) to the following forms, $$\begin{aligned}
f(x)\!=\!1\!-\!\frac{2k_n}{\pi\alpha^2} \frac{(n-3)^2(n-2)^{\frac{n-1}{2}}e^{n-2}}{\left[2(n-2)^{\frac{n}{2}}\!+\! (n-3)(n-2)^{\frac{1}{2}}e^{n-2}\gamma\left(\frac{n-1}{2},n-2\right)\right]^2}\frac{\gamma\left(\frac{n-1}{2},(n-2)x^2\right)}{x^{n-3}}, \label{f(x)}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
f_{RN}(x)
=1-\frac{2k_n}{\pi\alpha^2}\Bigg\{\frac{(n-3)(n-2)^{\frac{n}{2}-1}}
{2(n-2)^{\frac{n}{2}}+(n-3)(n-2)^{\frac{1}{2}}e^{n-2}\gamma\left(\frac{n-1}{2},n-2\right)}\frac{1}{x^{n-3}} \nonumber \\
-\frac{2(n-3)(n-2)^{n-1}}{\left[2(n-2)^{\frac{n}{2}}+(n-3)
(n-2)^{\frac{1}{2}}e^{n-2}\gamma\left(\frac{n-1}{2},n-2\right)\right]^2}\frac{1}{x^{2(n-3)}}\Bigg\} \label{f_rn(x)},\end{aligned}$$ where $x$, the reduced radius, is defined by $x\equiv{r}/{r_s}$. It is obvious that on the boundary, i.e. at $x=1$, $f(x)$ equals naturally to $f_{RN}(x)$. The two metrics are illustrated in Fig. \[-g\_00\] for a specific dimension and charge-to-mass ratio. Eq. (\[f(x)\]) indicates that the exterior parameters ($M$ and $\alpha$) can reflect the interior structure, so next we analyze how the value of $\alpha$ affects the geometrical characters in both the interior and the exterior of the perfect fluid charged sphere.
![Plot of the relation of $-g_{00}$ with respect to the reduced radius $x$ for $n=4$ and ${\alpha^2}/{k_n}=0.032$. The purple and cyan dashed curves correspond to $f(x)$ and $f_{RN}(x)$, respectively, and they intersect at $x=1$ where the black dot-dashed line lies. The red curve describes $f(x)$ for $x\leq1$ and $f_{RN}(x)$ for $x>1$.[]{data-label="-g_00"}](metric){height="7cm"}
Before our discussions, we have to mention the prerequisite that a system with certain mass and charge forms a black hole. A hypothesis proposed by Thorne [@thorne] states that a black hole forms only when the spherical radius of the system is not larger than its Schwarzschild radius, known as the hoop conjecture. Similarly, the hoop conjecture of the charged case was put forward [@1511.03665], meaning that a physical system of mass $M$ and electric charge $Q$ forms a black hole if its circumference radius $r_c$ is not larger than the corresponding RN black hole radius,[^7] $r_{RN}=M+\sqrt{M^2-Q^2}$. Based on this conjecture, one has to distinguish [@0612035] the two basic categories: a black hole with horizons and a massive charged “droplet", both of which have a finite-sized perfect fluid charged sphere of the radius $r_s$. Now we study the geometrical characters in both the interior and the exterior of the perfect fluid charged sphere in detail by considering the following three cases.
### Case I
Setting $f_{RN}(r)$ of eq.(\[f\_rn\]) be zero, we locate the horizons of the RN black hole at $$\begin{aligned}
r_{\pm}^{n-3}=\frac{k_n M}{(n-2)A_{n-2}}\left(1\pm\sqrt{1-\frac{4\pi(n-2)}{k_n(n-3)}\alpha^2}\right),\label{rnrpm}\end{aligned}$$ under the condition $$\begin{aligned}
\beta \equiv \frac{\alpha^2}{k_n} \leq \beta_1\equiv \frac{1}{4\pi}\left(\frac{n-3}{n-2}\right),\end{aligned}$$ where $\beta$ denotes a reduced charge-to-mass ratio squared. On the contrary, if $\beta>\beta_1$, then no real roots of $f_{RN}(r)=0$ exist, meaning that no horizons exist to the RN metric and further indicating that no black holes form according to the hoop conjecture. So $\beta_1$ is the upper bound for the existence of a black hole, whose possible values are listed in the first line of Table \[table\_bound\] for various dimensions.
### Case II
If horizons exist in the RN metric, i.e. $\beta\leq\beta_1$ is satisfied, the position of boundary relative to the RN horizons needs to be fixed, which generally leads to the three subcases of the hoop conjecture: $r_s<r_-$, $r_-<r_s<r_+$, and $r_s=r_-$ or $r_s=r_+$.[^8]
$\bullet$ *$r_s< r_-$ shows that the boundary is hidden behind the inner horizon*
Using eq. (\[rnrpm\]), we rewrite this condition to be $$r_s^{n-3}<r_-^{n-3}=\frac{k_n M}{(n-2)A_{n-2}}\left(1-\sqrt{1-\frac{4\pi(n-2)}{n-3}\beta}\right),
\label{r_s^<r_-^}$$ which gives equivalently the following constraint to $\beta$, $$\beta_2<\beta<\beta_3,$$ where the newly introduced parameters are defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\beta_2&\equiv\frac{2(n-3)^2(n-2)^{\frac{n-1}{2}}e^{n-2}\gamma\left(\frac{n-1}{2},n-2\right)}
{\pi \left[2(n-2)^{\frac{n}{2}}+(n-3)(n-2)^{\frac{1}{2}}e^{n-2}\gamma\left(\frac{n-1}{2},n-2\right)\right]^2},\label{beta_2}\\
\beta_3&\equiv\frac{(n-3)(n-2)^{\frac{n}{2}-1}}{\pi \left[2(n-2)^{\frac{n}{2}}+(n-3)(n-2)^{\frac{1}{2}}e^{n-2}\gamma\left(\frac{n-1}{2},n-2\right)\right]}.\label{beta_3}\end{aligned}$$ We list $\beta_2$ and $\beta_3$ in the second and third lines of Table \[table\_bound\], respectively, for various dimensions. From the data, we can see that the two conditions, $\beta\leq\beta_1$ and $\beta_2<\beta<\beta_3$, can be held simultaneously only in the 4-dimensional spacetime, where the first condition guarantees the formation of the black hole and the second keeps the interior of the black hole, i.e. the perfect fluid charged sphere, hidden behind the inner horizon. For illustration, see Fig. $\ref{r_s<r_-}$.
![An example of $\beta\leq\beta_1$ and $\beta_2<\beta<\beta_3$: $n=4$, $\beta=0.0397$, where Fig. (b) is the magnified image of Fig. (a) within the range $x\in[0.9, 1.3]$. This case is characterized by $r_s<r_-$ and $f(x)>0$ for $x\in [0,1]$.[]{data-label="r_s<r_-"}](n_4_1){height="13cm"}
![An example of $\beta<\beta_1$ and $\beta<\beta_2$: $n=5$, $\beta=0.04$. This case is characterized by $r_-<r_s<r_+$ and one $f(r)$-horizon.[]{data-label="r_-<r_s<r_+"}](n_5_2){height="7cm"}
![An example of $\beta\leq\beta_1$, $\beta>\beta_2$ and $\beta>\beta_3$: $n=5$, $\beta=0.052$. This case is characterized by $r_s>r_+$.[]{data-label="r_s>r_+"}](n_5_3){height="7cm"}
$\bullet$ *$r_-<r_s< r_+$ shows that the boundary is not hidden behind the inner horizon but the event horizon*[^9]
The inequality $r_-<r_s<r_+$ leads to $\beta<\beta_2$. Moreover, it should be noted that $r_-<r_s$ does not mean that the inner horizon of RN metric hides behind the boundary. In fact, the whole interior of the perfect fluid charged sphere is described by the metric function $f(r)$, not by $f_{RN}(r)$ that refers to the exterior of the charged sphere. Thus, $\beta<\beta_2$, together with $\beta<\beta_1$, describes the situation that the boundary lies behind the event horizon, but not the inner horizon. This situation is possible since $\beta_2<\beta_1$ is tenable for all dimensions, see Fig. $\ref{r_-<r_s<r_+}$ for instance.
$\bullet$ *$r_s=r_-$ or $r_s=r_+$ shows that the boundary coincides with one of the $f_{RN}(r)$ horizons*
Our calculations show that $r_s=r_-$ requires the constraints $\beta=\beta_2$ and $\beta\leq\beta_3$, and that $r_s=r_+$ requires $\beta=\beta_2$ and $\beta\geq\beta_3$. From the data in Table \[table\_bound\], we can deduce that $\beta=\beta_2$ represents the case that the boundary $r_s$ coincides either with the inner horizon $r_-$ for $n=4$, or with the event horizon $r_+$ for $n\geq5$.
At the end of Case II, we clarify the meaning of $r_s>r_+$. This inequality corresponds to the constraints, $\beta>\beta_2$ and $\beta>\beta_3$. As we have explained above for $r_-<r_s$, the situation $r_s>r_+$ does not imply that the event horizon of RN metric hides behind the boundary. It depicts a finite-sized perfect fluid charged sphere with no RN horizons outside the boundary, as was mentioned above by the second category – a massive charged “droplet". For illustration, see Fig. $\ref{r_s>r_+}$.
### Case III
Here we revisit $r_s\leq r_+$ on how $f(r)$ (or $f(x)$) determines the structure of the interior of the perfect fluid charged sphere and how it affects the characters of the black hole. To be specific, if the restriction $f(x)>0$ is obeyed within $x\in[0,1]$, no horizons can be formed by $f(r)$. $f(r)$ horizons appear if and only if $f(r)=0$. We compute the roots of $f'(x_*)=0$ from $n=4$ to $11$ dimensions, $$x_*=1.06859, \quad 0.77315, \quad 0.62760, \quad 0.53874, \quad 0.47797, \quad 0.43331, \quad 0.39885, \quad 0.37128.$$ The data show that there is only one minimum for $f(x)$. So $f(x)>0$ for all $x\in[0,1]$ corresponding to no $f(r)$ horizons, is equivalent to $$\begin{aligned}
f(1)>0, \quad\text{for}\,\, n=4; \qquad f(x_*)>0, \quad \text{for}\,\, n=5\,\,\text{to}\,\, 11,\end{aligned}$$ which gives $\beta$ the constraint, $$\beta>\beta_4,$$ with the definition of $\beta_4$ as follows, $$\begin{aligned}
\beta_4\equiv\frac{4\sqrt{2}e^2\gamma\left(\frac{3}{2},2\right)}{\pi\left[8+\sqrt{2}e^2\gamma\left(\frac{3}{2},2\right)\right]^2}&, \qquad \qquad \,\text{for}\,\, n=4; \notag\\
\beta_4\equiv\frac{2}{\pi} \frac{(n-3)^2(n-2)^{\frac{n-1}{2}}e^{n-2}}{\left[2(n-2)^{\frac{n}{2}}\!+\! (n-3)(n-2)^{\frac{1}{2}}e^{n-2}\gamma\left(\frac{n-1}{2},n-2\right)\right]^2}&\frac{\gamma\left(\frac{n-1}{2},(n-2)x_*^2\right)}{x_*^{n-3}},
\,\text{for}\,\, n\!=\!5\,\,\text{to}\,\, 11.\end{aligned}$$ The values of $\beta_4$ are listed in the fourth line in Table \[table\_bound\] for various dimensions. From the data, we can see that the two conditions, $\beta>\beta_4$ and $\beta\leq\beta_1$, which guarantee a black hole with no $f(r)$ horizons, are only compatible in the 4-dimensional spacetime. For illustration, see Fig. \[r\_s<r\_-\] that reflects the feature: $f(r)>0$, $x\in[0,1]$.
On the contrary, if $\beta<\beta_4$, $f(r)$ horizons would possibly form due to the existence of the roots of $f(x)=0$ within $x\in[0,1]$. As mentioned before, only one minimum exists for $f(x)$, so there are at most two roots for $f(x)=0$. Moreover, the number of roots within $x\in[0,1]$ depends on the sign of the metric function at the boundary, i.e. eq. (\[f(x)\]) at $x=1$. That is, there is one root of $f(x)=0$ for $f(1)<0$ and there are two roots for $f(1)>0$.
Referring to eq. (\[f(x)\]), we obtain that the inequality $f(1)<0$, i.e. $$\begin{aligned}
f(1)\!=\!1\!-\!\frac{2}{\pi\beta} \frac{(n-3)^2(n-2)^{\frac{n-1}{2}}e^{n-2}}{\left[2(n-2)^{\frac{n}{2}}\!+\! (n-3)(n-2)^{\frac{1}{2}}e^{n-2}\gamma\left(\frac{n-1}{2},n-2\right)\right]^2}\gamma\left(\frac{n-1}{2},(n-2)\right)<0 \label{f(1)}\end{aligned}$$ gives exactly the constraint $\beta<\beta_2$, cf. eq. (\[beta\_2\]). As $\beta<\beta_2$ corresponds to the second subcase of Case II, $r_-<r_s<r_+$, the only root of $f(x)=0$ within $x\in[0,1]$ is the reduced radius of the $f(r)$ horizon. See Fig. \[r\_-<r\_s<r\_+\] for instance.
In contrast, the inequality $f(1)>0$ leads to $\beta>\beta_2$. Although there are two roots of $f(x)=0$ within $x\in[0,1]$, the condition $\beta_2<\beta<\beta_4$ implies the satisfaction of $\beta>\beta_2$ and $\beta>\beta_3$ for $n\geq5$ from the data in Table \[table\_bound\], which conforms to the situation $r_s>r_+$ that fails to form a black hole. For illustration, see Fig. \[r\_s>r\_+\].
Particularly, $\beta=\beta_2$ is obtained from solving $f(1)=0$, which is consistent with the third subcase of Case II, $r_s=r_-$ or $r_s=r_+$. So we can infer that for $\beta=\beta_2$ and $n=4$, $r_s=r_-$ is the radius of the only horizon formed by $f(r)$ as a result of $\beta_2=\beta_4$, and that for $\beta=\beta_2$ and $n\geq5$, in addition to $r_s=r_+$, there exists another $f(r)$ horizon inside the sphere due to $\beta_2<\beta_4$.
[|m[2.15cm]{}\*[8]{}[|c]{}|]{} \*[Restrictions]{} &\
& 4 & 5 & 6 & 7 & 8 & 9 & 10 & 11\
$\beta_1$ & 0.03979 & 0.05305 & 0.05968 & 0.06366 & 0.06631 & 0.06820 & 0.06963 & 0.07074\
$\beta_2$ & 0.03955 & 0.04882 & 0.04574 & 0.03980 & 0.03369 & 0.02818 & 0.02345 & 0.01947\
$\beta_3$ & 0.04290 & 0.03807 & 0.03084 & 0.02469 & 0.01980 & 0.01596 & 0.01292 & 0.01052\
$\beta_4$ & 0.03955 & 0.05458 & 0.07090 & 0.09662 & 0.1384 & 0.2065 & 0.3187 & 0.5053\
With all factors taken into account, we categorize the black hole solutions with a finite-sized perfect fluid charged sphere as the matter source by the following situations: $\mathrm{({\romannumeral 1})}$ the charged perfect fluid with positive metric function $f(r)$ is hidden inside the inner horizon of the RN metric when the inequality, $\beta_2<\beta\leq\beta_1$, is satisfied in the 4-dimensional spacetime; $\mathrm{({\romannumeral 2})}$ the charged perfect fluid with one root of $f(r)=0$ within $r\in[0,r_s]$ and negative boundary metric function $f(r_s)$ is hidden inside the event horizon but not the inner horizon of the RN metric when the inequality, $\beta<\beta_2$, is satisfied in all dimensions; $\mathrm{({\romannumeral 3})}$ the charged perfect fluid takes a vanishing boundary metric function $f(r_s)=0$ when $\beta=\beta_2$ is satisfied, specifically, the boundary coincides with the inner horizon of the RN metric at $n=4$ as the only root of $f(r_s)=0$, and with the event horizon in the other dimensions as the second root.
Stability of the boundary
-------------------------
The possible regular black hole solutions have been obtained in all dimensions if the hoop conjecture is considered. However, from the point of view of stability, the stable configuration for the noncommutative model in dimensions higher than 4 ($n\geq5$) would be a massive charged “droplet" rather than a regular black hole since the outer layers of the black hole with negative metric function $f(r)$ could not stay in a static equilibrium [@1706.03454]. As a result, only the 4-dimensional spacetime seemingly admits stable regular black holes with a static interior spacetime structure for $\beta_2\leq\beta\leq\beta_1$ due to the positivity of the internal metric function $f(r)$. Nonetheless, the stability of the boundary still remains to be analyzed since the discontinuities and non-smoothness of the boundary possibly happen.
As we have known in subsection 2.3, the boundary conditions (eq. (\[bcs\])) are equivalent to the continuity of the metric function and its first-order derivative, and thus they guarantee the continuity of the extrinsic curvature and satisfy Israel’s condition [@Israel] about two spacetimes’ soldering, $$\begin{aligned}
K_{ab}\mid^+=K_{ab}\mid^-,\end{aligned}$$ where $K_{ab}$ is the extrinsic curvature defined with the induced metric $h_{ab}$ and the normal vector $n^a$ of the boundary hypersurface $\Sigma$ as follows, $$\begin{aligned}
K_{ab}:=h_a^{\,\, c}h_b^{\,\,d}\nabla_c n_d,
\label{K_ab}\end{aligned}$$ $K_{ab}\mid^+$ and $K_{ab}\mid^-$ denote the limit of $K_{ab}$ on the boundary $\Sigma$ from the exterior spacetime ($V^+$) and the interior spacetime ($V^-$), respectively. Nevertheless, in the specific case, $\beta_2\leq\beta\leq\beta_1$ and $n=4$, the boundary coincides with ($\beta=\beta_2$) or hides behind ($\beta_2<\beta\leq\beta_1$) the inner horizon of the RN metric marked with the “mass inflation" phenomenon [@mass; @inflation], that is, the inner horizon becomes unstable under perturbations. As a result, we exclude the lightlike boundary for $\beta=\beta_2$ from consideration, and adopt an easier way to check whether the timelike boundary for $\beta_2<\beta\leq\beta_1$ keeps stable or not under mass perturbations [@0804.0295; @1209.3567].
For the convenience in the following discussions, we start with rewriting the interior and the exterior metrics of the black hole, see eq. (\[nssf\_r\]) and eq. (\[f\_rn\]), in the following unified form, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathrm{d}s^2=-h(r)\mathrm{d}t^2+\frac{1}{h(r)}\mathrm{d}r^2+r^2\,\mathrm{d}\Omega_{n-2}^2,\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
h(r)=\Bigg\{\begin{array}{lcl}
h_i(r)=f(r)=1-\frac{2k_n}{(n-2)A_{n-2}}\frac{m}{r^{n-3}\Gamma(\frac{n-1}{2})}\gamma(\frac{n-1}{2},\frac{r^2}{4\theta}), \quad \text{for}\,\, r<R,\\
h_e(r)=f_{RN}(r)=1-\frac{2\kappa_n}{(n-2)A_{n-2}}\frac{M}{r^{n-3}}+\frac{4\pi \kappa_n}{(n-2)(n-3)A_{n-2}^2}\frac{Q^2}{r^{2(n-3)}}, \quad \text{for}\,\, r>R,\label{hihe}
\end{array}
$$ where we re-label the boundary that separates two spacetimes with $R$ to distinguish it from $r_s$ in the non-perturbative case. Then the induced metric on the boundary $\Sigma$ can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
(\mathrm{d}s^2)_\Sigma=-\mathrm{d}\tau^2+R^2(\tau)\,\mathrm{d}\Omega_{n-2}^2,\end{aligned}$$ where $\tau$ is the proper time and $R(\tau)$ represents the evolution of the boundary. Under the precondition that we discuss the influence of a mass perturbation on the timelike boundary, the energy-momentum tensor of matter on $\Sigma$ (or of the massive shell) is assumed to take the following form, $$\begin{aligned}
S_{ab}=\sigma(\tau)v_a v_b,\end{aligned}$$ where $\sigma(\tau)$ is the surface energy density and $v^a$ the normalized velocity of the comoving observer on $\Sigma$. We use the normalized velocity in its following form, $$\begin{aligned}
v^a=\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial \tau}\right)^a=\dot{t}\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\right)^a+\dot{R}\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial R}\right)^a,\end{aligned}$$ where the dot denotes the derivative with respect to $\tau$ and $\dot{t}$ can be expressed in terms of $h(R)$ and $\dot{R}$ from $g_{ab}v^av^b=-1$ as follows, $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{t}=\frac{\sqrt{h(R)+\dot{R}^2}}{h(R)}.\end{aligned}$$ Further, we derive the normal vector $n^a$ from $n^av_a=0$ and $n^an_a=1$ to be $$\begin{aligned}
n^a=n^t\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\right)^a+n^r\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial R}\right)^a=\frac{\dot{R}}{h(R)}\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\right)^a+\sqrt{h(R)+\dot{R}^2}\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial R}\right)^a,\end{aligned}$$ where the direction of $n^a$ is set to point from $V^-$ to $V^+$.
Applying the energy conversation law to $S_{ab}$ [@0804.0295], that is, $^{n-1}\nabla^a S_{ab}=0$, with $^{n-1}\nabla_a$ denoting the covariant derivative on the $(n-1)$-dimensional hypersurface, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\mathrm{d}(R^{n-2}\sigma)}{\mathrm{d}\tau}=0,\end{aligned}$$ which indicates that we can define a proper mass of the shell that is independent of time $\tau$, $$\begin{aligned}
M_s=A_{n-2}\sigma R^{n-2}.
\label{M_s}\end{aligned}$$
Moreover, as a result of the existence of $S_{ab}$, the extrinsic curvature undergoes a jump on the boundary and satisfies [@Israel] $$\begin{aligned}
[K_{ab}]-h_{ab}[K]=-\kappa_n S_{ab},
\label{K_ab1}\end{aligned}$$ where $K=h_{ab}K^{ab}$ is the trace and the brackets denote the difference between the limits of quantity on $\Sigma$ from $V^+$ to $V^-$, e.g. $[K_{ab}]=K_{ab}\mid^+-K_{ab}\mid^-$ and $[K]=K\mid^+-K\mid^-$. For convenience, we write eq. (\[K\_ab1\]) in another form, $$\begin{aligned}
[K_{ab}]=-\kappa_n\left(S_{ab}-\frac{1}{n-2}h_{ab}S\right),
\label{K_ab2}\end{aligned}$$ where $S=h^{ab}S_{ab}=-\sigma$. From eq. (\[K\_ab\]), we derive one of the nonvanishing components, $$\begin{aligned}
K_{\theta\theta}=R n^r=R\sqrt{h(R)+\dot{R}^2}.
\label{K_theta}\end{aligned}$$ Further using eq. (\[K\_theta\]) together with eqs. (\[M\_s\]) and (\[K\_ab2\]), we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
[K_{\theta\theta}]=R\left(\sqrt{h_e(R)+\dot{R}^2}-\sqrt{h_i(R)+\dot{R}^2}\right)=-\frac{k_n}{n-2}\sigma R^2=-\frac{k_n M_s}{(n-2)A_{n-2}R^{n-4}},
\label{k_theta}\end{aligned}$$ which links the jump of the metric function on the boundary $\Sigma$ with the shell mass $M_s$. Using eq. (\[hihe\]), we can see that eq. (\[k\_theta\]) is in fact the equation of motion of the massive shell [@1209.3567], $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{R}^2+V(R)=-1,
\label{motion}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
V(R)\!=\!-\left(\frac{2\pi Q^2}{(n-3)A_{n-2}R^{n-3}M_s}\!-\!\frac{M-m(R)}{M_s}\!-\!\frac{k_n M_s}{2(n-2)A_{n-2}R^{n-3}}\right)^2\!-\!\frac{2k_n m(R)}{(n-2)A_{n-2}R^{n-3}}\label{vform}\end{aligned}$$ can be regarded as the potential function, and $m(R)\equiv\frac{m}{\Gamma(\frac{n-1}{2})}\gamma(\frac{n-1}{2},\frac{R^2}{4\theta})$. Based on that the timelike boundary only exists in the 4-dimensional spacetime and $M_s$ is a perturbation ($M_s\rightarrow0$), we now focus on eq. (\[vform\]) for $n=4$, $$\begin{aligned}
V(R)=-\frac{[Q^2-2MR+2m(R)R]^2}{4M_s^2 R^2}-\frac{2m(R)}{R}.
\label{v(R)}\end{aligned}$$ Then a stable stationary solution of motion would reasonably satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{R}=&0 \quad \Leftrightarrow \quad V(R)=-1
\label{v(r)}\\
\frac{dV(R)}{dR}=&\frac{[Q^2-2m'(R)R^2][Q^2-2MR+2m(R)]}{2M_s^2 R^3}-\frac{2m'(R)R-2m(R)}{R^2}=0,
\label{dv/dr}\\
\frac{d^2V(R)}{dR^2}=&-\frac{[Q^2-2m'(R)R^2]^2+2[Q^2-2MR+2m(R)R][m''(R)R^3+Q^2]}{2M_s^2 R^4} \notag \\
&-\frac{2m''(R)R^2-4m'(R)R+4m(R)}{R^3}>0.\end{aligned}$$ Similarly, applying the setting $M_s\rightarrow0$ to eqs. (\[v(R)\]) and (\[dv/dr\]), we derive $$\begin{aligned}
Q^2-2MR+2m(R)R=\mathcal{O}(M_s),\\
Q^2-2m'(R)R^2=\mathcal{O}(M_s),\end{aligned}$$ which keep $V(R)$ and $V'(R)$ finite. Henceforth, the parameters $Q$ and $M$ in the outer RN metric are related to the interior parameters, $m$ and $\theta$, and the shell mass $M_s$ as $$\begin{aligned}
Q=&\sqrt{\frac{mR^4\exp\left(-\frac{R^2}{4\theta}\right)}{\pi^{\frac{1}{2}}\theta^{\frac{3}{2}}}}-A\exp\left(\frac{R^2}{8\theta}\right)M_s+\mathcal{O}(M_s^2),\label{Q1}\\
M=&\frac{2m}{\pi^{\frac{1}{2}}}\gamma\left(\frac{3}{2},\frac{R^2}{4\theta}\right)+\frac{mR^3\exp\left(-\frac{R^2}{4\theta}\right)}{2\pi^{\frac{1}{2}}\theta^{\frac{3}{2}}}
+B\sqrt{\frac{m}{\pi^{\frac{1}{2}}\theta^{\frac{1}{2}}}}M_s+\mathcal{O}(M_s^2), \label{M1}\end{aligned}$$ where $A$ and $B$ are two coefficients to be determined. If we take $M_s=0$, $Q$ and $M$ spontaneously go back to eqs. (\[q\^2\]) and (\[M\_m\]) for $n=4$, respectively. Combining eqs. (\[Q1\]) and (\[M1\]) with eqs. (\[v(r)\]) and (\[dv/dr\]), the parameters $A$ and $B$ can be determined by $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{m}{\pi^{\frac{1}{2}}\theta^{\frac{1}{2}}}\left(\frac{R_s}{\theta^{\frac{1}{2}}}A+B\right)^2&
=1-\frac{4m}{\pi^{\frac{1}{2}}R_s}\gamma\left(\frac{3}{2},\frac{R_s^2}{4\theta}\right),\label{root_1}\\
\frac{2m}{\pi^{\frac{1}{2}}\theta}\left(\frac{R_s}{\theta^{\frac{1}{2}}}A^2+AB\right)&=\frac{1}{R_s^2}
\left[\frac{mR_s^3\exp\left(-\frac{R_s^2}{4\theta}\right)}{\pi^{\frac{1}{2}}\theta^{\frac{3}{2}}}
-\frac{4m}{\pi^{\frac{1}{2}}}\gamma\left(\frac{3}{2},\frac{R_s^2}{4\theta}\right)\right],\label{root_2}\end{aligned}$$ where $R_s$ is the radius of the stationary solution in the limit of $M_s\rightarrow 0$, that is, $R_s=r_s$. Now we know from the above relevant equations that $\frac{d^2V(R)}{dR^2}$ is approximately equal to $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d^2V(R)}{dR^2}\approx&\frac{mR_s\left(R_s^2-2\theta \right)\exp\left(-\frac{R_s^2}{4\theta}\right)}{2\pi^{\frac{1}{2}}\theta^{\frac{5}{2}}M_s}\sqrt{\frac{m}{\pi^{\frac{1}{2}}\theta^{\frac{1}{2}}}}\left(\frac{R_s}{\theta^{\frac{1}{2}}}A+B\right).
\label{d^2v}\end{aligned}$$ Substituting the solution $R=R_s$ into eq. (\[k\_theta\]), we have $$\begin{aligned}
&\sqrt{h_e(R_s)+\dot{R_s}^2}-\sqrt{h_i(R_s)+\dot{R_s}^2} \notag \\
=&\sqrt{1-\frac{4m}{\pi^{\frac{1}{2}}R_s}\gamma\left(\frac{3}{2}, \frac{R_s^2}{4\theta}\right)-\frac{1}{R_s}\sqrt{\frac{m}{\pi^{\frac{1}{2}}\theta^{\frac{1}{2}}}}\left(\frac{R_s}{\theta^{\frac{1}{2}}}A+B\right)M_s}-\sqrt{1-\frac{4m}
{\pi^{\frac{1}{2}}R_s}\gamma\left(\frac{3}{2}, \frac{R_s^2}{4\theta}\right)} \notag \\
=&-\frac{k_n M_s}{(n-2)A_{n-2}R_s^{n-3}}.\end{aligned}$$ We infer that $\left(\frac{R_s}{\theta^{\frac{1}{2}}}A+B\right)$ takes the positive root of eq. (\[root\_1\]) and further obtain the second-order derivative of $V(R)$ (eq. (\[d\^2v\])) as $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d^2V(R)}{dR^2}\approx&\frac{mR_s\left(R_s^2-2\theta \right)\exp\left(-\frac{R_s^2}{4\theta}\right)\sqrt{1-\frac{4m}{\pi^{\frac{1}{2}}R_s}\gamma\left(\frac{3}{2},\frac{R_s^2}{4\theta}\right)}}{2\pi^{\frac{1}{2}}\theta^{\frac{5}{2}}M_s},\end{aligned}$$ which is positive for a physical perturbation $M_s>0$ since $R_s=r_s=\sqrt{8\theta}$ and $f(R_s)=1-\frac{4m}{\pi^{\frac{1}{2}}R_s}\gamma\left(\frac{3}{2},\frac{R_s^2}{4\theta}\right)>0$. Therefore, we can conclude that the timelike boundary is stable under a positive mass perturbation. Table \[tabel\_example\], for instance, gives some data which coincide with the conclusion.[^10]
$m/\sqrt{\theta}$ $Q_0/\sqrt{\theta}$ $M_0/\sqrt{\theta}$ $(Q-Q_0)/\sqrt{\theta}$ $(M-M_0)/\sqrt{\theta}$ $\frac{d^2V(R)}{dR^2}\theta$
------------------- --------------------- --------------------- ------------------------- ------------------------- ------------------------------
1.905 3.051 3.053 $-2.960\times10^{-5} $ $-1.955\times10^{-5}$ $ 3.464\times10^3 $
1.908 3.054 3.057 $-3.549\times10^{-5} $ $-2.392\times10^{-5}$ $ 2.895\times10^3 $
1.911 3.056 3.062 $-4.728\times10^{-5} $ $-3.251\times10^{-5}$ $ 2.179\times10^3 $
1.914 3.058 3.067 $-9.899\times10^{-5} $ $-6.941\times10^{-5}$ $ 1.043\times10^3 $
: The values of physical quantities varied with $m$: $Q_0$ and $M_0$ at $M_s=0$, and the deviations $Q-Q_0$ and $M-M_0$, and the second-order derivative $\frac{d^2V(R)}{dR^2}$ at $M_s=10^{-5}$. []{data-label="tabel_example"}
Summary
=======
In this paper, we generalize the formulation that a regular RN black hole can be sourced from charged perfect fluid in the 4-dimensional spacetime to high-dimensional spacetimes through decomposing the energy-momentum tensor of an anisotropic fluid effectively into that of a perfect fluid and linear electromagnetic field. Under this new interpretation of matter source, the dominant energy condition is guaranteed as in the spacial case of the 4-dimensional spacetime [@1706.03454]. In addition, the matter source has a natural boundary $r_s$ where the density and pressure of the perfect fluid vanish and so they no longer occupy the entire spacetime.[^11] Consequently, the interior of the black hole naturally connects to the exterior electrovacuum through the boundary. As a result, the interior structure is revealed by the parameters of the black hole – the mass and the charge, by means of the boundary conditions.
We investigate the model with the noncommutative geometry inspired Schwarzschild solution as the interior solution under the new interpretation of matter source. The interior structure is analyzed at three different levels: $\mathrm{({\romannumeral 1})}$ if the hoop conjecture is satisfied ($r_s\leq r_+$), such a distribution would form a black hole; $\mathrm{({\romannumeral 2})}$ the boundary hides behind or lies at the inner horizon only if $r_s\leq r_-$, or else the inner horizon does not exist; $\mathrm{({\romannumeral 3})}$ no horizons are formed by $f(r)$ if the interior metric function $f(r)>0$ stands within the whole region of $r<r_s$, otherwise $f(r)$ horizons would exist. The classification is characterized by the value of the charge-to-mass ratio $\alpha$ (or the reduced parameter $\beta$). In this specific model, the possible interior structure of black hole solutions can be summarized as: $\mathrm{({\romannumeral 1})}$ the matter source with positive metric function $f(r)$ hides inside the inner horizon and no $f(r)$ horizons form in the 4-dimensional spacetime; $\mathrm{({\romannumeral 2})}$ the matter source with negative $f(r)$ at the boundary hides inside the event horizon, but not inside the inner horizon and one $f(r)$ horizon forms in all the dimensional spacetimes; $\mathrm{({\romannumeral 3})}$ the matter source with a vanishing $f(r)$ at the boundary has only one $f(r)$ horizon that coincides with the inner horizon in the $4$-dimensional spacetime, and has two $f(r)$ horizons, of which the second one coincides with the event horizon in the other dimensional spacetimes.
When the stability of boundary is taken into consideration, we focus on the black hole solution in the 4-dimensional spacetime, whose boundary that connects two different spacetimes is a timelike hypersurface. By investigating the equation of motion of the shell, we show that this shell is stationary and stable under a mass perturbation. Thus, the noncommutative model permits stable black hole solutions only in the 4-dimensional spacetime under the new interpretation, which gives a novel restriction on dimensions that was not mentioned in a previous work [@1511.00853].
Furthermore, though the classification of black holes based on the range of charge-to-mass ratio is model-dependent, we can estimate a wide limit of the parameter $\alpha$ (or $\beta$) for a stable configuration with a timelike boundary. From eqs. (\[rho\]), (\[M\]), and (\[Q\]), we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\int_0^{r_s} A_{n-2}r^{n-2}\rho(r_s)dr&=\frac{2\pi Q^2}{(n-1)A_{n-2}r_s^{n-3}},\\
\int_0^{r_s} A_{n-2}r^{n-2}\rho(r)dr&=M-\frac{2\pi Q^2}{(n-3)A_{n-2}r_s^{n-3}},\end{aligned}$$ which leads to $$\begin{aligned}
r_s^{n-3}\geq\frac{4\pi(n-2)}{(n-1)(n-3)A_{n-2}}\frac{Q^2}{M}
\label{r_s_l}\end{aligned}$$ when the weak energy condition is considered that is equivalent to $\rho>0$ and $\rho'(r)<0$, for the details of analyses, see subsection 2.1. As a result, in order to keep the charged sphere inside the inner horizon ($r_s<r_-$), eq. (\[r\_s\_l\]), together with eq. (\[r\_s\^<r\_-\^\]), provides the range of the reduced parameter $\beta$, $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{4\pi}\frac{(n-1)(n-3)^2}{(n-2)^3}<\beta \leq\frac{1}{4\pi}\frac{(n-3)}{(n-2)}.\end{aligned}$$ This inequality manifests that $\beta$ is lower bounded, which agrees with [@1706.03454] the 4-dimensional case, and more importantly that the range of $\beta$ grows narrow as the dimension becomes large.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
Y.-MW would like to thank L. Zhao for helpful discussions and acknowledges the financial support from the Research Foundation for Middle-aged and Young Teachers of Fujian Province under grant No.JT180747. Y.-GM would like to thank H.P. Nilles for the warm hospitality during his stay at University of Bonn, and acknowledges the financial support from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation under a renewed research program and from the National Natural Science Foundation of China under grant No.11675081.
[10]{} S.W. Hawking and R. Penrose, [*[The singularities of gravitational collapse and cosmology]{}*]{}, Proc. Soc. London A [**[314]{}**]{} (1970) 529. S.W. Hawking and G.F.R. Ellis, [*[The large scale structure of spacetime]{}*]{}, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1973. A.D. Sakharov, [*[Initial stage of an expanding universe and appearance of a nonuniform distribution of matter]{}*]{}, Sov. Phys. JETP [**[22]{}**]{} (1966) 241. E.B. Gliner, [*[Algebraic properties of the energy momentum tensor and vacuum-like states of matter]{}*]{}, Sov. Phys. JETP [**[22]{}**]{} (1966) 378. J.M. Bardeen, [*[Non-singular general-relativistic gravitational collapse]{}*]{}, in Proceedings of International Conference GR [**5**]{} (1968) 174, Tbilisi, Georgia, USSR. E. Ay$\rm\acute{o}$n-Beato and A. Garc$\rm\acute{\i}$a, [*[The Bardeen model as a nonlinear magnetic monopole]{}*]{}, Phys. Lett. B [**[493]{}**]{} (2000) 149, \[[[arXiv:gr-qc/0009077]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0009077)\]. I. Dymnikova, [*[Vacuum nonsingular black hole]{}*]{}, Gen. Rel. Grav. [**[24]{}**]{} (1992) 235. S.A. Hayward, [*[Formation and evaporation of nonsingular black holes]{}*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**[96]{}**]{} (2006) 031103, \[[[arXiv:gr-qc/0506126]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0506126)\]. Y.-G. Miao and Y.-M. Wu, [*[Thermodynamics of the Schwarzschild-AdS black hole with a minimal length]{}*]{}, Adv. High Energy Phys. [**2017**]{} (2017) 1095217, \[[[arXiv:1609.01629 \[hep-th\]]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/1609.01629)\] P. Nicolini, A. Smailagic, and E. Spallucci, [*[Noncommutative geometry inspired Schwarzschild black hole]{}*]{}, Phys. Lett. B [**[632]{}**]{} (2006) 547, \[[[arXiv:gr-qc/0510112]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0510112)\]. P. Nicolini, [*[Noncommutative black holes, the final appeal to quantum gravity: a review]{}*]{}, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A [**[24]{}**]{} (2009) 1229, \[[[arXiv:0807.1939\[hep-th\]]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0807.1939)\]. L. Balart and E.C. Vagenas, [*[Regular black holes with a nonlinear electrodynamics source]{}*]{}, Phys. Rev. D [**[90]{}**]{} (2014) 124045 \[[[arXiv:1408.0306 \[gr-qc\]]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/1408.0306)\]. Y. He and M.-S. Ma, [*[$(2+1)$-dimensional regular black holes with nonlinear electrodynamics sources]{}*]{}, Phys. Lett. B [**[774]{}**]{} (2017) 229, \[[[arXiv:1709.09473 \[gr-qc\]]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/1709.09473)\]. V.P. Frolov, M.A. Markov, and V.F. Mukhanov, [*[Black holes as possible sources of semiclosed worlds]{}*]{}, Phys. Rev. D [**[41]{}**]{} (1990) 383. R. Balbinot and E. Poisson, [*[Stability of the Schwarzschild-de Sitter model]{}*]{}, Phys. Rev. D [**[41]{}**]{} (1990) 395 . C. Barrab$\rm\grave{e}$s and W. Israel, [*[Thin shells in general relativity and cosmology: the lightlike limit]{}*]{}, Phys. Rev. D [**[43]{}**]{} (1991) 1129. J.P.S. Lemos and V.T. Zanchin, [*[Regular black holes: electrically charged solutions, Reissner-Nordstr$\ddot{o}$m outside a de Sitter core]{}*]{}, Phys. Rev. D [**[83]{}**]{} (2011) 124005, \[[[arXiv:1104.4790 \[gr-qc\]]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.4790)\]. N. Uchikata, S. Yoshida, and T. Futamase, [*[New solutions of charged regular black holes and their stability]{}*]{}, Phys. Rev. D [**[86]{}**]{} (2012) 084025, \[[[arXiv:1209.3567 \[gr-qc\]]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/1209.3567)\]. J.P. de Leon, [*[Regular Reissner-Nordstr$\ddot{o}$m black hole solutions from linear electrodynamics]{}*]{}, Phys. Rev. D [**[95]{}**]{} (2017) 124015, \[[[arXiv:1706.03454 \[gr-qc\]]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/1706.03454)\]. J. Polchinski, [*[String theory]{}*]{}, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1998. O. Aharony, S.S. Gubser, J.M. Maldacena, H. Ooguri, and Y. Oz, [*[Large N field theories, string theory and gravity]{}*]{}, Phys. Rept. [**[323]{}**]{} (2000) 183, \[[[arXiv:hep-th/9905111]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9905111)\]. M. Cavaglia, [*[Black hole and brane production in TeV gravity: a review]{}*]{}, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A [**[18]{}**]{} (2003) 1843, \[[[arXiv:hep-ph/0210296]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0210296)\]. E. Villhauer, [*[Noncommutative black holes at the LHC]{}*]{}, J. Physics: Conf. Series [**[942]{}**]{} (2017) 012019, \[[[arXiv:1801.05023 \[hep-ph\]]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/1801.05023)\]. P. Boonserm, T. Ngampitipan, and M. Visser, [*[Mimicking static anisotropic fluid spheres in general relativity]{}*]{}, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D [**[25]{}**]{} (2016) 1650019, \[[[arXiv:1501.07044 \[gr-qc\]]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/1501.07044)\].
A. Smailagic and E. Spallucci, [*[Thermodynamical phases of a regular SAdS black hole]{}*]{}, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D [**[22]{}**]{} (2013) 1350010, \[[[arXiv:1212.5044 \[hep-th\]]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/1212.5044)\]. W. Kim, E.J. Son, and M. Yoon [*[Thermodynamic similarity between the noncommutative Schwarzschild black hole and the Reissner-Nordstr$\ddot{o}$m black hole]{}*]{}, JHEP [**[0804]{}**]{} (2008) 042, \[[[arXiv:0802.1757 \[gr-qc\]]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/0802.1757)\]. K.S. Thorne, [*[Nonspherical gravitional collopse: a short review]{}*]{}, in Ed. J. R. Klauder, [*Magic without magic*]{}, p. 231, San Francisco, USA, 1972. S. Hod, [*[Bekenstein’s generalized second law of thermodynamics: the role of the hoop conjecture]{}*]{}, Phys. Lett. B [**[751]{}**]{} (2015) 241, \[[[arXiv:1511.03665 \[gr-qc\]]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/1511.03665)\]. S. Ansoldi, P. Nicolini, A. Smailagic, and E. Spallucci, [*[Non-commutative geometry inspired charged black holes]{}*]{}, Phys. Lett. B [**[645]{}**]{} (2006) 261, \[[[arXiv:gr-qc/0612035]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0612035)\]. W. Israel, [*[Singular hypersurfaces and thin shells in general relativity]{}*]{}, Nuo. Cim. B [**[44]{}**]{} (1966) 1, Erratum ibid. [**[48]{}**]{} (1967) 463. E. Poisson and W. Israel, [*[Internal structure of black holes]{}*]{}, Phys. Rev. D [**[41]{}**]{} (1990) 1796. S.J. Gao and J.P.S. Lemos, [*[Collapsing and static thin massive charged dust shells in a Reissner-Nordstr$\ddot{o}$m black hole background in higher dimensions]{}*]{}, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A [**[23]{}**]{} (2008) 2943, \[[[arXiv:0804.0295 \[hep-th\]]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.0295)\]. Y.-G. Miao and Z.-M. Xu, [*[Thermodynamics of noncommutative high-dimensional AdS black holes with non-Gaussian smeared matter distributions]{}*]{}, Eur. Phys. J. C [**[76]{}**]{} (2016) 217, \[[[arXiv:1511.00853 \[hep-th\]]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/1511.00853)\].
[^1]: E-mail address: [email protected]
[^2]: E-mail address: [email protected]
[^3]: As was denoted in ref. [@1706.03454], the perfect fluid charged sphere, or a charged perfect fluid in short, means the perfect fluid together with the electromagnetic field.
[^4]: For the energy-momentum tensor in eq. (\[EMT\]), the weak energy condition (WEC) requires that $\rho>0$, $\rho+p_r\geq0$, and $\rho+p_\bot\geq0$; the strong energy condition (SEC) requires that $\rho+p_r+(n-2)p_\bot\geq0$, $\rho+p_r\geq0$, and $\rho+p_\bot>0$.
[^5]: For the energy-momentum tensor eq. (\[EMT\]), the dominant energy condition requires $\rho\geq|p_r|$ and $\rho\geq |p_\bot|$, where the former inequality is satisfied due to eq. (\[rhop\]), and the latter due to the WEC.
[^6]: For the noncommutative Schwarzschild black hole, the mass distribution is Gaussian, see eq. (\[schrho\]). The total amount of this mass parameter is given by $m=A_{n-2}\int_0^\infty \rho r^{n-2} dr$, and the condition that the black hole can be formed is that the average radius of the mass distribution should not be less than the horizon of the hole.
[^7]: In the 4-dimensional spacetime, $k_n=8\pi$ has been considered.
[^8]: In the particular situation of the extremal black hole at $\beta=\beta_1$, the classification is still effective as long as the additional condition $r_-=r_+$ is considered into the subcases.
[^9]: To avoid ambiguities, the inner horizon and event horizon specially refer to the two roots of $f_{RN}(r)$ in the present paper, $r_-$ and $r_+$. As to the roots of $f(r)$, we call them the “$f(r)$-horizons" that are not larger than $r_+$.
[^10]: In subsection 3.1, we have obtained the range of $\beta$ for the 4-dimensional black hole with timelike boundary, $\beta\in (0.03955,0.03979)$. It is actually equivalent to the range of the interior parameter, $\frac{m}{\sqrt{\theta}}\in(1.90318, 1.91489)$.
[^11]: The density and pressure occupy the entire spacetime in the interpretations associated with anisotropic fluid.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We study electron transport through a system of two lateral quantum dots coupled in series. We consider the case of weak coupling to the leads and a bias point in the Coulomb blockade. After a generalized Schrieffer-Wolff transformation, cotunneling through this system is described using methods from lowest-order perturbation theory. We study the system for arbitrary bias voltages below the Coulomb energy. We observe a rich, non-monotonic behaviour of the stationary current depending on the internal degrees of freedom. In particular, it turns out that at fixed transport voltage, the current through the system is largest at weak-to-intermediate inter-dot coupling.'
author:
- Udo Hartmann
- 'Frank K. Wilhelm'
title: Nonlinear cotunneling through an artificial molecule
---
Quantum dots are prototype systems for studying the properties of discrete levels embedded in a solid-state environment. Single dots (“artificial atoms” [@Ashoori]) can be coupled through quantum point contacts, leading to “artificial molecules”. Indeed it has been shown experimentally [@Waugh; @Blick1; @AlexScience], that the eigenstates of double dot systems are coherent molecular superpositions of single dot (atomic) states. Unlike real molecules, these dots are readily contacted and tunable in situ, making them a natural test-bed for molecular transport. Double dots have also been proposed as charge quantum bits [@Blick2; @UdoFrank].
This raises the question, which information on the energy spectrum and the wavefunctions of the dot can be probed by transport measurements. This is only possible if artifacts induced by the coupling to the leads can be sorted out and the double-dot is disturbed as little as possible. This is the case, when the coupling to the outside leads is weak (see Fig. \[fig:molecule\]) and the gates are tuned to the Coulomb blockade regime [@Leo; @Wilfried]. In that regime, only states with a fixed number of electrons are energetically permissible and hence sequential tunneling is suppressed. The leading transport mechanism in this case is cotunneling [@Nazarov], the coherent transfer of two electrons via virtual levels in the dots. Our work stands between studies focusing on sequential tunneling [@Stoof] and work on [*linear response*]{} in the Kondo regime[@Laszlo]. The properties of cotunneling currents as a spectroscopic tool for the spectrum of quantum dot system have recently been studied in exquisitely controlled experiments on systems similar to ours [@Silvano; @AlexScience].
In this paper, we analyze a serial configuration of lateral quantum dots in the cotunneling regime. We study finite voltages up to the order of the charging energy i.e. do not restrict ourselves to linear response. We find a rich nonmonotonic structure in the current as a function of the dot parameters. In particular, we find a pronounced crossover indicating the opening of an inelastic transport channel, which leads to the surprising result, that a too strong interdot coupling actually inhibits charge transport. We analyze the influence of the asymmetry of the dots on the current.
In the Coulomb blockade regime [@Leo; @Wilfried], the relevant Hilbert space is spanned by four basis states $|i,j\rangle$, $i,j\in\lbrace0,1\rbrace$, which denotes $i$ and $j$ additional electrons (as compared to an appropriate neutral state) on the left and right dot respectively. We study the situation where the gate voltages of the single dots are very close to each other and the inter-dot coupling is, although appreciable, much smaller than the single dot addition energy. Thus, the subspace spanned by the two states $|1,0\rangle$ and $|0,1\rangle$ is energetically most favorable. The next closest states $|v_0\rangle=|0,0\rangle$ and $|v_2\rangle=|1,1\rangle$ are outside the transport window and serve as virtual states [@Nazarov]. States with higher dipolar moment are energetically even less favorable due to the high charging energy of the individual dots.
The Hamiltonian of this system can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
H & = & H_{0} + H_{1}\\ H_{0} & = & H_{{\rm sys}} + H_{{\rm res}} \\
H_{{\rm sys}} & = & \varepsilon_{\rm as} (\hat{n}_l-\hat{n}_r) -
\varepsilon_\alpha \hat{n}_{v_0}+\varepsilon_\beta \hat{n}_{v_2} \nonumber
\\ && + \gamma \sum_{n}
(a^{L\dagger}_{n}a^{R}_{n}+a^{R\dagger}_{n}a^{L}_{n}) \\ H_{{\rm res}}
& = & \sum_{\vec{k}}
\varepsilon^{L}_{\vec{k}}b^{L\dagger}_{\vec{k}}b^{L}_{\vec{k}} +
\sum_{\vec{k\prime}}
\varepsilon^{R}_{\vec{k\prime}}b^{R\dagger}_{\vec{k\prime}}b^{R}_{\vec{k\prime}}
\\ H_{1} & = & t_{c} \sum_{\vec{k},n}
(a^{L\dagger}_{n}b^{L}_{\vec{k}}+a^{L}_{n}b^{L\dagger}_{\vec{k}})
\nonumber \\ && + t_{c} \sum_{\vec{k\prime},n}
(a^{R\dagger}_{n}b^{R}_{\vec{k\prime}}+a^{R}_{n}b^{R\dagger}_{\vec{k\prime}})
\ .\end{aligned}$$ Note, that the sum over dot states $n$ only runs over the restricted Hilbert space described above. $H_{0}$ describes the isolated [*double-dot*]{} ($H_{{\rm sys}}$) and the leads ($H_{{\rm res}}$), whereas the tunneling part $H_{1}$ describes the coupling of each dot to its lead and will be treated as a perturbation. $\hat{n}_{l/r}$ are the number operators counting additional electrons on either dot. The asymmetry energy $\varepsilon_{\rm
as}=(\varepsilon_{l}-\varepsilon_{r})/2$ describes half of the difference between the energy level for the additional electron in left dot ($\varepsilon_{l}$) and the corresponding energy level in the right dot ($\varepsilon_{r}$), which can be tuned through the gate voltages. $\varepsilon_{\beta}$ and $\varepsilon_{\alpha}$ are the charging energies towards the higher level $|v_2\rangle$ and the lower level $|v_0\rangle$ respectively. $\gamma$ is the tunable inter-dot coupling strength. The $a^{(\dagger)}$s and $b^{(\dagger)}$s denote electron creation/annihilation operators in the dots and leads. In $H_{1}$, the symbol $t_{c}$ represents the tunnel matrix element between the dots and the leads. It is independent of the energies in the double-dot system and the corresponding sequential tunneling rate $\hbar\Gamma=2\pi t_c^2 N(\varepsilon_{\rm F})$ should be small compared to the internal energies. $N(\varepsilon_{\rm F})$ is the density of states in the leads taken at the Fermi energy. We restrict our analysis to spin-polarized electrons, these can be polarized by an appropriate in-plane magnetic field. Fig. \[fig:molecule\] shows a sketch of the system.
![Sketch of the considered artificial molecule, where $2\delta$ is the level splitting and $V$ the bias voltage. The coupling to the outside leads (hatched areas) is assumed to be small whereas the inter-dot coupling (dotted line) can be strong.[]{data-label="fig:molecule"}](molecule.eps){width="0.6\columnwidth"}
In Fig. \[fig:molecule\], $V=\mu_{R}-\mu_{L}$ is the bias voltage between the two leads (hatched) and $2\delta=2\sqrt{\varepsilon_{\rm
as}^2+\gamma^2}$ is the level splitting in the molecular two-state system (TSS).
Pursuing our aforementioned objective, we take the inter-dot coupling $\gamma$ into account to all orders by diagonalizing $H_{\rm sys}$ and transforming $H_{\rm 1}$ into the new basis. Already now, there is no simple selection rule or symmetry of the coupling of the states to the leads any more. We want to use well-established tools of lowest order perturbation theory for both finding the density matrix of the system and evaluating the current. In order to capture cotunneling by this approach, we perform a Schrieffer-Wolff transformation [@Schrieffer] up to second order, i.e. we take into account all indirect transitions between arbitrary final and initial states of the dot which involve only a [*single*]{} intermediate state. This takes the transformed Hamiltonian into the generic form $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{H}_{I} & = & \sum_{c,d}\limits \alpha_{c}^{\dagger}\alpha_{d} \Big[
\sum_{Y,Y',\vec{k},\vec{k'}}\limits H^{Y,Y'}_{\vec{k},\vec{k'},c,d}
b^{Y\dagger}_{\vec{k}} b^{Y'}_{\vec{k'}} + \nonumber \\
&& + \sum_{Y,Y',\vec{k},\vec{k'}}\limits
H^{Y,Y'}_{\vec{k},\vec{k'},c,d} b^{Y}_{\vec{k}} b^{Y'\dagger}_{\vec{k'}}\Big] ,
\label{eq:transhamil}\end{aligned}$$ where the $H^{Y,Y'}_{\vec{k},\vec{k'},c,d}$ are Schrieffer-Wolff amplitudes and $c,d=\pm$ denote the two molecular levels, $\alpha^{(\dagger)}_{c/d}$ the associated molecular operators and $Y,Y'$ the position of the electrons involved in these processes. Due to the molecular nature of the double dot eigenstates, all the amplitudes are finite and composed out of a huge number of contributions with no particular symmetry. The perturbation theory formula for this general case can be found e.g. in Ref. and is worked out in more detail in Refs. and . In eq.(\[eq:transhamil\]), we have taken matrix elements in the double-dot eigenbasis only whereas we stick to second-quantized notation in the leads, because this notation readily connects to the formalism used later on.
The stationary density matrix is found using the well-established and controlled Bloch-Redfield theory [@Agyres]. This is a systematic technique for deriving generalized master equations within Born approximation in $\tilde{H}_I$, eq. (\[eq:transhamil\]), which includes all relevant non-markovian parts. This approach has been shown [@Hartmann] to be numerically equivalent to formally exact path integral methods for the Spin-Boson model in the weak-coupling limit. The Redfield equations [@Weiss] for the elements of the reduced density matrix $\rho$ in the molecular basis read $$\dot{\rho}_{nm}(t)=-i\omega_{nm}(t)\rho_{nm}(t)-\sum_{k,l}\limits
R_{nmkl}\rho_{kl}(t) \ ,
\label{redfield}$$ where $\omega_{nm}=(E_n-E_m)/\hbar$ are the appropriate energy splittings and $R_{nmkl}$ are the elements of the Redfield tensor. They are composed out of golden rule rates involving $\tilde{H}_I$ from eq. (\[eq:transhamil\]). $n$, $m$, $k$ and $l$ can be either $+$ (molecular excited state) or $-$ (molecular ground state). The $E$s are the eigenenergies of the two molecular states. Due to the lack of symmetry, this leads to a huge number of processes contributing to each term [@Diplomarbeit]. We are only interested in stationary solutions here. A full treatment of the simple case with $\gamma=0$ can be found in Ref..
The current is derived from the standard formula [@Mahan] $$I(t)=-e \frac{i}{\hbar} \int_{-\infty}^{t}\limits dt'
\langle[\dot{N}_L(t),\tilde{H}_I(t')]\rangle \ ,\label{eq:current}$$ where $N_L$ is the particle number operator on the left dot in the interaction representation and the transformed interaction Hamiltonian $\tilde{H}_I$ from eq. (\[eq:transhamil\]) is also taken in the interaction picture. Carrying out the integration in equation (\[eq:current\]) and rotating back to the Schrödinger picture, we get a time-independent expression for the current $I$. Using the stationary occupation probability of the molecular ground ($\rho_{\rm --,st}$) or excited state ($\rho_{\rm ++,st}$), we obtain for the expectation value of the stationary current $$I_{\rm st} ={\rm tr} (\rho_{\rm st}I) =\rho_{\rm ++,st}I_{++} +
\rho_{\rm --,st}I_{--} \ ,
\label{eq:st_current}$$ where we find from balancing relaxation processes in the Bloch-Redfield equation, eq. (\[redfield\]) $$\rho_{\rm ++,st} = \frac{R_{++--}}{R_{++--}-R_{++++}} \quad \rho_{\rm
--,st} = \frac{R_{--++}}{R_{--++}-R_{----}} \ .$$
The current amplitudes $I_{++}$ and $I_{--}$ in eq. (\[eq:st\_current\]) are of the same form as the contributions to the Redfield tensor. We emphasize, that the choice of processes from all possibilities is very distinct. As an example, Fig. \[procs\] displays a variety of possible processes in such a double-dot system. Processes of the type displayed in Fig. \[procs\] (a) contribute to the relaxation but do not carry current, (b) shows a process which carries current but does not relax the state, and (c) relaxes [*and*]{} carries current. The phase information of the quantum state is lost in all three pictures of Fig. \[procs\]. Consequently, one must not confuse cotunneling rates with relaxation rates.
We now turn to the discussion of the results. All internal energies $\varepsilon_{\rm as}$ and $\gamma$ are normalized in units of the bias voltage $V$, the stationary current $I_{\rm st}$ in terms of $I_{0}=e\Gamma$.
![Stationary current $I_{\rm st}/I_{0}$ for different $\varepsilon_{\rm as}/V$ as a function of the coupling $\gamma/V$. (with $T=140$ mK, $V=5.170$ $\mu$V and $\mu_{\rm
av}=(\mu_{R}+\mu_{L})/2=75.832$ $\mu$eV and $\Gamma=1$ GHz.).[]{data-label="fig:cur_g"}](cur_gb.eps){width="0.7\columnwidth"}
In Fig. \[fig:cur\_g\] the current at fixed bias voltage as a function of the inter-dot coupling is shown. The sign of $\varepsilon_{\rm as}$ plays a role, as one can see above, for an intermediate $\varepsilon_{\rm as}$-regime. This effect is more pronounced in $I(V)$, see Ref. [@Diplomarbeit]. Close to $\gamma=0$, the curves all turn to zero, because at that point the dots are disconnected and no current can flow. However, a number of curves, the ones with $\varepsilon_{\rm as}/V<1$, exhibit an intermediate maximum at low $\gamma$ next to a very sharp minimum at $\gamma=0$, which sometimes is hardly resolved. At high $\gamma\gtrsim V$, the stationary current saturates into a value, which for our parameters turns out to be about $I_{\rm 0,st}/I_{0}=7.5
\cdot 10^{-7}$. Remarkably, this is half the value of the current at the aforementioned low-$\gamma$-Maximum. This is the central result of this paper.
These regimes can be classified in terms of the level splitting $2\delta$[@Wegewijs]: At $V<2\delta $, the energy $V$ supplied from the leads is only sufficient to use one of the molecular states for transport (elastic cotunneling) whereas at $V>2\delta$, both states participate and also inelastic processes contribute, i.e.there is a second current channel, which carries the same contribution of $I_{\rm 0}$. The crossover naturally occurs at $\gamma =
\sqrt{\frac{V^2}{4}-\varepsilon_{\rm as}^2}$, which can only be reached if $\varepsilon_{\rm as}/V<1/2$. As long as $\gamma$ is not too low, the coupling to the leads is the limiting element for the current flow. Only if $\gamma < \varepsilon_{\rm as}$, the double-dot eigenstates become localized and the inter-dot coupling becomes the current bottleneck. Consequently, associated dips have a half-width of $\varepsilon_{\rm as}$ for low temperatures and bias voltages and can thus be extremely narrow. We would like to remark that the notion of transport “channels” is appropriate here, because cotunneling is a coherent transport process.
![Stationary current $I_{\rm st}/I_{0}$ for different values of $\gamma/V$ as a function of the asymmetry energy $\varepsilon_{\rm as}/V$ (with $T=140$ mK, $V=5.170$ $\mu$V and $\mu_{\rm av}=75.832$ $\mu$eV and $\Gamma=1$ GHz).[]{data-label="fig:cur_e"}](cur_eb.eps){width="0.7\columnwidth"}
Fig. \[fig:cur\_e\] shows the dependence of the stationary current on $\varepsilon_{\rm as}/V$. It confirms the interpretation of Fig. \[fig:cur\_g\]. The plot is only weakly asymmetric to $\varepsilon_{\rm as}/V=0$. At zero asymmetry, $\varepsilon_{\rm as}/V=0$, the condition for charge transport is ideal, $\sqrt{\frac{V^2}{4}-\varepsilon_{\rm as}^2}$ has its maximum and therefore the current is only governed by the inter-dot coupling $\gamma/V$, resulting in a zero-asymmetry maximum.
Still, all three transport regimes can be recognized in Fig. \[fig:cur\_e\]. The $\gamma/V=0$ curve shows, that the stationary current $I_{\rm st}/I_{0}$ is exactly zero as expected. For growing, but small values of $\gamma/V$, the maximum at $\varepsilon_{\rm as}/V=0$ reaches the highest value $I_{\rm
st}/I_{0}=2I_{\rm 0,st}/I_{0}$ at about $1.5 \cdot 10^{-6}$ (like in Fig. \[fig:cur\_g\]), corresponding to two open transport channels (elastic [*and*]{} inelastic). If we raise $\gamma/V$ further, the height of the peak goes down again and saturates at $I_{\rm
st}/I_{0}=I_{\rm 0,st}/I_{0} \approx 7.5 \cdot 10^{-7}$, corresponding to only the elastic channel being open.
![Limits for the three transport regimes with $V=5.170$ $\mu$V[]{data-label="fig:phase"}](phaseb.eps){width="6truecm"}
The three transport regimes are summarized in Fig. \[fig:phase\]: i) the atomic limit (no transport) $\gamma < \varepsilon_{\rm as}$, ii) the two-channel case (inelastic cotunneling) $\varepsilon_{\rm as} < \gamma
< \sqrt{\frac{V^2}{4}-\varepsilon_{\rm as}^2}$; and iii) the one-channel case (elastic cotunneling) $\gamma >
\sqrt{\frac{V^2}{4}-\varepsilon_{\rm as}^2}$.
These conditions show that indeed cotunneling can be used as a tool for investigating the energy spectrum of an undisturbed artificial molecule [@AlexScience]. The cross-over between the elastic and the inelastic cotunneling in dependence of the applied bias voltage has recently been observed [@Silvano]. A similar conclusion was found in Ref. .
Although the notion of (elastic and inelastic) cotunneling was already introduced very early[@Nazarov], its consequences for realistic quantum dot systems have only been discussed very recently[@Wegewijs], along with detailed and accurate experiments on small semiconductor quantum dots [@Silvano; @AlexScience] becoming available. The sharp crossover between elastic and inelastic cotunneling, which we discuss, has been identified in a vertical quantum dot[@Silvano] by changing the transport voltage. Ref. studies cotunneling in a parallel double-dot topology, using again cotunneling and the elastic-to-inelastic crossover as a spectroscopic tool and tuning the inter-dot coupling [*in situ*]{}. In both cases, the narrow regime of decoupled dots would not have been accessible through a conductance measurement. Some of the experimental issues have been theoretically addressed in Ref. . In that case, however, the behavior of a single multilevel dot system was modelled with phenomenological couplings to the leads, whereas we take a realistic model and only by this manage to predict effects which e.g. depend on the serial dot topology of the sample. Note, that parts of the double-dot literature focus on phonon/photon assisted transport (see e.g. Refs. for experiments and Refs. for theory). Unlike Ref., we concentrate on the Coulomb blockade regime and do not consider cotunneling at resonance. In Ref., a different approach to the problem was developed, in which the master equation is carried to second order instead of using a Schrieffer-Wolff transformation, and a few setups simpler than ours are studied. Our approach does not require the molecule to be artificial, in principle it can be applied to “real” molecules [@Weber]. In contrast to the approach in Ref., it permits to take into account charging effects, however, the Schrieffer-Wolff transformation is clearly a laborious step for larger systems.
To conclude, we analyzed the stationary coherent cotunneling current $I_{\rm st}$ through a double quantum dot system or artificial molecule. As a function of the inter-dot coupling strength it displays a rich, non-monotonic structure, which enables us to perform “molecular cotunneling spectroscopy”. Strikingly, we have shown that at fixed bias voltage, the current is highest, if the dots are weakly-to-intermediately connected, such that the inter-dot coupling is at least as strong as the coupling to the leads, but the splitting of the molecular wavefunctions is still smaller than the transport voltage.
We thank J. von Delft, J. König, L. Borda, M. Sindel, A.W.Holleitner, A.K. Hüttel and E.M. Höhberger for clarifying discussions. We acknowledge financial support from ARO, Contract-No. P-43385-PH-QC.
[10]{} R.C. Ashoori, Nature [**379**]{}, 413 (1996). F.R. Waugh et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. [**75**]{}, 705 (1995). R.H. Blick et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. [**80**]{}, 4032 (1998). A.W. Holleitner et al., Science [**297**]{}, 70 (2002). R.H. Blick and H. Lorenz, proc. ISCAS 2000, II245 (2000). U. Hartmann and F.K. Wilhelm, phys. stat. sol. (b) [**233**]{}, No. 3, pp. 385-390 (2002). L.P. Kouwenhoven et al., in [*Mesoscopic Electron Transport*]{}, Vol. 345 of [*NATO ASI, Series E*]{}, edited by L.L. Sohn, L.P. Kouwenhoven, and G. Schön (Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, 1997), p. 105. W.G. van der Wiel et al., Rev. Mod. Phys. [**75**]{}, 1 (2003). T.H. Stoof and Yu.V. Nazarov, Phys. Rev. B [**53**]{}, 1050 (1996). see e.g. L. Borda et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. [**90**]{}, 026602 (2003). D.V. Averin and Yu.V. Nazarov, in [*Single Charge Tunneling*]{}, Vol. 294 of [*Nato ASI, Series B*]{}, edited by H. Grabert and M.H. Devoret (Plenum, New York, 1992), pp. 217-247. S. De Franceschi et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. [**86**]{}, 878 (2001). J.R. Schrieffer and P.A. Wolff, Phys. Rev. [**149**]{}, 491 (1966). C. Cohen-Tannoudij, J. Dupont-Roc, and G.Grynberg, [*Atom-Photon Interactions*]{} (Wiley, N.Y., 1992). U. Hartmann, master’s thesis and U. Hartmann and F.K. Wilhelm, in preparation. P.N. Agyres and P.L. Kelley, Phys. Rev. [**134**]{}, A 98 (1964). L. Hartmann, I. Goychuk, M. Grifoni and P.Hänggi, Phys. Rev. E [**61**]{}, R4687 (2000). U. Weiss, [*Quantum dissipative systems, 2nd ed.*]{}, (World Scientific, Singapore, 1999). G.D. Mahan, [*Many-Particle Physics*]{}, 3rd ed., (Kluwer Academic / Plenum Publishers, New York, 2000). M.R. Wegewijs and Yu.V. Nazarov, unpublished cond-mat/0103579 (2001). H. Qin, A.W. Holleitner, K. Eberl and R.H. Blick, Phys. Rev. B [**64**]{}, 241302 (2001). T.H. Oosterkamp et al., Nature [**395**]{}, 873 (1998). B.L. Hazelzet, M.R. Wegewijs, T.H. Stoof and Yu.V. Nazarov, Phys. Rev. B [**63**]{}, 165313 (2001). T. Brandes and B. Kramer, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**83**]{}, 3021 (1999). J. König, H. Schoeller and G. Schön, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**78**]{}, 4482 (1997). E.V. Sukhorukov, G. Burkard, and D. Loss, Phys.Rev. B [**63**]{}, 125315 (2001). H.B. Weber [*et al.*]{}, to appear in Chem. Phys. J. Heurich, J.C. Cuevas, W. Wenzel, and G.Schön, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**88**]{}, 256803 (2002).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We study bound orbits near the centres of static, spherically symmetric, asymptotically flat configurations of a self-gravitating scalar field minimally coupled to gravity. In our approach, a nonlinear scalar field is considered as an idealized model of dark matter, and the main examples that we have in mind are the centres of galaxies. We consider both scalar field black holes (SFBHs) and scalar field naked singularities (SFNSs). It turns out that the shape and parameters of a bound orbit depend crucially on the type of configuration. The lapse metric function of a SFNS and, consequently, the effective potential of a massive test particle with zero angular momentum have a global minimum. A SFNS has a static degenerated orbit on which a test particle, having zero angular momentum and the minimum of its energy, remains at rest at all times. This implies that there exists a spherical shell consisting of cold gas or dust, which for a distant observer can look like the shadow of a black hole. We also study the shape of noncircular bound orbits close to the centres of SFNSs and show that their angles of precession are negative.'
author:
- 'I.M. Potashov'
- 'Ju.V. Tchemarina'
- 'A.N. Tsirulev'
date: 'Received: date / Accepted: date'
title: Bound orbits near scalar field naked singularities
---
Introduction
============
At present, we still do not exactly know the geometry of spacetime in the neighbourhood of the centre of normal galaxies. The best observational results have been obtained for the centres of our Galaxy and of M87 [@Meyer2012; @Akiyama2015; @Fish2016; @Gillessen2017; @Goddi2017; @Hees2017]. However, the available data are so far insufficient to identify these strongly gravitating objects and even to definitely distinguish between black holes, naked singularities, boson stars, and wormholes [@Joshi2014; @Macedo2013; @Li2014; @Grould2017a; @Grould2017b; @Abuter2018]. The EHT collaboration has recently observed [@Akiyama2018] the shadow, circled by a bright ring, in the centre of M87: this can be interpreted as the existence of closed photon orbits. However, it is shown in [@Shaikh2018] using a simple model that a naked singularity can have both a shadow and a photon sphere. In fact, observations of the orbits of stars near the centres have a key role in dealing with this question, but there are some obvious problems with the reasonable geometrical interpretation of such observations. First, one should not think of the central objects in galaxies as being in vacuum, because dark matter is mainly concentrated around them. Another problem is that the nature of dark matter and its distribution near galactic centres remain unknown at present. This means that a meaningful interpretation of the observations should be based on an appropriate mathematical model of the central regions.
In this paper, we model dark matter by a nonlinear scalar field which is assumed to be minimally coupled to gravity. This model is an interesting alternative to the cold dark matter phenomenology (see e.g. [@Lee1996; @Matos2004; @Robles2012; @Benisty2017; @Bernal2019] and references therein). In the centres of galaxies, the distribution of dark matter seems to be spherically symmetric. Our aim is to study bound orbits of test particles near the centres of static, spherically symmetric configurations of a self-gravitating nonlinear scalar field; in our terminology, a bound orbit is a bounded *complete* geodesic in an asymptotically flat spacetime. The motivation for the choice of this special and idealized model is to treat the problem in a fully analytical and self-consistent manner. For the orbital motion of a test particle near a compact hairy object, this model allows us to find out some important features, which can possibly be observed in real astrophysical systems, and which appear to be hidden in a purely numerical analysis.
When we speak about SFNSs and SFBHs, we are faced with some unsolved problems, such as the cosmic censorship conjecture, instability of configurations, violation of the nonnegativity of self-interaction potentials, and so on. However, a number of these problems, including the singularity problem, disappear if we assume that there is some additional matter (perhaps of an unknown nature, beyond the Standard Model) in the very centre. Note also that we regard, in what follows, a scalar field as a phenomenological construction rather than a fundamental natural field; on the other hand, the Standard Model of particle physics predicts the existence of such a field, and it is of great importance for the modern cosmology. In both the cases, we do not know (in advance, without appealing to astrophysical observations) the self-interaction potential of the scalar field. Therefore, in order to consider the problem in a sufficiently general approach, we use the so-called inverse problem method for self-gravitating spherically symmetric scalar fields; the method was proposed in [@Lechtenfeld1995; @Lechtenfeld1998; @BronnikovShikin2002] and later was explored in [@Tchemarina2009; @Azreg2010; @Cadoni2011; @Solovyev2012; @Cadoni2018] and applied, for example, in [@BronnikovChernakova2007; @Nikonov2008; @Franzin2018].
The paper is organised as follows. In Sect. \[Sec2\] we describe the necessary mathematical background for static, spherically symmetric scalar field configurations, and obtain some general results both for SFBHs and for SFNSs. One of the most important issues is how to distinguish a naked singularity from a black hole using available observational data. On the other hand, our primary purpose is the study of geodesic motion in these asymptotically flat spacetimes, and in Sect. \[Sec3\] we discuss general features of bound orbits of free massive particles, such as the shape of the orbits and the precession of their pericentres. In Sect. \[Sec4\] we consider a simple, fully analytical, one-parameter family of SFNSs and study the shapes of bound orbits in these spacetimes in comparison with the orbits in the corresponding Schwarzschild black hole spacetimes.
In this paper, we use the geometrical system of units with $G=c=1$ and adopt the metric signature $(+\,-\,-\,-)$.
Comparing SFBHs and SFNSs {#Sec2}
=========================
The action with the minimal coupling between curvature and a real scalar field $\phi$ has the form $$\label{action}
\Sigma=\frac{1}{8\pi}\int\left(-\frac{1}{2}R + \,\langle d\phi,d\phi\rangle-2V(\phi)\right) \sqrt[]{|g|}\,d^{\,4}x\,,$$ where $R$ is the scalar curvature, $V(\phi)$ is a self-interaction potential, and the angle brackets denote the scalar product with respect to the spacetime metric. For our purposes, it is convenient to write the metric of a spherically symmetric spacetime in the Schwarzschild-like coordinates as $$\label{metric}
ds^2=A dt^2- \frac{\,dr^2}{f}- r^{2}(d\theta^2+\sin^{2}\!\theta\, d\varphi^2),$$ where the metric functions $A$ and $f$ depend only on the radial coordinate $r$. Writing $$A(r)=f(r)\mathrm{e}^{2\Phi(r)},$$ we obtain the Einstein-Klein-Gordon equations in the form $$\label{EKG1}
-\frac{f'}{r}-\frac{f-1}{r^2}={\phi'}^2 f + 2V\,,$$ $$\label{EKG2}
\frac{f}{r}\left(\!2\Phi'+\frac{f'}{f}\right)+\frac{f-1}{r^2}=
{\phi'}^2 f - 2V\,,$$ $$\label{EKG3}
-f\phi''-\frac{\phi'}{2}f'-\phi' f\left(\!\Phi' +
\frac{1}{2}\frac{f'}{f}+\frac{2}{r}\right)+ \frac{dV}{d\phi}=0\,,$$ where a prime denotes differentiation with respect to $r$. Now these equations can be reduced to two independent ones by summing equations (\[EKG1\]) and (\[EKG2\]) (with the result $\Phi'=r{\phi'}^2$), and then eliminating $\Phi'$ from (\[EKG3\]).
The functions $A$ and $f$, which completely determine geodesic motion in the spacetime, should be the result of solving equations (\[EKG1\])–(\[EKG3\]). However, we have no a priori knowledge of the form of $V(\phi)$ and have to study bound orbits for all physically admissible self-interaction potentials at once. Our approach is based on the following result [@Solovyev2012]:
*A general static, spherically symmetric, asymptotically flat solution of equations (\[EKG1\])–(\[EKG3\]) with an arbitrary self-interaction potential is given by the quadratures* $$\label{F-xi}
\Phi(r)=-\!\int_{r}^{\,\infty} {\phi'}^{2}rdr\,,\quad \xi(r)=r+\int_{r}^{\,\infty}
\left(1-\mathrm{e}^{\Phi}\right)\!dr\,,$$ $$\label{A-f}
A(r)=2r^{2}\!\int_{r}^{\,\infty} \frac{\,\xi-3m}{\,r^4}\,\mathrm{e}^{\Phi}dr\,, \quad f(r)=\mathrm{e}^{-2\Phi}A\,,$$ $$\label{V}
\widetilde{V}(r)=\frac{1}{2r^2}\!\left(1-3f+ r^2{\phi'}^{2}\!f+ 2\,\mathrm{e}^{-\Phi}\,\frac{\,\xi-3m}{r}\right),$$ *where the parameter $m$ is the Schwarzschild mass*.
Each strictly monotonic[^1] function $\phi(r)$ of class $C^2\big([0,\infty)\big)$ with the asymptotic behaviour $$\label{phi}
\phi= O\!\left(r^{-1/2-\textstyle{\alpha}}\right)\!,\;\;\, r\rightarrow\infty\qquad (\alpha>0)$$ determines a one-parameter family of solutions by these quadratures: one sequentially finds the functions $\mathrm{e}^{\Phi}$, $\xi$, $A$, $f$, and $\widetilde{V}(r)$, and then find the potential $V(\phi)=\widetilde{V}(r(\phi))$. Note also that we could include the cosmological constant in the potential as the additional term $\Lambda/2$, but its contribution to the geometry of the central region would be negligible. The absence of the cosmological constant simply means that $V(\phi(\infty))=0$.
In spherically symmetric spacetimes, the Kretchmann invariant, $K= R_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta} R^{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}/4$, equals the sum of the squared curvature components. In the orthonormal basis associated with the metric (\[metric\]), algebraically independent components of the curvature can be reduced with the aid of (\[F-xi\]) and (\[A-f\]) to the form $$\begin{aligned}
R_{0101}&=& {\phi'}^{2}f-\frac{f-1}{r^2}, \quad R_{2323}=\frac{f-1}{r^2},
\label{R1}\\
R_{0202}&=&R_{0303}= -\frac{f}{r^2}+ \mathrm{e}^{-\Phi}\,\frac{\xi-3m}{r^3},
\label{R2}\\
R_{1212}&=&R_{1313}=\frac{f}{r^2}- {\phi'}^{2}f- \mathrm{e}^{-\Phi}\,\frac{\xi-3m}{r^3},
\label{R3}\end{aligned}$$ One can see that with the exception of some special fine-tuned cases, $K$ and $R$ diverge at $r=0$ for all solutions. In the generally accepted manner, we call a solution *a naked singularity* (*a black hole*) if $K$ diverges at $r=0$ and $f>0$ for all $r>0$ (respectively, $f=0$ at some radius $r_{\!\vphantom{\hat{A}}h}>0$ and $f>0$ for all $r>r_{\!\vphantom{\hat{A}}h}$).
For a given nonzero scalar field $\phi(r)$, it follows directly from (\[F-xi\]) that $\xi'=\mathrm{e}^{\Phi}>0$ for all $r>0$ and $\xi(0)>0$, so that the metric function $A$, given by the quadrature (\[A-f\]), passes through zero and becomes negative as $\,r\rightarrow0\,$ if and only if $\,\,3m>\xi(0)$. In other words, the corresponding configuration of mass $m$ will be a naked singularity or a black hole if $$\label{3m<xi0}
0<3m<\xi(0)\quad \mbox{(naked singularities)}$$ or $$\label{3m>xi0}
3m>\xi(0)\quad \mbox{(black holes)}$$ respectively. In what follows we deal only with ’generic’ configurations and do not consider the special (fine-tuned) case $3m=\xi(0)$; the latter leads to a naked singularity or a regular solution.
It follows from (\[F-xi\]) and (\[phi\]) that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{est1}
\mathrm{e}^{\Phi}&=&1+o(1/r),\quad \xi\!=r+o(1),\;\;\; r\rightarrow\infty,\vphantom{\int}\\
\label{est2}
\mathrm{e}^{\Phi}&=&\mathrm{e}^{\Phi(0)}+o(r),\;\; \xi\!=\xi(0)+\xi'(0)r+o(r),\;\; r\rightarrow0,\end{aligned}$$ where $\xi(0)>0$ and $\xi'(0)=\mathrm{e}^{\Phi(0)}>0$ if the scalar field is not identically zero. Using the quadrature (\[A-f\]) and the asymptotic estimates (\[est1\]) and (\[est2\]), one can directly obtain the asymptotic behaviours of the metric function $A(r)$ for both SFNSs and SFBHs; they are $$\begin{aligned}
\label{asymp1}
A(r)&=&1-\frac{2m}{r}\vphantom{\int\limits_a}+ o(1/r),\;\; r\rightarrow\infty,\\
\label{asymp2}
A(r)&=&\frac{2}{3}\:\! \frac{\xi(0)-3m}{r}\,\mathrm{e}^{\Phi(0)}\,+\, O(1),\;\; r\rightarrow0.\end{aligned}$$ The condition $m>0$ distinguishes SFNSs from the vacuum (that is, Schwarzschild) naked singularities, which exist only for negative values of mass. Below we will also need a few inequalities and expressions for $\xi$ and $A$. It follows directly from (\[F-xi\]) and (\[A-f\]) that for all $r>0$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{cond1}
\xi\,\,&\!\!\!\geq&r\,,\;\;\; 0<\xi'\leq1,\;\;\; 0<\mathrm{e}^{\Phi}\leq1,\;\;\; \xi''= \Big(\!\mathrm{e}^{\Phi}\Big)^{\!\prime}\geq0\,,\\
\label{A'}
A'&=& \frac{2}{r}\,A- 2\,\frac{\xi-3m}{r^2}\,\mathrm{e}^{\Phi}\,,\\
\nonumber
A''&=& \frac{2}{r}\,A'- \frac{2}{r^2}\,A + \frac{2}{r^2}\,\frac{\xi-3m}{r}\,\mathrm{e}^{\Phi}- \frac{2}{r} \left(\frac{\xi-3m}{r}\,\mathrm{e}^{\Phi}\right)'\\
\label{A"}
&=& \frac{A'}{r}- \frac{2}{r} \left(\frac{\xi-3m}{r}\,\mathrm{e}^{\Phi}\right)'.\end{aligned}$$
The two following propositions give us an additional characteristic feature, besides the existence or non-existence of an event horizon and an innermost stable circular orbit, that distinguishes SFNSs from SFBHs.
\[proposition1\] In a SFBH spacetime defined by the quadratures (\[F-xi\])–(\[V\]) and the conditions (\[phi\]) and (\[3m>xi0\]), $A(r)$ is a strictly increasing function outside the event horizon.
In the region where $\xi-3m\,\leq\,0$, the monotonicity (outside the horizon) follows directly from (\[A’\]), so we need to consider only the region where $\xi-3m>0$.
An integration by parts in (\[F-xi\]) yields $$\begin{aligned}
\xi(r)=r+\int_{r}^{\,\infty} \left(1\!-\mathrm{e}^{\Phi}\right)\!dr = r\mathrm{e}^{\Phi}+ \int_{r}^{\,\infty} \Big(\!\mathrm{e}^{\Phi}\Big)^{\!\prime}rdr
\nonumber\\
=r\mathrm{e}^{\Phi}+ \int_{0}^{\,\infty} \Big(\!\mathrm{e}^{\Phi}\Big)^{\!\prime}rdr- \int_{0}^{\,r} \Big(\!\mathrm{e}^{\Phi}\Big)^{\!\prime}rdr
\nonumber\\
=r\mathrm{e}^{\Phi}+ \xi(0)- \int_{0}^{\,r} \Big(\!\mathrm{e}^{\Phi}\Big)^{\!\prime}rdr\,,\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
r\mathrm{e}^{\Phi}=\xi(r)-\xi(0)+\int_{0}^{\,r} \Big(\!\mathrm{e}^{\Phi}\Big)^{\!\prime}rdr\,. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Thus, for SFBHs ($\xi(0)<3m$), we have the inequality $$\label{ineq1}
\mathrm{e}^{\Phi}\,>\,\frac{\xi-3m}{r} \quad\text{for all}\;\; r>0\,.$$
Integrating by parts in (\[A-f\]) and then applying the identity $(\xi-3m)'=\mathrm{e}^{\Phi}$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
A&=&2r^{2}\!\int_{r}^{\,\infty} \frac{\,\xi-3m}{\,r^4}\,\mathrm{e}^{\Phi}dr
\vphantom{\int\limits_{r}^{\infty}}
\nonumber\\
&=&\frac{2}{3} \frac{\,\xi-3m}{\,r}\mathrm{e}^{\Phi}+ \frac{2r^{2}}{3}\!\int_{r}^{\,\infty}\! \frac{\big[(\xi\!-\!3m) \mathrm{e}^{\Phi}\big]^{\!\prime}} {\,r^3}\,dr \vphantom{\int\limits_{r}^{\infty}}
\nonumber\\
&=&\frac{2}{3} \frac{\,\xi-3m}{r}\,\mathrm{e}^{\Phi}+\, \frac{\mathrm{e}^{2\Phi}}{3}\,+\, \frac{\,r^{2}}{3}\!\int_{r}^{\,\infty}
\Big(\!\mathrm{e}^{2\Phi}\Big)^{\!\prime}\frac{\,dr} {\,r^2}
\vphantom{\int\limits_{r}^{\infty}}
\nonumber\\
&&\qquad\qquad\quad\! \;+\,\frac{\,2r^{2}}{3}\!\int_{r}^{\,\infty} \frac{\,\xi-3m}{r^3} \Big(\!\mathrm{e}^{\Phi}\Big)^{\!\prime}dr\,.
\label{Byparts}\end{aligned}$$ Taking into account (\[cond1\]) and (\[ineq1\]), we have $$\label{ineq1}
A(r)\,>\,\frac{\xi-3m}{r}\mathrm{e}^{\Phi} \quad\text{for all}\;\; r>0\,.
\nonumber$$
As it can be seen from (\[A’\]), this inequality implies that $A'>0$ in the region where $\xi-3m>0$.
For a SFNS, the existence of a minimum follows directly from (\[3m<xi0\]), (\[asymp1\]), and (\[asymp2\]). Suppose that there are other extrema. Let $r_0$ be the local minimum point farthest from the origin $r=0$, and $r_m$ be the local maximum point nearest to $r_0$, that is, there are no local extrema in the interval $(r_m,r_0)$. Then $A'(r_0)=A'(r_m)=0$, $A''(r_0)>0$, and $A''(r_m)<0$, so that (\[A"\]) gives $$\label{cond2}
\left(\frac{\xi-3m}{r}\, \mathrm{e}^{\Phi}\right)'_{r=r_0}< 0\,,\;\;\; \left(\frac{\xi-3m}{r}\, \mathrm{e}^{\Phi}\right)'_{r=r_m}> 0\,.
\nonumber$$ Consequently, the minimum at $r=r_0$ is unique if $$\label{cond3}
\left(\frac{\xi-3m}{r}\, \mathrm{e}^{\Phi}\right)'\leq 0\,,\quad 0<r<r_0\,.$$ It is important to note that this condition is quite natural and means simply that the configurations of a scalar field is sufficiently compact and the function $\mathrm{e}^{\Phi}$ varies sufficiently smoothly (has no steep jumps). A more detailed characterization in terms of the field function $\phi$ turns out to be still more complicated, but numerous example show that the condition (\[cond3\]) holds for physically reasonable configurations. Thus we have stated the following proposition.
\[proposition2\] In a SFNS spacetime defined by the quadratures (\[F-xi\])–(\[V\]) and the conditions (\[phi\]) and (\[3m<xi0\]), the metricfunction $A(r)$ has a global minimum in the interval $(0,\infty)$. If the condition (\[cond3\]) holds, this minimum is unique.
For simplicity, we will assume below that the metric function $A(r)$ *has exactly one minimum* at $r=r_0$.
It is shown in the next section that these propositions give us a key distinguishing feature of scalar field configurations; in particular, it determines different behaviours of bound orbits around SFNSs on the one hand and around SFBHs on the other.
Bound orbits {#Sec3}
============
In any static, spherically symmetric spacetime a massive test particle has three integrals of motion. For the metric of the form (\[metric\]) they are $$\label{int-motion}
\frac{dt}{ds}=\frac{E}{A}\,,\quad
\frac{d\varphi}{ds}=\frac{J}{\,r^2}\,,\quad
\left(\frac{dr}{ds}\right)^{\!\!2}= \mathrm{e}^{-2\Phi}\!\! \left(E^2- {V\vphantom{\underline{A}}}_{\!\!eff}\right),$$ $$\label{Veff}
{V\vphantom{\underline{A}}}_{\!\!eff}= A\!\left(1+\frac{\,J^2}{\,r^2}\right),$$ where $V\vphantom{\underline{A}}_{\!\!eff}$ is the effective potential, $E$ is the specific energy, and $J$ is the specific angular momentum of a massive test particle.
We note that $V_{eff}\rightarrow1$ as $r\rightarrow\infty$ for any value of $J$ and for any asymptotically flat spacetime, but the results obtained in Sect. \[Sec2\] show radically different behaviour of the effective potentials in the interior regions of SFBHs and SFNSs, which implies in turn a crucial distinction between geodesic structures of these spacetimes. In a SFBH spacetime as well as in a Schwarzschild spacetime, the effective potential of a test particle vanishes at the horizon and has, for sufficiently large $J$, at least one minimum and one maximum outside the horizon. The radius $r_{\!\scriptscriptstyle h}$ of the event horizon of a SFBH is always less than that of the vacuum black hole with the same mass (see Fig \[fig1\]). It follows directly from (\[asymp2\]) that $r_{\!\scriptscriptstyle h}\rightarrow0$ as $m\rightarrow\xi(0)/3+0$ and can be arbitrary close to zero. Moreover, the various numerical simulations with SFBH solutions allow us to conclude that the radius of the corresponding innermost stable circular orbit, which is an important observational characteristic for black holes, is of order $3r_{\!\scriptscriptstyle h}$ (analogously to the vacuum case). On the contrary, a SFNS has no innermost stable circular orbit but has a unique degenerated *static orbit*, which has $J=0$ and is located at $r=r_0$, where $r_0$ is the unique solution of the equation $A'(r)=0$. From the point of view of a distant observer resting relative to the centre, a test particle remains at rest in the static orbit all time. Particles in such a static orbit, together with particles having zero or small specific angular momentum and specific energy $E^2\gtrapprox{}A(r_0)$, can make up a spherical shell consisting of cold gas or fluid. For a distant observer, this shell would look like a shadow similar to that of a black hole. The existence of static degenerated orbits in other spacetimes is considered in [@Quevedo2011; @Pugliese2012; @Vieira2014; @Collodel2018]. We note also that in SFNS spacetimes, as opposed to black holes, a freely moving massive particle with $E\geq1$ will inevitably escape to infinity, while such a particle with $E<1$ will move on a bound geodesic; thus the value $E=1$ separates bound and unbound orbits.
Another important observational aspect of geodesic motion in the central regions of SFNSs is that orbits with sufficiently large $J$ can lie outside this shell and, at the same time, can have parameters which differ strongly from those for the corresponding orbits in vacuum and SFBHs spacetimes. For a given orbit in a SFNS spacetime, we are primarily interested in the angle of precession $\Delta\varphi$ of the orbit; the latter can be expressed as $$\label{precess}
\varphi_{\!{}_{\scriptscriptstyle osc}}=2J\!\int \limits_{\,r_{\!\scriptscriptstyle min}}^{\:r_{\!\scriptscriptstyle max}}\! \frac{\,\mathrm{e}^{\Phi}} {\,r^2\sqrt{E^2-V_{\!\scriptscriptstyle eff}\,}}\,dr\,,\quad \Delta\varphi\,=\,\varphi_{\!{}_{\scriptscriptstyle osc}}-2\pi\,,$$ where $r_{\!\scriptscriptstyle min}$ and $r_{\!\scriptscriptstyle max}$ are, respectively, the pericentre and apocentre radii. In other words, they are solutions of the equation $E^2-V\vphantom{\underline{A}}_{\!\!eff}=0$ such that $r_{\!\scriptscriptstyle min}< r_{\!\scriptscriptstyle J}< r_{\!\scriptscriptstyle max}$, where $r_{\!\scriptscriptstyle J}$ is a (global or local) minimum of $V\vphantom{\underline{A}}_{\!\!eff}(r,J)$, and there are no other solutions in the interval $(r_{\!\scriptscriptstyle min},r_{\!\scriptscriptstyle max})$. Thus, a bound orbit of the general type oscillates near a stable circular orbit (an oscillation is the motion from pericentre to apocentre and back) and $\varphi_{\!{}_{\scriptscriptstyle osc}}$ is the angle between any two successive pericentre points of the orbit. The relativistic precession of pericentres of bound orbits is considered in [@Meyer2012; @Goddi2017; @Grould2017b; @Vieira2014; @Collodel2018; @Zakharov2012; @Dokuchaev2015; @Zakharov2018] both from a purely theoretical point of view and in the context of observations of S-stars in the Galactic Centre.
If a massive test particle moves radially in some non-static degenerate orbit, which will be the case if $J=0$ and $A(r_0)<E^2<1$, then $\Delta\varphi=-2\pi$. For any small $J\gtrapprox{}0$, this orbit becomes nondegenerate and can have an arbitrarily large number of oscillations per revolution. With further increasing $J$ (and with fixed $E$), the number and the amplitude of oscillations monotonically decrease, while the angle of precession increases and reaches its maximum value. We always have $\Delta\varphi<0$ for orbits located, even if only in part, in the central region.
If an orbit is located in the asymptotic region where the influence of a scalar field on the spacetime geometry vanishes, then the angle of precession is always positive, as well as in the Schwarzschild spacetime. There is also the intermediate spacetime region where the scalar field is relatively weak and the precession is absent for some special values of $J$ and $E$. More exactly, for a given SFNS spacetime, the domain (in the $(J,E)$ plane) of the existence of noncircular bound orbits will be separated into two open parts, with $\Delta\varphi<0$ and $\Delta\varphi>0$, by the curve defined by the equation $\Delta\varphi(E,J)=0$.
At the end of this section, it is important to note that we have a powerful degree of freedom in the choice of the self-interaction potential (in the wide class of physically admissible potentials) of a scalar field or, equivalently, in the choice of the distribution of the scalar field itself. To see a degree of universality of the construction under consideration, one can take into account the identity $2(\xi-3m)\mathrm{e}^{\Phi}=\left[(\xi-3m)^2\right]'$ and rewrite the expression (\[A’\]) as an equation for $\xi$ (and thus for $\phi$). The resulting equation, $$\label{}
\left[(\xi-3m)^2\right]'=2rA-r^2A'
\nonumber$$ with the asymptotic condition $(\xi-3m)^2\,\rightarrow{}\,r^2-\,6mr$ as $r\rightarrow\infty$, has a unique solution in the region where $2A>rA'$. In this region, using a suitable scalar field distribution, we can simulate some spherically symmetric geometry with a given metric function $A(r)$, and therefore the corresponding effective potential of a test particle for arbitrary specific angular momentum and energy. The condition $2A>rA'$ holds for naked singularities with any physically reasonable gravitating matter and it holds for black holes outside the photon sphere. The effective potential alone does not uniquely determine all the parameters of a bound orbit but only the pericentre and apocentre radii; in addition, we can approximately reconstruct the shape of the orbit by simultaneous varying the angular momentum and energy. In this paper we are mainly interested in just the shape of orbits because the angle of precession cumulates from revolution to revolution. However, there are other important observational parameters, namely, the period of an oscillation, the orbital (tangential) velocity $v_o$ in pericentre, and the radial velocity $v_r$ of a test particle, which can be expressed from (\[int-motion\]) in the form $$\label{}
T_{\scriptscriptstyle osc}=2E\!\int \limits_{\,r_{\!\scriptscriptstyle min}}^{\:r_{\!\scriptscriptstyle max}}\! \frac{\,\mathrm{e}^{\Phi}} {\,A\sqrt{E^2-V_{\!\scriptscriptstyle eff}\,}}\,dr\,,
\nonumber$$ $$\label{}
v_o=\frac{J}{E}\frac{\,A(r_{min})}{\,r}, \qquad
v_r=\frac{dr}{dt}= \frac{1}{E}\! \sqrt{fA\left(E^2- {V\vphantom{\underline{A}}}_{\!\!eff}\right)\,}\,.
\nonumber$$ Given an orbit around a SFNS and the orbit with the same $J$, $r_{min}$, and $r_{max}$ around the Schwarzschild black hole of the same mass as the SFNS, it can be shown from (\[A-f\]) and (\[cond1\]) that $T_{\scriptscriptstyle osc}^{\scriptscriptstyle SFNS}< T_{\scriptscriptstyle osc}^{\scriptscriptstyle Sch}$ and $v_{o}^{\scriptscriptstyle SFNS}> v_{o}^{\scriptscriptstyle Sch}$.
The orbital velocity in pericentre is also determined only by the metric function $A$, while the period of an oscillation and the radial velocity can be determined only if another metric function in (\[A-f\]), $f(r)$, is known; however, the latter cannot in general be exactly reconstructed in this way. One has $\mathrm{e}^{\Phi}\leq1$ for all $r>0$, in accordance with the expression (\[F-xi\]); the latter is equivalent to the condition $f(r)\geq{}A(r)$, which holds for any physically reasonable configuration except for wormholes. All that has been said allows us to conclude that scalar fields, even if they do not exist in nature, are useful in modelling spherically symmetric, self-gravitating, compact hairy objects, and thus are useful in interpreting the astronomical observations of bound orbits.
An analytic example {#Sec4}
====================
In a purely analytical treatment of the quadratures (\[A-f\])–(\[V\]), it is more convenient to start with some specially chosen function $\xi(r)$ (or $\mathrm{e}^{\Phi(r)}$) instead of the field function $\phi(r)$, because each of the functions $\mathrm{e}^{\Phi(r)}$, $\xi(r)$, and $\phi(r)$ uniquely determines another two functions.
For the sake of brevity, we will explore a simple, fully analytic, one-parameter family of solutions with $$\label{xi}
\xi= \sqrt{r^2+2ar+5a^2}-a,\quad \mathrm{e}^{\Phi}= \frac{r+a}{\sqrt{r^2+2ar+5a^2}}.$$ By direct integration in (\[A-f\]), we obtain $$\begin{gathered}
\label{Aex}
A=1+\frac{2a}{3r}\,-\,2\,\frac{a+3m}{15a} \vphantom{\int\limits_{r}^{\infty}}\\
\times\left\{\!\!\frac{\sqrt{r^2+2ar+5a^2}}{r}\! \left(\!\!1+\frac{r}{a}-\frac{r^2}{a^2}\!\right)+ \frac{r^2}{a^2}\!\right\},\end{gathered}$$ where $a$ is the parameter of ’intensity’ of the scalar field.
In studying bound orbits, we are interested only in the metric functions and can, therefore, use an arbitrary unit of length. On the other hand, the solution (\[A-f\])–(\[V\]) is invariant under the scale transformations $$r\rightarrow r/\lambda,\quad m\rightarrow m/\lambda,\quad V\rightarrow \lambda^2V,\quad\;\;\lambda>0.\nonumber$$ It means that by applying $\lambda=m$ in this transformation, we can take, as it is usually done in general relativity, the mass of a SFNS as the current unit of length. Thus, without loss of generality, we suppose everywhere below that $m=1$.
Using (\[R1\])–(\[R3\]) we find that the Kretchmann invariant diverges at the centre, namely, $$\label{}
K= \frac{\,5 \big(3-\sqrt{5}\,\big) \big(4a-3\sqrt{5}-3\big)^{\!2}} {6\;\!\!r^6\vphantom{\tilde{A}}}\; + \; O\big(r^{-5}\big)\,,\quad r\rightarrow0.
\nonumber$$ In accordance with (\[3m<xi0\]), the condition $a>3/(\sqrt{5}-1)$ determines the subfamily of SFNSs.
The scalar field can be obtained by solving the problem $\phi'=\sqrt{\Phi'/r\,},\,\;\phi(\infty)=0$. The result is $$\label{phi-F}
\phi=\sqrt[4]{4/5}\, \big(F(\lambda_0,k)-F(\lambda(r),k)\big),$$ where $$k=\sqrt{1/2+1/\sqrt{5}}, \quad
\lambda_0= \arcsin\! \left(\frac{2\sqrt[4]{20}}{\,\sqrt{5}+2\,}\right),
\nonumber$$ $$\lambda(r)=\arcsin\! \left(\frac{2\sqrt[4]{20}\sqrt{r(r+a)}} {\big(\sqrt{5}+2\big)r+\sqrt{5}\,a\,}\right),
\nonumber$$ and $F(\lambda,k)$ denotes the incomplete elliptic integral of the first kind in the Legendre normal form, $$F(\lambda,k)=\int_{0}^{\,\sin\lambda} \frac{dt}{\,\sqrt{1-t^2}\sqrt{1-k^2t^2}\,}.
\nonumber$$ One has $\phi=\sqrt[4]{4/5}\,\,F(\lambda_0,k)\,-\, \sqrt{16r/5a}\,+\,O(r^{3/2})$ near $r=0$ ($\phi(0)\approx2.498$) and $\phi=2a/r+O(r^{-2})$ at infinity. As a function of $r$, the potential can be obtained directly from equation (\[V\]) but has a cumbersome form; (\[V\]) and (\[phi-F\]) determine, parametrically, $V(\phi)$. This potential, which has arisen in a simple demo example, is not physically interesting because it is negative everywhere in the interval $(0,\infty)$. However, there exist solutions whose self-interaction potential is positive in the region $r>r_p$ with $r_p$ sufficiently close to the centre [@Nikonov2008].
{width="31.30000%"} {width="32.00000%"} {width="31.90000%"}
{width="31.80000%"} {width="31.80000%"} {width="31.80000%"}
{width="30.80000%"} {width="32.60000%"} {width="32.60000%"}
Our main goal (of considerable observational interest) is to compare orbits which have the same pericentre and apocentre radii and a comparable number of oscillations, but which either are in different spacetimes or have different parameters. Fig. \[fig1\] shows the typical behaviour of the function $\xi(r)$ belonging to the family (\[xi\]), the metric function $A(r)$ of a SFNS together (and in comparison) with the corresponding metric function of the Schwarzschild solution of the same mass, and a typical bound orbit in the latter spacetime. It is important to note that all noncircular bound orbits in the Schwarzschild spacetime have ’the relativistic pericentre advance’, that is $\Delta\varphi>0$. In contrast, in Fig. \[fig2\] we plot the shape of orbits possessing the same apocentre radius as the orbit in Fig. \[fig1\]; one of them (in the middle panel) has, in addition, the same pericentre radius. In all three cases, the angles of precession are negative and sufficiently large in magnitude. The shape of an orbit depends on the specific angular momentum $J$ and the specific energy $E$ of a test particle. Numerical simulations show that the number of oscillations per revolution decreases with increasing $J$ when the value of $E$ is fixed, as well as with decreasing $E$ when the value of $J$ is fixed; both these dependences appear to be true in general, not only for the family (\[xi\]).
Fig. \[fig3\] represents comparable orbits around SFNSs and around the corresponding Schwarzschild black hole with the same mass $m_{\scriptscriptstyle Sch}=m_{\scriptscriptstyle NS}=1$. For the SFNS with $a=2.5$, an orbit which looks like a Keplerian orbit, whose pericentre and apocentre are not shifting during one revolution of a test particle and thus $\Delta\varphi=0$, is represented in the left panel. In the Schwarzschild spacetime, the only similar orbit, having the same motionless pericentre and apocentre as the orbit around the SFNS, has the angle of precession $\Delta\varphi=2\pi$. The middle and right panels of Fig. \[fig3\] represent two very highly elongated orbits around the SFNS spacetime with $a=50$ and the Schwarzschild black hole, respectively. These orbits have approximately the same apocentre radius, which is larger than the size of the central part of the orbits by a factor of about 50. From the point of view of a distant observer, the orbits can look very similar or even being observationally indistinguishable from one another, whereas their angles of precession are, respectively, $-3\pi/2$ and $+\pi/2$. The insets in the middle and right panels show the obvious difference in the behaviours of the orbits in the central regions; this example explains why we need the observations of both pericentre and apocentre of elongated orbits.
Conclusions
===========
In this paper, we considered a model of a spherically symmetric strongly gravitating massive object surrounded by a self-gravitating nonlinear scalar field, having in mind the centre of a galaxy surrounded by dark matter. This idealized model is treated in a fully analytical manner and, in this way, we have found some new features of the orbital motion of free test particles around SFNSs and SFBHs. First, for a given *positive* mass, there exists a continuum of SFNSs with asymptotic geometry of the Schwarzschild spacetime with the same mass; thus, in contrast to Schwarzschild naked singularities, SFNSs exhibit the attractive nature of gravitation.
Second, the radii of the event horizon and of the innermost stable circular orbit of a SFBH are normally much less than those of the Schwarzschild black hole with the same mass. A SFNS does not have an innermost stable circular orbit but has a stable, degenerated, static orbit on which a test particle, having zero angular momentum and the minimum of its energy, remains at rest as time passes. It is important that this phenomena cannot take place on the outside of the event horizon of a vacuum black hole or a SFBH. Moreover, in the theory of self-gravitating scalar fields with the positive kinetic term in the Lagrangian, among all configurations possessing a positive mass, naked singularities and only naked singularities have such an orbit. If a noninteracting test particle is initially has a sufficiently small specific angular momentum, it will permanently remain close to the static degenerate orbit. Consequently, in a SFNS spacetime, ’slow’ particles of matter, which rest on the static degenerate orbit or slowly move near it, will form a gravitationally bound cluster. One can expect that most of the energy of particles, falling into this shell with initially high relative velocities, will be radiated to infinity. If the accretion flow onto the inner region is negligible or at least sufficiently small, as in the central region of Sgr A\*, then only collisions and radiative processes determine the time evolution of the cluster. Eventually the cluster will cool down and then become a spherical shell consisting of cold gas, dust, or fluid. Therefore, this shell will be seen by a distant observer as a shadow or a gray spot, which can be mistakenly taken for the shadow of a black hole.
And third, we have studied the shape of orbits close to the centres of SFNSs and shown that their angles of precession are negative, that is, pericentre retreats during each orbital revolution, and not advances as in the case of Schwarzschild black holes. At the present time, we can observe only the orbits of S-stars in the distant region of the Galactic center. However, one can hope that the future development of precise astronomical instruments (e.g., at the facilities of the Event Horizon Telescope) will accurately measure the orbital precession of the pericentres of the known S-stars and of other, at present unobserved, more short-period stars. Thus, we will be able to recognize observationally the nature of the object Sgr A\*.
[9]{}
L. Meyer et al, The shortest known period star orbiting our galaxy’s supermassive black hole. Science **338**, 6103, 84–87 (2012) [arXiv:1210.1294](https://arxiv.org/abs/1210.1294)
K. Akiyama et al, 230 GHz VLBI observations of M87: event-horizon-scale structure at the enhanced very-high-energy $\gamma$-ray state in 2012. Astrophys. J. **807**, 150 (2015) [arXiv:1505.03545](https://arxiv.org/abs/1505.03545)
V.L. Fish et al, Persistent Asymmetric Structure of Sagittarius A\* on Event Horizon Scales. Astrophys. J. **820**, 90 (2016) [arXiv:1602.05527](https://arxiv.org/abs/1602.05527)
S. Gillessen et al, An update on monitoring stellar orbits in the galactic center. Astrophys. J. **837**, 30 (2017) [arXiv:1505.03545](https://arxiv.org/abs/1611.09144)
C. Goddi et al, BlackHoleCam: fundamental physics of the Galactic center. Int. J. Mod. Phys. D **26**, 1730001 (2017) [arXiv:1606.08879](https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.08879)
A. Hees et al, Testing General Relativity with stellar orbits around the supermassive black hole in our Galactic center. Phys. Rev. Lett. **118**, 211101 (2017) [arXiv:1705.07902](https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.07902)
P.S. Joshi, D. Malafarina, R. Narayan, Distinguishing black holes from naked singularities through their accretion disc properties. Class. Quant. Grav. **31**, 015002 (2014) [arXiv:1304.7331](https://arxiv.org/abs/1304.7331)
C.F.B. Macedo, P. Pani, V. Cardoso, L.C.B. Crispino, Astrophysical signatures of boson stars: Quasinormal modes and inspiral resonances. Phys. Rev. D **88**, 064046 (2013) [arXiv:1307.4812](https://arxiv.org/abs/1307.4812)
Z. Li, C. Bambi, Distinguishing black holes and wormholes with orbiting hot spots. Phys. Rev. D **90**, 024071 (2014) [arXiv:1405.1883](https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.1883)
M. Grould, F.H. Vincent, T. Paumard, G. Perrin, General relativistic effects on the orbit of the S2 star with GRAVITY. Astron. Astrophys. **608**, A22 (2017) [arXiv:1709.04492](https://arxiv.org/abs/1709.04492)
M. Grould, Z. Meliani, F.H. Vincent, P. Grandclément, E. Gourgoulhon, Comparing timelike geodesics around a Kerr black hole and a boson star. Class. Quant. Grav. **34**(21), 215007 (2017) [arXiv:1709.05938](https://arxiv.org/abs/1709.05938)
R. Abuter et al, Detection of the gravitational redshift in the orbit of the star S2 near the Galactic centre massive black hole. Astron. Astrophys. **615**, L15 (2018) [arXiv:1807.09409](https://arxiv.org/abs/1807.09409)
K. Akiyama et al (The EHT collaboration), First M87 Event Horizon Telescope Results. I. The Shadow of the Supermassive Black Hole. Astrophys. J. Lett. **875**, L1 (2019) [doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab0ec7](https:// iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/ ab0ec7/meta)
R. Shaikh, P. Kocherlakota, R. Narayan, P.S. Joshi, Shadows of spherically symmetric black holes and naked singularities. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. **482**, 52–64 (2018) [arXiv:1802.08060](https://arxiv.org/abs/1802.08060)
J. Lee and I. Koh, Galactic halos as boson stars. Phys. Rev. D **53**, 2236–2239 (1996) [arXiv:hep-ph/9507385](https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9507385)
T. Matos, L.A. Urena-Lopez, On the nature of dark matter. Int. J. Mod. Phys. D **13**, 2287–2292 (2004) [arXiv:astro-ph/0406194](https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0406194)
V.H. Robles, T. Matos, Flat central density profile and constant dark matter surface density in galaxies from scalar field dark matter. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. **422**, 282–289 (2012) [arXiv:1201.3032](https://arxiv.org/abs/1201.3032)
D. Benisty, E. I. Guendelman, Interacting diffusive unified dark energy and dark matter from scalar fields. Eur. Phys. J. C **77**, 396 (2017) [arXiv:1701.08667](https://arxiv.org/abs/1701.08667)
N. Bernal, C. Cosme, T. Tenkanen, Phenomenology of self-interacting dark matter in a matter-dominated universe. Eur. Phys. J. C **79**, 99 (2019) [arXiv:1803.08064](https://arxiv.org/abs/1803.08064)
G.Z. Babar, A.Z. Babar, Y.K. Lim, Periodic orbits around a spherically symmetric naked singularity. Phys. Rev. D **96**, 084052 (2017) [arXiv:1710.09581](https://arxiv.org/abs/1710.09581)
M. De Laurentis, Z. Younsi, O. Porth, Y. Mizuno, L. Rezzolla, Test-particle dynamics in general spherically symmetric black hole spacetimes. Phys. Rev. D **97**, 104024 (2018) [arXiv:1712.00265](https://arxiv.org/abs/1712.00265)
S. Zhou, R. Zhang, J. Chen, Y. Wang, Geodesic structure of Janis-Newman-Winicour space-time. Int. J. Theor. Phys. **54**, 2905 (2015) [arXiv:1408.6041](https://arxiv.org/abs/1408.6041)
P.V. Kratovitch, I.M. Potashov, Ju.V. Tchemarina, A.N. Tsirulev, Topological geons with self-gravitating phantom scalar field. Journal of Physics: Conference Series **934**, 012047 (2017) [arXiv:1805.04447](https://arxiv.org/abs/1805.04447)
A. Mishra, S. Chakraborty, On the trajectories of null and timelike geodesics in different wormhole geometries. Eur. Phys. J. C **78**, 374 (2018) [arXiv:1710.06791](http://arxiv.org/abs/1710.06791)
F. Willenborg, S. Grunau, B. Kleihaus, J. Kunz, Geodesic motion around traversable wormholes supported by a massless conformally-coupled scalar field. Phys. Rev. D **97**, 124002 (2018) [arXiv:1801.09769](http://arxiv.org/abs/1801.09769)
O.S. Stashko, V.I. Zhdanov, Spherically symmetric configurations of General Relativity in presence of scalar field: separation of test body circular orbits. Gen. Relat. Gravit. **50**, 105–114 (2018) [arXiv:1702.02800](http://arxiv.org/abs/1702.02800)
O. Bechmann, O. Lechtenfeld, Exact black hole solution with selfinteracting scalar field. Class. Quantum Grav. **12**, 1473–1482 (1995) [arXiv:gr-qc/9502011](http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9502011)
H. Dennhardt, O. Lechtenfeld, Scalar deformations of Schwarzschild holes and their stability Int. J. Mod. Phys. **A13**, 741–764 (1998) [arXiv:gr-qc/9612062](http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9612062)
K.A. Bronnikov, G.N. Shikin, Spherically symmetric scalar vacuum: no-go theorems, black holes and solitons. Grav. Cosmol. **8**, 107–116 (2002) [arXiv:gr-qc/0109027](http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0109027)
Ju.V. Tchemarina, A.N. Tsirulev, Spherically symmetric gravitating scalar fields. The inverse problem and exact solutions. Gravitation and Cosmology **15**, 94–95 (2009)
M. Azreg-Aïnou, Selection criteria for two-parameter solutions to scalar-tensor gravity. Gen. Rel. Grav. **42**, 1427–1456 (2010) [arXiv:0912.1722](http://arxiv.org/abs/0912.1722)
M. Cadoni, M. Serra, S. Mignemi, Exact solutions with AdS asymptotics of Einstein and Einstein-Maxwell gravity minimally coupled to a scalar field. Phys. Rev. D **84**, 084046 (2011) [arXiv:1107.5979](http://arxiv.org/abs/1107.5979)
D.A. Solovyev, A.N. Tsirulev, General properties and exact models of static selfgravitating scalar field configurations. Class. Quantum Grav. **29**, 055013 (2012)
M. Cadoni, E. Franzin, F. Masella, M. Tuveri, A solution-generating method in Einstein-scalar gravity. Acta. Appl. Math. (2018)\
[doi:10.1007/s10440-018-00232-2](https://doi.org/10.1007/s10440-018-00232-2)
K.A. Bronnikov, M.S. Chernakova, Charge black holes and unusual wormholes in scalar-tensor gravity. Grav. Cosmol. **13**, 51–55 (2007) [arXiv:gr-qc/0703107](http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0703107)
V.V Nikonov, Ju.V. Tchemarina, A.N. Tsirulev, A two-parameter family of exact asymptotically flat solutions to the Einstein-scalar field equations. Class. Quantum Grav. **25**, 138001 (2008)
E. Franzin, M. Cadoni, M. Tuveri, Sine-Gordon solitonic scalar stars and black holes. Phys. Rev. D **97**, 124018 (2018) [arXiv:1805.08976](http://arxiv.org/abs/1805.08976)
H. Quevedo, Mass Quadrupole as a source of naked singularities. Int. J. Mod. Phys. D **20**, 1779–1787 (2011) [arXiv:1012.4030](http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.4030)
D. Pugliese, H. Quevedo, R. Ruffini, Circular motion of neutral test particles in Reissner-Nordström spacetime. Phys. Rev. D **83**, 024021 (2010) [arXiv:1012.5411](http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.5411)
R.S.S. Vieira, J. Schee, W. Kluźniak, Z. Stuchlík, M. Abramowicz, Circular geodesics of naked singularities in the Kehagias-Sfetsos metric of Horava’s gravity. Phys. Rev. D **90**, 024035 (2014) [arXiv:1311.5820](http://arxiv.org/abs/1311.5820)
L.G. Collodel, B. Kleihaus, J. Kunz, Static orbits in rotating spacetimes. Phys. Rev. Lett. **120**, 201103 (2018) [arXiv:1711.05191](http://arxiv.org/abs/1711.05191)
D. Borka, P. Jovanović, V. Borka Jovanović, A.F. Zakharov, Constraints on $\mathbb{R}^n$ gravity from precession of orbits of S2-like stars. Phys. Rev. D **85**, 124004 (2012) <https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.85.124004>
V.I. Dokuchaev, Yu.N. Eroshenko, Weighing of the dark matter at the center of the Galaxy. JETP Letters **101**, 777–782 (2015) [doi:10.1134/S0021364015120048](https://doi.org/10.1134/S0021364015120048)
A.F. Zakharov, Constraints on tidal charge of the supermassive black hole at the Galactic Center with trajectories of bright stars. Eur. Phys. J. C **78**, 689 (2018) [arXiv:1804.10374](http://arxiv.org/abs/1804.10374)
[^1]: Note, however, that each solution of the problem under consideration satisfies the quadratures (\[F-xi\])–(\[V\]) regardless of the monotonicity of the field function.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
Esik and Maletti introduced the notion of a proper semiring and proved that some important (classes of) semirings – Noetherian semirings, natural numbers – are proper. Properness matters as the equivalence problem for weighted automata over a semiring which is proper and finitely and effectively presented is decidable. Milius generalised the notion of properness from a semiring to a functor. As a consequence, a semiring is proper if and only if its associated “cubic functor” is proper. Moreover, properness of a functor renders soundness and completeness proofs for axiomatizations of equivalent behaviour.
In this paper we provide a method for proving properness of functors, and instantiate it to cover both the known cases and several novel ones: (1) properness of the semirings of positive rationals and positive reals, via properness of the corresponding cubic functors; and (2) properness of two functors on (positive) convex algebras. The latter functors are important for axiomatizing trace equivalence of probabilistic transition systems. Our proofs rely on results that stretch all the way back to Hilbert and Minkowski.
author:
- Ana Sokolova
- Harald Woracek
title: Proper Semirings and Proper Convex Functors
---
Introduction {#sec-Intro}
============
In this paper we deal with algebraic categories and deterministic weighted automata functors on them. Such categories are the target of generalized determinization [@silva.bonchi.bonsangue.rutten:2010; @silva.sokolova:2011; @jacobs.silva.sokolova:2015] and enable coalgebraic modelling beyond sets. For example, non-deterministic automata, weighted, or probabilistic ones are coalgebraically modelled over the categories of join-semilattices, semimodules for a semiring, and convex sets, respectively. Moreover, expressions for axiomatizing behavior semantics often live in algebraic categories.
In order to prove completeness of such axiomatizations, the common approach [@silva:2010; @bonsangue.milius.silva:2011; @silva.sokolova:2011] is to prove finality of a certain object in a category of coalgebras over an algebraic category. Proofs are significantly simplified if it suffices to verify finality only w.r.t. coalgebras carried by free finitely generated algebras, as those are the coalgebras that result from generalized determinization.
In recent work, Milius [@milius:2017] proposed the notion of a proper functor on an algebraic category that provides a sufficient condition for this purpose. This notion is an extension of the notion of a proper semiring introduced by Esik and Maletti [@esik.maletti:2010]: A semiring is proper if and only if its “cubic" functor is proper. A cubic functor is a functor $\mathbb S \times (-)^A$ where $A$ is a finite alphabet and $\mathbb S$ is a free algebra with a single generator in the algebraic category. Cubic functors model deterministic weighted automata which are models of determinizations of non-deterministic and probabilistic transition systems.
Properness is the property that for any two states that are behaviourally equivalent in coalgebras with free finitely generated carriers, there is a zig-zag of homomorphisms (called a chain of simulations in the original works on weighted automata and proper semirings) that identifies the two states and whose nodes are all carried by free finitely generated algebras.
Even though the notion of properness is relatively new for a semiring and very new for a functor, results on properness of semirings can be found in more distant literature as well. Here is a brief history, to the best of our knowledge:
- The Boolean semiring was proven to be proper in [@bloom.esik:1993].
- Finite commutative ordered semirings were proven to be proper in [@esik.kuich:2001 Theorem 5.1]. Interestingly, the proof provides a zig-zag with at most seven intermediate nodes.
- Any euclidean domain and any skew field were proven proper in [@beal.lombardy.sakarovitch:2005 Theorem 3]. In each case the zig-zag has two intermediate nodes.
- The semiring of natural numbers $\mathbb N$, the Boolean semiring $\mathbb B$, the ring of integers $\mathbb Z$ and any skew field were proven proper in [@beal.lombardy.sakarovitch:2006 Theorem 1]. Here, all zig-zag were spans, i.e., had a single intermediate node with outgoing arrows.
- Noetherian semirings were proven proper in [@esik.maletti:2010 Theorem 4.2], commutative rings also in [@esik.maletti:2010 Corollary 4.4], and finite semirings as well in [@esik.maletti:2010 Corollary 4.5], all with a zig-zag being a span. Moreover, the tropical semiring is not proper, as proven in [@esik.maletti:2010 Theorem 5.4].
Having properness of a semiring, together with the property of the semiring being finitely and effectively presentable, yields decidability of the equivalence problem (decidability of trace equivalence) for weighted automata.
In this paper, motivated by the wish to prove properness of a certain functor ${{\ensuremath{\widehat F}}}$ on convex algebras used for axiomatizing trace semantics of probabilistic systems in [@silva.sokolova:2011], as well as by the open questions stated in [@milius:2017 Example 3.19], we provide a framework for proving properness. We instantiate this framework on known cases like Noetherian semirings and $\mathbb N$ (with a zig-zag that is a span), and further prove new results of properness:
- The semirings $\mathbb Q_+$ and $\mathbb R_+$ of non-negative rationals and reals, respectively, are proper. The shape of the zig-zag is a span as well.
- The functor $[0,1] \times (-)^A$ on is proper, again the zig-zag being a span.
- The functor ${{\ensuremath{\widehat F}}}$ on ${{\text{\tt{PCA}}}}$ is proper. This proof is the most involved, and interestingly, provides the only case where the zig-zag is not a span: it contains three intermediate nodes of which the middle one forms a span.
Our framework requires a proof of so-called *extension* and *reduction lemmas* in each case. While the extension lemma is a generic result that covers all cubic functors of interest, the reduction lemma is in all cases a nontrivial property intrinsic to the algebras under consideration. For the semiring of natural numbers it is a consequence of a result that we trace back to Hilbert; for the case of convex algebra $[0,1]$ the result is due to Minkowski. In the case of ${{\ensuremath{\widehat F}}}$, we use Kakutani’s set-valued fixpoint theorem.
It is an interesting question for future work whether these new properness results may lead to new complete axiomatizations of expressions for certain weighted automata.
The organization of the rest of the paper is as follows. In Section \[sec-ProperFunctors\] we give some basic definitions and introduce the semirings, the categories, and the functors of interest. Section \[sec-PropernessCubic\] provides the general framework as well as proofs of properness of the cubic functors. Section \[sec-SubcubicFunctor\]–Section \[sec-PropernessSubcubic\] lead us to properness of ${{\ensuremath{\widehat F}}}$ on . For space reasons, we present the ideas of proofs and constructions in the main paper and defer all detailed proofs to the appendix.
#### Acknowledgements.
We thank the anonymous reviewers for many valuable comments, in particular for reminding us of a categorical property that shortened the proof of the extension lemma (the proofs of Lemma \[lem:ext-lem-1\] and Lemma \[lem:ext-lem-2\] in Appendix \[app:B\]).
Proper functors {#sec-ProperFunctors}
===============
We start with a brief introduction of the basic notions from algebra and coalgebra needed in the rest of the paper, as well as the important definition of proper functors [@milius:2017]. We refer the interested reader to [@Rut00:tcs; @JR96:eatcs; @jacobs:2017] for more details. We assume basic knowledge of category theory, see e.g. [@maclane:1998] or Appendix \[sec:app-basics\].
Let ${\text{\tt{C}}}$ be a category and $F$ a ${\text{\tt{C}}}$-endofunctor. The category ${{\sf Coalg}({F})}$ of *$F$-coalgebras* is the category having as objects pairs $(X,c)$ where $X$ is an object of ${\text{\tt{C}}}$ and $c$ is a ${\text{\tt{C}}}$-morphism from $X$ to $FX$, and as morphisms $f\colon(X,c)\to(Y,d)$ those ${\text{\tt{C}}}$-morphisms from $X$ to $Y$ that make the diagram on the right commute.
[r]{}[.1]{}
All base categories ${\text{\tt{C}}}$ in this paper will be *algebraic categories*, i.e., categories ${{\text{\tt{Set}}}^{T}}$ of Eilenberg-Moore algebras of a finitary monad [^1] in ${{\text{\tt{Set}}}}$. Hence, all base categories are concrete with forgetful functor that is identity on morphisms.
In such categories behavioural equivalence [@Kurz00:thesis; @Wol00:cmcs; @Staton11] can be defined as follows. Let $(X,c)$ and $(Y,d)$ be $F$-coalgebras and let $x\in X$ and $y\in Y$. Then $x$ and $y$ are *behaviourally equivalent*, and we write $x\sim y$, if there exists an $F$-coalgebra $(Z,e)$ and ${{\sf Coalg}({F})}$-morphisms $f\colon (X,c)\to(Z,e)$, $g\colon(Y,d)\to(Z,e)$, with $f(x)=g(y)$. $$\xymatrix@C=40pt{
(X,c) \ar[r]^f
& (Z,e)
\save[]+<0pt,-13pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle f(x)=g(y)$}\restore
& (Y,d) \ar[l]_g
}$$ If there exists a final coalgebra in ${{\sf Coalg}({F})}$, and all functors considered in this paper will have this property, then two elements are behaviourally equivalent if and only if they have the same image in the final coalgebra. If we have a *zig-zag diagram* in ${{\sf Coalg}({F})}$ $$\label{zig-zag}
\xymatrix@R=0.7em@C=9pt{
(X,c) \ar[rd]^{f_1} && (Z_2,e_2) \ar[ld]_{f_2} \ar[rd]^{f_3} &&
\cdots \ar[ld]_{f_4} \ar[rd]^{f_{2n-1}} && (Y,d) \ar[ld]_{f_{2n}} &
\\
& (Z_1,e_1)
&& (Z_3,e_1)
&& (Z_{2n-1},e_1)
&
}$$ which relates $x$ with $y$ in the sense that there exist elements $z_{2k}\in Z_{2k}$, $k=1,\ldots,n-1$, with (setting $z_0=x$ and $z_{2n}=y$) $$f_{2k}(z_{2k})=f_{2k-1}(z_{2k-2}),\quad k=1,\ldots, n
,$$ then $x\sim y$.
We now recall the notion of a proper functor, introduced by Milius [@milius:2017] which is central to this paper. It is very helpful for establishing completeness of regular expressions calculi, cf. [@milius:2017 Corollary 3.17].
\[Proper\] Let $T\colon{{\text{\tt{Set}}}}\to{{\text{\tt{Set}}}}$ be a finitary monad with unit $\eta$ and multiplication $\mu$. A ${{\text{\tt{Set}}}^{T}}$-endofunctor $F$ is *proper*, if the following statement holds.
For each pair $(TB_1,c_1)$ and $(TB_2,c_2)$ of $F$-coalgebras with $B_1$ and $B_2$ finite sets, and each two elements $b_1\in B_1$ and $b_2\in B_2$ with $\eta_{B_1}(b_1)\sim\eta_{B_2}(b_2)$, there exists a zig-zag in ${{\sf Coalg}({F})}$ which relates $\eta_{B_1}(b_1)$ with $\eta_{B_2}(b_2)$, and whose nodes $(Z_j,e_j)$ all have free and finitely generated carrier.
This notion generalizes the notion of a proper semiring introduced by Esik and Maletti in [@esik.maletti:2010 Definition 3.2], cf. [@milius:2017 Remark 3.10].
\[fg\] In the definition of properness the condition that intermediate nodes have free *and* finitely generated carrier is necessary for nodes with incoming arrows (the nodes $Z_{2k-1}$ in ). For the intermediate nodes with outgoing arrows ($Z_{2k}$ in ), it is enough to require that their carrier is finitely generated. This follows since every $F$-coalgebra with finitely generated carrier is the image under an $F$-coalgebra morphism of an $F$-coalgebra with free and finitely generated carrier.
Moreover, note that zig-zags which start (or end) with incoming arrows instead of outgoing ones, can also be allowed since a zig-zag of this form can be turned into one of the form by appending identity maps.
Some concrete monads and functors {#some-concrete-monads-and-functors .unnumbered}
---------------------------------
We deal with the following base categories.
- The category ${\text{$\mathbb S$-{\text{\tt{SMOD}}}}}$ of semimodules over a semiring $\mathbb S$ induced by the monad $T_{\mathbb S}$ of finitely supported maps into $\mathbb S$, see, e.g., [@manes.mulry:2007 Example 4.2.5].
- The category of positively convex algebras induced by the monad of finitely supported subprobability distributions, see, e.g., [@doberkat:2006; @doberkat:2008] and [@pumpluen:1984].
For $n\in\mathbb N$, the free algebra with $n$ generators in ${\text{$\mathbb S$-{\text{\tt{SMOD}}}}}$ is the direct product $\mathbb S^n$, and in it is the $n$-simplex $\Delta^n=\{(\xi_1,\ldots,\xi_n)\mid \xi_j\geq 0,\sum_{j=1}^n\xi_j\leq 1\}$.
Concerning semimodule-categories, we mainly deal with the semirings $\mathbb N$, $\mathbb Q_+$, and $\mathbb R_+$, and their ring completions $\mathbb Z$, $\mathbb Q$, and $\mathbb R$. For these semirings the categories of $\mathbb S$-semimodules are
- ${{\text{\tt{CMON}}}}$ of commutative monoids for $\mathbb N$,
- ${{\text{\tt{AB}}}}$ of abelian groups for $\mathbb Z$,
- ${{\text{\tt{CONE}}}}$ of convex cones for $\mathbb R_+$,
- ${\text{$\mathbb Q$-{\text{\tt{VEC}}}}}$ and ${\text{$\mathbb R$-{\text{\tt{VEC}}}}}$ of vector spaces over the field of rational and real numbers, respectively, for $\mathbb Q$ and $\mathbb R$.
We consider the following functors, where $A$ is a fixed finite alphabet. Recall that we use the term *cubic functor* for the functor $T1\times(-)^A$ where $T$ is a monad on ${{\text{\tt{Set}}}}$. We chose the name since $T1\times(-)^A$ assigns to objects $X$ a full direct product, i.e., a full cube.
- The *cubic functor* ${{\ensuremath{F_{\,{\mathbb S}}}}}$ on ${\text{$\mathbb S$-{\text{\tt{SMOD}}}}}$, i.e., the functor acting as $$\begin{aligned}
& {{\ensuremath{F_{\,{\mathbb S}}}}}X=\mathbb S\times X^A\text{ for }X\text{ object of }{\text{$\mathbb S$-{\text{\tt{SMOD}}}}},
\\
& {{\ensuremath{F_{\,{\mathbb S}}}}}f=\operatorname{id}_{\mathbb S}\times(f\circ -)
\text{ for }f\colon X\to Y\text{ morphism of }{\text{$\mathbb S$-{\text{\tt{SMOD}}}}}.
\end{aligned}$$ The underlying ${{\text{\tt{Set}}}}$ functors of cubic functors are also sometimes called deterministic-automata functors, see e.g. [@jacobs.silva.sokolova:2015], as their coalgebras are deterministic weighted automata with output in the semiring.
- The *cubic functor* ${{\ensuremath{F_{\,{[0,1]}}}}}$ on ${{\text{\tt{PCA}}}}$, i.e., the functor ${{\ensuremath{F_{\,{[0,1]}}}}}X=[0,1]\times X^A$ and ${{\ensuremath{F_{\,{[0,1]}}}}}f=\operatorname{id}_{[0,1]}\times(f\circ -)$.
- A *subcubic convex functor* ${{\ensuremath{\widehat F}}}$ on whose action will be introduced in Definition \[Ghat-def\].[^2] The name originates from the fact that ${{\ensuremath{\widehat F}}}X$ is a certain convex subset of ${{\ensuremath{F_{\,{[0,1]}}}}}X$ and that ${{\ensuremath{\widehat F}}}f=({{\ensuremath{F_{\,{[0,1]}}}}}f)|_{{{\ensuremath{\widehat F}}}X}$ for $f\colon X\to Y$.
Cubic functors are liftings of ${{\text{\tt{Set}}}}$-endofunctors, in particular, they preserve surjective algebra homomorphisms. It is easy to see that also the functor ${{\ensuremath{\widehat F}}}$ preserves surjectivity, cf. Lemma \[GhSurj\] (Appendix \[app:D\]) This property is needed to apply the work of Milius, cf. [@milius:2017 Assumptions 3.1].
\[ProperSemiring\] We can now formulate precisely the connection between proper semirings and proper functors mentioned after Definition \[Proper\]. A semiring $\mathbb S$ is proper in the sense of [@esik.maletti:2010], if and only if for every finite input alphabet $A$ the cubic functor ${{\ensuremath{F_{\,{\mathbb S}}}}}$ on ${\text{$\mathbb S$-{\text{\tt{SMOD}}}}}$ is proper.
We shall interchangeably think of direct products as sets of functions or as sets of tuples. Taking the viewpoint of tuples, the definition of ${{\ensuremath{F_{\,{\mathbb S}}}}}f$ reads as $$({{\ensuremath{F_{\,{\mathbb S}}}}}f)\big((o,(x_a)_{a\in A})\big)=\big(o,(f(x_a))_{a\in A}\big),\quad
o\in\mathbb S,\ x_a\in X\text{ for }a\in A
.$$ A coalgebra structure $c\colon X\to{{\ensuremath{F_{\,{\mathbb S}}}}}X$ writes as $$c(x)=\big({{c}_{\text{\rm o}}}(x),({{c}_{a}}(x))_{a\in A}\big),\quad x\in X
,$$ and we use ${{c}_{\text{\rm o}}}:X\to\mathbb S$ and ${{c}_{a}}:X\to X$ as generic notation for the components of the map $c$. More generally, we define $c_w\colon X\to X$ for any word $w\in A^*$ inductively as ${{c}_{\varepsilon}}=\operatorname{id}_X$ and ${{c}_{wa}}={{c}_{a}}\circ{{c}_{w}},\ w\in A^*,a\in A$.
The map from a coalgebra $(X,c)$ into the final ${{\ensuremath{F_{\,{\mathbb S}}}}}$-coalgebra, the *trace map*, is then given as $\operatorname{tr}_c(x)=\big(({{c}_{\text{\rm o}}}\circ{{c}_{w}})(x)\big)_{w\in A^*}$ for $ x\in X$. Behavioural equivalence for cubic functors is the kernel of the trace map.
Properness of cubic functors {#sec-PropernessCubic}
============================
Our proofs of properness in this section and in Section \[sec-PropernessSubcubic\] below start from the following idea. Let $\mathbb S$ be a semiring, and assume we are given two ${{\ensuremath{F_{\,{\mathbb S}}}}}$-coalgebras which have free finitely generated carrier, say $(\mathbb S^{n_1},c_1)$ and $(\mathbb S^{n_2},c_2)$. Moreover, assume $x_1\in\mathbb S^{n_1}$ and $x_2\in\mathbb S^{n_2}$ are two elements having the same trace. For $j=1,2$, let $d_j\colon \mathbb S^{n_1}\times\mathbb S^{n_2} \to {{\ensuremath{F_{\,{\mathbb S}}}}}(\mathbb S^{n_1}\times\mathbb S^{n_2})$ be given by $$d_j(y_1, y_2) = \Big({{c_j}_{\text{\rm o}}}(y_j),(({{c_1}_{a}}(y_1),{{c_2}_{a}}(y_2)))_{a\in A}\Big).$$ Denoting by $\pi_j\colon \mathbb S^{n_1}\times\mathbb S^{n_2}\to\mathbb S^{n_j}$ the canonical projections, both sides of the following diagram separately commute. $$\xymatrix@C=15pt@R=10pt@M=7pt{
\mathbb S^{n_1} \ar[dd]_{c_1}
&& \mathbb S^{n_1}\times\mathbb S^{n_2} \ar[ll]_{\pi_1} \ar[rr]^{\pi_2}
\ar@/_15pt/[dd]_{d_1} \ar@/^15pt/[dd]^{d_2}
&& \mathbb S^{n_2} \ar[dd]_{c_2}
\\
&& \neq &&
\\
{{\ensuremath{F_{\,{\mathbb S}}}}}\mathbb S^{n_1}
&& {{\ensuremath{F_{\,{\mathbb S}}}}}(\mathbb S^{n_1}\times\mathbb S^{n_2}) \ar[ll]_{{{\ensuremath{F_{\,{\mathbb S}}}}}\pi_1} \ar[rr]^{{{\ensuremath{F_{\,{\mathbb S}}}}}\pi_2}
&& {{\ensuremath{F_{\,{\mathbb S}}}}}\mathbb S^{n_2}
}$$ However, in general the maps $d_1$ and $d_2$ do not coincide.
The next lemma contains a simple observation: there exists a subsemimodule $Z$ of $\mathbb S^{n_1}\times\mathbb S^{n_2}$, such that the restrictions of $d_1$ and $d_2$ to $Z$ coincide and turn $Z$ into an ${{\ensuremath{F_{\,{\mathbb S}}}}}$-coalgebra.
\[Prod\] Let $Z$ be the subsemimodule of $\mathbb S^{n_1}\times\mathbb S^{n_2}$ generated by the pairs $({{c_1}_{w}}(x_1),{{c_2}_{w}}(x_2))$ for $w \in A^*$. Then $d_1|_Z=d_2|_Z$ and $d_j(Z)\subseteq{{\ensuremath{F_{\,{\mathbb S}}}}}(Z)$.
The significance of Lemma \[Prod\] in the present context is that it leads to the diagram (we denote $d=d_j|_Z$) $$\xymatrix@C=15pt@R=35pt@M=7pt{
\mathbb S^{n_1} \ar[d]_{c_1}
&& Z \ar[ll]_{\pi_1} \ar[rr]^{\pi_2} \ar[d]^d
\save[]+<3pt,10pt>*\txt{\begin{rotate}{90}$\subseteq$\end{rotate}}\restore
\save[]+<2pt,27pt>*\txt{$\mathbb S^{n_1}\!\!\times\mathbb S^{n_2}$}\restore
&& \mathbb S^{n_2} \ar[d]_{c_2}
\\
{{\ensuremath{F_{\,{\mathbb S}}}}}\mathbb S^{n_1}
&& {{\ensuremath{F_{\,{\mathbb S}}}}}Z \ar[ll]_{{{\ensuremath{F_{\,{\mathbb S}}}}}\pi_1} \ar[rr]^{{{\ensuremath{F_{\,{\mathbb S}}}}}\pi_2}
\save[]+<-3pt,-10pt>*\txt{\begin{rotate}{-90}$\subseteq$\end{rotate}}\restore
\save[]+<2pt,-29pt>*\txt{$\mathbb S\!\!\times(\mathbb S^{n_1}\!\!\times\mathbb S^{n_2})^A$}\restore
&& {{\ensuremath{F_{\,{\mathbb S}}}}}\mathbb S^{n_2}
}$$ In other words, it leads to the zig-zag in [[Coalg]{}([${{\ensuremath{F_{\,{\mathbb S}}}}}$]{})]{} $$\label{ZZ}
\xymatrix@C=40pt{
(\mathbb S^{n_1},c_1) & (Z,d) \ar[l]_{\mkern20mu\pi_1} \ar[r]^{\pi_2\mkern20mu}
& (\mathbb S^{n_2},c_2)
}$$ This zig-zag relates $x_1$ with $x_2$ since $(x_1,x_2)\in Z$. If it can be shown that $Z$ is always finitely generated, it will follow that ${{\ensuremath{F_{\,{\mathbb S}}}}}$ is proper.
Let $\mathbb S$ be a Noetherian semiring, i.e., a semiring such that every $\mathbb S$-subsemimodule of some finitely generated $\mathbb S$-semimodule is itself finitely generated. Then $Z$ is, as an $\mathbb S$-subsemimodule of $\mathbb S^{n_1}\times\mathbb S^{n_2}$ finitely generated. Hence, we reobtain the result [@esik.maletti:2010 Theorem 4.2] of Esik and Maletti.
\[Noetherian\] Every Noetherian semiring is proper.
Our first main result is Theorem \[CubProp\] below, where we show properness of the cubic functors ${{\ensuremath{F_{\,{\mathbb S}}}}}$ on , for $\mathbb S$ being one of the semirings $\mathbb N$, $\mathbb Q_+$, $\mathbb R_+$, and of the cubic functor ${{\ensuremath{F_{\,{[0,1]}}}}}$ on . The case of ${{\ensuremath{F_{\,{\mathbb N}}}}}$ is known from [@beal.lombardy.sakarovitch:2006 Theorem 4] [^3], the case of ${{\ensuremath{F_{\,{[0,1]}}}}}$ is stated as an open problem in [@milius:2017 Example 3.19].
\[CubProp\] The cubic functors ${{\ensuremath{F_{\,{\mathbb N}}}}}$, ${{\ensuremath{F_{\,{\mathbb Q_+}}}}}$, ${{\ensuremath{F_{\,{\mathbb R_+}}}}}$, and ${{\ensuremath{F_{\,{[0,1]}}}}}$ are proper.
In fact, for any two coalgebras with free finitely generated carrier and any two elements having the same trace, a zig-zag with free and finitely generated nodes relating those elements can be found, which is a span (has a single intermediate node with outgoing arrows).
The proof proceeds via relating to the Noetherian case. It always follows the same scheme, which we now outline. Observe that the ring completion of each of $\mathbb N$, $\mathbb Q_+$, $\mathbb R_+$, is Noetherian (for the last two it actually is a field), and that $[0,1]$ is the positive part of the unit ball in $\mathbb R$.
*Step 1. The extension lemma:* We use an extension of scalars process to pass from the given category to an associated category E with a Noetherian ring $\mathbb E$. This is a general categorical argument.
To unify notation, we agree that $\mathbb S$ may also take the value $[0,1]$, and that $T_{[0,1]}$ is the monad of finitely supported subprobability distributions giving rise to the category .
$\mathbb S$ $\mathbb N$ $\mathbb Q_+$ $\mathbb R_+$ $[0,1]$
------------- ------------- --------------- --------------- ---------
N () ()
E Z () Q (Q) R (R) R (R)
For the formulation of the extension lemma, recall that the starting category is the Eilenberg-Moore category of the monad ${T_{\mathbb{S}}}$ and the target category E is the Eilenberg-Moore category of ${T_{\mathbb{E}}}$. We write $\eta_{\mathbb S}$ and $\mu_{\mathbb S}$ for the unit and multiplication of ${T_{\mathbb{S}}}$ and analogously for ${T_{\mathbb{E}}}$. We have ${T_{\mathbb{S}}}\le {T_{\mathbb{E}}}$, via the inclusion monad morphism $\iota\colon {T_{\mathbb{S}}}\Rightarrow {T_{\mathbb{E}}}$ given by $\iota_X(u) = u$, as $\eta_{\mathbb E} = \iota {\mathrel{\circ}}\eta_{\mathbb S}$ and $\mu_{\mathbb E} {\mathrel{\circ}}\iota\iota =\iota{\mathrel{\circ}}\mu_{\mathbb S}$ where $\iota\iota \stackrel{\text{def}}{=}{T_{\mathbb{E}}}\iota{\mathrel{\circ}}\iota \stackrel{\text{nat.}}{=} \iota {\mathrel{\circ}}{T_{\mathbb{S}}}\iota$. Recall that a monad morphism $\iota\colon T_\mathbb S \to T_\mathbb E$ defines a functor $M_\iota\colon {{\text{\tt{Set}}}^{T_\mathbb E}} \to {{\text{\tt{Set}}}^{T_\mathbb S}}$ which maps a $T_\mathbb E$-algebra $(X, \alpha_X)$ to $(X, \iota_X{\mathrel{\circ}}\alpha_X)$ and is identity on morphisms. Obviously, $M_\iota$ commutes with the forgetful functors $U_\mathbb S: {{\text{\tt{Set}}}^{T_\mathbb S}} \to {{\text{\tt{Set}}}}$ and $U_\mathbb E: {{\text{\tt{Set}}}^{T_\mathbb E}} \to {{\text{\tt{Set}}}}$, i.e., $U_\mathbb S {\mathrel{\circ}}M_\iota = U_\mathbb E$.
Let $(X, \alpha_X) \in {{\text{\tt{Set}}}^{{T_{\mathbb{S}}}}}$ and $(Y, \alpha_Y) \in {{\text{\tt{Set}}}^{{T_{\mathbb{E}}}}}$ where ${T_{\mathbb{S}}}$ and ${T_{\mathbb{E}}}$ are monads with ${T_{\mathbb{S}}}\le {T_{\mathbb{E}}}$ via $\iota\colon {T_{\mathbb{S}}}\Rightarrow {T_{\mathbb{E}}}$. A ${{\text{\tt{Set}}}}$-arrow $h\colon X \to Y$ is a ${T_{\mathbb{S}}}\le {T_{\mathbb{E}}}$-homomorphism from $(X,\alpha_X)$ to $(Y,\alpha_Y)$ if and only if the following diagram commutes (in ${{\text{\tt{Set}}}}$) $$\xymatrix@R=0.7em{
{T_{\mathbb{S}}}X \ar[rr]^{\iota h} \ar[d]_{\alpha_X}&& {T_{\mathbb{E}}}Y \ar[d]^{\alpha_Y}\\
X \ar[rr]^{h}&& Y
}$$ where $\iota h$ denotes the map $\iota h \stackrel{\text{def}}{=} {T_{\mathbb{E}}}h{\mathrel{\circ}}\iota_X \stackrel{\text{nat.}}{=} \iota_Y {\mathrel{\circ}}{T_{\mathbb{S}}}h$. In other words, a ${T_{\mathbb{S}}}\le {T_{\mathbb{E}}}$-homomorphism from $(X,\alpha_X)$ to $(Y,\alpha_Y)$ is a morphism in ${{\text{\tt{Set}}}^{T_\mathbb S}}$ from $(X,\alpha_X)$ to $M(Y,\alpha_Y)$.
Now we can formulate the extension lemma.
\[prop:ext-lem\] For every ${{\ensuremath{F_{\,{\mathbb{S}}}}}}$-coalgebra ${T_{\mathbb{S}}}B \stackrel{c}{\to} {{\ensuremath{F_{\,{\mathbb{S}}}}}}({T_{\mathbb{S}}}B)$ with free finitely generated carrier ${T_{\mathbb{S}}}B$ for a finite set $B$, there exists an ${{\ensuremath{F_{\,{\mathbb{E}}}}}}$-coalgebra ${T_{\mathbb{E}}}B \stackrel{\tilde c}{\to} {{\ensuremath{F_{\,{\mathbb{E}}}}}}({T_{\mathbb{E}}}B)$ with free finitely generated carrier ${T_{\mathbb{E}}}B$ such that $$\xymatrix@R=0.7em{
{T_{\mathbb{S}}}B \ar[rr]^{\iota_B} \ar[d]_{c}&& {T_{\mathbb{E}}}B \ar[d]^{\tilde c}\\
{{\ensuremath{F_{\,{\mathbb{S}}}}}}({T_{\mathbb{S}}}B) \ar[rr]^{\iota_1 \times (\iota_B)^A}&& {{\ensuremath{F_{\,{\mathbb{E}}}}}}({T_{\mathbb{E}}}B)
}$$ where the horizontal arrows ($\iota_B$ and $\iota_1 \times \iota_B^A$) are ${T_{\mathbb{S}}}\le {T_{\mathbb{E}}}$-homomorphisms, and moreover they both amount to inclusion.
*Step 2. The basic diagram:* Let $n_1,n_2\in\mathbb N$, let $B_j$ be the $n_j$-element set consisting of the canonical basis vectors of $\mathbb E^{n_j}$, and set $X_j=T_{\mathbb S}B_j$. Assume we are given ${{\ensuremath{F_{\,{\mathbb S}}}}}$-coalgebras $(X_1,c_1)$ and $(X_2,c_2)$, and elements $x_j\in X_j$ with $\operatorname{tr}_{c_1}x_1=\operatorname{tr}_{c_2}x_2$.
The extension lemma provides ${{\ensuremath{F_{\,{\mathbb E}}}}}$-coalgebras $(\mathbb E^{n_j},\tilde c_j)$ with $\tilde c_j|_{X_j}=c_j$. Clearly, $\operatorname{tr}_{\tilde c_1}x_1=\operatorname{tr}_{\tilde c_2}x_2$. Using the zig-zag diagram in [[Coalg]{}([$F_{\mathbb E}$]{})]{} and appending inclusion maps, we obtain what we call the *basic diagram*. In this diagram all solid arrows are arrows in E, and all dotted arrows are arrows in . The horizontal dotted arrows denote the inclusion maps, and $\pi_j$ are the restrictions to $Z$ of the canonical projections. $$\xymatrix@C=15pt@R=35pt@M=7pt{
X_1 \ar@{.>}[r] \ar@{.>}[d]_{c_1} & \mathbb E^{n_1} \ar[d]_{\tilde c_1}
&& Z \ar[ll]_{\pi_1} \ar[rr]^{\pi_2} \ar[d]^d
\save[]+<3pt,10pt>*\txt{\begin{rotate}{90}$\subseteq$\end{rotate}}\restore
\save[]+<2pt,27pt>*\txt{$\mathbb E^{n_1}\!\!\times\mathbb E^{n_2}$}\restore
&& \mathbb E^{n_2} \ar[d]_{\tilde c_2} & X_2 \ar@{.>}[l] \ar@{.>}[d]^{c_2}
\\
{{\ensuremath{F_{\,{\mathbb S}}}}}X_1 \ar@{.>}[r] & {{\ensuremath{F_{\,{\mathbb E}}}}}\mathbb E^{n_1}
&& {{\ensuremath{F_{\,{\mathbb E}}}}}Z \ar[ll]_{{{\ensuremath{F_{\,{\mathbb E}}}}}\pi_1} \ar[rr]^{{{\ensuremath{F_{\,{\mathbb E}}}}}\pi_2}
\save[]+<-3pt,-10pt>*\txt{\begin{rotate}{-90}$\subseteq$\end{rotate}}\restore
\save[]+<2pt,-29pt>*\txt{$\mathbb E\!\!\times(\mathbb E^{n_1}\!\!\times\mathbb E^{n_2})^A$}\restore
&& {{\ensuremath{F_{\,{\mathbb E}}}}}\mathbb E^{n_2} & {{\ensuremath{F_{\,{\mathbb S}}}}}X_2 \ar@{.>}[l]
}$$ Commutativity of this diagram yields $d\big(\pi_j^{-1}(X_j)\big)\subseteq({{\ensuremath{F_{\,{\mathbb E}}}}}\pi_j)^{-1}\big({{\ensuremath{F_{\,{\mathbb S}}}}}X_j)$ for $j=1,2$. Now we observe the following properties of cubic functors.
\[CubProperties\] We have ${{\ensuremath{F_{\,{\mathbb E}}}}}X\cap{{\ensuremath{F_{\,{\mathbb S}}}}}Y={{\ensuremath{F_{\,{\mathbb S}}}}}(X\cap Y)$. Moreover, if $Y_j\subseteq X_j$, then $({{\ensuremath{F_{\,{\mathbb E}}}}}\pi_1)^{-1}({{\ensuremath{F_{\,{\mathbb S}}}}}Y_1)\cap({{\ensuremath{F_{\,{\mathbb E}}}}}\pi_2)^{-1}({{\ensuremath{F_{\,{\mathbb S}}}}}Y_2)
={{\ensuremath{F_{\,{\mathbb S}}}}}(Y_1\times Y_2)$.
Using this, yields $$\begin{aligned}
d\big(Z\cap(X_1\times X_2)\big)\subseteq &\,
{{\ensuremath{F_{\,{\mathbb E}}}}}Z\cap({{\ensuremath{F_{\,{\mathbb E}}}}}\pi_1)^{-1}\big({{\ensuremath{F_{\,{\mathbb S}}}}}X_1)
\cap({{\ensuremath{F_{\,{\mathbb E}}}}}\pi_2)^{-1}\big({{\ensuremath{F_{\,{\mathbb S}}}}}X_2)
\\
= &\, {{\ensuremath{F_{\,{\mathbb E}}}}}Z\cap{{\ensuremath{F_{\,{\mathbb S}}}}}(X_1\times X_2)={{\ensuremath{F_{\,{\mathbb S}}}}}\big(Z\cap(X_1\times X_2)\big)
.
\end{aligned}$$ This shows that $Z\cap(X_1\times X_2)$ becomes an ${{\ensuremath{F_{\,{\mathbb S}}}}}$-coalgebra with the restriction $d|_{Z\cap(X_1\times X_2)}$. Again referring to the basic diagram, we have the following zig-zag in [[Coalg]{}([$F_{\mathbb S}$]{})]{} (to shorten notation, denote the restrictions of $d,\pi_1,\pi_2$ to $Z\cap(X_1\times X_2)$ again as $d,\pi_1,\pi_2$): $$\label{4}
\xymatrix@C=40pt{
(X_1,c_1) & \big(Z\cap(X_1\times X_2),d\big)
\ar[l]_{\pi_1\mkern50mu} \ar[r]^{\mkern60mu\pi_2}
& (X_2,c_2)
}$$ This zig-zag relates $x_1$ with $x_2$ since $(x_1,x_2)\in Z\cap(X_1\times X_2)$.
*Step 3. The reduction lemma:* In view of the zig-zag , the proof of Theorem \[CubProp\] can be completed by showing that $Z\cap(X_1\times X_2)$ is finitely generated as an algebra in . Since $Z$ is a submodule of the finitely generated module $\mathbb E^{n_1}\times\mathbb E^{n_2}$ over the Noetherian ring $\mathbb E$, it is finitely generated as an $\mathbb E$-module. The task thus is to show that being finitely generated is preserved when reducing scalars.
This is done by what we call the *reduction lemma*. Contrasting the extension lemma, the reduction lemma is not a general categorical fact, and requires specific proof in each situation.
\[RedLem\] Let $n_1,n_2\in\mathbb N$, let $B_j$ be the set consisting of the $n_j$ canonical basis vectors of $\mathbb E^{n_j}$, and set $X_j=T_{\mathbb S}B_j$. Moreover, let $Z$ be an $\mathbb E$-submodule of $\mathbb E^{n_1}\times\mathbb E^{n_2}$. Then $Z\cap(X_1\times X_2)$ is finitely generated as an algebra in .
A subcubic convex functor {#sec-SubcubicFunctor}
=========================
Recall the following definition from [@silva.sokolova:2011 p.309].
\[Ghat-def\] We introduce a functor ${{\ensuremath{\widehat F}}}\colon {{\text{\tt{PCA}}}}\to{{\text{\tt{PCA}}}}$.
1. Let $X$ be a . Then $$\begin{aligned}
{{\ensuremath{\widehat F}}}X=\Big\{ (o,\phi)\in[0,1] & \times X^A\mid
\\
& \exists\,n_a\in\mathbb N{{.\kern3pt}}\exists\,p_{a,j}\in[0,1],x_{a,j}\in X\text{ for }j=1,\ldots,n_a,a\in A{{.\kern3pt}}\\
& o+\sum_{a\in A}\sum_{j=1}^{n_a}p_{a,j}\leq 1,\ \phi(a)=\sum_{j=1}^{n_a}p_{a,j}x_{a,j} \Big\}.
\end{aligned}$$
2. Let $X,Y$ be s, and $f\colon X\to Y$ a convex map. Then ${{\ensuremath{\widehat F}}}f\colon {{\ensuremath{\widehat F}}}X\to{{\ensuremath{\widehat F}}}Y$ is the map ${{\ensuremath{\widehat F}}}f=\operatorname{id}_{[0,1]}\times(f\circ -)$.
For every $X$ we have ${{\ensuremath{\widehat F}}}X\subseteq{{\ensuremath{F_{\,{[0,1]}}}}}X$, and for every $f\colon X\to Y$ we have ${{\ensuremath{\widehat F}}}f=({{\ensuremath{F_{\,{[0,1]}}}}}f)|_{{{\ensuremath{\widehat F}}}X}$. For this reason, we think of ${{\ensuremath{\widehat F}}}$ as a *subcubic functor*.
The definition of [[$\widehat F$]{}]{} can be simplified.
\[Ghat-simple\] Let $X$ be a , then $$\begin{aligned}
{{\ensuremath{\widehat F}}}X=\Big\{ (o,f)\in[0,1]\times X^A\mid\ &
\exists\,p_a\in[0,1],x_a\in X\text{ for }a\in A{{.\kern3pt}}\\
& o+\sum_{a\in A}p_a\leq 1,\ f(a)=p_ax_a \Big\}.
\end{aligned}$$
From this representation it is obvious that [[$\widehat F$]{}]{} is monotone in the sense that
- If $X_1\subseteq X_2$, then ${{\ensuremath{\widehat F}}}X_1\subseteq{{\ensuremath{\widehat F}}}X_2$.
- If $f_1\colon X_1\to Y_1,f_2\colon X_2\to Y_2$ with $X_1\subseteq X_2,Y_1\subseteq Y_2$ and $f_2|_{X_1}=f_1$, then ${{\ensuremath{\widehat F}}}f_2|_{{{\ensuremath{\widehat F}}}X_1}={{\ensuremath{\widehat F}}}f_1$.
Note that [[$\widehat F$]{}]{} does not preserve direct products.
For a $X$ whose carrier is a compact subset of a euclidean space, ${{\ensuremath{\widehat F}}}X$ can be described with help of a geometric notion, namely using the Minkowksi functional of $X$. Before we can state this fact, we have to make a brief digression to explain this notion and its properties.
\[Minko\] Let $X\subseteq\mathbb R^n$ be a . The *Minkowski functional* of $X$ is the map ${\ensuremath{\mu_{X}}}\colon \mathbb R^n\to[0,\infty]$ defined as ${\ensuremath{\mu_{X}}}(x)=\inf\{t>0\mid x\in tX\}$, where the infimum of the empty set is understood as $\infty$.
Minkowski functionals, sometimes also called *gauge*, are a central and exhaustively studied notion in convex geometry, see, e.g., [@rudin:1991 p.34] or [@rockafellar:1970 p.28].
We list some basic properties whose proof can be found in the mentioned textbooks.
1. ${\ensuremath{\mu_{X}}}(px)=p{\ensuremath{\mu_{X}}}(x)$ for $x\in\mathbb R^n,p\geq 0$,
2. ${\ensuremath{\mu_{X}}}(x+y)\leq {\ensuremath{\mu_{X}}}(x)+{\ensuremath{\mu_{X}}}(y)$ for $x,y\in\mathbb R^n$,
3. ${\ensuremath{\mu_{X\cap Y}}}(x)=\max\{{\ensuremath{\mu_{X}}}(x),{\ensuremath{\mu_{Y}}}(x)\}$ for $x\in\mathbb R^n$.
4. If $X$ is bounded, then ${\ensuremath{\mu_{X}}}(x)=0$ if and only if $x=0$.
The set $X$ can almost be recovered from ${\ensuremath{\mu_{X}}}$.
5. ${\displaystyle\{x\in\mathbb R^n\mid{\ensuremath{\mu_{X}}}(x)<1\}\subseteq X\subseteq\{x\in\mathbb R^n\mid{\ensuremath{\mu_{X}}}(x)\leq 1\}}$.
6. If $X$ is closed, equality holds in the second inclusion of 5.
7. Let $X,Y$ be closed. Then $X\subseteq Y$ if and only if ${\ensuremath{\mu_{X}}}\geq{\ensuremath{\mu_{Y}}}$.
\[MinkoExa\] As two simple examples, consider the $n$-simplex $\Delta^n\subseteq\mathbb R^n$ and a convex cone $C\subseteq\mathbb R^n$. Then (here $\geq$ denotes the product order on $\mathbb R^n$) $${\ensuremath{\mu_{\Delta^n}}}(x)=
\begin{cases}
\sum_{j=1}^n\xi_j &\hspace*{-3mm},\quad x=(\xi_1,\ldots,\xi_n)\geq 0,
\\
\infty &\hspace*{-3mm},\quad \text{otherwise}.
\end{cases}
\qquad
{\ensuremath{\mu_{C}}}(x)=
\begin{cases}
0 &\hspace*{-3mm},\quad x\in C,
\\
\infty &\hspace*{-3mm},\quad \text{otherwise}.
\end{cases}$$ Observe that $\Delta^n=\{x\in\mathbb R^n\mid {\ensuremath{\mu_{\Delta^n}}}(x)\leq 1\}$.
Another illustrative example is given by general pyramids in a euclidean space. This example will play an important role later on.
\[Pyramid\] For $u\in\mathbb R^n$ consider the set $$X=\big\{x\in\mathbb R^n\mid x\geq 0\text{ and }(x,u)\leq 1\big\}
,$$ where $(\cdot,\cdot)$ denotes the euclidean scalar product on $\mathbb R^n$. The set $X$ is intersection of the cone $\mathbb R_+^n$ with the half-space given by the inequality $(x,u)\leq 1$, hence it is convex and contains $0$. Thus $X$ is a .
Let us first assume that $u$ is strictly positive, i.e., $u\geq 0$ and no component of $u$ equals zero. Then $X$ is a pyramid (in $2$-dimensional space, a triangle).
(0,0) – (0,4-5/12) – (11-12/5,0) – (0,0); (0,0) – (12,0); (0,0) – (0,5); (-1,4) – (11,-1); (0,0) – (1,1\*12/5); at (0.6,2.5) [[$u$]{}]{}; at (2.9,1.1) [[$X$]{}]{}; at (-2.4,4.5) [[$\scriptstyle(x,u)=1$]{}]{};
The $n$-simplex $\Delta^n$ is of course a particular pyramid. It is obtained using the vector $u=(1,\ldots,1)$.
The Minkowski functional of the pyramid $X$ associated with $u$ is $${\ensuremath{\mu_{X}}}(x)=
\begin{cases}
(x,u) &\hspace*{-3mm},\quad x\geq 0,
\\
\infty &\hspace*{-3mm},\quad \text{otherwise}.
\end{cases}$$ Write $u=\sum_{j=1}^n\alpha_je_j$, where $e_j$ is the $j$-th canonical basis vector, and set $y_j=\frac 1{\alpha_j}e_j$. Clearly, $\{y_1,\ldots,y_n\}$ is linearly independent. Each vector $x=\sum_{j=1}^n\xi_je_j$ can be written as $x=\sum_{j=1}^n(\xi_j\alpha_j)y_j$, and this is a subconvex combination if and only if $\xi_j\geq 0$ and $\sum_{j=1}^n\xi_j\alpha_j\leq 1$, i.e., if and only if $x\in X$. Thus $X$ is generated by $\{y_1,\ldots,y_n\}$ as a .
The linear map given by the diagonal matrix made up of the $\alpha_j$’s induces a bijection of $X$ onto $\Delta^n$, and maps the $y_j$’s to the corner points of $\Delta^n$. Hence, $X$ is free with basis $\{y_1,\ldots,y_n\}$.
If $u$ is not strictly positive, the situation changes drastically. Then $X$ is not finitely generated as a , because it is unbounded whereas the subconvex hull of a finite set is certainly bounded.
(0,0) – (0,2) – (16,4) – (16,0) – (0,0); (0,0) – (12,0); (0,0) – (0,5); (-1,2-1/8) – (16,4); (0,0) – (-3/8,3); at (-0.8,3.2) [[$u$]{}]{}; at (9.5,1.7) [[$X$]{}]{}; at (14.8,5.0) [[$\scriptstyle(x,u)=1$]{}]{};
Now we return to the functor [[$\widehat F$]{}]{}.
\[Ghat-Minko\] Let $X\subseteq\mathbb R^n$ be a , and assume that $X$ is compact. Then $${{\ensuremath{\widehat F}}}X=\Big\{(o,\phi)\in\mathbb R\times(\mathbb R^n)^A\mid\
o\geq 0,\ o+\sum_{a\in A}{\ensuremath{\mu_{X}}}(\phi(a))\leq 1 \Big\}
.$$
In the following we use the elementary fact that every convex map has a linear extension.
\[LinExt\] Let $V_1,V_2$ be vector spaces, let $X\subseteq V_1$ be a , and let $c\colon X\to V_2$ be a convex map. Then $c$ has a linear extension $\tilde c\colon V_1\to V_2$. If $\operatorname{span}X=V_1$, this extension is unique.
Rescaling in this representation of ${{\ensuremath{\widehat F}}}X$ leads to a characterisation of [[$\widehat F$]{}]{}-coalgebra maps. We give a slightly more general statement; for the just said, use $X=Y$.
\[Ghat-Minko-Coalg\] Let $X,Y\subseteq\mathbb R^n$ be s, and assume that $X$ and $Y$ are compact. Further, let $c\colon X\to\mathbb R_+\times(\mathbb R^n)^A$ be a convex map, and let $\tilde c\colon \mathbb R^n\to\mathbb R\times(\mathbb R^n)^A$ be a linear extension of $c$.
Then $c(X)\subseteq{{\ensuremath{\widehat F}}}Y$, if and only if $$\label{2}
{{\tilde c}_{\text{\rm o}}}(x)+\sum_{a\in A}{\ensuremath{\mu_{Y}}}({{\tilde c}_{a}}(x))\leq{\ensuremath{\mu_{X}}}(x),\quad x\in\mathbb R^n
.$$
An extension theorem for ${{\ensuremath{\widehat F}}}$-coalgebras {#sec-ExtensionTheorem}
=================================================================
In this section we establish an extension theorem for ${{\ensuremath{\widehat F}}}$-coalgebras. It states that an ${{\ensuremath{\widehat F}}}$-coalgebra, whose carrier has a particular geometric form, can, under a mild additional condition, be embedded into an ${{\ensuremath{\widehat F}}}$-coalgebra whose carrier is free and finitely generated.
\[ExEx\] Let $(X,c)$ be an ${{\ensuremath{\widehat F}}}$-coalgebra whose carrier $X$ is a compact subset of a euclidean space $\mathbb R^n$ with $\Delta^n\subseteq X\subseteq\mathbb R_+^n$. Assume that the output map ${{c}_{\text{\rm o}}}$ does not vanish on invariant coordinate hyperplanes in the sense that ($e_j$ denotes again the $j$-th canonical basis vector in $\mathbb R^n$) $$\label{nv}
\begin{aligned}
& \nexists\,I\subseteq\{1,\ldots,n\}{{.\kern3pt}}\\
& I\neq\emptyset,\quad
{{c}_{\text{\rm o}}}(e_j)=0,j\in I,
\quad
{{c}_{a}}(e_j)\subseteq\operatorname{span}\{e_i\mid i\in I\},a\in A,j\in I.
\end{aligned}$$ Then there exists an ${{\ensuremath{\widehat F}}}$-coalgebra $(Y,d)$, such that $X\subseteq Y\subseteq\mathbb R_+^n$, the inclusion map $\iota\colon X\to Y$ is a ${{\sf Coalg}({{{\ensuremath{\widehat F}}}})}$-morphism, and $Y$ is the subconvex hull of $n$ linearly independent vectors (in particular, $Y$ is free with $n$ generators).
The idea of the proof can be explained by geometric intuition. Say, we have an ${{\ensuremath{\widehat F}}}$-coalgebra $(X,c)$ of the stated form, and let $\tilde c\colon \mathbb R^n\to\mathbb R\times(\mathbb R^n)^A$ be the linear extension of $c$ to all of $\mathbb R^n$, cf. Lemma \[LinExt\].
(0,0) – (0,2) to \[out=20,in=0\] (3,0) – (0,0); (0,0) – (12,0); (0,0) – (0,5); at (0,1.5) [[$\bullet$]{}]{}; at (-0.5,1.5) [[$e_2$]{}]{}; at (1.5,0) [[$\bullet$]{}]{}; at (1.5,-0.5) [[$e_1$]{}]{}; at (14,1.4) [${{\ensuremath{\widehat F}}}X$]{}; (0,2) to \[out=20,in=0\] (3,0); at (1.4,0.9) [[$X$]{}]{}; (3,1.4) to \[out=20,in=160\] (13,1.4); at (8,3) [$c=\tilde c|_X$]{};
Remembering that pyramids are free and finitely generated, we will be done if we find a pyramid $Y\supseteq X$ which is mapped into ${{\ensuremath{\widehat F}}}Y$ by $\tilde c$:
(0,0) – (0,2) to \[out=20,in=0\] (3,0) – (0,0); (0,0) – (0,4-5/12) – (11-12/5,0) – (0,0); (0,0) – (12,0); (0,0) – (0,5); at (0,1.5) [[$\bullet$]{}]{}; at (-0.5,1.5) [[$e_2$]{}]{}; at (1.5,0) [[$\bullet$]{}]{}; at (1.5,-0.5) [[$e_1$]{}]{}; at (14,1.4) [${{\ensuremath{\widehat F}}}X$]{}; (0,2) to \[out=20,in=0\] (3,0); at (1.4,0.9) [[$X$]{}]{}; (3,1.4) to \[out=20,in=160\] (13,1.4); at (8,3) [$c=\tilde c|_X$]{}; (-1,4) – (11,-1); at (4.2,1) [[$Y$]{}]{}; at (14,3.4) [${{\ensuremath{\widehat F}}}Y$]{}; at (14.1,2.15)
[90]{} $\subseteq$
; (2,3.4) to \[out=20,in=160\] (13,3.4); at (8,5) [$\tilde c|_Y$]{};
This task can be reformulated as follows: For each pyramid $Y_1$ containing $X$ let $P(Y_1)$ be the set of all pyramids $Y_2$ containing $X$, such that $\tilde c(Y_2)\subseteq{{\ensuremath{\widehat F}}}Y_1$. If we find $Y$ with $Y\in P(Y)$, we are done.
Existence of $Y$ can be established by applying a fixed point principle for set-valued maps. The result sufficient for our present level of generality is Kakutani’s generalisation [@kakutani:1941 Corollary] of Brouwers fixed point theorem.
Properness of [[$\widehat F$]{}]{} {#sec-PropernessSubcubic}
==================================
In this section we give the second main result of the paper.
\[GhatProp\] The functor ${{\ensuremath{\widehat F}}}$ is proper.
In fact, for each two given coalgebras with free finitely generated carrier and each two elements having the same trace, a zig-zag with free and finitely generated nodes relating those elements can be found, which has three intermediate nodes with the middle one forming a span.
We try to follow the proof scheme familiar from the cubic case. Assume we are given two ${{\ensuremath{\widehat F}}}$-coalgebras with free finitely generated carrier, say $(\Delta^{n_1},c_1)$ and $(\Delta^{n_2},c_2)$, and elements $x_1\in\Delta^{n_1}$ and $x_2\in\Delta^{n_2}$ having the same trace. Since ${{\ensuremath{\widehat F}}}\Delta^{n_j}\subseteq\mathbb R\times(\mathbb R^{n_j})^A$ we can apply Lemma \[LinExt\] and obtain ${{\ensuremath{F_{\,{\mathbb R}}}}}$-coalgebras $(\mathbb R^{n_j},\tilde c_j)$ with $\tilde c_j|_{\Delta^{n_j}}=c_j$. This leads to the basic diagram: $$\xymatrix@C=15pt@R=35pt@M=7pt{
\Delta^{n_1} \ar@{.>}[r] \ar@{.>}[d]_{c_1} & \mathbb R^{n_1} \ar[d]_{\tilde c_1}
&& Z \ar[ll]_{\pi_1} \ar[rr]^{\pi_2} \ar[d]^d
\save[]+<3pt,10pt>*\txt{\begin{rotate}{90}$\subseteq$\end{rotate}}\restore
\save[]+<2pt,27pt>*\txt{$\mathbb R^{n_1}\!\!\times\mathbb R^{n_2}$}\restore
&& \mathbb R^{n_2} \ar[d]_{\tilde c_2} & \Delta^{n_2} \ar@{.>}[l] \ar@{.>}[d]^{c_2}
\\
{{\ensuremath{\widehat F}}}\Delta^{n_1} \ar@{.>}[r] & {{\ensuremath{F_{\,{\mathbb R}}}}}\mathbb R^{n_1}
&& {{\ensuremath{F_{\,{\mathbb R}}}}}Z \ar[ll]_{{{\ensuremath{F_{\,{\mathbb R}}}}}\pi_1} \ar[rr]^{{{\ensuremath{F_{\,{\mathbb R}}}}}\pi_2}
\save[]+<-3pt,-10pt>*\txt{\begin{rotate}{-90}$\subseteq$\end{rotate}}\restore
\save[]+<2pt,-29pt>*\txt{$\mathbb R\!\!\times(\mathbb R^{n_1}\!\!\times\mathbb R^{n_2})^A$}\restore
&& {{\ensuremath{F_{\,{\mathbb R}}}}}\mathbb R^{n_2} & {{\ensuremath{\widehat F}}}\Delta^{n_2} \ar@{.>}[l]
}$$ At this point the line of argument known from the cubic case breaks: it is *not* granted that $Z\cap(\Delta^{n_1}\times \Delta^{n_2})$ becomes an ${{\ensuremath{\widehat F}}}$-coalgebra with the restriction of $d$.
The substitute for $Z\cap(\Delta^{n_1}\times \Delta^{n_2})$ suitable for proceeding one step further is given by the following lemma, where we tacitly identify $\mathbb R^{n_1}\times\mathbb R^{n_2}$ with $\mathbb R^{n_1+n_2}$.
\[GhatRestr\] We have $d(Z\cap 2\Delta^{n_1+n_2})\subseteq{{\ensuremath{\widehat F}}}(Z\cap 2\Delta^{n_1+n_2})$.
This shows that $Z\cap 2\Delta^{n_1+n_2}$ becomes an ${{\ensuremath{\widehat F}}}$-coalgebra with the restriction of $d$. Still, we cannot return to the usual line of argument: it is *not* granted that $\pi_j(Z\cap 2\Delta^{n_1+n_2})\subseteq\Delta^{n_j}$. This forces us to introduce additional nodes to produce a zig-zag in ${{\sf Coalg}({{{\ensuremath{\widehat F}}}})}$. These additional nodes are given by the following lemma. There $\operatorname{co}( -)$ denotes the convex hull.
\[GhatNodes\] Set $Y_j=\operatorname{co}(\Delta^{n_j}\cup\pi_j(Z\cap 2\Delta^{n_1+n_2}))$. Then $\tilde c_j(Y_j)\subseteq{{\ensuremath{\widehat F}}}Y_j$.
This shows that $Y_j$ becomes an ${{\ensuremath{\widehat F}}}$-coalgebra with the restriction of $\tilde c_j$. We are led to a zig-zag in ${{\sf Coalg}({{{\ensuremath{\widehat F}}}})}$: $$\xymatrix@C=25pt{
(\Delta^{n_1},c_1) \ar[r]^{\subseteq}
& (Y_1,\tilde c_1) & \big(Z\cap 2\Delta^{n_1+n_2},d\big) \ar[l]_{\pi_1\mkern40mu} \ar[r]^{\mkern40mu\pi_2}
& (Y_2,\tilde c_2) & (\Delta^{n_2},c_2) \ar[l]_{\supseteq}
}$$ This zig-zag relates $x_1$ and $x_2$ since $(x_1,x_2)\in Z\cap 2\Delta^{n_1+n_2}$.
Using Minkowski’s Theorem and the argument from Lemma \[RedLemPca\] (Appendix \[app:B\]) shows that the middle node has finitely generated carrier. The two nodes with incoming arrows are, as convex hulls of two finitely generated s, of course also finitely generated. But in general they will not be free (and this is essential, remember Remark \[fg\]). Now Theorem \[ExEx\] comes into play.
\[GhatFree\] Assume that each of $(\Delta^{n_1},c_1)$ and $(\Delta^{n_2},c_2)$ satisfies the following condition: $$\label{nv2}
\begin{aligned}
& \nexists\,I\subseteq\{1,\ldots,n\}{{.\kern3pt}}\\
& I\neq\emptyset,\
{{c_j}_{\text{\rm o}}}(e_k)=0,k\in I,
\
{{c_j}_{a}}(e_k)\subseteq\operatorname{co}(\{e_i\mid i\in I\}\cup\{0\}),a\in A,k\in I.
\end{aligned}$$ Then there exist free finitely generated s $U_j$ with $Y_j\subseteq U_j\subseteq\mathbb R_+^{n_j}$ which satisfy $\tilde c_j(U_j)\subseteq{{\ensuremath{\widehat F}}}U_j$.
This shows that $U_j$, under the additional assumption on $(\Delta^{n_j},c_j)$, becomes an ${{\ensuremath{\widehat F}}}$-coalgebra with the restriction of $\tilde c_j$. Thus we have a zig-zag in ${{\sf Coalg}({{{\ensuremath{\widehat F}}}})}$ relating $x_1$ and $x_2$ whose nodes with incoming arrows are free and finitely generated, and whose node with outgoing arrows is finitely generated: $$\xymatrix@C=25pt{
(\Delta^{n_1},c_1) \ar@{.>}[r]^{\subseteq} \ar[rd]
& (Y_1,\tilde c_1) \ar@{.>}[d]
\save[]+<6pt,-15pt>*\txt{\begin{rotate}{-90}$\scriptstyle\subseteq$\end{rotate}}\restore
& \big(Z\cap 2\Delta^{n_1+n_2},d\big) \ar@{.>}[l]_{\pi_1\mkern40mu} \ar@{.>}[r]^{\mkern40mu\pi_2} \ar[ld] \ar[rd]
& (Y_2,\tilde c_2) \ar@{.>}[d]
\save[]+<-9pt,-15pt>*\txt{\begin{rotate}{-90}$\scriptstyle\subseteq$\end{rotate}}\restore
& (\Delta^{n_2},c_2) \ar@{.>}[l]_{\supseteq} \ar[ld]
\\
& (U_1,\tilde c_1)
&& (U_2,\tilde c_2) &
}$$ Removing the additional assumption on $(\Delta^{n_j},c_j)$ is an easy exercise.
\[GhatRedLem\] Let $(\Delta^n,c)$ be an ${{\ensuremath{\widehat F}}}$-coalgebra. Assume that $I$ is a nonempty subset of $\{1,\ldots,n\}$ with $$\label{6}
{{c}_{\text{\rm o}}}(e_k)=0,\ k\in I\quad\text{and}\quad
{{c}_{a}}(e_k)\in\operatorname{co}\big(\{e_i\mid i\in I\}\cup\{0\}\big),\ a\in A,k\in I.$$ Let $X$ be the free with basis $\{e_k\mid k\in\{1,\ldots,n\}\setminus I\}$, and let $f\colon \Delta^n\to X$ be the -morphism with $$f(e_k)=
\begin{cases}
0 &\hspace*{-3mm},\quad k\in I,
\\
e_k &\hspace*{-3mm},\quad k\not\in I.
\end{cases}$$ Further, let $g\colon X\to[0,1]\times X^A$ be the -morphism with $$g(e_k)=\Big({{c}_{\text{\rm o}}}(e_k),\big(f({{c}_{a}}(e_k))\big)_{a\in A}\Big),\quad k\in\{1,\ldots,n\}\setminus I
.$$ Then $(X,g)$ is an ${{\ensuremath{\widehat F}}}$-coalgebra, and $f$ is an ${{\ensuremath{\widehat F}}}$-coalgebra morphism of $(\Delta^n,c)$ onto $(X,g)$.
\[GhatRedCor\] Let $(\Delta^n,c)$ be an ${{\ensuremath{\widehat F}}}$-coalgebra. Then there exists $k\leq n$, an ${{\ensuremath{\widehat F}}}$-coalgebra $(\Delta^k,g)$, such that $(\Delta^k,g)$ satisfies the assumption in Lemma \[GhatFree\] and such that there exists an ${{\ensuremath{\widehat F}}}$-coalgebra map $f$ of $(\Delta^n,c)$ onto $(\Delta^k,g)$.
The proof of Theorem \[GhatProp\] is now finished by putting together what we showed so far. Starting with ${{\ensuremath{\widehat F}}}$-coalgebras $(\Delta^{n_j},c_j)$ without any additional assumptions, and elements $x_j\in\Delta^{n_j}$ having the same trace, we first reduce by means of Corollary \[GhatRedCor\] and then apply Lemma \[GhatFree\]. This gives a zig-zag as required: $$\xymatrix@C=17pt@M=3pt{
(\Delta^{n_1},c_1) \ar@{.>}[d]_{\psi_1} \ar[rd]
&& \big(Z\cap 2\Delta^{k_1+k_2},d\big) \ar[ld] \ar[rd] &&
(\Delta^{n_2},c_2) \ar@{.>}[d]_{\psi_2} \ar[ld]
\\
(\Delta^{k_1},g_1) \ar@{.>}[r]
& (U_1,\tilde g_1) &
& (U_2,\tilde g_2) & (\Delta^{k_2},g_2) \ar@{.>}[l]
}$$ and completes the proof of properness of ${{\ensuremath{\widehat F}}}$.
\#1[0=]{}
[10]{} \[1\][`#1`]{}
Bachem, A.: The theorem of [M]{}inkowski for polyhedral monoids and aggregated linear [D]{}iophantine systems. In: Optimization and operations research ([P]{}roc. [W]{}orkshop, [U]{}niv. [B]{}onn, [B]{}onn, 1977), Lecture Notes in Econom. and Math. Systems, vol. 157, pp. 1–13. Springer, Berlin-New York (1978)
B[é]{}al, M., Lombardy, S., Sakarovitch, J.: On the equivalence of [Z]{}-automata. In: Automata, Languages and Programming, 32nd International Colloquium, [ICALP]{} 2005, Lisbon, Portugal, July 11-15, 2005, Proceedings. pp. 397–409 (2005), <https://doi.org/10.1007/11523468_33>
B[é]{}al, M., Lombardy, S., Sakarovitch, J.: Conjugacy and equivalence of weighted automata and functional transducers. In: Computer Science - Theory and Applications, First International Computer Science Symposium in Russia, [CSR]{} 2006, St. Petersburg, Russia, June 8-12, 2006, Proceedings. pp. 58–69 (2006), <https://doi.org/10.1007/11753728_9>
Bloom, S.L., [É]{}sik, Z.: Iteration Theories - The Equational Logic of Iterative Processes. [EATCS]{} Monographs on Theoretical Computer Science, Springer (1993), <https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-78034-9>
Bonsangue, M., Milius, S., A., S.: Sound and complete axiomatizations of coalgebraic language equivalence. CoRR abs/1104.2803 (2011)
Doberkat, E.E.: Eilenberg-[M]{}oore algebras for stochastic relations. Inform. and Comput. 204(12), 1756–1781 (2006), <http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ic.2006.09.001>
Doberkat, E.E.: Erratum and addendum: [E]{}ilenberg-[M]{}oore algebras for stochastic relations \[mr2277336\]. Inform. and Comput. 206(12), 1476–1484 (2008), <http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ic.2008.08.002>
sik, Z., Kuich, W.: [A Generation of Kozen’s Axiomatization of the Equational Theory of the Regular Sets]{}. In: Words, Semigroups, and Transductions - Festschrift in Honor of Gabriel Thierrin. pp. 99–114 (2001)
sik, Z., Maletti, A.: Simulation vs. equivalence. In: Proceedings of the 2010 International Conference on Foundations of Computer Science, [FCS]{} 2010, July 12-15, 2010, Las Vegas, Nevada, [USA]{}. pp. 119–124 (2010)
Hilbert, D.: [Ü]{}ber die [T]{}heorie der algebraischen [F]{}ormen. Math. Ann. 36(4), 473–534 (1890), <http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01208503>
Jacobs, B.: Introduction to Coalgebra: Towards Mathematics of States and Observation, Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 59. Cambridge University Press (2016), <https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316823187>
Jacobs, B., Silva, A., Sokolova, A.: Trace semantics via determinization. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 81(5), 859–879 (2015)
Jacobs, B., Rutten, J.: A tutorial on (co)algebras and (co)induction. Bulletin of the EATCS 62, 222–259 (1996)
Kakutani, S.: A generalization of [B]{}rouwer’s fixed point theorem. Duke Math. J. 8, 457–459 (1941), <http://projecteuclid.org/euclid.dmj/1077492791>
Kurz, A.: Logics for Coalgebras and Applications to Computer Science. Ph.D. thesis, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universit[ä]{}t M[ü]{}nchen (2000)
Mac Lane, S.: Categories for the working mathematician, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, vol. 5. Springer-Verlag, New York, second edn. (1998)
Manes, E., Mulry, P.: Monad compositions. [I]{}. [G]{}eneral constructions and recursive distributive laws. Theory Appl. Categ. 18, No. 7, 172–208 (2007)
Milius, S.: Proper functors and their rational fixed point. In: 7th Conference on Algebra and Coalgebra in Computer Science, [CALCO]{} 2017, June 12-16, 2017, Ljubljana, Slovenia. pp. 18:1–18:16 (2017), <https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.CALCO.2017.18>
Minkowski, H.: [Geometrie der Zahlen. In 2 Lieferungen. Lfg. 1.]{} [Leipzig: B. G. Teubner. 240 S. $8^\circ.$]{} (1896)
Pumplün, D.: Regularly ordered [B]{}anach spaces and positively convex spaces. Results Math. 7(1), 85–112 (1984), <http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF03322493>
Rockafellar, R.T.: Convex analysis. Princeton Mathematical Series, No. 28, Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J. (1970)
Rudin, W.: Functional analysis. International Series in Pure and Applied Mathematics, McGraw-Hill Inc., New York, second edition edn. (1991)
Rutten, J.: Universal coalgebra: A theory of systems. Theoretical Computer Science 249, 3–80 (2000)
Silva, A.: [K]{}leene coalgebra. Ph.D. thesis, Radboud University Nijmegen (2010)
Silva, A., Bonchi, F., Bonsangue, M., Rutten, J.: Generalizing the powerset construction, coalgebraically. In: Proc. FSTTCS 2010. Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), vol. 8, pp. 272–283 (2010)
Silva, A., Sokolova, A.: Sound and complete axiomatization of trace semantics for probabilistic systems. Electr. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 276, 291–311 (2011), <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.entcs.2011.09.027>
Staton, S.: Relating coalgebraic notions of bisimulation. Logical Methods in Computer Science 7(1) (2011)
Wolter, U.: On corelations, cokernels, and coequations. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science 33 (2000)
Category theory basics {#sec:app-basics}
======================
We start by recalling the basic notions of category, functor and natural transformation, so that all of the results in the paper are accessible also to non-experts.
A category ${\text{\tt{C}}}$ is a collection of objects and a collection of arrows (or morphisms) from one object to another. For every object $X \in {\text{\tt{C}}}$, there is an identity arrow $\operatorname{id}_X\colon X \to X$. For any three objects $X, Y, Z \in {\text{\tt{C}}}$, given two arrows $f\colon X \to Y$ and $g\colon Y\to Z$, there exists an arrow $g {\mathrel{\circ}}f\colon X \to Z$. Arrow composition is associative and $\operatorname{id}_X$ is neutral w.r.t. composition. The standard example is ${{\text{\tt{Set}}}}$, the category of sets and functions.
A functor $F$ from a category ${\text{\tt{C}}}$ to a category ${\text{\tt{D}}}$, notation $F\colon {\text{\tt{C}}} \to {\text{\tt{D}}}$, assigns to every object $X\in {\text{\tt{C}}}$, an object $FX \in {\text{\tt{D}}}$, and to every arrow $f\colon X \to Y$ in ${\text{\tt{C}}}$ an arrow $Ff\colon FX \to FY$ in ${\text{\tt{D}}}$ such that identity arrows and composition are preserved.
A concrete category is a category ${\text{\tt{C}}}$ equipped with a faithful functor $\mathcal U\colon {\text{\tt{C}}} \to {{\text{\tt{Set}}}}$. Intuitively, a concrete category has objects that are sets with some additional structure, e.g. algebras, and morphisms that are particular kind of functions, and $\mathcal U$ is a canonical forgetful functor. All categories that we consider are algebraic and hence concrete.
[r]{}[.1]{} @R-.5pc[ FX\^-[\_X]{}\^-[Ff]{} & FY\^-[\_Y]{}\
GX\^-[Gf]{} & GY ]{}
Let $F\colon {\text{\tt{C}}} \to {\text{\tt{D}}}$ and $G\colon {\text{\tt{C}}} \to {\text{\tt{D}}}$ be two functors. A natural transformation $\sigma\colon F \Rightarrow G$ is a family of arrows $\sigma_X\colon FX \to GX$ in ${\text{\tt{D}}}$ such that the diagram on the right commutes for all arrows $f\colon X \to Y$.
Monads and Algebras {#sec-app:monads}
-------------------
A monad is a functor $T\colon{\text{\tt{C}}} \rightarrow {\text{\tt{C}}}$ together with two natural transformations: a unit $\eta\colon \operatorname{id}_{{\text{\tt{C}}}}
\Rightarrow T$ and multiplication $\mu \colon T^{2} \Rightarrow
T$. These are required to make the following diagrams commute, for $X\in{\text{\tt{C}}}$. $$\[email protected]@R-.5pc{
T X\ar[rr]^-{\eta_{T X}}\ar@{=}[drr] & & T^{2}X\ar[d]^{\mu_X} & &
T X\ar[ll]_{T\eta_{X}}\ar@{=}[dll]
& & T^{3}X\ar[rr]^-{\mu_{T X}}\ar[d]_{T\mu_{X}}
& & T^{2}X\ar[d]^{\mu_X} \\
& & T X & &
& &
T^{2}X\ar[rr]_{\mu_X} & & T X
}$$ Given two monads $S,T$ with units and multiplications $\eta^S,\eta^T$ and $\mu^S,\mu^T$, respectively, and a natural transformation $\iota\colon S\Rightarrow T$, we say that $\iota$ is a monad morphism, and $S\leq T$ along $\iota$, if $\eta^T=\iota\circ\eta^S$ and $\iota\circ\mu^S=\mu^T\circ\iota\iota$ where $\iota\iota \stackrel{\text{def}}{=}T\iota{\mathrel{\circ}}\iota \stackrel{\text{nat.}}{=} \iota {\mathrel{\circ}}S\iota$.
We briefly describe some examples of monads on ${{\text{\tt{Set}}}}$.
- The finitely supported subprobability distribution monad ${\mathcal{D}}$ is defined, for a set $X$ and a function $f\colon X \to Y$, as $${\mathcal{D}}X
\,\,\, = \,\,\,
\{\varphi\colon X \to [0,1] \mid \sum_{x \in X} \varphi(x) \le 1,\, \operatorname{supp}(\varphi) \text{~is~finite}\}$$ and $${\mathcal{D}}f(\varphi)(y)
\,\,\, = \,\,\,
\sum\limits_{x\in f^{-1}(\{y\})} \varphi(x).$$ Here and below $\operatorname{supp}(\varphi) = \{x \in X \mid \varphi(x) \neq 0\}$. The unit of ${\mathcal{D}}$ is given by a Dirac distribution $\eta_X(x) = \delta_x = ( x \mapsto 1)$ for $x \in X$ and the multiplication by $\mu_X(\Phi)(x) = \sum\limits_{\varphi \in \operatorname{supp}(\Phi)}
\Phi(\varphi)\cdot \varphi(x)$ for $\Phi \in {\mathcal{D}}{\mathcal{D}}X$.
- For a semiring $\mathbb S$ the $\mathbb S$-valuations monad ${T_{\mathbb{S}}}$ is defined as ${T_{\mathbb{S}}}X = \{\varphi\colon X \to \mathbb S \mid \operatorname{supp}(\varphi) \text{ is finite}\}$ and on functions $f\colon X \to Y$ we have ${T_{\mathbb{S}}}f(\varphi)(y) = \sum_{x \in f^{-1}(\{y\})} \varphi(x)$. Its unit is given by $\eta_X(x) = ( x \mapsto 1)$ and multiplication by $\mu_X(\Phi)(x) = \sum_{\varphi \in \operatorname{supp}\Phi} \Phi(\varphi) \cdot \varphi(x)$ for $\Phi \in {T_{\mathbb{S}}}{T_{\mathbb{S}}}X$.
- To illustrate the connection between ${\mathcal{D}}$ and ${T_{\mathbb{S}}}$, consider yet another monad: For a semiring $\mathbb S$, and a (suitable) subset $S \subseteq \mathbb S$, the ($\mathbb S, S$)-valuations monad $T_{\mathbb S, S}$ is defined as follows. On objects it acts like $$T_{\mathbb S,S}X = \{\varphi\colon X \to \mathbb S \mid \operatorname{supp}(\varphi) \text{ is finite and }
\sum_{x \in X} \varphi(x) \in S\}$$ on functions it acts like ${T_{\mathbb{S}}}$. The unit and multiplication are defined as in ${T_{\mathbb{S}}}$. Note that ${\mathcal{D}}= T_{\mathbb R_+,[0,1]}$.
With a monad $T$ on a category ${\text{\tt{C}}}$ one associates the Eilenberg-Moore category ${\text{\tt{C}}}^{T}$ of Eilenberg-Moore algebras. Objects of ${\text{\tt{C}}}^{T}$ are pairs ${\mathbb{A}} = (A, \alpha)$ of an object $A \in {\text{\tt{C}}}$ and an arrow $\alpha\colon T A \rightarrow A$, making the first two diagrams below commute. $$\[email protected]{
A\ar@{=}[dr]\ar[r]^-{\eta_A} & T A\ar[d]^{\alpha}
&
T^{2}A\ar[d]_{\mu_A}\ar[r]^-{T\alpha} & T A\ar[d]^{\alpha}
& &
T A\ar[d]_{\alpha}\ar[r]^-{T h} & T B\ar[d]^{\beta} \\
& A
&
T A\ar[r]_-{\alpha} & A
& &
A\ar[r]_-{h} & B
}$$
A homomorphism from an algebra ${\mathbb{A}} = (A, \alpha)$ to an algebra ${\mathbb{B}} = (B, b)$ is a map $h\colon
A\rightarrow B$ in ${\text{\tt{C}}}$ between the underlying objects making the diagram above on the right commute.
From now on fix ${\text{\tt{C}}}={{\text{\tt{Set}}}}$. A free Eilenberg-Moore algebra for a monad $T$ generated by $X$ is $(TX, \mu_X)$ and we will often denote it simply by $TX$. A free finitely generated Eilenberg-Moore algebra for $T$ is an algebra $TX$ with $X$ a finite set. The diagram in the middle thus says that the map $\alpha$ is a homomorphism from $T A$ to ${\mathbb{A}}$.
Indeed, $(TX,\mu_X)$ is free on $X$ as for every $T$-algebra ${\mathbb{A}} = (A, \alpha)$ and any ${{\text{\tt{Set}}}}$-morphism $f\colon X \to A$ there is a unique ${{\text{\tt{Set}}}^{T}}$-morphism $f^\#\colon (TX,\mu_X) \to \mathbb A$ such that $f^\# {\mathrel{\circ}}\eta_A = f$ — it is easy to see that this unique extension $f^\#$ is the Kleisli extension of $f$, i.e., $f^\# = \alpha {\mathrel{\circ}}Tf$. Moreover, note that $(f^\# {\mathrel{\circ}}\eta_A)^\# = f^\#$, by the uniqueness of the extension.
Proof details for properness of cubic functors {#app:B}
==============================================
Since $\operatorname{tr}_{c_1} x_1=\operatorname{tr}_{c_2} x_2$, we have $${{c_1}_{\text{\rm o}}}({{c_1}_{w}}(x_1))=[\operatorname{tr}_{c_1} x_1](w)=[\operatorname{tr}_{c_2} x_2](w)={{c_2}_{\text{\rm o}}}({{c_2}_{w}}(x_2)),\quad w\in A^*,$$ and therefore $d_1|_Z=d_2|_Z$. Moreover, $${{c_j}_{a}}({{c_j}_{w}}(x_j))={{c_j}_{wa}}(x_j),\quad w\in A^*,$$ and therefore $d_j(Z)\subseteq\mathbb S\times Z^A$.
Remembering Remark \[ProperSemiring\], we have to show that the functor ${{\ensuremath{F_{\,{\mathbb S}}}}}$ is proper. We have the zig-zag , and the $\mathbb S$-semimodule $Z$ is, as a subsemimodule of the finitely generated $\mathbb S$-semimodule $\mathbb S^{n_1}\times\mathbb S^{n_2}$, itself finitely generated.
Proof of the extension lemma
----------------------------
The proof of the extension lemma follows directly from the following two abstract properties.
\[lem:ext-lem-1\] Assume ${T_{\mathbb{S}}}\le {T_{\mathbb{E}}}$ via $\iota\colon {T_{\mathbb{S}}}\Rightarrow {T_{\mathbb{E}}}$ and let $X$ be a finite set. Let ${\mathbb{Y}} \in {{\text{\tt{Set}}}^{{T_{\mathbb{S}}}}}$ and ${\mathbb{Z}} \in {{\text{\tt{Set}}}^{{T_{\mathbb{E}}}}}$ and assume we are given an arrow $a_Y\colon {T_{\mathbb{S}}}X \to {\mathbb{Y}}$ in ${{\text{\tt{Set}}}^{{T_{\mathbb{S}}}}}$ and a ${T_{\mathbb{S}}}\le {T_{\mathbb{E}}}$-homomorphism $h\colon {\mathbb{Y}} \to {\mathbb{Z}}$. Then there exists an arrow $a_Z\colon {T_{\mathbb{E}}}X \to {\mathbb{Z}}$ in ${{\text{\tt{Set}}}^{{T_{\mathbb{E}}}}}$ making the following diagram commute. $$\xymatrix@R=0.7em{
{T_{\mathbb{S}}}X \ar[rr]^{\iota} \ar[d]_{a_Y}&& {T_{\mathbb{E}}}X \ar[d]^{a_Z}\\
{\mathbb{Y}} \ar[rr]^{h}&& {\mathbb{Z}}
}$$
Consider the map $h {\mathrel{\circ}}a_Y {\mathrel{\circ}}\eta_{\mathbb S,X}\colon X \to Z$. Let $a_Z =(h {\mathrel{\circ}}a_Y {\mathrel{\circ}}\eta_{\mathbb S,X})^{\#_{\mathbb{E}}}$.
All morphisms in the square are ${{\text{\tt{Set}}}^{{T_{\mathbb{S}}}}}$-morphisms: $\alpha_Y$ by definition; $\iota_x$ as one of the monad morphism laws shows this; $h$ as it is a ${T_{\mathbb{S}}}\le {T_{\mathbb{E}}}$-homomorphism; and $\alpha_Z = M_\iota(\alpha_Z)$. Clearly, then $h {\mathrel{\circ}}\alpha_Y$ and $\alpha_Z {\mathrel{\circ}}\iota_X$ are ${{\text{\tt{Set}}}^{{T_{\mathbb{S}}}}}$-morphisms from the free algebra $({T_{\mathbb{S}}}X, \mu_X)$ to ${\mathbb{Z}}$.
Therefore, for the commutativity of the square it suffices to show that $$h {\mathrel{\circ}}\alpha_Y {\mathrel{\circ}}\eta_{\mathbb S} = \alpha_Z {\mathrel{\circ}}\iota_X {\mathrel{\circ}}\eta_{\mathbb S}$$ as then, by the uniqueness of the extension, $$h {\mathrel{\circ}}\alpha_Y = (h{\mathrel{\circ}}\alpha_Y {\mathrel{\circ}}\eta_{\mathbb S})^{\#_{\mathbb{S}}} =
(\alpha_Z {\mathrel{\circ}}\iota_X {\mathrel{\circ}}\eta_{\mathbb S})^{\#_{\mathbb{S}}} = \alpha_Z {\mathrel{\circ}}\iota_X.$$
The last needed equality follows because ${T_{\mathbb{S}}}\le {T_{\mathbb{E}}}$ along $\iota$ and so $$(h {\mathrel{\circ}}a_Y {\mathrel{\circ}}\eta_{\mathbb S,X})^{\#_{\mathbb{E}}} {\mathrel{\circ}}\iota_X {\mathrel{\circ}}\eta_{\mathbb{S},X} = (h {\mathrel{\circ}}a_Y {\mathrel{\circ}}\eta_{\mathbb S,X})^{\#_{\mathbb{E}}} {\mathrel{\circ}}\eta_{\mathbb E,X} = h {\mathrel{\circ}}a_Y {\mathrel{\circ}}\eta_{\mathbb S,X}. \vspace*{-7mm}$$
\[lem:ext-lem-2\] The map $\iota \times \iota^A$ is a ${T_{\mathbb{S}}}\le{T_{\mathbb{E}}}$-homomorphism from ${{\ensuremath{F_{\,{\mathbb{S}}}}}}({T_{\mathbb{S}}}X)$ to ${{\ensuremath{F_{\,{\mathbb{E}}}}}}({T_{\mathbb{E}}}X)$.
Since the functor $M_\iota$ induced by the monad morphism $\iota$ satisfies $\mathcal U_\mathbb{S} {\mathrel{\circ}}M_\iota = \mathcal U_\mathbb{E}$, it preserves all limits (as $\mathcal U_\mathbb{E}$ preserves them and $\mathcal U_\mathbb{S}$ reflects them). Hence, in particular, it preserves products. Since $\iota_X\colon ({T_{\mathbb{S}}}X, \mu_{\mathbb S,X}) \to M_\iota({T_{\mathbb{E}}}X, \mu_{\mathbb E,X})$ is a ${T_{\mathbb{S}}}$-algebra homomorphism by one of the monad morphism laws, we have $$\iota_1 \times \iota_X^A \colon {T_{\mathbb{S}}}1 \times {T_{\mathbb{S}}}X^A \to M_\iota({T_{\mathbb{E}}}1) \times M_\iota({T_{\mathbb{E}}}X)^A = M_\iota({T_{\mathbb{E}}}1 \times {T_{\mathbb{E}}}X^A)$$ is one as well.
Since $\mathbb S\subseteq\mathbb E$, we have $${{\ensuremath{F_{\,{\mathbb E}}}}}X\cap{{\ensuremath{F_{\,{\mathbb S}}}}}Y=(\mathbb E\times X^A)\cap(\mathbb S\times Y^A)
=\mathbb S\times(X\cap Y)^A={{\ensuremath{F_{\,{\mathbb S}}}}}(X\cap Y)
.$$ Assume now that $Y_j\subseteq X_j$. We have $$({{\ensuremath{F_{\,{\mathbb E}}}}}\pi_1)^{-1}({{\ensuremath{F_{\,{\mathbb S}}}}}Y_1)=
\{(o,(({x_1}_a,{x_2}_a))_{a\in A})\in\mathbb E\times(X_1\times X_2)^A\mid o\in\mathbb S,{x_1}_a\in Y_1\}
,$$ and the analogous formula for $({{\ensuremath{F_{\,{\mathbb E}}}}}\pi_2)^{-1}({{\ensuremath{F_{\,{\mathbb S}}}}}Y_2)$. This shows that the intersection of these two inverse images is equal to $\mathbb S\times(Y_1\times Y_2)^A$.
Proof of the reduction lemma
----------------------------
Reducing from to {#reducing-from-to .unnumbered}
-------------------
The reduction lemma for passing from abelian groups to commutative monoids arises from a classical result of algebra. Namely, it is a corollary of the following theorem due to D.Hilbert, cf. [@hilbert:1890 Theorem II] see also [@bachem:1978 Theorem 1.1].
\[PolyhedralZ\] Let $W$ be a $n\times m$-matrix with integer entries, and let $X$ be the commutative monoid $$X=\big\{x\in\mathbb Z^n\mid x\cdot W\geq 0\big\}
,$$ where the monoid operation is the usual addition on $\mathbb Z^n$. Then $X$ is finitely generated as a commutative monoid.
The reduction lemma for passing from to is a corollary Since every finitely generated abelian group is also finitely generated as a commutative monoid, we obtain a somewhat stronger variant.
\[RedLemN\] Let $Z$ be a finitely generated abelian group, let $m\in\mathbb N$, and let $\varphi\colon Z\to\mathbb Z^m$ be a group homomorphism. Then $\varphi^{-1}(\mathbb N^m)$ is finitely generated as a commutative monoid.
Write $Z$, up to an isomorphism, as a direct sum of cyclic abelian groups $$\label{3}
Z=\mathbb Z^k\oplus\Big[\bigoplus_{j=1}^n\mathbb Z/a_j\mathbb Z\Big]$$ with $a_j\geq 2$. Since $\varphi$ maps into the torsionfree group $\mathbb Z^m$, we must have $$\varphi\Big(\bigoplus_{j=1}^n\mathbb Z/a_j\mathbb Z\Big)=\{0\}
.$$ Hence, an element $x\in Z$ satisfies $\varphi(x)\geq 0$, if and only if $\varphi(x_0)\geq 0$ where $x=x_0+x_1$ is the decomposition of $x$ according to the direct sum . The action of the map $\psi=\varphi|_{\mathbb Z^k}\colon \mathbb Z^k\to\mathbb Z^m$ is described as multiplication of $x_0=(\xi_1,\ldots,\xi_k)$ with some $k\times m$-matrix $W$ having integer coefficients. Thus $$\psi^{-1}(\mathbb N^m)=\big\{x_0\in\mathbb Z^k\mid x_0\cdot W\geq 0\big\}
,$$ and by Hilbert’s Theorem $\psi^{-1}(\mathbb N^m)$ is finitely generated as a commutative monoid.
The set $\bigoplus_{j=1}^n\mathbb Z/a_j\mathbb Z$ also has a finite set of generators as a monoid, for example the residue classes $1/a_j\mathbb Z$, $j=1,\ldots,n$. Together we see that $\varphi^{-1}(\mathbb N^m)$ has a finite set of generators as a commutative monoid.
Reducing from Q to {#reducing-from-qto .unnumbered}
--------------------
The reduction lemma for passing from vector spaces over $\mathbb Q$ to $\mathbb Q_+$-semimodules is a corollary of the one passing from to . Thus we have the corresponding stronger variant also in this case.
\[RedLemQ+\] Let $Z$ be a finite dimensional $\mathbb Q$-vector space, let $m\in\mathbb N$, and let $\varphi\colon Z\to\mathbb Q^m$ be $\mathbb Q$-linear. Then $\varphi^{-1}(\mathbb Q_+^m)$ is finitely generated as a $\mathbb Q_+$-semimodule.
Let $\{u_1,\ldots,u_k\}$ be a set of generators of $Z$ as a $\mathbb Q$-vector space. Write $$\varphi(u_j)=\Big(\frac{a_{j,1}}{b_{j,1}},\ldots,\frac{a_{j,m}}{b_{j,m}}\Big),\quad
j=1,\ldots,k
,$$ with $a_{j,i}\in\mathbb Z$ and $b_{j,i}\in\mathbb N\setminus\{0\}$. Set $b=\prod_{j=1}^k\prod_{i=1}^mb_{j,i}$, then $\varphi(bu_j)\in\mathbb Z^m$, $j=1,\ldots,k$.
Let $Z'\subseteq Z$ be the $\mathbb Z$-submodule generated by $\{bu_1,\ldots,bu_k\}$, and set $\psi=\varphi|_{Z'}$. Then $\psi$ is a $\mathbb Z$-linear map of $Z'$ into $\mathbb Z^m$. By Lemma \[RedLemN\], $\psi^{-1}(\mathbb N^m)$ is finitely generated as $\mathbb N$-semimodule, say by $\{v_1,\ldots,v_l\}\subseteq Z'$.
Given $x\in\varphi^{-1}(\mathbb Q_+^m)$, choose $\nu_1,\ldots,\nu_k\in\mathbb Q$ with $x=\sum_{j=1}^k\nu_ju_j$. Write $\nu_j=\frac{\alpha_j}{\beta_j}$ with $\alpha_j\in\mathbb Z$ and $\beta_j\in\mathbb N\setminus\{0\}$, and set $\beta=\prod_{j=1}^k\beta_j$. Then $$\beta b\cdot x=\sum_{j=1}^k(\beta\nu_j)\cdot bu_j\in Z'
,$$ and $$\psi(\beta b\cdot x)=\varphi(\beta b\cdot x)=\beta b\cdot\varphi(x)\in\mathbb Q_+^m\cap\mathbb Z^m=\mathbb N^m
.$$ Thus $\beta b\cdot x$ is an $\mathbb N$-linear combination of the elements $v_1,\ldots,v_l$, and hence $x$ is a $\mathbb Q_+$-linear combination of these elements. This shows that $\varphi^{-1}(\mathbb Q_+^m)$ is generated by $\{v_1,\ldots,v_l\}$ as a $\mathbb Q_+$-semimodule.
Reducing from R to {#reducing-from-rto .unnumbered}
--------------------
The reduction lemma for passing from vector spaces over $\mathbb R$ to convex cones arises from a different source than the previously studied. Namely, it is a corollary of the below classical theorem of H.Minkowski, cf. [@minkowski:1896] see also [@rockafellar:1970 Theorem 19.1].
Recall that a convex subset $X$ of $\mathbb R^n$ is called *polyhedral*, if it is a finite intersection of half-spaces, i.e., if there exist $l\in\mathbb N$, $u_1,\ldots,u_l\in\mathbb R^n$, and $\nu_1,\ldots,\nu_l\in\mathbb R$, such that $$X=\big\{x\in\mathbb R^n\mid (x,u_j)\leq\nu_j,j=1,\ldots,l\big\}
,$$ where $(\cdot,\cdot)$ denotes the euclidean scalar product on $\mathbb R^n$. On the other hand, $X$ is said to be *generated by points $a_1,\ldots,a_{l_1}$ and directions $b_1,\ldots,b_{l_2}$*, if $$X=\Big\{\sum_{j=1}^{l_1}\alpha_ja_j+\sum_{j=1}^{l_2}\beta_jb_j\mid
\alpha_j\in[0,1],\sum_{j=1}^{l_1}\alpha_j=1,\ \beta_j\geq 0,j=1,\ldots,l_2\Big\}
.$$ Note that a convex set generated by some points and directions is bounded, if and only if no (nonzero) directions are present. Further, a convex set is a cone, if and only if it allows a representation where only directions occur.
\[PolyhedralR\] Let $X$ be a convex subset of $\mathbb R^n$. Then $X$ is polyhedral, if and only if $X$ is generated by a finite set of points and directions.
The relevance of Minkowski’s Theorem in the present context is that it shows that the intersection of two finitely generated sets is finitely generated (since the intersection of two polyhedral sets is obviously polyhedral).
The reduction lemma for passing from R to is an immediate corollary. Since every finite dimensional $\mathbb R$-vector space is also finitely generated as a convex cone, we have the corresponding stronger version.
\[RedLemR+\] Let $Z$ be a finite dimensional $\mathbb R$-vector space, let $m\in\mathbb N$, and let $\varphi\colon Z\to\mathbb R^m$ be $\mathbb R$-linear. Then $\varphi^{-1}(\mathbb R_+^m)$ is finitely generated as a convex cone.
*Step 1:* The image $\varphi(Z)$ is a linear subspace of $\mathbb R^m$, in particular, polyhedral. The positive cone $\mathbb R_+^m$ is obviously also polyhedral. We conclude that the convex cone $\varphi(Z)\cap\mathbb R_+^m$ is generated by some finite set of directions.
*Step 2:* The kernel $\varphi^{-1}(\{0\})$ is, as a linear subspace of the finite dimensional vector space $Z$, itself finite dimensional (generated, say, by $\{u_1,\ldots,u_k\}$). Thus it is also finitely generated as a convex cone (in fact, $\{\pm u_1,\ldots,\pm u_k\}$ is a set of generators).
Choose a finite set of directions $\{a_1,\ldots,a_l\}$ generating $\varphi(Z)\cap\mathbb R_+^m$ as a convex cone, and choose $v_j\in Z$ with $\varphi(v_j)=a_j$, $j=1,\ldots,l$. We claim that $\{\pm u_1,\ldots,\pm u_k\}\cup\{v_1,\ldots,v_l\}$ generates $\varphi^{-1}(\mathbb R_+^m)$ as a convex cone. To see this, let $x\in \varphi^{-1}(\mathbb R_+^m)$. Choose $\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_l\geq 0$ with $\varphi(x)=\alpha_1a_1+\ldots+\alpha_la_l$. Then $$\varphi\big(x-(\alpha_1v_1+\ldots+\alpha_lv_l)\big)=
\varphi(x)-\big(\alpha_1\varphi(v_1)+\ldots+\alpha_l\varphi(v_l)\big)=0
,$$ and hence we find $\beta_1^\pm,\ldots,\beta_k^\pm\geq 0$ with $$x-(\alpha_1v_1+\ldots+\alpha_lv_l)=(\beta_1^+u_1+\ldots+\beta_k^+u_k)+(\beta_1^-(-u_1)+\ldots+\beta_k^-(-u_k))
.$$
Reducing from to {#reducing-from-to-1 .unnumbered}
-------------------
The reduction lemma for passing from vector spaces over $\mathbb R$ to positively convex algebras is again a corollary of Theorem \[PolyhedralR\]. However, in a sense the situation is more complicated. One, the corresponding strong version fails; in fact, no (nonzero) $\mathbb R$-vector space is finitely generated as a . Two, unlike in categories of semimodules, the direct product $T_{[0,1]}B_1\times T_{[0,1]}B_2$ does not coincide with $T_{[0,1]}(B_1\dot\cup B_2)$.
\[RedLemPca\] Let $n_1,n_2\in\mathbb N$, and let $Z$ be a linear subspace of $\mathbb R^{n_1}\times\mathbb R^{n_2}$. Then $Z\cap(\Delta^{n_1}\times\Delta^{n_2})$ is finitely generated as a positively convex algebra.
Obviously, $Z$ and $\Delta^{n_1}\times\Delta^{n_2}$ are both polyhedral. We conclude that $Z\cap(\Delta^{n_1}\times\Delta^{n_2})$ is generated by a finite set of points and directions. Since it is bounded, no direction can occur, and it is thus finitely generated as a .
Self-contained proof of Lemma \[RedLemN\]
=========================================
We provide a short and self-contained proof of the named reduction lemma. It proceeds via an argument very specific for $\mathbb N$; the essential ingredient is that the order of $\mathbb N$ is total and satisfies the descending chain condition. Note that the following argument also proves Hilbert’s Theorem.
First, a common fact about the product order on $\mathbb N^m$ (we provide an explicit proof since we cannot appoint a reference).
\[Incomparable\] Let $m\in\mathbb N$, and let $M\subseteq\mathbb N^m$ be a set of pairwise incomparable elements. Then $M$ is finite.
Assume that $M$ is infinite, and choose a sequence $(a_n)_{n\in\mathbb N}$ of different elements of $M$. Write $a_n=(\alpha_{n,1},\ldots,\alpha_{n,m})$. We construct, in $m$ steps, a subsequence $(b_n)_{n\in\mathbb N}$ of $(a_n)_{n\in\mathbb N}$ with the property that (we write $b_n=(\beta_{n,1},\ldots,\beta_{n,m})$) $$\label{5}
\forall k\in\{1,\ldots,m\}{{.\kern3pt}}L_k=\sup_{n\in\mathbb N}\beta_{n,k}<\infty
\ \vee\
\beta_{0,k}<\beta_{1,k}<\beta_{2,k}<\cdots$$ In the first step, extract a subsequence of $(a_n)_{n\in\mathbb N}$ according to the behaviour of the sequence of first components $(\alpha_{n,1})_{n\in\mathbb N}$. If $\sup_{n\in\mathbb N}\alpha_{n,1}<\infty$, take the whole sequence $(a_n)_{n\in\mathbb N}$ as the subsequence. If $\sup_{n\in\mathbb N}\alpha_{n,1}=\infty$, take a subsequence $(a_{n_j})_{j\in\mathbb N}$ with $$\alpha_{n_0,1}<\alpha_{n_1,1}<\alpha_{n_2,1}<\cdots
.$$ Repeating this step, always starting from the currently chosen subsequence, we succesively extract subsequences which after $l$ steps satisfy the property for the components up to $l$.
Denote $$I_1=\big\{k\in\{1,\ldots,m\}\mid \sup_{n\in\mathbb N}\beta_{n,k}<\infty\big\}
,\quad
I_2=\big\{k\in\{1,\ldots,m\}\mid \sup_{n\in\mathbb N}\beta_{n,k}=\infty\big\}$$ The map $n\mapsto(\beta_{n,k})_{k\in I_1}$ maps $\mathbb N$ into the finite set $\prod_{k\in I_1}\{0,\ldots,L_k\}$, and hence is not injective. Choose $n_1<n_2$ with $\beta_{n_1,k}=\beta_{n_2,k}$, $k\in I_1$. Since $\beta_{n_1,k}<\beta_{n_2,k}$, $k\in I_2$, we obtain $b_{n_1}\leq b_{n_2}$. However, by our choice of the elements $a_n$, $b_{n_1}\neq b_{n_2}$. Thus $M$ contains a pair of different but comparable elements.
If $\varphi^{-1}(\mathbb N^m)=\{0\}$, there is nothing to prove. Hence, assume that $\varphi^{-1}(\mathbb N^m)\neq\{0\}$.
*Step 1:* We settle the case that $Z\subseteq\mathbb Z^m$ and $\varphi$ is the inclusion map. Let $M$ be the set of minimal elements of $(Z\cap\mathbb N^m)\setminus\{0\}$. From the descending chain condition we obtain $$\forall x\in(Z\cap\mathbb N^m)\setminus\{0\}{{.\kern3pt}}\exists\,y\in M{{.\kern3pt}}y\leq x$$ By Lemma \[Incomparable\], $M$ is finite, say $M=\{a_1,\ldots,a_l\}$. Now we show that $M$ generates $Z$ as commutative monoid. Let $x\in Z$, and assume that $x-\sum_{j=1}^l\alpha_ja_j\neq 0$ for all $\alpha_j\in\mathbb N$. By the descending chain condition, the set of all elements of this form contains a minimial element, say, $x-\sum_{j=1}^l\tilde\alpha_ja_j$. Choose $y\in M$ with $y\leq x-\sum_{j=1}^l\tilde\alpha_ja_j$. Since $y\neq 0$, we have $x-\sum_{j=1}^l\tilde\alpha_ja_j-y<x-\sum_{j=1}^l\tilde\alpha_ja_j$ and we reached a contradiction.
*Step 2:* The kernel $\varphi^{-1}(\{0\})$ is, as a subgroup of the finitely generated abelian group $Z$, itself finitely generated (remember here that $\mathbb Z$ is a Noetherian ring). Let $\{u_1,\ldots,u_k\}$ be a set of generators of $\varphi^{-1}(\{0\})$ as abelian group. Then $\{\pm u_1,\ldots,\pm u_k\}$ is a set of generators of $\varphi^{-1}(\{0\})$ as a commutative monoid.
By Step 1 we find $\{a_1,\ldots,a_l\}\subseteq\mathbb Z^m$ generating $\varphi(Z)\cap\mathbb N^m$ as a commutative monoid. Choose $v_j\in Z$ with $\varphi(v_j)=a_j$, $j=1,\ldots,l$. Then we find, for each $x\in Z$, a linear combination of the $v_j$’s with nonnegative integer coefficients such that $$\varphi\Big(x-\sum_{j=1}^l\nu_jv_j\Big)=0
.$$ Hence, $\{\pm u_1,\ldots,\pm u_k\}\cup\{v_1,\ldots,v_l\}$ generates $\varphi^{-1}(Z)$ as commutative monoid.
Properties of ${{\ensuremath{\widehat F}}}$ {#app:D}
===========================================
Here the inclusion “$\supseteq$” is obvious. For the reverse inclusion, let $(o,\phi)\in{{\ensuremath{\widehat F}}}X$ and choose $p_{a,j}$ and $x_{a,j}$ according to Definition \[Ghat-def\]. Set $p_a=\sum_{j=1}^{n_a}p_{a,j}$. If $p_a=0$, set $x_a=0$. If $p_a>0$, set $x_a=\sum_{j=1}^n\frac{p_{a,j}}{p_a}x_{a,j}$. Then $x_a\in X$ and $f(a)=\sum_{j=1}^{n_a}p_{a,j}x_{a,j}=p_ax_a$.
\[GhSurj\] The functor ${{\ensuremath{\widehat F}}}$ preserves surjective algebra homomorphisms.
Let $X,Y$ be s, and $f:X\to Y$ a surjective algebra homomorphism. Let $(o,g)\in{{\ensuremath{\widehat F}}}Y$ be given. By Lemma \[Ghat-simple\] we can choose $p_a\in[0,1]$ and $y_a\in Y$ such that $o+\sum_{a\in A}p_a\leq 1$ and $g(a)=p_ay_a$, $a\in A$. Since $f$ is surjective, we find $x_a\in X$ with $f(x_a)=y_a$. Let $h:A\to X$ be the function $h(a)=p_ax_a$. Again using Lemma \[Ghat-simple\], we see that $(o,h)\in{{\ensuremath{\widehat F}}}X$. By our choice of $x_a$, it holds that $({{\ensuremath{\widehat F}}}f)(o,h)=(o,g)$.
Let $(o,\phi)\in{{\ensuremath{\widehat F}}}X$, and choose $p_a\in[0,1]$ and $x_a\in X$ as in Lemma \[Ghat-simple\]. Then ${\ensuremath{\mu_{X}}}(\phi(a))=p_a{\ensuremath{\mu_{X}}}(x_a)\leq p_a$, and hence $o+\sum_{a\in A}{\ensuremath{\mu_{X}}}(\phi(a))\leq 1$. Further, $o\in[0,1]$, in particular $o\geq 0$.
Conversely, assume that $o\geq 0$ and $o+\sum_{a\in A}{\ensuremath{\mu_{X}}}(\phi(a))\leq 1$. Let $a\in A$. Set $p_a={\ensuremath{\mu_{X}}}(\phi(a))$, then $p_a\in[0,1]$ since $\sum_{a\in A}p_a\leq 1$. To define $x_a$ consider first the case that ${\ensuremath{\mu_{X}}}(\phi(a))=0$. In this case $\phi(a)=0$ since $X$ is bounded, and we set $x_a=0$. If ${\ensuremath{\mu_{X}}}(\phi(a))>0$, set $x_a=\frac 1{{\ensuremath{\mu_{X}}}(\phi(a))}\phi(a)$. Since $X$ is closed, we have $x_a\in X$. In both cases, we obtained a representation $\phi(a)=p_ax_a$ with $p_a\in[0,1]$ and $x_a\in X$. Clearly, $o+\sum_{a\in A}p_a\leq 1$, and we conclude that $(o,\phi)\in{{\ensuremath{\widehat F}}}X$.
We build the extension in three stages.
We extend $c$ to the cone generated by $X$: Set $C=\bigcup_{t>0}tX$, and define $c_1\colon C\to V_2$ by the following procedure. Given $x\in C$, choose $t>0$ with $x\in tX$, and set $c_1(x)=t\cdot c\big(\frac 1tx\big)$. By this procedure the map $c_1$ is indeed well-defined. To see this, assume $x\in tX\cap sX$ where w.l.o.g. $s\leq t$. Then $\frac 1tx=\frac st\cdot\frac 1sx$. Since $\frac st\leq 1$, it follows that $c(\frac 1tx)=\frac st c(\frac 1sx)$, and hence $t\cdot c(\frac 1tx)=s\cdot c(\frac 1sx)$. Let us check that $c_1$ is cone-morphism, i.e., that $$c_1(x+y)=c_1(x)+c_2(y),\ x,y\in C,\qquad c_1(px)=pc_1(x),\ x\in C,p\geq 0
.$$ Given $x,y\in C$, choose $t>0$ such that $x,y,x+y\in tX$. Observe here that $C$ is a union of an increasing family of sets. Then $$\begin{aligned}
c_1(x+y)= &\, 2t\cdot c\Big(\frac 1{2t}(x+y)\Big)
=2t\cdot c\Big(\frac 12\cdot\frac 1tx+\frac 12\cdot\frac 1ty\Big)
\\[2mm]
= &\, 2t\cdot\Big[\frac 12c\big(\frac 1tx\big)+\frac 12c\big(\frac 1ty\big)\Big]
\\[2mm]
= &\, t\cdot c\Big(\frac 1tx\Big)+t\cdot c\Big(\frac 1ty\Big)
=c_1(x)+c_2(y)
.
\end{aligned}$$ Given $x\in C$ and $p>0$, choose $t>0$ with $x\in tX$. Then $px\in(pt)X$, and we obtain $$c_1(px)=pt\cdot c\Big(\frac 1{pt}(px)\Big)=pt\cdot c\Big(\frac 1tx\Big)=pt\cdot\frac 1t c_1(x)
=pc_1(x)
.$$ For $p=0$, the required equality is trivial. Finally, observe that $c_1$ extends $c$, since for $x\in X$ we can choose $t=1$ in the definition of $c_1$.
We extend $c_1$ to the linear subspace generated by $C$: Since $C$ is a cone, we have $\operatorname{span}C=C-C$. We define $c_2\colon \operatorname{span}C\to V_2$ by the following procedure. Given $x\in\operatorname{span}C$, choose $a_+,a_-\in C$ with $x=a_+-a_-$, and $c_2(x)=c_1(a_+)-c_2(a_-)$. By this procedure the map $c_2$ is indeed well-defined. Assume $x=a_+-a_-=b_+-b_-$. Then $a_++b_-=b_++a_-$, and we obtain $$c_1(a_+)+c_1(b_-)=c_1(a_++b_-)=c_1(b_++a_-)=c_1(b_+)+c_1(a_-)
,$$ which yields $c_1(a_+)-c_1(a_-)=c_1(b_+)-c_1(b_-)$. Let us check that $c_2$ is linear. Given $x,y\in\operatorname{span}C$, choose representations $x=a_+-a_-$, $y=b_+-b_-$. Then $x+y=(a_++b_+)-(a_-+b_-)$, and we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
c_2(x+y)= &\, c_1(a_++b_+)-c_1(a_-+b_-)
=\big[c_1(a_+)+c_1(b_+)\big]-\big[c_1(a_-)+c_1(b_-)\big]
\\
= &\, \big[c_1(a_+)-c_1(a_-)\big]+\big[c_1(b_+)-c_1(b_-)\big]
=c_2(x)+c_2(y)
.
\end{aligned}$$ Given $x\in\operatorname{span}C$ and $p\in\mathbb R$, choose a representation $x=a_+-a_-$ and distinguish cases according to the sign of $p$. If $p>0$, we have the representation $px=pa_+-pa_-$ and hence $$\begin{aligned}
c_2(px)= &\, c_1(pa_+)-c_1(pa_-)=pc_1(a_+)-pc_1(a_-)
\\
= &\, p\big[c_1(a_+)-c_1(a_-)\big]=pc_2(x)
.
\end{aligned}$$ If $p<0$, we have the representation $px=(-p)a_--(-p)a_+$ and hence $$\begin{aligned}
c_2(px)= &\, c_1((-p)a_-)-c_1((-p)a_+)=(-p)c_1(a_-)-(-p)c_1(a_+)
\\
= &\, p\big[c_1(a_+)-c_1(a_-)\big]=pc_2(x)
.
\end{aligned}$$ For $p=0$, the required equality is trivial. Finally, observe that $c_2$ extends $c_1$, since for $x\in C$ we can choose the representation $x=x-0$ in the definition of $c_2$.
We extend $c_2$ to $V_1$: By linear algebra a linear map given on a subspace can be extended to a linear map on the whole space.
The uniqueness statement is clear.
First assume that holds. Let $x\in X$. Then ${\ensuremath{\mu_{X}}}(x)\leq 1$, and we obtain $${{c}_{\text{\rm o}}}(x)+\sum_{a\in A}{\ensuremath{\mu_{Y}}}({{c}_{a}}(x))=
{{\tilde c}_{\text{\rm o}}}(x)+\sum_{a\in A}{\ensuremath{\mu_{Y}}}({{\tilde c}_{a}}(x))\leq{\ensuremath{\mu_{X}}}(x)\leq 1
.$$ Further, ${{c}_{\text{\rm o}}}(x)\geq 0$ by assumption. Now Lemma \[Ghat-Minko\] gives $c(x)\in{{\ensuremath{\widehat F}}}Y$.
Conversely, assume $c(X)\subseteq{{\ensuremath{\widehat F}}}Y$, and let $x\in\mathbb R^n$ be given. If ${\ensuremath{\mu_{X}}}(x)=\infty$, the relation trivially holds. If ${\ensuremath{\mu_{X}}}(x)=0$, then $x=0$ since $X$ is bounded. Hence, the left side of equals $0$, and again holds. Assume that ${\ensuremath{\mu_{X}}}(x)\in(0,\infty)$. Since $X$ is closed, we have ${\ensuremath{\mu_{X}}}(x)^{-1}x\in X$, and hence $c({\ensuremath{\mu_{X}}}(x)^{-1}x)\in{{\ensuremath{\widehat F}}}Y$. From Lemma \[Ghat-Minko\], we get the estimate $$\begin{aligned}
{{\tilde c}_{\text{\rm o}}}(x)+\sum_{a\in A}{\ensuremath{\mu_{Y}}}({{\tilde c}_{a}}(x))= &\, {\ensuremath{\mu_{X}}}(x)
\Big(
{{\tilde c}_{\text{\rm o}}}\big(\frac 1{{\ensuremath{\mu_{X}}}(x)}x\big)+\sum_{a\in A}{\ensuremath{\mu_{Y}}}\big({{\tilde c}_{a}}(\frac 1{{\ensuremath{\mu_{X}}}(x)}x)\big)
\Big)
\\
= &\, {\ensuremath{\mu_{X}}}(x)
\Big(
{{c}_{\text{\rm o}}}\big(\frac 1{{\ensuremath{\mu_{X}}}(x)}x\big)+\sum_{a\in A}{\ensuremath{\mu_{Y}}}\big({{c}_{a}}(\frac 1{{\ensuremath{\mu_{X}}}(x)}x)\big)
\Big)
\leq{\ensuremath{\mu_{X}}}(x)
.
\end{aligned}$$
Proof details of the Extension Theorem
======================================
Recall Kakutani’s theorem [@kakutani:1941 Corollary].
\[Kak\] Let $M\subseteq\mathbb R^n$ and $P\colon M\to\mathcal P(M)$. Assume
1. $M$ is nonempty, compact, and convex,
2. for each $x\in M$, the set $P(x)$ is nonempty, closed, and convex,
3. the map $P$ has closed graph in the sense that, whenver $x_n\in M$, $x_n\to x$, and $y_n\in P(x_n)$, $y_n\to y$, it follows that $y\in P(x)$.
Then there exists $x\in M$ with $x\in P(x)$.
Note that $P$ having closed graph implies that $P(x)$ is closed for all $x$. To see this, let $y_n\in P(x)$, $y_n\to y$, and use the constant sequence $x_n=x$ in the closed graph property.
In the proof of Theorem \[ExEx\] we shall, as in Example \[Pyramid\], identify a pyramid $Y$ with the appropriately scaled normal vector $u$ of its inclined side. Then, for two pyramids $Y_1$ and $Y_2$ with corresponding normal vectors $u_1$ and $u_2$, the requirement that $X\subseteq Y_j$ becomes $(x,u_j)\leq{\ensuremath{\mu_{X}}}(x)$, $x\geq 0$, and the requirement $\tilde c(Y_2)\subseteq{{\ensuremath{\widehat F}}}Y_1$ becomes ${{\tilde c}_{\text{\rm o}}}(x)+\sum_{a\in A}({{\tilde c}_{a}}(x),u_1)\leq(x,u_2)$, $x\geq 0$, cf. Corollary \[Ghat-Minko-Coalg\].
Let $M$ be the set $$M=\big\{u\in\mathbb R^n\mid u\geq 0\text{ and }(x,u)\leq{\ensuremath{\mu_{X}}}(x),x\geq 0\big\}
.$$ We have to include vectors $u$ with possibly vanishing components into $M$ to ensure closedness. It will be a step in the proof to show that a fixed point must be strictly positive.
Let $P\colon M\to\mathcal P(M)$ be the map $$P(u)=\big\{v\in M\mid {{\tilde c}_{\text{\rm o}}}(x)+\sum_{a\in A}({{\tilde c}_{a}}(x),u)\leq(x,v), x\geq 0\big\}
.$$ Here we again denote by $\tilde c\colon \mathbb R^n\to\mathbb R\times(\mathbb R^n)^A$ the linear extension of $c$. Observe that $\tilde c(x)\geq 0$ for all $x\geq 0$, since $\Delta^n\subseteq X$ and $c(x)\geq 0$ for $x\in X$.
It is easy to check that $M$ and $P$ satisfy the hypothesis of Kakutani’s Theorem, the crucial point being that $P(u)\neq\emptyset$.
$M$ is nonempty: We have $0\in M$.
$M$ is compact: To show that $M$ is closed let $u_n\in M$ with $u_n\to u$. Since $u_n\geq 0$ also $u\geq 0$, and for each fixed $x\geq 0$ continuity of the scalar product yields $(x,u)=\lim_{n\to\infty}(x,u_n)\leq{\ensuremath{\mu_{X}}}(x)$. Further, $M$ is bounded since $(e_j,u)\leq{\ensuremath{\mu_{X}}}(e_j)\leq 1$, $j=1,\ldots,n$, by our assumption that $\Delta^n\subseteq X$, and hence $u\in[0,1]^n$.
$M$ is convex: Let $u_1,u_2\in M$ and $p\in[0,1]$. First, clearly, $pu_1+(1-p)u_2\geq 0$. Second, for each $x\geq 0$, $$\begin{aligned}
(x,pu_1+(1-p)u_2)= &\, p(x,u_1)+(1-p)(x,u_2)
\\
\leq &\, p{\ensuremath{\mu_{X}}}(x)+(1-p){\ensuremath{\mu_{X}}}(x)={\ensuremath{\mu_{X}}}(x)
.
\end{aligned}$$
$P(u)$ is nonempty: Let $u\in M$ be given. The map $x\mapsto{{\tilde c}_{\text{\rm o}}}(x)+\sum_{a\in A}({{\tilde c}_{a}}(x),u)$ is a linear functional on $\mathbb R^n$. Thus we find $v\in\mathbb R^n$ representing it as $x\mapsto(x,v)$. Since $e_j\in X$, we have $$(e_j,v)={{\tilde c}_{\text{\rm o}}}(e_j)+\sum_{a\in A}({{\tilde c}_{a}}(e_j),u)\geq 0
.$$ Further, using that $u\in M$ and $\tilde c(X)\subseteq{{\ensuremath{\widehat F}}}X$, we obtain that for each $x\geq 0$ $$(x,v)={{\tilde c}_{\text{\rm o}}}(x)+\sum_{a\in A}({{\tilde c}_{a}}(x),u)
\leq{{\tilde c}_{\text{\rm o}}}(x)+\sum_{a\in A}{\ensuremath{\mu_{X}}}({{\tilde c}_{a}}(x))
\leq{\ensuremath{\mu_{X}}}(x)
.$$ Together, we see that $v\in M$. By its definition, therefore, $v\in P(u)$.
$P(u)$ is convex: Let $v_1,v_2\in P(u)$ and $p\in[0,1]$. First, since $M$ is convex, $pv_1+(1-p)v_2$ belongs to $M$. Second, for each $x\geq 0$, $$\begin{aligned}
(x,pv_1+ &\, (1-p)v_2)=p(x,v_1)+(1-p)(x,v_2)
\\
\geq &\, p\Big({{\tilde c}_{\text{\rm o}}}(x)+\sum_{a\in A}({{\tilde c}_{a}}(x),u)\Big)+
(1-p)\Big({{\tilde c}_{\text{\rm o}}}(x)+\sum_{a\in A}({{\tilde c}_{a}}(x),u)\Big)
\\
= &\, {{\tilde c}_{\text{\rm o}}}(x)+\sum_{a\in A}({{\tilde c}_{a}}(x),u)
.
\end{aligned}$$
$P$ has closed graph: Let $u_n\in M$, $u_n\to u$, and $v_n\in P(u_n)$, $v_n\to v$. Then $u,v\in M$ since $M$ is closed. Now fix $x\geq 0$. Continuity of the scalar product allows to pass to the limit in the relation $${{\tilde c}_{\text{\rm o}}}(x)+\sum_{a\in A}({{\tilde c}_{a}}(x),v_n)\leq(x,u_n)
,$$ which holds for all $n\in\mathbb N$. This yields ${{\tilde c}_{\text{\rm o}}}(x)+\sum_{a\in A}({{\tilde c}_{a}}(x),v)\leq(x,u)$.
Having verified all necessary hypothesis, Theorem \[Kak\] can be applied and furnishes us with $u\in M$ satisfying $u\in P(u)$, explicitly, $u\in\mathbb R^n$ with $$\label{1}
u\geq 0,\quad (x,u)\leq{\ensuremath{\mu_{X}}}(x),x\geq 0,\quad {{\tilde c}_{\text{\rm o}}}(x)+\sum_{a\in A}({{\tilde c}_{a}}(x),u)\leq(x,u),x\geq 0
.$$ Set $Y=\{x\geq 0\mid (x,u)\leq 1\}$. Then $Y$ is a , and by definition contained in $\mathbb R_+^n$. It contains $X$ since $u\in M$, and since $u\in P(u)$ we have $\tilde c(Y)\subseteq{{\ensuremath{\widehat F}}}Y$. Thus $d=\tilde c|_Y$ turns $Y$ into an ${{\ensuremath{\widehat F}}}$-coalgebra, and since $c=\tilde c|_X=(\tilde c|_Y)|_X=d|_X$, the inclusion map $\iota\colon X\to Y$ is an ${{\ensuremath{\widehat F}}}$-coalgebra morphism.
It remains to show that $Y$ is generated by $n$ linearly independent vectors. Remembering again Example \[Pyramid\], this is equivalent to $u$ being strictly positiv. Let $I=\{j\in\{1,\ldots,n\}\mid (e_j,u)=0\}$. For each $j\in I$ the last relation in implies that ${{c}_{\text{\rm o}}}(e_j)=0$ and $({{c}_{a}}(e_j),u)=0$, $a\in A$. Since $u\geq 0$ and ${{c}_{a}}(e_j)\geq 0$, we conclude that the vector ${{c}_{a}}(e_j)$ can have nonzero components only in those coordinates where $u$ has zero component. In other words, ${{c}_{a}}(e_j)\in\operatorname{span}\{e_i\mid i\in I\}$. Now gives $I=\emptyset$.
Proof details for properness of ${{\ensuremath{\widehat F}}}$
=============================================================
We denote $v_j=(1,\ldots,1)\in\mathbb R^{n_j}$. By Example \[Pyramid\] $$\mu_{\Delta^{n_j}}(x_j)=(x_j,v_j),\ x_j\in\mathbb R_+^{n_j}
.$$ Since $(\Delta^{n_j},c_j)$ is an ${{\ensuremath{\widehat F}}}$-coalgebra, Corollary \[Ghat-Minko-Coalg\] yields $${{\tilde c{_j}}_{\text{\rm o}}}(x_j)+\sum_{a\in A}({{\tilde c{_j}}_{a}}(x_j),v_j)\leq(x_j,v_j),\quad x_j\in\mathbb R_+^{n_j}
,j=1,2
.$$ Summing up these two inequalities yields that for $x_1\in\mathbb R_+^{n_1}$ and $x_2\in\mathbb R_+^{n_2}$ $$\label{7}
\Big[{{\tilde c{_1}}_{\text{\rm o}}}(x_1)+{{\tilde c{_2}}_{\text{\rm o}}}(x_2)\Big]+
\sum_{a\in A}\Big[({{\tilde c{_1}}_{a}}(x_1),v_1)+({{\tilde c{_2}}_{a}}(x_2),v_2)\Big]
\leq(x_1,v_1)+(x_2,v_2)
.$$ Recall that $Z$ denotes the linear subspace of $\mathbb R^{n_1}\times\mathbb R^{n_2}$ constructed in the basic diagram (referring back to Lemma \[Prod\]). The definition of the map $d$ in the basic diagram ensures that for $(x_1,x_2)\in Z$ $${{d}_{\text{\rm o}}}((x_1,x_2))={{\tilde c{_1}}_{\text{\rm o}}}(x_1)={{\tilde c{_2}}_{\text{\rm o}}}(x_2),\quad
{{d}_{a}}((x_1,x_2))=\big({{\tilde c{_1}}_{a}}(x_2),{{\tilde c{_2}}_{a}}(x_2)\big)
.$$ Set $v=\frac 12(1,\ldots,1)\in\mathbb R^{n_1+n_2}$. Plugging the above into and dividing by $2$ yields $${{d}_{\text{\rm o}}}((x_1,x_2))+\sum_{a\in A}\big({{d}_{a}}((x_1,x_2)),v)\leq \big((x_1,x_2),v\big)
,\quad (x_1,x_2)\in Z\cap\mathbb R_+^{n_1+n_2}
.$$ We have $$\mu_{Z\cap 2\Delta^{n_1+n_2}}(x)=\max\big\{\mu_Z(x),\mu_{2\Delta^{n_1+n_2}}(x)\big\}
=
\begin{cases}
(x,v) &\hspace*{-3mm},\quad x\in Z\cap\mathbb R_+^{n_1+n_2},
\\
\infty &\hspace*{-3mm},\quad \text{otherwise}.
\end{cases}$$ Here the first equality holds by property 3. listed after Definition \[Minko\]. The second equality is based on Example \[MinkoExa\] and Example \[Pyramid\]: First, $2\Delta^{n_1+n_2}$ is the pyramid constructed with $v$, and hence $\mu_{2\Delta^{n_1+n_2}}(x) = (x,v)$ if $x\geq 0$, and $\infty$ otherwise. Second, $Z$ is a linear subspace, hence in particular a convex cone, and thus $\mu_Z(x) = 0$ if $x\in Z$, and $\infty$ otherwise.
The inclusion $d(Z\cap 2\Delta^{n_1+n_2})\subseteq{{\ensuremath{\widehat F}}}(Z\cap 2\Delta^{n_1+n_2})$ can now be deduced with help of Lemma \[Ghat-Minko\]. Start with $(x_1,x_2)\in Z\cap 2\Delta^{n_1+n_2}$. Then $((x_1,x_2),v)\leq 1$. Moreover, $(x_1,x_2)\geq 0$ and $(x_1,x_2)\in Z$ which allows to apply $d$. We obtain $d_o(x_1,x_2) + \sum_a (d_a(x_1,x_2),v) \leq 1$. Since $d(Z)\subseteq F_{\mathbb R}(Z)$, we have $d_a(x_1,x_2)\in Z$. Now remember the computation of $d_a(x_1,x_2)$. The map $\tilde c_j$ is the linear extension of $c_j$, hence $$\tilde c_j(\Delta^{n_j}) = c_j(\Delta^{n_j}) \subseteq \hat F(\Delta^{n_j}) \subseteq [0,1]\times [0,1]^A
.$$ In particular, $\tilde c_j$ takes nonnegative values on $\Delta^{n_j}$, and by linearity thus on all of $(\mathbb R_+)^{n_j}$. This shows $d_a(x_1,x_2)\geq 0$ and $d_o(x_1,x_2)\geq 0$. By the above computation of the Minkowski functional $\mu_{Z\cap 2\Delta^{n_1+n_2}}$, by now we know that we are in the first case, $(d_a(x_1,x_2),v)=\mu_{Z\cap 2\Delta^{n_1+n_2}}(d_a(x_1,x_2))$, and thus $$d_o(x_1,x_2) + \sum_a \mu_{Z\cap 2\Delta^{n_1+n_2}}(d_a(x_1,x_2)) \leq 1
.$$ Lemma 16 applies, and yields $d(x_1,x_2)\in \hat F(Z\cap 2\Delta^{n_1+n_2})$.
Using the basic diagram, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
& \tilde c_j(\Delta^{n_j})\subseteq{{\ensuremath{\widehat F}}}\Delta^{n_j}\subseteq{{\ensuremath{\widehat F}}}Y_j,
\\
& \tilde c_j(\pi_j(Z\cap 2\Delta^{n_1+n_2}))\subseteq{{\ensuremath{\widehat F}}}(\pi_j(Z\cap 2\Delta^{n_1+n_2}))\subseteq{{\ensuremath{\widehat F}}}Y_j.
\end{aligned}$$ Since $\tilde c_j$ is linear, in particular convex, and ${{\ensuremath{\widehat F}}}Y_j$ is convex, it follows that $$\tilde c_j\big(\operatorname{co}(\Delta^{n_j}\cup\pi_j(Z\cap 2\Delta^{n_1+n_2}))\big)\subseteq{{\ensuremath{\widehat F}}}Y_j
.$$
We check that the $Y_j$ satisfies the hypothesis of Theorem \[ExEx\]. By its definition $\Delta^{n_j}\subseteq Y_j\subseteq\mathbb R_+^{n_j}$. Since $Y_j$ is finitely generated, recall that $Y_j$ is the convex hull of two finitely generated s, it is a compact subset of $\mathbb R^{n_j}$. Finally, since the coalgebra structure on $Y_j$ is an extension of the one on $\Delta^{n_j}$, the present assumption implies that the condition of Theorem \[ExEx\] is satisfied. Note here that $\Delta^{n_j}\cap\operatorname{span}\{e_i\mid i\in I\}=\operatorname{co}(\{e_i\mid i\in I\}\cup\{0\})$.
Applying Theorem \[ExEx\] we obtain extensions $U_j$ as required.
We show that the diagram $$\xymatrix@C=60pt{
\Delta^n \ar[r]^f \ar[d]_c & X \ar[d]^g
\\
{{\ensuremath{\widehat F}}}\Delta^n \ar[r]_{\operatorname{id}\times(f\circ -)} & [0,1]\times X^A
}$$ commutes. First, for $k\not\in I$, we have $((\operatorname{id}\times(f\circ -))\circ c)(e_k)=(g\circ f)(e_k)$ by the definition of $g$. Second, consider $k\in I$. Then $(g\circ f)(e_k)=0$ since $f(e_k)=0$. By , also $((\operatorname{id}\times(f\circ -))\circ c)(e_k)=0$.
Since ${{\ensuremath{\widehat F}}}f$ maps ${{\ensuremath{\widehat F}}}\Delta^n$ into ${{\ensuremath{\widehat F}}}X$, we have $g(X)\subseteq{{\ensuremath{\widehat F}}}X$. This says that $X$ indeed becomes an ${{\ensuremath{\widehat F}}}$-coalgebra with structure $g$. Revisiting the above diagram shows that $f$ is an ${{\ensuremath{\widehat F}}}$-coalgebra morphism.
Applying Lemma \[GhatRedLem\] repeatedly, we obtain after finitely many steps an ${{\ensuremath{\widehat F}}}$-coalgebra $(\Delta^k,g)$ such that no nonempty subset $I\subseteq\{1,\ldots,k\}$ with exists for $(\Delta^k,g)$, and that we have an ${{\ensuremath{\widehat F}}}$-coalgebra morphism $f\colon (\Delta^n,c)\to(\Delta^k,g)$. Note here that in each application of the lemma the number of generators decreases.
[^1]: The notions of monads and algebraic categories are central to this paper. We recall them in Appendix \[sec:app-basics\] to make the paper accessible to all readers.
[^2]: This functor was denoted $\hat G$ in [@silva.sokolova:2011] where it was first studied in the context of axiomatization of trace semantics.
[^3]: In [@beal.lombardy.sakarovitch:2006] only a sketch of the proof is given, cf. [@beal.lombardy.sakarovitch:2006 §3.3]. In this sketch one important point is not mentioned. Using the terminology of [@beal.lombardy.sakarovitch:2006 §3.3]: it could a priori be possible that the size of the vectors in $G$ and the size of $G$ both oscillate.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The Miura vertex is a versatile origami pattern found in a variety of mechanisms. Previous papers have derived and validated a closed-form solution for the kinematics of a symmetric Miura vertex, but the motion of an asymmetric vertex has only been shown numerically. In this paper, we present the trigonometric derivation of a closed-form solution for the folding of an asymmetric Miura vertex.'
author:
- |
Soroush Kamrava\
Mechanical and Industrial Engineering\
Northeastern University\
Boston, MA 02115\
`[email protected]`\
Chang Liu\
Mechanical and Industrial Engineering\
Northeastern University\
Boston, MA 02115\
`[email protected]`\
Alec Q. Orlofsky\
Mechanical and Industrial Engineering\
Northeastern University\
Boston, MA 02115\
`[email protected]`\
Ashkan Vaziri\
Mechanical and Industrial Engineering\
Northeastern University\
Boston, MA 02115\
`[email protected]`\
Samuel M. Felton\
Mechanical and Industrial Engineering\
Northeastern University\
Boston, MA 02115\
`[email protected]`\
bibliography:
- 'template.bib'
title: 'A closed-form solution for the kinematics of asymmetric Miura vertices'
---
Introduction
============
The Miura fold is a canonical origami pattern [@miura2009science]. First developed and proposed as a method for packing a large solar array into a small volume, the pattern consists of a two-dimensional array of four-edge vertices. Although the unit vertex is traditionally symmetric, it can be asymmetric with two colinear creases (the ‘spinal’ creases) at the flat configuration, see Figure 1.
![(a) The asymmetric Miura vertex ‘bends’ between its two spinal creases when one crease is folded by an angle $\theta$. (b) We can define the origami pattern by the angles $\alpha_1$ and $\alpha_2$ between the peripheral and spinal creases. (c) All Miura vertices deflect by an angle $\phi$ around the $y$-axis. (d) Asymmetric vertices also deflect by an angle $\psi$ around the $z$-axis.[]{data-label="Figure1"}](Figure1.jpg){width="140mm"}
In addition to solar arrays, Miura vertices have been studied in a variety of other contexts, taking advantage of their tunable kinematics and single degree of freedom to create complex and constrained mechanisms [@fang2017dynamics; @zuliani2018minimally; @liu2018transformation]. One family of mechanisms is the origami string, which is a one-dimensional array of Miura vertices that can approximate a path in 2D or 3D space [@kamrava2018programmable; @kamrava2018slender]. This is accomplished by considering each spinal crease a line segment, and selecting the appropriate fold angle $\theta$ and pattern angles $\alpha_i$ at each vertex to achieve the desired angular displacement (given as $\phi$ and $\psi$) between adjacent spinal creases.
A closed-form solution for the angular displacements ($\phi$ and $\psi$) as a function of the fold pattern ($\alpha_1$ and $\alpha_2$) and folding angle ($\theta$) is valuable when designing Miura strings and other Miura-based mechanisms. Previous work has derived a closed-form solution for symmetric vertices [@miyashita2015multi; @kamrava2017origami]. Here, we derive a closed form solution for the more general case of asymmetric vertices.
Geometric Derivation
====================
![In this derivation each vertex is represented by a unit vector.[]{data-label="Figure2"}](Figure2.jpg){width="65mm"}
We first represent each crease of the vertex as a vector (Fig. \[Figure2\]). Consider four unit vectors that are colinear with the four creases. $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\mathbf{a}} &= \left( a_x, a_y, a_z \right) \\
\hat{\mathbf{b}} &= \left( b_x, b_y, b_z \right) \\
\hat{\mathbf{c}} &= \left( c_x, c_y, c_z \right) \\
\hat{\mathbf{d}} &= \left( d_x, d_y, d_z \right)\end{aligned}$$
Without loss of generality, we can fix the vertex at the origin $(0,0,0)$ and fix $\hat{\mathbf{c}}$ collinear with the X-axis.
![We solve for $\phi$ by finding the vector components $a_x$ and $a_z$[]{data-label="Figure3"}](Figure3.jpg){width="70mm"}
![We solve for $\psi$ by finding the vector components $a_x$ and $a_y$[]{data-label="Figure4"}](Figure4.jpg){width="70mm"}
When the vertex is flat in the X-Y plane
$$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\mathbf{a}}_0 &= \left( 1, 0 \right) = \langle 1, \angle 0 \rangle \\
\hat{\mathbf{b}}_0 &= \left( \cos \alpha_1, \sin \alpha_1 \right) = \langle 1, \angle \alpha_1 \rangle \\
\hat{\mathbf{c}}_0 &= \left( -1, 0 \right) = \langle 1, \angle \pi \rangle \\
\hat{\mathbf{d}}_0 &= \left( \cos \alpha_2, -\sin \alpha_2 \right) = \langle 1, \angle -\alpha_2 \rangle\end{aligned}$$
When folded, the vectors $\hat{\mathbf{b}}$ and $\hat{\mathbf{d}}$ rotate around the X-axis by angles $\theta$ and $-\theta$, respectively.
$$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\mathbf{b}} &= \left( \cos \alpha_1, \sin \alpha_1 \cos \theta, \sin \alpha_1 \sin \theta \right) \\
\hat{\mathbf{d}} &= \left( \cos \alpha_2, -\sin \alpha_2 \cos \theta, \sin \alpha_2 \sin \theta \right)\end{aligned}$$
The crease pattern angle $\alpha_1$ will always be the angle between vectors $\hat{\mathbf{a}}$ and $\hat{\mathbf{b}}$. Similarly, the crease pattern angle $\alpha_2$ will always be the angle between vectors $\hat{\mathbf{a}}$ and $\hat{\mathbf{d}}$.
$$\begin{aligned}
\cos \alpha_1 &= \hat{\mathbf{a}} \cdot \hat{\mathbf{b}} = a_x \cos \alpha_1 + a_y \sin \alpha_1 \cos \theta + a_z \sin \alpha_1 \sin \theta \\
\left( 1 - a_x \right) \cos \alpha_1 &= \sin \alpha_1 \left( a_y \cos \theta + a_z \sin \theta \right) \\
\frac{1 - a_x}{\tan \alpha_1} &= a_y \cos \theta + a_z \sin \theta\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\cos \alpha_2 &= \hat{\mathbf{a}} \cdot \hat{\mathbf{d}} = a_x \cos \alpha_2 - a_y \sin \alpha_2 \cos \theta + a_z \sin \alpha_2 \sin \theta \\
\left( 1 - a_x \right) \cos \alpha_2 &= \sin \alpha_2 \left( - a_y \cos \theta + a_z \sin \theta \right) \\
\frac{1 - a_x}{\tan \alpha_2} &= -a_y \cos \theta + a_z \sin \theta\end{aligned}$$
We can combine these equations to solve for $a_y$ and $a_z$ in terms of $a_x$. Here we used dummy variables $K_1$ and $K_2$ to condense and simplify the equations.
$$\begin{aligned}
a_z \sin \theta &= \frac{1 - a_x}{2} \left( \frac{1}{\tan \alpha_1} + \frac{1}{\tan \alpha_2} \right) = \left(1 - a_x\right) K_1 \\
a_y \cos \theta &= \frac{1 - a_x}{2} \left( \frac{1}{\tan \alpha_1} - \frac{1}{\tan \alpha_2} \right) = \left(1 - a_x\right) K_2 \\
%K_1 &= \frac{1}{2}\left( \frac{1}{\tan \alpha_1} + \frac{1}{\tan \alpha_2} \right) \\
%K_2 &= \frac{1}{2}\left( \frac{1}{\tan \alpha_1} - \frac{1}{\tan \alpha_2} \right) \\
a_y &= \frac{K_2}{\cos \theta} \left( 1 - a_x \right) \\
a_z &= \frac{K_1}{\sin \theta} \left( 1 - a_x \right)\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\frac{K_1}{K_2} &= \frac{c_z \sin \theta}{c_y \cos \theta} = \frac{c_z}{c_y} \tan \theta \\
c_y &= c_z \left( \frac{K_2}{K_1} \right) \tan \theta \\
c_z &= c_y \left( \frac{K_1}{K_2} \right) \frac{1}{\tan \theta} \\\end{aligned}$$
Because $\hat{\mathbf{a}}$ is a unit vector we can solve for $a_x$ explicitly. Here we use another dummy variable $K_3$ to condense and simplify the equations.
$$\begin{aligned}
a_x &= \sqrt{1 - a_y^2 - a_z^2} \\
a_x^2 &= 1 - \left( \frac{K_2}{\cos \theta} \left( 1 - a_x \right) \right)^2 - \left( \frac{K_1}{\sin \theta} \left( 1 - a_x \right) \right)^2 \\
&= 1 - \left[ \left( \frac{K_2}{\cos \theta} \right)^2 + \left( \frac{K_1}{\sin \theta} \right)^2 \right] \left( 1 - 2a_x + a_x^2 \right) = 1 - K_3 \left( 1 - 2a_x + a_x^2 \right) \\
\textrm{where} \qquad K_3 &= \left( \frac{K_2}{\cos \theta} \right)^2 + \left( \frac{K_1}{\sin \theta} \right)^2 \\
0 &= \left( K_3 + 1 \right) a_x^2 - 2 K_3 a_x + \left( K_3 - 1 \right) \\
a_x &= \frac{2K_3 \pm \sqrt{\left( 2 K_3 \right)^2 - 4\left( K_3 + 1 \right) \left( K_3 - 1 \right) }}{2\left( K_3 + 1 \right)} = \frac{K_3 \pm 1}{K_3 + 1}\end{aligned}$$
The two solutions for $a_x$ represent the two possible configurations for the vertex. In one configuration, the peripheral creases (represented by $\hat{\mathbf{b}}$ and $\hat{\mathbf{d}}$) don’t fold and the spinal creases stay collinear so that $\phi=0$. This corresponds with the following value for $a_x$: $$\begin{aligned}
a_x &= \frac{K_3 + 1}{K_3 + 1} = 1\end{aligned}$$
We are interested in the configuration where $\phi\neq 0$, so the remaining solution considers the alternate case: $$\begin{aligned}
a_x &= \frac{K_3 - 1}{K_3 + 1} = \frac{\left( \frac{K_2}{\cos \theta} \right)^2 + \left( \frac{K_1}{\sin \theta} \right)^2 - 1}{\left( \frac{K_2}{\cos \theta} \right)^2 + \left( \frac{K_1}{\sin \theta} \right)^2 + 1}\end{aligned}$$
We can use this identity to solve for $a_y$ and $a_z$ explicitly.
$$\begin{aligned}
a_y &= \frac{K_2}{\cos \theta} \left( 1 - a_x \right) \\
&= \frac{K_2}{\cos \theta} \left( \frac{2}{\left( \frac{K_2}{\cos \theta} \right)^2 + \left( \frac{K_1}{\sin \theta} \right)^2 + 1} \right) \\
a_z &= \frac{K_1}{\sin \theta} \left( 1 - a_x \right) \\
&= \frac{K_1}{\sin \theta} \left( \frac{2}{\left( \frac{K_2}{\cos \theta} \right)^2 + \left( \frac{K_1}{\sin \theta} \right)^2 + 1} \right) \\\end{aligned}$$
To simplify our presentation, we consider the angle of a scaled vector $\mathbf{f}$ that is collinear to $\hat{\mathbf{a}}$ to remove the denominator from its components.
$$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{f} &= \left( \left( \frac{K_2}{\cos \theta} \right)^2 + \left( \frac{K_1}{\sin \theta} \right)^2 + 1 \right) \hat{\mathbf{a}} \\
f_x &= \left( \frac{K_2}{\cos \theta} \right)^2 + \left( \frac{K_1}{\sin \theta} \right)^2 - 1 \\
f_y &= \frac{2 K_2}{\cos \theta} \\
f_z &= \frac{2 K_1}{\sin \theta}\end{aligned}$$
We then solve for the angular displacement $\phi$ using the $x-$ and $z-$components of $\mathbf{f}$ (Fig. \[Figure3\]).
$$\begin{aligned}
\phi &= \textrm{arctan2} \left( f_z, f_x \right) = \textrm{arctan2} \left( \frac{2K_1}{\sin \theta}, \left( \frac{K_2}{\cos \theta} \right)^2 + \left( \frac{K_1}{\sin \theta} \right)^2 - 1 \right) \end{aligned}$$
Similarly, we solve for the angular displacement $\psi$ using the $x-$ and $y-$components of $\mathbf{f}$ (Fig. \[Figure4\]).
$$\begin{aligned}
\psi &= \textrm{arctan} \left( \frac{f_y}{f_x} \right) = \left( \frac{2K_2}{\cos \theta\left[ \left( \frac{K_2}{\cos \theta} \right)^2 + \left( \frac{K_1}{\sin \theta} \right)^2 - 1 \right]} \right)\end{aligned}$$
Validation
==========
![Plots show $\phi$ and $\psi$ values as a function of $\theta$. The agreement between the analytical results and simulation validates the developed equations characterizing the folding of asymmetric Miura vertex.[]{data-label="Figure5"}](Figure5.jpg){width="160mm"}
In this section, we perform a kinematics simulation to validate the developed explicit analytical relationship between the fold pattern, fold angle, and displacement angles of the asymmetric Miura vertex (equations 38 and 39). Fig. \[Figure5\] shows the variation of $\phi$ and $\psi$ as a function of $\theta$ for a Miura vertex with $\alpha_1=30^{\circ}$ and $\alpha_2=60^{\circ}$. These specific $\alpha$ angle values have been randomly selected only for the purpose of validation. The blue solid lines in both plots demonstrate the results from analytical relationships and cover the $\theta$ axis from $-55^{\circ}$ to $55^{\circ}$. In asymmetric Miura vertex the limits of angle $\theta$, range of folding, can be calculated from the following equation as a function of $\alpha$ angles [@kamrava2018slender]:
$$\begin{aligned}
\theta _{ ~limit} &= \pm \left(90^{\circ}-\frac{1}{2} \cos^{-1}\left(\frac{\tan \alpha_1}{\tan \alpha_2}\right)\right)\end{aligned}$$
Moreover, we used a commercially available software, SolidWorks (Dassault Systems, Vlizy-Villacoublay, France) to simulate the folding of an asymmetric Miura vertex with $\alpha_1=30^{\circ}$ and $\alpha_2=60^{\circ}$. The software solves the rigid-body equations of motion numerically and finds geometrically admissible configurations [@chang2019motion]. Using this technique we determine the relation between angle $\theta$ and angles $\phi$ and $\psi$. Red markers on the plots show the results extracted from the numerical simulation for 11 different folding configurations. The excellent agreement between the theoretical results (blue solid lines) and simulation (red markers) validates the derived explicit analytical folding relations in the asymmetric Miura vertex.
Discussion
==========
In this paper we use a vector representation to derive an explicit analytical relationship between the fold pattern, fold angle, and displacement angles of the asymmetric Miura vertex. A numerical simulation technique was employed to validate the derived analytical relationships. Such an equation can be used to derive the requisite design parameters of an origami string based on its desired spatial trajectory. Future work could reveal a similar closed-form solution for the more general case of arbitrary four-crease vertices (ones without collinear spinal creases).
| {
"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.